Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Sustainable energy for the world


Published on

¿Energía sostenible para el mundo?
Por Sir Christopher Llewellyn Smith, Director de Investigación Energética en la Universidad de Oxford y Ex director general del CERN.

Published in: Technology, Business
  • Be the first to comment

Sustainable energy for the world

  1. 1. Sustainable Energy forSustainable Energy for the World?the World? Chris Llewellyn Smith Director of Energy Research, Oxford University President SESAME Council
  2. 2. ■ The biggest challenge of the 21st century - provide sufficient food, water, and energy to allow everyone on the planet to live decent lives, in the face of rising and increasingly urbanised population*, the threat of climate change, and (in the long term) declining fossil fuels * Today 7 billion, over 50% living in big cities Later in the century 9 to 10 billion, 80% in big cities ContextContext ■ Energy is a necessary (but not sufficient) means to meet this challenge – which must be tackled holistically ■ Want a resilient energy system - sustainable, affordable, reliable and secure: in practice require trade-offs.
  3. 3. Drivers of Energy PolicyDrivers of Energy Policy 1. Security Will the lights stay on? Can we in (the UK) survive cold winters? Are there queues at the petrol pumps? 2. Cost Is energy affordable? Do energy prices foster industrial competiveness? 3. Clean Environment Does the system minimise pollution, health and climate impacts? In practice security and costs are mainly driving what’s happening • Why is decarbonisation important? • Is it happening? Why not? • What needs to be done?
  4. 4. Key Energy Facts •The world uses a lot of energy (at a rate of 2.6 kW* per capita), very unevenly *3.7 kW in Spain •Energy use is rising fast: 36% increase expected 2011-30 (BP). Almost all the increase in non-OECD countries – needed to lift billions out of poverty •In rounded (easy to remember) numbers, primary energy is provided by fossil fuels ~ 80%, waste and biomass ~ 10%, hydro ~ 5 %, nuclear ~ 5%: other renewables contribute 1.2% - these are global averages: there are big differences between countries (Coal → 26% of primary energy globally: 64% in China) •Electricity production uses ~ 38% of primary energy (this % is rising) •In rounded (easy to remember) numbers, energy is used in transport ~ 30%, industry ~ 30%, residential ~ 30%, commerce & public service ~ 9%, agriculture, forestry & fisheries ~ 2% [Other splits: heat (excluding power generation) 32%...]
  5. 5. BP Projections (not including biomass, apart from biofuels, or waste)
  6. 6. Energy Inequality •Energy use is very uneven: 33 times more per capita in the USA than in Bangladesh •Impossible for everyone to come to the level in the USA today (energy production would have to increase five fold by 2050, when the population will be 9 billion) – we must all be more efficient, and change expectations and lifestyles •1.2 billion people still lack electricity: 2.6 billion do not have clean cooking facilities
  7. 7. The Need for DecarbonisationThe Need for Decarbonisation Reducing the use of fossil fuels is essential •to reduce pollution* •to improve energy security in countries which import large quantities of fossil fuels •to reduce the scale of climate change •because in the (very) long run fossil fuels will become increasingly scarce/expensive *WHO, 2011: urban outdoor air pollution [indoor air pollution] → 1.35 [2] million premature deaths per year (typically for each death 8 Disability Adjusted Life Years are lost), out of ~ 60 million total deaths Hard to attribute these deaths to individual sources, but one study suggests that a modern coal power station in Europe ~ 215 premature deaths/GW-year (285 for lignite) but very difficult given that fossil fuels provide 78% of primary energy, and much of the 10% from bio-mass & and waste is not carbon neutral
  8. 8. The Scale of the ChallengeThe Scale of the Challenge • International Energy Agency ‘New Policies Scenario’ - assumes successful implementation of all agreed national policies and announced commitments designed to save energy and reduce use of fossil fuels Projections for 2010-35: Energy use* + 35%, fossil fuels + 26%, CO2 + 23% - almost all from developing countries * nuclear + 58%, hydro + 65%, bio-energy + 47% , … • BP thinks that in the shorter period 2010-30 - energy use will rise 39% (36% from 2011) - fossil fuels + 31%, CO2 + 28%
  9. 9. World Primary Energy Demand by Scenario Source: International Energy Agency ↑ Designed to limit atmospheric CO2 to 450 ppm → temperature rise 2 0 C BP 2030 →
  10. 10. Global Energy-Related Carbon Dioxide Emissions by Scenario ← BP 2030 The relative use of coal in 2035 in CPS, NPS & 450S (1: 0.76: 0.42) is responsible for most of the difference in CO2 Note: following ‘shale revolution’, USA is moving from coal to gas and decarbonising relatively fast, but coal not staying in the ground → export Coal use rising elsewhere (in Europe particularly in Germany) NPS + all actions that reduce energy use & save money
  11. 11. Saudi saying: “My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a plane. His son will ride a camel”. Is this true? I think not But they will become increasingly scare and expensive in the (very) long run • Production of conventional oil in conventional places likely to peak soon, but Plenty of other oil: altogether IEA thinks enough for 185 years at current rate of use, although a lot of it is (currently) relatively expensive to extract • IEA thinks enough gas*/coal for 230 year/over 2000 years at current rate of use *60% conventional, 25 % shale,… • Fossil fuels able/likely* to continue to play a dominant role. Don’t be surprised by increasing oil prices but don’t bet on it *in which case CCS or other NETs will be essential to mitigate climate change
  12. 12. Big technical & political uncertainties but •Fracking could lead to abundant and cheap oil and gas world-wide, driving out renewables and nuclear - I don’t expect this but have heard it suggested. Even if it is cheap, major problem is surface footprint in countries like the UK. •Large scale fracking in the USA is already changing the oil and gas market (gas from Qatar → Far East, UK,… rather than USA) and giving the US competitive advantage, and could have other consequences: Perhaps the USA will lead the world in decarbonisation as coal is replaced by gas, gas is used to power trucks, and low cost of gas generated electricity → rapid introduction of electric vehicles However coal is much cheaper than gas elsewhere, and US coal is not staying in the ground: it is being exported - 10 GW additional fossil capacity in Germany planned to replace nuclear - was hoped gas, but Recently + 2.2 GW lignite! Then US coal? Consequences of the Gas & Oil Fracking Revolution?
  13. 13. Fossil Fuel UseFossil Fuel Use - a brief episode in the world’s history From a longer perspective
  14. 14. What Needs to Be Done Use of fossil fuels is increasing because – demand is increasing (more energy needed to lift billions out of poverty in the developing world) – the alternatives are (mostly) much more expensive and not sufficiently abundant (not possible to replace the 14 TW currently provided by fossil fuels without major contributions from solar and/or nuclear) Need to: •Recognise the facts, and develop Carbon Capture and Storage and Negative Emission Technologies while replacing coal with gas •Reduce energy demand and increase efficiency •Expand nuclear, hydro, wind, solar, bio where it makes sense •Drive down costs of low carbon energy sources
  15. 15. ‘‘Negative Emissions Technologies’Negative Emissions Technologies’  If CO2 emissions stop, level in atmosphere drops very slowly: l  Should look for safe, affordable ways to capture carbon at source and bury it (for thousands of years) or remove it from the atmosphere – Carbon Dioxide Removal* - and consider Solar Radiation Management ** Great care needed as such ‘Geo-engineering’ could have malign unintended consequences: many proposed ideas should only be used as a last resort. CDR* (real or artificial trees, bio-char, enhanced weathering of rocks - ocean and land,…). SRM** (change albedo – surface, ocean, cloud, put aerosols in stratosphere, mirrors in space…) → need to reduce cumulative emissions Simply slowing use of fossil fuels is no help in the long run, except by buying time to develop cost competitive alternatives
  16. 16. Carbon Capture and StorageCarbon Capture and Storage  Believed can capture & bury up to ~ 85% of CO2 from power stations and large industrial plants, but the complete process has never been tested on a large scale - some doubts on how long it will stay buried - costs uncertain: currently claimed would add ~ 50% to electricity generating costs* * capital cost, 10 percentage points reduction in efficiency,….  CCS should be developed as a matter of urgency If feasible safe and competitive with other low carbon generation costs, CCS should be rolled out on the largest possible scale BUT dangerous to rely on CCS too much as a basis for planning until the costs are clearer (Note: IEA’s 450 Scenario → 3,600 TW-hrs of electrity with CCS in 2035 = 17% of today’s total generation)
  17. 17. Demand Reduction Demand Reduction Efficiency gains Lighting Use natural light Better light bulbs Cars Use other means Improve engines Many opportunities to reduce demand (e.g.) in - Designing buildings - Planning cities to encourage walking, bicycling or use of public transport - Planning expanding transport systems & cities in rapidly developing countries - low- energy/carbon development paths should be adopted as early as possible Changes in planning and procurement by cities & communities are increasingly important drivers of demand and efficiency Management of electrity demand also vital → smart grid
  18. 18. Smart Grid with multiple connections between diverse sources & users, bidirectional flows, feed- back between suppliers, users & the grid operator, … is needed to minimise cost, maximise reliability, optimally integrate intermittent renewables & accommodate new users (electric vehicles,…) and provide -real time information to operators on demand, power quality & supply to allow them to monitor, manage constraints, integrate -information to consumers enabling real-time pricing & incentives to adjust use → efficiently balance supply and demand + lower peak load Questions for Markets: incentivise provision of last kW-hr, upgrading grid, storage (How? Costing benefits? Who pays?); deal with big changes in supply (inflexible renewables with low marginal costs) & demand,…
  19. 19. Energy Efficiency Substantial efficiency gains possible, and could save a lot of money Efficiency is a key component of the solution, e.g. process -more efficient technologies in industry, process change, system optimisation -raise average thermal power plant efficiency from below 40% to 45% or more: will take time - huge inertia in system in which many $s are sunk -better insulated buildings -more efficient lighting -more efficient internal combustion engines → hybrids → batteries → fuel cells But, although ‘energy intensity’ = (energy use)/GDP is falling*, demand is rising faster than potential gains (often over-estimated), which are not being realised: * except in the Middle East - Rebound effect (direct & indirect) - Individual savings often small - Affluence in developed countries - Lack of capital in developing countries - Transactions costs More information and price increase would help, but also need regulation
  20. 20. Key Role of RegulationKey Role of Regulation End of mandatory Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards
  21. 21. Low Carbon Energy SourcesLow Carbon Energy Sources What can replace the 14 TW (rising) from fossil fuels? (and solar) need support of large scale storage – needs to be developed! Maximum practical additional potentials (thermal equivalent): • Wind 3 TW (30 x 2009) • Hydro 2 TW (2 x 2009) • Bio 2 TW (1.25x 2009) •‘Enhanced’ geothermal 1 TW (50 x 2009) • Marine 0.1 TW (600 x 2009) We should expand these sources as much as we reasonably can* - hard as they are more expensive than fossil fuels, and wind & marine ? Not Enough ButBut they cannot provide enough to replace fossil fuels Will need major contributions from solar, nuclear fission or fusion * Potential very location dependent: the UK has 40% of Europe’s wind potential and is well placed for tidal and waves; there is big hydro potential in the Congo;…
  22. 22. ↑ 3.6% of total ↑ 15% of total Contribution of Renewables (excluding hydro) to Power Generation in IEA’s New Policies Scenario
  23. 23. Solar Enormous potential, but needs cost reduction, storage, and transmission in order to be a big player (in 2012 provided 0.4% of world’s electricity)  Photovoltaics (storage: hydrogen, synthesised hydrocarbons) ‘Currently’* $25c/kW-hr → 5 in 2050 (IEA)??  Concentration (thermal storage + fossil- or bio- fuelled furnace) ‘Currently’* $20c/kW-hr → 5 in 2030 (IEA)?? *2008, large scale in very good Conditions. PV cost has already fallen significantly. EIA thinks 15c average for PV in USA in 2017 (min 12/max 24); 24c for concentrated (min 18/max 39)
  24. 24. Nuclear FissionNuclear Fission should be expanded dramatically nowshould be expanded dramatically now ■ New generation of reactors: fewer components, passive safety, less waste, more proliferation resistant, and lower costs – claimed but not (yet?) realised! This is the big uncertainty ■ Looking to the future, need to consider • Problems/limitations - proliferation: mainly a political issue - safety: mainly a problem of perception, although very great care necessary - waste: problem technically solved - uranium resources: enough for over 250 years with current use • Options (Aims: less waste, prolong nuclear age, reduce proliferation risk, ...) - Small Modular Reactors – (even) safer, and cheaper?? - re-cycle fuel (20% more energy, less waste) - fast breeders (60xenergy/kg-U, less waste, but more expensive) – need development - thorium (lots of it, less waste, but fuel handling harder) – needs development - fusion – intrinsically very attractive, but needs development
  25. 25. The optimum energy supply mix depends on local energy resources and use, but there are some universal desiderata:  Carbon Capture and Storage (if feasible, safe, cost-effective)  Reduce energy use/improve efficiency - in principle can save energy and a lot of money, but won’t reduce total use, assuming continued rise in living standards in the developing world  Develop and expand low carbon energy sources -need everything we can sensibly get, but without major contributions from solar and/or nuclear (fission and/or fusion) it will not be possible to replace the 14 TW currently provided by fossil fuels  Drive down costs Meanwhile replacing coal with gas would reduce carbon emissions and pollution Challenge: devise economic tools and ensure the political will to make this happen Necessary Actions - TechnicalNecessary Actions - Technical
  26. 26. Necessary Actions - PolicyNecessary Actions - Policy • Better planning to reduce demand – especially in growing cites/developing countries • Stronger regulations • Phase out $500 billion/year of subsidies for consumption of fossil fuels (only 8% benefits world’s 20% poorest) • Carbon tax (provides more certainty than cap and trade) + in the absence of global agreement: Border Carbon Adjustments • Increase the $88 billion/year subsidies to launch* new not yet cost-effective energy sources and efficiency measures *then phase out • Increase long-term publicly funded R&D (currently $20 billion/year)
  27. 27. ConclusionsConclusions  Huge increase in energy use expected; large increase needed to lift world out of poverty  Challenge of meeting demand in an environmentally responsible manner is enormous, and the world is currently not on the right path No silver bullet - need a portfolio approach All sensible measures: reduce demand (adopt low energy/carbon development paths as soon as possible in expanding cities), increase efficiency, more: wind, hydro, bio, geo, marine, nuclear, and solar, plus CCS [?]  Must drive down cost of low carbon energy. Huge R&D agenda - needs more resources (judge on the scale of the $500 billion p.a. subsidies for fossil fuels)  Need financial incentives - carbon price, and regulation  Political will (globally) - targets no use on their own The time for action is now. Malthusian “solution” if we fail?
  28. 28. Back-up Slides
  29. 29. EU Progress vs. Targets? • Reduce Green House Gas Emissions 20% by 2020 relative to 1990 - tool: Emissions Trading System By 2011 reduction was 16% but not a result of ETS (see next slide) which “has not succeeded in being a major driver to low carbon investment” Not including carbon embedded in imports or subtracting exports • 20% of all energy from renewables by 2020 12.7% in 2010, after 1.9%/year rise 1990-2000, 4.5%/year rise 2000-2010, but now need 6.9%/year to meet target. “New measures needed to meet targets” + “massive investment in grid” while “renewable sources [must] become more cost effective” • Reduce consumption in 2020 to 20% below 2007 projections Consumption peaked 2007. Subsequent 5% decline “partly due to economic crisis” and “preliminary analysis [shows] target will not be met” Some good news: performance standards for light duty vehicles → emissions fell from 172 g/km in 2000 to 136 g/km in 2011
  30. 30. Coal fell 30% Gas rose 50% Overtook coal in 1997 Recession EU 27 Green House Gas Emissions Relative to 1900
  31. 31. Coal and Gas Prices Unlike coal, no world gas price – liquefaction + shipping from the Gulf of Mexico to Europe would add ~ $4/MBtu (regasification would add another $70c) to the US price, which today is ~ $3.5/MBtu Note: this figure shows how wildly prices can vary - dangerous to take assumptions about future prices seriously
  32. 32. Energy Intensity ….falling (everywhere except the Middle East) BP IEA
  33. 33. Energy Intensity ….falling (everywhere except the Middle East) -1%/year 1980-2010 New Policy’s Scenario → - 1.8%/year 2010-35 ‘Energy Efficient World’ → - 2.8%/year BP Savings in IEA Scenarios IEA claims payback time typically 6 years (including transaction costs) in NPS Energy savings in New Policies Scenario are biggest in Industry ≥ Transport > Buildings Big additional potential realised in Efficient World Scenario: greatest in Buildings (80% unrealised in NPS) ≥ Power generation (80% unrealised) >Transport (65% unrealised) > Industry (unrealised) Beware appraisal optimism
  34. 34. Nuclear SafetyNuclear Safety treat with very great respect, but record is generally good • Three Mile Island (1979) – no deaths • Chernobyl (1986) < 50 direct/attributable deaths (including thyroid cancers) A calculation based on collective doses resulting from trivial individual doses, which ‘should be avoided’ according to the ICRP, using the very questionable Linear No Threshold assumption for very low doses, gives ~ 7,500 cancer deaths (although there is no evidence for an increase above the natural cancer death rate), but the accident had a major social and economic impact + great stress (‘paralysing fatalism’) • Fukushima (2011) - no direct deaths; few if any indirect expected but (Ref: the Japanese Reconstruction Agency) 34 early deaths caused by the mental or physical burden of forced evacuation following the accident 1916 deaths among people from Fukushima, Iwate and Miyagi prefectures during evacuation from areas hit only by the tsunami and the earthquake and with the current (very cautious) approach to radiation, a large area around Fukushima will continue to be deemed uninhabitable for some years This should be compared to the safety record of other forms of power generation
  35. 35. Safety ComparisonsSafety Comparisons • Coal mining: deaths/year in last decade China* – 4,750 (falling), India* ~ 100, USA – 33 *official statistics • Bhopal: 3,800 • On roads: over 1 million p.a. globally • Power production: direct deaths (1969-96) per thermal equivalent energy output, normalised to coal (PSI study) LPG ~ 8, Hydro = 2.6, Coal =1, Gas = 0.25, Nuclear = 0.025 • Indirect deaths Modern 1 GW coal power station in W Europe claimed to kill (~ 8 year loss of life) ~ 200 pa: in 40 year life time → 8,000 deaths
  36. 36. Need for a Carbon PriceNeed for a Carbon Price These behaviours cannot coexist without a large carbon price In the 450 scenario the price ~ $130/t CO2 which would add ~$50/barrel to the cost of oil making coexistence possible In IEA’s scenarios, from 2010 to 2035 use of oil changes by Current policies +23% New polices +13% 450 -10% While: