IEEJ：September 2017 © IEEJ2017

11

IEEJ：September 2017 © IEEJ2017

Contents

1. About GJETC
Energy Transition
2.
: How far we can go?

Unauthorized reproduction prohibited(C) 2017 IEEJ, All rights reserved

2

IEEJ：September 2017 © IEEJ2017

1. About GJETC
1) Purpose3• Japan and Germany are facing similar challenges– They should establish a long-term and riskminimizing energy strategy based on publicconsensus and sound research.
– At the same time, the ecological modernization
should maintain, or even strengthen theinternational competitiveness.
• The German-Japanese Energy Transition Council(GJETC) strives to support both nations to find solutions
and strategies to master these challenges.

Unauthorized reproduction prohibited(C) 2017 IEEJ, All rights reserved

IEEJ：September 2017 © IEEJ2017

4

1. About GJETC
2) GJETC Consortium

Organised by:

Financed by:

Supported by:

Unauthorized reproduction prohibited(C) 2017 IEEJ, All rights reserved

Media Partner:

IEEJ：September 2017 © IEEJ2017

5

1. About GJETC

3)Dialogue-oriented and Knowledge-based Operation

The Expert Council
2 meeting/year (Tokyo, Berlin)

Decision about thematic priorities
Allocation of studies on strategic topics
Processing by German-Japanese Consortium

4 topics
areongoing

Reports

Exchange with
Parliamentarians
Unauthorized reproduction prohibited(C) 2017 IEEJ, All rights reserved

Exchange withIndustry

Exchange withSociety: Website,
Social MediaIEEJ：September 2017 © IEEJ2017

1. About GJETC
4) Ongoing Study Program - 4 strategic topics -6

1.

Energy transition as a central building block of a futureindustrial policy: Comparison and analysis of longterm
energy transition scenarios

2.

Strategic framework and socio-cultural aspects of theenergy transition

3.

Allocation of roles and business segments of establishedand new participants in the energy sector currently andwithin a future electricity market design

4.

Energy end-use efficiency policies and the development ofenergy service markets

Unauthorized reproduction prohibited(C) 2017 IEEJ, All rights reserved

IEEJ：September 2017 © IEEJ2017

1. About GJETC
5)Future GJETC Activities and Schedule
Secretariat

Council

Finalisation of the studies
by G-J consortia

3rd meeting (J): Sep. 4-5, 2017
Discussion on the final study results
and fact sheets
Stakeholder dialogues: Sep. 5, 2017Finalisation of studies andfact sheets for the public

Public closing conference
Unauthorized reproduction prohibited(C) 2017 IEEJ, All rights reserved

45678910111212342018

Final report on results incl.
studies and fact sheets

4th meeting (G): Mid-Feb. 2017Conclusions and recommendations;Final report;
Prolongation of the council’s workMonth2017

Interim report

7

IEEJ：September 2017 © IEEJ2017

2. Energy Transition
1) Paris Agreement : A step towards global action

Unauthorized reproduction prohibited(C) 2017 IEEJ, All rights reserved

8IEEJ：September 2017 © IEEJ2017

2. Energy Transition
2) Global Actions Will Reduce CO2 by 3.8%

Unauthorized reproduction prohibited(C) 2017 IEEJ, All rights reserved

9

IEEJ：September 2017 © IEEJ2017

10<Reference>

Energy and environmental technologies
2014

2040

2050

Historical

Reference

AdvancedTechnologies

Reference

Advanced
Technologies

399 (2015)

612

846

694

992

Thermal efficiency
Coal-fired
Natural gas-fired

37%
41%

41%
52%

41%
53%

42%
54%

45%
57%

Solar photovoltaic (GW)

175

857

1,433

1,216

2,080

CSP (GW)

484220153

407

Wind (GW)

366

1,170

1,764

1,572

2,417Biomass power generation (GW)

76201

226244268

Biofuel (Mtoe)

73120

174

122

203

Share in annual vehicle sales
PHEV
EV/FCV

0%3%7%8%

19%
26%8%
10%

21%
36%

1521282333

Nuclear (GW)

Average fuel efficiency of newvehicle sales (km/L)

CSP: Concentrated solar power, PHEV: Plug-in hybrid electric vehicle, EV: Electric vehicle, and FCV: Fuel cell vehicle
Unauthorized reproduction prohibited(C) 2017 IEEJ, All rights reserved

IEEJ：September 2017 © IEEJ2017

11<Reference>

CO2 emission reduction by technology (OECD and non-OECD)
Non-OECD

OECD
14

GtCO2
12.4

1210

11.8

Reference
11.5

11.0

Total -4.0Gt
10.5

11.1

8

Adv.Tech.

67.6

Reference

2000

2014

2030

2040

2050

BiofuelWind, Solar, etc

25
20.4
20

Reference

Fuel switching
Adv.Tech.

2

Energy saving

26.1

Energy saving

Nuclear
6.5

33.2

29.8

Wind, Solar, etc

40
1990

Total -9.7Gt

GtCO230

Biofuel

9.4

35

21.9

23.0

23.5

Fuel switching

Adv.Tech.

Adv.Tech.

15

Reference
9.5

10.25
1990

2000

10Nuclear

2014

2030

2040

2050

Excludes CCS

Various technologies are required to reduce CO2 emissions. In OECD, energy saving is responsible for thelargest share at 47% (or 1.9 Gt). It is followed by renewable energy at 32% (or 1.3 Gt), nuclear at 9% (or0.4 Gt), and fuel switching at 9% (or 0.4 Gt).
In Non-OECD countries, energy saving is responsible for more than half of the 9.7 Gt reduction. Supportive
measures concerning technology transfer and the establishment of efficiency standards are important torealize those CO2 emission reduction while further enhancing energy security.

Unauthorized reproduction prohibited(C) 2017 IEEJ, All rights reserved

IEEJ：September 2017 © IEEJ2017

2. Energy Transition
3) Total Cost Minimizing Approach

Unauthorized reproduction prohibited(C) 2017 IEEJ, All rights reserved

12

IEEJ：September 2017 © IEEJ2017

2. Energy Transition
4) What Total Cost Minimizing Approach means?

Unauthorized reproduction prohibited(C) 2017 IEEJ, All rights reserved

13

Note: Estimated with climate sensitivity set as 3°C. If CS is 2.5°C, then temperature will rise by 3.7°C, 2.5°C and 1.4°C, respectivelyfor the three cases, namely Reference Case equivalent, Optimum Cost with innovation and 50% Reduction by 2050 Cases, by 2150.

IEEJ：September 2017 © IEEJ2017

2. Energy Transition

5) Examples: Technology Development for meeting “２℃

Unauthorized reproduction prohibited(C) 2017 IEEJ, All rights reserved

14
Scenario"IEEJ：September 2017 © IEEJ2017

2. Energy Transition
6) A case of Zero Carbon Hydrogen with CCS

Unauthorized reproduction prohibited(C) 2017 IEEJ, All rights reserved

15

IEEJ：September 2017 © IEEJ2017

16

2. Energy Transition
7) Hydrogen Can Be a Promising Option❖ In the ultra long-term paths
CO2 emissions(Gt)

CO2 concentration(ppm)

Temperature rise(°C)

80

800

46060034040022020010002000

2050

2100

Reference-eq

2150

2000

2050

Optimum cost

2100

2150

2000

Advanced
Technologies +Hydrogen

2050

2100

2150

50% reduction by
2050

CCS and hydrogen, though having technological and economic problems to be solved, are expected tocontribute to cutting CO2 emissions by some 7 Gt in 2050.
If technological innovation allows the CO2 emission reduction trend to be maintained, the temperaturerise will peak at around 2.2 ℃ in 2100 and fall back to around 2.0 ℃ in 2150.

Unauthorized reproduction prohibited(C) 2017 IEEJ, All rights reserved

Note: “Advanced Technologies + Hydrogen” means the “Higher Hydrogen Scenario” in the body.

IEEJ：September 2017 © IEEJ2017Conclusion

17

1. Japan and Germany are facing similar challenges,
although there are some differences as well. GJETC
attempts to find solutions for those challenges.
2. Paris Agreement is an epoch-making agreement, butdifficult to achieve when economic growth andmeasures to address Climate Changes need to coexist.
3. The desirable approach not to give up “2℃ scenario” is tominimize the total cost(damage, adaptation and mitigation)
together with new technologies such as producing zero-carbonhydrogen from fossil fuels with CCS. CCU technologies leading tonegative carbon would make further contribution.

Unauthorized reproduction prohibited(C) 2017 IEEJ, All rights reserved

IEEJ：September 2017 © IEEJ2017

Ranked for three consecutive
years within the Top-3 in thearea of Energy and Resource policy,
according to the 2016 Global Go To
Think Tank Index, University ofPennsylvania

We provide
part of our cutting-edge
research results on energy
and the environment on

our website freeof charge.
Contact :report@tky.ieej.or.jp