1. Energy and sustainable development Climate Stabilisation and RES Perspectives in Energy Scenarios Francesco Gracceva

2. OVERVIEW 1.Energy scenarios 2.Climate “stabilization” 3.A comparison of scenarios 4.RES perspectives in EU

3. ENERGY SCENARIOS

4. ENERGY SCENARIOS (1): DEFINITIONS  IIASA/WEC: (Global Energy Perspectives): “A scenario is an internally consistent and reproducible narrative, describing one possible way the future might unfold”. “Scenarios are neither predictions nor forecasts. Each scenario can be interpreted as one particular image of how the future could unfold. Scenarios are useful tools for investigating alternative future developments and their implications, for learning about the behaviour of complex systems, and for policy-making.”  EC: (Shared analysis project): “The design of scenarios, i.e. the configuration of the development of important drivers in consistent way, […] can be considered a form of art.”  Scenarios are images of alternative futures

5. ECONOMY DEMOGRAFY TECNOLOGY DEMAND OF USEFUL ENERGY FUEL MIX PRIMARY ENERGY DEMAND EMISSIONS CO2 CONCENTRATION GLOBAL WARMING RESOURCES choice of energy sources and technologies transformation climate sensitivity INPUT OUTPUT  Energy systems are complex: uncertain, not well understood, incomplete information  Scenarios usually based on an internally consistent, reproducible set of assumptions or theories about the key relationships and driving forces, often through formal models ENERGY SCENARIOS (2) : HOW THEY ARE PRODUCED

6. Time horizon:  SHORT/MEDIUM RUN: the energy system is constrained  the cost of “capital stock turnover” before the end of the life cycle of a technology is high  LONG-RUN: large difference between scenarios and forecasts ENERGY SCENARIOS (3): USE

7. Usefulness of scenarios:  A set of scenarios is a useful tool for investigating the set of possible futures  Long-term energy scenarios can give insights about tipically long-term issues, like global climate stabilisation. Close link between global climate and “clean” energy technologies (like renewables)  useful a comparison of a set of scenarios  Useful information for the policymakers: long-term consequences of different policy measures

8. CLIMATE “STABILIZATION”

9. CLIMATE “STABILIZATION”. HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE (1): ENERGY CONSUMPTION DURING THE XX CENTURY

10. CLIMATE “STABILIZATION”. HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE (2): ENERGY CONSUMPTION DURING THE XX CENTURY

11. CLIMATE “STABILIZATION”. HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE (3): CO2 EMISSIONS AND CONCENTRATION IN THE XXth CENTURY

12. CLIMATE “STABILIZATION”: KEY ISSUES (1) 1) Relationship between human activity, CO2 concentration and climate change “ What is the range of natural variability in climate ? Is climate change occurring ? Are greenhouse gases causing climate change ? Is human activity the cause of increased concentrations of ghg ? Has science determined wheter there is a “safe” level of concentration of ghg ? ”(from the White House to the Committee on the science of climate change”, US-NRC)

13. 2) What Energy/Environmental policies to minimise climate change What are the scenarios which permit the stabilization of CO2 concentration ? How are they characterised in terms of energy consumption ?

14. CLIMATE “STABILIZATION”: KEY ISSUES (2) “Human activity are responsible for the increase (of CO2 concentration). The primary source, fossil fuel burning, has released roughly twice as much carbon dioxide as would be required to account for the observed increase. Tropical deforestation has also contributed…” (US-NRC) Global mean surface air temperature warmed between 0.4 and 0.8°C during the 20th century” 3) Relationship between human activity, CO2 concentration and climate change

15. UNFCCC (art.2):“The ultimate objective of this Convention and any related legal instruments that the Conference of the Parties may adopt is to achieve, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Convention, stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system. Such a level should be achieved within a time frame sufficient to allow ecosystems to adapt naturally to climate change, to ensure that food production is not threatened and to enable economic development to proceed in a sustainable manner”. “Climate Sensitivity” (a doubling of CO2 concentration with respect to pre-industrial values (280 ppmv) can produce an increase of mean temperature by 1.5° C - 4.5° C (TAR/WG I - IPCC)  550 ppmv is the maximum level ?

16. A COMPARISON OF SCENARIOS

17. A COMPARISON OF SCENARIOS (1)  IPCC (WMO-UNEP), Special Report on Emissions Scenarios, 2000: 7 scenarios (selected form 40), 7 groups based on 4 storylines  IIASA-WEC, Global Energy Perspectives, 1998: 6 scenarios, 3 groups (high growth, middle course ed ecologically driven)  Time horizon: 1990-2100

18. A COMPARISON OF SCENARIOS (2): ANNUAL EMISSIONS 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 199020002010202020302040205020602070208020902100 Gton of carbon 2100: Highest scenario = 12 times the lowest 2100: Highest scenario = 12 times the lowest

19. A COMPARISON OF SCENARIOS (3): SCENARIOS WITH CLIMATE STABILISATION IPCC/A1T: high economic growth, peak of population at the middle of the century, fast penetration of more efficient technologies; IPCC/B1: a “converging” world, population like in scenario A1, but slower economic growth, with transition to a “service and information economy”; 5 scenarios (out of 13) with stabilization at 550 ppmv (or below):

20. IIASA-WEC A3: economic growth like in IPCC B1, strong decrease of fossil fuels; IIASA-WEC C1/C2, medium economic growth, high technological progress and international cooperation, energy/environmental policy and measures: C1: nuclear is a transition technology; C2: new generation of nuclear, safe, small size, widely accepted

21. A COMPARISON OF SCENARIOS (4): “REFERENCE” SCENARIOS VS. SCENARIOS WITH STABILIZATION AT 450 PPMV Substantial difference already in the medium-run, very large in the long-run Carbon intensity is lower by about 30% in 2050; with an increase of renewable share by 60%  a shift towords less carbon intensive fossil fuels is not sufficient Reduction of energy intensity is less substantial

22. A COMPARISON OF SCENARIOS (5): “REFERENCE” SCENARIOS VS. SCENARIOS WITH STABILIZATION AT 550 PPMV Substantial difference only in the long-run Carbon intensity lower by about 10% in 2050; increase of renewable share is similar  a shift towords less carbon intensive fossil fuels is sufficient Reduction of energy intensity is less significant

23. A COMPARISON OF SCENARIOS (6): RENEWABLES ENERGY SOURCES In absolute values, renewable energy consumption does not reach the highest value in scenarios with stabilization, because they are often characterised by a lower level of TPES. In relative terms, scenarios with “stabilisationa” are characterised by a the share of renewables which is at least 30% in 2050 and 50% in 2100

24. A COMPARISON OF SCENARIOS (7): RENEWABLE ENERGY SOURCES Scenarios with stabilization at 450 ppmv Scenarios with stabilization at 450 ppmv are characterised by a complete substitution of fossil fuels in the long period

25. A COMPARISON OF SCENARIOS (8): RENEWABLE ENERGY SOURCES Scenarios with stabilization at 550 ppmv Scenarios with stabilization at 550 ppmv are characterised by a substantial consumption of fossil fuels, even in the long period

26. A COMPARISON OF SCENARIOS (9): SOME CONCLUSIONS What is important for stabilization is a substantial change of the whole energy system. Even if RES are increasing in all scenarios (with or without stabilization), this not imply automatically a “sustainable development”:  RES increase is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition  it is necessary that RES become (at least in the long run) the main primary energy source; their share on TPES is much more important than their absolute value.

27. RES consumption is higher in scenarios with stabilization at 550 ppmv (than in scenarios with stabilization at 450 ppmv), because of the higher level of TPES On the contrary,  the share of RES consumption on TPES is much higher in scenarios with stabilization at 450 ppmv (than in scenarios with stabilization at 550 ppmv), as in the long run fossil fuels become marginal;  and TPES is about half the one projected in scenarios with stabilization at 550 ppmv.

28. RES PERSPECTIVES IN EU

29. RES PERSPECTIVES IN EU (1): CURRENT TRENDS AND POSSIBLE IMPACT OF POLICIES RES perspectives are getting better: more recent projections are more optimistic than the previous ones. But as a share of TPES, RES increase is still quite moderate: even in the Alternative scenario, the objective for 2010 is reached only in 2020.

30. RES PERSPECTIVES IN EU (2): POSSIBLE IMPACT OF POLICIES ON DIFFERENT SOURCES The difference between the projected evolution of RES and the White Paper goals is mainly due to energy from biomass (whose difficult deployment is clearly highlighted in the WP), which (in 2010) is only half the potential. Growth of other RES is even greater than in the WP