Transformational Change Toward
Decarbonization
Initial Findings of the Global Energy Assessment
Nebojša Nakićenović
International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis xx
Technische Universität Wien xx
naki@iiasa.ac.at

IIASA-RITE International Symposium, Keidanren Kaikan – 8 February 2010

Global Energy Challenges● Affordable access to energy and food(a prerequisite for reaching MDGs)● Energy and ecosystems services● Security and reliability of systems● Deep GHG emissions reductions● Technology R&D and investment● Confluence of multiple crises2

Confronting the Challenges of Energy for
Sustainable Development:
The Role of Scientific and Technical Analysis

IIASA
International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis
and its international partners present

www.GlobalEnergyAssessment.org

GEA Objectives Include:● Science based, comprehensive,
integrated, and policy-relevant analysis
of issues and options related to:– Energy and sustainability challenges– Resource and technology options, demandand supply– System issues, scenarios– Policy options● Local, regional, and global dimensions

GEA Analysts

198 persons, including CLAs, LAs, ExComm Co-Chairs

Sponsoring Organizations
International Organizations

Governments/Agencies

GEFIIASAUNDESA
UNDP
UNEP
UNIDO
World Bank (ESMAP)

Austria
European Union
GermanyItaly
Norway*SwedenUSA (EPA, DoE)
UAE*

Industry groups
First Solar
Petrobras
WBCSD
WEC
NOTE: * = in negotiations

Foundations
UN Foundation
Climate Works Foundation

Concepts and Approach● GEA structure is organized around
Knowledge Clusters comprising
Knowledge Modules● Structure is being determined through an
ongoing consultative process– Outline presented here is evolving● Knowledge Clusters and Modules will betightly integrated– sequential numbering in this presentation does
not imply a sequential or linear approach within
the GEAIntegration of Knowledge Clusters● Cluster I characterizes nature and magnitude ofchallenges, and express them in selectedindicators● Cluster II reviews existing and future resourceand technology options● Cluster III integrates cluster II elements intosystems, and links these to indicators fromCluster I▬This will include energising of rural areas, land use,water, urbanisation, life-styles, etc.
▬Scenarios, using numerical models and storylines, will be
used for the integration, in an iterative fashion● Cluster IV assesses policy options, andspecifically identifies policy packages that arelinked to scenarios meeting the needs, again in
an iterative fashion.

Overall Scenario Framework● Overarching scenario logic that is simple andflexible● Provide an organizing principle for storylines:– Narratives of “contrasting” worlds– Internally consistent descriptions of how objectives are
met under different developments (interplay between
external factors & set of energy measures as well as
resulting characteristics of the transformation)● Need to define main dimensions, eg:– drivers of change to achieve the necessary transition(eg, public awareness vs technology breakthroughs)– broader energy responses (eg, demand pull vs supplypush)– policy environment (eg, regional vs global concerns)

Mapping Energy Access
Final energy access (non-commercial share) in relation to population density

Billions of people:
Abject poverty: 1.3
Poor: 0.6
Less poor: 1.4
Middle class: 1.4
Rich: 1.2

3.3

2.8
Source: Gruebler et al, 2009

Scenario Development Process
Participatory
Process for
Scenario Logic
Taxonomy

Iterations
qualitative

Main Scenarios
GEA-H

Models:GEA Indicators(targets)

KM inputs(costs, potentials,technology, etc..)incl. uncertainties

GEA-M

quan + qual

IMAGEMESSAGE

GEA-L

Sensitivity Analysis
On specific issues

quantitativeIterations
Policy KMs

GEA Scenarios & Energy Challenges
Energy AccessLM
SustainableDevelopment

H
Environment

Energy Security“Technology Drive”

Scenario Characteristics
Energy Access•Very high efficiency & rapid energy
intensity improvements•behavioral/life-style changes, including
mobility, diets toward less meat,interconnected homes, etc..
•Sensitivity: 0-nuclear & 0-CCS cases•Very stringent climate targets (400 ppmequ. with overshoot or 450 Cppm without)•Heterogeneous combinations, eg C&B•Different regions with different degree offulfillment of SD criteria•Rapid access and security improvements•Intermediate climate targets (550 ppm equ. or
500 ppm with overshoot) and implications ofdelayed participation•Sensitivity: implicationsof financial crises
A(transition under capital scarcity);

SustainableDevelopment•Massive supply-side changes andB new infrastructures•Eg: H2 + very cheap CCS, nuclear and renewables
Environment
Energy Security•Intermediary energy intensity improvement (higher demand than C)•stringent climate targets (450 ppm equ. with high overshoot or 500 ppm)
“Technology Push”

Modeling set-up● One Counterfactual (WEO & intermediate
IPCC scenario B2)● 3 fulfillment and transformational scenarios● Counterfactual only for showing benefits ofpolicy packages (and avoided impacts)● Emphasis on 3 sustainability transformations● 3 Modeling teams to develop all scenarios orjust variants

Global Population Projections
Literature range

GEA (World)

Global Economic Development

Literature range)

GErldoWA(GDP, GEA-M

GDP, GEA-M

GDP, GEA-MGDP, GEA-H

GDP, GEA-L

Energy Intensity Improvements
10.0

China (1950-2000)

1.0
USA (1800-2000)

kgoe/$

India (1950-2000)

GEA-Noth America(2000-2100)
Japan (1915-2000)

0.1
GEA-Central Asia
(2000-2100)
GEA-South Asia
(2000-2100)

GEA-Pacific OECD
(2000-2100)

0.0
100

1000

10000

GDP/capita(mer) US$(2000)

100000Final Energy Transformations
On-site generation

80%

Grids
(gas, district heat, electricity, hydrogen)

60%
40%

Liquids(oil products, biofuels,
other liquids)

20%
0%

GEA-L
Solids(coal, biomass)

2000
2005
2010202020302040205020602070208020902100

Final energy share (percent%)

100%GEA-HGlobal Primary Energy
1000
900

Primary Energy (EJ)

800
700
600

Other renewables
NuclearGas
Oil
CoalBiomass

500
400
300
200
10001850

1900

1950

20002050

Global Primary Energy
1000

900

Primary Energy (EJ)

800
700
600

Other renewables
NuclearGas
Oil
CoalBiomass

500
400
300
200
10001850

1900

1950

20002050

Global Primary Energy
1000
900

Primary Energy (EJ)

800
700
600

Other renewables
NuclearGas
Oil
CoalBiomass

500
400
300
200
10001850

1900

1950

20002050

Carbon Reservoirs
Atmosphere 800 GtC (2004)

Biomass~500 GtC

Unconventional.
Gas~1000 GtC

Unconventonal
Oil
Oil
N. Gas~250 GtC ~250 GtgC ~250 GtgC

Soils
~1,500 GtC

Coal
3,500 to 7,000 GtC

Unconventional Hydrocarbons
15,000to 40,000 GtC
Nakicenovic#<#>

2010 14

Methane Hydrate

Nakicenovic

#<#>

2010

Only one third of sedimentary basins has
been searched for oil with modern techniques

Far more exploration wells (each yellow dot represents 2,000)
have been drilled in the U.S. than in any other country.
Nakicenovic

Quelle: Maugeri, 2009#<#>2010

Europe Population vs. Energy Demand Density
Note in particular renewable supply density threshold of maximum 0.5-1 W/m2

30.0

20.0

10.0

EEU: 34% of demand below
renewable density threshold

0.0
<0.1

0.1-1

1-5

5-10

10-25>25

W / m240.0
WEU POPWEU ENE

WEU: 21% of demand below
renewable density threshold% of population and energy use% of population and energy use

40.0

30.0

20.0

10.0

0.0
<0.1

0.1-1

1-55-10W / m2EEU POPEEU ENE

10-25>25

Japan - PV Costs vs. Expenditures
100,000
100,000

Costreduction~ $100 109

PV costs (1985) Yen per W
PV costs (1985) Yen per W

1973: 30,000
1973: 30,000
1976:
1976:16,300
16,30010,00010,0001980:
1980: 4,900
4,900–0.54x
y = 10 4.0 –0.54x
R 2 = 0.989
1985: 1,200

1,000
1,000

1995:
1995: 640
640

BasicR&DR&D
Basic

Applied R&D
R&D
AppliedInvestment
Investment

Data source:
Watanabe, 1995 &1997~ $1 109

Data Source: Watanabe, 1997

100100 00

Nakicenovic

0.10.1110100110100
Cumulative expenditures, billion (1985) YenCumulative expenditures, billion (1985) Yen

Grübler, 2002

#<#>

1,000
1,0002010

Future Technology Learning
Investment Costs per kW
in US$90

10,0001,000100
1101001,000

10,000100,000

Cumulative Installed Capacity [GW]
Source: Riahi, 2009

Health Benefits of Pollution Control

Life years lost
number of life years lost over an average lifetime
above 30 years (millions)(loss of stat. life expectancy - PM)

World

6000

5000

4000

3000

2000

1000

02005

HighGEA

2030

Source: Smith et al, 2009

Global Carbon Emissions

Energy Systems Investments
GEA-M

Energy Systems Investments
GEA-L

Billion dollars

Global Investments in New Renewables
90

Geothermal

80

Marine & small-hydro-38%

70

Biomass
Solar60

Wind

50
40
30
20100

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

Source: IEA, 2009

Billion dollars

Global Investments in Upstream Oil and Gas

500-21%
400

300

200

1000
2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009*

Source: IEA, 2009

A Vision of a Future Energy System

Nakicenovic

Source: EU, 2002

#<#>

2010

www.GlobalEnergyAssessment.org

Towards a more Sustainable Future● The magnitude of the change required inthe global energy system will be huge

● The challenge is to find a way forward that
addresses simultaneously climate change,
security and equity issues.
● Paradigm change is needed: radicalimprovements in energy end-use
efficiency, new renewables, advanced
nuclear and carbon capture and storage.
49

IIASA
International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis

www.GlobalEnergyAssessment.org