Professional Documents
Culture Documents
IPCC RenEnReport 2011 PDF
IPCC RenEnReport 2011 PDF
Change Mitigation
Special Report of the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change
Climate change is one of the great challenges of the 21st century. Its most severe impacts may still be avoided if efforts are made to transform
current energy systems. Renewable energy sources have a large potential to displace emissions of greenhouse gases from the combustion of
fossil fuels and thereby to mitigate climate change. If implemented properly, renewable energy sources can contribute to social and economic
development, to energy access, to a secure and sustainable energy supply, and to a reduction of negative impacts of energy provision on the
environment and human health.
This Special Report on Renewable Energy Sources and Climate Change Mitigation (SRREN) impartially assesses the scientic literature on the
potential role of renewable energy in the mitigation of climate change for policymakers, the private sector, academic researchers and civil society.
It covers six renewable energy sources bioenergy, direct solar energy, geothermal energy, hydropower, ocean energy and wind energy as well
as their integration into present and future energy systems. It considers the environmental and social consequences associated with the deployment
of these technologies, and presents strategies to overcome technical as well as non-technical obstacles to their application and diffusion. The
authors also compare the levelized cost of energy from renewable energy sources to recent non-renewable energy costs.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is the leading international body for the assessment of climate change. It was established
by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) to provide the world with a clear
scientic view on the current state of knowledge on climate change and its potential environmental and socio-economic impacts.
Youba Sokona
Kristin Seyboth
Patrick Matschoss
Susanne Kadner
Timm Zwickel
Patrick Eickemeier
Gerrit Hansen
Steffen Schlmer
Contents
Section I
Foreword . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . viii
Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix
Section II
Section III
Chapter 1
Chapter 2
Bioenergy
Chapter 3
Chapter 4
Chapter 5
Hydropower . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .437
Chapter 6
Chapter 7
Wind Energy
Chapter 8
Chapter 9
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 333
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 535
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 609
Section IV
Annex I
Annex II
Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .973
Annex III
Annex IV
Annex V
Annex VI
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 953
...........................................................................
1033
Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1059
v
vii
Foreword
Foreword
The IPCC Special Report on Renewable Energy Sources and Climate Change Mitigation (SRREN) provides a
comprehensive review concerning these sources and technologies, the relevant costs and benets, and their potential
role in a portfolio of mitigation options.
For the rst time, an inclusive account of costs and greenhouse gas emissions across various technologies and scenarios
conrms the key role of renewable sources, irrespective of any tangible climate change mitigation agreement.
As an intergovernmental body established in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United
Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), the IPCC has successfully provided policymakers over the ensuing period with
the most authoritative and objective scientic and technical assessments, which, while clearly policy relevant, never
claimed to be policy prescriptive. Moreover, this Special Report should be considered especially signicant at a time
when Governments are pondering the role of renewable energy resources in the context of their respective climate
change mitigation efforts.
The SRREN was made possible thanks to the commitment and dedication of hundreds of experts from various regions
and disciplines. We would like to express our deep gratitude to Prof. Ottmar Edenhofer, Dr. Ramon Pichs-Madruga,
and Dr. Youba Sokona, for their untiring leadership throughout the SRREN development process, as well as to all
Coordinating Lead Authors, Lead Authors, Contributing Authors, Review Editors and Reviewers, and to the staff of the
Working Group III Technical Support Unit.
We greatly value Germanys generous support and dedication to the SRREN, as evidenced in particular by its hosting
of the Working Group III Technical Support Unit. Moreover, we wish to express our appreciation to the United Arab
Emirates, for hosting the plenary session which approved the report; as well as to Brazil, Norway, the United Kingdom
and Mexico, which hosted the successive Lead Authors meetings; to all sponsors which contributed to the IPCC work
through their nancial and logistical support; and nally to the IPCC Chairman, Dr. R. K. Pachauri, for his leadership
throughout the SRREN development process.
M. Jarraud
Secretary General
World Meteorological Organization
A. Steiner
Executive Director
United Nations Environment Programme
viii
Preface
Preface
The Special Report on Renewable Energy Sources and Climate Change Mitigation (SRREN) of the IPCC Working Group
III provides an assessment and thorough analysis of renewable energy technologies and their current and potential
role in the mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions. The results presented here are based on an extensive assessment of
scientic literature, including specics of individual studies, but also an aggregate across studies analyzed for broader
conclusions. The report combines information on technology specic studies with results of large-scale integrated
models, and provides policy-relevant (but not policy-prescriptive) information to decision makers on the characteristics
and technical potentials of different resources; the historical development of the technologies; the challenges of their
integration and social and environmental impacts of their use; as well as a comparison in levelized cost of energy for
commercially available renewable technologies with recent non-renewable energy costs. Further, the role of renewable
energy sources in pursuing GHG concentration stabilization levels discussed in this report and the presentation and
analysis of the policies available to assist the development and deployment of renewable energy technologies in climate change mitigation and/or other goals answer important questions detailed in the original scoping of the report.
The process
This report has been prepared in accordance with the rules and procedures established by the IPCC and used for previous assessment reports. After a scoping meeting in Lbeck, Germany from the 20th to the 25th of January, 2008, the
outline of the report was approved at the 28th IPCC Plenary held in Budapest, Hungary on the 9th and 10th of April, 2008.
Soon afterward, an author team of 122 Lead Authors (33 from developing countries, 4 from EIT countries, and 85 from
industrialized countries), 25 Review Editors and 132 contributing authors was formed.
The IPCC review procedure was followed, in which drafts produced by the authors were subject to two reviews. 24,766
comments from more than 350 expert reviewers and governments and international organizations were processed.
Review Editors for each chapter have ensured that all substantive government and expert review comments received
appropriate consideration.
The Summary for Policy Makers was approved line-by-line and the Final Draft of the report was accepted at the 11th
Session of the Third Working Group held in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates from the 5th to the 8th of May, 2011. The
Special Report was accepted in its entirety at the 33rd IPCC Plenary Session held also in Abu Dhabi from the 10th to the
13th of May, 2011.
ix
Preface
Chapter 8 is the rst of the integrative chapters and discusses how renewable energy technologies are currently integrated into energy distribution systems, and how they may be integrated in the future. Development pathways for the
strategic use of renewable technologies in the transport, buildings, industry and agricultural sectors are also discussed.
Renewable energy in the context of sustainable development is covered in Chapter 9. This includes the social, environmental and economic impacts of renewable energy sources, including the potential for improved energy access and a
secure supply of energy. Specic barriers for renewable energy technologies are also covered.
In a review of over 160 scenarios, Chapter 10 investigates how renewable energy technologies may contribute to
varying greenhouse gas emission reduction scenarios, ranging from business-as-usual scenarios to those reecting
ambitious GHG concentration stabilization levels. Four scenarios are analyzed in depth and the costs of extensive
deployment of renewable energy technologies are also discussed.
The last chapter of the report, Chapter 11, describes the current trends in renewable energy support policies, as well as
trends in nancing and investment in renewable energy technologies. It reviews current experiences with RE policies,
including effectiveness and efciency measures, and discusses the inuence of an enabling environment on the success
of policies.
While the authors of the report included the most recent literature available at the time of publication, readers should
be aware that topics covered in this Special Report may be subject to further rapid development. This includes state of
development of some renewable energy technologies, as well as the state of knowledge of integration challenges, mitigation costs, co-benets, environmental and social impacts, policy approaches and nancing options. The boundaries
and names shown and the designations used on any geographic maps in this report do not imply ofcial endorsement
or acceptance by the United Nations. In the geographic maps developed for the SRREN, the dotted line in Jammu and
Kashmir represents approximately the Line of Control agreed upon by India and Pakistan. The nal status of Jammu and
Kashmir has not yet been agreed upon by the parties.
Acknowledgements
Production of this Special Report was a major enterprise, in which many people from around the world were involved,
with a wide variety of contributions. We wish to thank the generous contributions by the governments and institutions involved, which enabled the authors, Review Editors and Government and Expert Reviewers to participate in this
process.
We are especially grateful for the contribution and support of the German Government, in particular the
Bundesministerium fr Bildung und Forschung (BMBF), in funding the Working Group III Technical Support Unit (TSU).
Coordinating this funding, Gregor Laumann and Christiane Textor of the Deutsches Zentrum fr Luft- und Raumfahrt
(DLR) were always ready to dedicate time and energy to the needs of the team. We would also like to express our
gratitude to the Bundesministerium fr Umwelt, Naturschutz und Reaktorsicherheit (BMU). In addition, the Potsdam
Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) kindly hosted and housed the TSU ofces.
We would very much like to thank the governments of Brazil, Norway, the United Kingdom and Mexico, who, in collaboration with local institutions, hosted the crucial lead author meetings in So Jos dos Campos (January 2009), Oslo
(September 2009), Oxford (March 2010) and Mexico City (September 2010). In addition, we would like to thank the
government of the United States and the Institute for Sustainability, with the Founder Society Technologies for Carbon
Management Project for hosting the SRREN Expert Review meeting in Washington D.C.(February 2010). Finally, we
Preface
express our appreciation to PIK for welcoming the SRREN Coordinating Lead Authors on their campus for a concluding
meeting (January 2011).
This Special Report is only possible thanks to the expertise, hard work and commitment to excellence shown throughout by our Coordinating Lead Authors and Lead Authors, with important assistance by many Contributing Authors. We
would also like to express our appreciation to the Government and Expert Reviewers, acknowledging the time and
energy invested to provide constructive and useful comments to the various drafts. Our Review Editors were also critical
in the SRREN process, supporting the author team with processing the comments and assuring an objective discussion
of relevant issues.
It is a pleasure to acknowledge the tireless work of the staff of the Working Group III Technical Support Unit, Patrick
Matschoss, Susanne Kadner, Kristin Seyboth, Timm Zwickel, Patrick Eickemeier, Gerrit Hansen, Steffen Schloemer,
Christoph von Stechow, Benjamin Kriemann, Annegret Kuhnigk, Anna Adler and Nina Schuetz, who were assisted by
Marilyn Anderson, Lelani Arris, Andrew Ayres, Marlen Goerner, Daniel Mahringer and Ashley Renders. Brigitte Knopf,
in her role as Senior Advisor to the TSU, consistently provided valuable input and direction. Graphics support by Kay
Schrder and his team at Daily-Interactive.com Digitale Kommunikation is gratefully appreciated, as is the layout work
by Valarie Morris and her team at Arroyo Writing, LLC.
The Working Group III Bureau consisting of Antonina Ivanova Boncheva (Mexico), Carlo Carraro (Italy), Suzana Kahn
Ribeiro (Brazil), Jim Skea (UK), Francis Yamba (Zambia), and Taha Zatari (Saudi Arabia) and prior to his elevation to
IPCC Vice Chair, Ismail A.R. Elgizouli (Sudan) provided continuous and constructive support to the Working Group III
Co-Chairs throughout the SRREN process.
We would like to thank the Renate Christ, Secretary of the IPCC, and the Secretariat staff Gaetano Leone, Mary Jean
Burer, Sophie Schlingemann, Judith Ewa, Jesbin Baidya, Joelle Fernandez, Annie Courtin, Laura Biagioni, Amy Smith
Aasdam, and Rockaya Aidara, who provided logistical support for government liaison and travel of experts from developing and transitional economy countries.
Our special acknowledgement to Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, Chairman of the IPCC, for his contribution and support during
the preparation of this IPCC Special Report.
Ottmar Edenhofer
IPCC WG III Co-Chair
Ramon Pichs-Madruga
IPCC WG III Co-Chair
Patrick Matshoss
IPCC WG III TSU Head
Kristin Seyboth
IPCC WG III Senior Scientist
SRREN Manager
Youba Sokona
IPCC WG III Co-Chair
xi
Preface
Wolfram Krewitt made a signicant contribution to this Special Report and his vision for Chapter 8 (Integration
of Renewable Energy into Present and Future Energy Systems) remains embedded in the text for which he is
acknowledged. Raymond Wright was a critical member of the Chapter 10 (Mitigation Potential and Costs) author
team who consistently offered precise insights to the Special Report, ensuring balance and credibility. Both authors
were talented, apt and dedicated members of the IPCC author team - their passing represents a deep loss for the
international scientic communities working in climate and energy issues. Wolfram Krewitt and Raymond Wright are
dearly remembered by their fellow authors.
xii
II
Summaries
SPM
Summary
for Policymakers
Coordinating Lead Authors:
Ottmar Edenhofer (Germany), Ramon Pichs-Madruga (Cuba),
Youba Sokona (Ethiopia/Mali), Kristin Seyboth (Germany/USA)
Lead Authors:
Dan Arvizu (USA), Thomas Bruckner (Germany), John Christensen (Denmark),
Helena Chum (USA/Brazil) Jean-Michel Devernay (France), Andre Faaij (The Netherlands),
Manfred Fischedick (Germany), Barry Goldstein (Australia), Gerrit Hansen (Germany),
John Huckerby (New Zealand), Arnulf Jger-Waldau (Italy/Germany), Susanne Kadner (Germany),
Daniel Kammen (USA), Volker Krey (Austria/Germany), Arun Kumar (India),
Anthony Lewis (Ireland), Oswaldo Lucon (Brazil), Patrick Matschoss (Germany),
Lourdes Maurice (USA), Catherine Mitchell (United Kingdom), William Moomaw (USA),
Jos Moreira (Brazil), Alain Nadai (France), Lars J. Nilsson (Sweden), John Nyboer (Canada),
Atiq Rahman (Bangladesh), Jayant Sathaye (USA), Janet Sawin (USA), Roberto Schaeffer (Brazil),
Tormod Schei (Norway), Steffen Schlmer (Germany), Ralph Sims (New Zealand),
Christoph von Stechow (Germany), Aviel Verbruggen (Belgium), Kevin Urama (Kenya/Nigeria),
Ryan Wiser (USA), Francis Yamba (Zambia), Timm Zwickel (Germany)
Special Advisor:
Jeffrey Logan (USA)
Summaries
Summaries
Table of Contents
1.
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
..................................................................................7
1.
Summaries
Introduction
The Working Group III Special Report on Renewable Energy Sources and Climate Change Mitigation (SRREN) presents
an assessment of the literature on the scientic, technological, environmental, economic and social aspects of the
contribution of six renewable energy (RE) sources to the mitigation of climate change. It is intended to provide policy
relevant information to governments, intergovernmental processes and other interested parties. This Summary for
Policymakers provides an overview of the SRREN, summarizing the essential ndings.
The SRREN consists of 11 chapters. Chapter 1 sets the context for RE and climate change; Chapters 2 through 7 provide
information on six RE technologies, and Chapters 8 through 11 address integrative issues (see Figure SPM.1).
Introductory Chapter
2. Bioenergy
3. Direct Solar Energy
4. Geothermal Energy
Technology Chapters
5. Hydropower
6. Ocean Energy
7. Wind Energy
8. Integration of Renewable Energy into Present and Future Energy Systems
9. Renewable Energy in the Context of Sustainable Development
Integrative Chapters
10. Mitigation Potential and Costs
11. Policy, Financing and Implementation
References to chapters and sections are indicated with corresponding chapter and section numbers in square brackets. An
explanation of terms, acronyms and chemical symbols used in this SPM can be found in the glossary of the SRREN (Annex I).
Conventions and methodologies for determining costs, primary energy and other topics of analysis can be found in Annex II
and Annex III. This report communicates uncertainty where relevant.1
This report communicates uncertainty, for example, by showing the results of sensitivity analyses and by quantitatively presenting ranges in cost
numbers as well as ranges in the scenario results. This report does not apply formal IPCC uncertainty terminology because at the time of the
approval of this report, IPCC uncertainty guidance was in the process of being revised.
Summaries
2.
3.
According to the formal uncertainty language used in the AR4, the term very likely refers to a >90% assessed probability of occurrence.
The contributions of individual anthropogenic GHGs to total emissions in 2004, reported in AR4, expressed as CO2eq were: CO2 from fossil
fuels (56.6%), CO2 from deforestation, decay of biomass etc. (17.3%), CO2 from other (2.8%), methane (14.3%), nitrous oxide (7.9%) and
uorinated gases (1.1%) [Figure 1.1b, AR4, WG III, Chapter 1. For further information on sectoral emissions, including forestry, see also Figure
1.3b and associated footnotes.]
Summaries
RE technologies can be (i) variable andto some degreeunpredictable over differing time scales (from minutes to
years), (ii) variable but predictable, (iii) constant, or (iv) controllable. [8.2, 8.3]
Box SPM.1 | Renewable energy sources and technologies considered in this report.
Bioenergy can be produced from a variety of biomass feedstocks, including forest, agricultural and livestock residues; short-rotation
forest plantations; energy crops; the organic component of municipal solid waste; and other organic waste streams. Through a variety
of processes, these feedstocks can be directly used to produce electricity or heat, or can be used to create gaseous, liquid, or solid fuels.
The range of bioenergy technologies is broad and the technical maturity varies substantially. Some examples of commercially available
technologies include small- and large-scale boilers, domestic pellet-based heating systems, and ethanol production from sugar and starch.
Advanced biomass integrated gasication combined-cycle power plants and lignocellulose-based transport fuels are examples of technologies that are at a pre-commercial stage, while liquid biofuel production from algae and some other biological conversion approaches are
at the research and development (R&D) phase. Bioenergy technologies have applications in centralized and decentralized settings, with
the traditional use of biomass in developing countries being the most widespread current application.4 Bioenergy typically offers constant
or controllable output. Bioenergy projects usually depend on local and regional fuel supply availability, but recent developments show
that solid biomass and liquid biofuels are increasingly traded internationally. [1.2, 2.1, 2.3, 2.6, 8.2, 8.3]
Direct solar energy technologies harness the energy of solar irradiance to produce electricity using photovoltaics (PV) and concentrating solar power (CSP), to produce thermal energy (heating or cooling, either through passive or active means), to meet direct lighting
needs and, potentially, to produce fuels that might be used for transport and other purposes. The technology maturity of solar applications ranges from R&D (e.g., fuels produced from solar energy), to relatively mature (e.g., CSP), to mature (e.g., passive and active solar
heating, and wafer-based silicon PV). Many but not all of the technologies are modular in nature, allowing their use in both centralized
and decentralized energy systems. Solar energy is variable and, to some degree, unpredictable, though the temporal prole of solar
energy output in some circumstances correlates relatively well with energy demands. Thermal energy storage offers the option to improve
output control for some technologies such as CSP and direct solar heating. [1.2, 3.1, 3.3, 3.5, 3.7, 8.2, 8.3]
Geothermal energy utilizes the accessible thermal energy from the Earths interior. Heat is extracted from geothermal reservoirs using
wells or other means. Reservoirs that are naturally sufciently hot and permeable are called hydrothermal reservoirs, whereas reservoirs
that are sufciently hot but that are improved with hydraulic stimulation are called enhanced geothermal systems (EGS). Once at the surface, uids of various temperatures can be used to generate electricity or can be used more directly for applications that require thermal
energy, including district heating or the use of lower-temperature heat from shallow wells for geothermal heat pumps used in heating
or cooling applications. Hydrothermal power plants and thermal applications of geothermal energy are mature technologies, whereas
EGS projects are in the demonstration and pilot phase while also undergoing R&D. When used to generate electricity, geothermal power
plants typically offer constant output. [1.2, 4.1, 4.3, 8.2, 8.3]
Hydropower harnesses the energy of water moving from higher to lower elevations, primarily to generate electricity. Hydropower projects encompass dam projects with reservoirs, run-of-river and in-stream projects and cover a continuum in project scale. This variety gives
hydropower the ability to meet large centralized urban needs as well as decentralized rural needs. Hydropower technologies are mature.
Hydropower projects exploit a resource that varies temporally. However, the controllable output provided by hydropower facilities that
have reservoirs can be used to meet peak electricity demands and help to balance electricity systems that have large amounts of variable
RE generation. The operation of hydropower reservoirs often reects their multiple uses, for example, drinking water, irrigation, ood and
drought control, and navigation, as well as energy supply. [1.2, 5.1, 5.3, 5.5, 5.10, 8.2]
Traditional biomass is dened by the International Energy Agency (IEA) as biomass consumption in the residential sector in developing countries and refers to the
often unsustainable use of wood, charcoal, agricultural residues, and animal dung for cooking and heating. All other biomass use is dened as modern [Annex I].
Summaries
Ocean energy derives from the potential, kinetic, thermal and chemical energy of seawater, which can be transformed to provide electricity, thermal energy, or potable water. A wide range of technologies are possible, such as barrages for tidal range, submarine turbines
for tidal and ocean currents, heat exchangers for ocean thermal energy conversion, and a variety of devices to harness the energy of
waves and salinity gradients. Ocean technologies, with the exception of tidal barrages, are at the demonstration and pilot project phases
and many require additional R&D. Some of the technologies have variable energy output proles with differing levels of predictability
(e.g., wave, tidal range and current), while others may be capable of near-constant or even controllable operation (e.g., ocean thermal
and salinity gradient). [1.2, 6.1, 6.2, 6.3, 6.4, 6.6, 8.2]
Wind energy harnesses the kinetic energy of moving air. The primary application of relevance to climate change mitigation is to produce
electricity from large wind turbines located on land (onshore) or in sea- or freshwater (offshore). Onshore wind energy technologies are
already being manufactured and deployed on a large scale. Offshore wind energy technologies have greater potential for continued technical advancement. Wind electricity is both variable and, to some degree, unpredictable, but experience and detailed studies from many
regions have shown that the integration of wind energy generally poses no insurmountable technical barriers. [1.2, 7.1, 7.3, 7.5, 7.7, 8.2]
On a global basis, it is estimated that RE accounted for 12.9% of the total 492 Exajoules (EJ)5 of primary
energy supply in 2008 (Box SPM.2 and Figure SPM.2). The largest RE contributor was biomass (10.2%), with the
majority (roughly 60%) being traditional biomass used in cooking and heating applications in developing countries
but with rapidly increasing use of modern biomass as well.6 Hydropower represented 2.3%, whereas other RE sources
accounted for 0.4%. [1.1.5] In 2008, RE contributed approximately 19% of global electricity supply (16% hydropower,
3% other RE) and biofuels contributed 2% of global road transport fuel supply. Traditional biomass (17%), modern
biomass (8%), solar thermal and geothermal energy (2%) together fuelled 27% of the total global demand for heat. The
contribution of RE to primary energy supply varies substantially by country and region. [1.1.5, 1.3.1, 8.1]
Deployment of RE has been increasing rapidly in recent years (Figure SPM.3). Various types of government policies, the declining cost of many RE technologies, changes in the prices of fossil fuels, an increase of energy demand and
other factors have encouraged the continuing increase in the use of RE. [1.1.5, 9.3, 10.5, 11.2, 11.3] Despite global
nancial challenges, RE capacity continued to grow rapidly in 2009 compared to the cumulative installed capacity from
the previous year, including wind power (32% increase, 38 Gigawatts (GW) added), hydropower (3%, 31 GW added),
grid-connected photovoltaics (53%, 7.5 GW added), geothermal power (4%, 0.4 GW added), and solar hot water/heating (21%, 31 GWth added). Biofuels accounted for 2% of global road transport fuel demand in 2008 and nearly 3% in
2009. The annual production of ethanol increased to 1.6 EJ (76 billion litres) by the end of 2009 and biodiesel to 0.6 EJ
(17 billion litres). [1.1.5, 2.4, 3.4, 4.4, 5.4, 7.4]
Of the approximate 300 GW of new electricity generating capacity added globally over the two-year period from 2008
to 2009, 140 GW came from RE additions. Collectively, developing countries host 53% of global RE electricity generation capacity [1.1.5]. At the end of 2009, the use of RE in hot water/heating markets included modern biomass (270
GWth), solar (180 GWth), and geothermal (60 GWth). The use of decentralized RE (excluding traditional biomass) in
meeting rural energy needs at the household or village level has also increased, including hydropower stations, various
modern biomass options, PV, wind or hybrid systems that combine multiple technologies. [1.1.5, 2.4, 3.4, 4.4, 5.4]
In addition to this 60% share of traditional biomass, there is biomass use estimated to amount to 20 to 40% not reported in ofcial primary
energy databases, such as dung, unaccounted production of charcoal, illegal logging, fuelwood gathering, and agricultural residue use. [2.1, 2.5]
Summaries
Coal
28.4%
Gas
22.1%
RE
12.9%
Bioenergy
10.2%
Nuclear
Energy 2.0%
Oil
34.6%
Figure SPM.2 | Shares of energy sources in total global primary energy supply in 2008 (492 EJ). Modern biomass contributes 38% of the total biomass share. [Figure 1.10, 1.1.5]
Note: Underlying data for gure have been converted to the direct equivalent method of accounting for primary energy supply. [Box SPM.2, 1.1.9, Annex II.4]
The global technical potential7 of RE sources will not limit continued growth in the use of RE. A wide range
of estimates is provided in the literature, but studies have consistently found that the total global technical potential
for RE is substantially higher than global energy demand (Figure SPM.4) [1.2.2, 10.3, Annex II]. The technical potential
for solar energy is the highest among the RE sources, but substantial technical potential exists for all six RE sources.
Even in regions with relatively low levels of technical potential for any individual RE source, there are typically signicant opportunities for increased deployment compared to current levels. [1.2.2, 2.2, 2.8, 3.2, 4.2, 5.2, 6.2, 6.4, 7.2,
8.2, 8.3, 10.3] In the longer term and at higher deployment levels, however, technical potentials indicate a limit to the
10
Denitions of technical potential often vary by study. Technical potential is used in the SRREN as the amount of RE output obtainable by
full implementation of demonstrated technologies or practices. No explicit reference to costs, barriers or policies is made. Technical potentials
reported in the literature and assessed in the SRREN, however, may have taken into account practical constraints and when explicitly stated
they are generally indicated in the underlying report. [Annex I]
Summaries
60
50
40
Hydropower
30
20
10
Wind Energy
Geothermal Energy
0
0.05
Solar PV Energy
0.04
Ocean Energy
0.03
0.02
0.01
0.00
1972
1974
1976
1978
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
Figure SPM.3 | Historical development of global primary energy supply from renewable energy from 1971 to 2008. [Figure 1.12, 1.1.5]
Notes: Technologies are referenced to separate vertical units for display purposes only. Underlying data for gure has been converted to the direct equivalent method of accounting
for primary energy supply [Box SPM.2, 1.1.9, Annex II.4], except that the energy content of biofuels is reported in secondary energy terms (the primary biomass used to produce the
biofuel would be higher due to conversion losses. [2.3, 2.4])
contribution of some individual RE technologies. Factors such as sustainability concerns [9.3], public acceptance [9.5],
system integration and infrastructure constraints [8.2], or economic factors [10.3] may also limit deployment of RE
technologies.
11
Summaries
Climate change will have impacts on the size and geographic distribution of the technical potential for RE
sources, but research into the magnitude of these possible effects is nascent. Because RE sources are, in many
cases, dependent on the climate, global climate change will affect the RE resource base, though the precise nature and
magnitude of these impacts is uncertain. The future technical potential for bioenergy could be inuenced by climate
change through impacts on biomass production such as altered soil conditions, precipitation, crop productivity and
other factors. The overall impact of a global mean temperature change of less than 2C on the technical potential
of bioenergy is expected to be relatively small on a global basis. However, considerable regional differences could
be expected and uncertainties are larger and more difcult to assess compared to other RE options due to the large
number of feedback mechanisms involved. [2.2, 2.6] For solar energy, though climate change is expected to inuence
the distribution and variability of cloud cover, the impact of these changes on overall technical potential is expected
to be small [3.2]. For hydropower the overall impacts on the global technical potential is expected to be slightly positive. However, results also indicate the possibility of substantial variations across regions and even within countries.
[5.2] Research to date suggests that climate change is not expected to greatly impact the global technical potential for
wind energy development but changes in the regional distribution of the wind energy resource may be expected [7.2].
Climate change is not anticipated to have signicant impacts on the size or geographic distribution of geothermal or
ocean energy resources. [4.2, 6.2]
Electricity
Heat
Primary Energy
100,000
Range of Estimates
Summarized in Chapters 2-7
10,000
Maximum
Minimum
1,000
Global Heat
Demand, 2008: 164 EJ
Global Primary Energy
Supply, 2008: 492 EJ
100
10
Global Electricity
Demand, 2008: 61 EJ
0
Geothermal
Energy
Hydropower
Ocean
Energy
Wind
Energy
Geothermal
Energy
Biomass
Direct Solar
Energy
1109
52
331
580
312
500
49837
118
50
85
10
50
1575
Figure SPM.4 | Ranges of global technical potentials of RE sources derived from studies presented in Chapters 2 through 7. Biomass and solar are shown as primary energy due to
their multiple uses; note that the gure is presented in logarithmic scale due to the wide range of assessed data. [Figure 1.17, 1.2.3]
Notes: Technical potentials reported here represent total worldwide potentials for annual RE supply and do not deduct any potential that is already being utilized. Note that RE electricity sources could also be used for heating applications, whereas biomass and solar resources are reported only in primary energy terms but could be used to meet various energy
service needs. Ranges are based on various methods and apply to different future years; consequently, the resulting ranges are not strictly comparable across technologies. For the
data behind Figure SPM.4 and additional notes that apply, see Chapter 1 Annex, Table A.1.1 (as well as the underlying chapters).
12
Summaries
The levelized cost of energy8 for many RE technologies is currently higher than existing energy prices,
though in various settings RE is already economically competitive. Ranges of recent levelized costs of energy for
selected commercially available RE technologies are wide, depending on a number of factors including, but not limited
to, technology characteristics, regional variations in cost and performance, and differing discount rates (Figure SPM.5).
[1.3.2, 2.3, 2.7, 3.8, 4.8, 5.8, 6.7, 7.8, 10.5, Annex III] Some RE technologies are broadly competitive with existing
market energy prices. Many of the other RE technologies can provide competitive energy services in certain circumstances, for example, in regions with favourable resource conditions or that lack the infrastructure for other low-cost
energy supplies. In most regions of the world, policy measures are still required to ensure rapid deployment of many RE
sources. [2.3, 2.7, 3.8, 4.7, 5.8, 6.7, 7.8, 10.5]
Monetizing the external costs of energy supply would improve the relative competitiveness of RE. The same applies if
market prices increase due to other reasons (Figure SPM.5). [10.6] The levelized cost of energy for a technology is not
the sole determinant of its value or economic competitiveness. The attractiveness of a specic energy supply option
depends also on broader economic as well as environmental and social aspects, and the contribution that the technology provides to meeting specic energy services (e.g., peak electricity demands) or imposes in the form of ancillary
costs on the energy system (e.g., the costs of integration). [8.2, 9.3, 10.6]
The cost of most RE technologies has declined and additional expected technical advances would result
in further cost reductions. Signicant advances in RE technologies and associated long-term cost reductions have
been demonstrated over the last decades, though periods of rising prices have sometimes been experienced (due
to, for example, increasing demand for RE in excess of available supply) (Figure SPM.6). The contribution of different drivers (e.g., R&D, economies of scale, deployment-oriented learning, and increased market competition among
RE suppliers) is not always understood in detail. [2.7, 3.8, 7.8, 10.5] Further cost reductions are expected, resulting in
greater potential deployment and consequent climate change mitigation. Examples of important areas of potential
technological advancement include: new and improved feedstock production and supply systems, biofuels produced
via new processes (also called next-generation or advanced biofuels, e.g., lignocellulosic) and advanced biorening
[2.6]; advanced PV and CSP technologies and manufacturing processes [3.7]; enhanced geothermal systems (EGS) [4.6];
multiple emerging ocean technologies [6.6]; and foundation and turbine designs for offshore wind energy [7.7]. Further
cost reductions for hydropower are expected to be less signicant than some of the other RE technologies, but R&D
opportunities exist to make hydropower projects technically feasible in a wider range of locations and to improve the
technical performance of new and existing projects. [5.3, 5.7, 5.8]
A variety of technology-specic challenges (in addition to cost) may need to be addressed to enable RE
to signicantly upscale its contribution to reducing GHG emissions. For the increased and sustainable use of
bioenergy, proper design, implementation and monitoring of sustainability frameworks can minimize negative impacts
and maximize benets with regard to social, economic and environmental issues [SPM.5, 2.2, 2.5, 2.8]. For solar energy,
regulatory and institutional barriers can impede deployment, as can integration and transmission issues [3.9]. For geothermal energy, an important challenge would be to prove that enhanced geothermal systems (EGS) can be deployed
economically, sustainably and widely [4.5, 4.6, 4.7, 4.8]. New hydropower projects can have ecological and social
impacts that are very site specic, and increased deployment may require improved sustainability assessment tools, and
regional and multi-party collaborations to address energy and water needs [5.6, 5.9, 5.10]. The deployment of ocean
energy could benet from testing centres for demonstration projects, and from dedicated policies and regulations that
encourage early deployment [6.4]. For wind energy, technical and institutional solutions to transmission constraints and
operational integration concerns may be especially important, as might public acceptance issues relating primarily to
landscape impacts. [7.5, 7.6, 7.9]
The levelized cost of energy represents the cost of an energy generating system over its lifetime; it is calculated as the per-unit price at which
energy must be generated from a specic source over its lifetime to break even. It usually includes all private costs that accrue upstream in the
value chain, but does not include the downstream cost of delivery to the nal customer; the cost of integration, or external environmental or
other costs. Subsidies and tax credits are also not included.
13
Summaries
[UScent2005 /kWh]
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Biomass Electricity
Solar Electricity
Geothermal Electricity
Hydropower
Lower Bound
Non-Renewables
Medium Values
Electricity
Heat
Ocean Electricity
Transport Fuels
Upper Bound
Wind Electricity
Range of Non-Renewable
Electricity Cost
Biomass Heat
Solar Thermal Heat
Geothermal Heat
Range of Oil and Gas
Based Heating Cost
Biofuels
Range of Gasoline
and Diesel Cost
25
50
75
100
125
150
175
200
225
250
275
[USD2005 /GJ]
Notes: Medium values are shown for the following subcategories, sorted in the order as they appear in the respective ranges (from left to right):
Electricity
Heat
Transport Fuels
Biomass:
Biomass Heat:
Biofuels:
1. Coring
2. Small scale combined heat and power, CHP
(Gasication internal combustion engine)
3. Direct dedicated stoker & CHP
4. Small scale CHP (steam turbine)
5. Small scale CHP (organic Rankine cycle)
1. Corn ethanol
2. Soy biodiesel
3. Wheat ethanol
4. Sugarcane ethanol
5. Palm oil biodiesel
Solar Electricity:
1. Concentrating solar power
2. Utility-scale PV (1-axis and xed tilt)
3. Commercial rooftop PV
4. Residential rooftop PV
Geothermal Electricity:
1. Condensing ash plant
2. Binary cycle plant
Geothermal Heat:
1. Greenhouses
2. Uncovered aquaculture ponds
3. District heating
4. Geothermal heat pumps
5. Geothermal building heating
Hydropower:
1. All types
Ocean Electricity:
1. Tidal barrage
Wind Electricity:
1. Onshore
2. Offshore
The lower range of the levelized cost of energy for each RE technology is based on a combination of the most favourable input-values, whereas the upper range is based on a
combination of the least favourable input values. Reference ranges in the gure background for non-renewable electricity options are indicative of the levelized cost of centralized
non-renewable electricity generation. Reference ranges for heat are indicative of recent costs for oil and gas based heat supply options. Reference ranges for transport fuels are
based on recent crude oil spot prices of USD 40 to 130/barrel and corresponding diesel and gasoline costs, excluding taxes.
Figure SPM.5 | Range in recent levelized cost of energy for selected commercially available RE technologies in comparison to recent non-renewable energy costs. Technology subcategories and discount rates were aggregated for this gure. For related gures with less or no such aggregation, see [1.3.2, 10.5, Annex III].
14
Summaries
(a)
(b)
Cumulative Ethanol Production in Brazil [106 m3]
10
1976
[65 USD/W]
50
1984
[4.3 USD/W]
2009
[1.9 USD/W]
1981
[2.6 USD/W]
2009
[1.4 USD/W]
100
800
10
100
1,000
10,000
100,000
1,000,000
40
80
160
320
640
1975
1985
400
1995
2004
200
1985
1975
40
1995
2004
20
10
Ethanol Prod. Cost (excl. Feedstock)
Sugarcane
1,000
0,5
20
2,000
4,000
8,000
16,000
Figure SPM.6 | Selected experience curves in logarithmic scale for (a) the price of silicon PV modules and onshore wind power plants per unit of capacity; and (b) the cost of
sugarcane-based ethanol production [data from Figure 3.17, 3.8.3, Figure 7.20, 7.8.2, Figure 2.21, 2.7.2].
Notes: Depending on the setting, cost reductions may occur at various geographic scales. The country-level examples provided here derive from the published literature. No global
dataset of wind power plant prices or costs is readily available. Reductions in the cost or price of a technology per unit of capacity understate reductions in the levelized cost of energy
of that technology when performance improvements occur. [7.8.4, 10.5]
4.
15
Summaries
End-Use Sectors
Energy Supply
Systems
(Section 8.3)
(Section 8.2)
Electricity Generation and
Distribution
Fossil Fuels
and Nuclear
Energy
Carriers
Energy
Services
Energy
Consumers
Autonomous Systems
Energy Efciency
Measures
Energy Efciency
and Demand
Response Measures
Figure SPM.7 | Pathways for RE integration to provide energy services, either into energy supply systems or on-site for use by the end-use sectors. [Figure 8.1, 8.1]
storage can be more difcult to integrate than dispatchable9 hydropower, bioenergy, CSP with storage and geothermal energy.
As the penetration of variable RE sources increases, maintaining system reliability may become more challenging
and costly. Having a portfolio of complementary RE technologies is one solution to reduce the risks and costs of RE
integration. Other solutions include the development of complementary exible generation and the more exible
operation of existing schemes; improved short-term forecasting, system operation and planning tools; electricity
demand that can respond in relation to supply availability; energy storage technologies (including storage-based
hydropower); and modied institutional arrangements. Electricity network transmission (including interconnections
between systems) and/or distribution infrastructure may need to be strengthened and extended, partly because of
the geographical distribution and xed remote locations of many RE resources. [8.2.1]
District heating systems can use low-temperature thermal RE inputs such as solar and geothermal heat, or biomass,
including sources with few competing uses such as refuse-derived fuels. District cooling can make use of cold natural waterways. Thermal storage capability and exible cogeneration can overcome supply and demand variability
challenges as well as provide demand response for electricity systems. [8.2.2]
16
Electricity plants that can schedule power generation as and when required are classed as dispatchable [8.2.1.1, Annex I]. Variable RE
technologies are partially dispatchable (i.e., only when the RE resource is available). CSP plants are classied as dispatchable when heat is
stored for use at night or during periods of low sunshine.
Summaries
In gas distribution grids, injecting biomethane, or in the future, RE-derived hydrogen and synthetic natural gas, can
be achieved for a range of applications but successful integration requires that appropriate gas quality standards
are met and pipelines upgraded where necessary. [8.2.3]
Liquid fuel systems can integrate biofuels for transport applications or for cooking and heating applications. Pure
(100%) biofuels, or more usually those blended with petroleum-based fuels, usually need to meet technical standards consistent with vehicle engine fuel specications. [8.2.4, 8.3.1]
There are multiple pathways for increasing the shares of RE across all end-use sectors. The ease of integration varies depending on region, characteristics specic to the sector and the technology.
For transport, liquid and gaseous biofuels are already and are expected to continue to be integrated into the fuel
supply systems of a growing number of countries. Integration options may include decentralized on-site or centralized production of RE hydrogen for fuel cell vehicles and RE electricity for rail and electric vehicles [8.2.1, 8.2.3]
depending on infrastructure and vehicle technology developments. [8.3.1] Future demand for electric vehicles could
also enhance exible electricity generation systems. [8.2.1, 8.3.1]
In the building sector, RE technologies can be integrated into both new and existing structures to produce electricity, heating and cooling. Supply of surplus energy may be possible, particularly for energy efcient building designs.
[8.3.2] In developing countries, the integration of RE supply systems is feasible for even modest dwellings. [8.3.2,
9.3.2]
Agriculture as well as food and bre process industries often use biomass to meet direct heat and power demands
on-site. They can also be net exporters of surplus fuels, heat, and electricity to adjacent supply systems. [8.3.3,
8.3.4] Increasing the integration of RE for use by industries is an option in several sub-sectors, for example through
electro-thermal technologies or, in the longer term, by using RE hydrogen. [8.3.3]
The costs associated with RE integration, whether for electricity, heating, cooling, gaseous or liquid fuels,
are contextual, site-specic and generally difcult to determine. They may include additional costs for network
infrastructure investment, system operation and losses, and other adjustments to the existing energy supply systems as
needed. The available literature on integration costs is sparse and estimates are often lacking or vary widely.
In order to accommodate high RE shares, energy systems will need to evolve and be adapted. [8.2, 8.3]
Long-term integration efforts could include investment in enabling infrastructure; modication of institutional and
governance frameworks; attention to social aspects, markets and planning; and capacity building in anticipation of
RE growth. [8.2, 8.3] Furthermore, integration of less mature technologies, including biofuels produced through new
processes (also called advanced biofuels or next-generation biofuels), fuels generated from solar energy, solar cooling,
ocean energy technologies, fuel cells and electric vehicles, will require continuing investments in research, development
and demonstration (RD&D), capacity building and other supporting measures. [2.6, 3.7, 11.5, 11.6, 11.7]
RE could shape future energy supply and end-use systems, in particular for electricity, which is expected to attain higher
shares of RE earlier than either the heat or transport fuel sectors at the global level [10.3]. Parallel developments in
electric vehicles [8.3.1], increased heating and cooling using electricity (including heat pumps) [8.2.2, 8.3.2, 8.3.3], exible demand response services (including the use of smart meters) [8.2.1], energy storage and other technologies could
be associated with this trend.
As infrastructure and energy systems develop, in spite of the complexities, there are few, if any, fundamental technological limits to integrating a portfolio of RE technologies to meet a majority share of total
17
Summaries
energy demand in locations where suitable RE resources exist or can be supplied. However, the actual rate
of integration and the resulting shares of RE will be inuenced by factors such as costs, policies, environmental issues and social aspects. [8.2, 8.3, 9.3, 9.4, 10.2, 10.5]
5.
18
Lifecycle assessments (LCA) for electricity generation indicate that GHG emissions from RE technologies are, in general, signicantly lower than those associated with fossil fuel options, and in a range
of conditions, less than fossil fuels employing CCS. The median values for all RE range from 4 to 46 g
CO2eq/kWh while those for fossil fuels range from 469 to 1,001 g CO2eq/kWh (excluding land use change emissions) (Figure SPM.8).
Most current bioenergy systems, including liquid biofuels, result in GHG emission reductions, and
most biofuels produced through new processes (also called advanced biofuels or next-generation
biofuels) could provide higher GHG mitigation. The GHG balance may be affected by land use
Summaries
changes and corresponding emissions and removals. Bioenergy can lead to avoided GHG emissions from
residues and wastes in landll disposals and co-products; the combination of bioenergy with CCS may provide
for further reductions (see Figure SPM.8). The GHG implications related to land management and land use
changes in carbon stocks have considerable uncertainties. [2.2, 2.5, 9.3.4.1]
2,000
1,750
Maximum
1,500
75th Percentile
Median
1,250
25th Percentile
Minimum
Single Estimates
with CCS
750
500
250
Oil
Coal
10
126
125
83(+7)
24
169(+12)
Count of
References
52(+0)
26
13
11
49
32
36(+4)
10
50(+10)
Wind Energy
28
Ocean Energy
Hydropower
42
-1,000
Geothermal Energy
124
-750
222(+4)
-500
Photovoltaics
Count of
Estimates
-250
Biopower
Natural Gas
Nuclear Energy
1,000
-1,250
* Avoided Emissions, no Removal of GHGs from the Atmosphere
-1,500
Figure SPM.8 | Estimates of lifecycle GHG emissions (g CO2eq/kWh) for broad categories of electricity generation technologies, plus some technologies integrated with CCS. Land userelated net changes in carbon stocks (mainly applicable to biopower and hydropower from reservoirs) and land management impacts are excluded; negative estimates10 for biopower
are based on assumptions about avoided emissions from residues and wastes in landll disposals and co-products. References and methods for the review are reported in Annex II. The
number of estimates is greater than the number of references because many studies considered multiple scenarios. Numbers reported in parentheses pertain to additional references
and estimates that evaluated technologies with CCS. Distributional information relates to estimates currently available in LCA literature, not necessarily to underlying theoretical or
practical extrema, or the true central tendency when considering all deployment conditions. [Figure 9.8, 9.3.4.1]
10 Negative estimates within the terminology of lifecycle assessments presented in the SRREN refer to avoided emissions. Unlike the case of bioenergy combined with CCS, avoided emissions do not remove GHGs from the atmosphere.
19
Summaries
show that indirect changes in terrestrial carbon stocks have considerable uncertainties, are not directly observable, are complex to model and are difcult to attribute to a single cause. Proper governance of land use, zoning,
and choice of biomass production systems are key considerations for policy makers. [2.4.5, 2.5.1, 9.3.4, 9.4.4]
Policies are in place that aim to ensure that the benets from bioenergy, such as rural development, overall
improvement of agricultural management and the contribution to climate change mitigation, are realized; their
effectiveness has not been assessed. [2.2, 2.5, 2.8]
6.
RE technologies, in particular non-combustion based options, can offer benets with respect to air
pollution and related health concerns. [9.3.4.3, 9.4.4.1] Improving traditional biomass use can signicantly
reduce local and indoor air pollution (alongside GHG emissions, deforestation and forest degradation) and
lower associated health impacts, particularly for women and children in developing countries. [2.5.4, 9.3.4.4]
Water availability could inuence choice of RE technology. Conventional water-cooled thermal power
plants may be especially vulnerable to conditions of water scarcity and climate change. In areas where water
scarcity is already a concern, non-thermal RE technologies or thermal RE technologies using dry cooling can provide energy services without additional stress on water resources. Hydropower and some bioenergy systems are
dependent on water availability, and can either increase competition or mitigate water scarcity. Many impacts
can be mitigated by siting considerations and integrated planning. [2.5.5.1, 5.10, 9.3.4.4]
Site-specic conditions will determine the degree to which RE technologies impact biodiversity.
RE-specic impacts on biodiversity may be positive or negative. [2.5, 3.6, 4.5, 5.6, 6.5, , 9.3.4.6]
RE technologies have low fatality rates. Accident risks of RE technologies are not negligible, but their often
decentralized structure strongly limits the potential for disastrous consequences in terms of fatalities. However,
dams associated with some hydropower projects may create a specic risk depending on site-specic factors.
[9.3.4.7]
20
Summaries
availability of fossil resources. Other assumptions (e.g., improved costs and performance of RE technologies) render RE
technologies increasingly economically competitive in many applications even in the absence of climate policy. [10.2]
RE deployment signicantly increases in scenarios with low GHG stabilization concentrations. Low GHG stabilization scenarios lead on average to higher RE deployment compared to the baseline. However, for any given long-term
GHG concentration goal, the scenarios exhibit a wide range of RE deployment levels (Figure SPM.9). In scenarios that
stabilize the atmospheric CO2 concentrations at a level of less than 440 ppm, the median RE deployment level in 2050
is 248 EJ/yr (139 in 2030), with the highest levels reaching 428 EJ/yr by 2050 (252 in 2030). [10.2]
Many combinations of low-carbon energy supply options and energy efciency improvements can contribute to given low GHG concentration levels, with RE becoming the dominant low-carbon energy supply
option by 2050 in the majority of scenarios. This wide range of results originates in assumptions about factors such
as developments in RE technologies (including bioenergy with CCS) and their associated resource bases and costs; the
comparative attractiveness of other mitigation options (e.g., end-use energy efciency, nuclear energy, fossil energy
with CCS); patterns of consumption and production; fundamental drivers of energy services demand (including future
population and economic growth); the ability to integrate variable RE sources into power grids; fossil fuel resources;
specic policy approaches to mitigation; and emissions trajectories towards long-term concentration levels. [10.2]
2050
N=164
75th
Median
25th
Baselines
Minimum
80
Baselines
60
Category III
40
Category IV
20
Category I
Category II
0
Baselines
60
Category III
40
Category IV
20
Category I
Category II
100
200
200
300
300
400
Maximum
400
N=161
100
2030
Figure SPM.9 | Global RE primary energy supply (direct equivalent) from 164 long-term scenarios versus fossil and industrial CO2 emissions in 2030 and 2050. Colour coding is based
on categories of atmospheric CO2 concentration stabilization levels that are dened consistently with those in the AR4. The panels to the right of the scatterplots show the deployment
levels of RE in each of the atmospheric CO2 concentration categories. The thick black line corresponds to the median, the coloured box corresponds to the inter-quartile range (25th to
75th percentile) and the ends of the white surrounding bars correspond to the total range across all reviewed scenarios. The grey crossed lines show the relationship in 2007. [Figure
10.2, 10.2.2.2]
Notes: For data reporting reasons only 161 scenarios are included in the 2030 results shown here, as opposed to the full set of 164 scenarios. RE deployment levels below those of
today are a result of model output and differences in the reporting of traditional biomass. For details on the use of the direct equivalent method of accounting for primary energy
supply and the implied care needed in the interpretation of scenario results, see Box SPM.2. Note that categories V and above are not included and category IV is extended to 600
ppm from 570 ppm, because all stabilization scenarios lie below 600 ppm CO2 in 2100 and because the lowest baseline scenarios reach concentration levels of slightly more than
600 ppm by 2100.
21
Summaries
The scenario review in this Special Report indicates that RE has a large potential to mitigate GHG emissions. Four illustrative scenarios span a range of global cumulative CO2 savings between 2010 and 2050, from about
220 to 560 Gt CO2 compared to about 1,530Gt cumulative fossil and industrial CO2 emissions in the IEA World Energy
Outlook 2009 Reference Scenario during the same period. The precise attribution of mitigation potentials to RE depends
on the role scenarios attribute to specic mitigation technologies, on complex system behaviours and, in particular, on
the energy sources that RE displaces. Therefore, attribution of precise mitigation potentials to RE should be viewed with
appropriate caution. [10.2, 10.3, 10.4]
Scenarios generally indicate that growth in RE will be widespread around the world. Although the precise
distribution of RE deployment among regions varies substantially across scenarios, the scenarios are largely consistent
in indicating widespread growth in RE deployment around the globe. In addition, the total RE deployment is higher over
the long term in the group of non-Annex I countries12 than in the group of Annex I countries in most scenarios (Figure
SPM.10). [10.2, 10.3]
2050
[EJ/yr]
[EJ/yr]
2030
200
200
150
150
100
100
50
50
0
AI
NAI
AI
NAI
AI
NAI
AI
NAI
AI
NAI
AI
NAI
AI
NAI
AI
NAI
AI
NAI
AI
Maximum
Bioenergy
75th
Hydropower
Median
25th
Minimum
NAI
Wind Energy
Direct Solar Energy
Geothermal Energy
Figure SPM.10 | Global RE primary energy supply (direct equivalent) by source in the group of Annex I (AI) and the group of Non-Annex I (NAI) countries in 164 long-term scenarios
by 2030 and 2050. The thick black line corresponds to the median, the coloured box corresponds to the inter-quartile range (25th to 75th percentile) and the ends of the white
surrounding bars correspond to the total range across all reviewed scenarios. [Figure 10.8, 10.2.2.5]
Notes: For details on the use of the direct equivalent method of accounting for primary energy supply and the implied care needed in the interpretation of scenario results, see Box
SPM.2. More specically, the ranges of secondary energy provided from bioenergy, wind energy and direct solar energy can be considered of comparable magnitude in their higher
penetration scenarios in 2050. Ocean energy is not presented here as only very few scenarios consider this RE technology.
12 The terms Annex I and non-Annex I are categories of countries that derive from the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
Change (UNFCCC).
22
Summaries
Scenarios do not indicate an obvious single dominant RE technology at a global level; in addition, the
global overall technical potentials do not constrain the future contribution of RE. Although the contribution of
RE technologies varies across scenarios, modern biomass, wind and direct solar commonly make up the largest contributions of RE technologies to the energy system by 2050 (Figure SPM.11). All scenarios assessed conrm that technical
potentials will not be the limiting factors for the expansion of RE at a global scale. Despite signicant technological and
regional differences, in the four illustrative scenarios less than 2.5% of the global available technical RE potential is
used. [10.2, 10.3]
350
300
250
200
150
Geothermal Energy
Primary Energy Supply [EJ/yr]
Bioenergy
150
100
150
100
50
50
100
50
0
2030
2050
2030
2030
2050
75th
Median
25th
Minimum
Deployment Level 2008
CO2 Concentration Levels
Wind Energy
Primary Energy Supply [EJ/yr]
Maximum
Hydropower
150
100
2050
150
100
50
50
Baselines
Cat. III + IV (440 - 600 ppm)
Cat. I + II (<440 ppm)
0
2030
Bioenergy Supply is Accounted for Prior to Conversion
2050
2030
2050
Figure SPM.11 | Global primary energy supply (direct equivalent) of bioenergy, wind, direct solar, hydro, and geothermal energy in 164 long-term scenarios in 2030 and 2050,
and grouped by different categories of atmospheric CO2 concentration level that are dened consistently with those in the AR4. The thick black line corresponds to the median, the
coloured box corresponds to the inter-quartile range (25th to 75th percentile) and the ends of the white surrounding bars correspond to the total range across all reviewed scenarios.
[Excerpt from Figure 10.9, 10.2.2.5]
Notes: For details on the use of the direct equivalent method of accounting for primary energy supply and the implied care needed in the interpretation of scenario results, see Box
SPM.2. More specically, the ranges of secondary energy provided from bioenergy, wind energy and direct solar energy can be considered of comparable magnitude in their higher
penetration scenarios in 2050. Ocean energy is not presented here as only very few scenarios consider this RE technology. Note that categories V and above are not included and
category IV is extended to 600 ppm from 570 ppm, because all stabilization scenarios lie below 600 ppm CO2 in 2100 and because the lowest baselines scenarios reach concentration levels of slightly more than 600 ppm by 2100.
23
Summaries
Individual studies indicate that if RE deployment is limited, mitigation costs increase and low GHG concentration stabilizations may not be achieved. A number of studies have pursued scenario sensitivities that assume
constraints on the deployment of individual mitigation options, including RE as well as nuclear and fossil energy with
CCS. There is little agreement on the precise magnitude of the cost increase. [10.2]
A transition to a low-GHG economy with higher shares of RE would imply increasing investments in technologies and infrastructure. The four illustrative scenarios analyzed in detail in the SRREN estimate global cumulative RE
investments (in the power generation sector only) ranging fromUSD2005 1,360 to 5,100 billion for the decade 2011to
2020, and from USD2005 1,490 to 7,180 billion for the decade 2021 to 2030. The lower values refer to the IEA World
Energy Outlook 2009 Reference Scenario and the higher ones to a scenario that seeks to stabilize atmospheric CO2
(only) concentration at 450 ppm. The annual averages of these investment needs are all smaller than 1% of the worlds
gross domestic product (GDP). Beyond differences in the design of the models used to investigate these scenarios,
the range can be explained mainly by differences in GHG concentrations assessed and constraints imposed on the set
of admissible mitigation technologies. Increasing the installed capacity of RE power plants will reduce the amount of
fossil and nuclear fuels that otherwise would be needed in order to meet a given electricity demand. In addition to
investment, operation and maintenance (O&M) and (where applicable) feedstock costs related to RE power plants, any
assessment of the overall economic burden that is associated with their application will have to consider avoided fuel
and substituted investment costs as well. Even without taking the avoided costs into account, the lower range of the
RE power investments discussed above is lower than the respective investments reported for 2009. The higher values of
the annual averages of the RE power sector investment approximately correspond to a ve-fold increase in the current
global investments in this eld. [10.5, 11.2.2]
7.
24
Summaries
Lack of general information and access to data relevant to the deployment of RE, and lack of technical and knowledge capacity; and
Barriers related to societal and personal values and affecting the perception and acceptance of RE technologies.
[1.4, 9.5.1, 9.5.2.1]
Public R&D investments in RE technologies are most effective when complemented by other policy instruments, particularly deployment policies that simultaneously enhance demand for new technologies. Together,
R&D and deployment policies create a positive feedback cycle, inducing private sector investment. Enacting deployment
policies early in the development of a given technology can accelerate learning by inducing private R&D, which in turn
further reduces costs and provides additional incentives for using the technology. [11.5.2]
Some policies have been shown to be effective and efcient in rapidly increasing RE deployment. However,
there is no one-size-ts-all policy. Experience shows that different policies or combinations of policies can be more
effective and efcient depending on factors such as the level of technological maturity, affordable capital, ease of integration into the existing system and the local and national RE resource base. [11.5]
Several studies have concluded that some feed in tariffs have been effective and efcient at promoting RE electricity, mainly due to the combination of long-term xed price or premium payments, network connections, and
guaranteed purchase of all RE electricity generated. Quota policies can be effective and efcient if designed to
reduce risk; for example, with long-term contracts. [11.5.4]
An increasing number of governments are adopting scal incentives for RE heating and cooling. Obligations to
use RE heat are gaining attention for their potential to encourage growth independent of public nancial support.
[11.5.5]
In the transportation sector, RE fuel mandates or blending requirements are key drivers in the development of most
modern biofuel industries. Other policies include direct government payments or tax reductions. Policies have inuenced the development of an international biofuel trade. [11.5.6]
The exibility to adjust as technologies, markets and other factors evolve is important. The details of design and implementation are critical in determining the effectiveness and efciency of a policy. [11.5]. Policy frameworks that are
transparent and sustained can reduce investment risks and facilitate deployment of RE and the evolution of low-cost
applications. [11.5, 11.6]
Enabling policies support RE development and deployment. A favourable, or enabling, environment for RE
can be created by addressing the possible interactions of a given policy with other RE policies as well as with energy
and non-energy policies (e.g., those targeting agriculture, transportation, water management and urban planning); by
easing the ability of RE developers to obtain nance and to successfully site a project; by removing barriers for access
to networks and markets for RE installations and output; by increasing education and awareness through dedicated
communication and dialogue initiatives; and by enabling technology transfer. In turn, the existence of an enabling
environment can increase the efciency and effectiveness of policies to promote RE. [9.5.1.1, 11.6]
Two separate market failures create the rationale for the additional support of innovative RE technologies
that have high potential for technological development, even if an emission market (or GHG pricing policy
in general) exists. The rst market failure refers to the external cost of GHG emissions. The second market failure is in
the eld of innovation: if rms underestimate the future benets of investments into learning RE technologies or if they
25
Summaries
cannot appropriate these benets, they will invest less than is optimal from a macroeconomic perspective. In addition
to GHG pricing policies, RE-specic policies may be appropriate from an economic point of view if the related opportunities for technological development are to be addressed (or if other goals beyond climate mitigation are pursued).
Potentially adverse consequences such as lock-in, carbon leakage and rebound effects should be taken into account in
the design of a portfolio of policies. [11.1.1, 11.5.7.3]
The literature indicates that long-term objectives for RE and exibility to learn from experience would be
critical to achieve cost-effective and high penetrations of RE. This would require systematic development of
policy frameworks that reduce risks and enable attractive returns that provide stability over a time frame relevant to
the investment. An appropriate and reliable mix of policy instruments, including energy efciency policies, is even more
important where energy infrastructure is still developing and energy demand is expected to increase in the future. [11.5,
11.6, 11.7]
8.
26
TS
Technical Summary
Lead Authors:
Dan Arvizu (USA), Thomas Bruckner (Germany), Helena Chum (USA/Brazil), Ottmar Edenhofer (Germany),
Segen Estefen (Brazil) Andre Faaij (The Netherlands), Manfred Fischedick (Germany),
Gerrit Hansen (Germany), Gerardo Hiriart (Mexico), Olav Hohmeyer (Germany),
K.G.Terry Hollands (Canada), John Huckerby (New Zealand), Susanne Kadner (Germany),
nund Killingtveit (Norway), Arun Kumar (India), Anthony Lewis (Ireland), Oswaldo Lucon (Brazil),
Patrick Matschoss (Germany), Lourdes Maurice (USA), Monirul Mirza (Canada/Bangladesh),
Catherine Mitchell (United Kingdom), William Moomaw (USA), Jos Moreira (Brazil),
Lars J.Nilsson (Sweden), John Nyboer (Canada), Ramon Pichs-Madruga (Cuba), Jayant Sathaye (USA),
Janet L. Sawin (USA), Roberto Schaeffer (Brazil), Tormod A. Schei (Norway), Steffen Schlmer (Germany),
Kristin Seyboth (Germany/USA), Ralph Sims (New Zealand), Graham Sinden (United Kingdom/Australia),
Youba Sokona (Ethiopia/Mali), Christoph von Stechow (Germany), Jan Steckel (Germany),
Aviel Verbruggen (Belgium), Ryan Wiser (USA), Francis Yamba (Zambia), Timm Zwickel (Germany)
Review Editors:
Leonidas O. Girardin (Argentina), Mattia Romani (United Kingdom/Italy)
Special Advisor:
Jeffrey Logan (USA)
This Technical Summary should be cited as:
Arvizu, D., T. Bruckner, H. Chum, O. Edenhofer, S. Estefen, A. Faaij, M. Fischedick, G. Hansen, G. Hiriart, O. Hohmeyer,
K. G.T. Hollands, J. Huckerby, S. Kadner, . Killingtveit, A. Kumar, A. Lewis, O. Lucon, P. Matschoss, L. Maurice, M. Mirza,
C. Mitchell, W. Moomaw, J. Moreira, L. J. Nilsson, J. Nyboer, R. Pichs-Madruga, J. Sathaye, J. Sawin, R. Schaeffer, T. Schei,
S.Schlmer, K. Seyboth, R. Sims, G. Sinden, Y. Sokona, C. von Stechow, J.Steckel, A. Verbruggen, R. Wiser, F. Yamba, T. Zwickel,
2011: Technical Summary. In IPCC Special Report on Renewable Energy Sources and Climate Change Mitigation [O. Edenhofer,
R.Pichs-Madruga, Y. Sokona, K. Seyboth, P. Matschoss, S. Kadner, T. Zwickel, P. Eickemeier, G. Hansen, S. Schlmer, C. von
Stechow (eds)], Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.
Technical Summary
Summaries
Table of Contents
1.
1.1
Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
2.
Bioenergy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
2.7
2.8
3.
Direct Solar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
3.1
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
3.2
Resource potential . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6
28
........................................................................................................................
46
Summaries
Technical Summary
3.7
3.8
Cost trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
3.9
Potential deployment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
4.
Geothermal Energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
4.1
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
4.2
Resource potential . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.6
4.7
Cost trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
4.8
Potential deployment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
5.
Hydropower . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
5.1
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
5.2
Resource potential
5.3
5.4
5.5
5.6
5.7
5.8
Cost trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
.........................................................................................................................
......................................................................................................................................
73
80
29
Technical Summary
Summaries
5.9
Potential deployment
5.10
6.
Ocean Energy
6.1
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
6.2
Resource potential . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
6.3
6.4
6.5
6.6
6.7
Cost trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
6.8
Potential deployment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
7.
Wind Energy
7.1
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
7.2
Resource potential . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
7.3
7.4
7.5
7.6
7.7
7.8
7.9
Potential deployment
30
..................................................................................................................................
........................................................................................................................................
..........................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................
86
87
95
103
Summaries
Technical Summary
8.
8.1
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
8.2
8.3
8.4
8.5
8.6
8.7
9.
9.1
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
9.2
9.3
Social, environmental and economic impacts: Global and regional assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120
9.4
9.5
Barriers and opportunities for renewable energy in the context of sustainable development
9.6
10.
10.1
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130
10.2
10.3
Assessment of representative mitigation scenarios for different renewable energy strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133
10.4
Regional cost curves for mitigation with renewable energy sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135
10.5
10.6
..............................
........................................................................
.............................................................
................................
...................................................................................................
.................................................................................................
103
107
119
129
137
144
31
Technical Summary
Summaries
11.
11.1
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146
11.2
11.3
11.4
11.5
11.6
11.7
32
........................................................................................................
148
.......................................................
148
.........................................................................................
150
Summaries
1.
1.1
Background
All societies require energy services to meet basic human needs (e.g.,
lighting, cooking, space comfort, mobility, communication) and to
serve productive processes. For development to be sustainable, delivery of energy services needs to be secure and have low environmental
impacts. Sustainable social and economic development requires assured
and affordable access to the energy resources necessary to provide
essential and sustainable energy services. This may mean the application of different strategies at different stages of economic development.
To be environmentally benign, energy services must be provided with
low environmental impacts and low greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
However, the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) reported that fossil fuels provided 85%1 of the total primary energy in 2004, which is
the same value as in 2008. Furthermore, the combustion of fossil fuels
accounted for 56.6% of all anthropogenic GHG emissions (CO2eq)2 in
2004. [1.1.1, 9.2.1, 9.3.2, 9.6, 11.3]
Renewable energy (RE) sources play a role in providing energy services
in a sustainable manner and, in particular, in mitigating climate change.
This Special Report on Renewable Energy Sources and Climate Change
Mitigation explores the current contribution and potential of RE sources
to provide energy services for a sustainable social and economic development path. It includes assessments of available RE resources and
technologies, costs and co-benets, barriers to up-scaling and integration requirements, future scenarios and policy options. In particular, it
provides information for policymakers, the private sector and civil society on:
Identication of RE resources and available technologies and
impacts of climate change on these resources [Chapters 27];
Technology and market status, future developments and projected
rates of deployment [Chapters 27,10];
Options and constraints for integration into the energy supply system
and other markets, including energy storage, modes of transmission,
integration into existing systems and other options [Chapter 8];
Linkages among RE growth, opportunities and sustainable development [Chapter 9];
Impacts on secure energy supply [Chapter 9];
Economic and environmental costs, benets, risks and impacts of
deployment [Chapters 9, 10];
1
The number from AR4 is 80% and has been converted from the physical content
method for energy accounting to the direct equivalent method as the latter method
is used in this report. Please refer to Section 1.1.9 and Annex II (Section A.II.4) for
methodological details.
The contributions from other sources and/or gases are: CO2 from deforestation,
decay of biomass etc. (17.3%), CO2 from other (2.8%), CH4 (14.3%), N2O (7.9%)
and uorinated gases (1.1%).
Technical Summary
33
Technical Summary
Summaries
Technology Chapters
5. Hydropower
6. Ocean Energy
7. Wind Energy
8. Integration of Renewable Energy into Present and Future Energy Systems
9. Renewable Energy in the Context of Sustainable Development
Integrative Chapters
10. Mitigation Potential and Costs
11. Policy, Financing and Implementation
34
energy in the 1970s and 1980s that was particularly driven by Annex I
countries.4 In recent years (2000 to 2007), increases in carbon intensity
have been driven mainly by the expansion of coal use in both developed
and developing countries, although coal and petroleum use have fallen
slightly since 2007. In 2008 this trend was broken due to the nancial
crisis. Since the early 2000s, the energy supply has become more carbon
intensive, thereby amplifying the increase resulting from growth in GDP
per capita. [1.1.4]
On a global basis, it is estimated that RE accounted for 12.9% of the
492 EJ of total primary energy supply in 2008. The largest RE contributor
was biomass (10.2%), with the majority (roughly 60%) of the biomass
fuel used in traditional cooking and heating applications in developing
countries but with rapidly increasing use of modern biomass as well.5
Hydropower represented 2.3%, whereas other RE sources accounted for
0.4%. (Figure TS.1.3). In 2008, RE contributed approximately 19% of
global electricity supply (16% hydropower, 3% other RE). [1.1.5]
Deployment of RE has been increasing rapidly in recent years. Under most
conditions, increasing the share of RE in the energy mix will require policies to stimulate changes in the energy system. Government policy, the
declining cost of many RE technologies, changes in the prices of fossil
4
Summaries
2
1.5
Technical Summary
Population
Energy Intensity
Carbon Intensity
Change in CO2
CO2 / yr [%]
CO2 / yr [Gt]
4
0.5
0
-0.5
1971 1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005 2008
1971 1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005 2008
Figure TS.1.2 | Decomposition of (left) annual absolute change and (right) annual growth rate in global energy-related CO2 emissions by the factors in the Kaya identity; population
(red), GDP per capita (orange), energy intensity (light blue) and carbon intensity (dark blue) from 1971 to 2008. The colours show the changes that would occur due to each factor
alone, holding the respective other factors constant. Total annual changes are indicated by a black triangle. [Figure 1.8]
fuels and other factors have supported the continuing increase in the use
of RE. While the RE share is still relatively small, its growth has accelerated in recent years as shown in Figure TS.1.4. In 2009, despite global
nancial challenges, RE capacity continued to grow rapidly, including
wind power (32%, 38 GW added), hydropower (3%, 31 GW added),
grid-connected photovoltaics (53%, 7.5 GW added), geothermal power
(4%, 0.4 GW added), and solar hot water/heating (21%, 31 GWth added).
Biofuels accounted for 2% of global road transport fuel demand in 2008
and nearly 3% in 2009. The annual production of ethanol increased to
1.6 EJ (76 billion litres) by the end of 2009 and biodiesel production
increased to 0.6 EJ (17 billion litres). Of the approximate 300 GW of new
electricity generating capacity added globally from 2008 to 2009, about
140 GW came from RE additions. Collectively, developing countries host
53% of global RE electricity generation capacity (including all sizes of
hydropower), with China adding more RE power capacity than any other
country in 2009. The USA and Brazil accounted for 54 and 35% of global
bioethanol production in 2009, respectively, while China led in the use
of solar hot water. At the end of 2009, the use of RE in hot water/heating
Coal
28.4%
Gas
22.1%
RE
12.9%
Bioenergy
10.2%
Nuclear
Energy 2.0%
Oil
34.6%
Figure TS.1.3 | Shares of energy sources in total global total primary energy supply in 2008 (492 EJ). Modern biomass contributes 38% of the total biomass share. [Figure 1.10]
35
Technical Summary
Summaries
60
50
40
Hydropower
30
20
10
Wind Energy
Geothermal Energy
0
0.05
Solar PV Energy
0.04
Ocean Energy
0.03
0.02
0.01
0.00
1972
1974
1976
1978
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
Figure TS.1.4 | Historical development of global primary energy supply from renewable energy from 1971 to 2008. [Figure 1.12]
Note: Technologies are referenced to separate vertical units for display purposes only. Underlying data for the gure has been converted to the direct equivalent method of accounting for primary energy supply [1.1.9, Annex II.4], except that the energy content of biofuels is reported in secondary energy terms (the primary biomass used to produce the biofuel
would be higher due to conversion losses [2.3, 2.4]).
markets included modern biomass (270 GWth), solar energy (180 GWth),
and geothermal energy (60 GWth). The use of RE (excluding traditional biomass) in meeting rural energy needs has also increased,
36
including small-scale hydropower stations, various modern biomass options, and household or village photovoltaic (PV), wind or
hybrid systems that combine multiple technologies. [1.1.5]
Summaries
Technical Summary
There are multiple means for lowering GHG emissions from the
energy system while still providing desired energy services. The
AR4 identied a number of ways to lower heat-trapping emissions from energy sources while still providing energy services:
[1.1.6]
portfolio of zero- or low-carbon technologies (Figure TS.1.5). A comprehensive evaluation of any portfolio of mitigation options would
involve an evaluation of their respective mitigation potential as well as
all associated risks, costs and their contribution to sustainable development. [1.1.6]
Economic Competition
Environmental Impacts
(Beyond Climate Change)
Security Aspects
Societal Aspects
Energy Efciency
Figure TS.1.5 | The role of renewable energies within the portfolio of zero- or low-carbon
mitigation options (qualitative description). [Figure 1.14]
37
Technical Summary
1.2
Summaries
Key to Figure
Primary Energy
Source
Energy Carrier
Conversion Type
Useable Energy
Flow
Energy Services
Nuclear
Fuels
Fossil Fuels
Liquid Fuel
Solid Fuel
Bioenergy
Geothermal
Energy
Gaseous
Fuel
Direct
Solar Energy
Wind Energy
Hydro Energy
Ocean Energy
Electricity
Kinetic
Conversion
Thermal
Conversion
Work
Heat
Heat-Based
Energy Services
Electrical Energy
Services
Mechanical Energy
Services
Figure TS.1.6 | Illustrative paths of energy from source to service. All connected lines indicate possible energy pathways. The energy services delivered to the users can be provided
with differing amounts of end-use energy. This in turn can be provided with more or less primary energy from different sources, and with differing emissions of CO2 and other environmental impacts. [Figure 1.16]
38
Summaries
Technical Summary
RE technologies are technically mature and are being deployed at signicant scale, others are in an earlier phase of technical maturity and
commercial deployment. [1.2.1]
The theoretical potential for RE exceeds current and projected global
energy demand by far, but the challenge is to capture and utilize a sizable share of that potential to provide the desired energy services in a
cost-effective and environmentally sound manner. [1.2.2]
The global technical potential of RE sources will also not limit continued
market growth. A wide range of estimates are provided in the literature but studies have consistently found that the total global technical
potential for RE is substantially higher than both current and projected
future global energy demand. The technical potential for solar energy is
the highest among the RE sources, but substantial technical potential
exists for all forms of RE. The absolute size of the global technical potential for RE as a whole is unlikely to constrain RE deployment. [1.2.3]
Figure TS.1.7 shows that the technical potential6 exceeds by a considerable margin the global electricity and heat demand, as well as the global
Electricity
Heat
Primary Energy
100,000
Range of Estimates
Summarized in Chapters 2-7
10,000
Maximum
Minimum
1,000
Global Heat
Demand, 2008: 164 EJ
Global Primary Energy
Supply, 2008: 492 EJ
100
10
Global Electricity
Demand, 2008: 61 EJ
0
Geothermal
Energy
Hydropower
Ocean
Energy
Wind
Energy
Geothermal
Energy
Biomass
Direct Solar
Energy
1109
52
331
580
312
500
49837
118
50
85
10
50
1575
Figure TS.1.7 | Ranges of global technical potentials of RE sources derived from studies presented in Chapters 2 through 7. Biomass and solar are shown as primary energy due to
their multiple uses. Note that the gure is presented in logarithmic scale due to the wide range of assessed data. [Figure 1.17]
Notes: Technical potentials reported here represent total worldwide potentials for annual RE supply and do not deduct any potential that is already being utilized. Note that RE electricity sources could also be used for heating applications, whereas biomass and solar resources are reported only in primary energy terms but could be used to meet various energy
service needs. Ranges are based on various methods and apply to different future years; consequently, the resulting ranges are not strictly comparable across technologies. For the data
behind the gure and additional notes that apply, see Table A.1.1 (as well as the underlying chapters).
39
Technical Summary
Summaries
consumption. Biofuels contributed 2% of global road transport fuel supply in 2008, and traditional biomass (17%), modern biomass (8%), solar
thermal and geothermal energy (2%) together fuelled 27% of the total
global demand for heat in 2008. [1.3.1]
Energy services are the tasks performed using energy. A specic energy
service can be provided in many ways and may therefore be characterized
by high or low energy efciency, implying the release of relatively smaller
or larger amounts of CO2 (under a given energy mix). Reducing energy
needs at the energy services delivery stage through energy efciency is an
important means of reducing primary energy demand. This is particularly
important for RE sources since they usually have lower power densities
than fossil or nuclear fuels. Efciency measures are often the lowest-cost
option to reducing end-use energy demand. This report provides some
specic denitions for different dimensions of efciency. [1.2.5]
While the resource is obviously large and could theoretically supply all
energy needs long into the future, the levelized cost of energy for many
RE technologies is currently higher than existing energy prices, though
in various settings RE is already economically competitive. Ranges of
recent levelized costs of energy for selected commercially available RE
technologies are wide, depending on a number of factors, including, but
not limited to, technology characteristics and size, regional variations in
cost and performance and differing discount rates (Figure TS.1.9). [1.3.2,
2.3, 2.7, 3.8, 4.8, 5.8, 6.7, 7.8, 10.5, Annex III]
Energy savings resulting from efciency measures are not always fully
realized in practice. There may be a rebound effect in which some fraction
of the measure is offset because the lower total cost of energy (due
to less energy use) to perform a specic energy service may lead to
utilization of more energy services. It is estimated that the rebound
effect is probably limited by saturation effects to between 10 and
30% for home heating and vehicle use in Organisation for Economic
Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries, and is very small for
more efcient appliances and water heating. An efciency measure
that is successful in lowering economy-wide energy demand, however, lowers the price of energy as well, leading in turn to a decrease
in economy-wide energy costs and additional cost savings (lower
energy prices and less energy use). It is expected that the rebound
effect may be greater in developing countries and among poor consumers. For climate change, the main concern with any rebound effect
is its inuence on CO2 emissions. [1.2.5]
Carbon leakage may also reduce the effectiveness of carbon reduction policies. If carbon reduction policies are not applied uniformly
across sectors and political jurisdictions, then it may be possible for
carbon emitting activities to move to a sector or country without such
policies. Recent research suggests, however, that estimates of carbon
leakage are too high. [1.2.5]
1.3
40
1.4
The major global energy challenges are securing energy supply to meet
growing demand, providing everybody with access to energy services
and curbing energys contribution to climate change. For developing
countries, especially the poorest, energy is needed to stimulate production, income generation and social development, and to reduce
the serious health problems caused by the use of fuel wood, charcoal,
dung and agricultural waste. For industrialized countries, the primary
reasons to encourage RE include emission reductions to mitigate climate change, secure energy supply concerns and employment creation.
RE can open opportunities for addressing these multiple environmental,
social and economic development dimensions, including adaptation to
climate change. [1.4, 1.4.1]
Some form of renewable resource is available everywhere in the world,
for example, solar radiation, wind, falling water, waves, tides and stored
ocean heat or heat from the Earth. Furthermore, technologies exist that
can harness these forms of energy. While the opportunities [1.4.1] seem
great, there are barriers [1.4.2] and issues [1.4.3] that slow the introduction of RE into modern economies. [1.4]
Summaries
Technical Summary
11.6
Input
Energy 17.8
4.0
Wind 0.8
0.8
Output
Electricity
13.4
5.6
PV 0.04
0.04
CSP 0.002
0.002
Tide&Wave 0.002
0.002
Industry 13.5
7.6
Output
Heat 0.4
0.2
0.2
0.6
7.75
1.9
34.9
Losses 4.6
0.2
5.2
Combustible
Biomass &
Renewable
Wastes
50.3
33.7
0.65
0.3
0.2
Transport 2.1
Other
Sectors 43.3
Residential
Commercial & Public Services
Agriculture & Forestry
Non-Specied
Unaccounted traditional
use of biomass
0.2
Geothermal 0.4
0.003
Solarthermal 0.5
0.01
0.2
0.01
0.4
Figure TS.1.8 | Global energy ows (EJ in 2008) from primary RE through carriers to end-uses and losses (based on International Energy Agency (IEA) data). Other sectors include
agriculture, commercial and residential buildings, public services and non-specied other sectors. Transport sector includes road transport, international aviation and international
marine bunkers. [Figure 1.18]
41
Technical Summary
Summaries
[UScent2005 /kWh]
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Biomass Electricity
Solar Electricity
Geothermal Electricity
Hydropower
Lower Bound
Non-Renewables
Medium Values
Electricity
Heat
Ocean Electricity
Transport Fuels
Upper Bound
Wind Electricity
Range of Non-Renewable
Electricity Cost
Biomass Heat
Solar Thermal Heat
Geothermal Heat
Range of Oil and Gas
Based Heating Cost
Biofuels
Range of Gasoline
and Diesel Cost
25
50
75
100
125
150
175
200
225
250
275
[USD2005 /GJ]
Notes: Medium values are shown for the following subcategories, sorted in the order as they appear in the respective ranges (from left to right):
Electricity
Heat
Transport Fuels
Biomass:
Biomass Heat:
Biofuels:
1. Coring
2. Small scale combined heat and power, CHP
(Gasication internal combustion engine)
3. Direct dedicated stoker & CHP
4. Small scale CHP (steam turbine)
5. Small scale CHP (organic Rankine cycle)
1. Corn ethanol
2. Soy biodiesel
3. Wheat ethanol
4. Sugarcane ethanol
5. Palm oil biodiesel
Solar Electricity:
1. Concentrating solar power
2. Utility-scale PV (1-axis and xed tilt)
3. Commercial rooftop PV
4. Residential rooftop PV
Geothermal Electricity:
1. Condensing ash plant
2. Binary cycle plant
Geothermal Heat:
1. Greenhouses
2. Uncovered aquaculture ponds
3. District heating
4. Geothermal heat pumps
5. Geothermal building heating
Hydropower:
1. All types
Ocean Electricity:
1. Tidal barrage
Wind Electricity:
1. Onshore
2. Offshore
The lower range of the levelized cost of energy for each RE technology is based on a combination of the most favourable input-values, whereas the upper range is based on a
combination of the least favourable input values. Reference ranges in the gure background for non-renewable electricity options are indicative of the levelized cost of centralized
non-renewable electricity generation. Reference ranges for heat are indicative of recent costs for oil and gas based heat supply options. Reference ranges for transport fuels are
based on recent crude oil spot prices of USD 40 to 130/barrel and corresponding diesel and gasoline costs, excluding taxes.
42
Summaries
Technical Summary
Figure TS.1.9 | (Preceding page) Range in recent levelized cost of energy for selected commercially available RE technologies in comparison to recent non-renewable energy costs.
Technology subcategories and discount rates were aggregated for this gure. For related gures with less or no such aggregation, see [1.3.2, 10.5, Annex III]. Additional information
concerning the cost of non-renewable energy supply options is given in [10.5]. [Figure 10.28]
technologies can also offer benets with respect to air pollution and health
compared to fossil fuels. However, to evaluate the overall burden from the
energy system on the environment and society, and to identify potential
trade-offs and synergies, environmental impacts apart from GHG emissions
and categories have to be taken into account as well. The resource may
also be affected by climate change. Lifecycle assessments facilitate a quantitative comparison of cradle to grave emissions across different energy
technologies. Figure TS.1.10 illustrates the lifecycle structure for CO2 emission analysis, and qualitatively indicates the relative GHG implications for
RE, nuclear power and fossil fuels. [1.4.1, 9.2.2, 9.3.4, 11.3.1]
Energy Conversion
Electricity Consumption
Residental
Electricity
Distribution
Renewable
Commercial
Electric Transportation
Economic
Productivity
Transportation
Productivity
Nuclear
Fuel Combustion
Gasoline/Ethanol
GHG
Fossil
Raw Material
Movement
Product
Conversion
Liquid Fuel
Transportation
Jet Fuel
Transportation
Productivity
GHG
GHG
GHG
GHG
Diesel Fuel
Agriculture,
Forestry, Residues
Bunker Fuel
GHG
GHG
CO2
GHG
Biomass Co-Product
Co-Product
Figure TS.1.10 | Illustrative system for energy production and use illustrating the role of RE along with other production options. A systemic approach is needed to conduct lifecycle
assessments. [Figure 1.22]
43
Technical Summary
Traditional biomass use results in health impacts from the high concentrations of particulate matter and carbon monoxide, among other
pollutants. In this context, non-combustion-based RE power generation technologies have the potential to signicantly reduce local and
regional air pollution and lower associated health impacts compared
to fossil-based power generation. Improving traditional biomass use
can reduce negative sustainable development (SD) impacts, including
local and indoor air pollution, GHG emissions, deforestation and forest
degradation. [1.4.1, 2.5.4, 9.3.4, 9.3.4, 9.4.2]
Impacts on water resources from energy systems strongly depend on
technology choice and local conditions. Electricity production with
wind and solar PV, for example, requires very little water compared
to thermal conversion technologies, and has no impacts on water
or air quality. Limited water availability for cooling thermal power
plants decreases their efciency, which can affect plants operating
on coal, biomass, gas, nuclear and concentrating solar power. There
have been signicant power reductions from nuclear and coal plants
during drought conditions in the USA and France in recent years.
Surface-mined coal in particular produces major alterations of land;
coal mines can create acid mine drainage and the storage of coal
ash can contaminate surface and ground waters. Oil production and
transportation have led to signicant land and water spills. Most
renewable technologies produce lower conventional air and water
pollutants than fossil fuels, but may require large amounts of land
as, for example, reservoir-based hydropower, wind and biofuels. Since
a degree of climate change is now inevitable, adaptation to climate
change is also an essential component of sustainable development.
[1.4.1, 9.3.4]
Barriers are dened in AR4 as any obstacle to reaching a goal, adaptation or mitigation potential that can be overcome or attenuated by
a policy programme or measure. The various barriers to RE use can
be categorized as market failures and economic barriers, information and awareness barriers, socio-cultural barriers and institutional
and policy barriers. Policies and nancing mechanisms to overcome
those barriers are extensively assessed in Chapter 11. When a barrier is particularly pertinent to a specic technology, it is examined in
the appropriate technology chapters of this report [Chapters 27].
A summary of barriers and potential policy instruments to overcome
these barriers is shown in Table 1.5 of Chapter 1. Market failures are
often due to external effects. These arise from a human activity, when
agents responsible for the activity do not take full account of the activitys impact on others. Another market failure is rent appropriation by
monopolistic entities. In the case of RE deployment, these market failures may appear as underinvestment in invention and innovation in
RE technologies, un-priced environmental impacts and risks of energy
use as well as the occurrence of monopoly (one seller) or monopsony (one buyer) powers in energy markets. Other economic barriers
include up-front investment cost and nancial risks, the latter sometimes due to immaturity of the technology. [1.4.2, 1.5, 11.4]
44
Summaries
Informational and awareness barriers include decient data about natural resources, often due to site-specicity (e.g., local wind regimes), lack
of skilled human resources (capacity) especially in rural areas of developing countries as well as the lack of public and institutional awareness.
Socio-cultural barriers are intrinsically linked to societal and personal
values and norms that affect the perception and acceptance of RE and
may be slow to change. Institutional and policy barriers include existing
industry, infrastructure and energy market regulation. Despite liberalization of energy markets in several countries in the 1990s, current industry
structures are still highly concentrated and regulations governing energy
businesses in many countries are still designed around monopoly or
near-monopoly providers. Technical regulations and standards have
evolved under the assumption that energy systems are large and centralized, and of high power density and/or high voltage. Intellectual
property rights, tariffs in international trade and lack of allocation of
government nancial support may constitute further barriers. [1.4.2]
Issues are not readily amenable to policies and programmes. An issue is
that the resource may be too small to be useful at a particular location
or for a particular purpose. Some renewable resources such as wind and
solar energy are variable and may not always be available for dispatch
when needed. Furthermore, the energy density of many renewable
sources is relatively low, so that their power levels may be insufcient
on their own for some purposes such as very large-scale industrial facilities. [1.4.3]
1.5
Summaries
Technical Summary
45
Technical Summary
Summaries
2.
Bioenergy
2.1
(a)
Forest Residues 1%
Black Liquor 1%
In 2008, biomass provided about 10% (50.3 EJ/yr) of the global primary
energy supply (see Table TS.2.1). Major biomass uses fall into two broad
categories:
Low-efciency traditional biomass7 such as wood, straws, dung and
other manures are used for cooking, lighting and space heating,
generally by the poorer populations in developing countries. This
biomass is mostly combusted, creating serious negative impacts
on health and living conditions. Increasingly, charcoal is becoming
secondary energy carrier in rural areas with opportunities to create
productive chains. As an indicator of the magnitude of traditional
biomass use, Figure TS.2.1(b) illustrates that the global primary
energy supply from traditional biomass parallels the worlds industrial wood production. [2.5.4, 2.3, 2.3.2.2, 2.4.2, 2.5.7]
Recovered Wood 6%
Charcoal
7%
Animal
By-Products 3%
Agricultural
By-Products
4%
Agriculture
10%
Fuelwood
67%
Energy Crops
3%
[Billion m3]
(b)
4.0
Additionally, the industry sector, such as the pulp and paper, forestry, and
food industries, consumes approximately 7.7 EJ of biomass annually, primarily as a source for industrial process steam. [2.7.2, 8.3.4]
3.0
Fuelwood
Indoor Heating, Cooking and Lighting in
Developing Countries (95%)
2.0
2.2
1.0
07
20
03
20
99
19
95
19
91
19
87
19
83
19
78
19
75
19
71
19
67
19
63
19
19
61
0.0
7
Figure TS.2.1 | (a) Shares of global primary biomass sources for energy; and (b) fuelwood
used in developing countries parallels world industrial roundwood1 production levels.
[Figure 2.1]
Note: 1. Roundwood products are saw logs and veneer logs for the forest products
industry and wood chips that are used for making pulpwood used in paper, newsprint and
Kraft paper. In 2009, reecting the downturn in the economy, there was a decline to 3.25
(total) and 1.25 (industrial) billion m3.
46
Summaries
Technical Summary
Table TS.2.1 | Examples of traditional and select modern biomass energy ows in 2008; see Table 2.1 for notes on specic ows and accounting challenges. [Table 2.1]
Approximate Primary Energy
(EJ/yr)
Type
Approximate Average
Efciency (%)
Approximate Secondary
Energy (EJ/yr)
Traditional Biomass
Accounted for in IEA energy balance statistics
30.7
612
36
1020
0.62.4
3743
3.68.4
Modern Bioenergy
Electricity and CHP from biomass, MSW, and biogas
4.0
32
1.3
4.2
80
3.4
3.1
60
1.9
11.3
58
6.6
about 1,500 EJ from global modelling efforts. Figure TS.2.2 presents a summary of technical potentials found in major studies, including data from
the scenario analysis of Chapter 10. To put biomass technical potential for
energy in perspective, global biomass used for energy currently amounts
to approximately 50 EJ/yr and all harvested biomass used for food, fodder
and bre, when expressed in a caloric equivalent, contains about 219 EJ/
yr (2000 data); nearly the entire current global biomass harvest would be
required to achieve a 150 EJ/yr deployment level of bioenergy by 2050.
[2.2.1]
that the upper bound of the technical potential in 2050 could amount to
about 500 EJ, shown in the stacked bar of Figure TS.2.2. The study assumes
policy frameworks that secure good governance of land use and major
improvements in agricultural management and takes into account water
limitations, biodiversity protection, soil degradation and competition
with food. Residues originating from forestry, agriculture and organic
wastes (including the organic fraction of MSW, dung, process residues,
etc.) are estimated to amount to 40 to 170 EJ/yr, with a mean estimate
of around 100 EJ/yr. This part of the technical potential is relatively certain, but competing applications may push net availability for energy
applications to the lower end of the range. Surplus forestry products
other than from forestry residues have an additional technical potential
1000
Literature Technical
Potentials Range:
0 to 1500 EJ
(Theoretical)
2050 Global
TPES
AR4, 2007
750
500
Technical Potential
Based on 2008
Model and Literature
Assessment
Deployment Levels
Chapter 10
Scenario Assessment
Plant
Productivity
Improvement
250
Technical
Potential
2050 Global
Biomass
for Energy
AR4, 2007
Land Use 5
Million km2
Land Use 3
Million km2
Marginal/
Degraded Land
440-600
ppm
Potential Deployment
Levels
300
<440 ppm
300
Maximum
190
75th
Median
118
25th
265
Surplus
Good Land
Chapter 2
Review
Surplus Forestry
100
150
80
20
25
Minimum
2050 Projections
Figure TS.2.2 | A summary of major 2050 projections of global terrestrial biomass technical potential for energy and possible deployment levels compared to 2008 global total primary
energy and biomass supply as well as the equivalent energy of world total biomass harvest. [Figure 2.25]
47
Technical Summary
Summaries
2.3
Commercial bioenergy technology applications include heat productionwith scales ranging from home cooking with stoves to large
district heating systems; power generation from biomass via combustion, CHP, or co-ring of biomass and fossil fuels; and rst-generation
liquid biofuels from oil crops (biodiesel) and sugar and starch crops
(ethanol) as shown in the solid lines of Figure TS.2.3. The gure also
illustrates developing feedstocks (e.g., aquatic biomass), conversion
routes and products.8 [2.3, 2.6, 2.7, 2.8]
Section 2.3 addresses key issues related to biomass production and the
logistics of supplying feedstocks to the users (individuals for traditional
and modern biomass, rms that use and produce secondary energy
products or, increasingly, an informal sector of production and distribution of charcoal). The conversion technologies that transform biomass to
convenient secondary energy carriers use thermochemical, chemical or
biochemical processes, and are summarized in Sections 2.3.12.3.3 and
2.6.12.6.3. Chapter 8 addresses energy product integration with the
existing and evolving energy systems. [2.3.12.3.3, 2.6.12.6.3]
2.4
Multi-functional land use systems with bioenergy production integrated into agriculture and forestry systems could contribute to
biodiversity conservation and help restore/maintain soil productivity
and healthy ecosystems.
Regions experiencing water scarcity may have limited production.
The possibility that conversion of lands to biomass plantations
reduces downstream water availability needs to be considered. The
use of suitable drought-tolerant energy crops can help adaptation in
water-scarce situations. Assessments of biomass resource potentials
48
A review of biomass markets and policy shows that bioenergy has seen
rapid developments in recent years such as the use of modern biomass
for liquid and gaseous energy carriers (an increase of 37% from 2006
to 2009). Projections from the IEA, among others, count on biomass
delivering a substantial increase in the share of RE, driven in some cases
by national targets. International trade in biomass and biofuels has
8
Biofuels produced via new processes are also called advanced or next-generation
biofuels, e.g. lignocellulosic.
Summaries
Technical Summary
also become much more important over recent years, with roughly 6%
(reaching levels of up to 9% in 2008) of biofuels (ethanol and biodiesel
only) traded internationally and one-third of all pellet production for
energy use in 2009. The latter facilitated both increased utilization of
biomass in regions where supplies were constrained as well as mobilized resources from areas lacking demand. Nevertheless, many barriers
remain in developing effective commodity trading of biomass and biofuels that, at the same time, meets sustainability criteria. [2.4.1, 2.4.4]
In many countries, the policy context for bioenergy and, in particular,
biofuels, has changed rapidly and dramatically in recent years. The
debate surrounding biomass in the food versus fuel competition, and
growing concerns about other conicts, have resulted in a strong push
for the development and implementation of sustainability criteria and
frameworks as well as changes in target levels and schedules for bioenergy and biofuels. Furthermore, support for advanced biorenery and
Feedstock1
Oil Crops
(Rape, Sunower, Soya etc.)
Waste Oils, Animal Fats
Conversion Routes2
(Biomass Upgrading3) +
Combustion
Liquid Fuels
Transesterication
or Hydrogenation
Biodiesel*
(Hydrolysis) + Fermentation*
or Microbial Processing
Gasication
Lignocellulosic Biomass
(Wood, Straw, Energy Crop,
MSW, etc.)
(+ Secondary Process)4
Pyrolysis5
(+ Secondary Process)
Biodegradable MSW,
Sewage Sludge, Manure, Wet
Wastes (Farm and Food Wastes)
Macroalgae
Photosynthetic
Microorganisms,
e.g. Microalgae and Bacteria
Anaerobic Digestion
(+ Biogas Upgrading)
Other Biological /
Chemical Routes
Bio-Photochemical Routes
Ethanol*, Butanols,
Hydrocarbons
Syndiesel / Renewable
Diesel*
Methanol, Ethanol,
Alcohols
Other Fuels and Fuel
Additives
Gaseous Fuels
Biomethane*
DME, Hydrogen
Figure TS.2.3 | Schematic view of the variety of commercial (solid lines) and developing bioenergy routes (dotted lines) from biomass feedstocks through thermochemical, chemical,
biochemical and biological conversion routes to heat, power, CHP and liquid or gaseous fuels. Commercial products are marked with an asterisk. [Figure 2.2, 2.1.1]
Notes: 1. Parts of each feedstock could be used in other routes. 2. Each route can also make coproducts. 3. Biomass upgrading includes densication processes (such as pelletization,
pyrolysis, torrefaction, etc.). 4. Anaerobic digestion processes to various gases which can be upgraded to biomethane, essentially methane, the major component of natural gas. 5.
Could be other thermal processing routes such as hydrothermal, liquefaction, etc. Other chemical routes include aqueous phase reforming. DME=dimethyl ether.
9
Biofuels produced by new processes (e.g. from lignocellulosic biomass) are also
called advanced biofuels.
49
Technical Summary
2.5
50
Summaries
and water resources use. Trade-offs between those dimensions exist and
need to be managed through appropriate strategies and decision making (Figure TS.2.4). [2.5.8]
Most bioenergy systems can contribute to climate change mitigation if
they replace traditional fossil fuel use and if the bioenergy production
emissions are kept low. High nitrous oxide emissions from feedstock
production and use of fossil fuels (especially coal) in the biomass conversion process can strongly impact the GHG savings. Options to lower
GHG emissions include best practices in fertilizer management, process
integration to minimize losses, utilization of surplus heat, and use of
biomass or other low-carbon energy sources as process fuel. However,
the displacement efciency (GHG emissions relative to carbon in biomass) can be low when additional biomass feedstock is used for process
energy in the conversion process - unless the displaced energy is generated from coal. If the biomass feedstock can produce both liquid fuel
and electricity, the displacement efciency can be high. [2.5.12.5.3]
There are different methods to evaluate the GHG emissions of key
rst- and second-generation biofuel options. Well-managed bioenergy
projects can reduce GHG emissions signicantly compared to fossil
alternatives, especially for lignocellulosic biomass used in power generation and heat, and when that feedstock is commercially available.
Advantages can be achieved by making appropriate use of agricultural
residues and organic wastes, principally animal residues. Most current
biofuel production systems have signicant reductions in GHG emissions
relative to the fossil fuels displaced, if no iLUC effects are considered.
Figure TS.2.5 shows a snapshot of the ranges of lifecycle GHG emissions
associated with various energy generation technologies from modern
biomass compared to the respective fossil reference systems commonly
used in these sectors. Commercial chains such as biomass direct power,
anaerobic digestion biogas to power, and very efcient modern heating technologies are shown on the right side and provide signicant
GHG savings compared to the fossil fuels. More details of the GHG
meta-analysis study comparing multiple biomass electricity generating
technologies are available in Figure 2.11, which shows that the majority
of lifecycle GHG emission estimates cluster between about 16 and 74
g CO2eq/kWh.
The transport sector is addressed for todays and tomorrows technologies. For light-duty vehicle applications, sugarcane today and
lignocellulosic feedstocks in the medium term can provide signicant
emissions savings relative to gasoline. In the case of diesel, the range
of GHG emissions depends on the feedstock carbon footprint. Biogasderived biomethane also offers emission reductions (compared to
natural gas) in the transport sector. [2.5.2, 9.3.4.1]
When land high in carbon (notably forests and especially drained peat
soil forests) is converted to bioenergy production, upfront emissions may
cause a time lag of decades to centuries before net emission savings
are achieved. In contrast, the establishment of bioenergy plantations on
marginal and degraded soils can lead to assimilation of CO2 into soils
Summaries
Technical Summary
Climate
Change
Energy
Dynamic
Interactions
in Space &
Time
Biomass &
Water
Enablers
Risks
1. Business as Usual
Land Use
Supportive Policies
2. Un-Reconciled Growth
and Environment
Food vs. Fuel
1. Good Governance
2. Sustainable
Use of Resources
Ecosystems Services
Micro Scale:
Agrobiodiversity
Meso Scale:
Ecological Services,
Agroecological Areas
Macro Scale:
Biodiversity
Figure TS.2.4 | The complex dynamic interactions among society, energy and the environment associated with bioenergy. Approaches of uncoordinated production of food and fuel
that emerge in poor governance of land use are examples of business as usual practices. [Figure 2.15]
leading to lower overall LUC impacts, but still with wide uncertainties.
All studies acknowledge that land use management at large is a key.
Research to improve LUC assessment methods and increase the availability and quality of information on current land use, bioenergy-derived
products and other potential LUC drivers can facilitate evaluation and
provide tools to mitigate the risk of bioenergy-induced LUC. [2.5.3,
9.3.4.1]
Air pollution effects of bioenergy depend on both the bioenergy technology (including pollution control technologies) and the displaced energy
technology. Improved biomass cookstoves for traditional biomass use
can provide large and cost-effective mitigation of GHG emissions with
substantial co-benets for the 2.7 billion people that rely on traditional
biomass for cooking and heating in terms of health and quality of life.
[2.5.4, 2.5.5]
51
Technical Summary
Summaries
600
Electricity
Transportation
Modern Bioenergy
500
Heat
400
Ethanol and Gasoline
300
Biogas &
Natural Gas
200
CO2 Savings
100
Natural Gas
Oil
Coal
Biomass
Fossil Gas
Oil
Coal
Biogas
Biomass
Natural Gas
Biogas
Petroleum Diesel
Lignocellulose FTD
Plant Oils RD
Algae BD
Plant Oil BD
Petroleum Gasoline
Lignocellulose
Sugar Beet
-100
Sugarcane
Figure TS.2.5 | Ranges of GHG emissions per unit energy output (MJ) from major modern bioenergy chains compared to current and selected advanced fossil fuel energy systems
(land use-related net changes in carbon stocks and land management impacts are excluded). Commercial and developing (e.g., algae biofuels, Fischer-Tropsch) systems for biomass and
fossil technologies are illustrated. When CCS technologies are developed, capture and sequestration of biomass carbon emissions can compensate fossil fuel-based energy production
emissions. [Figure 2.10]
52
Summaries
2.6
Technical Summary
(IGCC) power plants that use bioenergy as a feedstock. These plants are
projected to be more efcient than traditional steam turbine systems
but have not yet reached full commercialization. However, they also
have the potential to be integrated into CCS systems more effectively.
In addition to providing power, syngas from gasication plants can be
used to produce a wide range of fuels (methanol, ethanol, butanols and
syndiesel) or can be used in a combined power and fuels approach.
Technical and engineering challenges have so far prevented more rapid
deployment of this technology option. Biomass to liquids conversion
uses commercial technology developed for fossil fuels. Figure TS.2.5
illustrates projected emissions from coal to liquid fuels and the offsetting emissions that biomass could offer all the way to removal of GHG
from the atmosphere when coupled with CCS technologies. Gaseous
products (hydrogen, methane, synthetic natural gas) have lower estimated production costs and are in an early commercialization phase.
[2.6.3, 2.6.4]
Pyrolysis and hydrothermal oils are low-cost transportable oils, used in
heat or CHP applications and could become a feedstock for upgrading
either in stand-alone facilities or coupled to a petrochemical renery.
[2.3.4, 2.6.3, 2.6.4, 2.7.1]
The production of biogas from a variety of waste streams and its
upgrading to biomethane is already penetrating small markets for
multiple applications, including transport in small networks in Sweden
and for heat and power in Nordic and European countries. A key factor
is the combination of waste streams, including agriculture residues.
Improved upgrading and reducing costs is also needed. [2.6.3, 2.6.4]
Many bioenergy/biofuels routes enable CCS with signicant
opportunities for emissions reductions and sequestration. As CCS
technologies are further developed and veried, coupling fermentation with concentrated CO2 streams or IGCC offers opportunities to
achieve carbon-neutral fuels, and in some cases negative net emissions. Achieving this goal will be facilitated by well-designed systems
that span biomass selection, feedstock supply system, conversion to
a secondary energy carrier and integration of this carrier into the
existing and future energy systems. [2.6.3, 2.6.4, 9.3.4]
2.7
Biomass production, supply logistics, and conversion processes contribute to the cost of nal products. [2.3, 2.6, 2.7]
The economics and yields of feedstocks vary widely across world regions
and feedstock types with costs ranging from USD2005 0.9 to 16/GJ (data
from 2005 to 2007). Feedstock production for bioenergy competes with
the forestry and food sectors, but integrated production systems such as
agro-forestry or mixed cropping may provide synergies along with additional environmental services. Handling and transport of biomass from
production sites to conversion plants may contribute 20 to up to 50%
of the total costs of bioenergy production. Factors such as scale increase
53
Technical Summary
Summaries
In the medium term, the performance of existing bioenergy technologies can still be improved considerably, while new technologies offer
the prospect of more efcient and competitive deployment of biomass
for energy (and materials). Bioenergy systems, namely for ethanol and
biopower production, show technological learning and related cost
reductions with learning rates comparable to those of other RE technologies. This applies to cropping systems (following progress in agricultural
management for sugarcane and maize), supply systems and logistics (as
observed in Nordic countries and international logistics) and in conversion (ethanol production, power generation and biogas) as shown in
Table TS.2.2.
Biomass pyrolysis routes and hydrothermal concepts are also developing in conjunction with the oil industry and have demonstrated
technically that upgrading of oils to blendstocks of gasoline or diesel
and even jet fuel quality products is possible. [2.6.3]
54
Summaries
Technical Summary
[UScents2005 /kWh]
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
[USD2005 /GJ]
Figure TS.2.6 | Typical recent levelized cost of energy services from commercially available bioenergy systems at a 7% discount rate, calculated over a year of feedstock costs, which differ
between technologies. These costs do not include interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization. [Figure 2.18] Levelized costs of electricity (LCOE), heat (LCOH), fuels (LCOF), intermediate
fuel (LCOIF), BFB: Bubbling Fluidized Bed, ORC: Organic Rankine Cycle and ICE: Internal Combustion Engine. For biofuels, the range of LCOF represents production in a wide range of
countries whereas LCOE and LCOH are given only for major user markets of the technologies for which data were available. Calculations are based on High Heating Value.
than that of oil crops. Potential bioenergy supplies from plants are very
uncertain, but because their development can utilize brackish waters
and heavily saline soils, their use is a strategy for low LUC impacts.
[2.6.2, 3.3.5, 3.7.6]
of waste material for energy can offer more effective and larger mitigation impacts per hectare or tonne of biomass used. [2.6.3.5]
2.8
Data availability is limited with respect to production of biomaterials,
while cost estimates for chemicals from biomass are rare in peerreviewed literature and future projections and learning rates even more
so. This condition is linked, in part, to the fact that successful bio-based
products are entering the market place either as partial components
of otherwise fossil-derived products or as fully new synthetic polymers
such as polylactides based on lactic acid derived from sugar fermentation. In addition to producing biomaterials to replace fossil fuels,
analyses indicate that cascaded use of biomaterials and subsequent use
55
Technical Summary
Summaries
Table TS.2.2 | Experience curves for major components of bioenergy systems and nal energy carriers expressed as reduction (%) in cost (or price) per doubling of cumulative
production, the Learning Rate (LR); N: number of doublings of cumulative production; R2 is the correlation coefcient of the statistical data; O&M: Operations and Maintenance.
[Table 2.17]
Learning system
LR (%)
Time frame
Region
321
451.6
19752005
19752005
Brazil
USA
2.9
1.6
0.81
0.87
1512
19752003
Sweden/Finland
0.870.93
19-25
12
190.5
130.15
19832002
19841998
19752003
19832005
Sweden
2.3
6
4.6
6.4
0.170.18
0.69
0.80
0.88
7
29
200.5
180.2
9-8
15
015
19701985
19852002
19752003
19832005
19902002
Unknown
19842001
Brazil
~6.1
4.6
6.4
~9
N/A
~10
N/A
0.84
0.96
0.850.88
N/A
0.97
Feedstock production
Sugarcane (tonnes sugarcane)
Corn (tonnes corn)
Logistic chains
Forest wood chips (Sweden)
Investment and O&M costs
CHP plants
Biogas plants
Ethanol production from sugarcane
Ethanol production from corn (only O&M costs)
Brazil
USA
Brazil
USA
Sweden
OECD
Denmark
Table TS.2.3 | Projected production cost ranges for developing technologies. [Table 2.18]
Selected Bioenergy Technologies
Integrated gasication combined cycle
1530
Transport
1225
630
612
Transport
30140
Notes: 1. Feed cost USD2005 3.1/GJ, IGCC (future) 30 to 300 MW, 20-yr life, 10% discount rate. 2. Ethanol, butanols, microbial hydrocarbons and microbial hydrocarbons from sugar
or starch crops or lignocellulose sugars. 3. Syndiesel, methanol and gasoline, etc.; syngas fermentation routes to ethanol. 4. Biomass pyrolysis and catalytic upgrading to gasoline and
diesel blend components or to jet fuels. 5. Synfuel to synthetic natural gas, methane, dimethyl ether, hydrogen from biomass thermochemical and anaerobic digestion (larger scale).
6. Several applications can be coupled with CCS when these technologies, including CCS, are mature and thus could remove GHG from the atmosphere.
policies in various countries led to a ve-fold increase in global biofuels production from 2000 to 2008. Biomass and renewable waste
power generation was 259 TWh (0.93 EJ) in 2007 and 267 TWh (0.96
EJ) in 2008 representing 1% of the worlds electricity and a doubling
since 1990 (from 131 TWh (0.47 EJ)). [2.4]
The expected continued deployment of biomass for energy in the 2020
to 2050 time frame varies considerably between studies. A key message from the review of available insights is that large-scale biomass
deployment strongly depends on sustainable development of the
resource base, governance of land use, development of infrastructure
and cost reduction of key technologies, for example, efcient and
complete use of primary biomass for energy from the most promising
rst-generation feedstocks and new-generation lignocellulosic biomass. [2.4.3, 2.8]
56
The scenario results summarized in Figure TS.2.7 derive from a diversity of modelling teams and a wide range of assumptions including
energy demand growth, cost and availability of competing low-carbon
technologies, and cost and availability of RE technologies. Traditional
biomass use is projected to decline in most scenarios while the use
of liquid biofuels, biogas and electricity and hydrogen produced from
biomass tends to increase. Results for biomass deployment for energy
under these scenarios for 2020, 2030 and 2050 are presented for
three GHG stabilization ranges based on the AR4: Categories III and IV
(440-600 ppm CO2), Categories I and II (<440 ppm CO2) and Baselines
(>600 ppm CO2) all by 2100. [10.110.3]
Global biomass deployment for energy is projected to increase with
more ambitious GHG concentration stabilization levels indicating its
long-term role in reducing global GHG emissions. Median levels are 75
Summaries
Technical Summary
(b)
350
N=137
Baselines
Cat. III + IV (440 - 600 ppm)
250
200
150
(a)
100
N=98
60
40
100
20
2008
50
2008
2020
2030
2050
2020
2030
2050
Figure TS.2.7 | (a) The global primary energy supply from biomass in long-term scenarios for electricity, heat and biofuels, all accounted for as primary energy; and (b) global biofuels
production in long-term scenarios reported in secondary energy terms. For comparison, the historical levels in 2008 are indicated in the small black arrows on the left axis. [Figure 2.23]
are projected to mitigate 17% of road and 3% of air transport emissions by 2030. [2.8.3]
2.8.1
The long-term scenarios reviewed in Chapter 10 show increases in bioenergy supply with increasingly ambitious GHG concentration stabilization
levels, indicating that bioenergy could play a signicant long-term role
in reducing global GHG emissions. [2.8.3]
Bioenergy is currently the largest RE source and is likely to remain one of
the largest RE sources for the rst half of this century. There is considerable growth potential, but it requires active development. [2.8.3]
Assessments in the recent literature show that the technical potential of biomass for energy may be as large as 500 EJ/yr by 2050.
However, large uncertainty exists about important factors such as
market and policy conditions that affect this potential. [2.8.3]
The expert assessment in Chapter 2 suggests potential deployment
levels by 2050 in the range of 100 to 300 EJ/yr. Realizing this potential represents a major challenge but would make a substantial
contribution to the worlds primary energy demand in 2050
roughly equal to the equivalent heat content of todays worldwide
biomass extraction in agriculture and forestry. [2.8.3]
Bioenergy has signicant potential to mitigate GHGs if resources
are sustainably developed and efcient technologies are applied.
57
Technical Summary
Summaries
Certain current systems and key future options, including perennial crops, forest products and biomass residues and wastes, and
advanced conversion technologies, can deliver signicant GHG
mitigation performancean 80 to 90% reduction compared to the
fossil energy baseline. However, land conversion and forest management that lead to a large loss of carbon stocks and iLUC effects can
lessen, and in some cases more than neutralize, the net positive
GHG mitigation impacts. [2.8.3]
In order to achieve the high potential deployment levels of biomas
for energy, increases in competing food and bre demand must be
moderate, land must be properly managed and agricultural and forestry yields must increase substantially. Expansion of bioenergy in
the absence of monitoring and good governance of land use carries
the risk of signicant conicts with respect to food supplies, water
resources and biodiversity, as well as a risk of low GHG benets.
Conversely, implementation that follows effective sustainability
frameworks could mitigate such conicts and allow realization of
positive outcomes, for example, in rural development, land amelioration and climate change mitigation, including opportunities to
combine adaptation measures. [2.8.3]
Several important bioenergy options (i.e., sugarcane ethanol production in Brazil, select waste-to-energy systems, efcient biomass
cookstoves, biomass-based CHP) are competitive today and can provide important synergies with longer-term options. Lignocellulosic
biofuels to replace gasoline, diesel and jet fuels, advanced bioelectricity options, and biorenery concepts can offer competitive
deployment of bioenergy for the 2020 to 2030 timeframe. Combining
biomass conversion with CCS raises the possibility of achieving
GHG removal from the atmosphere in the long terma necessity
for substantial GHG emission reductions. Advanced biomaterials
are promising as well for economics of bioenergy production and
mitigation, though the potential is less well understood as is the
potential role of aquatic biomass (algae), which is highly uncertain.
[2.8.3]
Material/Economic
(A2)
Food Trade:
Meat Consumption:
Technology Development:
Food Crop Fertilization:
Crop Intensity Growth:
2050 Population (Billion):
2100 Population (Billion):
Relative 2100 GDP:
Maximal High
High
High
Very High
High
8.7
7.1
100%
Low
High
Low
High
Low
11.3
15.1
46%
Globally Oriented
Regionally Oriented
High
Low
High
Low
High
8.7
7.1
61%
Very Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
9.4
10.4
44%
(B2)
(B1)
Future world convergent in
global population, with
rapid change in economic
structures toward a service
and information economy,
low material intensity, and
clean and resource efcient
technologies.
Food Trade:
Meat Consumption:
Technology Development:
Food Crop Fertilization:
Crop Intensity Growth:
2050 Population (Billion):
2100 Population (Billion):
Relative 2100 GDP:
Environment/Social
Figure TS.2.8 | Storylines for the key SRES scenario variables used to model biomass and bioenergy, the basis for the 2050 sketches adapted to this report and used to derive the
stacked bar showing the biomass technical potential in Figure TS.2.2. [Figure 2.26]
58
Summaries
Technical Summary
Material/Economic
Key Preconditions
Key Preconditions
High energy demand results in high energy prices and drive strong
biomass demand.
Limited oversight on biomass production and use, largely driven by
market demand.
Fully liberalized markets for bioenergy as well as in agriculture as a whole.
Strong technology development leading to increased demand for biochemicals
and advanced transport fuels from biomass.
High fossil fuel prices expected due to high demand and limited innovation,
which pushes demand for biofuels use from an energy security perspective.
Increased biomass demand directly affects food markets.
Key Impacts
Increased biomass demand partly covered by residues and wastes, partly by
annual crops.
Additional crop demand leads to signicant iLUC effects and
biodiversity impacts.
Overall increased food prices linked to high oil prices.
Limited net GHG benets.
Sub-optimal socio-economic benets.
Key Impacts
Production emphasis is on higher quality land, converted pastures, etc.
Biomass produced and used in large scale operations, limiting small
farmers benets.
Large scale global trade and conversion capacity developed in major seaports.
Competition with conventional agriculture for the better quality land, driving
up food prices and increasing pressure on forest resources.
GHG benets overall but sub-optimal due to signicant iLUC effects.
2050 Bioenergy
Storylines
Globally Oriented
Regionally Oriented
Key Preconditions
Key Preconditions
Key Impacts
Key Impacts
35% biomass from residues and wastes, 25% from marginal/degraded lands
and 40% from arable and pasture lands (3 and 1 million km2, respectively).
Moderate energy price (notably oil) due to strong increase of biomass and
biofuels supply.
Food and fuel conicts largely avoided due to strong land-use planning and
alignment of bioenergy production capacity with efciency increases in
agriculture and livestock management.
Soil quality and soil carbon improve and negative biodiversity impacts are
minimised using diverse and mixed cropping systems.
Environment/Social
Figure TS.2.9 | Possible futures for 2050 biomass deployment for energy: Four illustrative contrasting sketches describing key preconditions and impacts following world conditions
typical of the IPCC SRES storylines summarized in Figure TS.2.8. [Figure 2.27]
59
Technical Summary
3.
Direct Solar
3.1
Introduction
Summaries
by rays arriving directly from the sun without being scattered in the
atmosphere. This beam irradiance, which is capable of being concentrated by mirrors and lenses, is most available in low cloud-cover areas.
The remaining irradiance is called the diffuse irradiance. The sum of the
beam and diffuse irradiance is called global solar irradiation. [3.2]
The theoretical solar energy potential, which indicates the amount of
irradiance at the Earths surface (land and ocean) that is theoretically
available for energy purposes, has been estimated at 3.9106 EJ/yr. This
number, clearly intended for illustrative purposes only, would require the
full use of all available land and sea area at 100% conversion efciency.
A more useful metric is the technical potential; this requires assessing
the fraction of land that is of practical use for conversion devices using a
more realistic conversion efciency. Estimates for solar energys technical potential range from 1,575 to 49,837 EJ/yr, that is, roughly 3 to 100
times the worlds primary energy consumption in 2008. [3.2, 3.2.2]
3.3
Direct solar energy technologies are diverse in nature. Responding
to the various ways that humans use energysuch as heating,
electricity, and fuelsthey constitute a family of technologies.
This summary focuses on four major types: 1) solar thermal, which
includes both active and passive heating of buildings, domestic and
commercial solar water heating, swimming pool heating and process heat for industry; 2) photovoltaic (PV) electricity generation
via direct conversion of sunlight to electricity by photovoltaic cells;
3) concentrating solar power (CSP) electricity generation by optical
concentration of solar energy to obtain high-temperature uids or
materials to drive heat engines and electrical generators; and 4)
solar fuels production methods, which use solar energy to produce
useful fuels. [3.1]
The term direct solar energy refers to the energy base for those RE
technologies that draw on the Suns energy directly. Certain renewable technologies, such as wind and ocean thermal, use solar energy
after it has been absorbed on the Earth and converted to other
forms. (In the remainder of this section, the adjective direct applied
to solar energy will often be deleted as being understood.) [3.1]
3.2
Resource potential
60
Figure TS.3.1 illustrates the types of passive and active solar technologies
currently in use to capture the Suns energy to provide both residential
energy services and direct electricity. In this summary, only technologies
for active heating and electricity are treated in depth. [3.3.13.3.4]
Solar thermal: The key component in active solar thermal systems is
the solar collector. A at-plate solar collector consists of a blackened
plate with attached conduits, through which passes a uid to be heated.
Flat-plate collectors may be classied as follows: unglazed, which
are suitable for delivering heat at temperatures a few degrees above
ambient temperature; glazed, which have a sheet of glass or other
transparent material placed parallel to the plate and spaced a few centimetres above it, making it suitable for delivering heat at temperatures
of about 30C to 60C; or evacuated, which are similar to glazed, but
the space between the plate and the glass cover is evacuated, making this type of collector suitable for delivering heat at temperatures of
about 50C to 120C. To withstand the vacuum, the plates of an evacuated collector are usually put inside glass tubes, which constitute both
the collectors glazing and its container. In the evacuated type, a special
black coating called a selective surface is put on the plate to help prevent re-emission of the absorbed heat; such coatings are often used on
the non-evacuated glazed type as well. Typical efciencies of solar collectors used in their proper temperature range extend from about 40 to
70% at full sun. [3.3.2.1]
Flat-plate collectors are commonly used to heat water for domestic and
commercial use, but they can also be used in active solar heating to provide comfort heat for buildings. Solar cooling can be obtained by using
solar collectors to provide heat to drive an absorption refrigeration
cycle. Other applications for solar-derived heat are industrial process
heat, agricultural applications such as drying of crops, and for cooking.
Water tanks are the most commonly used items to store heat during
Summaries
Technical Summary
BIPV/T
Roof
Exhaust
Fan
Variable
Speed Fan
q
External
Rolling
Shutter
Solar
Tilted
Slats
Dryer
Air
Inlet
Geothermal
Pump
HRV
Passive
Slab
Light
Shelf
Internal
Rolling
Shutter
DHW
Ventilated
Slab
Blinds
Side-Fin
Anti-Reection Coating
n-Type Semiconductor
Front Contact
Reector
Absorber Tube
Electron (-)
Hole (+)
Solar Field Piping
Recombination
p-Type Semiconductor
Back Contact
Figure TS.3.1 | Selected examples of (top) solar thermal, both passive and active integrated into a building; (bottom left) a photovoltaic device schematic for direct solar to electricity
conversion; and (bottom right) one common type of concentrating solar power technology, a trough collector. [Derived from Figures 3.2, 3.5, 3.7]
61
Technical Summary
Summaries
The application of PV for useful power involves more than just the cells
and modules; the PV system, for example, will often include an inverter
to convert the DC power from the cells to AC power to be compatible
with common networks and devices. For off-grid applications, the system may include storage devices such as batteries. Work is ongoing to
make these devices more reliable, reduce their cost, and extend their
lifetime to be comparable with that of the modules. [3.3.3.4]
The second kind of line-focus system, the linear Fresnel system, uses
long parallel mirror strips as the concentrator, again with a xed linear
receiver. One of the two point-focus systems, the central-receiver (also
called the power tower), uses an array of mirrors (heliostats) on the
ground, each tracking the Sun on two axes so as to focus the Suns
rays at a point on top of a tall tower. The focal point is directed onto a
receiver, which comprises either a xed inverted cavity and/or tubes in
which the heat transfer uid circulates. It can reach higher temperatures
(up to 1,000C) than the line-focus types, which allows the heat engine
to convert (at least theoretically) more of the collected heat to power.
In the second type of point-focus system, the dish concentrator, a single
paraboloidal reector (as opposed to an array of reectors) tracking the
sun on two axes is used for concentration. The dish focuses the solar
rays onto a receiver that is not xed, but moves with the dish, being only
about one dish diameter away. Temperatures on the receiver engine can
reach as high as 900C. In one popular realization of this concept, a
Stirling engine driving an electrical generator is mounted at the focus.
Stirling dish units are relatively small, typically producing 10 to 25 kW,
but they can be aggregated in eld conguration to realize a larger
central station-like power output. [3.3.4]
PV power systems are classied as two major types: off-grid and gridconnected. Grid-connected systems are themselves classied into two
The four different types of CSP plants have relative advantages and
disadvantages. [3.3.4] All four have been built and demonstrated. An
62
Summaries
3.4
3.4.1
for about 14.5%. In the USA and Canada, swimming pool heating is
still the dominant application, with an installed capacity of 12.9 GWth
of unglazed plastic collectors. Notably in 2008, China led the world in
installed capacity of at-plate and evacuated-tube collectors with 88.7
GWth. Europe had 20.9 GWth and Japan 4.4GWth. In Europe, the market
size more than tripled between 2002 and 2008. Despite these gains,
solar thermal still accounts for only a relatively small portion of the
demand for hot water in Europe. For example, in Germany, with the
largest market, about 5% of one- and two-family homes are using solar
thermal energy. One measure of the market penetration is the per capita
annual usage of solar energy. The lead country in this regard is Cyprus,
where the gure is 527 kWth per 1,000 people. Note that there is no
available information on passive solar regarding the status of its market
and its deployment by industry. Consequently, the preceding numbers
refer only to active solar. [3.4.1]
Photovoltaic electricity generation: In 2009, about 7.5 GW of PV systems were installed. That brought the cumulative installed PV capacity
worldwide in 2009 to about 22 GWa capacity able to generate up to
26 TWh (93,600 TJ) per year. More than 90% of this capacity is installed
in three leading markets: the EU with 73% of the total, Japan with
12% and the USA with 8%. Roughly 95% of the PV installed capacity in the OECD countries is grid connected, the remainder being
off-grid. Growth in the top eight PV markets through 2009 is illustrated in Figure TS.3.2. Spain and Germany have seen, by far, the
largest amounts of solar installed in recent years. [3.4.1]
Concentrating solar power: CSP has reached a cumulative
installed capacity of about 0.7GW, with another 1.5 GW under construction. The capacity factors for a number of these CSP plants are
expected to range from 25 to 75%; these can be higher than for
PV because CSP plants contain the opportunity to add thermal storage where there is a commensurate need to overbuild the collector
eld to charge the thermal storage. The lower end of the capacity factor range is for no thermal storage and the upper end is for
up to 15 hours of thermal storage. [3.8.4] The earliest commercial
CSP plants were the Solar Electric Generating Systems in California
important advantage of CSP technologies (except for dishes) is the ability to store thermal energy after it has been collected at the receiver and
before going to the heat engine. Storage media considered include molten salt, pressurized air or steam accumulators (for short-term storage
only), solid ceramic particles, high-temperature, phase-change materials, graphite, and high-temperature concrete. Commercial CSP plants
are being built with thermal storage capacities reaching 15 hours, allowing CSP to offer dispatchable power. [3.3.4]
Technical Summary
10,000
9,000
8,000
Germany
Italy
7,000
Spain
Korea
6,000
Japan
France
5,000
USA
China
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
0
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Figure TS.3.2 | Installed PV capacity for the years 2000 to 2009 in eight markets. [Figure
3.9]
63
Technical Summary
Summaries
3.4.2
10,000
Israel
Jordan
Egypt
8,000
Algeria
Morocco
Tunesia
6,000
Abu Dhabi
Australia
Spain
4,000
USA
2,000
0
1990
2000
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2012
2015
Figure TS.3.3 | Installed and planned concentrated solar power plants by country. [Figure
3.10]
64
Summaries
3.4.3
Impact of policies
3.5
Solar technologies have a number of attributes that allow their advantageous integration into a broader energy system. In this section, only
the integration features unique to solar technologies are summarized.
These include low-capacity energy demand, district heating and other
thermal loads, PV generation characteristics and smoothing effects, and
CSP generation characteristics and grid stabilization. [3.5.13.5.4]
Technical Summary
3.6
3.6.1
Environmental impacts
Apart from its benets in GHG reduction, the use of solar energy can
reduce the release of pollutantssuch as particulates and noxious
gasesfrom the older fossil fuel plants that it replaces. Solar thermal
and PV technologies do not generate any type of solid, liquid or gaseous by-products when producing electricity. The family of solar energy
technologies may create other types of air, water, land and ecosystem
impacts, depending on how they are managed. The PV industry uses
65
Technical Summary
3.6.2
Social impacts
66
Summaries
3.7
Summaries
Technical Summary
250
225
Maximum
75th Percentile
200
Median
25th Percentile
175
Minimum
Single Estimates
150
125
100
75
50
25
0
All Values
Mono-Crystalline Poly-Crystalline
Silicon (m-Si)
Silicon (p-Si)
Amorphous
Silicon (a-Si)
Cadmium
Telluride
(CdTe)
Nano-Crystalline
Dye Sensitized
(DSC)
Concentrator
Ribbon
Silicon
Cadmium
Selenide
Quantum Dot
(QDPV)
1
Estimates:
124
30
56
12
13
2*
References:
26
15
1
*same value
100
75th Percentile
90
Median
80
25th Percentile
Minimum
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
All Values
Trough
Tower
Stirling
Fresnel
Estimates:
42
20
14
References:
13
Figure TS.3.4 | GHG emissions from the life cycles of (top) PV modules and (bottom)
CSP technologies. See Annex II for details of literature search and citations of literature
contributing to the estimates displayed. [Figures 3.14, 3.15]
67
Technical Summary
3.8
Cost trends
Summaries
Although the cost of solar energy varies widely by technology, application, location and other factors, costs have been reduced signicantly
during the past 30 years, and technical advances and supportive public
policies continue to offer the potential for additional cost reductions.
The degree of continued innovation will have a signicant bearing on
the level of solar deployment. [3.7.23.7.5, 3.8.23.8.5]
The LCOE of PV highly depends on the cost of individual system components, with the highest cost share stemming from the PV module.
The LCOE also includes BOS components, cost of labour for installation,
operation and maintenance (O&M) cost, location and capacity factor,
and the applied discount rate. [3.8.3]
The investment costs for solar thermal heating systems vary widely
depending on the complexity of the technology used as well as the market conditions in the country of operation. The costs for an installed
system vary from as low as USD2005 83/m for SWH systems in China
to more than USD2005 1,200/m for certain space-heating systems. The
levelized cost of heat (LCOH) mirrors the wide variation in investment
cost, and depends on an even larger number of variables, including the
particular type of system, investment cost of the system, available solar
irradiance in a particular location, conversion efciency of the system,
operating costs, utilization strategy of the system and the applied discount rate. Based on a standardized methodology outlined in Annex II
and the cost and performance data summarized in Annex III, the LCOH
for solar thermal systems over a large set and range of input parameters has been calculated to vary widely from USD2005 9 to 200/GJ, but
68
The price for PV modules dropped from USD2005 22/W in 1980 to less
than USD2005 1.50/W in 2010. The corresponding historical learning rate
ranges from 11 to 26%, with a median learning rate of 20%. The price in
USD/W for an entire system, including the module, BOS, and installation
costs, has also decreased steadily, reaching numbers as low as USD2005
2.72/W for some thin-lm technologies by 2009. [3.8.3]
The LCOE for PV depends not only on the initial investment; it also takes
into account operation costs and the lifetime of the system components,
local solar irradiation levels and system performance. Based on the
standardized methodology outlined in Annex II and the cost and performance data summarized in Annex III, the recent LCOE for different
types of PV systems has been calculated. It shows a wide variation from
as low as USD2005 0.074/kWh to as high as USD2005 0.92/kWh, depending on a large set and range of input parameters. Narrowing the range
of parameter variations, the LCOE in 2009 for utility-scale PV electricity
generation in regions of high solar irradiance in Europe and the USA
were in the range of about USD2005 0.15/kWh to USD2005 0.4/kWh at a
Summaries
Technical Summary
150
Solar Irradiation: 800 kWh/m/a;
Conversion Efciency/Degree of
Utilization: 35%
140
130
120
110
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
4
10
11
12
13
7% discount rate, but may be lower or higher depending on the available resource and on other framework conditions. Figure TS.3.6 shows a
wide variation of LCOE for PV depending on the type of system, investment cost, discount rates and capacity factors. [1.3.2, 3.8.3, 10.5.1,
Annex II, Annex III]
Costs of electricity generation or LCOE are projected by the IEA to reach
the following in 2020: US cent2005 14.5/kWh to US cent2005 28.6/kWh
for the residential sector and US cent2005 9.5/kWh to US cent2005 19/
kWh for the utility sector under favourable conditions of 2,000 kWh/
kW (equivalent to a 22.8% capacity factor) and less favourable conditions of 1,000 kWh/kW (equivalent to a 11.4% capacity factor),
respectively. The goal of the US Department of Energy is even more
ambitious, with an LCOE goal of US cent2005 5/kWh to US cent2005 10/
kWh, depending on the end user, by 2015. [3.8.3]
CSP electricity generation: CSP electricity systems are a complex
technology operating in a complex resource and nancial environment; so many factors affect the LCOE. The publicized investment
costs of CSP plants are often confused when compared to other
renewable sources, because varying levels of integrated thermal
storage increase the investment, but also improve the annual output and capacity factor of the plant. For large, state-of-the-art trough
plants, current investment costs are estimated to be USD2005 3.82/W
(without storage) to USD2005 7.65/W (with storage) depending on
labour and land costs, technologies, the amount and distribution of
beam irradiance and, above all, the amount of storage and the size of
the solar eld. Performance data for modern CSP plants are limited,
particularly for plants equipped with thermal storage, because new
plants only became operational from 2007 onward. Capacity factors
for early plants without storage were up to 28%. For modern plants
without storage, capacity factors of roughly 20 to 30% are envisioned;
for plants with thermal storage, capacity factors of 30 to 75% may be
achieved. Based on the standardized methodology outlined in Annex
II and the cost and performance data summarized in Annex III, the
LCOE for a solar trough plant with six hours of thermal storage in
2009 over a large set and range of input parameters has been calculated to range from slightly more than US cent2005 10/kWh to about US
cent2005 30/kWh. Restricting the range of discount rates to 10% results
in a somewhat narrower range of about US cent2005 20/kWh to US
cent2005 30/kWh, which is roughly in line with the range of US cent2005
18 to US cent2005 27/kWh available in the literature. Particular cost
69
Technical Summary
Summaries
70
PV (residential rooftop), USD2005 3700
PV (residential rooftop), USD2005 5250
60
50
40
30
20
10
11%
13%
15%
17%
19%
21%
23%
25%
27%
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
11%
13%
15%
17%
19%
21%
23%
25%
27%
Figure TS.3.6 | Levelized cost of PV electricity generation, 20082009: (top) as a function of capacity factor and investment cost*,***; and (bottom) as a function of capacity factor
and discount rate**,***. [Figure 3.19]
Notes: * Discount rate assumed to equal 7%. ** Investment cost for residential rooftop systems assumed at USD 5,500 US/kW, for commercial rooftop systems at USD 5,150, for
utility-scale xed tilt projects at USD 3,650/kW and for utility-scale one-axis projects at USD 4,050/kW. ***Annual O&M cost assumed at USD 41 to 64/kW, lifetime at 25 years.
70
Summaries
Technical Summary
The learning ratio for CSP, excluding the power block, has been estimated
at 10 5%. Specic LCOE goals for the USA are US cent2005 6/kWh to US
cent2005 8/kWh with 6 hours storage by 2015 and US cent2005 50/kWh to
US cent2005 60/kWh with 12 to 17 hours of storage by 2020. The EU is
pursuing similar goals. [3.8.4]
3.9
Potential deployment
3.9.1
3.9.2
Figure TS.3.7 presents the results of more than 150 long-term modelling
scenarios described in Chapter 10. The potential deployment scenarios
vary widelyfrom direct solar energy playing a marginal role in 2050 to
it becoming one of the major sources of energy supply. Although direct
solar energy today provides only a very small fraction of the world energy
supply, it remains undisputed that this energy source has one of the largest potential futures.
Reducing cost is a key issue in making direct solar energy more commercially relevant and in position to claim a larger share of the worldwide
energy market. This can only be achieved if solar technologies costs
are reduced as they move along their learning curves, which depend
4.
Geothermal Energy
4.1
Introduction
Name of Scenario
Year
2009
2015
2020
180
2009
2015
2020
22
180
230
715
780
IEA Roadmaps
N/A
2015
2020
0.7
44
80
12
1,875
98
335
25
105
2,210
108
439
30
225
210
N/A
148
95
71
Technical Summary
Summaries
150
50
N=44
50
40
30
20
10
2020
2030
2050
2020
100
N=123
80
60
40
2050
2030
60
N=59
50
40
30
20
20
10
2020
2030
2050
2020
2030
2050
Figure TS.3.7 | Global solar supply and generation in long-term scenarios (median, 25th to 75th percentile range, and full range of scenario results; colour coding is based on categories of atmospheric CO2 concentration level in 2100; the specic number of scenarios underlying the gure is indicated in the upper right-hand corner). (a) Global solar primary
energy supply; (b) global solar thermal heat generation; (c) global solar PV electricity generation; and (d) global CSP electricity generation. [Figure 3.22]
4.2
Resource potential
The accessible stored heat from hot dry rocks in the Earth is estimated to
range from 110 to 403 x 106 EJ down to 10 km depth, 56 to 140 x 106 EJ
down to 5 km depth, and around 34 x 106 EJ down to 3 km depth. Using previous estimates for hydrothermal resources and calculations for enhanced
(or engineered) geothermal systems derived from stored heat estimates at
72
Summaries
Technical Summary
Electricity
4.3
Thermal
1200
1000
800
600
400
Max
200
Electric power from geothermal energy is especially suitable for supplying base-load power, but also can be dispatched and used to meet peak
demand. Hence, geothermal electric power can complement variable
electricity generation. [4.3]
Min
0
10
Direct Uses
Depth [km]
Figure TS.4.1 | Geothermal technical potentials for electricity and direct uses (heat). Direct
uses usually do not require development to depths greater than about three km. [Figure 4.2]
potentials for each country, and then countries are grouped regionally.
Thus, the present disaggregation of global technical potential is based
on factors accounting for regional variations in the average geothermal
gradient and the presence of either a diffuse geothermal anomaly or a
high-temperature region associated with volcanism or plate boundaries. The separation into electric and thermal (direct uses) potentials is
somewhat arbitrary in that most higher-temperature resources could be
used for either, or both, in CHP applications depending on local market
conditions. [4.2.2]
The heat extracted to achieve the technical potentials can be fully or
partially replenished over the long term by the continental terrestrial
heat ow of 315 EJ/yr at an average ux of 65 mW/m2. [4.2.1]
Table TS.4.1 | Geothermal technical potentials on continents for the IEA regions. [Table 4.3]
Electric technical potential (EJ/yr) at depths to:
1
3 km
REGION
5 km
10 km
Lower
Upper
Lower
Upper
Lower
Upper
Lower
Upper
25.6
31.8
38.0
91.9
69.3
241.9
2.1
68.1
Latin America
15.5
19.3
23.0
55.7
42.0
146.5
1.3
41.3
OECD Europe
6.0
7.5
8.9
21.6
16.3
56.8
0.5
16.0
Africa
16.8
20.8
24.8
60.0
45.3
158.0
1.4
44.5
Transition Economies
19.5
24.3
29.0
70.0
52.8
184.4
1.6
51.9
Middle East
3.7
4.6
5.5
13.4
10.1
35.2
0.3
9.9
Developing Asia
22.9
28.5
34.2
82.4
62.1
216.9
1.8
61.0
OECD Pacic
7.3
9.1
10.8
26.2
19.7
68.9
0.6
19.4
117.5
145.9
174.3
421.0
317.5
1,108.6
9.5
312.2
Total
Note: 1. For regional denitions and country groupings see Annex II.
73
Technical Summary
Summaries
(a)
Vapour Dominated
Geothermal System
4.4
74
Hot Spring
Geyser
Impermeable
Rocks
Liquid Dominated
Geothermal System
Permeable
Rocks
Natural
Fracture
or Joint
Conned
Permeable
Reservoir
Impermeable Rocks
Heat Source
In 2009, the main types (and relative percentages) of direct geothermal applications in annual energy use were: space heating of buildings
(63%), bathing and balneology (25%), horticulture (greenhouses and
soil heating) (5%), industrial process heat and agricultural drying (3%),
aquaculture (sh farming) (3%) and snow melting (1%). [4.4.3]
For geothermal to reach its full capacity in climate change mitigation
it is necessary to overcome technical and non-technical barriers. Policy
measures specic to geothermal technology can help overcome these
barriers. [4.4.4]
4.5
Summaries
Technical Summary
(b)
Heat
Exchanger
Cooling
Unit
Rechange
Reservoir
ORC or
Kalina
Cycle
Reservoir
Monitoring
Power
District
Heating
Monitoring
Well
Monitoring
Well
Produ
uction
Production
Wells
3 km to 10 km
Injjection
Injection
We
ell
Well
Enhanced
Reservoir
.5
1
5-
km
~0
75
3,750
Summaries
Total: 10,715 MW
3,500
3,250
3,094
3,000
2,750
2,500
2,250
1,904
Technical Summary
2,000
1,750
1,197
1,500
1,250
40
60
50
70
80
90
100
110
1,000
150
[mW/m2]
750
500
Australia
Thailand
Austria
Germany
Ethiopia
France
China
Portugal
Guatemala
Papua-N.G.
Russia
Turkey
Nicaragua
Costa Rica
Kenya
El Salvador
Japan
Iceland
N. Zealand
Italy
Mexico
Indonesia
Philippines
United States
250
Figure TS.4.3 | Geothermal electric installed capacity by country in 2009. Figure shows worldwide average heat ow in mW/m2 and tectonic plate boundaries. [Figure 4.5]
between 14 and 202 g/kWhth for district heating systems and GHPs.
[4.5, 4.5.1, 4.5.2]
Geothermal resources may also have signicant environmental advantages compared to the energy use they otherwise offset. [4.5.1]
76
Summaries
4.6
Technical Summary
Currently there are no technologies in use to tap submarine geothermal resources, but in theory electrical energy could be produced directly
from a hydrothermal vent. [4.6.4]
4.7
Cost trends
77
Technical Summary
Summaries
(b)
Levelized Cost of Energy [UScent2005 /kWh]
(a)
Geothermal (Condensing-Flash), USD2005 1,800
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
0
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
Figure TS.4.4 | Levelized cost of geothermal power, 2008: a) as a function of capacity factor and cost*,***; and b) as a function of capacity factor and discount rate**,***. [Figure 4.8]
Notes: * Discount rate assumed to equal 7%. ** Investment cost for condensing ash plants assumed at USD 2,700/kW and for binary-cycle plants at USD 3,650/kW. ***Annual
O&M cost assumed to be USD 170/kW and lifetime 27.5 years.
factor of 0.40 to 0.70, which improves the economics. Industrial applications vary from large food, timber and mineral drying plants (USA
and New Zealand) to pulp and paper plants (New Zealand). [4.7.6]
4.8
Potential deployment
Geothermal energy can contribute to near- and long-term carbon emissions reduction. In 2008, global geothermal energy use represented only
about 0.1% of the global primary energy supply. However, by 2050, geothermal could meet roughly 3% of the global electricity demand and 5%
of the global demand for heating and cooling. [4.8]
The LCOH for direct-use projects has a wide range, depending upon
specic use, temperature and ow rate required, associated O&M and
labour costs, and output of the produced product. In addition, costs
for new construction are usually less than costs for retrotting older
structures. The cost gures given in Table TS.4.2 are based on a climate
typical of the northern half of the USA or Europe. Heating loads would
be higher for more northerly climates such as Iceland, Scandinavia and
Russia. Most gures are based on cost in the USA, but would be similar
in developed countries and lower in developing countries. [4.7.6]
78
Summaries
Technical Summary
Table TS.4.2 | Investment costs and calculated levelized cost of heat (LCOH) for several direct geothermal applications. [Table 4.8]
Heat application
3%
7%
10%
2050
2465
2877
1,6003,940
5701,570
1224
1431
1538
Greenhouses
5001,000
7.713
8.614
9.316
50100
8.511
8.612
8.612
9403,750
1442
1756
1968
Table TS.4.3 | Regional current and forecast installed capacity for geothermal power and direct uses (heat) and forecast generation of electricity and heat by 2015. [Table 4.9]
Current capacity (2010)
REGION1
Direct (GWth )
Electric (GWe )
Direct (GWth )
Electric (GWe )
Direct (TWth )
Electric (TWhe )
13.9
4.1
27.5
6.5
72.3
43.1
Latin America
0.8
0.5
1.1
1.1
2.9
7.2
OECD Europe
20.4
1.6
32.8
2.1
86.1
13.9
Africa
0.1
0.2
2.2
0.6
5.8
3.8
Transition Economies
1.1
0.1
1.6
0.2
4.3
1.3
Middle East
2.4
2.8
7.3
Developing Asia
9.2
3.2
14.0
6.1
36.7
40.4
OECD Pacic
TOTAL
2.8
1.2
3.3
1.8
8.7
11.9
50.6
10.7
85.2
18.5
224.0
121.6
Notes: 1. For regional denitions and country groupings see Annex II. Estimated average annual growth rate for 2010 to 2015 is 11.5% for power and 11% for direct uses. Average
worldwide capacity factors of 75% (for electric) and 30% (for direct use) were assumed by 2015.
Table TS.4.4 | Potential geothermal deployments for electricity and direct uses in 2020 through 2050. [Table 4.10]
Year
Capacity1 (GW)
Generation (TWh/yr)
Generation (EJ/yr)
Electricity
25.9
181.8
0.65
Direct
143.6
377.5
1.36
Electricity
51.0
380.0
1.37
Direct
407.8
1,071.7
3.86
Use
2020
Total (EJ/yr)
2.01
2030
5.23
Electricity
150.0
1,182.8
4.26
Direct
800.0
2,102.3
7.57
2050
11.83
Notes: 1. Installed capacities for 2020 and 2030 are extrapolated from 2015 estimates using a 7% annual growth rate for electricity and 11% for direct uses, and for 2050 are the
middle value between projections cited in Chapter 4. Generation was estimated with average worldwide capacity factors of 80% (2020), 85% (2030) and 90% (2050) for electricity
and of 30% for direct uses.
on the AR4 baselines (>600 ppm CO2), 440 to 600 ppm (Categories III
and IV) and <440 ppm (Categories I and II), range from 0.39 to 0.71 EJ/
yr for 2020, 0.22 to 1.28 EJ/yr for 2030 and 1.16 to 3.85 EJ/yr for 2050.
Carbon policy is likely to be one of the main driving factors for future
geothermal development, and under the most favourable GHG concentration stabilization policy (<440 ppm), geothermal deployment by
2020, 2030 and 2050 could be signicantly higher than the median
values noted above. By projecting the historic average annual growth
rates of geothermal power plants (7%) and direct uses (11%) from
the estimates for 2015, the installed geothermal capacity in 2020 and
2030 for electricity and direct uses could be as shown in Table TS.4.4.
Even the highest estimates for the long-term contribution of geothermal energy to the global primary energy supply (52.5 EJ/yr by 2050)
are within the technical potential ranges (118 to 1,109 EJ/yr for electricity and 10 to 312 EJ/yr for direct uses) and even within the upper
range of hydrothermal resources (28.4 to 56.8 EJ/yr). Thus, technical
potential is not likely to be a barrier to reaching more ambitious levels
of geothermal deployment (electricity and direct uses), at least on a
global basis. [4.8.2]
79
Technical Summary
5.
Summaries
Hydropower
5.3
5.1
Introduction
5.2
Resource potential
80
Summaries
Technical Summary
North America
388 1659
GW TWh/yr
Latin America
61%*
608 2856
GW TWh/yr
74%*
Europe
338 1021
GW TWh/yr
Africa
47%*
283 1174
GW TWh/yr
92%*
Asia
2037 7681
GW TWh/yr
80%*
Australasia/
Oceania
67
185
GW TWh/yr
80%*
World Hydropower
Technical Potential:
14,576 TWh/yr
Technical Potential
Capacity [GW]
Generation [TWh/yr]
Installed [%]
*Undeveloped [%]
Figure TS.5.1 | Regional hydropower technical potential in terms of annual generation and installed capacity and the percentage of undeveloped technical potential in 2009. [Figure 5.2]
Table TS.5.1 | Regional hydro power technical potential in terms of annual generation and installed capacity (GW); and current generation, installed capacity, average capacity
factors and resulting undeveloped potential as of 2009. [Table 5.1]
Technical potential,
annual generation
TWh/yr (EJ/yr)
Technical potential,
installed capacity
(GW)
2009
Total generation
TWh/yr (EJ/yr)
2009
Installed capacity
(GW)
Undeveloped
potential
(%)
Average regional
capacity factor
(%)
North America
1,659 (5.971)
388
628 (2.261)
153
61
47
Latin America
2,856 (10.283)
608
732 (2.635)
156
74
54
Europe
1,021 (3.675)
338
542 (1.951)
179
47
35
Africa
1,174 (4.226)
283
98 (0.351)
23
92
47
Asia
7,681 (27.651)
2,037
1,514 (5.451)
402
80
43
185 (0.666)
67
37 (0.134)
13
80
32
14,576 (52.470)
3,721
3,551 (12.783)
926
75
44
World region
Australasia/Oceania
World
81
Technical Summary
5.4
82
Summaries
5.5
Summaries
Technical Summary
5.6
83
Technical Summary
5.7
84
Summaries
possible and continued research is needed to make more efcient operation possible over a broader range of ows. Older turbines can have
lower efciency by design or reduced efciency due to corrosion and
cavitation. There is therefore the potential to increase energy output
by retrotting with new higher efciency equipment and usually also
with increased capacity. Most of the existing electrical and mechanical
equipment in operation today will need to be modernized during the
next three decades, allowing for improved efciency and higher power
and energy output. Typically, generating equipment can be upgraded
or replaced with more technologically advanced electro-mechanical
equipment two or three times during the lifetime of the project, making
more effective use of the same ow of water. [5.7]
There is much ongoing technology innovation and material research
aiming to extend the operational range in terms of head and discharge,
and also to improve environmental performance, reliability and reduce
costs. Some of the promising technologies under development are
variable-speed and matrix technologies, sh-friendly turbines, hydrokinetic turbines, abrasive-resistant turbines, and new tunnelling and
dam technologies. New technologies aiming at utilizing low (<15 m)
or very low (<5 m) head may open up many sites for hydropower that
have not been within reach of conventional technology. As most of the
data available on hydropower potential are based on eld work produced several decades ago, when low-head hydropower was not a high
priority, existing data on low-head hydropower potential may not be
complete. Finally, there is a signicant potential for improving operation of HPPs by utilizing new methods for optimizing plant operation.
[5.7.15.7.8]
5.8
Cost trends
Summaries
Technical Summary
200
160
180
Maximum
75th Percentile
140
Median
120
160
25th Percentile
Minimum
100
140
80
60
120
40
100
20
0
80
LUC-Related
Emissions
Reservoir
Estimates:
References:
60
16
7
LUC-Related
Emissions
Decommissioning
All Other
Lifecycle Emissions
3
2
16
7
40
20
Estimates:
References:
All Values
Reservoir
Run-of-River
Pumped Storage
27
11
18
9
8
2
1
1
Figure TS.5.2 | Life-cycle GHG emissions of hydropower technologies (unmodied literature values, after quality screen). See Annex I for details of literature search and citations of
literature contributing to the estimates displayed. Surface emissions from reservoirs are referred to as gross GHG emissions. [Figure 5.15]
85
Technical Summary
Average CF in
Europe: 35%
Average CF
in Asia: 43%
Average CF
in Africa & North
America: 47%
Average CF in
Latin America: 54%
12
11
Hydro, USD2005 3,000
Hydro, USD2005 2,000
Hydro, USD2005 1,000
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
Average CF in
Australasia/
Oceania: 32%
Summaries
12
11
Hydro, Discount Rate = 10%
Hydro, Discount Rate = 7%
Hydro, Discount Rate = 3%
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
1
0
0
30
32
34
36
38
40
42
44
46
48
50
52
54
56 58 60
Capacity Factor [%]
30
32
34
36
38
40
42
44
46
48
50
52
54 56 58 60
Capacity Factor [%]
Figure TS.5.3 | Recent and near-term estimated levelized cost of hydropower (a) as a function of capacity factor and investment cost*, ***; and (b) as a function of capacity factor
and discount rate**,***. [Figure 5.20]
Notes: * Discount rate is assumed to equal 7%. ** Investment cost is assumed to be USD 2,000/kW. *** Annual O&M cost is assumed at 2.5%/yr of investment cost and plant
lifetime as 60 years.
5.9
Potential deployment
Hydropower offers a signicant potential for near- and long-term carbon emissions reduction. On a global basis, the hydropower resource is
unlikely to constrain further development in the near to medium term,
though environmental and social concerns may limit deployment opportunities if not carefully managed. [5.9]
So far, only 25% of the hydropower potential has been developed across
the world (that is, 3,551 TWh out of 14,575 TWh) (12.78 EJ out of 52.47
EJ). The different long-term prospective scenarios propose a continuous
increase for the next decades. The increase in hydropower capacity over
the last 10 years is expected by several studies to continue in the near to
medium term: from 926 GW in 2009 to between 1,047 and 1,119 GW by
2015; an annual addition ranging from 14 to 25 GW. [5.9, 5.9.1]
The reference-case projections presented in Chapter 10 (based on 164
analyzed longer-term scenarios) show hydropowers role in the global
energy supply covering a broad range, with a median of roughly 13 EJ
86
Summaries
5.10
Water, energy and climate change are inextricably linked. Water availability is crucial for many energy technologies, including hydropower,
while energy is needed to secure water supply for agriculture, industries and households, in particular in water-scarce areas in developing
countries. This close relationship has led to the understanding that the
water-energy nexus must be addressed in a holistic way, in particular
with regard to climate change and sustainable development. Providing
energy and water for sustainable development may require improved
regional and global water governance. As it is often associated with the
creation of water storage facilities, hydropower is at the crossroads of
these issues and can play an important role in enhancing both energy
and water security. [5.10]
Today, about 700 million people live in countries experiencing water stress
or scarcity. By 2035, it is projected that three billion people will be living
in conditions of severe water stress. Many countries with limited water
availability depend on shared water resources, increasing the risk of conict over these scarce resources. Therefore, adaptation to climate change
impacts will become very important in water management. [5.10.1]
In a context where multipurpose hydropower can be a tool to mitigate
both climate change and water scarcity, these projects may have an
enabling role beyond the electricity sector as a nancing instrument for
reservoirs, helping to secure freshwater availability. However, multiple
uses may increase the potential for conicts and reduce energy production during times of low water levels. As major watersheds are shared by
several nations, regional and international cooperation is crucial. Both
intergovernmental agreements and initiatives by international institutions are actively supporting these important processes. [5.10.2, 5.10.3]
6.
Ocean Energy
6.1
Introduction
Ocean energy offers the potential for long-term carbon emissions reduction but is unlikely to make a signicant short-term contribution before
2020 due to its nascent stage of development. The theoretical potential of
7,400 EJ/yr contained in the worlds oceans easily exceeds present human
energy requirements. Government policies are contributing to accelerate
the deployment of ocean energy technologies, heightening expectations
Technical Summary
that rapid progress may be possible. The six main classes of ocean energy
technology offer a diversity of potential development pathways, and most
offer potentially low environmental impacts as currently understood.
There are encouraging signs that the investment cost of ocean energy
technologies and the levelized cost of electricity generated will decline
from their present non-competitive levels as R&D and demonstrations
proceed, and as deployment occurs. Whether these cost reductions are
sufcient to enable broad-scale deployment of ocean energy is the most
critical uncertainty in assessing the future role of ocean energy in mitigating climate change. [6 ES, 6.1]
6.2
Resource potential
87
Technical Summary
Summaries
larger than for other forms of ocean energy. One 2007 study estimates
that about 44,000 TWh/yr (159 EJ/yr) of steady-state power may be possible. [6.2.5]
Salinity gradients (osmotic power) derived from salinity differences
between fresh and ocean water at river mouths. The theoretical potential
of salinity gradients is estimated at 1,650 TWh/yr (6 EJ/yr). [6.2.6]
Figure TS.6.1 provides examples of how selected ocean energy resources
are distributed across the globe. Some ocean energy resources, such as
ocean currents or power from salinity gradients, are globally distributed. Ocean thermal energy is principally located in the Tropics around
the equatorial latitudes (latitudes 0 to 35), whilst the highest annual
wave power occurs between latitudes of 30 to 60. Wave power in the
southern hemisphere undergoes smaller seasonal variation than in the
northern hemisphere. Ocean currents, ocean thermal energy, salinity
gradients and, to some extent, wave energy are consistent enough to
generate base-load power. Given the early state of the available literature
and the substantial uncertainty in ocean energys technical potential, the
estimates for technical ocean energy potential vary widely. [6.2.16.2.6]
(a)
Mean Power
kW/m
125
115
105
95
85
75
65
55
45
35
25
15
5
(b)
(c)
GOT99.2
NASA/GSFC
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
cm
16
18
20
22
6/99
Figure TS.6.1a-c | Global distribution of various ocean energy resources: (a) Wave power; (b) Tidal range, (c) Ocean thermal energy. [Figures 6.1, 6.2, 6.4]
88
24
Summaries
Technical Summary
(d)
N. Atlantic
Drift
Alaska
Oyashio
N. Pacic
N. Atlantic
Drift
N. Pacic
California
Kuroshio
N. Equatorial
N. Equatorial
N. Equatorial
Equatorial Counter
Equatorial Counter
Equatorial Counter
Equatorial Counter
S. Equatorial
S. Equatorial
S. Equatorial
Benguela
Peru
W. Australia
Brazil
Antarctic Subpolar
S. Equatorial
E. Australia
Agulhas
S. Indian
S. Atlantic
S. Pacic
Antarctic Circumpolar
N. Equatorial
Antarctic Circumpolar
S. Pacic
Antarctic Circumpolar
Antarctic Subpolar
Figure TS.6.1d | Global distribution of various ocean energy resources: (d) Ocean currents. [Figure 6.3]
6.3
tides and some future barrages may have multiple basins to enable
almost continuous generation. The most recent technical concepts are
stand-alone offshore tidal lagoons. [6.3.3]
Technologies to harness power from tidal and ocean currents are also
under development, but tidal energy turbines are more advanced. Some
of the tidal/ocean current energy technologies are similar to mature
wind turbine generators but submarine turbines must also account for
reversing ow, cavitation at blade tips and harsh underwater marine
conditions. Tidal currents tend to be bidirectional, varying with the tidal
cycle, and relatively fast-owing, compared with ocean currents, which
are usually unidirectional and slow-moving but continuous. Converters
are classied by their principle of operation into axial ow turbines,
cross ow turbines and reciprocating devices as presented in Figure
TS.6.3. [6.3.4]
Ocean thermal energy conversion (OTEC) plants use the temperature
differences between warm seawater from the ocean surface and cool
seawater from depth (1,000 m is often used as a reference level) to
produce electricity. Open-cycle OTEC systems use seawater directly
as the circulating uid, whilst closed-cycle systems use heat exchangers and a secondary working uid (most commonly ammonia) to drive
a turbine. Hybrid systems use both open- and closed-cycle operation.
Although there have been trials of OTEC technologies, problems have
been encountered with maintenance of vacuums, heat exchanger biofouling and corrosion issues. Current research is focused on overcoming
these problems. [6.3.5]
89
Technical Summary
Summaries
Air Flow
In-Take
Electric
Generator
Rotor
Wave
Crest
Wave
Trough
Rising
Water
Column
Falling Water
Column
Figure TS.6.2a/b | Type of wave energy converter and its operation: oscillating water column device. [Figure 6.6] (design by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL))
Reservoir
Overtopping
Stationary
Center
Spar
Float
Turbine
Upward
Motion
Turbine Outlet
Downward
Motion
Cable
Mooring
Figure TS.6.2c/d | Wave energy converters and their operation: (left) oscillating body
device; and (right) overtopping device. [Figure 6.6] (design by the National Renewable
Energy Laboratory (NREL))
The salinity gradient between freshwater from rivers and seawater can be
utilized as a source of power with at least two concepts under development. The reversed electro dialysis (RED) process is a concept in which
the difference in chemical potential between the two solutions is the driving force (Figure TS.6.4). The pressure-retarded osmosis, or osmotic power
process, utilizes the concept of naturally occurring osmosis, a hydraulic
pressure potential, caused by the tendency of freshwater to mix with seawater due to the difference in salt concentration (Figure TS.6.5). [6.3.6]
90
6.4
R&D projects on wave and tidal current energy technologies have proliferated over the past two decades, with some now reaching the full-scale
pre-commercial prototype stage. Presently, the only full-size and operational ocean energy technology available is the tidal barrage, of which
the best example is the 240 MW La Rance Barrage in north-western
France, completed in 1966. The 254 MW Sihwa Barrage (South Korea) is
due to become operational in 2011. Technologies to develop other ocean
energy sources including OTEC, salinity gradients and ocean currents are
still at the conceptual, R&D or early prototype stages. Currently, more
than 100 different ocean energy technologies are under development in
over 30 countries. [6.4.1]
The principal investors in ocean energy R&D and deployments are
national, federal and state governments, followed by major energy utilities and investment companies. National and regional governments are
Summaries
Technical Summary
Generator
Tidal
Stream
Rotation
Generator
number of national marine energy testing centres and these are becoming foci for device testing, certication and advanced R&D. [6.4.1.2]
The status of industry development can be assessed by the current and
recent deployments of ocean energy systems.
Tidal
Stream
Rotation
Figure TS.6.3 | Tidal current energy converters and their operation: (Top left) twin turbine
horizontal axis device; (Bottom left) cross-ow device; and (Top right) vertical axis device.
[Figure 6.8]
91
Technical Summary
Summaries
Sea Water
C
CEM
AEM
CEM
C
AEM
CEM
C
AEM
CEM
C
Fe3+
Fe2+
Cl
Cl
Cl
eNa+
Na+
N
Na+
N
Na+
N
Fe2+
Fe3+
Cathode
Anode
River Water
92
6.5
Ocean energy does not directly emit CO2 during operation; however,
GHG emissions may arise from different aspects of the lifecycle of
ocean energy systems, including raw material extraction, component
manufacturing, construction, maintenance and decommissioning.
A comprehensive review of lifecycle assessment studies published
since 1980 suggests that lifecycle GHG emissions from wave and tidal
energy systems are less than 23 g CO2eq/kWh, with a median estimate of lifecycle GHG emissions of around 8 g CO2eq/kWh for wave
energy. Insufcient studies are available to estimate lifecycle emissions from the other classes of ocean energy technology. Regardless,
in comparison to fossil energy generation technologies, the lifecycle
GHG emissions from ocean energy devices appear low. [6.5.1]
The local social and environmental impacts of ocean energy projects are being evaluated as actual deployments multiply, but can be
estimated based on the experience of other maritime and offshore
Summaries
Technical Summary
Brackish Water
Pressure
Exchanger
Pump
Water
Filter
Membrane Modules
Power
Turbine
Sea Water
Brackish Water
Pump
Pump
Water
Filter
Freshwater
Bleed
Freshwater
Each ocean power technology has its own specic set of environmental and social impacts. Possible positive effects from ocean energy
may include avoidance of adverse effects on marine life by virtue of
reducing other human activities in the area around the ocean devices,
and the strengthening of energy supply and regional economic
growth, employment and tourism. Negative effects may include a
reduction in visual amenity and loss of access to space for competing
users, noise during construction, noise and vibration during operation,
electromagnetic elds, disruption to biota and habitats, water quality changes and possible pollution, for instance from chemical or oil
leaks, and other limited specic impacts on local ecosystems. [6.5.2]
6.7
6.6
Cost trends
Commercial markets are not yet driving marine energy technology development. Government-supported R&D and national policy incentives are
the key motivations. Because none of the ocean energy technologies but
tidal barrages are mature (experience with other technologies is only now
becoming available for validation of demonstration/prototype devices), it
is difcult to accurately assess the economic viability of most ocean energy
technologies. [6.7.1]
Table TS.6.1 shows the best available data for some of the primary cost
factors that affect the levelized cost of electricity by each of the ocean
energy sub-types. In most cases, these cost and performance parameters
are based on sparse information due to the lack of peer-reviewed reference data and actual operating experience, and in many cases therefore
reect estimated cost and performance assumptions based on engineering
knowledge. Present-day investment costs were found in a few instances
but are based on a small sample of projects and studies, which may not be
representative of the entire industry. [6.7.1]
Based on a standardized methodology outlined in Annex II and the cost
and performance data summarized in Annex III, the LCOE for tidal barrages (which is currently the only commercially available ocean energy
technology) over a large set and range of input parameters has been
93
Technical Summary
Summaries
Table TS.6.1 | Summary of core available cost and performance parameters for all ocean energy technology sub-types. [Table 6.3]
Investment Costs
(USD2005 /kW)
Wave
6,20016,100
180
2540
20
Tidal Range
4,5005,000
100
22.528.5
40
Tidal Current
5,40014,300
140
2640
20
Ocean Current
N/A
N/A
N/A
20
Ocean Thermal
4,20012,3001
N/A
N/A
20
N/A
N/A
N/A
20
Salinity Gradient
Design Life
(years)
Note: 1. Cost gures for ocean thermal energy have not been converted to 2005 USD.
6.8
Potential deployment
Until about 2008, ocean energy was not considered in any of the
major global energy scenario modelling activities and therefore its
potential impact on future world energy supplies and climate change
mitigation is just now beginning to be investigated. As such, the
results of the published scenarios literature as they relate to ocean
energy are sparse and preliminary, reecting a wide range of possible
Table TS.6.2 | Main characteristics of medium- to long-term scenarios from major published studies that include ocean energy. [Table 6.5]
Deployment TWh/yr (PJ/yr)
Scenario
GW
2010
2020
2030
2050
2050
N/A
3
(10.8)
11
(36.6)
25
(90)
N/A
No policy changes
Energy [R]evolution
N/A
53
(191)
128
(461)
678
(2,440)
303
N/A
119
(428)
420
(1,512)
1,943
(6,994)
748
WEO 2009
N/A
3
(10.8)
13
(46.8)
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
133
(479)
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
274
(986)
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
99
(356)
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
552
(1,987)
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
401
(1,444)
N/A
94
Notes
Summaries
7.
Wind Energy
7.1
Introduction
Wind energy has been used for millennia in a wide range of applications. The use of wind energy to generate electricity on a commercial
scale, however, became viable only in the 1970s as a result of technical
advances and government support. A number of different wind energy
technologies are available across a range of applications, but the primary use of wind energy of relevance to climate change mitigation is to
generate electricity from larger, grid-connected wind turbines, deployed
either on land (onshore) or in sea- or freshwater (offshore).11 [7.1]
Wind energy offers signicant potential for near-term (2020) and
long-term (2050) GHG emissions reductions. The wind power capacity installed by the end of 2009 was capable of meeting roughly 1.8%
of worldwide electricity demand, and that contribution could grow
to in excess of 20% by 2050 if ambitious efforts are made to reduce
GHG emissions and to address other impediments to increased wind
energy deployment. Onshore wind energy is already being deployed at
a rapid pace in many countries, and no insurmountable technical barriers exist that preclude increased levels of wind energy penetration
into electricity supply systems. Moreover, though average wind speeds
vary considerably by location, ample technical potential exists in most
regions of the world to enable signicant wind energy deployment. In
some areas with good wind resources, the cost of wind energy is already
competitive with current energy market prices, even without considering relative environmental impacts. Nonetheless, in most regions of the
world, policy measures are still required to ensure rapid deployment.
Continued advancements in on- and offshore wind energy technology
are expected, however, further reducing the cost of wind energy and
improving wind energys GHG emissions reduction potential. [7.9]
11 Smaller wind turbines, higher-altitude wind electricity, and the use of wind energy in
mechanical and propulsion applications are only briey discussed in Chapter 7.
Technical Summary
7.2
Resource potential
The global technical potential for wind energy is not xed, but is instead
related to the status of the technology and assumptions made regarding
other constraints to wind energy development. Nonetheless, a growing
number of global wind resource assessments have demonstrated that
the worlds technical potential exceeds current global electricity production. [7.2]
No standardized approach has been developed to estimate the global
technical potential of wind energy: the diversity in data, methods,
assumptions, and even denitions for technical potential complicate
comparisons. The AR4 identied the technical potential for onshore
wind energy as 180 EJ/yr (50,000 TWh/yr). Other estimates of the
global technical potential for wind energy that consider relatively more
development constraints range from a low of 70 EJ/yr (19,400 TWh/
yr) (onshore only) to a high of 450 EJ/yr (125,000 TWh/yr) (on- and
near-shore). This range corresponds to roughly one to six times global
electricity production in 2008, and may understate the technical potential due to several of the studies relying on outdated assumptions, the
exclusion or only partial inclusion of offshore wind energy in some of
the studies, and methodological and computing limitations. Estimates
of the technical potential for offshore wind energy alone range from 15
EJ/yr to 130 EJ/yr (4,000 to 37,000 TWh/yr) when only considering relatively shallower and near-shore applications; greater technical potential
is available if also considering deeper-water applications that might rely
on oating wind turbine designs. [7.2.1]
Regardless of whether existing estimates under- or overstate the technical potential for wind energy, and although further advances in wind
resource assessment methods are needed, it is evident that the technical potential of the resource itself is unlikely to be a limiting factor for
global wind energy deployment. Instead, economic constraints associated with the cost of wind energy, institutional constraints and costs
associated with transmission access and operational integration, and
issues associated with social acceptance and environmental impacts are
likely to restrict growth well before any absolute limit to the global technical potential is encountered. [7.2.1]
In addition, ample technical potential exists in most regions of the world
to enable signicant wind energy deployment. The wind resource is not
evenly distributed across the globe nor uniformly located near population centres, however, and wind energy will therefore not contribute
equally in meeting the needs of every country. The technical potentials
for onshore wind energy in OECD North America and Eastern Europe/
Eurasia are found to be particularly sizable, whereas some areas of
non-OECD Asia and OECD Europe appear to have more limited onshore
technical potential. Figure TS.7.1, a global wind resource map, also
shows limited technical potential in certain areas of Latin America
and Africa, though other portions of those continents have signicant
95
Technical Summary
Summaries
7.3
Figure TS.7.1 | Example global wind resource map with 5 km x 5 km resolution. [Figure 7.1]
technical potential. Recent, detailed regional assessments have generally found the size of the wind resource to be greater than estimated in
previous assessments. [7.2.2]
320
250m
20,000kW
300
280
260
Future Wind
Turbines
150m
10,000kW
240
220
125m
5,000kW
200
180
100m
3,000kW
160
140
120
100
80m
1,800kW
50m
750kW
80
60
40
70m
1,500kW
17m
75kW
30m
300kW
20
0
1980- 19901990 1995
19952000
20002005
20052010
2010-?
Figure TS.7.2 | Growth in size of typical commercial wind turbines. [Figure 7.6]
96
2010-?
Future
Future
Summaries
Technical Summary
with rotor diameters and tower heights in excess of 125 m are operating, and even larger machines are under development. Onshore wind
energy technology is already being commercially manufactured and
deployed at a large scale. [7.3.1]
7.4
In both Europe and the USA, wind energy represents a major new
source of electric capacity additions. In 2009, roughly 39% of all
capacity additions in the USA and the EU came from wind energy;
in China, 16% of the net capacity additions in 2009 came from wind
energy. On a global basis, from 2000 through 2009, roughly 11% of
all newly installed net electric capacity additions came from new wind
power plants; in 2009 alone, that gure was probably more than 20%.
As a result, a number of countries are beginning to achieve relatively
high levels of annual wind electricity penetration in their respective electric systems. By the end of 2009, wind power capacity was
capable of supplying electricity equal to roughly 20% of Denmarks
annual electricity demand, 14% of Portugals, 14% of Spains, 11% of
Irelands and 8% of Germanys. [7.4.2]
Despite these trends, wind energy remains a relatively small fraction of
worldwide electricity supply. The total wind power capacity installed
by the end of 2009 would, in an average year, meet roughly 1.8%
of worldwide electricity demand. Additionally, though the trend over
time has been for the wind energy industry to become less reliant on
European markets, with signicant recent expansion in the USA and
China, the market remains concentrated regionally: Latin America,
Africa and the Middle East, and the Pacic regions have installed relatively little wind power capacity despite signicant technical potential
for wind energy in each region (Figure TS.7.3). [7.4.1, 7.4.2]
The deployment of wind energy must overcome a number of challenges, including: the relative cost of wind energy compared to energy
market prices, at least if environmental impacts are not internalized
and monetized; concerns about the impact of wind energys variability; challenges of building new transmission; cumbersome and slow
planning, siting and permitting procedures; the technical advancement needs and higher cost of offshore wind energy technology; and
lack of institutional and technical knowledge in regions that have
not yet experienced substantial wind energy deployment. As a result,
growth is affected by a wide range of government policies. [7.4.4]
97
Technical Summary
Summaries
16
14
2006
2007
12
2008
2009
10
8
6
4
2
0
Europe
North America
Asia
Latin America
Africa &
Middle East
Pacic
Figure TS.7.3 | Annual wind power capacity additions by region. [Figure 7.10]
Note: Regions shown in the gure are dened by the study.
7.5
98
are common for many other types of power plants. The aggregate variability and uncertainty of wind power output depends, in part, on the
degree of correlation between the output of different geographically
dispersed wind power plants: generally, the outputs of wind power
plants that are farther apart are less correlated with each other, and
variability over shorter time periods (minutes) is less correlated than
variability over longer time periods (multiple hours). Forecasts of wind
power output are also more accurate over shorter time periods, and
when multiple plants are considered together. [7.5.2]
Detailed system planning for new generation and transmission
infrastructure is used to ensure that the electric system can be operated reliably and economically in the future. To do so, planners need
computer-based simulation models that accurately characterize wind
energy. Additionally, as wind power capacity has increased, so has
the need for wind power plants to become more active participants in
maintaining the operability and power quality of the electric system,
and technical standards for grid connection have been implemented
to help prevent wind power plants from adversely affecting the electric system during normal operation and contingencies. Transmission
adequacy evaluations, meanwhile, must account for the location dependence of the wind resource, and consider any trade-offs between the
costs of expanding the transmission system to access higher-quality
wind resources in comparison to the costs of accessing lower-quality
wind resources that require less transmission investment. Even at low
to medium levels of wind electricity penetration, the addition of large
quantities of on- or offshore wind energy in areas with higher-quality
wind resources may require signicant new additions or upgrades to the
transmission system. Depending on the legal and regulatory framework
in any particular region, the institutional challenges of transmission
expansion can be substantial. Finally, planners need to account for wind
Summaries
Technical Summary
7.6
99
Technical Summary
output has not been found to signicantly degrade the GHG emissions
benets of wind energy. [7.6.1]
Other studies have considered the local ecological impacts of wind
energy development. The construction and operation of both on- and
offshore wind power plants impacts wildlife through bird and bat collisions and through habitat and ecosystem modications, with the nature
and magnitude of those impacts being site- and species-specic. For
offshore wind energy, implications for benthic resources, sheries and
marine life more generally must be considered. Research is also underway on the potential impact of wind power plants on the local climate.
Bird and bat fatalities through collisions with wind turbines are among
the most publicized environmental concerns. Though much remains
unknown about the nature and population-level implications of these
impacts, avian fatality rates have been reported at between 0.95 and
11.67 per MW per year. Raptor fatalities, though much lower in absolute
number, have raised special concerns in some cases, and as offshore
wind energy has increased, concerns have also been raised about seabirds. Bat fatalities have not been researched as extensively, but fatality
rates ranging from 0.2 to 53.3 per MW per year have been reported; the
impact of wind power plants on bat populations is of particular contemporary concern. The magnitude and population-level consequences
of bird and bat collision fatalities can also be viewed in the context of
other fatalities caused by human activities. The number of bird fatalities
at existing wind power plants appears to be orders of magnitude lower
than other anthropogenic causes of bird deaths, it has been suggested
that onshore wind power plants are not currently causing meaningful declines in bird population levels, and other energy supply options
also impact birds and bats through collisions, habitat modications and
contributions to global climate change. Improved methods to assess
species-specic population-level impacts and their possible mitigation
are needed, as are robust comparisons between the impacts of wind
energy and of other electricity supply options. [7.6.2]
Summaries
decision makers. To that end, in addition to ecological concerns, a number of concerns are often raised about the impacts of wind power plants
on local communities. Perhaps most importantly, modern wind energy
technology involves large structures, so wind turbines are unavoidably
visible in the landscape. Other impacts of concern include land and
marine usage (including possible radar interference), proximal impacts
such as noise and icker, and property value impacts. Regardless of the
type and degree of social and environmental concerns, addressing them
is an essential part of any successful wind power planning and plant
siting process, and engaging local residents is often an integral aspect
of that process. Though some of the concerns can be readily mitigated,
otherssuch as visual impactsare more difcult to address. Efforts to
better understand the nature and magnitude of the remaining impacts,
together with efforts to minimize and mitigate those impacts, will need
to be pursued in concert with increasing wind energy deployment. In
practice, planning and siting regulations vary dramatically by jurisdiction, and planning and siting processes have been obstacles to wind
energy development in some countries and contexts. [7.6.3]
7.7
Over the past three decades, innovation in wind turbine design has led
to signicant cost reductions. Public and private R&D programmes have
played a major role in these technical advances, leading to system- and
component-level technology improvements, as well as improvements in
resource assessment, technical standards, electric system integration,
wind energy forecasting and other areas. From 1974 to 2006, government R&D budgets for wind energy in IEA countries totalled USD2005
3.8 billion, representing 1% of total energy R&D expenditure. In 2008,
OECD research funding for wind energy totalled USD2005 180 million.
[7.7, 7.7.1]
Wind power plants can also impact habitats and ecosystems through
avoidance of or displacement from an area, habitat destruction and
reduced reproduction. Additionally, the impacts of wind power plants
on marine life have moved into focus as offshore development has
increased. The impacts of offshore wind energy on marine life vary
between the installation, operation and decommissioning phases,
depend greatly on site-specic conditions, and may be negative or
positive. Potential negative impacts include underwater sounds and
vibrations, electromagnetic elds, physical disruption and the establishment of invasive species. The physical structures may, however, create
new breeding grounds or shelters and act as articial reefs or sh
aggregation devices. Additional research is warranted on these impacts
and their long-term and population-level consequences, but they do
not appear to be disproportionately large compared to onshore wind
energy. [7.6.2]
Though onshore wind energy technology is already commercially manufactured and deployed at a large scale, continued incremental advances
are expected to yield improved turbine design procedures, more efcient
materials usage, increased reliability and energy capture, reduced O&M
costs and longer component lifetimes. In addition, as offshore wind
energy gains more attention, new technology challenges arise and more
radical technology innovations are possible. Wind power plants and turbines are complex systems that require integrated design approaches to
optimize cost and performance. At the plant level, considerations include
the selection of a wind turbine for a given wind resource regime; wind
turbine siting, spacing and installation procedures; O&M methodologies; and electric system integration. Studies have identied a number of
areas where technology advances could result in changes in the investment cost, annual energy production, reliability, O&M cost and electric
system integration of wind energy. [7.3.1, 7.7.1, 7.7.2]
100
Summaries
Technical Summary
7.8
Cost trends
Though the cost of wind energy has declined signicantly since the
1980s, policy measures are currently required to ensure rapid deployment in most regions of the world. In some areas with good wind
resources, however, the cost of wind energy is competitive with current
energy market prices, even without considering relative environmental
impacts. Moreover, continued technology advancements are expected,
supporting further cost reduction. [7.8]
The levelized cost of energy from on- and offshore wind power plants is
affected by ve primary factors: annual energy production; investment
costs; O&M costs; nancing costs; and the assumed economic life of
(a)
(b)
Floating Wind Turbine Concepts
Monopile
Tri-Pod
Jacket
Suction Caisson
Buoyancy Stabilized
Barge with Catenary
Mooring Lines
Gravity Base
Figure TS.7.4 | Offshore wind turbine foundation designs: (a) near-term concepts and (b) oating offshore turbine concepts. [Figure 7.19]
101
Technical Summary
Summaries
the power plant.13 From the 1980s to roughly 2004, the investment cost
of onshore wind power plants dropped. From 2004 to 2009, however,
investment costs increased, the primary drivers of which were: escalation in the cost of labour and materials inputs; increasing prot margins
among turbine manufacturers and their suppliers; the relative strength
of the Euro currency; and the increased size of turbine rotors and hub
heights. In 2009, the average investment cost for onshore wind power
plants installed worldwide was approximately USD2005 1,750/kW, with
many plants falling in the range of USD2005 1,400 to 2,100/kW; investment costs in China in 2008 and 2009 were around USD2005 1,000 to
1,350/kW. There is far less experience with offshore wind power plants,
and the investment costs of offshore plants are highly site-specic.
Nonetheless, the investment costs of offshore plants have historically
been 50 to more than 100% higher than for onshore plants; O&M costs
are also greater for offshore plants. Offshore costs have also been inuenced by some of the same factors that caused rising onshore costs
from 2004 through 2009, as well as by several unique factors. The most
recently installed or announced offshore plants have investment costs
that are reported to range from roughly USD2005 3,200/kW to USD2005
5,000/kW. Notwithstanding the increased water depth of offshore
plants over time, the majority of the operating plants have been built in
relatively shallow water. The performance of wind power plants is highly
site-specic, and is primarily governed by the characteristics of the local
35
(a)
30
25
20
15
10
35
Offshore Discount Rate = 10%
Offshore Discount Rate = 7%
30
25
20
15
10
5
China
European Low-Medium Wind Areas
US Great Plains
0
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Figure TS.7.5 | Estimated levelized cost of on- and offshore wind energy, 2009: (a) as a function of capacity factor and investment cost* and (b) as a function of capacity factor and
discount rate**. [Figure 7.23]
Notes: * Discount rate assumed to equal 7%. ** Onshore investment cost assumed at USD2005 1,750/kW, and offshore at USD2005 3,900/kW.
13 The economic competitiveness of wind energy in comparison to other energy
sources, which necessarily must also include other factors such as subsidies and
environmental externalities, is not covered in this section.
102
the offshore cost estimates are more uncertain, typical LCOE are estimated to range from US cent2005 10/kWh to more than US cent2005 20/kWh
for recently built or planned plants located in relatively shallow water.
Where the exploitable onshore wind resource is limited, offshore plants
can sometimes compete with onshore plants. [7.8.3, Annex II, Annex III]
A number of studies have developed forecasted cost trajectories for onand offshore wind energy based on differing combinations of learning
curve estimates, engineering models and/or expert judgement. Among
these studies, the starting year of the forecasts, the methodological approaches and the assumed wind energy deployment levels vary.
Nonetheless, a review of this literature supports the idea that continued
R&D, testing and experience could yield reductions in the levelized cost
of onshore wind energy of 10 to 30% by 2020. Offshore wind energy is
anticipated to experience somewhat deeper cost reductions of 10 to 40%
by 2020, though some studies have identied scenarios in which market
factors lead to cost increases in the near to medium term. [7.8.4]
7.9
Technical Summary
Summaries
120
N=152
Baselines
Cat. III + IV (440 - 600 ppm)
80
60
40
20
0
2020
2030
2050
Figure TS.7.6 | Global primary energy supply of wind energy in long-term scenarios
(median, 25th to 75th percentile range, and full range of scenario results; colour coding is
based on categories of atmospheric CO2 concentration level in 2100; the specic number
of scenarios underlying the gure is indicated in the right upper corner). [Figure 7.24]
Potential deployment
Given the commercial maturity and cost of onshore wind energy technology, increased utilization of wind energy offers the potential for
signicant near-term GHG emission reductions: this potential is not conditioned on technology breakthroughs, and no insurmountable technical
barriers exist that preclude increased levels of wind energy penetration
into electricity supply systems. As a result, in the near to medium term,
the rapid increase in wind power capacity from 2000 to 2009 is expected
by many studies to continue. [7.9, 7.9.1]
Moreover, a number of studies have assessed the longer-term potential
of wind energy, often in the context of GHG concentration stabilization
scenarios. [10.2, 10.3] Based on a review of this literature (including 164
different long-term scenarios), and as summarized in Figure TS.7.6, wind
energy could play a signicant long-term role in reducing global GHG
emissions. By 2050, the median contribution of wind energy among the
scenarios with GHG concentration stabilization ranges of 440 to 600
ppm CO2 and <440 ppm CO2 is 23 to 27 EJ/yr (6,500 to 7,600 TWh/yr),
increasing to 45 to 47 EJ/yr at the 75th percentile of scenarios (12,400 to
12,900 TWh/yr), and to more than 100 EJ/yr in the highest study (31,500
TWh). Achieving this contribution would require wind energy to deliver
around 13 to 14% of global electricity supply in the median scenario
result by 2050, increasing to 21 to 25% at the 75th percentile of the
reviewed scenarios. [7.9.2]
Achieving the higher end of this range of global wind energy utilization would likely require not only economic support policies of adequate
size and predictability, but also an expansion of wind energy utilization
regionally, increased reliance on offshore wind energy in some regions,
technical and institutional solutions to transmission constraints and
operational integration concerns, and proactive efforts to mitigate and
8.
8.1
Introduction
103
Technical Summary
Summaries
End-Use Sectors
Energy Supply
Systems
(Section 8.3)
(Section 8.2)
Electricity Generation and
Distribution
Gas Grids
Liquid Fuels Distribution
Energy
Carriers
Energy
Services
Energy
Consumers
Autonomous Systems
Energy Efciency
Measures
Energy Efciency
and Demand
Response Measures
Figure TS.8.1 | Pathways for RE integration to provide energy services, either into energy supply systems or on-site for use by the end-use sectors. [Figure 8.1]
104
Summaries
a range of energy carriers including solid, liquid and gaseous fuels, electricity, and heat. Increasing the deployment of RE technologies requires
their integration into these existing systems by overcoming the associated technical, economic, environmental and social barriers. The advent
of decentralized energy systems could open up new deployment opportunities. [8.1, 8.2]
In some regions, RE electricity systems could become the dominant
future energy supply, especially if heating and transport demands are
also to be met by electricity. This could be driven by parallel developments in electric vehicles, increased heating and cooling using electricity
(including heat pumps), exible demand response services (including the
use of smart meters), and other innovative technologies. [8.1, 8.2.1.2,
8.2.2, 8.3.18.3.3]
The various energy systems differ markedly between countries and
regions around the world and each is complex. As a result, a range of
approaches are needed to encourage RE integration, whether centralized
or decentralized. Prior to making any signicant change in an energy
supply system that involves increasing the integration of RE, a careful
assessment of the RE resource availability; the suitability of existing
technologies; institutional, economic and social constraints; the potential
risks; and the need for related capacity building and skills development
should be undertaken. [8.1, 8.2]
The majority of scenarios that stabilize atmospheric GHG concentrations around 450 ppm CO2eq show that RE will exceed a 50% share of
low-carbon primary energy by 2050. This transition can be illustrated by
many scenarios, the single example of increasing market shares shown
in Figure TS.8.2 being based on the IEAs World Energy Outlook 2010
450 Policy Scenario. To achieve such increased shares of primary and
consumer energy from RE by 2035 would require the annual average
incremental growth in primary RE to more than treble from todays level
to around 4.0 EJ/yr. [8.1, 10.2, 10.2.2.4]
In order to gain greater RE deployment in each of the transport, building,
industry and agriculture sectors, strategic elements need to be better
understood, as do the social issues. Transition pathways for increasing
the shares of each RE technology through integration depend on the
specic sector, technology and region. Facilitating a smoother integration
with energy supply systems and providing multiple benets for energy
end users should be the ultimate aims. [8.2, 8.3]
Several mature RE technologies have already been successfully integrated into a wide range of energy supply systems, mostly at relatively
low shares but with some examples (including small- and large-scale
hydropower, wind power, geothermal heat and power, rst-generation
biofuels and solar water heating systems) exceeding 30%. This was due
mainly to their improved cost-competitiveness, an increase in support
policies and growing public support due to the threats of an insecure
energy supply and climate change. Exceptional examples are large-scale
hydropower in Norway and hydro and geothermal power in Iceland
Technical Summary
105
Technical Summary
Summaries
2008
Modern Renewable
Traditional Biomass
Non-Renewable Energy
27 EJ
11 EJ
Primary Energy
492 EJ
427 EJ
159 EJ
33 EJ
31 EJ
4 EJ
2 EJJ
Final
Consumption
294 EJ
Losses
197 EJ
11 EJ
8 EJ
94 EJ
80 EJ
1 EJ
7 EJ
87 EJ
Agriculture
8 EJ
Buildings
92 EJ
Transport
96 EJ
Industry
98 EJ
2035
159 EJ
134 EJ
420 EJ
25 EJ
Primary Energy
577 EJ
44 EJ
128 EJ
L
Losses
203 EJ
29 EJ
4 EJ
101 EJ
18 EJ
Final
Consumption
374 EJ
100 EJ
30 EJ
Buildings
116EJ
2 EJ
7 EJ
Agriculture
9 EJ
78 EJ
Transport
119 EJ
106
34 EJ
Industry
130 EJ
Summaries
Technical Summary
Figure TS.8.2 | (Preceding page) RE shares (red) of primary and nal consumption energy in the transport, buildings (including traditional biomass), industry and agriculture sectors
in 2008 and an indication of the projected increased RE shares needed by 2035 in order to be consistent with a 450 ppm CO2eq stabilization level. [Figure 8.2]
Notes: Area of circles are approximately to scale. Energy system losses occur during the conversion, rening and distribution of primary energy sources to produce energy services for
nal consumption. Non-renewable energy (blue) includes coal, oil, natural gas (with and without CCS by 2035) and nuclear power. This scenario example is based on data taken from
the IEA World Energy Outlook 2010 but converted to direct equivalents. [Annex II.4] Energy efciency improvements above the baseline are included in the 2035 projection. RE in
the buildings sector includes traditional solid biomass fuels (yellow) for cooking and heating for 2.7 billion people in developing countries [2.2] along with some coal. By 2035, some
traditional biomass has been partly replaced by modern bioenergy conversion systems. Excluding traditional biomass, the overall RE system efciency (when converting from primary
to consumer energy) remains around 66%.
further studies will be required. This is particularly the case for the electricity sector due to the wide variety of existing power generation systems
and scales that vary with country and region. [8.2.1, 8.2.2, 8.3]
8.2
Electrical power systems have been evolving since the end of the 19th
century. Today, electrical power systems vary in scale and technological
sophistication from the synchronized Eastern Interconnection in North
America to small individual diesel-powered autonomous systems, with
some systems, as in China, undergoing rapid expansion and transformation. Within these differences, however, electrical power systems are
operated and planned with a common purpose of providing a reliable
and cost-effective supply of electricity. Looking forward, electric power
systems are expected to continue to expand in importance given that they
supply modern energy, enable the transport of energy over long distances,
and provide a potential pathway for delivering low-carbon energy. [8.2.1]
Electric power systems have several important characteristics that affect
the challenges of integrating RE. The majority of electric power systems
operate using alternating current (AC) whereby the majority of generation is synchronized and operated at a frequency of approximately either
50 or 60 Hz, depending on the region. The demand for electricity varies
throughout the day, week and season, depending on the needs of electricity users. The aggregate variation in demand is matched by variation
in schedules and dispatch instructions for generation in order to continuously maintain a balance between supply and demand. Generators and
other power system assets are used to provide active power control to
maintain the system frequency and reactive power control to maintain
voltage within specied limits. Minute-to-minute variations in supply
and demand are managed with automatic control of generation through
services called regulation and load following, while changes over longer
time scales of hours to days are managed by dispatching and scheduling
generation (including turning generation on or off, which is also known
as unit commitment). This continuous balancing is required irrespective
of the mechanism used to achieve it. Some regions choose organized
electricity markets in order to determine which generation units should
be committed and/or how they should be dispatched. Even autonomous
systems must employ methods to maintain a balance between generation
and demand (via controllable generators, controllable loads, or storage
resources like batteries). [8.2.1.1]
In addition to maintaining a balance between supply and demand, electric power systems must also transfer electricity between generation
and demand through transmission and distribution networks with limited capacity. Ensuring availability of adequate generation and network
capacity requires planning over multiple years. Planning electrical power
systems incorporates the knowledge that individual components of the
system, including generation and network components, will periodically
fail (a contingency). A target degree of reliability can be met, however,
by building adequate resources. One important metric used to determine
the contribution of generationfossil-fuel based or renewableto
meeting demand with a target level of reliability is called the capacity
credit. [8.2.1.1]
Based on the features of electrical power systems, several RE characteristics are important for integrating RE into power systems. In
particular, variability and predictability (or uncertainty) of RE is relevant
for scheduling and dispatch in the electrical power system, the location
of RE resources is a relevant indicator for impact on needs for electrical networks, and capacity factor, capacity credit and power plant
characteristics are indicators relevant for comparison, for example, with
thermal generation. [8.2.1.2]
Some RE electricity resources (particularly ocean, solar PV, wind)
are variable and only partially dispatchable: generation from these
resources can be reduced if needed, but maximum generation depends
on availability of the RE resource (e.g., tidal currents, sun or wind). The
capacity credit can be low if the generation is not well correlated with
times of high demand. In addition, the variability and partial predictability of some RE increases the burden on dispatchable generation or
other resources to ensure balance between supply and demand given
deviations in RE. In many cases variability and partial predictability are
somewhat mitigated by geographic diversitychanges and forecast
errors will not always occur at the same time in the same direction. A
general challenge for most RE, however, is that renewable resources are
location specic, therefore concentrated renewably generated electricity may need to be transported over considerable distances and require
network expansion. Dispatchable renewable sources (including hydropower, bioenergy, geothermal energy, and CSP with thermal storage)
can in many cases offer extra exibility for the system to integrate other
renewable sources and often have a higher capacity credit. [8.2.1.2]
A very brief summary of the particular characteristics for a selection of
the technologies is given in Table TS.8.1. [8.2.1.3]
107
108
1200
Wave
5300
1200
0.1300
Tidal range
Tidal current
120,000
0.11,500
2100
50250
Minutes to years
Minutes to years
Hours to days
Hours to days
Days to years
Hours to years
Years
Hours to years
Minutes to years
0.004100
modular
Reservoir
Run of river
PV
0.1100
(Time scale)
Variability:
Characteristic time
scales for power system
operation
+++
++
+++
++
+++
(See legend)
Dispatchability
++
++
N/A
+2
++
(See legend)
Geographical
diversity potential
++
++
++
++
++
++
++
(See legend)
Predictability
2040 onshore,
3045 offshore
2231
1960
22.528.5
3060
2095
6090
3542
1227
5090
Capacity factor
range
%
540
16
1020
<10%
Similar to
thermal
090
Similar to
thermal
90
<2575
Capacity
credit range
%
++
++
++
++
++
Voltage and reactive power control: technology possibilities enabling plant to participate in voltage and reactive power control during normal situations (steady state, dynamic) and during network fault situations (for example reactive power
support during fault ride-through): + good possibilities, ++ full control possibilities.
Active power and frequency control: technology possibilities enabling plant to participate in active power control and frequency response during normal situations (steady state, dynamic) and during network fault situations (for example active
power support during fault ride-through): + good possibilities, ++ full control possibilities.
Predictability: Accuracy to which plant output power can be predicted at relevant time scales to assist power system operation: + moderate prediction accuracy (typical <10% Root Mean Square (RMS) error of rated power day ahead),
++ high prediction accuracy.
++
++
++
++
++
++
++
++
(See legend)
(See legend)
++
Voltage,
reactive power
control
Active power,
frequency
control
Geographical diversity potential: degree to which siting of the technology may mitigate variability and improve predictability, without substantial need for additional network: +moderate potential, ++ high diversity potential.
Dispatchability: degree of plant dispatchability: + low partial dispatchability, ++ partial dispatchability, +++ dispatchable.
Characteristic time scales: time scales where variability signicant for power system integration occurs.
Notes: 1. Assuming a CSP system with six hours of thermal storage in US Southwest. 2. In areas with direct-normal irradiance (DNI) >2,000 kWh/m2/yr (7,200 MJ/m2/yr).
Wind energy
Ocean Energy
Hydro power
energy
Geothermal
energy
Direct solar
Bioenergy
Technology
Plant size
range
(MW)
Table TS.8.1 | Summary of integration characteristics for a selection of RE technologies. [Table 8.1]
Technical Summary
Summaries
Summaries
Technical Summary
109
Technical Summary
8.3
Summaries
A University
B R&D Centre
7 Hydrogen
Dispenser
2 Wood Chips
C Commercial &
Domestic Buildings
Energy Plant
1
Accumulator
(Hot Water)
5 Landll Gas
Heat Pump
for Heating & Cooling
(Heat Source: Sewage)
3 Bioenergy Oil
Figure TS.8.3 | An integrated RE-based energy plant in Lillestrm, Norway, supplying the University, R&D Centre and a range of commercial and domestic buildings using a district
heating and cooling system incorporating a range of RE heat sources, thermal storage and a hydrogen production and distribution system. (Total investment around USD2005 25 million
and due for completion in 2011.) 1) Central energy system with 1,200 m3 accumulator hot water storage tank; (2) 20 MWth wood burner system (with ue gas heat recovery); (3) 40
MWth bio-oil burner; (4) 4.5 MWth heat pump; (5) 1.5 MWth landll gas burner and a 5 km pipeline; (6) 10,000 m2 solar thermal collector system; and (7) RE-based hydrogen production
(using water electrolysis and sorption-enhanced steam methane reforming of landll gas) and vehicle dispensing system. [Figure 8.3]
110
Summaries
[USD2005 /GJ]
Technical Summary
30
25
Compressed Gas
Transported by Truck
Liquid Methane with
Cryogenic Upgrading
Transported by Truck
20
15
Compressed Methane
Transported in Pipelines
Liquid Methane Tapped
from Natural Gas Pipeline
Pressure Stations
10
8.4
Over the past 50 years, large natural gas networks have been developed in several parts of the world. And more recently there has been
increasing interest to green them by integrating RE-based gases.
Gaseous fuels from RE sources originate largely from biomass and can
be produced either by anaerobic digestion to produce biogas (mainly
0
Figure TS.8.4 | Relative costs for distributing and dispensing biomethane (either
compressed or liqueed) at the medium scale by truck or pipeline in Europe. [Figure 8.9]
111
Technical Summary
Summaries
grids so clean-up is a critical step to remove water, CO2 (thereby increasing the heating value) and additional by-products from the gas stream.
The cost of upgrading varies according to the scale of the facility and the
process, which can consume around 3 to 6% of the energy content of
the gas. RE gas systems are likely to require signicant storage capacity
to account for variability and seasonality of supply. The size and shape
of storage facilities and the required quality of the gas will depend on
the primary energy source of production and its end use. [8.2.3]
Hydrogen gas can be produced from RE sources by several routes including biomass gasication, the reformation of biomethane, or electrolysis
of water. The potential RE resource base for hydrogen is therefore greater
than for biogas or syngas. Future production of hydrogen from variable
RE resources, such as wind or solar power by electrolysis, will depend
signicantly on the interaction with existing electricity systems and the
degree of surplus capacity. In the short term, blending of hydrogen with
natural gas (up to 20% by volume) and transporting it long distances
in existing gas grids could be an option. In the longer term, the construction of pipelines for carrying pure hydrogen is possible, constructed
from special steels to avoid embrittlement. The rate-limiting factors for
deploying hydrogen are likely to be the capital and time involved in
building a new hydrogen infrastructure and any additional cost for storage in order to accommodate variable RE sources. [8.2.3.2, 8.2.3.4]
In order to blend a RE gas into a gas grid, the gas source needs to be
located near to the existing system to avoid high costs of additional
pipeline construction. In the case of remote plant locations due to
resource availability, it may be better to use the gas onsite where feasible to avoid the need for transmission and upgrading. [8.2.3.5]
8.5
Most of the projected demand for liquid biofuels is for transport purposes, though industrial demand could emerge for bio-lubricants and
bio-chemicals such as methanol. In addition, large amounts of traditional solid biomass could eventually be replaced by more convenient,
safer and healthier liquid fuels such as RE-derived dimethyl ether (DME)
or ethanol gels. [8.2.4]
Producing bioethanol and biodiesel fuels from various crops, usually
used for food, is well understood (Figure TS.8.5). The biofuels produced
can take advantage of existing infrastructure components already used
for petroleum-based fuels including storage, blending, distribution and
dispensing. However, sharing petroleum-product infrastructure (storage
tanks, pipelines, trucks) with ethanol or blends can lead to problems
from water absorption and equipment corrosion, so may require investment in specialized pipeline materials or linings. Decentralized biomass
production, seasonality and remote agricultural locations away from
existing oil reneries or fuel distribution centres, can impact the supply chain logistics and storage of biofuels. Technologies continue to
evolve to produce biofuels from non-food feedstocks and biofuels that
are more compatible with existing petroleum fuels and infrastructure.
Quality control procedures need to be implemented to ensure that such
biofuels meet all applicable product specications. [8.2.4.1, 8.2.4.3,
8.2.4.4]
The use of blended fuels produced by replacing a portion (typically 5
to 25% but can be up to 100% substitution) of gasoline with ethanol,
Terminals/ Distribution
Points
Final Consumption
Transportation of Raw
Material to Processing Plants
Transportation to Blending
Centres
Storage
Preparation and
Conversion Process
into Liquid Fuel
(Industrial Phase)
Production of Biomass
(Agricultural Phase)
Transportation of Biofuels to
Retailers and Final Consumers
Transportation to Terminals or
Distributing Centres
Figure TS.8.5 | The production, blending and distribution system for a range of liquid biofuels is similar regardless of the biomass feedstock. [Figure 8.11]
112
Summaries
Technical Summary
8.6
8.7
Autonomous energy supply systems are typically small scale and are
often located in off-grid remote areas, on small islands, or in individual
buildings where the provision of commercial energy is not readily available through grids and networks. Several types of autonomous systems
exist and can make use of either single energy carriers, for example,
electricity, heat, or liquid, gaseous or solid fuels, or a combination of
carriers. [8.2.5, 8.2.5.1]
In principle, RE integration issues for autonomous systems are similar
to centralized systems, for example, for supply/demand balancing of
electricity supply systems, selection of heating and cooling options, production of RE gases and liquid biofuel production for local use. However,
unlike larger centralized supply systems, smaller autonomous systems
often have fewer RE supply options that are readily available at a local
scale. Additionally, some of the technical and institutional options for
managing integration within larger networks become more difcult or
even implausible for smaller autonomous systems, such as RE supply
forecasting, probabilistic unit commitment procedures, stringent fuel
quality standards, and the smoothing effects of geographical and technical diversity. [8.2.18.2.5]
RE integration solutions typically become more restricted as supply
systems become smaller. Therefore greater reliance must be placed
on those solutions that are readily available. Focusing on variable RE
resources, because of restricted options for interconnection and operating and planning procedures, autonomous systems will naturally have a
tendency to focus on energy storage options, various types of demand
response, and highly exible fossil fuel generation to help match supply
and demand. RE supply options that better match local load proles,
or that are dispatchable, may be chosen over other lower-cost options
that do not have as strong a match with load patterns or are variable.
Managing RE integration within autonomous systems will, all else being
8.7.1
Transport
113
Technical Summary
Summaries
There are a number of possible fuel/vehicle pathways from the conversion of the primary energy source to an energy carrier (or fuel) through
to the end use, whether in advanced internal combustion engine vehicles
(ICEVs), electric battery vehicles (EVs), hybrid electric vehicles (HEVs),
plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs) or hydrogen fuel cell vehicles
(HFCVs) (Figure TS.8.6). [8.3.1.2]
The current use of RE for transport is only a few percent of the total
energy demand, mainly through electric rail and the blending of liquid
biofuels with petroleum products. Millions of LDVs capable of running
on high-biofuel blends are already in the world eet and biofuel technology is commercially mature, as is the use of compressed biomethane
in vehicles suitable for running on compressed natural gas. [8.2.3]
Improving the efciency of the transport sector, and decarbonizing it, have been identied as being critically important to achieving
long-term, deep reductions in global GHG emissions. The approaches
to reducing transport-related emissions include a reduction in travel
demand, increased vehicle efciency, shifting to more efcient modes
of transport, and replacing petroleum-based fuels with alternative lowor near-zero-carbon fuels (including biofuels, electricity or hydrogen
produced from low-carbon primary energy sources). Scenario studies
strongly suggest that a combination of technologies will be needed to
accomplish 50 to 80% reductions (compared to current rates) in GHG
emissions by 2050 whilst meeting the growing transport energy demand
(Figure TS.8.7). [8.3.1.1]
Oil
Unconv. Oil
Nat. Gas
Coal
Biomass
Solar,
Hydropower,
Wind, Ocean,
Geothermal
Nuclear
Primary
Energy Source
Renewable
Fossil
Nuclear
Gasoline
Diesel
SYNTHETIC LIQUIDS
Methanol, DME, F-T, CH4, Ethanol
Electricity
H2
Energy
Carrier
Liquid Fuel
Gaseous Fuel
Fuel Processor
ICEV
HEV
Plug-in HEV
Battery EV
Fuel Cell EV
Electricity
Vehicle
Figure TS.8.6 | A range of possible light duty vehicle fuel pathways, from primary energy sources (top), through energy carriers, to end-use vehicle drive train options (bottom) (with
RE resources highlighted in green). [Figure 8.13]
Notes: F-T= Fischer-Tropsch process; DME = dimethyl ether; ICE = internal combustion engine; HEV = hybrid electric vehicle; EV = electric vehicle; unconventional oil refers to oil
sands, oil shale and other heavy crudes.
114
Summaries
Technical Summary
1.2
Wang et al. 2006
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
EV - Current US Grid
Biomethane - ICEV
CNG -ICEV
Diesel HEV
Diesel ICEV
Gasoline HEV
Gasoline ICEV
0.0
Fuel/Vehicle Pathway
Figure TS.8.7 | Well-to-wheels (WTW) GHG emission reductions per kilometre travelled, with ranges shown taken from selected studies of alternative light duty fuel/vehicle pathways,
normalized to the GHG emissions of a gasoline, internal combustion engine, light-duty vehicle. [Figure 8.17]
Notes: To allow for easier comparison among studies, WTW GHG emissions per km were normalized to emissions from a gasoline ICEV (such that Gasoline ICEV = 1) taken from
each study and ranging from 170 to 394 g CO2/km. For all hydrogen pathways, hydrogen is stored onboard the vehicle as a compressed gas (GH2). CNG = compressed natural gas;
SMR = steam methane reformer.
Hydrogen has the potential to tap vast new energy resources to provide
transport with zero or near-zero emissions. The technology for hydrogen from biomass gasication is being developed, and could become
competitive beyond 2025. Hydrogen derived from RE sources by electrolysis has cost barriers rather than issues of technical feasibility or
resource availability. Initially RE and other low-carbon technologies will
likely be used to generate electricity, a development that could help
enable near-zero-carbon hydrogen to be co-produced with electricity or
heat in future energy complexes. Hydrogen is not yet widely distributed
compared to electricity, natural gas, gasoline, diesel or biofuels but could
be preferred in the future for large HDVs that have a long range and need
relatively fast refuelling times. Bringing hydrogen to large numbers of
vehicles would require building a new refuelling infrastructure that could
take several decades to construct. The rst steps to provide hydrogen to
test eets and demonstrate refuelling technologies in mini-networks have
begun in several countries. [2.6.3.2, 8.3.1, 8.3.1.2]
For RE electricity to supply high numbers of EVs and PHEVs in future markets, several innovations must occur such as development of batteries and
low-cost electricity supply available for recharging when the EVs need it.
If using night-time, off-peak recharging, new capacity is less likely to be
needed and in some locations there may be a good temporal match with
115
Technical Summary
Summaries
Table TS.8.2 | Transition issues for the use of biofuels, hydrogen and electricity as transport fuels for light duty vehicles. [Summarized from 8.3.1]
Technology Status
Biofuels
Hydrogen
Electricity
Fuel production
Vehicles
Similar price.
Consumer acceptance
GHG emissions
Petroleum consumption
Very low
Very low
Air pollution
Water use
Land use
Depends on pathway.
Depends on pathway.
resources
Materials use
Notes: 1. Costs quoted do not always include payback of incremental rst vehicle costs. 2. Indirect land use-related GHG emissions linked to biofuels is not included.
116
Summaries
8.7.2
Technical Summary
8.7.3
Industry
117
Technical Summary
118
Summaries
Basic Metals
Chemical
Non-Metallic Minerals
Transport Equipment
Medium, 100-400C
Low, Below 100C
Machinery
Others
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
[PJ]
Figure TS.8.8 | Industrial heat demands for various temperature quality ranges by the
heavy industrial and light manufacturing sub-sectors, based on an assessment within 32
European countries. [Figure 8.23]
Summaries
8.7.4
Technical Summary
9.
9.1
Introduction
9.2
119
Technical Summary
Conventional economic growth metrics (GDP) as well as the conceptually broader Human Development Index (HDI) are analyzed to evaluate
the contribution of RE to social and economic development. Potential
employment opportunities, which serve as a motivation for some countries to support RE deployment, as well as critical nancing questions for
developing countries are also addressed. [9.2.2]
Summaries
Access to modern energy services, whether from renewable or nonrenewable sources, is closely correlated with measures of development,
particularly for those countries at earlier development stages. Providing
access to modern energy for the poorest members of society is crucial
for the achievement of any single of the eight Millennium Development
Goals. Concrete indicators used include per capita nal energy consumption related to income, as well as breakdowns of electricity access
(divided into rural and urban areas), and numbers for those parts of the
population using coal or traditional biomass for cooking. [9.2.2]
9.3.1
As economic activity expands and diversies, demands for more sophisticated and exible energy sources arise: from a sectoral perspective,
countries at an early stage of development consume the largest part
of total primary energy in the residential (and to a lesser extent agricultural) sector; in emerging economies the manufacturing sector
dominates, while in fully industrialized countries services and transport
account for steadily increasing shares (see Figure TS.9.1). [9.3.1.1]
To evaluate the overall burden from the energy system on the environment, and to identify potential trade-offs, a range of impacts and
categories have to be taken into account. These include mass emissions
to air (in particular GHGs) and water, and usage of water, energy and
land per unit of energy generated and these must be evaluated across
technologies. While recognizing that LCAs do not give the only possible
answer as to the sustainability of a given technology, they are a particularly useful methodology for determining total system impacts of
a given technology, which can serve as a basis for comparison. [9.2.2]
Scenario analyses provide insights into what extent integrated models
take account of the four SD goals in different RE deployment pathways.
Pathways are primarily understood as scenario results that attempt to
address the complex interrelations among the different energy technologies at a global scale. Therefore, Chapter 9 mainly refers to global
scenarios derived from integrated models that are also at the core of the
analysis in Chapter 10. [9.2.2]
9.3
120
Globally, per capita incomes are positively correlated with per capita
energy use and economic growth can be identied as the most relevant factor behind increasing energy consumption in the last decades.
However, there is no agreement on the direction of the causal relationship between energy use and increased macroeconomic output. [9.3.1.1]
Despite the close correlation between GDP and energy use, a wide variety of energy use patterns across countries prevails: some have achieved
high levels of per capita incomes with relatively low energy consumption. Others remain rather poor despite elevated levels of energy use, in
particular countries abundantly endowed with fossil fuel resources, in
which energy is often heavily subsidized. One hypothesis suggests that
economic growth can largely be decoupled from energy use by steady
declines in energy intensity. Further, it is often asserted that developing
economies and economies in transition can leapfrog, that is, limit their
energy use by adopting modern, highly efcient energy technologies.
[9.3.1.1, Box 9.5]
Access to clean and reliable energy constitutes an important prerequisite
for fundamental determinants of human development, such as health,
education, gender equality and environmental safety. Using the HDI as
a proxy indicator of development, countries that have achieved high HDI
levels in general consume relatively large amounts of energy per capita
and no country has achieved a high or even a medium HDI without
signicant access to non-traditional energy supplies. A certain minimum
amount of energy is required to guarantee an acceptable standard of
living (e.g., 42 GJ per capita), after which raising energy consumption
yields only marginal improvements in the quality of life. [9.3.1.2]
Estimates of current net employment effects of RE differ due to disagreements regarding the use of the appropriate methodology. Still,
there seems to be agreement about the positive long-term effects of RE
Summaries
Technical Summary
RoW 1990
2005
9.3.2
Energy access
2005
China 1990
2005
Russia 1990
2005
2005
India 1990
2005
Brazil 1990
Other
Transport
2005
Services
Households
Mexico 1990
Manufacturing
2005
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
[EJ]
Figure TS.9.1 | Energy use (EJ) by economic sector. Note that the underlying data are
calculated using the IEA physical content method, not the direct equivalent method.1
Notes: RoW = Rest of World. [Figure 9. 2] 1. Historical energy data have only been available for energy use by economic sector. For a conversion of the data using the direct
equivalent method, the different energy carriers used by each economic sector would
need to be known.
121
[GJ]
Technical Summary
Summaries
50
However, import dependencies can also occur in relation to the technologies needed for implementation of RE, with the secure access to
required scarce inorganic mineral raw materials at reasonable prices
constituting an upcoming challenge for all industries. [9.3.3.1]
40
Gas
Electricity
Traditional Biomass
30
20
9.3.4
10
0
>75
40 - 75
5 - 40
<5
Share of Population with an Income of less than USD 2 per Day [%]
Figure TS.9.2 | The relationship between per capita nal energy consumption and
income in developing countries. Data refer to the most recent year available during the
period 2000 to 2008. [Figure 9.5]
Note: LPG = liquid petroleum gas.
9.3.3
Energy security
The use of RE permits substitution away from increasingly scarce fossil fuel supplies; current estimates of the ratio of proven reserves to
current production show that globally oil and natural gas would be
exhausted in about four and six decades, respectively. [9.3.3.1]
As many renewable sources are localized and not internationally tradable, increasing their share in a countrys energy portfolio diminishes
the dependence on imports of fossil fuels, whose spatial distribution
of reserves, production and exports is very uneven and highly concentrated in a few regions (Figure TS.9.3). As long as RE markets are
not characterized by such geographically concentrated supply, this
helps to diversify the portfolio of energy sources and to reduce the
economys vulnerability to price volatility. For oil-importing developing
countries, increased uptake of RE technologies could be an avenue to
redirect foreign exchange ows away from energy imports towards
imports of goods that cannot be produced locally, such as high-tech
capital goods. For example, Kenya and Senegal spend more than half
of their export earnings for importing energy, while India spends over
45%. [9.3.3.1]
122
Impacts on the climate through GHG emissions are generally well covered, and LCAs [Box 9.2] facilitate a quantitative comparison of cradle
to grave emissions across technologies. While a signicant number of
studies report on air pollutant emissions and operational water use, evidence is scarce for lifecycle emissions to water, land use, and health
impacts other than those linked to air pollution. The assessment concentrates on those sectors which are best covered by the literature, such
as electricity generation and transport fuels for GHG emissions. Heating
and household energy are discussed only briey, in particular with
regards to air pollution and health. Impacts on biodiversity and ecosystems are mostly site-specic, difcult to quantify and are presented in a
more qualitative manner. To account for burdens associated with accidents as opposed to normal operation, an overview of risks associated
with energy technologies is provided. [9.3.4]
LCAs for electricity generation indicate that GHG emissions from RE
technologies are, in general, considerably lower than those associated
with fossil fuel options, and in a range of conditions, less than fossil
fuels employing CCS. The maximum estimate for CSP, geothermal, hydropower, ocean and wind energy is less than or equal to 100 g CO2eq/kWh,
and median values for all RE range from 4 to 46 g CO2eq/kWh. The upper
quartile of the distribution of estimates for PV and biopower extend two
to three times above the maximum for other RE technologies. However,
GHG balances of bioenergy production have more uncertainties: excluding LUC, biopower could reduce GHG emissions compared to fossil
fuelled systems and can lead to avoided GHG emissions from residues
and wastes in landll disposals and co-products; the combination of
Summaries
Technical Summary
100
50
1.5
0
-0.6
-50
-100
-150
Coal
-200
Oil
Gas
-250
-300
Africa
Asia Pacic
EU-27
FSU
Latin America
Middle East
North America
Figure TS.9.3 | Energy imports as the share of total primary energy consumption (%) for coal (hard coal and lignite), crude oil and natural gas for selected world regions in 2008.
Negative values denote net exporters of energy carriers. [Figure 9.6]
bioenergy with CCS may provide for further reductions (Figure TS.9.4).
[9.3.4.1]
Accounting for differences in the quality of power produced, potential
impacts to grid operation related to the addition of variable generation
sources, and for direct or indirect LUC could reduce the GHG emissions
benet from switching to renewable electricity generation, but is not
likely to negate the benet. [9.3.4.1]
Measures such as the energy payback time, describing the energetic
efciency of technologies or fuels, have been declining rapidly for some
RE technologies over recent years (e.g., wind and PV) due to technological advances and economies of scale. Fossil and nuclear power
technologies are characterized by the continuous energy requirements
for fuel extraction and processing, which might become increasingly
important as qualities of conventional fuel supply decline and shares of
unconventional fuels rise. [9.3.4.1]
For the assessment of GHG emissions from transportation fuels, selected
petroleum fuels, rst-generation biofuels (i.e., sugar- and starch-based
ethanol, oilseed-based biodiesel and renewable diesel), and selected
next-generation biofuels derived from lignocellulosic biomass (i.e.,
123
Technical Summary
Summaries
2,000
1,750
Maximum
1,500
75th Percentile
Median
1,250
25th Percentile
Minimum
1,000
Single Estimates
with CCS
750
500
250
Natural Gas
Oil
Coal
10
126
125
83(+7)
24
169(+12)
Count of
References
52(+0)
26
13
11
49
32
36(+4)
10
50(+10)
Wind Energy
28
Ocean Energy
-1,000
Hydropower
42
-750
Geothermal Energy
124
222(+4)
-500
Photovoltaics
Count of
Estimates
-250
Biopower
Nuclear Energy
-1,250
* Avoided Emissions, no Removal of GHGs from the Atmosphere
-1,500
Figure TS.9.4 | Estimates of lifecycle GHG emissions (g CO2eq/kWh) for broad categories of electricity generation technologies, plus some technologies integrated with CCS. Land-use
related net changes in carbon stocks (mainly applicable to biopower and hydropower from reservoirs) and land management impacts are excluded; negative estimates1 for biopower
are based on assumptions about avoided emissions from residues and wastes in landll disposals and co-products. References and methods for the review are reported in Annex II. The
number of estimates is greater than the number of references because many studies considered multiple scenarios. Numbers reported in parentheses pertain to additional references
and estimates that evaluated technologies with CCS. Distributional information relates to estimates currently available in LCA literature, not necessarily to underlying theoretical or
practical extrema, or the true central tendency when considering all deployment conditions. [Figure 9.8]
Note: 1. Negative estimates within the terminology of lifecycle assessments presented in this report refer to avoided emissions. Unlike the case of bioenergy combined with CCS,
avoided emissions do not remove GHGs from the atmosphere.
lag of decades to centuries before net savings are achieved, or improve the
net uptake of carbon into soils and aboveground biomass. Assessments
of the net GHG effects of bioenergy are made difcult by challenges in
observation, measurement, and attribution of indirect LUC, which depends
on the environmental, economic, social and policy context and is neither
directly observable nor easily attributable to a single cause. Illustrative estimates of direct and indirect LUC-related GHG emissions induced by several
rst-generation biofuel pathways provide central tendencies (based on different reporting methods) for a 30-year timeframe: for ethanol (EU wheat,
124
Summaries
potential to signicantly reduce regional and local air pollution and associated health impacts (see this section below). For transportation fuels,
however, the effect of switching to biofuels on tailpipe emissions is not
yet clear. [9.3.4.2]
Local air pollutant emissions from fossil fuels and biomass combustion
constitute the most important energy related impacts on human health.
Ambient air pollution, as well as exposure to indoor air pollution from the
combustion of coal and traditional biomass, has major health impacts and
is recognized as one of the most important causes of morbidity and mortality worldwide, particularly for women and children in developing countries.
In 2000, for example, comparative quantications of health risks showed
that more than 1.6 million deaths and over 38.5 million of disabilityadjusted life-years (DALYs) were attributable to indoor smoke from solid
fuels. Besides a fuel switch, mitigation options include improved cookstoves, ventilation and building design and behavioural changes. [9.3.4.3]
Impacts on water relate to operational and upstream water consumption
of energy technologies and to water quality. These impacts are site specic
and need to be considered with respect to local resources and needs. RE
technologies like hydropower and some bioenergy systems, for example,
are dependent on water availability and can either increase competition
or mitigate water scarcity. In water-scarce areas, non-thermal RE technologies (e.g., wind and PV) can provide clean electricity without putting
additional stress on water resources. Conventionally cooled thermal RE
technologies (e.g., CSP, geothermal, biopower) can use more water during operation than non-RE technologies, yet dry cooling congurations
can reduce this impact (Figure TS.9.5). Water use in upstream processes
can be high for some energy technologies, particularly for fuel extraction
and biomass feedstock production; including the latter, the current water
footprint for electricity generation from biomass can be up to several hundred times greater than operational water consumption requirements for
thermal power plants. Feedstock production, mining operations and fuel
processing can also affect water quality. [9.3.4.4]
Most energy technologies have substantial land requirements when the
whole supply chain is included. While the literature on lifecycle estimates
for land use by energy technologies is scarce, the available evidence suggests that lifecycle land use by fossil energy chains can be comparable
to or higher than land use by RE sources. For most RE sources, land use
requirements are largest during the operational stage. An exception is the
land intensity of bioenergy from dedicated feedstocks, which is signicantly higher than for any other energy technology and shows substantial
variations in energy yields per hectare for different feedstocks and climatic
zones. A number of RE technologies (wind, wave and ocean) occupy large
areas, but allow secondary uses such as farming, shing and recreational
activities. [9.3.4.5] Connected to land use are (site-specic) impacts on
ecosystems and biodiversity. Occurring through various pathways, the
most evident ones are through large-scale direct physical alteration of
habitats and, more indirectly, habitat deterioration. [9.3.4.6]
Technical Summary
9.4
Following the more static analysis of the impacts of current and emerging RE systems on the four SD goals, the SD implications of possible
future RE deployment pathways are assessed in a more dynamic manner and thus incorporate the intertemporal component of SD. Since
the interaction of future RE and SD pathways cannot be anticipated
by relying on a partial analysis of individual energy technologies, the
discussion is based on results from the scenario literature that typically
treats the portfolio of technological alternatives in the framework of a
global or regional energy system. [9.4]
The vast majority of models used to generate the scenarios reviewed
(see Chapter 10, Section 10.2) capture the interactions between different options for supplying, transforming and using energy. The models
range from regional, energy-economic models to integrated assessment models (IAMs) and are here referred to as integrated models.
Historically, these models have focused much more on the technological and macroeconomic aspects of energy transitions, and in the
process have produced largely aggregated measures of technological
penetration or energy generated by particular sources of supply. The
value of these models in generating long-term scenarios and their
potential to help understand the interrelation between SD and RE rests
on their ability to consider interactions across a broad set of human
activities over different regional and time scales. Integrated models
continually undergo developments, some of which will be crucial for
the representation of sustainability concerns in the future, for example,
increasing their temporal and spatial resolution, allowing for a better
representation of the distribution of wealth across the population and
incorporating greater detail in human and physical Earth system characterization. [9.4]
The assessment focuses on what model-based analyses currently have
to say with respect to SD pathways and the role of RE and evaluates
how model-based analyses can be improved to provide a better understanding of sustainability issues in the future. [9.4]
125
Technical Summary
Summaries
Recirculating Cooling
Once-Through
Cooling
Pond
Cooling
Hybrid Cooling
209 m3/MWh
Dry
Cooling
Non Renewables
Non-Thermal
Technologies
Renewables
CSP
Biopower Steam
Biopower Biogas
Nuclear
Natural Gas CC
Coal
Coal IGCC
Biopower Steam
Nuclear
Natural Gas CC
Coal
Biopower Steam
Nuclear
Natural Gas CC
Coal
CSP
Biopower Biogas
Natural Gas CC
CSP
PV
Wind
Ocean
Hydropower
N:
18
16
11
Sources:
11
Figure TS.9.5 | Ranges of rates of operational water consumption by thermal and non-thermal electricity-generating technologies based on a review of available literature (m3/MWh).
Bars represent absolute ranges from available literature, diamonds single estimates; n represents the number of estimates reported in the sources. Methods and references used in
this literature review are reported in Annex II. Note that upper values for hydropower result from a few studies measuring gross evaporation values, and may not be representative
(see Box 5.2). [Figure 9.14]
Notes: CSP: concentrated solar power; CCS: carbon capture and storage; IGCC: integrated gasication combined cycle; CC: combined cycle; PV: photovoltaic.
9.4.1
126
Summaries
9.4.2
Energy access
Integrated models thus far have often been based on developed country
information and experience and assumed energy systems in other parts
of the world and at different stages of development to behave likewise.
Usually, models do not capture important and determinative dynamics
in developing countries, such as fuel choices, behavioural heterogeneity
and informal economies. This impedes an assessment of the interaction
between RE and the future availability of energy services for different
populations, including basic household level tasks, transportation, and
energy for commerce, manufacturing and agriculture. However, some
models have started to integrate factors such as potential supply shortages, informal economies and diverse income groups, and to increase
the distributional resolution. [9.4.2]
Available scenario analyses are still characterized by large uncertainties. For India, results suggested that income distribution in a society
is as important for increasing energy access as income growth. Also,
Technical Summary
9.4.3
Energy security
127
Technical Summary
Summaries
35
30
30
25
25
20
20
15
15
10
10
(b)
35
(a)
Baseline
Cat III+IV
Cat I+II
Conventional
Oil Reserves
Baseline Median
Cat III+IV
Cat I+II
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
2005
Baseline
2020
2040
2060
2080
2100
Figure TS.9.6 | (a) Conventional oil reserves compared to projected cumulative oil consumption (ZJ) from 2010 to 2100 in scenarios assessed in Chapter 10 for different scenario
categories: baseline scenarios, Category III and IV scenarios and low stabilization (Category I+II) scenarios. The thick dark blue line corresponds to the median, the light blue bar
corresponds to the inter-quartile range (25th to 75th percentile) and the white surrounding bar corresponds to the total range across all reviewed scenarios. The last column shows
the range of proven recoverable conventional oil reserves (light blue bar) and estimated additional reserves (white surrounding bar). (b) Range of share of global oil consumed in nonAnnex I countries for different scenario categories over time, based on scenarios assessed in Chapter 10. [Figure 9.18]
128
9.4.4
Replacing fossil fuels with RE or other low-carbon technologies can signicantly contribute to the reduction of NOx and SO2 emissions. Several
models have included explicit representation of factors, such as sulphate
pollution, that are linked to environmental or health impacts. Some scenario results show that climate policy can help drive improvements in
local air pollution (i.e., PM), but air pollution reduction policies alone do
not necessarily drive reductions in GHG emissions. Another implication
of some potential energy trajectories is the possible diversion of land to
support biofuel production. Scenario results have pointed at the possibility that, if not accompanied by other policy measures, climate policy
could drive widespread deforestation, with land use being shifted to
bioenergy crops with possibly adverse SD implications, including GHG
emissions. [9.4.4]
Unfortunately, existing scenario literature does not explicitly treat the
many non-emissions related elements of sustainable energy development, such as water use, the impacts of energy choices on household-level
services, or indoor air quality. This can be partly explained by models
being designed to look at fairly large world regions without income or
geographic distributional detail. For a broad assessment of environmental impacts at the regional and local level, models would need to look
at smaller scales of geographical impacts, which is currently a matter of
ongoing research. Finally, many models do not explicitly allow for incorporation of LCA results of the technological alternatives. What these
Summaries
impacts are, whether and how to compare them across categories, and
whether they might be incorporated into future scenarios would constitute useful areas for future research. [9.4.4]
9.5
Technical Summary
RE technologies, which includes increasing technical and business capability at the micro or rm level. [9.5.1.2]
Attitudes towards RE in addition to rationality are driven by emotions
and psychological issues. To be successful, RE deployment and information and awareness efforts and strategies need to take this explicitly into
account. [9.5.1.2]
To assess the economics of RE in the context of SD, social costs and
benets need to be explicitly considered. RE should be assessed against
quantiable criteria targeted at cost effectiveness, regional appropriateness, and environmental and distributional consequences. Grid size
and technologies are key determinants of the economic viability of RE
and of the competitiveness of RE compared to non-renewable energy.
Appropriate RE technologies that are economically viable are often
found to be available for expanding rural off-grid energy access, in
particular smaller off-grid and mini-grid applications. [9.5.1.3]
In cases where deployment of RE is viable from an economic perspective, other economic and nancial barriers may affect its deployment.
High upfront costs of investments, including high installation and grid
connection costs, are examples of frequently identied barriers to
RE deployment. In developing countries, policy and entrepreneurial
support systems are needed along with RE deployment to stimulate
economic growth and SD and catalyze rural and peri-urban cash
economies. Lack of adequate resource potential data directly affects
uncertainty regarding resource availability, which may translate into
higher risk premiums for investors and project developers. The internalization of environmental and social externalities frequently results
in changes in the ranking of various energy sources and technologies,
with important lessons for SD objectives and strategies. [9.5.1.3]
Strategies for SD at international, national and local levels as well as
in private and nongovernmental spheres of society can help overcome
barriers and create opportunities for RE deployment by integrating RE
and SD policies and practices. [9.5.2]
Integrating RE policy into national and local SD strategies (explicitly
recognized at the 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development)
provides a framework for countries to select effective SD and RE strategies and to align those with international policy measures. To that end,
national strategies should include the removal of existing nancial
mechanisms that work against SD. For example, the removal of fossil fuel subsidies may have the potential to open up opportunities
for more extensive use or even market entry of RE, but any subsidy
reform towards the use of RE technologies needs to address the specic needs of the poor and demands a case-specic analysis. [9.5.2.1]
The CDM established under the Kyoto Protocol is a practical example
of a mechanism for SD that internalizes environmental and social
externalities. However, there are no international standards for
129
Technical Summary
9.6
130
Summaries
10.
10.1
Introduction
Future GHG emission estimates are highly dependent on the evolution of many variables, including, among others, economic growth,
population growth, energy demand, energy resources and the future
costs and performance of energy supply and end-use technologies.
Mitigation and other non-mitigation policy structures in the future will
also inuence deployment of mitigation technologies and therefore
GHG emissions and the ability to meet climate goals. Not only must
all these different forces be considered simultaneously when exploring
the role of RE in climate mitigation [see Figure 1.14], it is not possible
to know today with any certainty how these different key forces might
evolve decades into the future. [10.1]
Questions about the role that RE sources are likely to play in the future,
and how they might contribute to GHG mitigation pathways, need to
be explored within this broader context. Chapter 10 provides such an
exploration through the review of 164 existing medium- to long-term
scenarios from large-scale, integrated models. The comprehensive
review explores the range of global RE deployment levels emerging in
recent published scenarios and identies many of the key forces that
drive the variation among scenarios (note that the chapter relies exclusively on existing published scenarios and does not create any new
scenarios). It does so both at the scale of RE as a whole and also in the
context of individual RE technologies. The review highlights the importance of interactions and competition with other technologies as well
as the evolution of energy demand more generally. [10.2]
This large-scale review is complemented with a more detailed discussion of future RE deployment, using 4 of the 164 scenarios as
illustrative examples. The chosen scenarios span a range of different
future expectations about RE characteristics, are based on different
methodologies and cover different GHG concentration stabilization
levels. This approach provides a next level of detail for exploring the
role of RE in climate change mitigation, distinguishing between different applications (electricity generation, heating and cooling, transport)
and regions. [10.3]
Summaries
10.2
Technical Summary
A fundamental question relating to the role of RE in climate mitigation is how closely RE deployment levels are correlated with long-term
atmospheric CO2 concentration or related climate goals. The scenarios
indicate that although there is a strong correlation between fossil and
industrial CO2 emissions pathways and long-term CO2 concentration
goals across the scenarios, the relationship between RE deployment and
CO2 concentration goals is far less robust (Figure TS.10.1). RE deployment generally increases with the stringency of the CO2 concentration
goal, but there is enormous variation among RE deployment levels for
any given CO2 concentration goal. For example, in scenarios that stabilize the atmospheric CO2 concentration at a level of less than 440 ppm
(Categories I and II), the median RE deployment levels are 139 EJ/yr in
2030 and 248 EJ/yr in 2050, with the highest levels reaching 252 EJ/yr in
2030 and up to 428 EJ/yr in 2050. These levels are considerably higher
than the corresponding RE deployment levels in baseline scenarios,
although it has to be acknowledged that the range of RE deployment in
each of the CO2 stabilization categories is wide. [10.2.2.2]
At the same time, it is also important to note that despite the variation,
the absolute magnitudes of RE deployment are dramatically higher than
those of today in the vast majority of the scenarios. In 2008, global
renewable primary energy supply in direct equivalent stood at roughly
64 EJ/yr. The majority of this, about 30 EJ/yr, was traditional biomass. In
contrast, by 2030, many scenarios indicate a doubling of RE deployment
or more compared to today, and this is accompanied in most scenarios
by a reduction in traditional biomass, implying substantial growth in
non-traditional RE sources. By 2050, RE deployment levels in most scenarios are higher than 100 EJ/yr (median at 173 EJ/yr), reach 200 EJ/yr
in many of the scenarios and more than 400 EJ/yr in some cases. Given
that traditional biomass use decreases in most scenarios, the scenarios
represent an increase in RE production (excluding traditional biomass)
of anywhere from roughly three- to more than ten-fold. More than half
of the scenarios show a contribution of RE in excess of a 17% share of
primary energy supply in 2030, rising to more than 27% in 2050. The
scenarios with the highest RE shares reach approximately 43% in 2030
and 77% in 2050. Deployments after 2050 are even larger. This is an
extraordinary expansion in energy production from RE. [10.2.2.2]
Indeed, RE deployment is quite large in many of the baseline scenarios
with no assumed GHG concentration stabilization level. By 2030, RE
deployment levels of up to about 120 EJ/yr are projected, with many
baseline scenarios reaching more than 100 EJ/yr in 2050 and in some
cases up to 250 EJ/yr. These large RE baseline deployments result from a
range of underlying scenario assumptions, for example, the assumption
that energy consumption will continue to grow substantially throughout the century, assumptions about the ability of RE to contribute to
increased energy access, assumptions about the availability of fossil
resources, and other assumptions (e.g., improved costs and performance
of RE technologies) that would render RE technologies economically
increasingly competitive in many applications even absent climate policy. [10.2.2.2]
131
Technical Summary
Summaries
2050
N=164
75th
Median
25th
Baselines
Minimum
80
Baselines
60
Category III
40
Category IV
20
Category I
Category II
0
CO2 Emissions from Fossil Fuels
and Industrial Processes [Gt CO2/yr]
Baselines
60
Category III
40
Category IV
20
Category I
Category II
100
200
200
300
300
400
Maximum
400
N=161
100
2030
Figure TS.10.1 | Global RE primary energy supply (direct equivalent) from 164 long-term scenarios as a function of fossil and industrial CO2 emissions in 2030 and 2050. Colour
coding is based on categories of atmospheric CO2 concentration level in 2100. The panels to the right of the scatterplots show the deployment levels of RE in each of the atmospheric
CO2 concentration categories. The thick black line corresponds to the median, the coloured box corresponds to the inter-quartile range (25th to 75th percentile) and the ends of the
white surrounding bars correspond to the total range across all reviewed scenarios. The blue crossed-lines show the relationship in 2007. Pearsons correlation coefcients for the two
data sets are -0.40 (2030) and -0.55 (2050). For data reporting reasons, only 161 scenarios are included in the 2030 results shown here, as opposed to the full set of 164 scenarios.
RE deployment levels below those of today are a result both of model output as well as differences in the reporting of traditional biomass. [Figure 10.2]
132
Summaries
Technical Summary
2050
400
600
800
N=164
200
200
400
600
800
N=153
2050
20
40
60
80
20
40
60
80
Figure TS.10.2 | Global freely emitting fossil fuel (left panel; direct equivalent) and low-carbon primary energy supply (right panel; direct equivalent) in 164 long-term scenarios in
2050 as a function of fossil and industrial CO2 emissions. Low-carbon energy refers to energy from RE, fossil energy with CCS, and nuclear energy. Colour coding is based on categories
of atmospheric CO2 concentration level in 2100. The blue crossed lines show the relationship in 2007. Pearsons correlation coefcients for the two data sets are 0.97 (freely emitting
fossil) and -0.68 (low-carbon energy). For data reporting reasons, only 153 scenarios and 161 scenarios are included in the freely-emitting fossil and low-carbon primary energy results
shown here, respectively, as opposed to the full set of 164 scenarios. [Figure 10.4, right panel, Figure 10.5, right panel]
Another fundamental question regarding RE and mitigation is the relationship between RE and mitigation costs. A number of studies have
pursued scenario sensitivities that assume constraints on the deployment of individual mitigation options, including RE as well as nuclear
energy and fossil energy with CCS (Figures TS.10.6 and TS.10.7).
These studies indicate that mitigation costs are higher when options,
including RE, are not available. Indeed, the cost penalty for limits
on RE is often at least of the same order of magnitude as the cost
penalty for limits on nuclear energy and fossil energy with CCS. The
studies also indicate that more aggressive concentration goals may
not be possible when RE options, or other low-carbon options, are
not available. At the same time, when taking into account the wide
range of assumptions across the full range of scenarios explored in this
assessment, the scenarios demonstrate no meaningful link between
measures of cost (e.g., carbon prices) and absolute RE deployment
levels. This variation is a reection of the fact that large-scale integrated models used to generate scenarios are characterized by a wide
range of carbon prices and mitigation costs based on both parameter
assumptions and model structure. To summarize, while there is an
agreement in the literature that mitigation costs will increase if the
deployment of RE technologies is constrained and that more ambitious concentration stabilization levels may not be reachable, there
10.3
133
Summaries
50
Standard
No CCS
40
Limited Nuclear
No CCS & Limited Nuclear
30
Not Evaluated
Not Evaluated
Not Evaluated
Not Evaluated
Not Evaluated
Not Evaluated
10
Not Evaluated
20
Not Evaluated
Technical Summary
550 ppmv
550 ppmv
450 ppmv
550 ppmv
400 ppmv
550 ppmv
400 ppmv
550 ppmv
400 ppmv
450 ppmv
450 ppmv
450 ppmv
CO2 eq (*)
CO2 eq
CO2 eq
CO2 eq
CO2 eq (*)
CO2 eq
CO2 eq (*)
CO2 eq
CO2 eq (*)
CO2
CO2
CO2
DNE21+
MESSAGE (EMF22)
ReMIND
(RECIPE)
IMACLIM
(RECIPE)
WITCH
(RECIPE)
MERGE-ETL (ADAM)
POLES (ADAM)
ReMIND (ADAM)
Figure TS.10.3 | Increase in global renewable primary energy share (direct equivalent) in 2050 in selected constrained technology scenarios compared to the respective baseline scenarios. The X indicates that the respective concentration level for the scenario was not achieved. The denition of lim Nuclear and no CCS cases varies across models. The DNE21+,
MERGE-ETL and POLES scenarios represent nuclear phase-outs at different speeds; the MESSAGE scenarios limit the deployment to 2010; and the ReMIND, IMACLIM and WITCH
scenarios limit nuclear energy to the contribution in the respective baseline scenarios, which can still imply a signicant expansion compared to current deployment levels. The REMIND
(ADAM) 400 ppmv no CCS scenario refers to a scenario in which cumulative CO2 storage is constrained to 120 Gt CO2. The MERGE-ETL 400 ppmv no CCS case allows cumulative CO2
storage of about 720 Gt CO2. The POLES 400 ppmv CO2eq no CCS scenario was infeasible and therefore the respective concentration level of the scenario shown here was relaxed by
approximately 50 ppm CO2. The DNE21+ scenario is approximated at 550 ppmv CO2eq based on the emissions pathway through 2050. [Figure 10.6]
baseline perspective to a scenario that follows an optimistic application path for RE assuming that amongst others driven by specic
policies the current high dynamic (increase rates) in the sector can be
maintained. [10.3.1]
Figure TS.10.8 provides an overview of the resulting primary energy
production by source for the four selected scenarios for 2020, 2030
and 2050 and compares the numbers with the range of the global primary energy supply. Using the direct equivalent methodology as done
here, in 2050 bioenergy has the highest market share in all selected
scenarios, followed by solar energy. The total RE share in the primary
energy mix by 2050 has a substantial variation across all four scenarios. With 15% by 2050more or less about todays level (12.9%
in 2008)the IEA WEO 2009 projects the lowest primary RE share,
while the ER 2010 with 77% marks the upper level. The MiniCam EMF
22 expects that 31% and ReMIND-RECIPE that 48% of the worlds
primary energy demand will be provided by RE in 2050. The wide
ranges of RE shares are a function of different assumptions for technology cost and performance data, availability of other mitigation
technologies (e.g., CCS, nuclear power), infrastructure or integration
constraints, non-economic barriers (e.g., sustainability aspects), specic policies and future energy demand projections. [10.3.1.4]
In addition, although deployment of the different technologies signicantly increases over time, the resulting contribution of RE in the
scenarios for most technologies in the different regions of the world
is much lower than their corresponding technical potentials (Figure
134
TS.10.9). The overall total global RE deployment by 2050 in all analyzed scenarios represents less than 3% of the available technical RE
potential. On a regional level, the maximum deployment share out
of the overall technical potential for RE in 2050 was found for China,
with a total of 18% (ER 2010), followed by OECD Europe with 15%
(ER 2010) and India with 13% (MiniCam EMF 22). Two regions have
deployment rates of around 6% of the regional available technical RE
potential by 2050: 7% in Developing Asia (MiniCam EMF 22) and 6%
in OECD North America (ER 2010). The remaining ve regions use less
than 5% of the available technical potential for RE. [10.3.2.1]
Based on the resulting RE deployment for the selected four illustrative
scenarios, the corresponding GHG mitigation potential has been calculated. For each sector, emission factors have been specied, addressing
the kind of electricity generation or heat supply that RE displaces. As the
substituted energy form depends on the overall system behaviour, this
cannot be done exactly without conducting new and consistent scenario analysis or complex power plant dispatching analysis. Therefore,
the calculation is necessarily based on simplied assumptions and can
only be seen as indicative. Generally, attribution of precise mitigation
potentials to RE should be viewed with caution. [10.3.3]
Very often RE applications are supposed to fully substitute for the existing mix of fossil fuel use, but in reality that may not be true as RE
can compete, for instance, with nuclear energy or within the RE portfolio itself. To cover the uncertainties even partly for the specication
of the emission factor, three different cases have been distinguished
Summaries
Technical Summary
[EJ/yr]
2030
Figure TS.10.4 | Global RE primary energy supply (direct equivalent) by source in Annex
I (AI) and Non-Annex I (NAI) countries in 164 long-term scenarios by 2030 and 2050.
The thick black line corresponds to the median, the coloured box corresponds to the
inter-quartile range (25th to 75th percentile) and the ends of the white surrounding bars
correspond to the total range across all reviewed scenarios. Depending on the source,
the number of scenarios underlying these gures varies between 122 and 164. Although
instructive for interpreting the information, it is important to note that the 164 scenarios
are not explicitly a random sample meant for formal statistical analysis. (One reason that
bioenergy supply appears larger than supplies from other sources is that the direct equivalent method is used to represent primary energy in this gure. Bioenergy is accounted for
prior to conversion to fuels such as ethanol or electricity. The other technologies produce
primarily (but not entirely) electricity, and they are accounted for based on the electricity
produced. If primary equivalents were used, based on the substitution method, rather
than direct equivalents, then energy production from non-biomass RE would be of the
order of three times larger than shown here.) Ocean energy is not presented here as only
very few scenarios consider this RE technology. [Figure 10.8]
200
150
100
50
0
AI
NAI
AI
NAI
AI
NAI
AI
NAI
AI
NAI
[EJ/yr]
2050
200
150
100
50
0
AI
NAI
AI
NAI
AI
NAI
AI
NAI
AI
NAI
10.4
Maximum
Bioenergy
75th Percentile
Hydropower
Median
Wind Energy
25th Percentile
Minimum
(upper case: specic average CO2 emissions of the fossil generation mix
under the baseline scenario; medium case: specic average CO2 emissions of the overall generation mix under the baseline scenario; and
lower case: specic average CO2 emissions of the generation mix of the
particular analyzed scenario). Biofuels and other RE options for transport are excluded from the calculation due to limited data availability.
135
Technical Summary
Summaries
350
Baselines
Cat. III + IV (440 - 600 ppm)
250
200
Bioenergy
N=156
150
100
150
50
100
50
0
2020
2030
2050
2020
150
N=122
Maximum
75th
Median
25th
100
Minimum
Deployment Level 2008
150
N=164
100
50
50
0
2020
2030
2050
2020
2030
2050
150
N=152
100
Wind Energy
Primary Energy Supply [EJ/yr]
2050
Hydropower
Primary Energy Supply [EJ/yr]
Geothermal Energy
2030
100
N=149
50
50
0
2020
136
2030
2050
2020
2030
2050
Summaries
Technical Summary
Figure TS.10.5 | (Preceding page) Global primary energy supply (direct equivalent) of biomass, wind, solar, hydro, and geothermal energy in 164 long-term scenarios in 2020, 2030
and 2050, and grouped by different categories of atmospheric CO2 concentration level in 2100. The thick black line corresponds to the median, the coloured box corresponds to the
inter-quartile range (25th to 75th percentile) and the ends of the white surrounding bars correspond to the total range across all reviewed scenarios. [Figure 10.9]
Notes: For data reporting reasons, the number of scenarios included in each of the panels shown here varies considerably. The number of scenarios underlying the individual panels,
as opposed to the full set of 164 scenarios, is indicated in the right upper corner of each panel. One reason that bioenergy supply appears larger than supplies from other sources is
that the direct equivalent method is used to represent primary energy in this gure. Bioenergy is accounted for prior to conversion to fuels such as biofuels, electricity and heat. The
other technologies produce primarily (but not entirely) electricity and heat, and they are accounted for based on this secondary energy produced. If primary equivalents based on the
substitution method were used rather than direct equivalent accounting, then energy production from non-biomass RE would be of the order of two to three times larger than shown
here. Ocean energy is not presented here as scenarios so far seldom consider this RE technology. Finally, categories V and above are not included and Category IV is extended to 600
ppm from 570 ppm, because all stabilization scenarios lie below 600 ppm CO2 in 2100, and because the lowest baselines scenarios reach concentration levels of slightly more than
600 ppm by 2100.
All Options
No Nuclear
4
Biomin
No CCS
No RE
6
Biomax
All Options
No Nuclear
4
Biomin
No CCS
No RE
0
MERGE
ReMIND
POLES
XX
MERGE
XX
ReMIND
Biomax
5
XXX
POLES
Figure TS.10.6 | Global mitigation costs (measured in terms of consumption loss) from the ADAM project under varying assumptions regarding technology availability for long-term
stabilization levels of 550 and 400 ppmv CO2eq. All options refers to the standard technology portfolio assumptions in the different models, while biomax and biomin assume
double and half the standard biomass potential of 200 EJ respectively. noccs excludes CCS from the mitigation portfolio and nonuke and norenew constrain the deployment levels
of nuclear and RE to the baseline level, which still potentially means a considerable expansion compared to today. The X in the right panel indicates non-attainability of the 400 ppmv
CO2eq level in the case of limited technology options. [Figure 10.11]
this context are: controversy among scientists about potentials at negative costs; simplication of reality as actors also base their decisions on
other criteria than those reected in the curves; economic and technological uncertainty inherent to predicting the future, including energy
price developments and discount rates; further uncertainty due to strong
aggregation; high sensitivity relative to baseline assumptions and the
entire future generation and transmission portfolio; consideration of
individual measures separately, ignoring interdependencies between
measures applied together or in different order; and, for carbon abatement curves, high sensitivity to (uncertain) emission factor assumptions.
[10.4.2.1]
Having these criticisms in mind, it is also worth noting that it is very difcult to compare data and ndings from RE abatement cost and supply
curves, as very few studies have used a comprehensive and consistent
approach that details their methodologies. Many of the regional and
country studies provide less than 10% abatement of the baseline CO2
emissions over the medium term at abatement costs under approximately USD2005 100/t CO2. The resulting low-cost abatement potentials
10.5
137
Technical Summary
Summaries
Fix Biomass
No CCS
Fix RE
No CCS, Fix Nuclear
0
IMACLIM-R
ReMIND-R
WITCH
IMACLIM-R
ReMIND-R
WITCH
Figure TS.10.7 | Mitigation costs from the RECIPE project under varying assumptions regarding technology availability for a long-term stabilization level of 450 ppmv CO2. Option
values of technologies in terms of consumption losses for scenarios in which the option indicated is foregone (CCS) or limited to baseline levels (all other technologies) for the periods
a) 2005 to 2030 and b) 2005 to 2100. Option values are calculated as differences in consumption losses for a scenario in which the use of certain technologies is limited with respect
to the baseline scenario. Note that for WITCH, the generic backstop technology was assumed to be unavailable in the x RE scenario. [Figure 10.12]
cost of transport fuels (LCOF). LCOEs capture the full costs (i.e., investment costs, O&M costs, fuel costs and decommissioning costs) of an
energy conversion installation and allocate these costs over the energy
output during its lifetime, although not taking into account subsidies
or policy incentives. As some RE technologies (e.g., PV, CSP and wind
energy) are characterized by high shares of investment costs relative
to variable costs, the applied discount rate has a prominent inuence
[EJ/yr]
140
MiniCAM-EMF22
ER-2010
120
10 % of Global Energy
Supply under IEA-WEO2009Demand Projection by 2050
100
80
60
40
20
X X
0
2020
2030
2050
Solar Energy
2020
2030
2050
Wind Energy
2020
2030
2050
Geothermal Energy
2020
2030
2050
Bioenergy
2020
X X
2030
2050
2020
Ocean Energy
Figure TS.10.8 | Global RE development projections by source and global primary RE shares by source for a set of four illustrative scenarios. [Figure 10.14]
138
2030
2050
Hydropower
X EJ/yr
761 EJ/yr
2.6-5.0
5.1-7.5
7.6-10
10-12.5
5,360 EJ/yr
12.6-15
Scenario data: IEA WEO 2009 Reference Scenario (International Energy Agency (IEA), 2009; Teske et al., 2010), ReMIND-RECIPE 450ppm
Stabilization Scenario (Luderer et al., 2009), MiniCAM EMF22 1st-best 2.6 W/2 Overshoot Scenario (Calvin et al., 2009), Advanced
Energy
[R]evolution 2010 (Teske et al., 2010)
RE potential analysis: Technical RE potentials reported here represent total worldwide and regional potentials based on a review of
studies published before 2009 by Krewitt et al. (2009). They do not deduct any potential that is already being utilized for energy
production. Due to methodological differences and accounting methods among studies, strict comparability of these estimates across
technologies and regions, as well as to primary energy demand, is not possible. Technical RE potential analyses published after 2009
show higher results in some cases but are not included in this gure. However, some RE technologies may compete for land which
could lower the overall RE potential.
0-2.5
Technical RE Potential Can Supply the 2007 Primary Energy Demand by a Factor of:
Bio energy
Ocean
Hydro
Geothermal
Wind
Solar
15.1-17.5
1,335 EJ/yr
20.1-22.5
1,911 EJ/yr
464 EJ/yr
Range
ER-2010
MiniCAM-EMF22
ReMIND-RECIPE
IEA-WEO2009-Baseline
17.6-20
193 EJ/yr
22.6-25
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
25-50
11,941 EJ/yr
World - EJ/yr
Direct Solar
306 EJ/yr
Wind
Geothermal
193 EJ/yr
Over 50
Total
864 EJ/yr
Bioenergy
Hydropower
571 EJ/yr
Summaries
Technical Summary
139
Ocean
10
15
20
25
30
35
10
15
Direct Solarr
Windd
Geothermal
al
Hydropower
er
Bioenergyy
an
Ocean
Oceann
30
60
90
120
150
10
15
20
25
30
Africa - EJ/yr
Direct Solarr
Windd
Geothermal
al
Hydropower
Bioenergy
Bioenergy
Ocean
an
Ocean
an
10
15
20
25
10
15
20
Windd
20
Direct Solarr
Wind
Geothermall
Hydropower
Total
Total
Bioenergy
Direct Solarr
Windd
Geothermal
al
Hydropowerr
Total
Total
Direct Solar
ar
Geothermal
al
Hydropower
Oceann
Bioenergy
140
Direct Solarr
Wind
Geothermall
Hydropower
Oceann
Bioenergy
Total
Total
10
20
30
40
50
60
10
15
20
25
Direct Solarr
Wind
Geothermall
Hydropower
an
Ocean
Bioenergy
Total
Direct Solarr
Windd
Geothermal
al
Hydropower
an
Ocean
Bioenergy
Total
Technical Summary
Summaries
Summaries
Technical Summary
Figure TS.10.9 | (Preceding pages) Regional breakdown of RE deployment in 2050 for an illustrative set of four scenarios and comparison of the potential deployment to the corresponding technical potential for different technologies. The selected four illustrative scenarios are a part of the comprehensive survey of 164 scenarios. They represent a span from
a reference scenario (IEA WEO 2009) without specic GHG concentration stabilization levels to three scenarios representing different CO2 concentration categories, one of them
(REMind-RECIPE) Category III (440 to 485 ppm) and two of them (MiniCam EMF 22 and ER 2010 Category I (<400 ppm). Of the latter, MiniCam EMF 22 includes nuclear energy and
CCS as mitigation options and allows overshoot to get to the concentration level, while ER 2010 follows an optimistic application path for RE. Transition economies are countries that
changed from a former centrally planned economy to a free market system. [Figure 10.19]
[Gt CO2]
Global Cumulative CO2 Savings for Different Scenario-Based RE Deployment Paths 2010 up to 2020, 2030 and 2050
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
2020
2030
2050
IEA-WEO2009-Baseline
2020
2030
ReMind-RECIPE
2050
2020
2030
MiniCam-EMF22
2050
2020
2030
2050
ER-2010
Figure TS.10.10 | Global cumulative CO2 savings between 2010 and 2050 for four illustrative scenarios. The presented ranges mark the high uncertainties regarding the substituted
conventional energy source. While the upper limit assumes a full substitution of high-carbon fossil fuels, the lower limit considers specic CO2 emissions of the analyzed scenario itself.
The line in the middle was calculated assuming that RE displaces the specic energy mix of a reference scenario. [Figure 10.22]
141
Technical Summary
Summaries
Bioenergy (Co-Firing)
3%
Discount Rate
7%
Discount Rate
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
[UScent2005 /kWh]
Figure TS.10.11 | Levelized cost of electricity for commercially available RE technologies at 3, 7 and 10% discount rates. The levelized cost of electricity estimates for all technologies
are based on input data summarized in Annex III and the methodology outlined in Annex II. The lower bound of the levelized cost range is based on the low ends of the ranges of
investment, operations and maintenance (O&M), and (if applicable) feedstock cost and the high ends of the ranges of capacity factors and lifetimes as well as (if applicable) the high
ends of the ranges of conversion efciencies and by-product revenue. The higher bound of the levelized cost range is accordingly based on the high end of the ranges of investment,
O&M and (if applicable) feedstock costs and the low end of the ranges of capacity factors and lifetimes as well as (if applicable) the low ends of the ranges of conversion efciencies and
by-product revenue. Note that conversion efciencies, by-product revenue and lifetimes were in some cases set to standard or average values. For data and supplementary information
see Annex III. (CHP: combined heat and power; ORC: organic Rankine cycle, ICE: internal combustion engine.) [Figure 10.29]
142
Summaries
Technical Summary
3%
Discount Rate
7%
Discount Rate
10%
Discount Rate
50
100
150
200
[USD2005 /GJ]
Figure TS.10.12 | Levelized cost of heat (LCOH) for commercially available RE technologies at 3, 7 and 10% discount rates. The LCOH estimates for all technologies are based on
input data summarized in Annex III and the methodology outlined in Annex II. The lower bound of the levelized cost range is based on the low ends of the ranges of investment,
operations and maintenance (O&M), and (if applicable) feedstock cost and the high ends of the ranges of capacity factors and lifetimes as well as (if applicable) the high ends of the
ranges of conversion efciencies and by-product revenue. The higher bound of the levelized cost range is accordingly based on the high end of the ranges of investment, O&M and (if
applicable) feedstock costs and the low end of the ranges of capacity factors and lifetimes as well as (if applicable) the low ends of the ranges of conversion efciencies and by-product
revenue. Note that capacity factors and lifetimes were in some cases set to standard or average values. For data and supplementary information see Annex III. (MSW: municipal solid
waste; DHW: domestic hot water.) [Figure 10.30]
Important potential technological advances and associated cost reductions, for instance, are expected in (but are not limited to) the following
application elds: next-generation biofuels and bioreneries; advanced
PV and CSP technologies and manufacturing processes; enhanced
geothermal systems; multiple emerging ocean technologies; and
foundation and turbine designs for offshore wind energy. Further cost
reductions for hydropower are likely to be less signicant than some of
the other RE technologies, but R&D opportunities exist to make hydropower projects technically feasible in a wider range of natural conditions
and to improve the technical performance of new and existing projects.
[2.6, 3.7, 4.6, 5.3, 5.7, 5.8, 6.6, 7.7]
An answer to the question whether or not upfront investments in a
specic innovative technology are justied cannot be given as long as
the technology is treated in isolation. In a rst attempt to clarify this
issue and, especially, to investigate the mutual competition of prospective climate protection technologies, integrated assessment modellers
have started to model technological learning in an endogenous way.
The results obtained from these modelling comparison exercises indicate
thatin the context of stringent climate goalsupfront investments in
learning technologies can be justied in many cases. [10.5.3.]
143
Technical Summary
Summaries
Ethanol - Sugarcane
Ethanol - Corn
3%
Discount Rate
7%
Discount Rate
Ethanol - Wheat
10
20
30
40
50
60
[USD/GJHHV]
Figure TS.10.13 | Levelized cost of fuels (LCOF) for commercially available biomass conversion technologies at 3, 7 and 10% discount rates. LCOF estimates for all technologies
are based on input data summarized in Annex III and the methodology outlined in Annex II. The lower bound of the levelized cost range is based on the low ends of the ranges of
investment, O&M and feedstock cost. The higher bound of the levelized cost range is accordingly based on the high end of the ranges of investment, O&M and feedstock costs. Note
that conversion efciencies, by-product revenue, capacity factors and lifetimes were set to average values. For data and supplementary information see Annex III. (HHV: higher heating
value.) [Figure 10.31]
RE power plants will reduce the amount of fossil and nuclear fuels
that otherwise would be needed in order to meet a given electricity
demand. [10.5.4]
10.6
Energy extraction, conversion and use cause signicant environmental impacts and external costs. Although replacing fossil fuel-based
energy with RE often can reduce GHG emissions and also to some
extent other environmental impacts and external costs, RE technologies can also have environmental impacts and external costs
themselves, depending on the energy source and technology. These
impacts and costs should be considered if a comprehensive cost
assessment is required. [10.6.2]
Figure TS.10.15 shows the large uncertainty ranges of two dominant
external cost components, namely climate- and health-related external costs. Small-scale biomass red CHP plants cause relatively high
external costs due to health effects via particulate emissions. Offshore
wind energy seems to cause the smallest external cost. External cost
estimates for nuclear power are not reported here because the character
and assessment of external costs and risk from release of radionuclides due to low-probability accidents or due to leakages from waste
144
repositories in a distant future are very different, for example, from climate change and air pollution, which are practically unavoidable. Those
external impacts related to nuclear power can be, however, considered
by discussion and judgment in the society. Accident risks in terms of
fatalities due to various energy production chains (e.g., coal, oil, gas
and hydro) are generally higher in non-OECD countries than in OECD
countries. [10.6.3, 9.3.4.7]
As only external costs of individual technologies are shown in Figure
TS.10.15, benets can be derived when assuming that one technology
replaces another one. RE sources and the technologies using them for
electricity generation have mostly lower external costs per produced
electricity than fossil fuel-based technologies. However, case-specic
considerations are needed as there can also be exceptions. [10.6.3]
There are, however, considerable uncertainties in the assessment and
valuation of external impacts of energy sources. The assessment of
physical, biological and health damages includes considerable uncertainty and the estimates are based typically on calculational models,
the results of which are often difcult to validate. The damages or
changes seldom have market values that could be used in cost estimation, thus indirect information or other approaches must be used for
damage valuation. Further, many of the damages will take place far
in the future or in societies very different from those beneting from
the use of the considered energy production, which complicates the
Summaries
Technical Summary
Table TS.10.1 | Observed learning rates for various energy supply technologies. Note that values cited by older publications are less reliable as these refer to shorter time periods.
[Table 10.10]
Technology
Source
Country / region
Period
Learning
rate (%)
Performance measure
Onshore wind
Neij, 1997
Denmark
1982-1995
USA
1981-1996
14
Neij, 1999
Denmark
1982-1997
Durstewitz, 1999
Germany
1990-1998
IEA, 2000
USA
1985-1994
32
IEA, 2000
EU
1980-1995
18
OECD
1981-1995
17
Neij, 2003
Denmark
1982-1997
Spain
1990-2001
15
UK
1992-2001
19
Germany, UK,
Denmark
1986-2000
Neij, 2008
Denmark
1981-2000
17
Kahouli-Brahmi, 2009
Global
1979-1997
17
Nemet, 2009
Global
1981-2004
11
Global
1982-2009
Isles, 2006
8 EU countries
1991-2006
Harmon, 2000
Global
1968-1998
20
IEA, 2000
EU
1976-1996
21
Williams, 2002
Global
1976-2002
20
ECN, 2004
EU
1976-2001
20-23
ECN, 2004
Germany
1992-2001
22
Global
1976-2006
21
Germany
1977-2005
13
Germany
1999-2005
26
Nemet, 2009
Global
1976-2006
15-21
Enermodal, 1999
USA
1984-1998
8-15
IEA, 2000
EU
1980-1995
15
Brazil
1985-2002
29
Sweden, Finland
1975-2003
15
Denmark
1984-1991
15
Sweden
1990-2002
8-9
Denmark
1984-2001
0-15
Offshore wind
Photovoltaics (PV)
Biomass
Denmark
1984-1998
12
Brazil
1975-2003
19
Brazil
1980-1985
Brazil
1985-2002
29
Brazil
1975-2003
20
USA
1983-2005
18
USA
1975-2005
45
Brazil
1975-2003
32
145
Technical Summary
Decadal Investments
[Billion USD2005 ]
(a)
Decadal Investments
[Billion USD2005 ]
500
400
300
200
100
0
(b)
Summaries
2011-2020
2021-2030
2031-2040
2041-2050
1,200
However, the knowledge about external costs and benets due to RE sources
can provide some guidance for society to select best alternatives and to steer
the energy system towards overall efciency and high welfare gains. [10.6.5]
1000
800
600
400
200
0
Decadal Investments
[Billion USD2005 ]
(c)
Decadal Investments
[Billion USD2005 ]
2011-2020
2021-2030
2031-2040
11.1
Introduction
2041-2050
1,500
1,000
500
2011-2020
2021-2030
2031-2040
2041-2050
2011-2020
2021-2030
2031-2040
2041-2050
8,000
7,000
6,000
5,000
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
0
Wind Turbine
Hydro
Solar Thermal
Power Plant
Geothermal
Power Plant
PV Power Plant
Ocean Energy
Power Plant
146
11.
2,000
(d)
11.1.1
Summaries
Technical Summary
Health
Climate Change
Renewable Energy
(B) Solar Thermal
(B) Geothermal
(B) Wind 2.5 MW Offshore
(B) Wind 1.5 MW Onshore
(C) Wind Offshore
(B) Hydro 300 kW
(B) PV (2030)
(B) PV (2000)
(C) PV Southern Europe
(C) Biomass CHP 6 MWel
(D) Biomass Grate Boiler ESP 5
and 10 MW Fuel
0.01
0.1
10
Of the other RE technologies that are not yet broadly competitive, many
can provide competitive energy services in certain circumstances. In
most regions of the world, however, policy measures are still required
to facilitate an increasing deployment of RE. [11.1, 10.5]
Climate policies (carbon taxes, emissions trading or regulatory policies) decrease the relative costs of low-carbon technologies compared
to carbon-intensive technologies. It is questionable, however, whether
climate policies (e.g., carbon pricing) alone are capable of promoting RE
at sufcient levels to meet the broader environmental, economic and
social objectives related to RE. [11.1.1]
Two separate market failures create the rationale for the additional
support of innovative RE technologies that have high potential for
technological development, even if an emission market (or GHG pricing
policy in general) exists. The rst market failure refers to the external
cost of GHG emissions. The second market failure is in the eld of innovation: if rms underestimate the future benets of investments into
learning RE technologies or if they cannot appropriate these benets,
they will invest less than is optimal from a macroeconomic perspective. In addition to GHG pricing policies, RE-specic policies may be
appropriate from an economic point of view if the related opportunities for technological development are to be addressed (or if the goals
beyond climate change mitigation are pursued). Potentially adverse
consequences such as lock-in, carbon leakage and rebound effects
should be taken into account in the design of a portfolio of policies.
[11.1.1, 11.5.7.3]
11.1.2
147
Technical Summary
Summaries
are being made that will begin to pay off in several years time, once
the technology is fully commercialized. [11.2.2.2, 11.2.2.3]
11.2
148
An increasing number and variety of RE policies have driven substantial growth in RE technologies in recent years. Until the early 1990s, few
countries had enacted policies to promote RE. Since then, and particularly
since the early- to mid-2000s, policies have begun to emerge in a growing number of countries at the municipal, state/provincial and national
levels, as well as internationally (see Figure TS.11.1). [1.4, 11.1, 11.2.1,
11.4, 11.5]
Trends in (5) industry mergers and acquisitions can reect the overall maturity of the sector, and increasing renancing activity over
time indicates that larger, more conventional investors are entering
the sector, buying up successful early investments from rst movers. [11.2.2.6]
11.3
11.4
Summaries
Technical Summary
2005
Early 2011
Countries with at least one RE-specific Policy and at least one RE Target
Figure TS.11.1 | Countries with at least one RE target and/or at least one RE-specic policy, in mid-2005 and in early 2011. This gure includes only national-level targets and policies
(not municipal or state/provincial) and is not necessarily all-inclusive. [Figure 11.1]
149
Technical Summary
11.5
Summaries
11.5.1
R&D, innovation, diffusion and deployment of new low-carbon technologies create benets to society beyond those captured by the innovator,
resulting in under-investment in such efforts. Thus, government R&D
can play an important role in advancing RE technologies. Not all countries can afford to support R&D with public funds, but in the majority
of countries where some level of support is possible, public R&D for
RE enhances the performance of nascent technologies so that they can
meet the demands of initial adopters. Public R&D also improves existing
technologies that already function in commercial environments. [11.5.2]
150
Summaries
Technical Summary
11.5.2
Technology
Cycle
Higher performance,
cost reductions,
enhanced applications
result in more and
higher quality RE
technologies and
deployment
Technology
Development
Industry
Development
Market
Cycle
Market
Development
Figure TS.11.2 | The mutually-reinforcing cycles of technology development and market deployment drive down technology costs. [Figure 11.5]
151
Technical Summary
152
Summaries
Summaries
Technical Summary
153
Technical Summary
not public (in contrast to the electricity sector, for example). While
mandates are key drivers in the development and growth of most
modern biofuels industries, they are found to be less appropriate for
the promotion of specic types of biofuel because fuel suppliers tend
to blend low-cost biofuels. By nature, mandates need to be carefully designed and accompanied by further requirements in order to
reach a broader level of distributional equity and to minimize potential negative social and environmental impacts. Those countries with
the highest share of biofuels in transport fuel consumption have had
hybrid systems that combine mandates (including penalties) with
scal incentives (tax exemptions foremost). [11.5.6]
Synthesis
Some policy elements have been shown to be more effective and
efcient in rapidly increasing RE deployment and enabling governments and society to achieve specic targets. The details of policy
design and implementation can be as important in determining
effectiveness and efciency as the specic policies that are used.
Key policy elements include [11.5.7]:
Adequate value derived from subsidies, FITs, etc. to cover cost
such that investors are able to recover their investment at a rate
of return that matches their risk.
Guaranteed access to networks and markets or at a minimum
clearly dened exceptions to that guaranteed access.
Long-term contracts to reduce risk thereby reducing nancing
costs.
Provisions that account for diversity of technologies and applications. RE technologies are at varying levels of maturity and
with different characteristics, often facing very different barriers.
Multiple RE sources and technologies may be needed to mitigate
climate change, and some that are currently less mature and/or
more costly than others could play a signicant role in the future
in meeting energy needs and reducing GHG emissions.
Summaries
can self-generate with distributed RE, enabling broader participation that unleashes more capital for investment, helps to build
broader public support for RE, and creates greater competition.
Attention to preferred exempted groups, for example, major users
on competitiveness grounds or low-income and vulnerable customers on equity and distributional grounds.
It is also important to recognize that there is no one-size-ts-all policy,
and policymakers can benet from the ability to learn from experience and adjust programmes as necessary. Policies need to respond to
local political, economic, social, ecological, cultural and nancial needs
and conditions, as well as factors such as the level of technological
maturity, availability of affordable capital, and the local and national
RE resource base. In addition, a mix of policies is generally needed to
address the various barriers to RE. Policy frameworks that are transparent and sustainedfrom predictability of a specic policy, to pricing
of carbon and other externalities, to long-term targets for REhave
been found to be crucial for reducing investment risks and facilitating
deployment of RE and the evolution of low-cost applications. [11.5.7]
Macroeconomic impacts of renewable energy policies
Payment for supply-push type RE support tends to come from public
budgets (multinational, national, local), whereas the cost of demand-pull
mechanisms often lands on the end users. For example, if a renewable
electricity policy is added to a countries electricity sector, this additional
cost is often borne by electricity consumers, although exemptions or
re-allocations can reduce costs for industrial or vulnerable customers
where necessary. Either way, there are costs to be paid. If the goal is
to transform the energy sector over the next several decades, then it is
important to minimize costs over this entire period; it is also important
to include all costs and benets to society in that calculation. [11.5.7.2]
Interactions and potential unintended consequences of renewable energy and climate policies
Due to overlapping drivers and rationales for RE deployment and overlapping jurisdictions (local, national, international) substantial interplay
154
Summaries
11.6
Technical Summary
that can facilitate change in the energy system. An enabling environment encompasses different institutions, actors (e.g., the nance
community, business community, civil society, government), infrastructures (e.g., networks and markets), and political outcomes (e.g.,
international agreements/cooperation, climate change strategies) (see
Table TS.11.1). [11.6]
A favourable or enabling environment for RE can be created by
encouraging innovation in the energy system; addressing the possible
interactions of a given policy with other RE policies as well as with other
non-RE policies; easing the ability of RE developers to obtain nance
and to successfully site a project; removing barriers for access to networks and markets for RE installations and output; enabling technology
transfer and capacity building; and by increasing education and awareness raising at the institutional level and within communities. In turn,
the existence of an enabling environment can increase the efciency and
effectiveness of policies to promote RE. [11.6.111.6.8]
A widely accepted conclusion in innovation literature is that established
socio-technical systems tend to narrow the diversity of innovations
because the prevailing technologies develop a tting institutional environment. This may give rise to strong path dependencies and exclude
(or lock out) rivalling and potentially better-performing alternatives. For
these reasons, socio-technical system change takes time, and it involves
change that is systemic rather than linear. RE technologies are being integrated into an energy system that, in much of the world, was constructed
to accommodate the existing energy supply mix. As a result, infrastructure
favours the currently dominant fuels, and existing lobbies and interests
all need to be taken into account. Due to the intricacies of technological
change, it is important that all levels of government (from local through
to international) encourage RE development through policies, and that
nongovernmental actors also be involved in policy formulation and implementation. [11.6.1]
Government policies that complement each other are more likely to be
successful, and the design of individual RE policies will also affect the
success of their coordination with other policies. Attempting to actively
promote the complementarities of policies across multiple sectorsfrom
energy to agriculture to water policy, etc.while also considering the
independent objectives of each, is not an easy task and may create winwin and/or win-lose situations, with possible trade-offs. This implies a
need for strong central coordination to eliminate contradictions and conicts among sectoral policies and to simultaneously coordinate action at
more than one level of governance. [11.6.2]
A broader enabling environment includes a nancial sector that can
offer access to nancing on terms that reect the specic risk/reward
prole of a RE technology or project. The cost of nancing and access to
it depends on the broader nancial market conditions prevalent at the
time of investment, and on the specic risks of a project, technology,
and actors involved. Beyond RE-specic policies, broader conditions can
155
Technical Summary
Summaries
Table TS.11.1 | Factors and participants contributing to a successful RE governance regime. [Table 11.4]
Dimensions of
an Enabling
Environment >>
Factors and actors
contributing to the
success of RE policy
Section 11.6.2
Integrating Policies
(national/
supranational
policies)
Institutions
Integrating RE policies
with other policies at
the design level reduces
potential for conict
among government
policies
Civil society
(individuals, households, NGOs,
unions ...)
Municipalities or cities
can play a decisive role
in integrating state policies at the local level
Development of nancing
institutions and agencies
can aid cooperation
between countries, provide
soft loans or international
carbon nance (CDM).
Long-term commitment
can reduce the perception
of risk
Community investment
can share and reduce
investment risk
Public-private partnerships in investment and
project development can
contribute to reducing
risks associated with policy
instruments
Appropriate international
institutions can enable
an equitable distribution
of funds
Infrastructures
Section 11.6.3
Reducing Financial
and Investment Risk
Section 11.6.4
Planning and
Permitting at the
local level
Participation of civil
society in local planning
and permitting processes
might allow for selection
of the most socially
relevant RE projects
RE project developers
can offer know-how and
professional networks
in : i) aligning project
development with
planning and permitting
requirements ; ii)
adapting planning and
permitting processes
to local needs and
conditions
Businesses can be active
in lobbying for coherent
and integrated policies
Section 11.6.5
Providing
infrastructures
networks and
markets for RE
technology
Section 11.6.6
Technology
Transfer and
Capacity Building
Reliability of RE
technologies can
be ensured through
certication
Institutional agreements enable technology transfer
Openness to learning
from other actors can
complement design of
policies and enhance
their effectiveness by
working within existing
social conditions
Civil society
participation in open
policy processes
can generate new
knowledge and induce
institutional change
Municipalities or cities
may develop solutions
to make RE technology
development possible at
the local level
People (individually
or collectively) have a
potential for advancing energy-related
behaviours when policy
signals and contextual
constraints are coherent
Financing institutions
and agencies can
partner with national
governments, provide
soft loans or international carbon nance
(CDM).
Section 11.6.7
Learning from
actors beyond
government
Multi-national
companies can involve
local NGOs or SMEs
as partners in new
technology development
(new business models)
Development of corporations and international
institutions reduces risk
of investment
156
Summaries
Dimensions of
an Enabling
Environment >>
Factors and actors
contributing to the
success of RE policy
Technical Summary
Section 11.6.2
Integrating Policies
(national/
supranational
policies)
Section 11.6.3
Reducing Financial
and Investment Risk
Section 11.6.4
Planning and
Permitting at the
local level
Section 11.6.5
Providing
infrastructures
networks and
markets for RE
technology
Section 11.6.6
Technology
Transfer and
Capacity Building
Section 11.6.7
Learning from
actors beyond
government
Supra-national
guidelines (e.g., EU on
streamlining, ocean
planning, impact study)
may contribute to
integrating RE policy
with other policies
Long-term political
commitment to RE policy
reduces investors risk in RE
projects
technology transfer...)
Development cooperation
helps sustain infrastructure development and
allows easier access to
low-carbon technologies
CDMs, Intellectual
property rights (IPR)
and patent agreements can contribute
to technology transfer
157
Technical Summary
11.7
A structural shift
158
Summaries
III
Chapters 1 to 11
Lead Authors:
Masayuki Kamimoto (Japan), Lourdes Maurice (USA), John Nyboer (Canada),
Kevin Urama (Kenya/Nigeria), Tony Weir (Fiji/Australia)
Contributing Authors:
Thomas Bruckner (Germany), Arnulf Jger-Waldau (Italy/Germany),
Volker Krey (Austria/Germany), Ralph Sims (New Zealand), Jan Steckel (Germany),
Michael Sterner (Germany), Russell Stratton (USA), Aviel Verbruggen (Belgium),
Ryan Wiser (USA)
Review Editors:
Jiahua Pan (China) and Jean-Pascal van Ypersele (Belgium)
161
Chapter 1
Table of Contents
Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167
1.1.1
Introduction
1.1.2
The Special Report on Renewable Energy Sources and Climate Change Mitigation
1.1.3
1.1.4
1.1.5
1.1.6
1.1.7
1.1.8
1.1.9
1.2
1.2.1
1.2.2
1.2.3
1.2.4
1.2.5
1.3
1.3.1
1.3.2
1.3.3
162
.............................................................................................................................................
..............................................
.............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................................
167
167
169
174
........................................................................................
177
.............................................................................................
178
..............................................................................................................................
178
.......................................................................................
178
............................................................................
178
...................................................................................................
181
....................................................................................
.......................................................................................................
.........................................................................
...............................................................................................................
.........................................................................................................
181
185
187
187
190
Chapter 1
1.4
1.4.1
1.4.1.1
1.4.1.2
1.4.1.3
1.4.1.4
Opportunities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191
Social and economic development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191
Energy access . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191
Energy security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191
Climate change mitigation and reduction of environmental and health impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192
1.4.2
1.4.2.1
1.4.2.2
1.4.2.3
1.4.2.4
Barriers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192
Market failures and economic barriers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193
Informational and awareness barriers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194
Socio-cultural barriers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195
Institutional and policy barriers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196
1.4.3
Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196
1.5
1.5.1
1.5.2
1.5.2.1
1.5.2.2
1.5.3
A structural shift
.......................................................................................................................................
199
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200
Appendix to Chapter 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 206
163
Chapter 1
Executive Summary
All societies require energy services to meet basic human needs (e.g., lighting, cooking, space comfort,
mobility, communication) and to serve productive processes. For development to be sustainable, delivery of
energy services needs to be secure and have low environmental impacts. Sustainable social and economic development
requires assured and affordable access to the energy resources necessary to provide essential and sustainable energy
services. This may mean the application of different strategies at different stages of economic development. To be environmentally benign, energy services must be provided with low environmental impacts and low greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions. However, 85% of current primary energy driving global economies comes from the combustion of fossil fuels
and consumption of fossil fuels accounts for 56.6% of all anthropogenic GHG emissions.
Renewable energy sources play a role in providing energy services in a sustainable manner and, in particular, in mitigating climate change. This Special Report on Renewable Energy Sources and Climate Change Mitigation
explores the current contribution and potential of renewable energy (RE) sources to provide energy services for a sustainable social and economic development path. It includes assessments of available RE resources and technologies,
costs and co-benets, barriers to up-scaling and integration requirements, future scenarios and policy options.
GHG emissions associated with the provision of energy services are a major cause of climate change. The
IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) concluded that Most of the observed increase in global average temperature
since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.
Concentrations of CO2 have continued to grow and by the end of 2010 had reached 390 ppm CO2 or 39% above preindustrial levels.
The long-term baseline scenarios reviewed for the AR4 show that the expected decrease in the energy
intensity will not be able to compensate for the effects of the projected increase in the global gross domestic product. As a result, most of the scenarios exhibit a strong increase in primary energy supply throughout this
century. In the absence of any climate policy, the overwhelming majority of the baseline scenarios exhibit considerably
higher emissions in 2100 compared to 2000, implying rising CO2 concentrations and, in turn, enhanced global warming.
Depending on the underlying socioeconomic scenarios and taking into account additional uncertainties, global mean
temperature is expected to rise and to approach a level between 1.1C and 6.4C over the 1980 to 1999 average by the
end of this century.
To avoid adverse impacts of such climate change on water resources, ecosystems, food security, human
health and coastal settlements with potentially irreversible abrupt changes in the climate system, the
Cancun Agreements call for limiting global average temperature rises to no more than 2C above preindustrial values, and agreed to consider limiting this rise to 1.5C. In order to be condent of achieving an
equilibrium temperature increase of only 2C to 2.4C, GHG concentrations would need to be stabilized in the range of
445 to 490 ppm CO2eq in the atmosphere.
There are multiple means for lowering GHG emissions from the energy system, while still providing desired
energy services. RE technologies are diverse and can serve the full range of energy service needs. Various
types of RE can supply electricity, thermal energy and mechanical energy, as well as produce fuels that are able to
satisfy multiple energy service needs. RE is any form of energy from solar, geophysical or biological sources that is
replenished by natural processes at a rate that equals or exceeds its rate of use. Unlike fossil fuels, most forms of RE
produce little or no CO2 emissions.
The contribution RE will provide within the portfolio of low carbon technologies heavily depends on the
economic competition between these technologies, their relative environmental burden (beyond climate
change), as well as on security and societal aspects. A comprehensive evaluation of any portfolio of mitigation
options would involve an evaluation of their respective mitigation potential as well as all associated risks, costs and
their contribution to sustainable development. Even without a push for climate change mitigation, scenarios that are
164
Chapter 1
examined in this report nd that the increasing demand for energy services is expected to drive RE to levels exceeding
todays energy usage.
On a global basis, it is estimated that RE accounted for 12.9% of the total 492 EJ of primary energy supply
in 2008. The largest RE contributor was biomass (10.2%), with the majority (roughly 60%) of the biomass fuel used
in traditional cooking and heating applications in developing countries but with rapidly increasing use of modern biomass as well.1 Hydropower represented 2.3%, whereas other RE sources accounted for 0.4%. In 2008, RE contributed
approximately 19% of global electricity supply (16% hydropower, 3% other RE), biofuels contributed 2% of global
road transport fuel supply, and traditional biomass (17%), modern biomass (8%), solar thermal and geothermal energy
(2%) together fuelled 27% of the total global demand for heat. The contribution of RE to primary energy supply varies
substantially by country and region. Scenarios of future low greenhouse gas futures consider RE and RE in combination
with nuclear, and coal and natural gas with carbon capture and storage.
While the RE share of global energy consumption is still relatively small, deployment of RE has been increasing rapidly in recent years. Of the approximately 300 GW of new electricity generating capacity added globally over
the two-year period from 2008 to 2009, 140 GW came from RE additions. Collectively, developing countries hosted
53% of global RE power generation capacity in 2009. Under most conditions, increasing the share of RE in the energy
mix will require policies to stimulate changes in the energy system. Government policy, the declining cost of many RE
technologies, changes in the prices of fossil fuels and other factors have supported the continuing increase in the use of
RE. These developments suggest the possibility that RE could play a much more prominent role in both developed and
developing countries over the coming decades.
Some RE technologies can be deployed at the point of use (decentralized) in rural and urban environments,
whereas others are primarily employed within large (centralized) energy networks. Though many RE technologies are technically mature and are being deployed at signicant scale, others are in an earlier phase of technical
maturity and commercial deployment.
The theoretical potential for RE greatly exceeds all the energy that is used by all economies on Earth. The
global technical potential of RE sources will also not limit continued market growth. A wide range of estimates are
provided in the literature but studies have consistently found that the total global technical potential for RE is substantially higher than both current and projected future global energy demand. The technical potential for solar energy is
the highest among the RE sources, but substantial technical potential exists for all forms of RE. The absolute size of the
global technical potential for RE as a whole is unlikely to constrain RE deployment.
Some RE, including wind and solar power, are variable and may not always be available for dispatch when
needed. The energy density of some RE is also relatively lower, so that reducing the delivered energy needed to supply
end-use energy services is especially important for RE even though beneting all forms of energy.
The levelized cost of energy for many RE technologies is currently higher than existing energy prices,
though in various settings RE is already economically competitive. Ranges of recent levelized costs of energy for
selected commercially available RE technologies are wide, depending on a number of factors including, but not limited
to, technology characteristics, regional variations in cost and performance and differing discount rates.
RE may provide a number of opportunities and can not only address climate change mitigation but may also
address sustainable and equitable economic development, energy access, secure energy supply and local
environmental and health impacts. Market failures, up-front costs, nancial risk, lack of data as well as capacities
and public and institutional awareness, perceived social norms and value structures, present infrastructure and current
1
Not accounted for here or in ofcial databases is the estimated 20 to 40% of additional traditional biomass used in informal sectors (Section 2.1).
165
Chapter 1
energy market regulation, inappropriate intellectual property laws, trade regulations, lack of amenable policies and programs, lower power of RE and land use conicts are amongst existing barriers and issues to expanding the use of RE.
Some governments have successfully introduced a variety of RE policies, motivated by a variety of factors,
to address these various components of RE integration into the energy system. These policies have driven
escalated growth in RE technologies in recent years. These policies can be categorized as scal incentives, public
nance and regulation. They typically address two market failures: 1) the external cost of GHG emissions are not priced
at an appropriate level; and 2) RE creates benets to society beyond those captured by the innovator, leading to underinvestment in such efforts. Several studies have concluded that some feed-in tariffs have been effective and efcient at
promoting RE electricity. Quota policies can be effective and efcient if designed to reduce risk. An increasing number
of governments are adopting scal incentives for RE heating and cooling. In the transportation sector, RE fuel mandates
or blending requirements are key drivers in the development of most modern biofuel industries. Policies have inuenced
the development of an international biofuel trade. One important challenge will be nding a way for RE and carbonpricing policies to interact such that they take advantage of synergies rather than trade-offs. RE technologies can play a
greater role if they are implemented in conjunction with enabling policies.
166
Chapter 1
1.1
Background
1.1.1
Introduction
All societies require energy services to meet basic human needs (e.g.,
lighting, cooking, space comfort, mobility, communication) and to serve
productive processes. The quality of energy is important to the development process (Cleveland et al., 1984; Brookes, 2000; Kaufmann, 2004).
For development to be sustainable, delivery of energy services needs to
be secure and have low environmental impacts. Sustainable social and
economic development requires assured and affordable access to the
energy resources necessary to provide essential and sustainable energy
services. This may mean the application of different strategies at different stages of economic development. To be environmentally benign,
energy services must be provided with low environmental impacts,
including GHG emissions.
The IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) reported that fossil fuels provided 85% of the total primary energy in 2004 (Sims et al., 2007),2 which
is the same value as in 2008 (IEA 2010a; Table A.II.1). Furthermore, the
combustion of fossil fuels accounted for 56.6% of all anthropogenic
GHG emissions (CO2eq) in 2004 (Rogner et al., 2007).3 To maintain both
a sustainable economy that is capable of providing essential goods and
1.1.2
Technology Chapters
5. Hydropower
6. Ocean Energy
7. Wind Energy
8. Integration of Renewable Energy into Present and Future Energy Systems
9. Renewable Energy in the Context of Sustainable Development
Integrative Chapters
10. Mitigation Potential and Costs
11. Policy, Financing and Implementation
The number from the AR4 is 80% and has been converted from the physical content
method for energy accounting to the direct equivalent method, as the latter method
is used in this report. Please refer to Section 1.1.9 and Annex II (Section A.II.4) for
methodological details.
The contributions from other sources and/or gases (see Figure 1.1b in Rogner et al.,
2007) are: CO2 from deforestation, decay of biomass etc. (17.3%), CO2 from other
(2.8%), CH4 (14.3%), N2O (7.9%) and uorinated gases (1.1%). For further information on sectoral emissions, including from forestry, see also Figure 1.3b in Rogner et
al. (2007) and associated footnotes.
167
Chapter 1
700
600
Post-SRES Non-Intervention
400
300
200
100
0
1940
1960
1980
2000
2020
2040
2060
2080
500
2100
20
15
10
0
1940
1960
1980
2000
2020
2040
2060
2080
800
Climate change
Post-SRES Non-Intervention
1.1.3
2100
Figure 1.2 | Left panel: Comparison of GDP projections in post-SRES (Special Report on Emission Scenarios) emissions scenarios with those used in previous scenarios. The median
of the new scenarios is about 7% below the median of the pre-SRES and SRES scenario literature. The two vertical bars on the right extend from the minimum to maximum of the
distribution of scenarios by 2100. Right panel: Development of primary energy intensity of GDP: historical development and projections from SRES and pre-SRES scenarios compared
to post-SRES scenarios. Adapted from Fisher et al., 2007, pp. 180 and 184.
4
This report communicates uncertainty, for example, by showing the results of sensitivity analyses and by quantitatively presenting ranges in cost numbers as well as
ranges in the scenario results. This report does not apply formal IPCC uncertainty
terminology because at the time of the approval of this report, IPCC uncertainty
guidance was in the process of being revised.
168
Chapter 1
4,000
3,500
3,000
2,500
Post-SRES Non-Intervention
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
0
1940
1960
1980
2000
2020
2040
2060
2080
2100
The Cancun Agreements (2010) call for limiting global average temperature rise to no more than 2C above pre-industrial values, and agreed to
Since about 1850, global use of fossil fuels (coal, oil and gas) has
increased to dominate energy supply, both replacing many traditional
uses of bioenergy and providing new services. The rapid rise in fossil fuel
combustion (including gas aring) has produced a corresponding rapid
growth in CO2 emissions (Figure 1.6).
The amount of carbon in fossil fuel reserves and resources (unconventional oil and gas resources as well as abundant coal) not yet burned
has the potential to add quantities of CO2 to the atmosphereif burned
over coming centuriesthat would exceed the range of any of the scenarios considered in Figure 1.5 or in Chapter 10 (Moomaw et al., 2001;
Knopf et al., 2010). Figure 1.7 summarizes current estimates of fossil fuel
resources and reserves in terms of carbon content, and compares them
with the amount already released to the atmosphere as CO2. Reserves
refer to what is extractable with todays technologies at current energy
140
SRES + Pre-SRES, Non-Intervention Range
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
1940
1960
1980
2000
2020
2040
2060
2080
In the absence of additional climate policies, the IPCC (2007a; see Figure
1.4) projected that global average temperature will rise over this century
by between 1.1C and 6.4C over the 1980 to 1999 average, depending on socioeconomic scenarios (IPCC, 2000a). This range of uncertainty
arises from uncertainty about the amount of GHGs that will be emitted
in the future, and from uncertainty about the climate sensitivity. In addition to an investigation of potentially irreversible abrupt changes in the
climate system, the IPCC assessed the adverse impacts of such climate
change (and the associated sea level rise and ocean acidication) on
water supply, ecosystems, food security, human health and coastal settlements (IPCC, 2007c).
1.1.4
Post-SRES Non-Intervention
consider a goal of 1.5C. The analysis shown in Figure 1.5 concludes that
in order to be condent of achieving an equilibrium temperature increase
of only 2C to 2.4C, atmospheric GHG concentrations would need to
be in the range of 445 to 490 ppm CO2eq. This in turn implies that global
emissions of CO2 will need to decrease by 50 to 85% below 2000 levels by 2050 and begin to decrease (instead of continuing their current
increase) no later than 2015 (IPCC, 2007a). Note that there is a considerable range of probable temperature outcomes at this concentration
range. Additional scenario analysis and mitigation costs under various
GHG concentration stabilization levels are analyzed in Chapter 10. This
report does not analyze the economic cost of damages from climate
change.
2100
Figure 1.3 | Left panel: Projected increase in primary energy supply. Comparison of 153 SRES and pre-SRES baseline energy scenarios in the literature compared with the 133 more
recent, post-SRES scenarios. The ranges are comparable, with small changes in the lower and upper boundaries. Right panel: Expected carbon intensity changes. Historical development
and projections from SRES and pre-SRES scenarios compared to post-SRES scenarios. Adapted from Fisher et al., 2007, pp. 183 and 184.
169
Chapter 1
200
180
160
140
120
Post-SRES [Max]
6.0
5.0
A1T
B2
4.0
A1B
A2
A1FI
3.0
Year 2000 Constant
Concentrations
100
2.0
20th Century
80
60
1.0
40
20
B1
A1T
B2
A1B
A2
A1FI
Post-SRES [Min]
-1.0
0
2000
2100
1900
2000
2100
Figure 1.4 | Left panel: Global GHG emissions (Gt CO2eq) in the absence of climate policies: six illustrative SRES marker scenarios (coloured lines) and the 80th percentile range of
recent scenarios published since SRES (post-SRES) (grey shaded area). Dashed lines show the full range of post-SRES scenarios. The emissions include CO2, methane (CH4 ), nitrous oxide
(N2O) and uorinated gases. Right panel: Solid lines are multi-model global averages of projected surface warming for SRES scenarios A2, A1B and B1, shown as continuations of the
20th-century simulations. These projections also take into account emissions of short-lived GHGs and aerosols. The brown line is not a scenario, but is for atmosphere-ocean general circulation model simulations where atmospheric concentrations are held constant at year 2000 values. The bars at the right of the gure indicate the best estimate (solid line within each
bar) and the likely range assessed for the six SRES marker scenarios for 2090 to 2099. All temperatures are relative to the period 1980 to 1999 (IPCC, 2007a, Figure SPM 5, page 7).
In developing strategies for reducing CO2 emissions it is useful to consider the Kaya identity that analyzes energy-related CO2 emissions as
a function of four factors: 1) Population; 2) GDP per capita; 3) energy
intensity (i.e., total primary energy supply (TPES) per GDP); and 4) carbon intensity (i.e., CO2 emissions per TPES) (Ehrlich and Holdren, 1971;
Kaya, 1990).
The absolute (a) and percentage (b) annual changes in global CO2 emissions are shown in terms of the Kaya factors in Figure 1.8 (Edenhofer
et al., 2010).
While GDP per capita and population growth had the largest effect on
emissions growth in earlier decades, decreasing energy intensity signicantly slowed emissions growth in the period from 1971 to 2008. In the
past, carbon intensity fell because of improvements in energy efciency
and switching from coal to natural gas and the expansion of nuclear
energy in the 1970s and 1980s that was particularly driven by Annex I
countries.5 In recent years (2000 to 2007), increases in carbon intensity
have mainly been driven by the expansion of coal use by both developed
and developing countries, although coal and petroleum use have fallen
slightly since 2007. In 2008 this trend was broken due to the nancial
crisis. Since the early 2000s, the energy supply has become more carbon
intensive, thereby amplifying the increase resulting from growth in GDP
per capita (Edenhofer et al., 2010).
5
170
140
Historical Emissions
120
Chapter 1
Stabilization Level
100
80
60
Post-SRES Range
40
10
20
2
0
-20
1940
1960
1980
2000
2020
2040
2060
2080
0
280300
2100
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
Figure 1.5 | Global CO2 emissions from 1940 to 2000 and emissions ranges for categories of stabilization scenarios from 2000 to 2100 (left panel); and the corresponding relationship between the stabilization target and the likely equilibrium global average temperature increase above pre-industrial (right panel). Coloured shadings show stabilization scenarios
grouped according to different targets (stabilization categories I to VI). The right panel shows ranges of global average temperature change above pre-industrial, using (i) best estimate
climate sensitivity of 3C (line in middle of shaded area); (ii) upper bound of likely range of climate sensitivity of 4.5C (line at top of shaded area); and (iii) lower bound of likely range
of climate sensitivity of 2C (line at bottom of shaded area) (IPCC, 2007a, Figure SPM-11, page 21).
30
25
Gas Fuel
Liquid Fuel
20
Solid Fuel
15
10
0
1850
1860
1870
1880
1890
1900
1910
1920
1930
1940
1950
1960
1970
1980
1990
2000
Figure 1.6 | Global CO2 emissions from fossil fuel burning, 1850 to 2007. Gas fuel includes aring of natural gas. All emission estimates are expressed in Gt CO2. Data Source: (Boden
and Marland, 2010).
171
in the Atmosphere
Gas
Chapter 1
Oil
Coal
5,000
2,500
0
in the Ground / Recoverable
Unconventional Resources Recoverable
with Technological Progress
2,500
in the Ground
5,000
Conventional Reserves Identied
7,500
9,850
Figure 1.7 | CO2 released to the atmosphere (above zero) and stocks of recoverable carbon from fossil fuels in the ground (below zero, converted to CO2). Estimates of carbon stocks
in the ground are taken from IPCC (2000a, Table 3-5). Estimates of carbon stocks remaining are provided by BGR (2009), cumulative historic carbon consumption (1750 to 2004)
is from Boden et al. (2009) and estimated future consumption (2005 to 2100) from the mean of the baseline scenarios of the energy-economic and integrated assessment models
considered in the analysis of Chapter 10 (Table 10.1). Only those scenarios where the full data set until 2100 was available were considered (i.e., 24 scenarios from 12 models). The
light blue stacked bar shows the mean and the black error bars show the standard deviation of the baseline projections. Fossil energy stocks were converted to CO2 emissions by using
emission factors from IPCC (2006). Adapted from Knopf et al. (2010).
Historically, developed countries have contributed the most to cumulative global CO2 emissions, and still have the highest total historical
emissions and largest emissions per capita (World Bank, 2009). Recently,
developing country annual emissions have risen to more than half of the
total, and China surpassed the USA in annual emissions in 2007 (IEA,
2010f). Figure 1.9 examines the annual change in absolute emissions
by country and country groups between 1971 and 2008 (Edenhofer et
al., 2010).
1.1.5
172
in developing countries but with rapidly increasing use of modern biomass as well.6 Hydropower represented 2.3%, whereas other RE sources
accounted for 0.4% (Figure 1.10).
REs contribution to electricity generation is summarized in Figure 1.11.
In 2008, RE contributed approximately 19% of global electricity supply
(16% hydropower, 3% other RE). Global electricity production in 2008
was 20,181 TWh (or 72.65 EJ) (IEA, 2010a).
Deployment of RE has been increasing rapidly in recent years. Under
most conditions, increasing the share of RE in the energy mix will require
policies to stimulate changes in the energy system. Government policy,
the declining cost of many RE technologies, changes in the prices of
fossil fuels and other factors have supported the continuing increase
6
In addition, biomass use estimated to amount to 20 to 40% is not reported in ofcial databases, such as dung, unaccounted production of charcoal, illegal logging,
fuelwood gathering, and agricultural residue use (Section 2.1).
Chapter 1
Population
Energy Intensity
Carbon Intensity
Change in CO2
1
4
CO2 / yr [%]
CO2 / yr [Gt]
0.5
0
-0.5
1971 1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005 2008
1971 1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005 2008
Figure 1.8 | Decomposition of (a) annual absolute change and (b) annual growth rate in global energy-related CO2 emissions by the factors in the Kaya identity; population (red), GDP
per capita (orange), energy intensity (light blue) and carbon intensity (dark blue) from 1971 to 2008. The colours show the changes that would occur due to each factor alone, holding
the respective other factors constant. Total annual changes are indicated by a black triangle. Data source: IEA (2010a).
CO / yr [Gt CO ]
2
2
1.6
OECD Europe
India
1.4
USA
Other NICs
1.2
Other OECD
Africa
China
ROW
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
1971
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
Figure 1.9 | Inuence of selected countries and country groups on global changes in CO2
emissions from 1971 to 2008. ROW: rest of world. Data source: IEA (2010a).
Note: OECD is the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development; Other
Newly Industrializing Countries (NICs) include Brazil, Indonesia, the Republic of Korea,
Mexico and South Africa; Other OECD does not include the Republic of Korea and
Mexico; and Africa does not include South Africa.
in the use of RE (see Section 1.5.1 and Chapter 11). While RE is still
relatively small, its growth has accelerated in recent years, as shown
in Figure 1.12. In 2009, despite global nancial challenges, RE capacity
continued to grow rapidly, including wind power (32%, 38 GW added),
hydropower (3%, 31 GW added), grid-connected photovoltaics (53%,
7.5 GW added), geothermal power (4%, 0.4 GW), and solar hot water/
heating (21%, 31 GWth) (REN21, 2010). Biofuels accounted for 2% of
global road transport fuel demand in 2008 and nearly 3% in 2009 (IEA,
173
Chapter 1
Coal
28.4%
Gas
22.1%
RE
12.9%
Bioenergy
10.2%
Nuclear
Energy 2.0%
Wind Energy 0.2%
Oil
34.6%
Hydropower 2.3%
Geothermal Energy 0.1%
Figure 1.10 | Shares of energy sources in total global primary energy supply in 2008 (492 EJ). Modern biomass contributes 38% to the total biomass share. Data source: IEA (2010a).
Notes: Underlying data for gure have been converted to the direct equivalent method of accounting for primary energy supply (Annex II.4).
magnitude lower CO2 emissions than fossil fuels in grams of CO2 per kWh
of electricity produced (Weisser, 2007; Sovacool, 2008; Jacobson, 2009).
1.1.6
There are multiple means for lowering GHG emissions from the energy system while still providing energy services (Pacala and Socolow, 2004; IPCC,
2007d). Energy services are the tasks to be performed using energy. Many
options and combinations are possible for reducing emissions. In order
to assess the potential contribution of RE to mitigating global climate
174
Chapter 1
Natural Gas
21.4%
4303 TWh
Hydropower
15.9%
3208 TWh
Oil
5.5%
1104 TWh
Bioenergy
1.1%
228 TWh
Wind Energy
1.1%
219 TWh
Nuclear Energy
13.6%
2731 TWh
Coal
41.1%
8273 TWh
Figure 1.11 | Share of primary energy sources in world electricity generation in 2008. Data for renewable energy sources from IEA (2010a); for fossil and nuclear from IEA (2010d).
from diesel engines, biomass fuels and from the burning of agricultural
elds (Bond and Sun, 2005). Additional reductions in non-CO2 heattrapping GHGs (CH4, N2O, hydrouorocarbons, sulphur hexauoride) can
also reduce global warming (Moomaw et al., 2001, their Appendix; Sims
et al., 2007).
Geoengineering solutions have been proposed to address other aspects
of climate change, including altering the heat balance of the Earth by
increasing surface albedo (reectivity), or by reecting incoming solar
radiation with high-altitude mirrors or with atmospheric aerosols.
Enhanced CO2 absorption from the atmosphere through ocean fertilization with iron has also been proposed and tested (Robock et al., 2009;
Royal Society, 2009).
There are multiple combinations of these means that can reduce the
extent of global warming. A comprehensive evaluation of any portfolio
of mitigation options would involve an evaluation of their respective
mitigation potential as well as all associated risks, costs and their contribution to sustainable development. This report focuses on substitution
of fossil fuels with low-carbon RE to reduce GHGs, and examines the
competition between RE and other options to address global climate
change (see Figure 1.14).
Setting a climate protection goal in terms of the admissible change in
global mean temperature broadly denes (depending on the assumed
climate sensitivity) a corresponding atmospheric CO2 concentration
limit and an associated carbon budget over the long term (see Figure
1.5, right panel) (Meinshausen et al., 2009). This budget, in turn, can
be broadly translated into a time-dependent emission trajectory that
serves as an upper bound or (if the remaining time exibility is taken
into account) in an associated corridor of admissible emissions (Figure
1.5, left panel). Subtracting any expected CO2 emissions from land use
change and land cover change constrains the admissible CO2 emissions
that could be realized by freely emitting carbon fuels (i.e., coal, oil, and
gas burned without applying carbon capture technologies).
The corresponding fossil fuel supply is part of the total primary energy
supply (see Figure 1.14). The remainder of the TPES is provided by
zero- or low-carbon energy technologies, such as RE, nuclear or the combustion of fossil fuels combined with CCS (Clarke et al., 2009).
Whereas the admissible amount of freely emitting fossil fuels is mainly
xed by the climate protection goal, the complementary contribution of
zero- or low-carbon energies to the primary energy supply is inuenced
by the scale of the requested energy services and the overall efciency
with which these services can be provided.
As Figure 1.2 right panel clearly shows, the energy intensity is already
expected to decrease signicantly in the non-intervention scenarios.
Technical improvements and structural changes are expected to result
in considerably lower emissions than otherwise would be projected.
As many low-cost options to improve the overall energy efciency are
175
Chapter 1
60
50
40
Hydropower
30
20
10
Wind Energy
Geothermal Energy
0.05
Solar PV Energy
0.04
Ocean Energy
0.03
0.02
0.01
0.00
1972
1974
1976
1978
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
Figure 1.12 | Historical development of global primary energy supply from renewable energy from 1971 to 2008. Data Source: IEA (2010a).
Note: Technologies are referenced to separate vertical units for display purposes only. Underlying data for gure have been converted to the direct equivalent method of accounting
for primary energy supply (Section 1.1.9 and Annex II.4), except that the energy content of biofuels is reported in secondary energy terms (the primary biomass used to produce the
biofuel would be higher due to conversion losses (Sections 2.3 and 2.4)).
176
Chapter 1
2,000
technologies, the ability of RE technologies to overcome initial cost barriers, preferences, environmental considerations and other barriers.
1,750
Maximum
75th Percentile
1.1.7
25th Percentile
1,250
Minimum
Single Estimates
with CCS
1,000
750
500
250
-500
Coal
Oil
Natural Gas
Nuclear
-250
Other Renewables
0
Biopower
1,500
-750
-1,000
-1,250
-1,500
Figure 1.13 | Lifecycle GHG emissions of renewable energy, nuclear energy and fossil
fuels (Chapter 9, Figure 9.8).
Economic Competition
Environmental Impacts
(Beyond Climate Change)
Security Aspects
Societal Aspects
Energy Efciency
Figure 1.14 | The role of renewable energies within the portfolio of zero- or low-carbon
mitigation options (qualitative description).
177
sources, energy efciency and CO2 emissions. REN 21, a nongovernmental organization, compiles recent data on RE resources based upon
industrial and governmental reports. A new international organization,
the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA), was also established in 2009 and has 149 signatories and 57 member countries 7.
1.1.8
1.1.9
See www.irena.org/
178
Chapter 1
1.2
1.2.1
Renewable energy is any form of energy from solar, geophysical or biological sources that is replenished by natural processes at a rate that
equals or exceeds its rate of use. RE is obtained from the continuing
or repetitive ows of energy occurring in the natural environment and
includes resources such as biomass, solar energy, geothermal heat,
hydropower, tide and waves and ocean thermal energy, and wind
energy. However, it is possible to utilize biomass at a greater rate than it
can grow, or to draw heat from a geothermal eld at a faster rate than
heat ows can replenish it. On the other hand, the rate of utilization of
direct solar energy has no bearing on the rate at which it reaches the
Earth. Fossil fuels (coal, oil, natural gas) do not fall under this denition,
as they are not replenished within a time frame that is short relative
to their rate of utilization.
There is a multi-step process whereby primary energy is converted
into an energy carrier (heat, electricity or mechanical work), and then
into an energy service. RE technologies are diverse and can serve the
full range of energy service needs. Various types of RE can supply
electricity, thermal energy and mechanical energy, as well as produce
fuels that are able to satisfy multiple energy service needs (Figure
1.16).
Since it is energy services and not energy that people need, the goal is
to meet those needs in an efcient manner that requires less primary
energy consumption with low-carbon technologies that minimize CO2
emissions (Haas et al., 2008). Thermal conversion processes to produce electricity (including from biomass and geothermal) suffer losses
of approximately 40 to 90%, and losses of around 80% occur when
supplying the mechanical energy needed for transport based on internal combustion engines. These conversion losses raise the share of
primary energy from fossil fuels, and the primary energy required from
fossil fuels to produce electricity and mechanical energy from heat
(Jacobson, 2009; LLNL, 2009; Sterner, 2009). Direct energy conversions
from solar PV, hydro, ocean, and wind energy to electricity do not suffer thermodynamic power cycle (heat to work) losses although they do
experience other conversion inefciencies in extracting energy from
natural energy ows that may also be relatively large and irreducible
(Chapters 2 through 7). To better compare low-carbon sources that
produce electricity over time, this report has adopted the direct equivalent method in which primary energy of all non-combustible sources
is dened as one unit of secondary energy, for example, electricity,
Chapter 1
Future cost reduction given uncertainty in research and development (R&D)-driven advances and deployment-oriented learning
Ability to analyze variable and location-dependent RE technologies in large-scale energy models, including the contribution of RE towards sustainable
of RE deployment
Analysis of technology-specic mitigation potential through comparative scenario exercises considering uncertainties
Impacts of policies, barriers and enabling environments on deployment volume and timing
Realizable technical
geographic scales
Competition for RE resources, such as biomass, between RE technologies and other human activities and needs
Location of RE resources relative to the location of energy demand (i.e., population centres)
Technical and
Comparative assessment of the short- and long-term technical/institutional solutions and costs of integrating high penetrations of RE
Specic technical/institutional challenges of integrating variable RE into electricity markets that differ from those of the OECD, for RE resources other than
institutional challenges
and costs of integrating
wind, and the challenges and costs of cycling coal and nuclear plants
Benets and costs of combining multiple RE sources for the purpose of integration into energy markets
Institutional and technical barriers to integrating RE into heating and transport networks
markets
Impacts of possible future changes in energy systems (including more or less centralization or decentralization, degree of demand response, and the level
diverse RE technologies
of integration of the electricity sector with the presently distinct heating and transport sectors) on integration challenges and cost
Net lifecycle carbon emissions of certain RE technologies (e.g., some forms of bioenergy, hydropower)
socioeconomic and
environmental aspects
Balancing widely varying positive and negative impacts over different geographic and temporal scales
Policies to effectively minimize and manage negative impacts, and realize positive benets
The combination of policies that are most efcient and effective for deploying different RE technologies in different countries.
nancial mechanisms
How to design a policy such that potential co-benets of RE deployment are maximized, for example security, equity and environmental benets
to enable cost-effective
Optimizing the balance of design and of timing of RE-specic versus carbon-pricing policies to take best advantage of the synergies between these two
Comprehensive
assessment of
Opportunities for
meeting the needs of
developing countries
with sustainable RE
services
deployment of RE in a
wide variety of contexts
policy types.
Finding the most effective way to overcome the inherent advantage of current energy technologies including regulations and standards that lock-out RE
technologies and what needs to change in order to allow RE to penetrate the energy system
179
Chapter 1
Box 1.1 | Implications of different primary energy accounting conventions for energy and
emission scenarios.
[EJ]
Primary energy for combustible energy sources is dened as the heat released when it is burned in air. As discussed in Annex II (A.II.4)
and Table 1.A.1, there is no single, unambiguous accounting method for calculating primary energy from non-combustible energy sources
such as nuclear energy and all RE sources with the exception of bioenergy. The direct equivalent method is used throughout this report.
The direct equivalent method treats all non-combustible energy sources in an identical way by counting one unit of secondary energy
provided from non-combustible sources as one unit of primary energy, that is, 1 kWh of electricity or heat is accounted for as 1 kWh =
3.6 MJ of primary energy. Depending on the type of secondary energy produced, this may lead to an understatement of the contribution
of non-combustible RE and nuclear compared to bioenergy and fossil fuels by a factor of roughly 1.2 up to 3 (using indicative fossil fuel
to electricity and heat conversion efciencies of 38 and 85%, respectively). The implications of adopting the direct equivalent method in
contrast to the other two most prominent methodsthe physical energy content method and the substitution methodare illustrated in
Figure 1.15 and Table 1.2 based on a selected climate stabilization scenario. The scenario is from Loulou et al. (2009) and is referred to as
1B3.7MAX in that publication. CO2-equivalent concentrations of the Kyoto gases reach 550 ppm by 2100.
1,800
1,500
1,200
900
600
300
2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100
Figure 1.15 | Comparison of global total primary energy supply between 2010 and 2100
using different primary energy accounting methods based on a 550 ppm CO2eq stabilization scenario.
Differences from applying the three accounting methods to current energy consumption remain limited. However, substantial
differences arise when applying the methods to long-term scenarios when RE reaches higher shares. For the selected scenario, the accounting gap between methods grows substantially
over time, reaching about 370 EJ by 2100. There are signicant
differences in the accounting for individual non-combustible
sources by 2050, and even the share of total renewable
primary energy supply varies between 24 and 37% across the
three methods. The biggest absolute gap for a single source is
geothermal energy, with about 200 EJ difference between the
direct equivalent and the physical energy content method. The
gaps for hydro and nuclear energy remain considerable. For
more details on the different approaches, see Annex II.
Table 1.2 | Comparison of global total primary energy supply in 2050 using different primary energy accounting methods based on a 550 ppm CO2eq stabilization
scenario.
Physical content method
Fossil fuels
Substitution method
EJ
EJ
586.56
55.24
581.56
72.47
581.56
61.71
Nuclear
81.10
7.70
26.76
3.34
70.43
7.47
RE
390.08
37.05
194.15
24.19
290.37
30.81
Bioenergy
119.99
11.40
119.99
14.95
119.99
12.73
Solar
23.54
2.24
22.04
2.75
35.32
3.75
Geothermal
217.31
20.64
22.88
2.85
58.12
6.17
Hydro
23.79
2.26
23.79
2.96
62.61
6.64
Ocean
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Wind
5.45
0.52
5.45
0.68
14.33
1.52
Total
180
EJ
1,052.75
100.00
802.47
100.00
942.36
100.00
Chapter 1
1.2.2
1.2.3
Key to Figure
Primary Energy
Source
Energy Carrier
Conversion Type
Useable Energy
Flow
Energy Services
Nuclear
Fuels
Fossil Fuels
Liquid Fuel
Solid Fuel
Bioenergy
Geothermal
Energy
Gaseous
Fuel
Direct
Solar Energy
Wind Energy
Hydro Energy
Ocean Energy
Electricity
Kinetic
Conversion
Thermal
Conversion
Work
Heat
Heat-Based
Energy Services
Electrical Energy
Services
Mechanical Energy
Services
Figure 1.16 | Illustrative paths of energy from source to service. All connected lines indicate possible energy pathways. The energy services delivered to the users can be provided with
differing amounts of end-use energy. This in turn can be provided with more or less primary energy from different sources, and with differing emissions of CO2 and other environmental
impacts.
8
The Glossary (Annex I) provides a more comprehensive denition of this term and of
economic and market potential.
181
Chapter 1
Table 1.3 | Overview of renewable energy technologies and applications (Chapters 2 through 7)
Renewable
Energy
Source
R&D
Demo
& Pilot
Project
EarlyStage
Coml
LaterStage
Coml
Centralized
Decentralized
Thermal
Thermal
Thermal
Thermal
Electricity/Thermal/Transport
Electricity/Thermal
Bioenergy4
Electricity
Electricity
Electricity
Transport
Transport
Transport
Transport
Pyrolysis-Based Biofuels
Transport
Transport
Gaseous Biofuels
Thermal
Photovoltaic (PV)
Electricity
Concentrating PV (CPV)
Electricity
Electricity
Thermal
Solar Cooling
Thermal
Thermal
Solar Cooking
Thermal
Solar Fuels
Transport
Direct Solar
Electricity
Electricity
Electricity
Submarine Geothermal
Electricity
Thermal
Geothermal
Thermal
Electricity/Mechanical
Reservoirs
Electricity
Pumped Storage
Electricity
Hydropower
Hydrokinetic Turbines
Ocean Energy
Primary Distribution
Method3
Technology Maturity2
Electricity/Mechanical
Wave
Electricity
Tidal Range
Electricity
Tidal Currents
Electricity
Ocean Currents
Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion
Salinity Gradients
Electricity
Electricity/Thermal
Electricity
182
Chapter 1
Primary Distribution
Method3
Technology Maturity2
Renewable
Energy
Source
Wind Energy
R&D
Demo
& Pilot
Project
EarlyStage
Coml
LaterStage
Coml
Centralized
Decentralized
Electricity
Electricity
Electricity
Mechanical
Wind Kites
Transport
Electricity
Notes: 1. Primary energy sector as used here is intended to refer to the primary current or expected use(s) of the RE technology. In practice, RE-generated fuels may be used to meet a
variety of energy service needs (not only transportation); electricity can be used to meet thermal and transportation needs; etc. 2. The highest level of maturity within each technology
category is identied in the table; less mature technologies exist within some technology categories. 3. Centralized refers to energy supply that is distributed to end users through a
network; decentralized refers to energy supply that is created onsite. Categorization is based on the primary distribution method, recognizing that virtually all technologies can, in
some circumstances, be used in both a centralized and decentralized fashion. 4. Bioenergy technologies can also be combined with CCS, though CCS technology is at an earlier stage
of maturity.
Table 1.4 | Renewable energy theoretical potential expressed as annual energy uxes of EJ/yr compared to 2008 global primary energy supply.
Renewable source
Bioenergy
Solar Energy
Geothermal Energy
Ratio
(Annual energy ux/ 2008 primary
energy supply)
Total reserve
1,548d
3.1
3,900,000a
7,900
1,400c
2.8
Hydropower
147
0.30
Ocean Energy
7,400a
15
6,000
12
Annual Use
2008 (EJ/yr)
Wind Energy
418b
112
46,700
Total Uranium
10b
100350
1,0003,500
Total RE
64b
492 (2008)
Sources: a. Rogner et al. (2000); b. IEA (2010c) converted to direct equivalent method (Annex II; IEA, 2010d); c. Pollack et al. (1993); d. Smeets et al. (2007).
provided in the literature but studies have consistently found that the
total global technical potential for RE is substantially higher than both
current and projected future global energy demand. Figure 1.17 summarizes the ranges of technical potential for the different RE technologies
based on the respective chapter discussions. These ranges are compared
to a comprehensive literature review by Krewitt et al. (2009) in Table
1.A.1 including more detailed notes and explanations in the Appendix
to this chapter.9 The technical potential for solar energy is the highest among the RE sources, but substantial technical potential exists
for all forms of RE. According to the denition of technical potential
in the Glossary (Annex I), many of the studies summarized in Table
9
The denition of technical potential in Loulou et al. (2009) is similar but not identical to the denition here in that it is bounded by local/geographical availability and
technological limitations associated with conversion efciencies and the capture
and transfer of the energy. See footnotes to Table 1.A.1.
1.A.1 to some extent take into account broader economic and sociopolitical considerations. For example, for some technologies, land
suitability or other sustainability factors are included, which result in
lower technical potential estimates. However, the absolute size of the
global technical potential for RE as a whole is unlikely to constrain
RE deployment.
Taking into account the uncertainty of the technical potential estimates, Figure 1.17 and Table 1.A.1 provide a perspective for the
reader to understand the relative technical potential of the RE
resources in the context of current global electricity and heat demand
as well as of global primary energy supply. Aspects related to technology evolution, sustainability, resource availability, land use and other
factors that relate to this technical potential are explored in the various
183
Chapter 1
Electricity
Heat
Primary Energy
100,000
Range of Estimates
Summarized in Chapters 2-7
10,000
Maximum
Minimum
1,000
Global Heat
Demand, 2008: 164 EJ
Global Primary Energy
Supply, 2008: 492 EJ
100
10
Global Electricity
Demand, 2008: 61 EJ
0
Geothermal
Energy
Hydropower
Ocean
Energy
Wind
Energy
Geothermal
Energy
Biomass
Direct Solar
Energy
1109
52
331
580
312
500
49837
118
50
85
10
50
1575
Figure 1.17 | Ranges of global technical potentials of RE sources derived from studies presented in Chapters 2 through 7. Biomass and solar are shown as primary energy due to their
multiple uses. Note that the gure is presented in logarithmic scale due to the wide range of assessed data.
Notes: Technical potentials reported here represent total worldwide potentials for annual RE supply and do not deduct any potential that is already being utilized. Note that RE electricity sources could also be used for heating applications, whereas biomass and solar resources are reported only in primary energy terms but could be used to meet various energy
service needs. Ranges are based on various methods and apply to different future years; consequently, the resulting ranges are not strictly comparable across technologies. For the data
behind the gure and additional notes that apply, see Table 1.A.1 (as well as the underlying chapters).
1.2.4
Note also that the various types of energy cannot necessarily be added
together to estimate a total, because each type was estimated independently of the others (e.g., the assessment did not take into account
land use allocation; for example, PV and concentrating solar power cannot occupy the same space even though a particular site is suitable for
either of them).
184
Chapter 1
1.2.5
In this report, some specic denitions for different dimensions of efciency are utilized.
Energy efciency is the ratio of useful energy or other useful physical outputs obtained from a system, conversion process, transmission or storage
activity to its energy input (measured as kWh/kWh, tonnes/kWh or any
other physical measure of useful output like tonne-km transported, etc.).
Energy efciency can be understood as the reciprocal of energy intensity.
Hence the fraction of solar, wind or fossil fuel energy that can be converted to electricity is the conversion efciency. There are fundamental
limitations on the efciency of conversions of heat to work in an automobile engine or a steam or gas turbine, and the attained conversion
efciency is always signicantly below these limits. Current supercritical
coal-red steam turbines seldom exceed a 45% conversion of heat to
electric work (Bugge et al., 2006), but a combined-cycle steam and gas
turbine operating at higher temperatures has achieved 60% efciencies
(Pilavachi, 2000; Najjar et al., 2004).
Energy intensity is the ratio of energy use to output. If output is expressed
in physical terms (e.g., tonnes of steel output), energy intensity is the
reciprocal of energy productivity or energy efciency. Alternatively (and
often more commonly), output is measured in terms of populations
(i.e., per capita) or monetary units such as contribution to gross domestic product (GDP) or total value of shipments or similar terms. At the
national level, energy intensity is the ratio of total domestic primary (or
nal) energy use to GDP. Energy intensity can be decomposed as a sum
of intensities of particular activities weighted by the activities shares
of GDP. At an aggregate macro level, energy intensity stated in terms of
energy per unit of GDP or in energy per capita is often used for a sector such as transportation, industry or buildings, or to refer to an entire
economy.
Energy savings arise from decreasing energy intensity by changing the
activities that demand energy inputs. For example, turning off lights
when not needed, walking instead of taking vehicular transportation,
changing the controls for heating or air conditioning to avoid excessive
heating or cooling or eliminating a particular appliance and performing a
task in a less energy intensive manner are all examples of energy savings
(Dietz et al., 2009). Energy savings can be realized by technical, organizational, institutional and structural changes and by changed behaviour.
Studies suggest that energy savings resulting from efciency measures
are not always fully realized in practice. There may be a rebound effect
in which some fraction of the measure is offset because the lower total
cost of energy to perform a specic energy service may lead to utilization of more energy services. Rebound effects can be distinguished
at the micro and macro level. At the micro level, a successful energy
efciency measure may be expected to lead to lower energy costs for
the entity subject to the measure because it uses less energy. However,
the full energy saving may not occur because a more efcient vehicle
reduces the cost of operation per kilometre, so the user may drive more
kilometres. Or a better-insulated home may not achieve the full saving
because it is now possible to achieve greater comfort by using some of
185
the saved energy. The analysis of this effect is lled with many methodological difculties (Guerra and Sancho, 2010), but it is estimated that
the rebound effect is probably limited by saturation effects to between
10 and 30% for home heating and vehicle use in OECD countries, and
is very small for more efcient appliances and water heating (Sorrell et
al., 2009). An efciency measure that is successful in lowering economywide energy demand, however, lowers the price of energy as well. This
leads to a decrease in economy-wide energy costs leading to additional
cost savings for the entities that are subject to the efciency measure
(lower energy price and less energy use) as well as cost savings for
the rest of the economy that may not be subject to the measure but
benets from the lower energy price. Studies that examine changes in
energy intensity in OECD countries nd that at the macro level, there
is a reduction that appears related to energy efciency gains, and any
rebound effect is small (Schipper and Grubb, 2000). One analysis suggests that when all effects of lower energy prices are taken into account,
there are offsetting factors that can outweigh a positive rebound effect
(Turner, 2009). It is expected that the rebound effect may be greater
in developing countries and among poor consumers (Orasch and Wirl,
1997). These analyses of the rebound effect do not examine whether
an energy user might spend his economic savings on something other
than the energy use whose efciency was just improved (i.e., on other
activities that involve either higher or lower energy intensity than the
saved energy service), nor do there appear to be studies of corporate
efciency, where the savings might pass through to the bottom prot
line. For climate change, the main concern with any rebound effect is its
inuence on CO2 emissions, which can be addressed effectively with a
price on carbon (Chapter 11).
The role of energy efciency in combination with RE is somewhat more
complex and less studied. It is necessary to examine the total cost of
end-use efciency measures plus RE technology, and then determine
whether there is rebound effect for a specic case.
Furthermore, carbon leakage may also reduce the effectiveness of
carbon reduction policies. Carbon leakage is dened as the increase
in CO2 emissions outside of the countries taking domestic mitigation
action divided by the reduction in the emissions of these countries. If
carbon reduction policies are not applied uniformly across sectors and
political jurisdictions, then it is possible for carbon-emitting activities
that are controlled in one place to move to another sector or country
where such activities are not restricted (Kallbekken, 2007; IEA, 2008a).
Recent research suggests, however, that estimates of carbon leakage
are too high (Paltsev, 2001; Barker et al., 2007; Di Maria and van der
Werf, 2008).
Reducing energy needed at the energy services delivery stage is an
important means of reducing the primary energy required for all energy
supply fuels and technologies. Because RE sources usually have a lower
186
Chapter 1
power density than fossil or nuclear fuels, energy savings at the end-use
stage are often required to utilize a RE technology for a specic energy
service (Twidell and Weir, 2005). For example, it may not be possible to
fuel all vehicles on the planet with biofuels at their current low engine
efciencies, but if vehicle fuel efciency were greater, a larger fraction
of vehicles could be run on biofuels. Similarly, by lowering demand, the
size and cost of a distributed solar system may become competitive
(Rezaie et al., 2011). The importance of end-use efciency in buildings
in order for renewable technology to be a viable option has been documented (Frankl et al., 1998). Furthermore, electricity distribution and
management is simplied and system balancing costs are lower if the
energy demands are smaller (see Chapter 8). Energy efciency at the
end-use stage thus facilitates the use of RE.
Often the lowest cost option is to reduce end-use energy demand
through efciency measures, which include both new technologies and
more efcient practices (Hamada et al., 2001; Venema and Rehman,
2007; Ambrose, 2009; Harvey, 2009). Examples can be found in efcient appliances for lighting, as well as heating and cooling in the
building sector. For example, compact uorescent or light-emitting
diode lamps use much less electricity to produce a lumen of light than
does a traditional incandescent lamp (Mehta et al., 2008). Properly
sized variable-speed electric motors and improved efciency compressors for refrigerators, air conditioners and heat pumps can lower
primary energy use in many applications (Ionel, 1986; Sims et al., 2007;
von Weizscker et al., 2009). Efcient houses and small commercial
buildings such as the Passivhaus design from Germany are so air tight
and well insulated that they require only about one-tenth the energy
of more conventional dwellings (Passivhaus, 2010). Energy efcient
design of high-rise buildings in tropical countries could reduce emissions from cooling at a substantial cost savings (Ossen et al., 2005;
Ambrose, 2009).
Examples from the transportation sector include utilizing engineering improvements in traditional internal combustion engines to reduce
fuel consumption rather than enhancing acceleration and performance
(Ahman and Nilsson, 2008). Signicant efciency gains and substantial
CO2 emission reductions have also been achieved through the use of
hybrid electric systems, battery electric systems and fuel cells (see Section
8.3.1). Biofuels become more economically feasible for aircraft as engine
efciency improves (Lee, 2010). Examples that raise energy efciency
in the power supply and industrial sectors include combined heat and
power systems (Casten, 2008; Roberts, 2008), and recovery of otherwise
wasted thermal or mechanical energy (Bailey and Worrell, 2005; Brown
et al., 2005) thereby avoiding burning additional fuel for commercial and
industrial heat. These latter examples are also applicable to enhancing
the overall delivery of energy from RE such as capturing and utilizing the
heat from PV or biomass electricity systems, which is done frequently in
the forest products industry.
Chapter 1
1.3
1.3.1
1.3.2
While the resource is obviously large and could theoretically supply all
energy needs long into the future, the levelized cost of energy (LCOE)
for many RE technologies is currently higher than existing energy prices,
11.6
Input
Energy 17.8
4.0
Wind 0.8
0.8
Output
Electricity
13.4
5.6
PV 0.04
0.04
CSP 0.002
0.002
Tide&Wave 0.002
0.002
7.6
Output
Heat 0.4
0.2
0.2
0.6
7.75
1.9
34.9
Industry 13.5
0.2
5.2
Combustible
Biomass &
Renewable
Wastes
50.3
Losses 4.6
33.7
0.65
0.3
0.2
Transport 2.1
Other
Sectors 43.3
Residential
Commercial & Public Services
Agriculture & Forestry
Non-Specied
Unaccounted traditional
use of biomass
0.2
Geothermal 0.4
0.003
Solarthermal 0.5
0.01
0.2
0.01
0.4
Figure 1.18 | Global energy ows (EJ) in 2008 from primary RE through carriers to end uses and losses. Data Source: (IEA, 2010a).
187
Chapter 1
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
[UScent2005 /kWh]
Figure 1.19 | Levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) for commercially available RE technologies covering a range of different discount rates. The LCOE estimates for all technologies are
based on input data summarized in Annex III and the methodology outlined in Annex II. The lower bound of the levelized cost range is based on a 3% discount rate applied to the low
ends of the ranges of investment, operations and maintenance (O&M), and (if applicable) feedstock cost and the high ends of the ranges of capacity factors and lifetimes as well as (if
applicable) the high ends of the ranges of conversion efciencies and by-product revenue. The higher bound of the levelized cost range is accordingly based on a 10% discount rate
applied to the high end of the ranges of investment, O&M and (if applicable) feedstock costs and the low end of the ranges of capacity factors and lifetimes as well as (if applicable)
the low ends of the ranges of conversion efciencies and by-product revenue. Note that conversion efciencies, by-product revenue and lifetimes were in some cases set to standard
or average values. For data and supplementary information see Annex III.
10 Cost and performance data were gathered by the authors of Chapters 2 through
7 from a variety of sources in the available literature. They are based on the most
recent information available in the literature. Details can be found in the respective
chapters and are summarized in a data table in Annex III. All costs were assessed
using standard discounting analysis at 3, 7 and 10% as described in the Annex II. A
number of default assumptions about costs and performance parameters were made
to dene the levelized cost if data were unavailable and are also laid out in Annex III.
188
Chapter 1
50
100
150
200
[USD2005 /GJ]
Figure 1.20 | Levelized cost of heat (LCOH) for commercially available RE technologies covering a range of different discount rates. The LCOH estimates for all technologies are based
on input data summarized in Annex III and the methodology outlined in Annex II. The lower bound of the levelized cost range is based on a 3% discount rate applied to the low ends
of the ranges of investment, operations and maintenance (O&M), and (if applicable) feedstock cost and the high ends of the ranges of capacity factors and lifetimes as well as (if
applicable) the high ends of the ranges of conversion efciencies and by-product revenue. The higher bound of the levelized cost range is accordingly based on a 10% discount rate
applied to the high end of the ranges of investment, O&M and (if applicable) feedstock costs and the low end of the ranges of capacity factors and lifetimes as well as (if applicable)
the low ends of the ranges of conversion efciencies and by-product revenue. Note that capacity factors and lifetimes were in some cases set to standard or average values. For data
and supplementary information see Annex III.
Ethanol - Sugarcane
Ethanol - Corn
Ethanol - Wheat
10
20
30
40
50
60
[UScent2005 /GJHHV]
Figure 1.21 | Levelized Cost of Fuels (LCOF) for commercially available biomass conversion technologies covering a range of different discount rates. LCOF estimates for all technologies are based on input data summarized in Annex III and the methodology outlined
in Annex II. The lower bound of the levelized cost range is based on a 3% discount rate
applied to the low ends of the ranges of investment, operations and maintenance (O&M)
and feedstock cost. The higher bound of the levelized cost range is accordingly based
on a 10% discount rate applied to the high end of the ranges of investment, O&M and
feedstock costs. Note that conversion efciencies, by-product revenue, capacity factors
and lifetimes were set to average values. HHV stands for higher heating value. For data
and supplementary information see Annex III.
Furthermore, the levelized cost for a technology is not the sole determinant of its value or economic competitiveness. The attractiveness of
a specic energy supply option depends also on broader economic as
well as environmental and social aspects and the contribution that the
technology makes to meeting specic energy services (e.g., peak electricity demands) or imposes in the form of ancillary costs on the energy
system (e.g., the costs of integration). Chapters 8 to 11 offer important
complementary perspectives on such cost issues covering, for example,
the cost of integration, external costs and benets, economy-wide costs
and costs of policies.
189
1.3.3
190
Chapter 1
1.4
Chapter 1
1.4.1
Opportunities
1.4.1.1
1.4.1.2
1.4.1.3
Energy security
Energy access
In 2009, more than 1.4 billion people globally lacked access to electricity, 85% of them in rural areas, and the number of people relying on
traditional biomass for cooking was estimated to be around 2.7 billion
(IEA, 2010c). By 2015, almost 1.2 billion more people will need access
to electricity and 1.9 billion more people will need access to modern
fuels to meet the Millennium Development Goal of halving the proportion of people living in poverty (UNDP/WHO, 2009).
191
1.4.1.4
192
Chapter 1
have lead to signicant land and water spills. Most renewable technologies produce lower conventional air and water pollutants than fossil
fuels, but may require large amounts of land as, for example, reservoir
hydropower (which can also release methane from submerged vegetation), wind energy and biofuels (see Section 9.3.4.5).
Since a degree of climate change is now inevitable, adaptation to climate change is an essential component of sustainable development
(IPCC, 2007e). Adaptation can be either anticipatory or reactive to an
altered climate. Some RE technologies may assist in adapting to change,
and are usually anticipatory in nature. AR4 includes a chapter on the
linkage between climate mitigation (reducing emissions of GHGs) and
climate adaptation including the potential to assist adaptation to climate change (Klein et al., 2007a, b).
Active and passive solar cooling of buildings helps counter the
direct impacts on humans of rising mean temperatures (Chapter 3);
Solar PV and wind require no water for their operation, and hence may
become increasingly important as droughts and high river temperatures limit the power output of thermal power plants (Section 9.3.4);
Water pumps in rural areas remote from the power grid can utilize PV
(Chapter 3) or wind (Chapter 7) for raising agricultural productivity
during climate-induced increases in dry seasons and droughts; and
Tree planting and forest preservation along coasts and riverbanks is
a key strategy for lessening the coastal erosion impacts of climate
change. With suitable choice of species and silvicultural practices,
these plantings can also yield a sustainable source of biomass for
energy, for example, by coppicing (Section 2.5).
1.4.2
Barriers
Chapter 1
Energy Conversion
Electricity Consumption
Residental
Electricity
Distribution
Renewable
Commercial
Electric Transportation
Economic
Productivity
Transportation
Productivity
Nuclear
Fuel Combustion
Gasoline/Ethanol
GHG
Fossil
Raw Material
Movement
Product
Conversion
Liquid Fuel
Transportation
Jet Fuel
Transportation
Productivity
GHG
GHG
GHG
GHG
Diesel Fuel
Agriculture,
Forestry, Residues
Bunker Fuel
GHG
GHG
CO2
GHG
Biomass Co-Product
Co-Product
Figure 1.22 | Illustrative system for energy production and use illustrating the role of RE along with other production options. A systemic approach is needed to conduct lifecycle
systems analysis.
1.4.2.1
Market Failures
In economics a distinction is often made between market failures and
barriers. With reference to the theoretical ideal market conditions
(Debreu, 1959; Becker, 1971), all real-life markets fail to some degree
(Bator, 1958; Meade, 1971; Williamson, 1985), evidenced by losses in
welfare. Market failures (imperfections) are often due to externalities or
external effects. These arise from a human activity when agents responsible for the activity do not take full account of the activitys impact on
others. Externalities may be negative (external costs) or positive (external benets). External benets lead to an undersupply of benecial
193
Chapter 1
Type of barrier
1.4.2.1
Carbon taxes, emission trading schemes, public support for R&D, economic climate that supports investment,
micronance
1.4.2.2
1.4.2.3
Socio-cultural barriers
1.4.2.4
Enabling environment for innovation, revised technical regulations, international support for technology transfer
(e.g., under the UNFCCC), liberalization of energy industries
activities (e.g., public goods) from a societal point of view because the
producer is not fully rewarded. External costs lead to a too-high demand
for harmful activities because the consumer does not bear the full (societal) cost. Another market failure is rent appropriation by monopolistic
entities. In the case of RE deployment, these may appear as:
194
1.4.2.2
Chapter 1
1.4.2.3
Socio-cultural barriers
Socio-cultural barriers or concerns have different origins and are intrinsically linked to societal and personal values and norms. Such values and
norms affect the perception and acceptance of RE technologies and the
potential impacts of their deployment by individuals, groups and societies. Barriers may arise from inadequate attention to such socio-cultural
concerns and may relate to impacts on behaviour, natural habitats and
natural and human heritage sites, including impacts on biodiversity and
ecosystems, landscape aesthetics, and water/land use and water/land
use rights as well as their availability for competing uses (see Section
9.5.1.1).
Farmers on whose land wind farms are built rarely object; in fact they
usually see turbines as a welcome extra source of income either as owners (Denmark) or as leasers of their land (USA), as they can continue to
carry on agricultural and grazing activities beneath the turbines. Other
forms of RE, however, preclude multiple uses of the land (Kotzebue et
al., 2010). Dams for hydropower compete for recreational or scenic use
of rivers (Hynes and Hanley, 2006), and the reservoirs may remove land
from use for agriculture, forests or urban development. Large-scale solar
or wind may conict with other values (Simon, 2009) and may conict
with other social values of land such as nature preserves or scenic vistas (Groothuis et al., 2008; Valentine, 2010). Specic projects may also
have negative implications for poor populations (Mariita, 2002). Land
use can be just as contentious in some developing countries. In Papua
New Guinea, for example, villagers may insist on being paid for the use
of their land, for example, for a mini-hydro system of which they are the
sole beneciaries (Johnston and Vos, 2005).
Hence, social acceptance is an important element in the need to rapidly
and signicantly scale up RE deployment to help meet climate change
mitigation goals, as large-scale implementation can only be successfully
undertaken with the understanding and support of the public. Social
acceptance of RE is generally increasing; having domestic solar energy
PV or domestic hot water systems on ones roof has become a mark of
the owners environmental commitment (Bruce et al., 2009). However,
wind farms still have to battle local opposition before they can be established (Pasqualetti et al., 2002; Klick and Smith, 2010; Webler and Tuler,
2010) and there is opposition to aboveground transmission lines from
larger-scale renewable generation facilities (as well as from conventional
power sources) (Furby et al., 1988; Hirst and Kirby, 2001; Gerlach, 2004;
Vajjhala and Fischbeck, 2007; Puga and Lesser, 2009).
To overcome such barriers may require dedicated communication efforts
related to such subjective and psychological aspects as well as the more
objective opportunities associated with wider-scale applications of RE
technologies. At the same time, public participation in planning decisions
as well as fairness and equity considerations in the distribution of the
benets and costs of RE deployment play an equally important role and
cannot be side-stepped (see Section 9.5.2). See Chapters 7 and 11 for
more discussion of how such local planning issues impact the uptake of
RE. Chapter 11 also includes a wider discussion of the enabling social
and institutional environment required for the transition to RE systems.
Opposition to unwanted projects can be inuenced by policies but social
acceptance may be slow to change.
195
1.4.2.4
196
Chapter 1
concerns that have been raised that patents may unduly restrict lowcost access to these new technologies by developing countries, as has
happened with many new pharmaceuticals (Barton, 2007; Ockwell et
al., 2010; Chapters 3 and 7). There are certainly circumstances where
developing country companies need patent protection for their products as well.
Tariffs in international trade
Tariff barriers (import levies) and non-trade barriers imposed by some
countries signicantly reduce trade in some RE technologies. Discussions
about lowering or eliminating tariffs on environmental goods and services including RE technologies have been part of the Doha round of
trade negotiations since 2001. Many developing countries argue that
reducing these tariffs would primarily benet developed countries
economically, and no resolution has been achieved so far. Developed
countries have levied tariffs on imported biofuels, much of which originates in developing countries, thereby discouraging their wider use
(Elobeid and Tokgoz, 2008; see Section 2.4.6.2).
Allocation of government nancial support
Since the 1940s, governments in industrialized countries have spent
considerable amounts of public money on energy-related research,
development, and demonstration. By far the greatest proportion of
this has been on nuclear energy systems (IEA, 2008b; see also Section
10.5). However, following the nancial crisis of 2008 and 2009, some
governments used part of their stimulus packages to encourage RE or
energy efciency (Section 9.3.1.3). Tax write-offs for private spending
have been similarly biased towards non-RE sources (e.g., in favour of
oil exploration or new coal-burning systems), notwithstanding some
recent tax incentives for RE (GAO, 2007; Lior, 2010). The policy rationale for government support for developing new energy systems is
discussed in Section 1.5 and Chapter 11.
1.4.3
Issues
Chapter 1
direct and indirect release of CO2 and/or methane and soil loss (Melillo
et al., 2009; Chapter 2 and Section 5.6.1).
failures should be mitigated and/or b) other goals beyond climate protections are to be addressed.
1.5
1.5.1
197
198
Chapter 1
Chapter 1
1.5.2
Enabling environment
1.5.2.1
Since all forms of RE capture and production involve spatial considerations, policies need to consider land use, employment, transportation,
agricultural, water, food security, trade concerns, existing infrastructure
and other sector-specic issues. Government policies that complement
each other are more likely to be successful, and the design of individual
RE policies will also affect the success of their coordination with other
policies. Attempting to actively promote the complementarities of policies across multiple sectorsfrom energy to agriculture to water policy,
etc.while also considering the independent objectives of each, is not
an easy task and may create win-lose and/or win-win situations, with
possible trade-offs.
1.5.2.2
Advancing RE in the electric power sector, for example, will require policies to address its integration into transmission and distribution systems
both technically (Chapter 8) and institutionally (Chapter 11). The grid must
be able to handle both traditional, often more central, supply as well as
modern RE supply, which is often variable and distributed (Quezada et al.,
2006; Cossent et al., 2009) and the governance of the system may need to
be adjusted to ease or harmonize access; current regulations and laws,
designed to assure the reliability of the current centralized grid, may
prevent the wide-scale introduction of renewable electric generating
technology.
In the transport sector, issues exist related to the necessary infrastructure
for biofuels, recharging hydrogen, battery or hybrid electric vehicles that
are fuelled by the electric grid or from off-grid renewable electrical production (Tomic and Kempton, 2007; Sections 1.4.2.4 and 11.6.5).
1.5.3
A structural shift
199
References
Chapter 1
Boden, T.A., G. Marland, and R.J. Andres (2009). Global, Regional, and National
Fossil-Fuel CO2 Emissions. Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, Oak Ridge
National Laboratory, US Department of Energy, Oak Ridge, TN, USA. Available at:
Ahman, M., and L.J. Nilsson (2008). Path dependency and the future of advanced
vehicles and biofuels. Utilities Policy, 16(2), pp. 80-89.
Ambrose, M. (2009). Energy-efcient planning and design. In: Technology, Design,
and Process Innovation in the Built Environment. P. Newton, K.D. Hampson, and
R. Drogemuller (eds.), Taylor and Francis, New York, pp. 238-249.
Archer, C.L. and Jacobson M.Z (2005). Evaluation of global wind power. Journal of
Geophysical Research, 110, D12110.
Ashden Awards for Sustainable Energy, 2008. Rapidly growing solar installer
also provides clean cooking. Ashden Awards for Sustainable Energy, London, UK.
Available at: www.ashdenawards.org/winners/grameen08.
Asif, M., and T. Muneer (2007). Energy supply, its demand and security issues
cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/overview_2007.html.
Bond, T., and H. Sun (2005). Can reducing black carbon emissions counteract global
warming? Environmental Science and Technology, 39(16), pp. 5921-5926.
Bromley, C.J., M.A. Mongillo, B. Goldstein, G. Hiriart, R. Bertani, E. Huenges,
H. Muraoka, A. Ragnarsson, J. Tester, and V. Zui, (2010). Contribution of
geothermal energy to climate change mitigation: the IPCC renewable energy
report. In: Proceedings World Geothermal Congress 2010, Bali, Indonesia, 25-30
April 2010. Available at: www.geothermal-energy.org/pdf/IGAstandard/WGC/
2010/0225.pdf.
Bromley, D.W. (ed.) (1986). Natural Resource Economics: Policy Problems and
Contemporary Analysis. Kluwer Nijhoff, Hingham, MA, USA.
Bronin, S.C. (2009). Solar rights. Boston University Law Review, 89, pp. 1217.
Brookes, L.G. (2000). Energy efciency fallacies revisited. Energy Policy, 28(6-7),
pp. 355-366.
Brown, D., F. Marechal, and J. Paris (2005). A dual representation for targeting process retrot, application to a pulp and paper process. Applied Thermal
Engineering, 25(7), pp. 1067-1082.
Bruce, A., M.E. Watt, and R. Passey (2009). Who buys PV systems? A survey of
New South Wales residential PV rebate recipients. In: 47th Annual Conference
of the Australia and New Zealand Solar Energy Society, Townsville, Australia, 29
Barua, D.C., T.P. Urmee, S. Kumar, and S.C. Bhattachary (2001). A photovoltaic
Butler, L., and K. Neuhoff (2008). Comparison of feed-in tariff, quota, and auction
1854-1867.
Cancun Agreements (2010). Cancun Agreements. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), Cancun, Mexico. Available at: http://unfccc.
int/documentation/decisions/items/3597.php?such=j&volltext=%22cancun%20
agreements%22#beg
Casten, T.R. (2008). Recycling energy to reduce costs and mitigate climate change.
Theory of Industry Structure. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, New York, NY, USA.
In: Sudden and Disruptive Climate Change: Exploring the Real Risks and How
Bazilian, M., and F. Roques (2008). Analytical Methods for Energy Diversity And
We Can Avoid Them. M.C. MacCracken, F. Moore, and J.C. Topping, Jr. (eds.),
Analysis Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN, USA. Available at:
cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/ndp030/global.1751_2007.ems.
200
Chapter 1
Cleveland, C.J., R. Costanza, C.A.S. Hall, and R.K. Kaufmann (1984). Energy and
the US economy: A biophysical perspective. Science, 225, pp. 890-897.
Coase, R.H. (1960). The problem of social cost. Journal of Law and Economics, 3,
pp. 1-44.
Fargione, J., J. Hill, D. Tilman, S. Polasky, and P. Hawthorne (2008). Land clearing
and the biofuel carbon debt. Science, 319(5867), pp. 1235-1238.
Fellows, A. (2000) The Potential of Wind Energy to Reduce Carbon Dioxide Emissions.
Garrad Hassan and Partners Ltd., Glasgow, Scotland.
Cossent, R., T. Gomez, and P. Frias (2009). Towards a future with large penetra-
R. Richels, S. Rose, D. van Vuuren, and R. Warren (2007). Issues related to miti-
gation in the long term context. In: Climate Change 2007: Mitigation of Climate
5 May 2000 and 16-27 April 2001. Ofcial Records 2001, Supplement No. 9,
Economic and Social Council, United Nations, New York, NY, USA. Available at:
www.un.org/esa/sustdev/csd/ecn172001-19e.htm.
de Jager, D., and M. Rathmann (2008). Policy Instrument Design to Reduce
Financing Costs in Renewable Energy Technology Projects. ECOFYS, Utrecht, The
Netherlands, 142 pp.
Debreu, G. (1959). Theory of Value: An Axiomatic Analysis of Economic Equilibrium.
Yale University Press, New Haven, CT, USA.
Demirbas, A. (2009). Global renewable energy projections. Energy Sources, 4, pp.
212-224.
Desertec (2010). Desertec: An Overview of the Concept. Desertec Foundation,
Hamburg, Germany.
Bosch, R. Dave, and L.A. Meyer (eds.), Cambridge University Press, pp. 169-250.
Foxon, T., and P. Pearson (2008). Overcoming barriers to innovation and diffusion
of cleaner technologies: some features of a sustainable innovation policy regime.
Journal of Cleaner Production, 16(1, Supplement 1), pp. S148-S161.
Frankl, P., A. Masini, M. Gambrale, and D. Toccaceli (1998). Simplied life-cycle
analysis of PV in buildings: Present situation and future trends. Progress in
Photovoltaics: Research and Applications, 6, pp. 137-146.
Freeman, C., and L. Soete (2000). The Economics of Industrial Innovation. MIT
Press, Cambridge, MA, USA.
Furby, L., P. Slovic, B. Fischoff, and G. Gregory (1988). Public perceptions of electric powerlines. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 8(1), pp. 19-43.
de Vries, B., M.M. Hoogwijk, and D. van Vuuren (2007). Renewable energy
sources: Their global potential for the rst half of the 21st century at a global
Di Maria, C., and E. van der Werf (2008). Carbon leakage revisited: unilateral
climate policy with directed technical change. Environmental and Resource
Economics, 39(2), pp. 55-74.
USA.
Gerlach, L.P. (2004). Public reaction to electricity transmission lines. In: Encyclopedia
of Energy. Elsevier, New York, pp. 145-167.
Dietz, T., G.T. Gardner, J. Gilligan, P.C. Stern, and M.P. Vandenburgh (2009).
Groothuis, P.A., J.D. Groothuis, and J. C. Whitehead (2008). Green vs. green:
18452-18456.
Dixit, A.K., and R.S. Pindyck (1994). Investment Under Uncertainty. Princeton
University Press, Princeton, NJ, USA.
Dornburg, V., D. van Vuuren, G. van de Ven, H. Langeveld, M. Meeusen, M.
Banse, M. van Oorschot, J. Ros, G.J. van den Born, H. Aiking, M. Londo, H.
Gross, R., W. Blyth, and P. Heptonstall (2010). Risks, revenues and investment in
electricity generation: Why policy needs to look beyond costs. Energy Economics,
32(4), pp. 796-804.
Guerra, A.-I., and F. Sancho (2010). Rethinking economy-wide rebound measures:
An unbiased proposal. Energy Policy, 38(11), pp. 6684-6694.
3, pp. 258-267.
apply the concept of energy services to identify necessary trends and policies.
Elobeid, A. and S. Tokgoz (2008). Removing distortions in the U.S. ethanol mar-
ket: What does it imply for the United States and Brazil? American Journal of
201
Chapter 1
Hileman, J.I., D.S. Ortiz, J.T. Bartis, H.M. Wong, P.E. Donohoo, M.A. Weiss,
IPCC (2007b). Summary for policymakers. In: Climate Change 2007: The Physical
and I.A. Waitz (2009). Near-Term Feasibility of Alternative Jet Fuels. RAND
M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor, and H.L. Miller (eds.),
Parry, O.F. Canziani, J.P. Palutikof, P.J. van der Linden, and C.E. Hanson (eds.),
Panel on Climate Change. B. Metz, O.R. Davidson, P.R. Bosch, R. Dave, and L.A.
Hynes, S., and N. Hanley (2006). Preservation versus development on Irish rivers:
whitewater kayaking and hydro-power in Ireland. Land Use Policy, 23(2), pp.
170-180.
IEA (2005). Resources to Reserves, Oil and Gas Technologies for the Energy Markets
of the Future. International Energy Agency, Paris, France.
IEA (2008a). Issues Behind Competitiveness and Carbon Leakage, Focus on Heavy
Industry. International Energy Agency, Paris, France.
IEA (2008b). World Energy Outlook 2008. International Energy Agency, Paris, France,
578 pp.
IEA (2009a). Statistics and Balances. International Energy Agency, Paris, France.
IEA (2009b). World Energy Outlook 2009. International Energy Agency, Paris, France,
696 pp.
IEA (2010a). Energy Balances of Non-OECD Countries. International Energy Agency,
Paris, France.
IEA (2010b). Key World Energy Statistics 2010. International Energy Agency, Paris,
France.
IEA (2010c). World Energy Outlook 2010. International Energy Agency, Paris, France,
736 pp.
IEA (2010d). World Energy Outlook 2010. Energy Poverty: How to make modern
energy access universal., International Energy Agency, Paris, France.
IEA (2010e). Midterm Oil and Gas Markets 2010. International Energy Agency, Paris,
France.
IEA (2010f). CO2 Emissions from Fuel Combustion Highlights 2010. International
Energy Agency, Paris, France.
Ionel, I.I. (1986). Pumps and Pumping. Elsevier, New York, NY, USA.
IPCC (2000a). Special Report on Emission Scenarios. N. Nakicenovic and R. Swart
(eds.), Cambridge University Press, 570 pp.
IPCC (2000b). Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry. R.T. Watson, I.R. Noble,
B. Bolin, N.H. Ravindranath, D.J. Verardo and D.J. Dokken (eds.), Cambridge
IPCC (2005). Special Report on Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage. B. Metz, O.
Davidson, H. de Coninck, M. Loos, and L. Meyer (eds.), Cambridge University
Press, 431 pp.
IPCC (2006). 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories.
Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES) for the IPCC, Hayama,
Kanagawa, Japan.
IPCC (2007a). Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working
Groups I, II and III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change. Core Writing Team, R.K. Pachauri, and A. Reisinger
(eds.), Cambridge University Press, 104 pp.
202
Panel on Climate Change. M.L. Parry, O.F. Canziani, J.P. Palutikof, P.J. van der
Linden, and C.E. Hanson (eds.), Cambridge University Press, pp. 745-777.
Klick, H., and E.R.A.N. Smith (2010). Public understanding of and support for wind
power in the United States. Renewable Energy, 35(7), pp. 1585-1591.
Knopf, B., O. Edenhofer, C. Flaschland, M. Kok, H. Lotze-Campen, G. Luderer,
A. Popp, and D. van Vuuren (2010). Managing the low carbon transition: from
model results to policies. Energy Journal, 31(Special Issue), pp. 223-245.
Kooles, K. (2009). Adapting historic district guidelines for solar and other green
technologies. Forum Journal, 24, pp. 24-29.
Chapter 1
Melillo, J.M., J.M. Reilly, D.W. Kicklighter, A.C. Gurgel, T.W. Cronin, S. Palstev,
B.S. Felzer, X. Wang, A.P. Sokolov, and C.A. Schlosser (2009). Indirect emis-
Lewis, J., and R. Wiser (2007). Fostering a renewable energy technology industry:
Lior, N. (2010). Sustainable energy development: The present (2009) situation and
possible paths to the future. Energy, 32(8), pp. 1478-1483.
LLNL (2009). Estimated World Energy Use in 2006. Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory, Livermore, CA, USA.
nomic potential of greenhouse gas emissions reduction. In: Climate Change 2001:
Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Third
Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge
University Press, pp. 167-299.
Mondal, Md. A.H., L.M. Kamp, and N. I. Pachova (2010). Drivers, barriers, and
Frame, and M.R. Allen (2009). Greenhouse-gas emission targets for limiting
Ozgener, O., and A. Hapbasili (2004). A review on the energy and exergy analysis of
solar assisted heat pump systems. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews,
11, pp. 482-496.
203
Chapter 1
Pacala, S., and R. Socolow (2004). Stabilization wedges: Solving the climate prob-
lem for the next 50 years with current technologies. Science, 305(5686), pp.
968-972.
Painuly, J. (2001). Barriers to renewable energy penetration: a framework for analysis. Renewable Energy, 24(1), pp. 83-89.
Paltsev, S. (2001). The Kyoto Protocol: Regional and sectoral contributions to the
carbon leakage. Energy Journal, 22(4), pp. 53-79.
Pasqualetti, M.J., P. Gipe, and R.W. Righter (2002). Wind power in view : energy
landscapes in a crowded world. Academic Press, San Diego, xi, 234 pp.
Passivhaus (2010). What is a Passive House? Passivhaus Institute, Darmstadt,
Germany. Available at: www.passiv.de/07_eng/index_e.html.
Petersen, E.L., N.G. Mortensen, L. Landberg, J.R. Hjstrup, and H.P. Frank
(1998). Wind power meteorology. Part II: siting and models. Wind Energy, 1(2),
Energy. L.M. Edwards, G.V. Chilingar, H.H. Rieke III, and W.H. Fertl (eds.), Gulf
pp. 55-72.
Pilavachi, P.A. (2000). Power generation with gas turbine systems and combined
heat and power. Applied Thermal Engineering, 20, pp. 1421-1429.
Pilavachi, P.A. (2002). Mini- and micro-gas turbines for combined heat and power.
Applied Thermal Engineering, 22(18), pp. 2003-2014.
Pollack, H.N., S.J. Hurter, and J.R. Johnson (1993). Heat ow from the Earths
interior: Analysis of the global data set. Reviews of Geophysics, 31(3), 267280,
ground source heat pumps and underground thermal energy storage in Europe.
doi:10.1029/93RG01249.
Pousa, G.P.A.G., A.L.F. Santos, and P.A.Z. Suarez (2007). History and policy of
biodiesel in Brazil. Energy Policy, 35(11), pp. 5393-5398.
Puga, J., and J. Lesser (2009). Public policy and private interests: why transmission
planning and cost-allocation methods continue to stie renewable energy policy
goals. The Electricity Journal, 22(10), pp. 7-19.
Quezada, V., J. Abbad, and T. San Roman (2006). Assessment of energy distribution losses for increasing penetration of distributed generation. IEEE Transactions
on Power Systems, 21(2), pp. 533-540.
Ragwitz, M., A. Held, G. Resch, T. Faber, C. Huber, and R. Haas, 2005. Final
Report: Monitoring and Evaluation of Policy Instruments to Support Renewable
Electricity in EU Member States. Fraunhofer Institute Systems and Innovation
Research and Energy Economics Group, Karlsruhe, Germany and Vienna, Austria.
REN21 (2009). Renewables Global Status Report: 2009 Update. Renewable Energy
Policy Network for the 21st Century Secretariat, Paris, France.
REN21 (2010). Renewables 2010: Global Status Report. Renewable Energy Policy
Network for the 21st Century Secretariat, Paris, France, 80 pp.
Rezaie, B., E. Esmailzadeh, and I. Dincer (2011). Renewable energy options for
buildings: case studies. Energy and Buildings, 43(1), pp. 56-65.
Richter, A. (2007). United States Geothermal Energy Market Report. GlitnirBank,
Reykjavik, Iceland.
Roberts, S. (2008). Infrastructure and challenges for the built environment. Energy
Policy, 36(12), pp. 4563-4567.
Robock, A., A. Marquardt, B. Kravitz, and G. Stenchikov (2009). Benets, risks,
and costs of stratospheric geoengineering. Geophysical Research Letters, 36,
L19703.
Rogner, H.-H., F. Barthel, M. Cabrera, A. Faaij, M. Giroux, D. Hall, V. Kagramanian,
S. Kononov, T. Lefevre, R. Moreira, R. Ntstaller, P. Odell, and M. Taylor
(2000). Energy resources. In: World Energy Assessment. Energy and the
Challenge of Sustainability. United Nations Development Programme, United
Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, World Energy Council, New
York, USA, pp. 30-37.
204
Chapter 1
Stern, N. (2007). The Economics of Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, 712
pp. Available at: webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.hm-treasury.
gov.uk/sternreview_index.htm.
Sterner, M. (2009). Bioenergy and Renewable Power Methane in Integrated 100%
Renewable Energy Systems: Limiting Global Warming by Transforming Energy
Systems. University of Kassel, Kassel, Germany.
Tester, J.W., E.M. Drake, M.W. Golay, M.J. Driscoll, and W.A. Peters (2005).
Sustainable Energy Choosing Among Options. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, USA,
850 pp.
Tester, J.W., B.J. Anderson, A.S. Batchelor, D.D. Blackwell, R. DiPippo, and
E.M. Drake (2006). The Future of Geothermal Energy: Impact of Enhanced
Vajjhala, S., and P. Fischbeck (2007). Quantifying siting difculty: A case study of
US transmission line siting. Energy Policy, 35(1), pp. 650-671.
Valentine, S. (2010). A step toward understanding wind power development policy
barriers in advanced economies. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews,
14(9), pp. 2796-2807.
van Ruijven, B., and D. van Vuuren (2009). Oil and natural gas prices and greenhouse gas emission mitigation. Energy Policy, 37(11), pp. 4797-4808.
Venema, H., and I. Rehman (2007). Decentralized renewable energy and the climate change mitigation-adaptation nexus. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies
for Global Change, 12, pp. 875-900.
Verbruggen, A., M. Fischedick, W. Moomaw, T. Weir, A. Nada, L.J. Nilsson,
Subcontract No. 63 00019 for the U.S. Department of Energy, Assistant Secretary
for Energy Efciency and Renewable Energy, Ofce of Geothermal Technologies,
Washington, DC, USA, 358 pp. Available at: geothermal.inl.gov.
Tomic, J., and W. Kempton (2007). Using eets of electric-drive vehicles for grid
support. Journal of Power Sources, 168(2), pp. 459-468.
Trieb, F. (2005). Concentrating Solar Power for the Mediterranean Region. Final
Report. German Aerospace Centre (DLR), Stuttgart, Germany, 285 pp.
Viguier, L., and M. Vielle (2007). On the climate change effects of high oil prices.
Energy Policy, 35(2), pp. 844-849.
von Weizscker, E., K. Hargroves, M.H. Smith, C. Desha, and P. Stasinopoulos
(2009). Factor Five: Transforming the Global Economy through 80%
Improvements in Resource Productivity: A Report to the Club of Rome. Earthscan/
The Natural Edge Project, London, UK, 400 pp.
WCD (2000). Dams and Development: A New Framework for Decision-Making:
tent&view=article&id=49&Itemid=29.
Webler, T., and S.P. Tuler (2010). Getting the engineering right is not always enough:
Researching the human dimensions of the new energy technologies. Energy
Policy, 38(6), pp. 2690-2691.
WEC (1994). New Renewable Energy Resources: A Guide to the Future. World Energy
Council, Kogan Page, London, UK.
WEC/FAO (1999). The Challenge of Rural Energy Poverty in Developing Countries.
World Energy Council and Food and Agricultural Organization of the United
Nations, London, UK.
Weisser, D. (2007). A guide to life-cycle greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from electric supply technologies. Energy, 32, pp. 1543-1559.
Williamson, O.E. (1985). The Economic Institutions of Capitalism. The Free Press,
New York, NY, USA.
WIREC (2008). WIREC 2008: The power of independence. In: Washington International
Renewable Energy Conference, Washington, DC, 4-6 March 2008. Available at:
www.iisd.ca/ymb/wirec2008/html/ymbvol95num8e.html.
World Bank (2006). Reforming Power Markets in Developing Countries: What Have
We Learned? World Bank, Washington, DC, USA.
World Bank (2009). World Development Indicators CO2 emissions (kt). World
Bank, Washington, DC, USA. Available at: data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.
CO2E.KT/countries/1W?display=graph.
205
Chapter 1
Appendix to Chapter 1
Table 1. A.1 | Global technical potential of RE sources (compared to global primary energy supply in 2008 of 492 EJ).1
Technical Potential (EJ/yr)
Range of Estimates
Summarized in
Chapters 2-73
Heat (EJ/yr)
2020
2030
2050
Low
High
Solar PV4
1,126
1,351
1,689
1,338
14,778
Solar CSP 4
5,156
6,187
8,043
248
10,791
Chapter 3 Hofman et al. (2002); Trieb (2005); Trieb et al. (2009). The
methodology used by Krewitt et al. (2009) differs between PV and CSP;
details are described in Chapter 3.
Geothermal5
4,5
18
45
118
1,109
Hydropower
48
49
50
50
52
Ocean
66
166
331
331
Wind On-Shore
362
369
379
70
450
Chapter 7 low estimate from WEC (1994), high estimate from Archer and
Jacobson (2005) and includes near-shore, more recent estimates tend
towards higher end of range.
Wind Off-Shore7
26
36
57
15
130
Chapter 7 low estimate from Fellows (2000), high estimate from Leutz
et al. (2001), only considering relatively shallow water and near-shore
applications; greater technical potential exists if one considers deeper
water applications (Lu et al., 2009; Capps and Zender, 2010).
Solar
113
117
123
N/A
N/A
Geothermal
104
312
1,040
10
312
Solar 8
N/A
N/A
N/A
1,575
49,837
small
120
small
140
small
70
small
100
Biomass Energy
Crops9
Biomass Residues9
Biomass Total 9
43
61
96
59
68
88
40
100
Agriculture and forestry residues, other organic wastes, dung etc.: Chapter
2 Dornburg et al. (2010).
102
129
184
5010
50011
Notes:
1
Technical potentials reported here represent total worldwide potentials for annual RE supply and do not deduct any potential that is already being utilized for energy production. In
2008, total primary energy supply from RE sources on a direct equivalent basis equalled: bioenergy (50.33 EJ); hydropower (11.55 EJ); wind (0.79 EJ); solar (0.50 EJ); geothermal
(0.41 EJ); and ocean (0.002 EJ). According to the denition of technical potential in the Glossary (see Annex I), many of the studies summarized here take into some account
broader economic and socio-political considerations. For example, for some technologies, land suitability or other sustainability factors are included, which result in lower technical
potential estimates.
Technical potential estimates for 2020, 2030 and 2050 are based on a review of studies in Krewitt et al. (2009). Due to differences in methodologies and accounting methods
between studies, comparison of these estimates across technologies and regions, as well as to primary energy demand, should be exercised with caution. Data presented in
Chapters 2 through 7 may disagree with these gures due to differing methodologies. Krewitt et al. (2009), as well as many of the other studies reported in the table, assume
that technical potential increases over time due, in part, to technological advancements.
Continued next Page
206
Chapter 1
Range of estimates derives from studies presented in Chapters 2 through 7 (occasionally including some of the studies reported in the Krewitt et al. (2009) review). As a result,
ranges do not always encompass the gures presented in Krewitt et al. (2009). Ranges are based on various methods and apply to different future years; consequently, as with
Krewitt et al. (2009), the resulting ranges are not strictly comparable across technologies.
Estimates for PV and CSP in Krewitt et al. (2009) are based on different data and methodologies, which tend to signicantly understate the technical potential for PV relative to
CSP. In part as a result, a range for total solar energy technical potential is provided in the primary energy category based on Rogner et al. (2000). Note that this technical potential
for total solar primary energy is not the sum of the three listed technologies (PV, CSP and solar heat) due to different studies used. Also note that the technical potentials for PV,
CSP and solar heat listed in the table are not strictly additive due to possible competition for land among specic solar technologies.
Estimates for geothermal electricity in Krewitt et al. (2009) appear to largely consider only hydrothermal resources. The range of estimates presented in Chapter 4 derives from
EPRI (1978), Rowley (1982), Stefansson (2005), and Tester et al. (2005, 2006) and includes both hydrothermal and EGS potential.
The absolute range of technical potential for ocean energy is highly uncertain, because few technical potential estimates have been conducted due to the fact that the technologies
are still largely in the R&D phase and have not been commercially deployed at scale.
Estimates for offshore wind energy in Krewitt et al. (2009) and the range of estimates provided in the literature as presented in the table are both based on relatively shallow water
and near-shore applications. Greater technical potential for offshore wind energy is found when considering deeper-water applications that might rely on oating wind turbine
designs.
The technical potential for total solar primary energy is not the sum of the three listed technologies (PV, CSP and solar heat) due to different studies used; also note that possible
competition for land among specic solar technologies makes it inappropriate to add the technical potential estimates for PV, CSP and solar heat to derive a total solar technical
potential. The estimates of the total solar energy technical potential provided in the table do not differentiate between the different solar conversion technologies, but just take
into account average conversion efciency, available land area and meteorological conditions. At certain geographical locations all listed solar technologies could be used and
users will decide what service they need from which technology.
Primary energy from biomass (in direct equivalent terms) could be used to meet electricity, thermal or transportation needs, all with a conversion loss from primary energy ranging
from roughly 20 to 80%. As a result, comparisons of the technical potential for biomass in primary energy terms to the technical potentials of other RE sources in delivering
secondary energy supply (i.e., electric power and heat) should be made with care.
10 The conditions under the low technical potential estimate could emerge when agricultural productivity increases stall worldwide combined with high food demand and no surplus
land for energy crops being available. It is also assumed that marginal and degraded lands are not utilized and a large fraction of biomass residue ows is assumed to be used as
feedstock in other sectors rather than for bioenergy. However, low-grade residues, dung and municipal waste will in such a situation likely still remain available for bioenergy.
11 The higher end of the biomass potential is conditional and assumes proper land management and substantial increases in agricultural yields and intensied forestry management.
Achieving such a potential will be sustainable only if monitoring and good governance of land use is effective, and sustainability frameworks are in place.
207
208
Chapter 2
Bioenergy
Coordinating Lead Authors:
Helena Chum (USA/Brazil), Andre Faaij (The Netherlands), Jos Moreira (Brazil)
Lead Authors:
Gran Berndes (Sweden), Parveen Dhamija (India), Hongmin Dong (China),
Benot Gabrielle (France), Alison Goss Eng (USA), Wolfgang Lucht (Germany),
Maxwell Mapako (South Africa/Zimbabwe), Omar Masera Cerutti (Mexico),
Terry McIntyre (Canada), Tomoaki Minowa (Japan), Kim Pingoud (Finland)
Contributing Authors:
Richard Bain (USA), Ranyee Chiang (USA), David Dawe (Thailand, USA),
Garvin Heath (USA), Martin Junginger (The Netherlands), Martin Patel (The Netherlands),
Joyce Yang (USA), Ethan Warner (USA)
Review Editors:
David Par (Canada) and Suzana Kahn Ribeiro (Brazil)
209
Bioenergy
Chapter 2
Table of Contents
Introduction
2.1.1
2.1.2
2.2
2.2.1
2.2.1.1
2.2.1.2
2.2.1.3
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220
Methodology assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220
Total aboveground net primary production of biomass . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 222
Human appropriation of terrestrial net primary production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 222
2.2.2
2.2.2.1
2.2.2.2
2.2.2.3
2.2.2.4
2.2.3
2.2.4
2.2.4.1
2.2.4.2
2.2.4.3
2.2.4.4
2.2.5
2.2.6
Synthesis
2.3
2.3.1
2.3.1.1
2.3.1.2
Feedstocks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233
Feedstock production and harvest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233
Synergies with the agriculture, food and forest sectors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235
2.3.2
2.3.2.1
2.3.2.2
2.3.2.3
Logistics and supply chains for energy carriers from modern biomass . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 236
Solid biomass supplies and market development for utilization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 236
Solid biomass and charcoal supplies in developing countries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 237
Wood pellet logistics and supplies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 237
210
........................................................................................................................................
...............................................................................
.................................................................................................................................................
216
216
232
Chapter 2
Bioenergy
2.3.3
2.3.3.1
2.3.3.2
2.3.3.3
2.3.3.4
Conversion technologies to electricity, heat, and liquid and gaseous fuels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 238
Development stages of conversion technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 238
Thermochemical processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 238
Chemical processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 240
Biochemical processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 240
2.3.4
2.3.4.1
2.3.4.2
2.3.5
Synthesis
2.4
2.4.1
2.4.2
2.4.2.1
2.4.2.2
2.4.3
Modern biomass: Large-scale systems, improved technologies and practices, and barriers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 250
2.4.4
2.4.5
2.4.5.1
2.4.5.2
2.4.6
2.4.6.1
2.4.6.2
Main opportunities and barriers for the market penetration and international trade of bioenergy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 255
Opportunities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 255
Barriers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 255
2.4.7
Synthesis
2.5
2.5.1
Environmental effects
2.5.2
2.5.3
Modern bioenergy: Climate change including land use change effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 263
2.5.4
.................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................
..............................................................
.................................................................................................
244
257
258
259
268
211
Bioenergy
Chapter 2
2.5.5
2.5.5.1
2.5.5.2
2.5.5.3
2.5.6
2.5.6.1
2.5.6.2
2.5.7
2.5.7.1
2.5.7.2
2.5.7.3
2.5.7.4
2.5.7.5
2.5.7.6
2.5.8
Synthesis
2.6
2.6.1
2.6.1.1
2.6.1.2
2.6.2
2.6.3
2.6.3.1
2.6.3.2
2.6.3.3
2.6.3.4
2.6.3.5
Improvements in conversion technologies for secondary energy carriers from modern biomass . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 280
Liquid fuels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 281
Gaseous fuels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 285
Biomass with carbon capture and storage: long-term removal of greenhouse gases from the atmosphere . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 286
Bioreneries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 286
Bio-based products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 286
2.6.4
Synthesis
2.7
Cost trends
2.7.1
2.7.1.1
212
.................................................................................................................................................
..............................................................
.....................................................................................
.................................................................................................................................................
..........................................................................................................................................
274
276
278
287
288
Chapter 2
Bioenergy
2.7.2
2.7.3
2.7.3.1
2.7.3.2
2.7.4
Synthesis
2.8
Potential Deployment
2.8.1
2.8.2
2.8.3
2.8.4
2.8.4.1
2.8.4.2
2.8.4.3
Conditions and policies: Synthesis of resource potentials, technology and economics, and environmental
and social impacts of bioenergy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 300
Resource potentials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 300
Bioenergy technologies, supply chains and economics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 302
Social and environmental impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 304
2.8.5
.................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................................................
........................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................
.............................................................................
.................................................................
292
295
296
296
297
306
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 309
213
Bioenergy
Chapter 2
Executive Summary
Bioenergy has a signicant greenhouse gas (GHG) mitigation potential, provided that the resources are developed
sustainably and that efcient bioenergy systems are used. Certain current systems and key future options including
perennial cropping systems, use of biomass residues and wastes and advanced conversion systems are able to deliver
80 to 90% emission reductions compared to the fossil energy baseline. However, land use conversion and forest management that lead to a loss of carbon stocks (direct) in addition to indirect land use change (d+iLUC) effects can lessen,
and in some cases more than neutralize, the net positive GHG mitigation impacts. Impacts of climate change through
temperature increases, rainfall pattern changes and increased frequency of extreme events will inuence and interact
with biomass resource potential. This interaction is still poorly understood, but it is likely to exhibit strong regional differences. Climate change impacts on biomass feedstock production exist but if global temperature rise is limited to less
than 2oC compared with the pre-industrial record, it may pose few constraints. Combining adaptation measures with
biomass resource production can offer more sustainable opportunities for bioenergy and perennial cropping systems.
Biomass is a primary source of food, fodder and bre and as a renewable energy (RE) source provided
about 10.2% (50.3 EJ) of global total primary energy supply (TPES) in 2008. Traditional use of wood, straws,
charcoal, dung and other manures for cooking, space heating and lighting by generally poorer populations in developing countries accounts for about 30.7 EJ, and another 20 to 40% occurs in unaccounted informal sectors including
charcoal production and distribution. TPES from biomass for electricity, heat, combined heat and power (CHP), and
transport fuels was 11.3 EJ in 2008 compared to 9.6 EJ in 2005 and the share of modern bioenergy was 22% compared
to 20.6%.
From the expert review of available scientic literature, potential deployment levels of biomass for energy
by 2050 could be in the range of 100 to 300 EJ. However, there are large uncertainties in this potential such as
market and policy conditions, and it strongly depends on the rate of improvement in the production of food and fodder
as well as wood and pulp products.
The upper bound of the technical potential of biomass for energy may be as large as 500 EJ/yr by 2050.
Reaching a substantial fraction of the technical potential will require sophisticated land and water management, large
worldwide plant productivity increases, land optimization and other measures. Realizing this potential will be a major
challenge, but it could make a substantial contribution to the worlds primary energy supply in 2050. For comparison,
the equivalent heat content of the total biomass harvested worldwide for food, fodder and bre is about 219 EJ/yr
today.
A scenario review conducted in Chapter 10 indicates that the contribution of bioenergy in GHG stabilization scenarios of different stringency can be expected to be signicantly higher than today. By 2050, in the
median case bioenergy contributes 120 to 155 EJ/yr to global primary energy supply, or 150 to 190 EJ/yr for the 75th
percentile case, and even up to 265 to 300 EJ/yr in the highest deployment scenarios. This deployment range is roughly
in line with the IPCC Special Report on Emission Scenarios (SRES) regionally oriented A2 and B2 and globally oriented
A1 and B1 conditions and storylines. Success in implementing sustainability and policy frameworks that ensure good
governance of land use and improvements in forestry, agricultural and livestock management could lead to both high
(B1) and low (B2) potentials. However, biomass supplies may remain limited to approximately 100 EJ/yr in 2050 if such
policy frameworks and enforcing mechanisms are not introduced and if there is strong competition for biomaterials
from other (innovative future) sectors. In that environment, further biomass expansion could lead to signicant regional
conicts for food supplies, water resources and biodiversity, and could even result in additional GHG emissions, especially due to iLUC and loss of carbon stocks. In another deployment scenario, biomass resources may be constrained
to use of residues and organic waste, energy crops cultivated on marginal/degraded and poorly utilized lands, and to
supplies in endowed world regions where bioenergy is a cheaper energy option compared to market alternatives (e.g.,
sugarcane ethanol production in Brazil).
214
Chapter 2
Bioenergy
Bioenergy has complex societal and environmental interactions, including climate change feedback, biomass production and land use. The impact of bioenergy on social and environmental issues (e.g., health, poverty,
biodiversity) may be positive or negative depending on local conditions and the design and implementation of specic
projects. The policy context for bioenergy, and particularly biofuels, has changed rapidly and dramatically in recent
years. The food versus fuel debate and growing concerns about other conicts are driving a strong push for the development and implementation of sustainability criteria and frameworks. Many conicts can be reduced if not avoided
by encouraging synergisms in the management of natural resource, agricultural and livestock sectors as part of good
governance of land use that increases rural development and contributes to poverty alleviation and a secure energy
supply.
Costs vary by world regions, feedstock types, feedstock supply costs for conversion processes, the scale
of bioenergy production and production time during the year. Examples of estimated commercial bioenergy
levelized cost ranges are roughly USD2005 2 to 48/GJ for liquid and gaseous biofuels; roughly US cents2005 3.5 to 25/kWh
(USD2005 10 to 50/GJ) for electricity or CHP systems larger than about 2 MW (with feedstock costs of USD2005 3/GJfeed
and a heat value of USD2005 5/GJ for steam or USD2005 12/GJ for hot water); and roughly USD2005 2 to 77/GJ for domestic
or district heating systems with feedstock costs in the range of USD2005 0 to 20/GJ (solid waste to wood pellets). These
calculations refer to 2005 to 2008 data and are expressed in USD2005 at a 7% discount rate.
Recent analyses of lignocellulosic biofuels indicate potential improvements that enable them to compete
at oil prices of USD2005 60 to 70/barrel (USD2005 0.38 to 0.44/litre) assuming no revenue from carbon dioxide
(CO2) mitigation. Scenario analyses indicate that strong short-term research and development (R&D) and market
support could allow for commercialization around 2020 depending on oil and carbon pricing. In addition to ethanol
and biodiesel, a range of hydrocarbons and chemicals/materials similar to those currently derived from oil could provide
biofuels for not only vehicles but also for the aviation and maritime sectors. Biomass is the only renewable resource
that can currently provide high energy density liquid fuels. A wider variety of bio-based products can also be produced
at bioreneries to enhance the economics of the overall conversion process. Short-term options (some of them already
competitive) that can deliver long-term synergies include co-ring, CHP, heat generation and sugarcane-based ethanol
and bioelectricity co-production. Development of working bioenergy markets and facilitation of international bioenergy
trade can help achieve these synergies.
Further improvements in power generation technologies, supply systems of biomass and production of
perennial cropping systems can bring bioenergy costs down. There is clear evidence that technological learning
and related cost reductions occur in many biomass technologies with learning rates comparable to other RE technologies. This is true for cropping systems where improvements in agricultural management of annual crops, supply systems
and logistics, conversion technologies to produce energy carriers such as heat, electricity and ethanol from sugarcane or
maize, and biogas have demonstrated signicant cost reductions.
Combining biomass conversion with developing carbon capture and storage (CCS) could lead to long-term
substantial removal of GHGs from the atmosphere (also referred to as negative emissions). Advanced biomaterials are promising as well from both an economic and a GHG mitigation perspective, though the relative magnitude
of their mitigation potential is not well understood. The potential role of aquatic biomass (algae) is highly uncertain
but could reduce land use conict. More experience, research, development and demonstration (RD&D), and detailed
analyses of these options are needed.
Multiple drivers for bioenergy systems and their deployment in sustainable directions are emerging.
Examples include rapidly changing policy contexts, recent market-based activities, the increasing support for advanced
biorenery and lignocellulosic biofuel options and, in particular, development of sustainability criteria and frameworks.
Sustained cost reductions of key technologies in biomass production and conversion, supply infrastructure development,
and integrated systems research can lead to the implementation of strategies that facilitate sustainable land and water
use and gain public and political acceptance.
215
Bioenergy
2.1
Chapter 2
Introduction
2.1.1
Biomass is used (see Table 2.1) with varying degrees of energy efciency
in various sectors:
Low-efciency traditional biomass 2 such as wood, straws, dung and
other manures are used for cooking, lighting and space heating,
generally by the poorer populations in developing countries. This
biomass is mostly combusted, creating serious negative impacts on
health and living conditions. Increasingly, charcoal is becoming a
secondary energy carrier in rural areas. As an indicator of the magnitude of traditional biomass use, Figure 2.1 (bottom) illustrates that
the global primary energy supply from traditional biomass parallels
the worlds industrial roundwood production.
Biomass provided about 10.2% (50.3 EJ/yr) of the annual global primary
energy supply in 2008, from a wide variety of biomass sources feeding
numerous sectors of society (see Table 2.1; IEA, 2010a). The biomass
feedstocks used for energy are shown in Figure 2.1 (top), and more
Table 2.1 | Examples of traditional and select modern biomass energy ows in 2008 according to the IEA (2010 a,b) and supplemented by Masera et al., 2005, 2006; Drigo et al.,
2007, 2009.
Type
Approximate Primary
Energy (EJ/yr)
Approximate Average
Efciency (%)
Approximate Secondary
Energy (EJ/yr)
Traditional Biomass
Accounted for in IEA energy statistics
30.7
612
1020
3743
36
0.62.4
3.68.4
Modern Bioenergy
Electricity and CHP from biomass, MSW, and biogas
4.0
32
1.3
4.2
80
3.4
3.1
60
1.9
11.3
58
6.6
Notes: According to the IEA (2010a,b), the 2008 TPES from biomass of 50.3 EJ was composed primarily of solid biomass (46.9 EJ); biogenic MSW used for heat and CHP (0.58 EJ); and
biogas (secondary energy) for electricity and CHP (0.41 EJ) and heating (0.33 EJ). The contribution of ethanol, biodiesel, and other biofuels (e.g., ethers) used in the transport sector
amounted to 1.9 EJ in secondary energy terms. Examples of specic ows: output electricity from biomass was 0.82 EJ (biomass power plants including pulp and paper industry surplus,
biogas and MSW) and output heating from CHP was 0.44 EJ. Modern residential heat consumption was calculated by subtracting the IEA estimate of traditional use of biomass (30.7
EJ) from the total residential heat consumption (33.7 EJ).
Some table numbers were taken directly from the IEA global energy statistics, such as secondary biofuels at 1.9 EJ (whereas the derived primary energy input is based on the assumed
efciency of 60% which could be lower) as well as output electricity and heat at 1.3 EJ for all feedstocks. Primary input for MSW and biogas (secondary) and the corresponding output
were available and efciencies are calculated. Solid biomass primary input was calculated from the average efciency for MSW. Not included in the numbers above are solid biomass
(3.4 EJ) used to make charcoal (1.15 EJ) for heating (0.88 EJ, traditional mostly) and industry, such as the iron/steel industry (0.22 EJ), mostly in Brazil. Heat for making charcoal is
included in Figure 1.18 in the 5.2 EJ from biomass for electricity, CHP, and heat plants. Not included in Table 2.1 is the industry sector that consumed 7.7 EJ, but the electricity sold by
the pulp and paper industry is included.
than 80% are derived from wood (trees, branches, residues) and shrubs.
The remaining bioenergy feedstocks came from the agricultural sector
(energy crops, residues and by-products) and from various commercial
and post-consumer waste and by-product streams (biomass product
recycling and processing or the organic biogenic fraction of municipal
solid waste1 (MSW)).
1
MSW is used throughout the chapter with the same meaning as the term municipal
wastes as dened by EUROSTAT.
216
databases that tend to systematically underestimate fuelwood consumption. Although international forestry and energy data (FAO,
2005) are the main reference sources for policy analyses, they are
2
Chapter 2
Bioenergy
Forest Residues 1%
Black Liquor 1%
Wood Industry Residues 5%
Recovered Wood 6%
Charcoal
7%
Animal
By-Products 3%
Agricultural
By-Products
4%
Agriculture
10%
Fuelwood
67%
Energy Crops
3%
[Billion m3]
4.0
3.0
Fuelwood
Indoor Heating, Cooking and Lighting in
Developing Countries (95%)
2.0
1.0
07
20
03
20
99
19
95
19
91
19
87
19
83
19
79
19
75
19
71
19
67
19
63
19
19
61
0.0
Figure 2.1 | Top: Shares of global primary biomass sources for energy (IPCC, 2007a,d;
IEA Bioenergy, 2009); Bottom: Fuelwood used in developing countries parallels world
industrial roundwood1 production levels (UNECE/FAO Timber Database, 2011).
Note: 1. Roundwood products are saw logs and veneer logs for the forest products
industry and wood chips that are used for making pulpwood used in paper, newsprint
and Kraft paper. In 2009, reecting the downturn in the economy, there was a decline to
3.25 (total) and 1.25 (industrial) billion m3; the data can be retrieved from a presentation
on Global Forest Resources and Market Developments: timber.unece.org/leadmin/DAM/
other/GlobalResMkts300311.pdf.
often in contradiction when it comes to estimates of biomass consumption for energy, because production and trade of these solid
biomass fuels are largely informal.3 A supplement of 20 to 40% to
the global TPES of biomass in Table 2.1 is based on detailed, multiscale, spatially explicit analyses performed in more than 20 countries
(e.g., Masera et al., 2005, 2006; Drigo et al., 2007, 2009). Traditional
biomass is discussed in later sections on feedstock logistics and supply (Section 2.3.2.2), improved technologies, practices and barriers
(Sections 2.4.2.1 and 2.4.2.2), climate change effects (Section 2.5.4)
and socioeconomic aspects (Section 2.5.7).
3
217
Bioenergy
Chapter 2
Feedstock1
Oil Crops
(Rape, Sunower, Soya etc.)
Waste Oils, Animal Fats
Conversion Routes2
(Biomass Upgrading3) +
Combustion
Liquid Fuels
Transesterication
or Hydrogenation
Biodiesel*
(Hydrolysis) + Fermentation*
or Microbial Processing
Gasication
Lignocellulosic Biomass
(+ Secondary Process)4
Pyrolysis5
(+ Secondary Process)
Biodegradable MSW,
Sewage Sludge, Manure, Wet
Wastes (Farm and Food Wastes)
Macroalgae
Photosynthetic
Microorganisms,
e.g. Microalgae and Bacteria
Anaerobic Digestion
(+ Biogas Upgrading)
Other Biological /
Chemical Routes
Bio-Photochemical Routes
Ethanol*, Butanols,
Hydrocarbons
Syndiesel / Renewable
Diesel*
Methanol, Ethanol,
Alcohols
Other Fuels and Fuel
Additives
Gaseous Fuels
Biomethane*
DME, Hydrogen
Figure 2.2 | Schematic view of the variety of commercial (solid lines, see Figure 2.6) and developing bioenergy routes (dotted lines) from biomass feedstocks through thermochemical,
chemical, biochemical and biological conversion routes to heat, power, CHP and liquid or gaseous fuels (modied from IEA Bioenergy, 2009). Commercial products are marked with
an asterisk.
Notes: 1. Parts of each feedstock, for example, crop residues, could also be used in other routes. 2. Each route also gives coproducts. 3. Biomass upgrading includes any one of the
densication processes (pelletization, pyrolysis, torrefaction, etc.). 4. Anaerobic digestion processes release methane and CO2 and removal of CO2 provides essentially methane, the
major component of natural gas; the upgraded gas is called biomethane. 5. Could be other thermal processing routes such as hydrothermal, liquefaction, etc. DME=dimethyl ether.
mainly through the use of traditional forms, and more than 80% of TPES
in the poorest countries. The bioenergy share in India, China and Mexico
is decreasing, mostly as traditional biomass is substituted by kerosene
and liqueed petroleum gas within large cities. However, consumption
in absolute terms continues to grow. This trend is also true for most
African countries, where demand has been driven by a steady increase
in wood fuels, particularly in the use of charcoal in booming urban areas
(GBEP, 2008).
Turning from the technological perspectives of bioenergy to environmental and social aspects, the literature assessments in this chapter reveal
positive and negative aspects of bioenergy. Sustainably produced and
managed, bioenergy can provide a substantial contribution to climate
change mitigation through increasing carbon stocks in the biosphere
(e.g., in degraded lands), reducing carbon emissions from unsustainable forest use and replacing fossil fuel-based systems in the generation
of heat, power and modern fuels. Additionally, bioenergy may provide
opportunities for regional economic development (see Sections 9.3.1
and 2.5.4). Advanced bioenergy systems and end-use technologies
can also substantially reduce the emissions of black carbon and other
218
Chapter 2
Bioenergy
2.1.2
219
Bioenergy
Chapter 2
2.2
Resource potential
2.2.1
Introduction
Bioenergy production interacts with food, fodder and bre production as well as with conventional forest products in complex ways.
Bioenergy demand constitutes a benet to conventional plant production in agriculture and forestry by offering new markets for biomass
ows that earlier were considered to be waste products; it can also
provide opportunities for cultivating new types of crops and integrating bioenergy production with food and forestry production to
improve overall resource management. However, biomass for energy
production can intensify competition for land, water and other production factors, and can result in overexploitation and degradation
of resources. For example, too-intensive biomass extraction from the
land can lead to soil degradation, and water diversion to energy plantations can impact downstream and regional ecological functions and
economic services.
As a consequence, the magnitude of the biomass resource potential
depends on the priority given to bioenergy products versus other
products obtained from the landnotably food, fodder, bre and
conventional forest products such as sawn wood and paperand on
how much total biomass can be mobilized in agriculture and forestry.
220
2.2.1.1
Methodology assessment
Chapter 2
Bioenergy
Biodiversity
Technology Change
Agricultural and
Forestry Policies
Food,
Fodder,
Forestry*
Different Indicators
Reference
Land areas
Demand
Materials
Nano, Bio, ...
Agricultural /
Forestry Efciency
(Yields)
Land prices
Cropland
Production
Pasture
Forestlands
and other
Plantations
Woodlands
Urban
Other
Diet
Energy
Population
and
Economy
Demand
Prices
Other Energy
Carriers
Energy Policy
Water
Yields
Land Degradation
Residues
Nature Conservation
Technology Change
Production
Climate Policy
Energy Use
Fertilizer Use
Soil Carbon/Land Cover
Non-CO2
Demand
Water Use Efciency
Supply
* Includes Short Rotation Forestry and Products
Three principal categories aremore or less comprehensivelyconsidered in assessments of biomass resource potentials (see also Section
2.3.1.1):
Primary residues from conventional food and bre production in
agriculture and forestry, such as cereal straw and logging residues;
Secondary and tertiary residues in the form of organic food/forest
industry by-products and retail/post consumer waste; and
Plants produced for energy supply, including conventional food/fodder/industrial crops, surplus roundwood forestry products, and new
agricultural, forestry or aquatic plants.
221
Bioenergy
Chapter 2
Studies that start out from such principles should not be understood as
providing guarantees that a certain level of biomass can be supplied
for energy purposes without competing with food or bre production.
They quantify how much bioenergy could be produced in a certain
future year based on using resources not required for meeting food
and bre demands, given a specied development in the world or in
a region. But they do not analyze how bioenergy expansion towards
such a future level of production wouldor shouldinteract with
food and bre production.
2.2.1.2
Smeets et al. (2007) model a scenario with a fully landless animal production system
with globally high feed conversion efciency and a 4.6-fold increase in global
agricultural productivity by 2050 due to technological progress and deployment that
is considerably faster than has historically ever been achieved (a 1.9-fold increase
for Europe and a 7.7-fold increase in sub-Saharan Africa). In that case, 72% of
current agricultural area could be used for bioenergy production in 2050 and supply
a theoretical potential of 1,548 EJ/yr, which is of the same magnitude as the total
energy content of the worlds natural aboveground net primary production on land.
222
2.2.1.3
Chapter 2
2.2.2
2.2.2.1
Literature assessment
Bioenergy
regarding societal preferences with respect to trade-offs in environmental impacts and the implications of increased intensication in food
and bre production, and regarding potential synergies between different forms of land use.
Although assessments employing improved data and modelling capacity have not succeeded in providing narrow distinct estimates of the
technical potential of biomass, they do indicate the most inuential factors that affect this technical potential. This is further discussed below,
where approaches used in the assessments are treated in more detail.
2.2.2.2
2.2.2.3
In addition to the residue ows that are linked to industrial roundwood production and processing into conventional forest products,
forest growth currently not harvested is considered in some studies.
This biomass resource is quantied based on estimates of the biomass
increment in parts of forests that are assessed as being available for
wood supply. This increment is compared with the estimated level of
forest biomass extraction for conventional industrial roundwood productionand sometimes for traditional biomass, notably heating and
223
Bioenergy
Chapter 2
2.2.2.4
and the biomass yields that can be obtained on the available lands are
two critical determinants of the technical potential. Given that surplus
agricultural land is commonly identied as the major land resource for
the plantations, food sector development is critical. Methods for determining land availability and suitability should consider requirements for
maintaining the economic, ecological and social value of ecosystems.
There are different approaches for considering such requirements, as
described for a selection of studies below.
Most earlier assessments of biomass resource potentials used rather
simplistic approaches to estimating the technical potential of biomass
plantations (Berndes et al., 2003), but the continuous development of
modelling tools that combine databases containing biophysical information (soil, topography, climate) with analytical representations of
relevant crops and agronomic systems and the use of economic and
full biogeochemical vegetation models has resulted in improvements
over time (see, e.g., van Vuuren et al., 2007; Fischer et al., 2008; LotzeCampen et al., 2009; Melillo et al., 2009; WBGU, 2009; Wise et al., 2009;
Table 2.2 | Global technical potential overview for a number of categories of land-based biomass supply for energy production (primary energy numbers have been rounded). The
total assessed technical potential can be lower than the present biomass use of about 50 EJ/yr in the case of high future food and bre demand in combination with slow productivity
development in land use, leading to strong declines in biomass availability for energetic purposes.
Biomass category
Comment
Category 1.
By-products associated with food/fodder production and processing, both primary (e.g., cereal straw from
harvesting) and secondary (e.g., rice husks from rice milling) residues.
15 70
Includes both conventional agriculture crops and dedicated bioenergy plants including oil crops, lignocellulosic
grasses, short-rotation coppice and tree plantations. Only land not required for food, fodder or other agricultural commodities production is assumed to be available for bioenergy. However, surplus agriculture land (or
abandoned land) need not imply that its development is such that less total land is needed for agriculture: the
lands may become excluded from agriculture use in modelling runs due to land degradation processes or climate change (see also marginal lands below). Large technical potential requires global development towards
high-yielding agricultural production and low demand for grazing land. Zero technical potential reects that
studies report that food sector development can be such that no surplus agricultural land will be available.
0 700
Refers to biomass production on deforested or otherwise degraded or marginal land that is judged unsuitable
for conventional agriculture but suitable for some bioenergy schemes (e.g., via reforestation). There is no
globally established denition of degraded/marginal land and not all studies make a distinction between such
land and other land judged as suitable for bioenergy. Adding categories 2 and 3 can therefore lead to double
counting if numbers come from different studies. High technical potential numbers for categories 2 and 3
assume biomass production on an area exceeding the present global cropland area (ca. 1.5 billion ha or 15
million km2). Zero technical potential reects low potential for this category due to land requirements for, for
example, extensive grazing management and/or subsistence agriculture or poor economic performance if using
the marginal lands for bioenergy.
0 110
Forest sector by-products including both primary residues from silvicultural thinning and logging, and secondary
residues such as sawdust and bark from wood processing. Dead wood from natural disturbances, such as res
and insect outbreaks, represents a second category. Biomass growth in natural/semi-natural forests that is not
required for industrial roundwood production to meet projected biomaterials demand (e.g., sawn wood, paper
and board) represents a third category. By-products provide up to about 20 EJ/yr implying that high forest
biomass technical potentials correspond to a much larger forest biomass extraction for energy than what is
presently achieved in industrial wood production. Zero technical potential indicates that studies report that
demand from sectors other than the energy sector can become larger than the estimated forest supply capacity.
0 110
Animal manure. Population development, diets and character of animal production systems are critical determinants.
5 50
Biomass associated with materials use, for example, organic waste from households and restaurants and discarded wood products including paper, construction and demolition wood; availability depends on competing
uses and implementation of collection systems.
5 >50
Category 2.
Dedicated biomass production
on surplus agricultural land
Category 3.
Dedicated biomass production
on marginal lands
Category 4.
Forest biomass
Category 5.
Dung
Category 6.
Organic wastes
Total
<50 >1000
Notes: Based on Fischer and Schrattenholzer (2001); Hoogwijk et al. (2003, 2005, 2009); Smeets and Faaij (2007); Dornburg et al. (2008, 2010); Field et al. (2008); Hakala et al. (2009);
IEA Bioenergy (2009); Metzger and Huttermann (2009); van Vuuren et al. (2009); Haberl et al. (2010); Wirsenius et al. (2010); Beringer et al. (2011).
224
Chapter 2
Bioenergy
Undened
SI > 75: Very High
SI > 63: High
SI > 50: Good
SI > 35: Medium
SI > 20: Modearte
SI > 10: Marginal
SI > 0: Very Marginal
Not Suitable
Water
Undened
SI > 75: Very High
SI > 63: High
SI > 50: Good
SI > 35: Medium
SI > 20: Modearte
SI > 10: Marginal
SI > 0: Very Marginal
Not Suitable
Water
Figure 2.4 | Global land suitability for bioenergy plantations. The upper map shows suitability for herbaceous and woody lignocellulosic plants (Miscanthus, switchgrass, reed canary
grass, poplar, willow, eucalyptus) and the lower map shows suitability for rst-generation biofuel feedstocks (sugarcane, maize, cassava, rapeseed, soybean, palm oil, Jatropha). The
suitability index (SI)1 describes the spatial suitability of each pixel and reects the match between crop requirements and prevailing climate, soil and terrain conditions. The map shows
suitability under rain-fed cultivation and advanced management systems that assume availability of sufcient nutrients, adequate pest control and mechanization, and other practices.
Results for irrigated conditions or low-input management systems would result in different pictures (Fischer et al., 2009; reproduced with permission from the International Institute
for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA)).
Note: 1. SI: suitability index. The SI used reects the spatial suitability of each pixel and is calculated as SI = VS*0.9+S*0.7+MS*0.5+mS*0.3, where VS, S, MS and mS correspond to
yield levels at 80100%, 6080%, 4060% and 2040% of the modelled maximum, respectively (Fischer et al., 2009).
225
Bioenergy
Chapter 2
Table 2.3 | Example of the technical potential of rain-fed lignocellulosic plants on unprotected grassland and woodland (i.e., forests excluded) where land requirements for food
production, including grazing, have been considered at 2000 levels. Calculated based on Fischer et al. (2009); reproduced with permission from the International Institute for Applied
Systems Analysis (IIASA).
Unproductive
or very low
productive areas
(Mha) [million km2]
Bioenergy area
also excluding
grazing land (Mha)
[million km2]
Protected
areas (Mha)
[million km2]
North America
659 [6.59]
103 [1.03]
391 [3.91]
902 [9.02]
76 [0.76]
618 [6.18]
Pacic OECD
515 [5.15]
7 [0.07]
332 [3.32]
97 [0.97]
Region
Africa
Technical potential
(average yield,1 GJ/
ha/yr) [GJ/km2/yr]
Technical Potential2
(total, EJ/yr)
111 [1.11]
165 [16,500]
19
122 [1.22]
140 [14,000]
17
175 [17,500]
17
69
1,086 [10.68]
146 [1.46]
386 [3.86]
275 [2.75]
250 [2,500]
556 [5.56]
92 [0.92]
335 [3.35]
14 [0.14]
285 [28,500]
Latin America
765 [7.65]
54 [0.54]
211 [2.11]
160 [1.6]
280 [28,000]
45
World
107 [1.07]
2 [0.02]
93 [0.93]
1 [0.01]
125 [12,500]
0.2
4,605 [46.05]
481 [4.81]
2,371 [23.71]
780 [7.80]
220 [22,000]
171
Notes: 1. Calculated based on average yields of rain-fed lignocellulosic feedstocks on grass- and woodland area given in Fischer et al. (2009, p.174) and assuming an energy content of
18 GJ/t dry matter (rounded numbers). 2. If livestock grazing area can be freed up by intensication of agricultural practices and pasture use, these areas could be used for additional
bioenergy production. The technical potential in this case could increase from 171 up to 288 EJ/yr.
Yield potential is the yield obtained when an adapted cultivar (cultivated variety of
a plant) is grown with the minimal possible stress that can be achieved with best
management practices, a functional denition by Cassman (1999).
226
Chapter 2
Bioenergy
2.2.3
Some studies exclude areas where attainable yields are below a certain minimum level. Other studies exclude biomass resources judged as
being too expensive to mobilize, given a certain biomass price level.
These assessments address biomass resource availability and cost for
given levels of production so that an owner of a facility for secondary
energy production from modern biomass could assess a location and the
size of a facility for a cost-effective business with a guaranteed supply
of biomass throughout the year. Costs models are based on combining
land availability, yield levels and production costs to obtain plant- and
region-specic cost-supply curves (Walsh, 2008). These are based on
projections or scenarios for the development of cost factors, including
opportunity cost of land, and can be produced for different contexts
and scalesincluding feasibility studies of supplying individual bioenergy plants and estimating the future global cost-supply curve. Studies
using this approach at different scales include Dornburg et al. (2007),
Hoogwijk et al. (2009), de Wit et al. (2010) and van Vuuren et al. (2009).
P. Gallagher et al. (2003) exemplify the production of cost-supply curves
for the case of crop harvest residues and Gerasimov and Karjalainen
(2009) for the case of forest wood.
The biomass production costs can be combined with technological and
economic data for related logistic systems and conversion technologies
to derive market potentials at the level of secondary energy carriers such
as bioelectricity and biofuels for transport (e.g., Gan, 2007; Hoogwijk et
al., 2009; van Dam et al., 2009c). Using biomass cost and availability data
as exogenously dened input parameters in scenario-based energy system modelling can provide information about levels of implementation
in relation to a specic energy system context and possible climate and
energy policy targets. Cost trends are discussed further in Section 2.7.
Figure 2.5(a) shows projections of European market potential estimated
based on food sector scenarios for 2030, considering also nature protection requirements and infrastructure development (Fischer et al., 2010).
Estimated production cost supply curves shown in Figure 2.5(b) were subsequently produced including biomass plantations and forest/agriculture
residues (de Wit and Faaij, 2010). The key factor determining the size of
the market potential was the development of agricultural land productivity, including animal production.
Figure 2.5(c) data for the USA are based on recent assessments of lignocellulosic feedstock supply cost curves conducted at county-level
resolution (Walsh, 2008; Perlack et al., 2005; US DOE, 2011). Figure
2.5(d) illustrates the delivered price of biomass to the conversion facility
under the baseline conditions for various production levels of lignocellulosic feedstocks.6 Total market potential for crop-based ethanol and
6
For instance, at a biomass feedstock price of USD2005 3/GJ delivered to the conversion
facility, the three types of feedstocks shown in Figure 2.5(d) would provide 5.5 EJ. At
higher prices there is more feedstock up to a point, for example, 1.5 EJ for the forest
residues in the gure.
227
Bioenergy
Chapter 2
(b)
40
(a)
Europe 2030
35
Europe:
Pasture Land
30
EU15 +
EU12
Ukraine
Arable Land
25
20
15
10
30
20
Europe 2030
1st Generation
Feedstocks
Starch
25
Oil
Sugar
15
10
Wood
Grass
Grass1
1
Wood
5
5
1 = High Case
0
Baseline
High
12
15
18
Supply [EJ/yr]
(d)
70
60
50
Americas
China
India
(c)
Caribbean Basin
Mexico
India
Colombia
40
China
Canada
30
Brazil
Argentina
20
USA-RFS2 Grain
2010-2012
2015-2017
Forest Residues
USA 2025
Energy Crops
Crop Residues
USA-Lignocellulosic
10
2025-2027
Supply [EJ/yr]
Figure 2.5 | Examples of preliminary market potentials based on feedstock cost supply curves shown in (b) for European countries and (d) for the USA. The feedstock cost supply
curves for these assessments are from recent studies conducted at levels of: (a) region; (c) country based on state/province except for the USA, which is performed at a county level.
In (c) the US data are for the baseline case and the other countries cases are for a high-growth scenario (a total of 45 EJ/yr, which would decrease to 25 EJ/yr in the base case and
to around 8 EJ/yr in the low case) by 2025. See text for further information. Sources: (a) Fischer et al. (2010); (b) de Wit and Faaij (2010); (c) Kline et al. (2007); Walsh (2008); EPA
(2010); (d) Walsh (2008), US DOE (2011).
Similar zoning is available for oil palm.7 These steps are recommended
by several of the organizations developing sustainability criteria (van
Dam et al., 2010, and see Section 2.4.5).
2.2.4
228
Chapter 2
Bioenergy
2.2.4.1
2.2.4.2
229
Bioenergy
230
Chapter 2
For example, mulching, low tillage, contour ploughing, bounds, terraces, rainwater
harvesting and supplementary irrigation, drought adapted crops, crop rotation and
fallow time reduction.
Chapter 2
Conservation agriculture and mixed production systems (double-cropping, crop with livestock and/or crop with forestry) hold potential to
sustainably increase land productivity and water use efciency as well
as carbon sequestration and to improve food security and efciency
in the use of limited resources such as phosphorous (Kumar, 2006;
Heggenstaller et al., 2008; Herrero et al., 2010). Integration can also
be based on integrating feedstock production with conversiontypically producing animal feed that can replace cultivated feed such as soy
and corn (Dale et al., 2009, 2010) and also reduce grazing requirements
(Sparovek et al., 2007).
Investment in agricultural research, development and deployment could
produce a considerable increase in land and water productivity (Rost
et al., 2009; Herrero et al., 2010; Sulser et al., 2010) as well as improve
robustness of plant varieties (Reynolds and Borlaug, 2006; Ahrens et
al., 2010). Multi-functional systems (IAASTD, 2009) providing multiple
ecosystem services (Berndes et al., 2004, 2008a,b; Folke et al., 2004,
2009) represent alternative options for the production of bioenergy on
agricultural lands that could contribute to development of farming systems and landscape structures that are benecial for the conservation
of biodiversity (Vandermeer and Perfecto, 2006).
2.2.4.3
Bioenergy
and that this could pave the way for funding via international nancing
mechanisms and major donors (Knowler, 2004; Gisladottir and Stocking,
2005). In this context, the production of properly selected plant species
for bioenergy can be an opportunity, where additional benets involve
carbon sequestration in soils and aboveground biomass and improved
soil quality over time.
2.2.4.4
Biodiversity protection
231
Bioenergy
2.2.5
Chapter 2
232
uncertain, but tropical regions are most likely to see the strongest negative impact.
2.2.6
Synthesis
Chapter 2
Water constraints may limit production in regions experiencing water scarcity. But the use of suitable energy crops that are
drought tolerant can also help adaptation in water-scarce situations.
Assessments of biomass resource potentials need to more carefully
consider constraints and opportunities in relation to water availability and competing uses.
Based on this expert review of the available scientic literature, deployment levels of biomass for energy could reach a range of 100 to 300 EJ/
yr around 2050 (see Section 2.8.4.1 for more detail). This can be compared with the present biomass use for energy of about 50 EJ/yr. While
recent assessments employing improved data and modelling capacity
have not succeeded in providing narrow, distinct estimates of the biomass resource potential, they have advanced the understanding of how
inuential various factors are on the resource potential and that both
positive and negative effects may follow from increased biomass use for
energy. One important conclusion is that the effects of LUC associated
with bioenergy expansion can considerably inuence the climate benet
of bioenergy (Section 2.5.5). The insights from the resource assessments
can improve the prospects for bioenergy by pointing out the areas where
development is most crucial and where research is needed. A summary
is given in Section 2.8.4.3.
2.3
Bioenergy
2.3.1
Feedstocks
2.3.1.1
Biomass may be harvested several times per year (for forage-type feedstocks such as hay or alfalfa), once per year (for annual species such as
wheat or perennial grasses), or every 2 to 50 years or more (for shortrotation coppice and conventional forestry, respectively). Sugarcane is
harvested annually but planted every 4 to 7 years and grown in ratoons; it
is considered a perennial grass. Harvested biomass is typically transported
to a collection point on the farm or at the edge of the road before being
transported to the bioenergy unit or to an intermediate storage facility. It
may be preconditioned and densied to facilitate storage, transport and
handling (see Section 2.3.2).
The species listed in Table 2.4 have different possible energy end uses and
require diverse conversion technologies (see Figure 2.6). Starch and oil
crops are grown and harvested annually as feedstocks for what are called
rst-generation liquid biofuels (ethanol and biodiesel, see Section 2.3.3).
Only a fraction of the total aboveground biomass is used for biofuels,
with the rest being processed for animal feed or lignocellulosic residues.
Sugarcane plants are feedstocks for the production of sugar and ethanol
and, increasingly, sugarcane bagasse and straw, which serve as sources of
process heat and extra power in many sugar- and ethanol-producing countries (Macedo et al., 2008; Dantas et al., 2009; Seabra et al., 2010) resulting
in favourable environmental footprints for these biorenery products.
Lignocellulosic plants such as perennial grasses or short-rotation coppice
may be entirely converted to energy, and feature two to ve times higher
233
Bioenergy
Chapter 2
Table 2.4 | Typical characteristics of the production technologies for dedicated species and their primary residues. Yields are expressed as GJ of energy content in biomass prior to
conversion to energy, or of the ethanol end product for sugar and starch crops. Costs refer to private production costs or market price when costs were unavailable (data from 2005
to 2009). Key to management inputs: +: low; ++: moderate; +++: high requirements.
OIL CROPS
Oilseed rape
Soybean
Palm oil
Jatropha
Yield
GJ/ha/yr [TJ/km2/yr]
Management
Co-products
Costs
Refs.
Fertilizer use1
Water needs
Pesticides
Examples (2005-2009)
USD/GJ
7.216.0
1,2,3,22
11.7
3,12
N/A
N/A
12.62
3.2
3,4,5,10,11
As oil
Europe
6070 [6.77.0]
+++
+++
North America
1619 [1.61.9]
++
+++
Brazil
1821 [1.82.1]
++
+++
Asia
135200
[13.520.0]
++
+++
Brazil
169 [16.9]
++
+++
World
1788 [1.78.8]
+/++
STARCH CROPS
As ethanol
Wheat
Europe
5458 [5.45.8]
+++
++
+++
Straw, DDGS3
5.2
Maize
North America
7279 [7.27.9]
+++
+++
+++
10.9
Cassava
World
43 [4.3]
++
++
DDGS
3.34
+++
1.02.02
3,17
N/A
SUGAR CROPS
Sugarcane
As ethanol
Brazil
116149
[11.614.9]
India
95112 [9.511.2]
++
Bagasse, straw
Sugar beet
Europe
116158
[11.615.8]
++
++
+++
Molasses, pulp
5.29.6
3,13,22
Sorghum (sweet)
China
105160
[10.516.0]
+++
++
Bagasse
4.4
2,21
LIGNOCELLULOSIC CROPS
Miscanthus
As ethanol
Europe
190280
[19.028.0]
+/++
++
4.816
6,8
Europe
120225
[12.022.5]
++
2.43.2
10,14
North America
103150
[10.315.0]
++
4.4
90225 [9.022.5]
++
2.94
10,14
+/++
2.7
16,19
4.4
2,7
3.413.6
15
1.82.0
23
Switchgrass
Southern
Europe
Eucalyptus
South America
150415
[15.041.5]
SR Willow
Europe
140 [14.0]
Fuelwood (chopped)
Europe
110 [11.0]
Fuelwood (renewable,
native forest)
Sugarcane straw
Corn stover
Forest residues
Central America
PRIMARY RESIDUES
Wheat straw
Tree bark
80150 [8.015.0]
Europe
60 [6.0]
1.9
2
14, 20
USA
775 [0.77.5]
N/A
Brazil
90126 [9.012.6]
N/A
17
North America
15155 [1.515.5]
N/A
9,14
Not Applicable
India
2230 [2.23.0]
0.9
18
Sorghum stover
World
85 [8.5]
N/A
Forest residues
Europe
215 [0.21.5]
17.7
15
Notes: 1. Nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium; 2. Market price; 3. DDGS: Dried Distillers Grain with Solubles. These are illustrative cost gures or market prices from the literature.
See Annex II for ranges of costs for specic commercial feedstocks over a year period.
References: 1: EEA (2006); 2: Edwards et al. (2007); 3: Bessou et al. (2010); 4: Jongschaap et al. (2007); 5: Openshaw (2000); 6: Clifton-Brown et al. (2004); 7: Ericsson et al. (2009);
8: Fagerns et al. (2006); 9: Lal (2005); 10: WWI, (2006); 11: Maes et al. (2009); 12: Gerbens-Leenes et al. (2009);13: Berndes (2008a,b); 14: Perlack et al. (2005); 15: Asikainen et
al. (2008); 16: Scolforo (2008); 17: Folha (2005); 18: Guille (2007); 19: Diaz-Balteiro and Rodriguez (2006); 20: Lal (2005); 21: Grassi et al. (2006); 22: Faaij (2006); 23: T. Johnson et
al. (2009). See Bessou et al. (2010) for specic biofuel volumes per hectare for various countries; see also IEA Renewable Energy Division (2010) for additional country information.
234
Chapter 2
Bioenergy
Feedstock1
Oil Crops
(Rape, Sunower, etc.),
Waste Oils, Animal Fats
Conversion Routes2
(Biomass Upgrading3) +
Combustion
Liquid Fuels
Transesterication
or Hydrogenation
Biodiesel
(Hydrolysis) + Fermentation
Ethanol
Gasication
Renewable
Diesel
Lignocellulosic Biomass
(Wood, Straw, Energy Crop,
MSW, etc.)
Biodegradable MSW,
Sewage Sludge, Manure, Wet
Wastes (Farm and Food Wastes)
(+ Secondary Process)
Pyrolysis
Gaseous Fuels
Anaerobic Digestion4
(+ Biogas Upgrading)
Biomethane
Figure 2.6 | Schematic view of commercial bioenergy routes (modied from IEA, Bioenergy, 2009).
Notes: 1. Parts of each feedstock, for example, crop residues, could also be used in other routes. 2. Each route also gives co-products. 3. Biomass upgrading includes any one of the
densication processes (pelletization, pyrolysis, etc.). 4. Anaerobic digestion processes release methane and CO2 and removal of CO2 provides essentially methane, the main component
of natural gas; the upgraded gas is called biomethane.
yields per hectare than most of the other feedstock types, while requiring
far fewer synthetic inputs when managed carefully (Hill, 2007). However,
their impact on soil organic matter after the removal of stands is not well
understood (Wilhelm et al., 2007; Anderson-Teixeira et al., 2009). Research
is underway to assess site-specic removal levels as a function of time and
strategies to mitigate weather impacts on residue removal (e.g., Karlen,
2010; Zhang et al., 2010). With technologies that are currently commercial,
lignocellulosic feedstocks are only providing heat and power whereas the
harvest products of oil, sugar and starch crops are being converted readily
to liquid biofuels and in some cases together with heat and power.
Production and harvest costs for dedicated plants vary widely according
to the prices of inputs, machinery, labour and land-related costs (Ericsson
et al., 2009; Table 2.4). If energy plantations are to compete with land
dedicated to food production, the opportunity cost of land (the price that
a farmer needs to receive in order to switch from the known annual crop
cultivation to an energy crop) could be quite signicant and may escalate proportionally with the demand for energy feedstocks (Bureau et
al., 2010). Cost-supply curves scaling from farm to the regional level are
needed to account for possible large-scale deployment scenario effects
(see examples in Figures 2.5(b) and 2.5(d) for feedstock supplies in Europe
(cost) and the USA (delivered price), respectively, as a function of feedstock production level, with the unit price per GJ growing several-fold as
the total demand for biomass increases).
The cost of forest products depends heavily on harvesting and other
logistical practices. In particular labour costs, machinery and the distance
from the logging site to the conversion plant are important (Asikainen
2.3.1.2
As emphasized in Section 2.2.1, bioenergy feedstock production competes with other uses for resources, chiey land, with possible negative
effects on biodiversity, water availability, soil quality and climate (see
Sections 2.2.4 and 2.5). However, synergistic effects may also emerge
through the design of integrated production systems, which also
provide additional environmental services. Intercropping and mixed
cropping are options to maximize the output of biomass per unit
area farmed (WWI, 2006). Mixed cropping systems result in increased
yields compared to single crops, and may provide both food/fodder
and energy feedstocks from the same eld (Jensen, 1996; Tilman et
al., 2006b). Double-cropping systems have the potential to generate
additional feedstocks for bioenergy and livestock utilization and potentially higher yields of biofuel from two crops in the same area in a year
(Heggenstaller et al., 2008).
Agro-forestry systems make it possible to use land for food, fodder, timber and energy purposes with mutual benets for the associated species
(R. Bradley et al., 2008). The associated land equivalent ratios may reach
up to 1.5, meaning a 50% saving in land area when combining trees
with arable crops compared to monocultures (Dupraz and Liagre, 2008)
and therefore an equal reduction in indirect LUC effects (see Section
235
Bioenergy
Chapter 2
2.5.3). Another option is growing an understory food crop and coppicing the lignocellulosic species to produce residual biomass for energy,
similarly to short-rotation coppice (Dupraz and Liagre, 2008). Perennial
plants create positive externalities such as erosion control, improved
fertilizer use efciency and reduction in nitrate leaching relative to
annual plants (see Section 2.2.4.2). Lastly, the revenues generated from
growing bioenergy feedstocks may provide access to technologies or
inputs enhancing the yields of food crops, drive additional investments
in the agricultural sector and contribute to productivity gains (De La
Torre Ugarte and Hellwinckel, 2010), provided feedstock benets are
distributed to local communities (Practical Action Consulting, 2009).
2. Local utilization of resources from forest management and agriculture. Such resources are more expensive to collect and transport, but
usually still economically attractive. Infrastructure development is
needed.
2.3.2
4. Development of national markets with increasing numbers of suppliers and buyers; creation of a marketplace; increasingly complex
logistics. Availability often increases due to improved supply systems and access to markets. Price levels may therefore decrease
(see, e.g., Junginger et al., 2005).
2.3.2.1
236
3. Biomass market development at regional scale; larger-scale conversion units with increasing fuel exibility are deployed; increasing
average transport distances further improves economies of scale.
Increasing costs of biomass supplies make more energy-efcient
conversion facilities necessary as well as feasible. Policy support
measures such as feed-in tariffs (FITs) are usually needed to develop
into this stage.
5. Increasing scale of markets and transport distances, including crossborder transport of biofuels; international trade in biomass resources
(and energy carriers derived from biomass). Biomass is increasingly
becoming a globally traded energy commodity (see, e.g., Junginger
et al., 2008). Bio-ethanol trade has come closest to that situation
(see, e.g., Walter et al., 2008).
6. Growing role for dedicated fuel supply systems (biomass production
largely or only for energy purposes). So far, most energy crops are
grown because of agricultural interests and support (subsidies for
farmers, use of set-aside subsidies), which concentrate on oil crops
(such as rapeseed) and surplus food crops (cereals and sugar beets).
Countries that have gained substantial commercial experience with
biomass supplies and biomass markets are generally able to obtain substantial cost reductions in biomass supply chains over time. In Finland
and Sweden, delivery costs decreased from USD2005 12 to 5/GJ from 1975
to 2003, due to factors such as scale increases, technological innovations or increased competition (Junginger et al., 2005). Similar trends
are observed in the corn ethanol industry in the USA and the sugarcane
ethanol industry in Brazil (see Table 2.17).
Analyses of regional and international biomass supply chains show
that road transport of untreated and bulky biomass becomes uncompetitive and energy-inefcient when crossing distances of 50 to 150 km
(Dornburg and Faaij, 2001; McKeough et al., 2005). When long-distance
transport is required, early pretreatment and densication in the supply
chain (see Sections 2.3.2.3 and 2.6.2) pays off to minimize transport
costs. Taking into account energy use and related GHG emissions, wellorganized logistic chains can require less than 10% of the initial energy
content of the biomass (Hamelinck et al., 2005b; Damen and Faaij,
2006), but this requires substantial scale in transport, efcient pretreatment and minimization of road transport of untreated biomass.
Chapter 2
2.3.2.2
Bioenergy
and energy density is high. Wood pellets are used as fuel in many countries for cooking and heating applications (Peksa-Blanchard et al., 2007).
Chips are mainly produced from plantations waste wood and wood
residues (branches and presently even spruce stumps) as a by-product of
conventional forestry. They require less processing and are cheaper than
pellets. Depending on end use, chips may be produced onsite, or the
wood may be transported to the chipper. Chips are commonly used in
automated heating systems, and can be used directly in coal-red power
stations or for CHP production (Fagerns et al., 2006).
Charcoal is obtained by heating woody biomass to high temperatures in
the absence of oxygen, and has a twice higher caloric value than the
original feedstock. It burns without smoke and has a low bulk density,
which reduces transport costs. In rural areas in many African countries,
charcoal is produced in traditional kilns with efciencies as low as 10%
(Adam, 2009), and typically sold to urban households while rural households use fuelwood. Hardwoods are the most suitable raw material for
charcoal, because softwoods incur possibly high losses during handling/
transport. Charcoal from granular materials like coffee shells, sawdust
and straw is in powder form and needs to be briquetted with or without
a binder. Charcoal is also used in large-scale industries, particularly in
Brazil from high-yielding eucalyptus plantations (Scolforo, 2008), and in
many cases, in conjunction with sustainably produced wood, and also
increasingly as a co-ring feedstock in oil-based electric power plants.
The projected costs for charcoal production from Brazilian eucalyptus
plantations are USD2005 5.7 to 9.8/GJ (Fallot et al., 2009) using industrial
carbonizing process.
Charcoal in Africa is predominantly produced in inefcient traditional
kilns in the informal sector, often illegally. Current production, packaging and transport of charcoal are characterized by low efciencies and
poor handling, leading to losses. Introducing change to this industry
requires that it be recognized and legalized, where it is found to be sustainable and not contradictory to environmental protection goals. Once
legalized, it would be possible to regulate it and introduce standards
addressing fuel quality, packaging and production kiln standards and
better enforcement of which tree species should be used to produce
charcoal (Kituyi, 2004).
2.3.2.3
Wood pellets are one of the most successful bioenergy-based commodities traded internationally. Wood pellets offer several advantages
over other solid biomass fuels: they generally have a low moisture content and a relatively high heating value (about 17 GJ/t), which allow
long-distance transport by ship without affecting the energy balance
(Junginger et al., 2008). Local transport is carried out by trucks, which
sets a feasible upper limit for transportation of 50 km for raw biomass
(150 km for pellets) and together with the necessary storage usually
represents more than 50% of the nal cost. Bulk delivery of pellets is
237
Bioenergy
Chapter 2
very similar to delivery of home heating oil and is carried out by the lorry
driver blowing pellets into the storage space, while a suction pump takes
away any dust. Storage solutions include underground tanks, container
units, silos or storage within the boiler room. Design of more efcient
pellet storage, charging and combustion systems for domestic users is
ongoing (Peksa-Blanchard et al., 2007). International trade by ships to
ports that are properly equipped for handling pellets is a major logistical
barrier.10 Freight costs are another barrier very sensitive to international
trade demand. For instance, in 2004, the average price of pellets at a mill
in Canada was USD2005 3.4/GJ; shipped to the Netherlands, USD2005 4.1/
GJ (Free on Board); and delivered to the Rotterdam harbour, USD2005 7.5/
GJ (Junginger et al., 2008; see also Sikkema et al., 2011).
2.3.3
Commercial bioenergy routes are shown in Figure 2.6 and start with
feedstocks such as forest- or agriculture-based crops or industrial, commercial or municipal waste streams and by-products. These routes deliver
electricity or heat from biomass directly or as CHP, biogas and liquid
biofuels, including ethanol from sugarcane or corn and biodiesel from
oilseed crops. Current biomass-based commercial processes produce a
limited range of liquid fuels compared to the variety of petroleum-based
fuels and products.
Figure 2.2 presented a complex set of developing technological options
based on second- (lignocellulosic herbaceous or woody species) and
higher- (aquatic plants) generation feedstocks and a variety of second- (or higher-) generation conversion processes.11 It also included the
commercial (Figure 2.6) rst-generation (oil, sugar and starch crops)
and solid biomass feedstocks and conversion processes (fermentation,
transesterication, combustion, gasication, pyrolysis and anaerobic
digestion). Second-generation feedstocks and conversion processes can
produce higher-efciency electricity and heat, as well as a wider range
of liquid hydrocarbon fuels, alcohols (including some with higher energy
density), ethers, chemical products and polymers (biobased materials) in
the developing bioreneries that are discussed in more detail in Section
2.6.3.4. Initial R&D on producing hydrocarbon fuels is starting with sugar
and starch crops and covers the range of gasoline, diesel and jet fuel with
an increasing focus on chemicals. Both improved rst-generation crops
(e.g., perennial sugarcane-derived) and second-generation plants suited
to specic geographic regions have the potential to provide a variety of
energy products, along with high-volume chemicals and materials traditionally derived from the petrochemical industry, maximizing the outputs
of end products per unit of feedstock.
10 In most countries with export potential, ports are not yet equipped with storage and
modern handling equipment or are poorly managed, which implies high shipping
costs.
11 Biofuels produced via new processes are also called advanced or next-genereation
biofuels, e.g. from lignocellulosic biomass.
238
2.3.3.1
2.3.3.2
Thermochemical processes
Chapter 2
Bioenergy
Table 2.5 | Examples of stages of development of bioenergy: thermochemical (orange), biochemical (blue), and chemical routes (red) for heat, power, and liquid and gaseous fuels from solid lignocellulosic and wet waste biomass streams, sugars from sugarcane or starch crops, and vegetable oils (IEA Bioenergy, 2009; Alper and Stephanopoulos, 2009; Regalbuto, 2009).
Type of
Plant
Type of
Product
Demonstration
Densied
Biomass
Torrefaction
Charcoal
Pyrolysis (Biochar)
Early Commercial
Hydrothermal Oil
(Hy Oil)
Pyrolysis Oil
(Py Oil)
Pelletization
Carbonization
Heat
Commercial
Combustion Stoves
Combustion
Py/Hy Oil
Home/District/Industrial
Power
or CHP
Stirling Engine
ORC1
Steam Cycles
Indirect
Parallel
Direct
Co-Combution
or Co-Firing with Coal
Gasication (G)
or Integrated
Gasication (IG)
Landlls (1-Stage)
Wet Waste
2-Stage
Heat
or Power
or Fuel
Oils
Vegetable or Waste
Sugar or
Starch Crops
Sugar Fermentation
Butanol
Ethanol
Microbial Processing2
H2
Fuels
Biobutanol/Butanols3
Biodiesel
Extraction and Hydrogenation
Renewable Diesel
Jet Fuel
Notes: 1. ORC: Organic Rankine Cycle; 2. genetically engineered yeasts or bacteria to make, for instance, isobutanol (or hydrocarbons) developed either with tools of synthetic biology
or through metabolic engineering. 3. Several four-carbon alcohols are possible and isobutanol is a key chemical building block for gasoline, diesel, kerosene and jet fuel and other
products.
producer gas or fuel gas) rich in CO and hydrogen (H2) that has an
energy content of 5 to 20 MJ/Nm3 (depending on the type of biomass
and whether gasication is conducted with air, oxygen or through indirect heating). This energy content is roughly 10 to 45% of the heating
value of natural gas. Fuel gas can then be upgraded to a higher-quality
gas mixture called biomass synthesis gas or syngas (Faaij, 2006). A gas
turbine, a boiler or a steam turbine are options to employ unconverted
239
Bioenergy
Chapter 2
2.3.3.3
Chemical processes
Transesterication is the process through which alcohols (often methanol) react in the presence of a catalyst (acid or base) with triglycerides
contained in vegetable oils or animal fats to form an alkyl ester of fatty
acids and a glycerine by-product. Vegetable oil is extracted from the
seeds, usually with mechanical crushing or chemical solvents prior to
transesterication. The fatty acid alkyl esters are typically referred to
as biodiesel and can be blended with petroleum-based diesel fuel. The
protein-rich residue, also known as cake, is typically sold as animal feed
or fertilizer, but may also be used to synthesize higher-value chemicals
(WWI, 2006; Bauen et al., 2009a; Demirbas, 2009; Balat, 2011).
The hydrogenation of vegetable oil, animal fats or recycled oils in the
presence of a catalyst yields a renewable diesel fuelhydrocarbons
that can be blended in any proportion with petroleum-based diesel
and propane as products. This process involves reacting vegetable oil or
animal fats with H2 (typically sourced from an oil renery) in the presence of a catalyst (Bauen et al., 2009a). Although at an earlier stage of
development and deployment than transesterication, hydrogenation of
vegetable oils and animal fats can still be considered a rst-generation
route as it is demonstrated at a commercial scale.12 Hydrogenated biofuels have a high cetane number, low sulphur content and high viscosity
(Knothe, 2010).
2.3.3.4
Biochemical processes
240
products, including ethanol, lactic acid and others. Saccharomyces cerevisiae is the most common yeast used for industrial ethanol production
from sugars. The major raw feedstocks for biochemical conversion today
are sugarcane, sweet sorghum, sugar beet and starch crops (such as
corn, wheat or cassava) and the major commercial product from this
process is ethanol, which is predominantly used as a gasoline substitute
in light-duty transport.
Anaerobic digestion (AD) involves the breakdown of organic matter
in agricultural feedstocks such as animal dung, human excreta, leafy
plant materials, urban solid and liquid wastes, or food processing waste
streams by a consortium of microorganisms in the absence of oxygen
to produce biogas, a mixture of methane (50 to 70%) and CO2. In this
process, the organic fraction of the waste is segregated and fed into
a closed container (biogas digester). In the digester, the segregated
biomass undergoes biodegradation in the presence of methanogenic
bacteria under anaerobic conditions, producing methane-rich biogas
and efuent. The biogas can be used either for cooking and heating or
for generating motive power or power through dual-fuel or gas engines,
low-pressure gas turbines, or steam turbines. The biogas can also be
upgraded through enrichment to a higher heat content biomethane (85
to 90% methane) gas and injected in the natural gas grid (Bauen et
al., 2009a; Petersson and Wellinger, 2009). The residue from AD, after
stabilization, can be used as an organic soil amendment or a fertilizer.
The residue can be sold as manure depending upon the composition of
the input waste.
Many developing countries, for example India and China, are making use
of AD technology extensively in rural areas. Many German and Swedish
companies are market leaders in large biogas plant technologies (Faaij,
2006; Petersson and Wellinger, 2009). In Sweden, multiple wastes and
manures (co-digestion) are also used and the biogas is upgraded to biomethane, a higher methane content gas, which can be distributed via
natural gas pipelines and can also be used directly in vehicles.13
2.3.4
Literature examples of relevant commercial bioenergy systems operating in various countries today by type of energy product(s), feedstock,
major process, current and estimated future (2020 to 2030) efciency,
and estimated current and future (2020) production costs are presented
in Tables 2.6 and 2.7. Current markets and potential are reviewed in
Section 2.4.
Production costs presented in Tables 2.6 and 2.7 are taken directly from
the available literature with no attempt to harmonize the literature data
because the underlying techno-economic parameters are not always
sufciently transparent to assess the specic conditions under which
13 See, for instance, the Linkping example at www.iea-biogas.net/_download/
linkoping_nal.pdf (IEA Bioenergy Task 37 success story).
Chapter 2
2.3.4.1
Liquid biofuels from biomass have higher production costs than solid
biomass (at USD2005 ~2 to 5/GJ) used for heat and power. Unprocessed
solid biomass is less costly than pre-processed types (via densication,
e.g., delivered wood pellets at USD2005 10 to 20/GJ), but entails higher
logistic costs and is a reason why both types of solid biomass markets
developed (Sections 2.3.2.2 and 2.3.2.3). Because of economies of scale,
some of the specic technologies that have proven successful at a large
scale (such as combustion for electricity generation) cannot be directly
applied to small-scale applications in a cost-effective fashion, making it
necessary to identify suitable alternative technologies, usually adapting
existing technologies used with carbonaceous fuels. This is the case for
ORC technologies, which are entering the commercial stage, and Stirling
engine technologies, which are still in developmental phase, or moving
from combustion to gasication, coupled to an engine (IEA, 2008a).
An intermediate liquid fuel from pyrolysis is part of evolving heating
and power in co-ring applications because it is a transportable fuel
(see Table 2.6) and is under investigation for stationary power and for
upgrading to transport fuel (see Sections 2.3.3.2 and 2.6.3.1). Pyrolysis
oils are a commercial source of low-volume specialty chemicals (see
Bridgwater et al., 2003, 2007).
Bioenergy
2.3.4.2
Many bioenergy chains employ cogeneration in their systems where the
heat generated as a by-product of power generation is used as steam
to meet process heating requirements, with an overall efciency of 60%
or even higher (over 90%) in some cases (IEA, 2008a; Williams et al.,
2009). Technologies available for high-temperature/high-pressure steam
generation using bagasse as a fuel, for example, make it possible for
sugar mills to operate at higher levels of energy efciency and generate
more electricity than what they require. Sugarcane bagasse and now
increasingly sugarcane eld residues from cane mechanical harvesting
are used for process heat and power (Maus, 2007; Macedo et al., 2008;
Dantas et al., 2009; Seabra et al., 2010) to such an extent that in 2009,
5% of Brazils electricity was provided by bagasse cogeneration (EPE,
2010). Similarly, black liquor, an organic pulping product containing
pulping chemicals, is produced in the paper and pulp industry and is
being burnt efciently in boilers to produce energy that is then used as
process heat (Faaij, 2006). Cogeneration-based district heating in Nordic
and European countries is also very popular.
241
Bioenergy
Chapter 2
Table 2.6 | Current and projected estimated production costs and efciencies of bioenergy chains at various scales in world regions for power, heat, and biomethane from wastes
directly taken from available literature data.
Feedstock/
Country/ Region
Major Process
Estimated
Efciency, Application and Production
Production Costs
Costs; Eff. = bioenergy/biomass energy
USD2005/GJ
Component costs in USD2005/GJ
US cents2005/kWh
Potential Advances
USD2005/GJ
US cents2005/kWh
Co-combustion with
coal
8.1 15
2.9 5.3
Inv. Cost (USD/kW):
100 1,3001
Direct combustion
10 to 100 MWe, Eff. ~20 to 40%.1,2 Well deployed in Scandinavia and North America; various advanced concepts give
high efciency, low costs and high exibility.2 Major variable
is biomass supply costs.2
20 25
7.2 9.2
Inv. Cost (USD/kW):
1,600 2,5001
MSW/ Worldwide
Direct combustion
(gasication and cocombustion with coal
9.1 26
3.3 9.47
29 38
10 14
Inv. Cost (USD/kW):
2,500 5,6001
Wood pellets/ EU
14 36
5.0 139,10
Coal co-combustion/
gasication
19 42
7.0 159,10
Biogas:
1.3 1.712
Fuel:
2.4 6.613
Elec.:
48 591
17 211
Fuel: 15 16
Inv. Cost (USD/kW):
13,00014
Fuelwood/ Mostly in
developing countries
Organic Waste/MSW/
Worldwide
Organic Waste/MSW/
Manures/ Sweden/ EU in
expansion
Anaerobic co-digestion,
gas clean up, compression, and distribution
14
Manures/ Worldwide
Household digestion
242
Chapter 2
Bioenergy
Estimated
Production Costs
USD2005/GJ
US cents2005/kWh
Feedstock/
Country/ Region
Major Process
Manures/Finland
Farms
Elec.: 77 110
Inv. Cost (USD/kW):
14000 2300016
Manures/Food residues
Farms/Food Industry
Biogas from farm animal residues and food processing residues at 0.15 to 0.29 MWe.16
Elec.: 70 89
Inv. Cost (USD/kW):
12000 1500016
Potential Advances
USD2005/GJ
US cents2005/kWh
Improved designs and reduction in
digestion times. Improvements in the
understanding of anaerobic digestion,
metagenomics of complex consortia of
microorganisms.12
Abbreviations: Inv. = Investment; Elec. = Electricity. References: 1. Bauen et al. (2009a); 2. IEA Bioenergy (2007); 3. Cremers (2009) (see IEA co-ring database at www.ieabcc.nl/
database/coring.php); 4. Econ Poyry (2008); 5. Egsgaard et al. (2009); 6. NRC (2009b); 7. Koukouzas et al. (2008); 8. IEA (2008a); 9. Hamelinck (2004); 10. Uslu et al. (2008); 11. REN21
(2007); 12. Cirne et al. (2007); 13. Sustainable Transport Solutions (2006); 14. Krich et al. (2005); 15. Mller, (2007); 16. Kuuva and Ruska (2009); 17. Petersson and Wellinger, 2009.
ethanol should be anhydrous and the mixture has to be further dehydrated to reach a grade of 99.8 to 99.9% (WWI, 2006).
Ethanol and fodder products
The dominant dry mill (or dry grind) process (88% of US production) for
ethanol fuel manufactured from corn starts with hammer milling the
whole grain into a coarse our, which is cooked into a slurry, then hydrolyzed with alpha amylase enzymes to form dextrins, next hydrolyzed by
gluco-amylases to form glucose that is nally fermented by yeasts (the
last two processes can be combined). The byproduct is distillers grains
with solubles, an animal feed (McAloon et al., 2000; Rendleman and
Shapouri, 2007) that can be sold wet to feedlots near the biorenery or
be dried for stabilization and sold. The most common source of process
heat is natural gas. From the early 1980s to 2005, the energy intensity of
average dry mill plants in North America has been reduced by 14% for
every cumulative doubling of production (learning rate, see Table 2.17;
Hettinga et al., 2007, 2009). Since then, 10 cumulative doublings (see
also Section 2.7.2) have occurred and the industry continues to improve
its energy performance with, for instance, CHP ((S&T)2 Consultants,
2009). The impacts of this and other process improvements have been
estimated to continue such that, by 2022, the projected production cost
is USD2005 16/GJ, reduced from USD2005 17.5/GJ in 2009 (EPA, 2010).
Table 2.7 presents examples of process improvements from membrane
separation for ethanol to enzymes operating at lower temperature, etc.
A similar process to corn dry milling is wheat-to-ethanol processing,
starting with a malting step, and either enzyme or acid hydrolysis leading to sugars for fermentation.
Biodiesel
Biodiesel is produced from oil seed crops like rapeseed or soybeans,
or from trees such as oil seed palms. It is also produced from a variety of greases and wastes from cooking oils or animal fats. This wide
range of feedstocks, from low-cost wastes to more expensive vegetable
oils, produces biodiesel fuels with more variable properties that follow
those of the starting oil seed plant. Fuel standards harmonization is
still under development as are a variety of non-edible oil seed plants
(Knothe, 2010; Balat, 2011). Examples of producing regions are shown
in Figure 2.7.
243
Bioenergy
Chapter 2
Table 2.7 | Current and projected estimated production costs and efciencies of commercial biofuels in various countries directly taken from available literature data. Also provided is
the range of direct reductions of GHG emissions from these routes compared to the fossil fuel replaced (see Section 2.5 for detailed GHG emissions discussion). Parts A and B address
ethanol and biodiesel fuels, respectively.
A: Ethanol
Feedstock/
Process
Brazil
Australia
2021 w/ CR2,15,19
17.55
31 w/ CR.11
France
170 million l/yr, FC: 29.3; CC*: 10.5 and CR: 5.11
Direct GHG
Reduction (%)
from Fossil
Reference (FR)
Potential Advances
in Cost Reductions
and Efciency
USD2005/GJ
79 to 86%
(w/o and w/ CPC);
FR: gasoline.4
34.8 w/ CR.11
60%9,14
EU (UK)
40.7 w/ CR.11
Australia
(from waste)
22.8 w/ CR.3
EU (UK)
24.4 w/ CR.11
Thailand/
China
Thailand: 2623
Thailand: 45%.24
China: 20% with anaerobic
digestion energy.25
Molasses by-product of
sugar production
Thailand/
Australia
27 to 59% depending on
co-product credit method
(Australia).26,27
Table 2.7; EPA, 2010). The IEA has similarly estimated cost reductions
for Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)
countries rapeseed biodiesel by 2030 (IEA Bioenergy, 2007). Further
discussions of historical and future cost expectations are provided in
Section 2.7.
2.3.5
Synthesis
The key currently commercial technologies are heat production (ranging from home cooking to district heating), power generation from
biomass via combustion, CHP, co-ring of biomass and fossil fuels, and
rst-generation liquid biofuels from oil crops (biodiesel) and sugar and
244
Chapter 2
Bioenergy
B: Biodiesel
Country
Estimated
Production Costs
USD2005/GJ
Germany
Eff. ~29%; for the total system it is assumed that surpluses of straw are used for power production.27
31 50.1
France
55 GJ/ha/yr (EU), 220 million l/yr plant, FC: 40.5; CC*: 2.7
and CR: 1.7.11
41.5 w/ CR.11
UK
220 million l/yr plant, FC: 35.6; CC*: 4.2 and CR: 11.3.11
28.5 w/ CR.11
Oil palm
Indonesia
Malaysia Asian
countries20
163 GJ/ha/yr. 220 million l/yr plant, FC: 25.1; CC*: 2.7 and
CR: 1.7.11
26.1 w/ CR.
Vegetable oils
109 countries
4.2 17.9.3,11,31
N/A
Feedstock/
Process
Rape seed
Direct GHG
Reduction (%)
from Fossil
Reference (FR)
Potential Advances in
Cost Reductions and
Efciency
USD2005/GJ
25 37 for OECD.1
11
Abbreviations: *Conversion costs (CC) include investment costs and operating expenses; CR = Co-product Revenue; CPC = coproduct credit; FC = feedstock cost; FR = fossil reference;
N/A = not available.
References: 1. IEA Bioenergy (2007a); 2. Tao and Aden (2009); 3. Beer and Grant 2007; 4. Macedo et al. (2008); 5. EPA (2010); 6. Seabra et al. (2010); 7. UK DfT (2003); 8. Rendleman
and Shapouri (2007); 9. Bessou et al. (2010); 10. Wang et al. (2011); 11. Bauen et al. (2009a); 12. Wang et al. (2010); 13. Plevin (2009); 14. Ecobilan (2002); 15. Bain (2007); 16.
Fulton et al. (2004); 17. Edwards et al. (2008); 18. Edwards et al. (2007); 19. Hamelinck (2004); 20. Koizumi and Ohga (2008); 21. Milbrandt and Overend (2008); 22. GAIN (2009a;
for China); 23. GAIN (2009c; for Thailand); 24. Nguyen and Gheewala et al. (2008); 25. Leng et al. (2008); 26. Beer et al. (2001); 27. Beer et al. (2000); 28. Reinhardt et al. (2006); 29.
Johnston and Holloway (2007); 30. Bhojvaid (2007); 31. Wicke et al. (2008).
EU (Sugar Beet)
EU (Grains)
EU (Rapeseed)
Pacic (Canola)
Pacic (Grains)
China (Grains)
Pacic (Molasses)
Pacic (Tallow)
India (Molasses)
10
20
30
40
10
20
30
40
50
Figure 2.7 | Snapshots of regional ranges of current (2008-2009) estimated production costs for ethanol and biodiesel from various biomass feedstocks and wastes based on Milbrandt and Overend (2008) and Table 2.7.
Notes: The upper value of the range of soybean diesel in North America is due to the single point estimate of Bauen et al. (2009a). Other estimates are in the USD2005 12 to 32/GJ range.
biofuel feedstocks, from 80 to 415 GJ/ha (8 to 41.5 TJ/km2) for lignocellulosic feedstocks, and from 2 to 155 GJ/ha (0.2 to 15.5 TJ/km2) for
residues, while costs range from USD2005 0.9 to 16/GJ/ha (USD2005 0.09
to 1.6/TJ/km2). Feedstock production competes with the forestry and
food sectors, but the design of integrated production systems such as
agro-forestry or mixed cropping may provide synergies along with additional environmental services.
Handling and transport of biomass from production sites to conversion plants may contribute 20 to 50% of the total costs of bioenergy
245
Bioenergy
Chapter 2
2.4
2.4.1
246
Chapter 2
Bioenergy
The WEO (IEA, 2010b) projections for 2020 to 2035 are summarized
in Table 2.8 (in terms of global TPES from biomass); Table 2.9 (in
terms of global biofuel demand, i.e., secondary energy); and Table
2.10 (in terms of global electricity generation)all of them comparing a baseline case (Current Policies) and a mitigation scenario
reaching an atmospheric CO2 concentration of 450 ppm by 2100.
Global biomass and renewable waste electricity generation is also projected to increase in both scenarios, reaching 5.6% of global electricity
generation by 2035 in the 450-ppm scenario as shown in Table 2.10. The
climate change driver nearly doubles the anticipated penetration levels
of biopower compared to the projected levels owing to continuation of
current policies.
The overall TPES from biomass in the 450 ppm CO2 stabilization scenario increases to 83 (95) EJ/yr in 2030 (2035) adding 14 (12) EJ to
the Reference (Current Policies) scenario (see Table 2.8).
Table 2.8 | IEA WEO scenarios: global TPES from biomass projections (EJ/yr) for 2020 to 2035 (IEA, 2010b).
Year
2007
2008
Scenario
Actual
Actual
Baseline
50
60
EJ/yr
48
Delta, EJ
2020
2030
450 ppm
Baseline
63
66
2035
450 ppm
Baseline
83
70
450 ppm
95
17
25
Table 2.9 | IEA WEO scenarios: global biofuels demand projections (EJ/yr) for 2020 to 2035 reported in secondary energy terms of the delivered product according to IEA data (IEA,
2010b).
Year
2008
2009
Scenario
Actual
Actual
Baseline
450 ppm
Baseline
450 ppm
Baseline
450 ppm
1.9
2.1
4.5
5.1
5.9
11.8
6.8
16.2
4.4
11
(and air)
14
(and air)
EJ/yr
% Global road transport
% Advanced biofuels
2020
2030
4.4
7
Deployment
2035
60
66
Table 2.10 | IEA WEO scenarios: primary biomass and renewable waste electricity generation projections for 2030 (IEA, 2009, 2010b) and 2035 (IEA, 2010b).
Year
2008
Scenario
Actual
Current Policies
267 (0.96)
825 (3.0)
1380 (5.0)
1052 (3.8)
1890 (6.8)
2.7
5.6
TWh/yr (EJ/yr)
% Global electricity
TWh/yr (EJ/yr)
% Global electricity
0.96
2030
2035
2.4
4.5
840 (3.0)
1450 (5.2)
2.4
4.8
The use of liquid and gaseous energy carriers from modern biomass is
growing, in particular biofuels, with a 37% increase from 2006 to 2009
(IEA, 2010c). Regions that currently have strong policy support for biofuels are projected to take the largest share of the eight-fold increase
in the market for biofuels that occurs from 2008 to 2035. This is led by
the USA (where one-third of the increase occurs), followed by Brazil, the
EU and China. To highlight the scale, 7 EJ of advanced biofuels (second
generation) is greater than, for example, Indias 2007 oil consumption,
247
Bioenergy
Chapter 2
Canada
Belgium
Hungary
Japan
Czech Republic
Poland
Norway
Italy
Netherlands
Korea
China
France
Austria
USA
Germany
Brazil
Japan
UK
Sweden
Finland
Canada
Italy
Netherlands
Thailand
Austria
France
ce
Poland
Denmark
Belgium
Spain
Chile
Australia
Mexico
China
India
Hungary
Portugal
Argentina
Czech Republic
Korea
New Zealand
Norway
USA
10
Russia
20
Finland
30
Denmark
40
Germany
50
Sweden
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Figure 2.8 | Examples of biomass electricity generation and heating for select countries in 2008 and of the 2009 global trade in wood pellets. Sources: bar chart data from IEA (2010c);
trade ow data reproduced from Sikkema et al. (2011) with permission from the Society of Chemical Industry and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
The use of solid biomass for electricity production is important, especially from pulp and paper plants and sugar mills. Bioenergys share of
total energy consumption is increasing in the G8 countries (e.g., cocombustion for electricity generation, building heating with pellets),
especially in Germany, Italy and the UK (IEA, 2009b). The electricity
generation and biomass heating are shown in Figure 2.8. Worldwide
biomass heating statistics are uncertain (Sims, 2007) for developed
countries. In Europe, biomass heating applications in the building sector are cost competitive and are shown in Figure 2.8. For developing
countries, the statistics are less developed, as tools to collect data from
informal sectors are lacking (see Table 2.1).
248
2.4.2
Chapter 2
2.7 billion (for 2008) and is projected to increase to 2.8 billion by 2030
(IEA, 2010b). Many thousand biomass-based small industriessuch as
brick making, food, charcoal, bakeries and othersprovide employment
and income to people. Most of these technologies are resource intensive, highly polluting and exhibit low efciencies (see Tables 2.1 and 2.6;
FAO, 2010b). However, there is currently a signicant and growing market for improved technologies. Also, several programmes at the global,
national and local levels are in place to disseminate more efcient technology options.
2.4.2.1
Bioenergy
See www.cleancookstoves.org.
21 Particularly for new insulating materials as well as robust designs that endure several
years of rough use, and small-scale gasication.
249
Bioenergy
2.4.2.2
Chapter 2
Biogas systems
Convenient cooking and lighting are also provided by biogas production using household-scale biodigesters.22 Biodigesters have the distinct
co-benets of enhancing the fertilizer value of the dung in addition to
reducing the pathogen risks of human waste. Early stage results have
been mixed because of quality control and management problems,
which have resulted in a large number of failures. Smaller-scale biogas
experience in Africa has been often disappointing at the household level
as the capital cost, maintenance and management support required
have been higher than expected. The experience gained, new technology
developments (such as the use of geo-membranes), better understanding of the resources available to users, such as dung, and better market
segmentation are improving the success of new programmes (Kishore
et al., 2004).23
Incentives and barriers
Key factors for project success include a proper understanding of users
needs and resources.24 For example, the role of NGOs, networks and
associations in transfer, capacity building, extension and adoption of
biogas plants in rural India was found to be very important (Myles,
2001). Financial mechanisms, including micronance schemes and
carbon offset projects under the CDM, are also important in the implementation of household biogas programmes. Barriers to increased
biogas adoption include lack of proper technical standards; insufcient
nancial mechanisms to achieve desired prots relative to the digesters investment, installation and equipment costs; and relatively high
costs of technologies and of labour (e.g., geological investigations into
proper site installations). Other related barriers include poor reliability
and performance of the designs and construction, and limited application of knowledge gained from the operation of existing plants to the
design of new plants.
Many other small-scale bioenergy applications are emerging, including
systems aimed at transport and productive uses of energy and electricity. The market penetration is still limited, but many of these systems
show important benets in terms of livelihood, new income, revenues
and efciency (Practical Action Consulting, 2009).
22 By the end of 2009, there were 35 million household biodigesters in China and in
India (Gerber, 2008; REN21, 2009, 2010). There is also signicant experience with
commercial biogas use in Nepal. Mller (2007) reviewed existing biogas technologies
and case studies with contributions from China, Thailand, India, South Africa, Kenya,
Rwanda, and Ghana.
23 For example, the high rst cost (which can run up to USD 300 for some systems,
including the digestion chamber unit) of traditional systems is being reduced
considerably by new designs that reduce the digestion time, increase the specic
methane yield and use alternate or multiple feedstocks (such as leafy material
and food wastes), substantially reducing the size and cost of the digestion unit
(Lehtomki et al., 2007).
24 The Hedon Household Network provides references to the experience in the eld at
www.hedon.info. One example is www.hedon.info/docs/20060531_Report_(nal)_
on_Biogas_Experts_Network_Meeting_Hanoi.pdf.
250
2.4.3
Chapter 2
Bioenergy
Table 2.11 | Key policy instruments in selected countries where E = electricity, H = heat, T = transport, Eth = ethanol and BD = biodiesel (modied after GBEP, 2008; updated with
data from the REN21 global interactive map (see note 4 to Figure 2.9); reproduced with permission from GBEP).
Compulsory grid
connection
Sustainability Criteria
Tariffs
removed
E, T4
E, T
E, H
E, H
n/a
India
T, (E3)
T(BD)
E, H, T
n/a
Eth
Feed-in Tariffs
E, T
China
Grants
Brazil
Binding Targets/
Mandates1
Direct Incentives2
Policy Instruments
Voluntary Targets1
Country
Mexico
(E )
(T)
(E)
(E)
South Africa
T, E
E, (T)
(E), T
n/a
E, T, H
E4, T4
E, H, T
Eth
France
E3, H3, T
E, H, T
as EU below
Germany
(E, H, T)
as EU below
Canada
E ,T
Italy
E3
E3, T
E, H, T
as EU below
Japan
E, H, T
Eth, B-D
Russia
(E, H, T)
(T)
n/a
UK
E3, T3
E3, T
E, H, T
E, H, T
as EU below
USA
T, T4, E4
E4
E, H, T
E, T
Eth
E, H, T
(T)
Eth, B-D
EU
E ,T
E , H ,T
Notes: 1. blending or market penetration; 2. scal incentives: tax reductions; public nance: loan support/guarantees; 3. target applies to all RE sources; 4. target is set at a sub-national
level.
estimated at USD 1.1 billion and 0.4 billion for biofuels and biomass
to energy, respectively (UNEP/SEFI/Bloomberg, 2010). A signicant fraction of the venture capital investment was in the USA (Curtis, 2010).
There was signicant rst-generation biofuels industry consolidation in
the USA and in Brazil. Major global oil company investments occurred
in both countries and in the EU (IATA, 2009; Curtis, 2010; IEA, 2010b;
UNEP/SEFI/Bloomberg, 2010).
Addressing knowledge gaps in the sustainability of bioenergy systems,
as discussed in Section 2.5, is reported as crucial to enable public and
private decision making and increase public acceptance. Those gaps are
mostly related to feedstock production and the associated impacts on
land use, biodiversity, water, and food prices (WWI, 2006; Adams et al.,
2011). Other suggested R&D avenues include more sustainable feedstocks and conversion technologies (WWI, 2006), increased conversion
efciency (Cheng and Timilsina, 2010) and overall chain optimization
(Fagerns et al., 2006).
Integrating bioenergy production with other industries/sectors (such
as forest, food/fodder, power, or chemical industries) should improve
competitiveness and utilize raw materials more efciently (Fagerns et
al., 2006). For instance, industrial symbiosis evolved over 50 years in
2.4.4
251
Bioenergy
Chapter 2
UK
Canada
Germany
Austria
Italy
Belgium
France
Spain
United States
Korea
Turkey
China
India
Colombia
Thailand
Philippines
Malaysia
Peru
Indonesia
Brazil
Australia
Argentina
43,139
28,542
Fuel Energy Traded (PJ)
1
Biodiesel
3,000
Ethanol
10
2,000
15
1,000
Turkey
Peru
Indonesia
Philippines
Malaysia
Korea
Austria
Australia
Italy
Belgium
UK
Colombia
Spain
Thailand
India
Canada
Argentina
China
Germany
France
US
30+
Brazil
4,000
Figure 2.9 | Global biofuels production and main international trade, 2009. Biofuel volume sources: GAIN (2009a,b,1 2010a-j2); EIA (2010a); EurObservER (2010); RFA (2010);3
REN21 (2010).4 Trade ows: Lamers et al. (2010).5 The total intra-EU biodiesel and ethanol trade corresponds to 78 and 116 PJ, respectively (Lamers et al., 2011).
Notes: 1. Data for China and Indonesia. 2. Data for Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, India, Korea, Malaysia, Peru, The Philippines, Thailand and Turkey. 3. www.ethanolrfa.org/pages/
statistics. 4. See www.ren21.net/REN21Activities/ for updated information on biofuels volumes and targets for the various countries and other policy information and interactive tools
(www.map.ren21.net). 5. For trade ows used in Figure 2.9 see www.chem.uu.nl/nws; for detailed data see Lamers et al. (2011).
252
2.8). Larger quantities of these products are expected to be traded internationally in the future, with Latin America and sub-Saharan Africa as
potential net exporters and North America, Europe and Asia expected
as net importers (Heinim and Junginger, 2009). Trade can therefore
Chapter 2
become an important component of the sustained growth of the bioenergy sector. Figure 2.9 shows 2009 biofuels production in many countries
along with the net global trade streams of bioethanol and biodiesel (see
also Table 2.9). In 2008, around 9% of global biofuel production was
traded internationally (Junginger et al., 2010). Production and trade of
these three commodities are discussed in more detail below.
Bioenergy
2.4.5
Global fuel ethanol production grew from around 0.375 EJ in 2000 to more
than 1.6 EJ in 2009 (Lamers et al., 2011). The USA and Brazil, the two leading
ethanol producers and consumers, accounted for about 85% of the worlds
production. In the EU, total consumption of ethanol for transport in 2009
was 94 PJ (3.6 Mt), with the largest users being France, Germany, Sweden
and Spain (Lamers et al., 2011; EurObservER, 2010). Data related to fuel bioethanol trade are imprecise on account of the various potential end uses of
ethanol (i.e., fuel, industrial and beverage use) and also because of the lack
of proper codes for biofuels in global trade statistics. As an estimate, a net
amount of 40 to 51 PJ of fuel ethanol was traded in 2009 (Lamers et al., 2011).
World biodiesel production started below 20 PJ in 2000 and reached
about 565 PJ in 2009 (Lamers et al., 2011). The EU produced 334 PJ
(roughly two-thirds of the global production), with Germany, France,
Spain and Italy being the top EU producers (EurObservER, 2010). EU27
biodiesel production rates levelled off towards 2008 (FAPRI, 2009).29 The
intra-European biodiesel market has become more competitive, and the
2009 overcapacity has already led to the closure of (smaller, less vertically integrated, less efcient, remote, etc.) biodiesel plants in Germany,
Austria and the UK. As shown in Figure 2.9, other main biodiesel producers include the USA, Argentina and Brazil. Biodiesel consumption in
the EU amounted to about 403 PJ (8.5 Mt) (EurObservER, 2010), with
Germany and France consuming almost half of this amount. Net international biodiesel trade was below 1 PJ before 2005 but grew very fast
from this small base to more than 80 PJ in 2009, as shown in Figure 2.9
(Lamers et al., 2011).
Production, consumption and trade of wood pellets have grown strongly
within the last decade and are comparable to ethanol and biodiesel in
terms of global trade volumes. As a rough estimate, in 2009, more than
13 Mt (230 PJ) of wood pellets were produced primarily in 30 European
countries, the USA and Canada (Figure 2.8). Consumption was high in
many EU countries and the USA. The largest EU consumers were Sweden
(1.8 Mt or 32 PJ), Denmark, the Netherlands, Belgium, Germany and Italy
(roughly 1 Mt or 18 PJ each). Main wood pellet trade routes lead from
Canada and the USA to Europe (especially Sweden, the Netherlands and
Belgium) and to the USA. In 2009, other minor trade ows were also
reported, for example, from Australia, Argentina and South Africa to the
29 While most EU Member States (MS) increased their production volumes, the German
biodiesel market shrunk both in supply and demand due to a change in the policy
framework phasing out tax exemptions for neat biodiesel at the pump. At the same
time biodiesel export to other EU MS became less and less feasible for German (and
other) producers due to increasing shares of competitively priced biodiesel imports,
mainly from the USA in the period from 2006 to 2008 and also from Argentina in the
years 2008 and 2009 (Lamers et al., 2011).
253
Bioenergy
Chapter 2
2.4.5.1
254
2.4.5.2
Governments are stressing the importance of ensuring sufcient climate change mitigation and avoiding unacceptable negative effects
of bioenergy as they implement regulating instruments. For example,
the Renewable Energy Directive (European Commission, 2009) provides
mandatory sustainability requirements for liquid transport fuels.38 Also,
in the USA, the Renewable Fuel Standardincluded in the 2007 Energy
Independence and Security Act (EISA, 2007)mandates minimum
GHG reductions from renewable fuels, discourages use of food and fodder crops as feedstocks, permits use of cultivated land and estimates
(indirect) LUC effects to set thresholds of GHG emission reductions for
categories of fuels (EPA, 2010; see also Section 2.5). The California Low
Carbon Fuel Standard set an absolute carbon intensity reduction standard and periodic evaluation of new information, for instance, on indirect
land use impacts.39 Other examples are the UK Renewable Transport
Fuel Obligation, the German Biofuel Sustainability Ordinance, and the
Cramer Report (The Netherlands). With the exception of Belgium, no
mandatory sustainability criteria for solid biomass (e.g., wood pellets)
have been implementedthe European Commission will review this at
the end of 2011 (European Commission, 2010).
The development of impact assessment frameworks and sustainability criteria involves signicant challenges in relation to methodology,
process development and harmonization. As of a 2010 review, nearly
70 ongoing certication initiatives exist to safeguard the sustainability
of agriculture and forestry products, including those used as feedstock
for the production of bioenergy (van Dam et al., 2010). Within the EU,
a number of initiatives started or have already set up certication
schemes in order to guarantee a more sustainable cultivation of energy
crops and production of energy carriers from modern biomass (e.g.,
ISCC40; REDCert41 2010 in Germany; or the NTA8080/8081 (NEN42) in
the Netherlands). Many initiatives focus on the sustainability of liquid
biofuels including primarily environmental principles, although some
of them, such as the Council for Sustainable Biomass Production and
the Better Sugarcane Initiative, the Roundtable for Sustainable Biofuels
(RSB) and the Roundtable for Responsible Soy, include explicit socioeconomic impacts of bioenergy production. Principles such as those from
the RSB have already led to a Biofuels Sustainability Scorecard used by
the Inter-American Development Bank for the development of projects.
38 These requirements are: specic GHG emission reductions must be achieved, and the
biofuels in question must not be produced from raw materials being derived from
land of high value in terms of biological diversity or high carbon stocks.
39 The California Air Resources Board requires 10% absolute emissions reductions from
fossil energy sources by 2020 and considers direct lifecycle emissions of the biofuels
and also indirect LUC as required by legislation (CARB, 2009).
40 International Sustainability and Carbon Certication, Koeln, Germany, www.isccsystem.org/index_eng.html
41 REDcert Certication System, www.redcert.org
42
Chapter 2
The proliferation of standards that has taken place over the past four
years, and continues, shows that certication has the potential to inuence local impacts related to the environmental and social effects of
direct bioenergy production. Many of the bodies involved conclude that
for an efcient certication system there is a need for further harmonization, availability of reliable data, and linking indicators at micro, meso
and macro levels (see Figure 2.15). Considering the multiple spatial
scales, certication should be combined with additional measurements
and tools at regional, national and international levels.
The role of bioenergy production in iLUC is still uncertain; current initiatives have rarely captured impacts from iLUC in their standards, and
the time scale becomes another important variable in assessing such
changes (see Section 2.5.3). Addressing unwanted LUC requires overall sustainable agricultural production and good governance rst of all,
regardless of the end use of the product or of the feedstocks.
2.4.6
2.4.6.1
Opportunities43
Bioenergy
pellet imports in the Netherlands and Belgium have been driven respectively through a feed-in premium system and a Green Certicate system.
However, the success of policies has varied, due partly to the nature of
the design and implementation of the given policy but also to the fact
that the institutions related to the incentives are different. For a full
discussion of inuencing factors outside of policies (e.g., institutions,
network access), see Section 11.6.
Another driver is the utilization of established logistics for existing commodities. Taking again the example of wood pellet co-ring in large
power plants, the existing infrastructure at ports and storage facilities
used to supply coal and other dry bulk goods can (partially, and after
adaptations) also be used for wood pellets, making cost-efcient transport and handling possible. Another form of integrated supply chain is
bark, sawdust and other residues from imported roundwood, which
is common in, for example, Northern Europe. Finally, the concept of
regional biomass processing centres has been proposed to deal with
supply side challenges and also to help address social sustainability concerns (Carolan et al., 2007).
2.4.6.2
Barriers
Major risks and barriers to deployment are found all along the bioenergy
value chain and concern all nal energy products (bioheat, biopower,
and biofuel for transport).46 On the supply side, there are challenges
related to securing quantity, quality and price of biomass feedstock, irrespective of the origin of the feedstock (energy crops, wastes or residues).
There are also technology challenges related to the varied physical
properties and chemical composition of the biomass feedstock and challenges associated with the poor economics of current power and biofuel
technologies at small scales. On the demand side, the main challenges
are the stability and supportiveness of policy frameworks and investors
condence in the sector and its technologies, in particular to overcome
nancing challenges associated with demonstrating the reliable operation of new technologies at commercial scale.47 In the power and heat
sectors, competition with other RE sources may also be an issue. Public
acceptance and public perception are also critical factors in gaining support for energy crop production and bioenergy facilities.
Also on the demand side, large biomass users that rely on a stable supply of biomass can benet from international bioenergy trade, as this
enables (often very large) investments in infrastructure and conversion
capacity.45
255
Bioenergy
256
Chapter 2
Chapter 2
2.4.7
Synthesis
Bioenergy
2.5
Recent studies have highlighted both positive and negative environmental and socioeconomic effects of bioenergy and the associated
agriculture and forestry LUC (IPCC, 2000b; Millennium Ecosystem
Assessment, 2005). Like conventional agriculture and forestry systems,
bioenergy can exacerbate soil and vegetation degradation associated
with overexploitation of forests, too intensive crop and forest residue
removal, and water overuse (Koh and Ghazoul, 2008; Robertson et al.,
2008). Diversion of crops or land into bioenergy production can inuence food commodity prices and food security (Headey and Fan, 2008).
With proper operational management, the positive effects can include
enhanced biodiversity (C. Baum et al., 2009; Schulz et al., 2009), soil
carbon increases and improved soil productivity (Tilman et al., 2006a;
S. Baum et al., 2009), reduced shallow landslides and local ash oods,
reduced wind and water erosion and reduced sediment volume and
nutrients transported into river systems (Brjesson and Berndes, 2006).
For forests, bioenergy can improve growth and productivity, improve site
conditions for replanting and reduce wildre risk (Dymond et al., 2010).
However, forest residue harvesting can have negative impacts such as
the loss of coarse woody debris that provides essential habitat for forest
species.
Biofuels derived from purpose-grown agricultural feedstocks are water
intensive (see Section 9.3.4.4 for comparisons of renewable and nonrenewable power sources; Berndes, 2002; King and Weber, 2008; Chiu et
al., 2009; Dominguez-Faus et al., 2009; Gerbens-Leenes et al., 2009; Wu
et al., 2009; Fingerman et al., 2010). Their inuence on water resources
and the wider hydrologic cycle depends on where, when and how the
biofuel feedstock is produced. Among different bioenergy supply chains,
across the spectrum of feedstocks, cultivation systems and conversion
technologies, water demand varies greatly (Wu et al., 2009; Fingerman
et al., 2010, De La Torre Ugarte, et al., 2010). While biofuel made from
irrigated crops requires extraction of large volumes of water from lakes,
rivers and aquifers, use of agricultural or forestry residues as bioenergy
feedstocks does not generally require much additional land or water.
Rain-fed feedstock production does not require water extraction from
48 A comprehensive assessment of social and environmental impacts of all RE sources
covered in this report can be found in Chapter 9.
257
Bioenergy
Chapter 2
2.5.1
Environmental effects
Table 2.12 | Environmental and socioeconomic impacts of bioenergy: example areas of concern with selected impact categories (synthesized from the literature review by van Dam
et al., 2010).
Example areas of concern
GHGs; albedo; acidication; eutrophication; water availability and quality; regional air quality
Soil quality; local air quality; water availability and quality; biodiversity and habitat loss
Technology
Freedom of association; access to social security; job creation and average wages; freedom from discrimination; no child labour and minimum age of workers; freedom of labour (no forced labour); rights of indigenous people; acknowledgment of gender issues
Food security
Acknowledgment of customary and legal rights of land owners; proof of ownership; compensation systems available; agreements by consent
Cultural and religious values; contribution to local economy and activities; compensation for use of traditional knowledge; support to local
education; local procurement of services and inputs; special measures to target vulnerable groups
to quantify and are a complex composite of numerous interrelated factors, many of which are poorly understood or unknown. Social processes
have feedbacks that are difcult to clearly dene with an acceptable
level of condence. Environmental IAs include many quantiable impact
categories but still lack data and are uncertain in many areas. The outcome of an environmental IA depends on methodological choices, which
are not yet standardized or uniformly applied throughout the world.
49 A rebound effect could be included, usually fossil fuels, but also other primary
energy sources (Barker et al., 2009).
258
available for Brazil, China and other countries (see examples in Tables
2.7, 2.13, and 2.15). Ongoing development of biomass production and
conversion technologies makes many of these studies of commercial
technologies outdated.50 LCA studies of prospective bioenergy options
involve projections of technology performance and have relatively
greater uncertainties (see, e.g., Figure 9.9). The way that uncertainties
50 For instance, using a 2006 reference that analyzed an industrial system in 2002
will not represent the industry in 2010 because learning occurred in commercial
technologies that exhibited a signicant accumulation of production volume such
as in the USA and in Brazil; an example of wide-spread adoption of a different
technology in this industry is the USA where dry milling has become the major route
to ethanol production (see Sections 2.3.4 and 2.7.2).
Chapter 2
Bioenergy
and parameter sensitivities are handled across the supply chain to fuel
production signicantly impacts the results (Sections 2.5.2 through
2.5.6). Studies combining several LCA models and/or Monte Carlo analysis provide bioenergy system uncertainties and levels of condence for
some bioenergy options (e.g., Soimakallio et al., 2009b; Hsu et al., 2010;
Spatari and MacLean, 2010).
2.5.2
The ranges of GHG emissions for bioenergy systems and their fossil alternatives per unit energy output are shown in Figure 2.10 for several uses
(transport, power, heat) calculated based on LCA methodologies (land
use-related net changes in carbon stocks and land management impacts
600
Electricity
Transportation
Modern Bioenergy
500
Heat
400
Ethanol and Gasoline
300
Biogas &
Natural Gas
200
CO2 Savings
100
Natural Gas
Oil
Coal
Biomass
Fossil Gas
Oil
Coal
Biogas
Biomass
Natural Gas
Biogas
Petroleum Diesel
Lignocellulose FTD
Plant Oils RD
Algae BD
Plant Oil BD
Petroleum Gasoline
Lignocellulose
Sugar Beet
-100
Sugarcane
Figure 2.10 | Ranges of GHG emissions per unit energy output (MJ) from major modern bioenergy chains compared to conventional and selected advanced fossil fuel energy systems
(land use-related net changes in carbon stocks and land management impacts are excluded). Commercial and developing (e.g., algae biofuels, Fischer-Tropsch) systems for biomass
and fossil technologies are illustrated.
Data sources: Wu et al. (2005); Fleming et al. (2006); Hill et al. (2006, 2009); Beer and Grant (2007); Wang et al. (2007, 2010); Edwards et al. (2008); Kreutz et al. (2008); Macedo
and Seabra (2008); Macedo et al. (2008); NETL (2008, 2009a,b); CARB (2009); Cherubini et al. (2009a); Huo et al. (2009); Kalnes et al. (2009); van Vliet et al. (2009); EPA (2010);
Hoefnagels et al. (2010); Kaliyan et al. (2010); Larson et al. (2010); 25th to 75th percentile of all values from Figure 2.11.
51 The same rebound effect applies to other RE technologies displacing incumbent
fossil technologies.
259
Bioenergy
Chapter 2
are excluded). Meta-analyses to quantify the inuence of bioenergy systems on climate are complicated because of the multitude of existing
and rapidly evolving bioenergy sources, the complexities of physical,
chemical and biological conversion processes, and feedstock diversity
and variability in site-specic environmental conditionstogether with
differences between studies in method interpretation, assumptions
and data. Due to this, review studies report varying estimates of GHG
emissions and a wide range of results have been reported for the same
bioenergy options, even when temporal and spatial considerations are
constant (see, e.g., S. Kim and Dale, 2002; Fava, 2005; Farrell et al., 2006;
Fleming et al., 2006; Larson, 2006; von Blottnitz and Curran, 2007; Rowe
400
200
-200
-400
-600
-800
Maximum
-1000
th
75 Percentile
Median
25th Percentile
-1200
Avoided Emissions,
no Removal of GHGs
from the Atmosphere
Use of CO2 Mitigation
Technology
Minimum
-1400
All Values
Co-Firing
w/o Avoided
Emissions
Co-Firing
w/ Avoided
Emissions
Direct
Combustion
w/o Avoided
Emissions
Direct
Combustion
w/ Avoided
Emissions
Gasication
w/o Avoided
Emissions
Gasication
w/ Avoided
Emissions
Pyrolysis
w/o Avoided
Emissions
Estimates:
228
54
102
45
14
References:
53
19
26
20
Figure 2.11 | Lifecycle GHG emissions of biopower technologies per unit of electricity generation, including supply chain emissions (land use-related net changes in carbon stocks
and land management impacts are excluded). Co-ring is shown for the biomass portion only (without GHG emissions and electricity output associated with coal). Included in the
avoided GHG emissions category are only estimates in which the use of the feedstock itself (e.g. residues and wastes) leads to avoided emissions, for example, in the form of avoided
methane emissions from landlls (most common in the literature).1 Estimates that include avoided emissions from the production of co-products are not included in the avoided
GHG emissions category. Individual data points were used instead of box plots for estimates with avoided emissions because of high variability. Red diamonds indicate that a carbon
mitigation technology (CCS or carbonate formation by absorption) was considered. Along the bottom of the gure and aligned with each column are the number of estimates and the
number of references (CCS estimates in parentheses) producing the distributions.
Note: 1. Negative estimates within the terminology of lifecycle assessments presented in this report refer to avoided emissions. Unlike the case of bioenergy combined with CCS,
avoided emissions do not remove GHGs from the atmosphere. Due to the inclusion of a non-CCS carbon sequestration technology and non-landlling related reference cases of
avoided emissions credits, estimates displayed here vary slightly from the aggregated values in Figure 9.8.
52 See Annex II for the complete list of references providing estimates for this gure and
description of the literature review method.
260
Chapter 2
Bioenergy
and substituted for other nitrogen input. See Bessou et al. (2010) for an
overview of reactive nitrogen emissions impacts on LCAs.
Process fuel choice is critical and the use of coal especially can drastically
reduce the climate benet of bioenergy. Process integration and the use
of biomass fuels or surplus heat from nearby energy/industrial plants
can lower net GHG emissions from the biomass conversion process. For
example, Wang et al. (2007) showed that GHG emissions for US corn
ethanol can vary signicantlyfrom a 3% increase if coal is the process
fuel to a 52% reduction if wood chips are used or if improved dry milling processes are used (Wang et al., 2011). Similarly, the low fossil GHG
emissions reported for Swedish cereal ethanol plants are explained by
their use of biomass-based process energy (Brjesson, 2009). Sugarcane
ethanol plants that use the brous by-product bagasse as process fuel
can provide their own heat, steam and electricity and export surplus
electricity to the grid (Macedo et al., 2008). Further improvements
are possible as mechanical harvesting becomes established practice,
because harvest residues can also be used for energy (Seabra et al.,
2010).
However, the marginal benet of using surplus heat or biomass for the
conversion process depends on local economic circumstances and on
alternative uses for the surplus heat and biomass (e.g., it could displace coal-based heat or power generation elsewhere). GHG reductions
per unit weight of total biomass could be small when biomass is used
both as a feedstock and as a process fuel for conversion to biofuels.
This underscores the importance of using several indicators in bioenergy
option evaluations (see also Section 9.3.4).
Practical uses of indicators to design and establish projects
As shown above, climate change effects can be evaluated based on indicators such as g CO2eq per MJ (Figure 2.10) or per kWh (Figure 2.11),
for which the reference system matters greatly (cf. bioenergy GHG emissions with those from coal and natural gas). Other indicators include
mileage per hectare or per unit weight of biomass or per vehicle-km (see
Section 8.3.1.3).54 Limiting resources may dene the extent to which
land management and biomass-derived fuels can contribute to climate
change mitigation, making the following indicators relevant in different
contexts (Schlamadinger et al., 2005).
The displacement factor indicator describes the reduction in GHG emissions from the displaced energy system per unit of biomass used (e.g.,
tonne of carbon equivalent per tonne of carbon contained in the biomass that generated the reduction). This indicator does not discourage
fossil inputs in the bioenergy chain if these inputs increase the displacement efciency but it does not consider costs.
The indicator relative GHG savings describes the percentage emissions
reduction with respect to the fossil alternative for a specic biomass
54 For example, the higher land use efciency of electric vehicles using bioelectricity
compared to ethanol cars reported by Campbell et al. (2009) is partly due to the
assumed availability of advanced future drive trains for the bioelectricity option but
not for the ethanol option.
261
Bioenergy
Chapter 2
use.55 GHG savings favour biomass options with low GHG emissions.
However, this indicator alone cannot distinguish between different biomass uses, such as transport fuel, heat, electricity or CHP, to determine
which use reduces emissions more. It ignores the amount of biomass,
land or money required, and it can be distorted as each use can have
different reference systems.
The indicator GHG savings per ha (or m2 or km2) of land favours biomass
yield and conversion efciency but ignores costs.56 Intensied land use
that increases the associated GHG emissions (e.g., due to higher fertilizer input) can still improve the indicator value if the amount of biomass
produced increases sufciently.
The indicator GHG savings per monetary unit input tends to favour the
lowest cost, commercially available bioenergy options. Prioritization
based on monetary indicators can lock in current technologies and delay
(or preclude) future, more cost-effective or GHG reduction-efcient bioenergy options because their near-term costs are higher.
The usefulness of two indicators for considering local and regional bioenergy options is shown in Table 2.13. In the Finnish study, the use of
logging residues in modern CHP plants receives a high ranking in relative GHG savings whether the displaced fossil source is coal or natural
gas. However, the displacement factor indicator is only high when coal
Table 2.13 | Two indicators of GHG performance facilitate ranking of new technologies using forest residues and comparison with current agricultural biofuel. Two indicators show
improvement of technology performance with time for commercial ethanol systems and project the impact of technology improvements. Ranking: High >70; Low <30.
Fossil energy reference
Finnish modern CHP plant (from logging residues)
Finnish Fischer-Tropsch diesel3 as a standalone plant or integrated with a pulp and
paper mill plant; with/without electricity
Coal
78
86e
30
86e
39a
78f
55g
50c
78h
-9
-15i
18
24
31
51
26
39
55
72
29
36
51
79
120
160
Fossil diesel
Natural gas
Standalone plant
Integrated plant, minimize biomass
Displacement factor1
Fossil diesel
50
North American ethanol (corn) powered by natural gas (NG) dry mill
1995
2005
2015 with CHP3
2015 with CHP and CCS3
Fossil gasoline
Fossil gasoline/
electricity
marginal NG
Notes: 1. Tonne of carbon equivalent displaced per tonne of biomass carbon in the feedstock. 2. With respect to the fossil alternative and excluding LUC. 3. Projected performance
Uncertainty ranges: For displacement factors a. 3546; b. 2161; c. 4557; d. -1077. For relative GHG savings e. 6094; f. 6790; g. 3186; h. 6989; i. -1505
References: Finland, Soimakallio et al. (2009b); North America, (S&T)2 Consultants (2009); and Brazil, Mllersten et al. (2003) and Macedo et al. (2008).
55 Relative GHG savings are used, for instance, in the EU Directive on Renewable
Energy (European Commission, 2009).
56 See Bessou et al. (2010) for examples of LCA emissions as a function of area needed
for a variety of feedstocks and biofuels in specic countries.
262
Chapter 2
both indicators to medium range but improves the GHG reduction more
than the displacement factor indicator. Application of developing CCS
is projected to improve both indicators signicantly and bring the GHG
reduction indicator to high. In all Brazilian sugarcane ethanol cases, the
GHG reduction indicator is high while the displacement factor is low
to medium, which is expected because marginal natural gas, not coal,
is the displaced fossil fuel and this is a site characteristic (EPE, 2010).
The land use indicator differentiates the corn and sugarcane ethanol
systems as producing 3,500 and 7,500 litres/ha, respectively. By 2020,
biomass productivity increases and also CHP are projected to increase
the land use indicator for corn and sugarcane ethanol systems to 4,500
and 12,000 litres/ha, respectively (Mllersten et al., 2003; Macedo et al.,
2008; (S&T)2 Consultants, 2009). See also Wang et al. (2011) for more
recent data conrming these trends.
2.5.3
Bioenergy
The quantication of the net GHG effects of dLUC occurring on the site
used for bioenergy feedstock production requires denition of reference
land use and carbon stock data for relevant land types. Carbon stock
data can be uncertain but still appear to allow quantication of dLUC
emissions with sufcient condence for guiding policy (see, e.g., Gibbs
et al., 2008).
The quantication of the GHG effects of iLUC is more uncertain. Existing
methods for studying iLUC effects employ either (1) a deterministic
approach where global LUC is allocated to specic biofuels/feedstocks
grown on specied land types (Fritsche et al., 2010); or (2) economic
equilibrium models integrating biophysical information and/or biophysical models (Edwards et al., 2010; EPA, 2010; Hertel et al., 2010a,b; Plevin
et al., 2010). In the second approach, the amount (and approximate
location) of additional land required to produce a specied amount of
bioenergy is typically projected. This land is then distributed over land
cover categories in line with historic LUC patterns, and iLUC emissions
are calculated in the same way as dLUC emissions are. There are inherent uncertainties in this approach because models are calibrated against
historic data and are best suited for studying existing production systems
and land use regimes. Difcult aspects to model include innovation and
paradigm shifts in land use including the presently little-used biomass
and mixed production systems described in Sections 2.3 and 2.6. There
are also studies that compare scenarios with and without increases in
bioenergy to derive LUC associated with the bioenergy expansion (e.g.,
Fischer et al., 2009). Despite the uncertainties, important conclusions
can be drawn from these studies.
Production and use of bioenergy inuences climate change through:
Emissions from the bioenergy chain including non-CO2 GHG and fossil CO2 emissions from auxiliary energy use in the biofuel chain.
GHG emissions related to changes in biospheric carbon stocks often
caused by associated LUC.
Other non-GHG related climatic forcers including particulate and
black carbon emissions from small-scale bioenergy use (Ramanathan
and Carmichael, 2008), aerosol emissions associated with forests
(Carslaw et al., 2010) and changes in surface albedo. Reduction in
albedo due to the introduction of perennial green vegetative cover
can counteract the climate change mitigation benet of bioenergy
in regions with seasonal snow cover or a seasonal dry period (e.g.,
savannas). Conversely, albedo increases associated with the conversion of forests to energy crops (e.g., annual crops and grasses)
may reduce the net climate change effect from the deforestation
(Schwaiger and Bird, 2010).
Effects due to the bioenergy use, such as price effects on petroleum
that impact consumption levels. The net effect is the difference
between the inuence of the bioenergy system and of the energy
system (often fossil-based) that is displaced. Current fossil energy
263
Bioenergy
Chapter 2
(a)
Maize
Cassava
264
Sugarcane
Oil Palm
Soybean
Castor
0 1
10
100
>1,000
(b)
Maize
Cassava
Sugarcane
Oil Palm
Soybean
Castor
0 1
10
100
>1,000
Degraded or Cropland
Degraded Forest
Grassland
Forest
Woody Savanna
Peatland
Figure 2.12 | The ecosystem carbon payback time for potential biofuel crop expansion
pathways across the tropics comparing the year 2000 agricultural system shown in (a)
with a future higher yield scenario (b) which was set to equal the top 10% of areaweighted yields. The asterisk represents oil palm crops grown in peatlands with payback
times greater than 900 years in the year 2000 compared to 600 years for a 10% increase
in crop productivity. Based on Gibbs et al. (2008) and reproduced with permission from
IOP Publishing Ltd.
notably N2O. The payback times would increase if the feedstock production resulted in land degradation over time, impacting yield levels or
requiring increased input to maintain yield levels.
As shown, all biofuel options have signicant payback times when
dense forests are converted into bioenergy plantations. The starred
Chapter 2
points represent very long payback times for oil palm establishment on
tropical peat swamp forests because drainage leads to peat oxidation
and causes CO2 emissions that occur over several decades and that can
be several times higher than the displaced emissions of fossil diesel
(Hooijer et al., 2006; Edwards et al., 2008, 2010). Under natural conditions, these tropical peat swamp forests have negligible CO2 emissions
and small methane emissions (Jauhiainen et al., 2008). Payback times
are practically zero when degraded land or cropland is used, and they
are relatively low for the most productive systems when grasslands and
woody savannas are used (not considering the iLUC that can arise if
these lands were originally used, for example, for grazing).
Targeting unused marginal and degraded lands for bioenergy production can thus mitigate dLUC emissions. For some options (e.g., perennial
grasses, woody plants, mechanically harvested sugarcane), net gains
of soil and aboveground carbon can be obtained (Tilman et al., 2006b;
Liebig et al., 2008; Robertson et al., 2008; Anderson-Teixeira et al., 2009;
Dondini et al., 2009; Hillier et al., 2009; Galdos et al., 2010). In this
context, land application of biochar produced via pyrolysis could be an
option to sequester carbon in a more stable form and improve the structure and fertility of soils (Laird et al., 2009; Woolf et al., 2010).
Bioenergy does not always result in LUC. Bioenergy feedstocks can be
produced in combination with food and bre, avoiding land use displacement and improving the productive use of land (Section 2.2). These
possibilities may be available for bioenergy options that can use lignocellulosic biomass but also for some other options that use waste oil and oil
seeds such as Jatropha (Section 2.3). The use of post-consumer organic
waste and by-products from the agricultural and forest industries does
not cause LUC if these biomass sources are wastes, that is, they were
not utilized for alternative purposes. On the other hand, if not utilized
for bioenergy, some biomass sources (e.g., harvest residues left in the
forest) would retain organic carbon for a longer time than if used for
energy. Such delayed GHG emissions can be considered a benet in
relation to near-term GHG mitigation, and this is an especially relevant
factor in longer-term accounting for regions where biomass degradation
is slow (e.g., boreal forests). However, as noted above, natural disturbances can convert forests from net sinks to net sources of GHGs, and
dead wood left in forests can be lost in res. In forest lands susceptible
to periodic res, good silviculture practices can lead to less frequent,
lower intensity res that accelerate forest growth rates and soil carbon
storage. Using biomass removed in such practices for bioenergy can provide GHG and particulate emission reductions.
For different world regions, Edwards et al. (2010) describe the comparison of six equilibrium models to quantify LUC associated with a
standard biofuel shock dened as a marginal increase in demand for
Bioenergy
265
Bioenergy
Chapter 2
200
180
160
140
2020 Projections
2010 Projections
indirect only,
deterministic
methodology
2016
Projection
US - Searchinger
et al. (2008)
EU - Fritsche et al.
(2010)
Maize
US EPA (2010)
Wheat
Sugarcane
120
Rapeseed
100
Soya
Fuel Average
80
60
40
20
0
0.5
-20
1.5 0
0.5
1.5 0
0.5
1.5 0
0.5
1.5 0
0.5
1.5
Figure 2.13 | Select model-based estimates of LUC emissions for major biofuel crops given a certain level of demand, a biofuel shock, expressed in EJ (30-year accounting framework). Mid-range values of multiple studies (g CO2eq/MJ): 14 to 82 for US maize ethanol with high-resolution models and 100 for earlier models; 5 to 28 for sugarcane ethanol; 18
to 45 for European wheat ethanol; 40 to 63 for soy biodiesel (uncertain); and 35 to 45 for rapeseed biodiesel. Points for Tyner et al. (2010) and Hertel et al. (2010a) represent model
improvements with the lowest value including feedstock yield and population increases (baseline 2006). Fritsche et al. (2010) value ranges derive from a deterministic methodology
representing risk values of 25 and 75% of the theoretical worst case of LUC scenarios, such as high deforestation, to calculate iLUC.
266
(Lywood et al., 2009a). Lywood et al. (2008) obtained large improvements in net GHG savings for European cereal ethanol and rapeseed
biodiesel based on co-products displacing imported soy as animal feed,
which reduces deforestation and other LUC for soy cultivation in Brazil.
Conversely, increased corn cultivation at the cost of soy cultivation, in
response to increasing ethanol demand in the USA, has been reported
to increase soy cultivation in other countries such as Brazil (Laurance,
2007). Trade assumptions are critical and differ in the various models.
In addition, marginal displacement effects of co-products may have a
saturation level (McCoy, 2006; Edwards et al., 2010), although new uses
may be developed, for example, to produce more biofuels (Yazdani and
Gonzalez, 2007).
Bioenergy options that use lignocellulosic feedstocks are projected to
have lower LUC values than those of rst-generation biofuels (see, e.g.,
EPA, 2010; Hoefnagels et al., 2010; see Figure 9.9). As noted above,
some of these feedstock sources can be used without causing LUC.
Lower LUC values might be expected because of high biomass productivity, multiple products (e.g., animal feed) or avoided competition for
Chapter 2
prime cropland by using more marginal lands (Sections 2.2 and 2.3).
The lower productivity of marginal lands, however, results in higher land
requirements per given biomass output and presents particular challenges as discussed in Section 2.2. Also, as many lignocellulosic plants
are grown under longer rotations, they should be less responsive to price
increases because the average yield over a plantation lifetime can only
be inuenced through agronomic means (notably increased fertilizer
input) and by variety selection at the time of replanting. Thus, output
growth in response to increasing demand is more readily obtained by
area expansion.
Depending on the atmospheric lifetime of specic GHGs, the trade-off
between emitting more now and less in the future is not one-to-one in
general. But the relationship for CO2 is practically one-to-one, so that
one additional (less) tonne CO2 emitted today requires a future reduction (allows a future increase) by one tonne. This relationship is due to
the close to irreversible climate effect of CO2 emissions (Matthews and
Caldeira, 2008; M. Allen et al., 2009; Matthews et al., 2009; Solomon et
al., 2009).
Integrated energy-industry-land use/cover models can give insights
into how an expanding bioenergy sector interacts with other sectors in
society, inuencing longer-term energy sector development, land use,
management of biospheric carbon stocks, and global cumulative GHG
emissions. In an example of early studies, Leemans et al. (1996) implemented in the IMAGE model (Integrated Model to Assess the Global
Environment) the LESS (low CO2-emitting energy supply system) scenario, which was developed for the IPCC Second Assessment Report
(IPCC, 1996). This study showed that the required land use expansion to
provide biomass feedstock can cause signicant food-bioenergy competition and inuence deforestation rates with signicant consequences
for environmental issues such as biodiversity, and that the outcome is
sensitive to regional emissions and feedback in the carbon cycle. More
recently, using linked economic and terrestrial biogeochemistry models,
Melillo et al. (2009) found a similar level of cumulative CO2 emissions
associated with LUC from an expanded global cellulosic biofuels programme over the 21st century. The study concluded that iLUC was a
larger source of carbon loss than dLUC; fertilizer N2O emissions were
a substantial source of global warming; and forest protection and best
practices for nitrogen fertilizer use could dramatically reduce emissions
associated with biofuels production.
Wise et al. (2009) also stressed the importance of limiting terrestrial
carbon emissions and showed how the design of mitigation regimes
can strongly inuence the nature of bioenergy development and associated environmental consequences, including the net GHG savings
from bioenergy. Including both fossil and LUC emissions in a carbon
tax regime, instead of taxing only fossil emissions, was found to lower
the cost of meeting environmental goals. However, this tax regime was
also found to induce rising food crop and livestock prices and expansion
Bioenergy
267
Bioenergy
2.5.4
Chapter 2
Traditional open res and simple low-efciency stoves have low combustion efciency, producing large amounts of incomplete combustion
products (CO, methane, particle matter, non-methane volatile organic
compounds, and others) that have negative consequences for climate
change and local air pollution (Smith et al., 2000; see also Box 9.4 in
Section 9.3.4.2). When biomass is harvested renewablyfor example,
from standing trees or agricultural residuesCO2 already emitted to
the atmosphere is sequestered as biomass re-grows. Because the
products of incomplete combustion also include important short-lived
greenhouse pollutants and black carbon, even sustainable harvesting
does not make such fuel cycles GHG neutral. Worldwide, it is estimated that household fuel combustion causes approximately 30%
of the warming due to black carbon and CO emissions from human
sources, about 15% of ozone-forming chemicals, and a few percent of
methane and CO2 emissions (Wilkinson et al., 2009).
Improved cookstoves (ICS) and other advanced biomass systems
for cooking are cost-effective for achieving large benets in energy
use reduction and climate change mitigation. Fuel savings of 30 to
60% are reported (Berrueta et al., 2008; Jetter and Kariher, 2009).
The savings in GHG emissions associated with these efcient stoves
are difcult to derive because of the wide range of fuel types, stove
designs, cooking practices and environmental conditions across the
world. However, advanced biomass systems, such as small-scale gasier stoves and biogas stoves, have had design improvements that
increase combustion efciency and dramatically reduce the production of short-lived GHGs by up to 90% relative to traditional stoves.
Some of these new stoves even reach performance levels similar to
liquid propane gas (Jetter and Kariher, 2009). Patsari improved stoves
in rural Mexico save between 3 and 9 t CO2eq/stove/yr relative to
open res, with renewable or non-renewable harvesting of biomass,
respectively (M. Johnson et al., 2009).
Venkataraman et al. (2010) estimate that the dissemination of 160
million advanced ICS in India may result in the mitigation of 80 Mt
CO2eq/yr, or more than 4% of Indias total estimated GHG emissions,
plus a 30% reduction in Indias human-caused black carbon emissions. Worldwide, with GHG mitigation per unit at 1 to 4 t CO2eq/
stove/yr compared to traditional open res, the global mitigation
potential of advanced ICS was estimated to be between 0.6 and 2.4
Gt CO2eq/yr. This estimate does not consider the additional potential
reduction in black carbon emissions. Actual gures depend on the
renewability of the biomass fuel production, stove and fuel characteristics, and the actual adoption and sustained used of improved
cookstoves. Reduction in fuelwood and charcoal use due to the
adoption of advanced ICS may help reduce pressure on forest and
agricultural areas and improve aboveground biomass stocks and
soil and biodiversity conservation (Ravindranath et al., 2006; GarcaFrapolli et al., 2010).
268
2.5.5
2.5.5.1
Air pollutant emissions from bioenergy production depend on technology, fuel properties, process conditions and installed emission
reduction technologies. Compared to coal and oil stationary applications, sulphur dioxide (SO2) and nitrous oxide (NOx) emissions from
bioenergy applications are mostly lower (see also Section 9.3.4.2).
When biofuel replaces gasoline and diesel in the transport sector, SO2
emissions are reduced, but changes in NOx emissions depend on the
substitution pattern and technology. The effects of replacing gasoline
with ethanol and biodiesel also depend on engine features. Biodiesel
can have higher NOx emissions than petroleum diesel in traditional
direct-injected diesel engines that are not equipped with NOx control
catalysts (e.g., Verhaeven et al., 2005; Yanowitz and McCormick, 2009).
Bioenergy production can have both positive and negative effects
on water resources (see also Section 9.3.4.4). Bioenergy production
generally consumes more water than gasoline production (Wu et al.,
2009; Fingerman et al., 2010). However, this relationship and the water
impacts of bioenergy production are highly dependent on location, the
specic feedstock, production methods and the supply chain element.
Feedstock cultivation can lead to leaching and emission of nutrients that
increase eutrophication of aquatic ecosystems (Millennium Ecosystem
Assessment, 2005; SCBD, 2006; Spranger et al., 2008). Pesticide emissions to water bodies may also negatively impact aquatic life. Given that
several types of energy crops are perennials grown in arable elds being
used temporarily as a pasture for grazing animals or woody crops grown
in multi-year rotations, the increasing bioenergy demand may drive land
use towards systems with substantially higher water productivity. On
the other hand, shifting demand to alternativemainly lignocellulosicbioenergy can decrease water competition. Perennial herbaceous
crops and short-rotation woody crops generally require fewer agronomic inputs and have reduced impacts compared to annual crops,
although large-scale production can require high levels of nutrient input
(see Sections 2.2.4.2 and 2.3.1). Water impacts can also be mitigated
by integrating lignocellulosic feedstocks in agricultural landscapes as
vegetation lters to capture nutrients in passing water (Brjesson and
Berndes, 2006). A prolonged growing season may redirect unproductive
soil evaporation and runoff to plant transpiration (Berndes, 2008a,b).
Crops that provide a continuous cover over the year can also conserve
soil outside the growing season of annual crops by diminishing the
erosion from precipitation and runoff (Berndes, 2008a,b). A number of
bioenergy crops can be grown on a wide spectrum of land types that are
not suitable for conventional food or feed crops. These marginal lands,
pastures and grasslands could become available for feedstock production under sustainable management practices (if adverse downstream
water impacts can be mitigated).
Chapter 2
Bioenergy
Water demand for bioenergy can be reduced substantially through process changes and recycling (D. Keeney and Muller, 2006; BNDES/CGEE,
2008). Currently, most water is lost to the atmosphere through evapotranspiration during the production of cultivated feedstock (Berndes,
2002). Feedstock processing into fuels and electricity requires much less
water (Aden et al., 2002; Berndes, 2002; D. Keeney and Muller, 2006;
Phillips et al., 2007; NRC, 2008; Wang et al., 2010), but water needs to
be extracted from lakes, rivers and other water bodies.
2.5.5.2
2.5.5.3
269
Bioenergy
Chapter 2
stabilize soils and store moisture while it grows (Dufey, 2006). Other
potential benets of planting feedstocks on degraded or marginal
lands include reduced nutrient leaching, increased soil productivity
and increased carbon content (Berndes, 2002). If lignocellulosic energy
crop plantations, which require low-intensity management and few fossil energy inputs relative to current biofuel systems, are established on
abandoned agricultural or degraded land, soil carbon and soil quality
could increase over time. This benecial effect would be especially signicant with perennial species.
2.5.6
2.5.6.1
Feedstock issues
2.5.6.2
Currently, many crops used in fuel ethanol manufacturing are also traditional feed sources (e.g., maize, soy, canola and wheat). However,
considerable efforts are focused on new crops that either enhance fuel
ethanol production (e.g., high-starch corn) or that are not traditional
food or feed crops (e.g., switchgrass). If the resultant distillers grains
from these new crops are used as livestock feed or could inadvertently
end up in livestock feeds, pre-market assessment of their acceptability
in feed prior to their use in fuel ethanol production will be necessary
(Hemakanthi and Heller, 2010).
Concerns about cross-pollination, hybridization, pest resistance and disruption of ecosystem functions (FAO, 2004; FAO, 2008; IAASTD, 2009)
have limited the use of genetically engineered (GE) crops in some
regions. Transgene movement leading to weediness or invasiveness
of the crop itself or of its wild or weedy relatives is a major reason
(Warwick et al., 2009). Clarity, predictability and established risk assessment processes are literature recommendations to decrease GE crop use
concerns (Warwick et al., 2009).59 The rst assessment (NRC, 2010) of
the impact of GE crops in use in the USA since 1996 found that benets
to the farmer included increased worker safety from pesticide handling;
indicated that water quality improves with GE crops; and acknowledged
that more work needs to be done, particularly to install infrastructure
to measure water quality impacts, develop weed management practices, and address the needs of farmers whose markets depend on the
absence of GE traits.
Several grasses and woody species that are candidates for biofuel production have traits commonly found in invasive species (Howard and
Ziller, 2008). These traits include rapid growth, high water-use efciency
and long canopy duration (Clifton-Brown et al., 2000). There are fears
that if these crops are introduced, they could become invasive, displace
indigenous species and decrease biodiversity. For example, Jatropha
59 Other concerns include: reduction in crop diversity, increases in herbicide use,
herbicide resistance (increased weediness), loss of farmers sovereignty over seed,
ethical concerns over transgenes origin, lack of access to intellectual property rights
held by the private sector, and loss of markets owing to moratoriums on genetically
modifed organisms (GMOs) (IAASTD, 2009).
270
Chapter 2
2.5.7
Socioeconomic aspects
The large-scale and global development of bioenergy will be associated with a complex set of socioeconomic issues and trade-offs, ranging
from local issues (e.g., income and employment generation, improved
health conditions, agrarian structure, land tenure, land use competition
and strengthening of regional economies) to national issues (e.g., food
security, a secure energy supply and balance of trade). Participation of
local stakeholders, in particular small farmers and poor households, is
essential to ensure socioeconomic benets from bioenergy projects.
2.5.7.1
The complex nature of bioenergy, with many conversion routes and the
multifaceted potential socioeconomic impacts, makes the overall impact
analysis difcult to conduct. Also, many impacts are not easily quantiable in monetary or numerical terms. To overcome these problems,
semi-quantitative methods based on stakeholder involvement have
been used to assess social criteria such as societal product benet and
social dialogue60 (von Geibler et al., 2006).
Regarding economic impacts, the most commonly reported variables are
private production costs over the value chain, assuming a xed set of
prices for basic commodities (e.g., for fossil fuels and fertilizers). The
bioenergy costs are usually compared to alternatives already on the
market (fossil-based) to judge the potential competitiveness. Bioenergy
systems are mostly analyzed at a micro-economic level, although interactions with other sectors cannot be ignored because of the competition
for land and other resources. Opportunity costs may be calculated from
food commodity prices and gross margins to account for food-bioenergy
interactions. Social impact indicators include consequences for local
employment, although this impact is difcult to assess because of possible
offsets between fossil and bioenergy chains. Impacts at a macro-economic
level include the social costs incurred because of scal measures (e.g., tax
exemptions) to support bioenergy chains (DeLucchi, 2005). Fossil energys
negative externalities also need to be assessed (Bickel and Friedrich, 2005).
Several sustainability frameworks and certication systems have
been proposed to better document and integrate the socioeconomic
impacts of bioenergy systems, particularly at the project level (Bauen
60 Multi Criteria Analysis methods have been applied in the bioenergy eld during the
past 15 years (Buchholz et al., 2009).
Bioenergy
et al., 2009b; WBGU, 2009; van Dam et al., 2010; see also Section 2.4).
Specically, criteria and indicators related to the development of liquid
biofuels have been proposed for these issues: human rights, including
gender issues; working and wage conditions, including health and safety
issues; local food security; rural and social development, with special
regard to poverty reduction; and land rights (Table 2.12). So far, while
rural and local development are included, specic economic criteria for
the cost-effectiveness of the projects, level of subsidies and other nancial aspects have not been included in the sustainability frameworks.
Most of the frameworks are still under development. The progress of
certication systems was reviewed by van Dam et al. (2008, 2010). The
FAOs Bioenergy and Food Security Criteria and Indicators project has
compiled bioenergy sustainability initiatives (see also Sections 2.4.5.1
and 2.4.5.2).
2.5.7.2
271
Bioenergy
Chapter 2
brick and charcoal kilns) are available that increase work productivity,
quality of products and overall working conditions (FAO, 2006, 2010b).
2.5.7.3
100,000
Cost Effectiveness
Percentage of GBD
12
10,000
1,000
100
Tuberculosis
Tobacco Addiction
Undernourishment
Improved Stoves
Malaria
10
Figure 2.14 shows the cost effectiveness of treatment options for the
eight major risk factors that account for 40% of the global disease
burden (Glass, 2006). ICS are among the most cost-effective options in
terms of the cost per avoided DALY. Overall, ICS and other small-scale
biomass systems represent a very cost-effective intervention with benets to cost ratios of 5.6:1, 20:1 and 13:1 found in Malawi, Uganda and
Mexico, respectively (Frapolli et al., 2010).
Increased use of ICS frees up time for women to engage in incomegenerating activities. Reduced fuel collection times and savings in
cooking time can also translate into increased time for education of
rural children, especially girls (Karekezi and Majoro, 2002). ICS use fosters improvements in local living conditions, kitchens and homes, and
quality of life (Masera et al., 2000). The manufacture and dissemination
of ICS also represents an important source of income and employment
for thousands of local small businesses around the world (Masera et al.,
2005). Similar impacts were found for small-scale biogas plants, which
have the added benets of providing lighting for individual households
and villages and increasing the quality of life. More efcient technologies than currently employed in small-scale industries (such as improved
272
Chapter 2
2.5.7.4
Bioenergy
273
Bioenergy
2.5.7.5
Chapter 2
Growing demand for biofuels and the resulting rise in agricultural commodity prices can present an opportunity for promoting agricultural
growth and rural development in developing countries (Schmidhuber,
2008). The development potential critically depends on whether the bioenergy market is economically sustainable without government subsidies. If
long-term subsidies are required, fewer government funds will be available
for the wide range of other public goods that are essential for economic
and social development, such as agricultural research, rural roads, and
education. Even short-term subsidies need to be considered very carefully, as once subsidies are implemented they can be difcult to remove.
Latin American experience shows that governments that use agricultural
budgets for investment in public goods experience faster growth and alleviate poverty and environmental degradation more rapidly than those that
apply them for subsidies (Lpez and Galinato, 2007).
Bioenergy may reduce dependence on fossil fuel imports and increase
energy supply security. In many cases these benets are not likely to be
large, although the contribution could be substantial for countries with
large amounts of arable land per person (FAO, 2008a). Recent analyses
of the use of indigenous resources implies that much of the expenditure
on energy is retained locally and recirculated within the local or regional
economy, but there are trade-offs to consider. For example, the increased
use of biomass for electricity production and the corresponding increase in
demand for some types of biomass (e.g., pellets) could cause a temporary
lack of biomass supply during periods of high demand. Households are
particularly vulnerable to this market distortion.
The biofuels production technologies and institutions will also be an
important determinant of rural development outcomes. In some instances,
private investors will look to establish biofuel plantations to ensure security of supply. If plantations are established on non-productive land without
harming the environment, there should be benets to the economy. It is
essential not to overlook the uses of land that are important to the poor.
Governments may need to establish clear criteria for determining whether
land is marginal or productive, and these criteria must protect vulnerable
communities and female farmers who may have less secure land rights
(FAO, 2008a). Research in Mozambique shows that, compared with a more
capital-intensive plantation approach, an out-grower approach to producing biofuels helps to reduce poverty due to the greater use of unskilled
labour and accrual of land rents to smallholders (Arndt et al., 2010).
Increased investment in rural areas will be crucial for making biofuels a positive development force. If governments rely exclusively
on short-term farm-level supply side economic response, the negative
effects of higher food prices will predominate. If higher prices motivate greater public and private investment in agriculture (e.g., rural
roads and education, R&D), there is tremendous potential for sparking
medium- and long-term rural development (De La Torre Ugarte and
Hellwinckel, 2010). As one example, proposed biofuel investments in
Mozambique could increase annual economic growth by 0.6% and
274
2.5.7.6
2.5.8
Synthesis
Chapter 2
Bioenergy
issues including food security, income generation, rural development, land tenure and water scarcity in specic regions.
Estimates of LUC effects require value judgments about the temporal scale of analysis, the land use under the assumed no action
scenario, the expected uses in the longer term, and the allocation
of impacts among different uses over time. Regardless, a system
that ensures consistent and accurate inventory of and reporting on
carbon stocks is considered an important rst step towards LUC
carbon accounting.
Emissions of pollutants, like SO2 and NOx, are generally lower for
bioenergy than for coal, gasoline and diesel, though the NOx results
for biodiesel are more variable. Thus, bioenergy can reduce negative impacts on air quality. Bioenergy impacts on water resources
can be positive or negative, depending on the particular feedstock,
supply chain element and processing methodologies. Bioenergy
systems similar to conventional food and feed crop systems can
contribute to loss of habitat and biodiversity, but bioenergy plantations can be designed to provide lters for nutrient loss, to function
Climate
Change
Advanced ICS for traditional biomass use can provide large and costeffective mitigation of GHG emissions (GHG mitigation potential of
0.6 to 2.4 Gt CO2eq/yr) with substantial co-benets in health and
living conditions, particularly for the poorest 2.7 billion people in
the world. Efcient technologies for cooking are cost-effective and
comparable to major health interventions such as those for tobacco
addiction, undernourishment or tuberculosis.
Biofuel production has contributed to increases in food prices, but
additional factors affect food prices, including weather conditions,
changes in food demand and increasing energy costs. Even considering the benet of increased prices to poor farmers, increased
food prices have adversely affected poverty, food security and
malnourishment of children. On the other hand, biofuels can also
Energy
Dynamic
Interactions
in Space &
Time
Biomass &
Water
Enablers
Risks
1. Business as Usual
Land Use
Supportive Policies
2. Un-Reconciled Growth
and Environment
Food vs. Fuel
1. Good Governance
2. Sustainable
Use of Resources
Ecosystems Services
Micro Scale:
Agrobiodiversity
Meso Scale:
Ecological Services,
Agroecological Areas
Macro Scale:
Biodiversity
Figure 2.15 | Bioenergys complex, dynamic interactions among society, energy and the environment include climate change feedbacks, biomass production and land use with direct
and indirect impacts at various spatial and temporal scales on all resource uses for food, fodder, bre and energy (Dale et al., 2011). Biomass resources need to be produced in sustainable ways as their impacts can be felt from micro to macro scales (van Dam et al., 2010). Risks are maintenance of business-as-usual approaches with uncoordinated production of
food and fuel. Opportunities are many and include good governance and sustainability frameworks that generate effective policies that also lead to sustainable ecosystem services.
275
Bioenergy
Chapter 2
2.6
2.6.1
Improvements in feedstocks
2.6.1.1
Yield gains
276
Chapter 2
Bioenergy
Table 2.14 | Prospects for yield improvements by 2030 relative to 2007 to 2009 data from Table 2.4.
Feedstock type
Regions
Improvement routes
Temperate
0.7
20-50
30-100
20-35
Ref.
DEDICATED CROPS
Wheat
Subtropics
N America
Maize
0.7
Subtropics
20-60
Tropics
50
1,10
USA
0.7
15-35
Brazil
1.0
20-60
Oil palm
World
1.0
30
Breeding, mechanization
Sugarcane
Brazil
1.5
20-40
2,3,8,10
Soybean
Breeding
2,3,10
SR Willow
Temperate
50
SR Poplar
Temperate
45
Miscanthus
World
100
Switchgrass
Temperate
100
Genetic manipulation
1.3
20
20
4,9
11
5,6
4,7
Planted forest
Europe
Canada
Breeding, GMOs
Breeding for minimal input, improved management
PRIMARY RESIDUES
World
15
Soybean straw
Cereal straw
N America
50
Forest residues
Europe
1.0
25
2.6.1.2
Aquatic biomass
Aquatic phototrophic organisms dominate the worlds oceans, producing 350 to 500 billion tonnes of biomass annually and include algae,
both microalgae (such as Chlorella and Spirulina) and macroalgae
(i.e., seaweeds) and cyanobacteria (also called blue-green algae)
(Garrison, 2008). Oleaginous microalgae such as Schizochytrium and
Nannochloropsis can accumulate neutral lipids, analogous to seed oil
277
Bioenergy
278
Chapter 2
2.6.2
Chapter 2
Feedstocks
Bioenergy
Processing
Intermediates
Upgrading
Gasication
Secondary Energy
Carriers
Hydrogen
(H2)
Methanol
(CH3OH)
Syngas
Catalyzed
Synthesis
DME
(CH3OCH3)
FT Diesel
(CXHY)
Lignocellulosic
Biomass
Anaerobic
Digestion
Biogas
Purication
SNG (CH4)
Biomethane (CH4)
Flash Pyrolysis
Bio Oil
Hydro Treating
and Rening
Fermentation
Microbial Processing
Jet Fuel/Diesel
Butanols
Fermentation
Ethanol
(CH3CH2OH)
Fermentation
Biodiesel
(Alkyl Esters)
Hydrothermal
Liquefaction
Pretreatment
Hydrolysis
Sugar/Starch
Crops
Milling and
Hydrolysis
Oil Plants
Pressing or
Extraction
Sugar
Straight
Vegetable Oil
Plant Oil
Hydrogenation
or Rening
Renewable Diesel
or Jet Fuel
Figure 2.16 | Overview of lignocellulosic biomass, sugar/starch crops and oil plants (feedstocks) and the processing routes to key intermediates, which can be upgraded through
various routes to secondary energy carriers, such as liquid and gaseous biofuels. Fuel product examples are (1) oxygenated biofuels to blend with current gasoline and diesel fuels
or to use in pure form, such as ethanol, butanols, methanol, liquid ethers, biodiesel, and gaseous DME (dimethyl ether); (2) hydrocarbon biofuels such as Fischer Tropsch (FT) liquids,
renewable diesel and some microbial fuels (which are compatible with the current infrastructure of liquid fuels because their chemical composition is similar to that of gasoline, diesel,
and jet fuels (see Table 2.15.C)), or the simplest hydrocarbon methane for natural gas replacement (SNG) from gasication or biomethane from anaerobic digestion; and (3) H2 for
future transportation (adapted from Hamelinck and Faaij, 2006 and reproduced with permission from Elsevier B.V.).
Notes: Microbial fuels include hydrocarbons derived from isoprene, the component of natural rubber; a variety of non-fermentative alcohols with three to six carbon atoms including
butanols (four carbons); and fatty acids which can be processed as plant oils to hydrocarbons (Rude and Schirmer, 2009).1 For sugar and starch crops the sugar box indicates six-carbon
sugars, while for lignocellulosic biomass this box is more complex and has mixtures of six- and ve-carbon sugars, with proportions dependent on the feedstock type. Hardwoods and
agricultural residues contain xylan and other polymers of ve-carbon sugars in addition to cellulose that yield glucose, a six-carbon sugar.
1. Not shown are the aquatic plants (see Section 2.6.1.2) that can utilize the same types of processing shown for their vegetable oil and carbohydrate fractions.
Pretreatment technologies
Torreed wood is manufactured by heating wood in a process similar to
charcoal production. At temperatures up to 160C, wood loses water, but it
keeps its physical and mechanical properties and typically maintains 70%
of its initial weight and 90% of the original energy content (D. Bradley et
al., 2009). Torreed wood only absorbs 1 to 6% moisture (Uslu et al., 2008).
Torrefaction can produce uniform quality feedstock, which eliminates inefcient and expensive methods designed to handle feedstock variations and
thus makes conversion more efcient (Badger, 2000) and more predictable.
Pyrolysis processes convert solid biomass to liquid bio-oil, a complex
mixture of oxidized hydrocarbons. Although this liquid product is toxic
279
Bioenergy
Chapter 2
2.6.3
280
assumptions are provided at the end of the table; some groups of references use the same assumptions but not all. First-of-a-kind plants are
more expensive as there are technical uncertainties in the chemical, biochemical, thermochemical or mechanical component steps in a route,
as shown by Kazi et al. (2010) and Swanson et al. (2010) compared to
Bauen et al. (2009a) or Foust et al. (2009). Such combination of steps
is often signicantly more complex than a similar petroleum industry
process because of the characteristics of solid biomass. Scaling up is conducted after initial bench-scale experimentation and encouraging initial
techno-economic evaluation. As experience in operating the process and
correcting design or operating parameters is gained, cost evaluations
are conducted and the plant is operated until costs decrease at a slower
pace. At this point, the technical and economic risks of the plant have
decreased and the production costs have reached so-called nth plant
status. The uncertainties in these studies are variable and higher for the
least-developed concepts (Bauen et al., 2009a).
An overview of advanced pilot, demonstration and commercial-scale
bioenergy projects in 33 countries is provided by Bacovsky et al.
(2010a,b), including the site at Kalundborg, Denmark, where a wheat
straw ethanol is made in the pilot plant and sold to a gasoline distributor in 2010.62 The number of actual projects moving to pilot and
demonstration scale is probably larger. The reference contains descriptions of most of the development projects listed in Table 2.15. See also
the IEA (Renewable Energy Division, 2010) report on global sustainable second-generation technologies and future perspectives in the
context of the transport sector and the recently published technology
roadmap for biofuels (IEA, 2011).
This section focuses on bioenergy products to avoid repetition of
technology descriptions provided in Section 2.3for instance, a thermochemical technology such as gasication can produce multiple fuels
and electricity. Similarly, a variety of end products can be made from
sugars.
An initial meta-analysis of advanced conversion routes (Hamelinck and
Faaij, 2006) for methanol, H2, Fischer-Tropsch liquids and biochemical
ethanol produced from lignocellulosic biomass under comparable nancial assumptions suggests that these systems compare favourably with
starch-based biofuels and offer more competitive fuel prices and opportunities in the longer term because of their inherently lower feedstock
costs and because of the variety of sources of lignocellulosic biomass,
including agricultural residues from cereal crop production, and forest
residues. The feedstock cost range used in this meta-analysis is in line
with costs highlighted in Section 2.6.1.1 and the low range of the supply
curves shown in Figure 2.5. In the EU study, Northern Europe projected
production costs are in the USD2005 2 to 7.5/GJ range for herbaceous
grasses and USD2005 1.5 to 6/GJ for woody biomass (land-related costs
included). For perennial species, transaction costs may need to increase
by 15% to secure a supply of energy feedstock from farmers. This additional cost (e.g., transport to the conversion plant and payment to
secure the feedstock) is already built into the prices of the US supply
62 An interactive website with this information is maintained by the IEA Bioenergy Task
39: biofuels.abc-energy.at/demoplants.
Chapter 2
Bioenergy
Table 2.15 | Summary of developing technologies costs projected for 2030 biofuel production and their 2010 industrial development level. Using todays performance for a pioneer
plant built in the near term increases costs, and the majority of the references assumes that technology learning will occur upon development, referred to as nth plant costs. Costs
expressed in USD2005.
Feedstock
Consolidated
bioprocessing (CBP)
Separate hydrolysis/
co-fermentation
Simultaneous
saccharication/
co- fermentation
Simultaneous
saccharication and
fermentation
Lignocellulosic
1
% GHG
reduction
from fossil
reference
Scenarios
analyzed30
Production
cost by
2030
(USD2005/GJ)
15.519 future
2512719
283548
309 (Finland)
from pilot data
Barley straw
Corn stover
Meta-analysis conditions.45
28 (2015)45
23.5 (2022)45
182210 (2020)
breakeven USD
100/barrel; +
CCS USD 95/
barrel; USD
50/t CO2
Lignocellulosic
Various Eff.
35% ethanol +
4% power.1
N/A
8388 Depending
on co-product
credit method25
Industrial
development (see
Bacovsky et al.,
2010a,b)
Bagasse
86
Advanced CHP:
120% (replace NG
peak power).36
6351535
w/o and w FC
Lignocellulosic
9038
Improvements in catalyst
development and syngas cleaning.
12491518
14.524
RD&D, pilot.
Sugar/starch
Development of an integrated
biobutanol production and removal
systems using the solvent-producing
bacteria Clostridia improved by genetic
engineering.29 Initial acetone, butanol,
and ethanol (ABE) fermentation is
costly.
531 Depending
on co-product
credit method.29
29.6 for
ABE;18 25.2
for mutated
Clostridia17 or
21.6 for dual
process17
Gasication to
butanols
Lignocellulosic
N/A
1317
N/A
Gasication/synthesis
to methanol for fuel
and/or power
Lignocellulosic
9027
1218 (fuel)19
7.19.5 (fuel
and power)19
Gasication/catalytic
synthesis ethanol
Fermentation; product
compatible with
gasoline infrastructure
to butanols, in
particular biobutanol
2.6.3.1
Liquid fuels
281
Bioenergy
Chapter 2
B: Fuels Algae
Process
Feedstock
Microalgae
lipids; see Section 2.6.1.2
% GHG
Potential technical
reduction
advances and
from fossil
challenges
reference
2876
Scenarios for
open pond and
bioreactor34
Production
cost by 2030
(USD2005/GJ)
Industrial
development
Preliminary Results 95
or more23 308034 for
open ponds 5014034
for PBR going from low
to high productivity
Active R&D
by companies
small and large
including pilots
pursuing jet
and diesel fuel
substitutes.
C: Fuels Hydrocarbons by Gasication, Pyrolysis, Hydrogenation and Isomerization of Vegetable Oils and Wastes
Process
Feedstock
% GHG
Potential technical
reduction
advances and
from fossil
challenges
reference
CCS for CO2 from processing.
Meta-analysis conditions.45
2029.545
9026 (US)
Eff. = 0.52 + 22 MWe. Capital USD 500 million; wide range of densied feeds imported
into EU for processing.39
1622.539
2938
Hydrogenation to
renewable diesel
Lignocellulosic
Plant oils,
animal fat,
waste
Biomass/
wastes, plant
oils, animal fat,
waste oils
Production
cost by 2030
(USD2005/GJ)
Catalyst development,
process yield improvements
with biomass.
34
1718
47
Industrial
development
282
Chapter 2
Bioenergy
Lignocellulosic
Gasication/methanation
to methane for fuel, heat
and/or power
Lignocellulosic
Eff. ~60% (or higher for dry feed).42 Combined fuel and power production possible.
Anaerobic digestion,
upgrading of gas,
liquefaction
Organic wastes,
sludges
Process
Gasication/syngas
processing of H2 to fuel
and power
% GHG
reduction
from fossil
reference
30
88
98
27
Potential technical
advances and
challenges
Production cost by
2030 (USD2005/GJ)
Industrial
development
4519 (longer)
6201212
5.57.741
R&D stage.
RD&D stage.
151621
Lignocellulosic
9631
81111
131945 or US cents
4.56.9/kWh
Demos at 5
to 10 MW
projected cost at
USD 2938/GJ or
US cents 1013.5/
kWh.45
Notes: Abbreviations: *Conversion costs (CC) include investment costs and operating expenses; CR = Co-product Revenue; FC = feedstock cost; CC = conversion cost. All CC, CR, FC
costs are given in USD2005/GJ.
System Boundaries: Many references use a 10% discount rate, 20-yr plant life referred to as meta-analysis conditions. 17. Production costs include return on capital; 24.10% IRR
(Internal Rate of Return), 39% tax rate, 20-yr plant life, Double-declining-balance depreciation method, 100% equity, nth plant, for the biochemical pathway costs are FC: 6, CC*:
10.6, CR: 1.1 and for thermochemical pathway costs are FC: 6.7, CC*: 10, CR: 2.5; 3012% IRR, 39% tax rate, 25-yr plant life, Modied Accelerated Cost Recovery System depreciation
method (MACRS dep.), 65/35 equity/debt, 7% debt interest, nth plant, FC: 8.2, CC*: 16.9, CR: 2.6; 37. Pioneer (rst-of-a-kind) plant example: 10% IRR, 39% tax rate, 20-yr plant
life, MACRS dep., 100% equity, FC: 12.220.7, CC*: 27.338, CR: 06; 38. 7% discount rate, 39% tax rate, 20-yr plant life, MACRS dep., 45/55 equity/debt, 4.4% debt interest, nth
plant, FC w/ CCS: 16, FC w/o CCS: 8.8, CC* w/ CCS: 14.7, CC* w/o CSS: 15.7, CR w/ CCS: 2, CR w/o CCS: 2.1; 39.10% discount rate, 10-yr plant life; 40. Pioneer plant example: 10%
IRR, 39% tax rate, 20-yr plant life, MACRS dep, 100% equity, FC: 9.5, CC*: 24.5, CR: 1.1; 41.10% IRR, 15-yr plant life.
References: 1. Hamelinck et al. (2005a); 2. Jeffries (2006); 3. Jeffries et al. (2007); 4. Balat et al. (2009) and see IEA Bioenergy Pyrolosis Task (www.pyne.co.uk); 5. Sims et al. (2008);
6. Himmel et al. (2010); 7. Sannigrahi et al. (2010); 8. Bain (2007); 9. von Weyman (2007); 10. NRC (2009a); 11. IEA Bioenergy (2007); 12. Kinchin and Bain (2009); 13. McKeough et
al 2005; 14. Wu et al. (2005); 15. Ezeji et al. (2007a); 16. Ezeji et al. (2007b); 17. Cascone (2008); 18. Tao and Aden (2009); 19. Hamelinck and Faaij (2006); 20. Hoogwijk (2004); 21.
Sustainable Transport Solutions (2006); 22. Helynen et al. (2002); 23. Chisti (2007); 24. Foust et al. (2009); 25. Wang et al. (2010); 26. Kalnes et al. (2009); 27. Edwards et al. (2008);
28. Huo et al. (2009); 29. Wu et al. (2008); 30. Laser et al. (2009); 31. Daugherty (2001); 32. Cremers (2009) (see IEA co-ring database at www.ieabcc.nl/database/coring.php); 33.
IATA (2009); 34. EPA (2010); 35. Seabra et al. (2010); 36. Macedo et al. (2008); 37. Kazi et al. (2010); 38. Larson et al. (2009); 39. van Vliet et al. (2009); 40. Swanson et al. (2010);
41. Hamelinck and Faaij (2002); 42. Mozaffarian et al. (2004); 43. Hamelinck et al. (2004); 44. van Zyl et al. (2007); 45. Bauen et al. (2009a); 46. Elliott (2008); 47. Holmgren et al.
(2008); 48. Dutta et al. (2010); 49. Phillips et al. (2007).
(CBP), which combines all of the hydrolysis, fermentation and enzyme production steps into one, were dened as short-, medium- and longer-term
approaches, respectively. For CBP, efciencies and yields are expected to
increase and costs to decrease by 35 and 66% relative to SSF and SSCF,
respectively (Hamelinck et al., 2005a, and see Table 2.15).
Pretreatment is one of the key technical barriers causing high costs,
and a multitude of possible options exist. So far, no best technology
has been identied (da Costa Sousa et al., 2009; Sims et al., 2010).
Pretreatment overcomes the recalcitrance of the cell wall of woody,
herbaceous or agricultural residues and makes carbohydrate polymers
283
Bioenergy
284
Chapter 2
Chapter 2
Bioenergy
ranging from USD2005 30 to 140/GJ (EPA, 2010). Exploring the biodiversity of microbial organisms for their chemical composition and their
innate microbial pathways can lead to use of highly saline lands, brackish waters or industrial waste waters, avoiding competition with land for
food crops but the potential of microalgae is highly uncertain.
Part D of Table 2.15 compares estimated production costs for the production of gaseous fuels from lignocellulosic biomass and various waste
streams:
Prospects. In the near to medium term, the biofuel industry, encompassing rst- and second-generation technologies that meet agreed-upon
environmental and economic sustainability and policy goals, will grow
at a steady rate. It is expected that the transition to an integrated rstand second-generation biofuel landscape will likely require another
decade or two (Sims et al., 2008, 2010; NRC, 2009a; Darzins et al., 2010).
2.6.3.2
Gaseous fuels
285
Bioenergy
Chapter 2
2.6.3.3
286
2.6.3.4
2.6.3.5
Bioreneries
Bio-based products
Bio-based products are dened as non-food products derived from biomass. The term is typically used for new non-food products and materials
such as bio-based plastics, lubricants, surfactants, solvents and chemical
building blocks. Plastics represent 73% of the total petrochemical product mix, followed by synthetic bres, solvents, detergents and synthetic
rubber (2007 data; Gielen et al., 2008). Bio-based products can therefore
be expected to play a pivotal role in these product categories, in particular plastics and bres.
The four principal ways of producing polymers and other organic
chemicals from biomass are: (1) direct use of several naturally occurring polymers, usually modied with some thermal treatment, chemical
transformation or blending; (2) thermochemical conversion (e.g., pyrolysis or gasication) followed by synthesis and further processing; (3)
fermentation (for most bulk products) or enzymatic conversion (mainly
for specialty and ne chemicals) of biomass-derived sugars or other
intermediates; and (4) bioproduction of polymers or precursors in genetically modied eld crops such as potatoes or Miscanthus.
Worldwide production of recently emerging bio-based plastics is
expected to grow from less than 0.4 Mt in 2007 to 3.45 Mt in 2020
(Shen et al., 2009). Cost-effective bio-based products with properties
superior to those in conventional materials, not just renewability, are
71 Approximate values (USD2005 billion by 2020) of business potential for the various
parts of the value chain were estimated as: agricultural inputs (15), biomass
production (89), biomass trading (30), biorening inputs (10), biorening fuels (80),
biorening chemicals and products (6), and biomass power and heat (65).
Chapter 2
2.6.4
Synthesis
Bioenergy
287
Bioenergy
Chapter 2
2.7
Cost trends72
2.7.1
Determining factors
288
2.7.1.1
The factors discussed above make it clear that it is difcult to generate generic cost information for bioenergy that is valid worldwide.
Nonetheless, this section provides estimates for the recent levelized cost
of electricity (LCOE), heat (LCOH) and fuels (LCOF) typical of selected
commercial bioenergy systems, some of which are described in more
technological detail in Section 2.3.4.73 The methodology for calculating
levelized cost is described in Annex II. Data and assumptions used to
produce these gures are provided in Annex III, with those assumptions
derived in part from the literature summarized earlier.
The results of the LCOE, LCOH and LCOF calculations for a selected set
of commercially available bioenergy options, and based on recent costs,
are summarized in Figure 2.18 and discussed below.
To calculate the LCOE for electricity generation, a standardized range
of feedstock cost of USD2005 1.25 to 5/GJ was assumed (based on High
Heating Value, HHV). To calculate the LCOE of CHP plants where both
electricity and heat are produced, the heat was counted as a co-product
with revenue that depended on the assumed quality and application
of the heat. For large-scale CHP plants, where steam is generated for
process heat, the co-product revenue was set at USD2005 5/GJ. For smallscale CHP plants, on the other hand, the revenue was effectively set
according to the cost of hot water, or USD2005 13/GJ (applicable, e.g., in
Nordic countries and Europe).
The LCOH for heating systems illustrated in the light blue bars of Figure
2.18 is less certain due to a more limited set of available literature. For
73 The levelized cost of energy represents the cost of an energy generating system over its lifetime; it
is calculated as the per-unit price at which energy must be generated from a specic source over its
lifetime to break even. It usually includes all private costs that accrue upstream in the value chain,
but does not include the downstream cost of delivery to the nal customer the cost of integration
or external environmental or other costs. Subsidies and tax credits are also not included.
Chapter 2
Bioenergy
Table 2.16 | Estimated regional technical potential of energy crops for 2050 (in EJ) on abandoned agricultural land and rest of land at various cut-off costs (in USD2005/GJ biomass
harvested, including local transport) for the two extreme SRES land use scenarios A1 and A2 (Hoogwijk et al., 2009; reproduced with permission from Elsevier B.V.).
A1: high crop growth intensity and maximum international trade
in 2050
Region
cut-off cost
A2: low crop growth intensity and minimum trade and low
technology development in 2050
<1.15 USD/GJ
<2.3 USD/GJ
<4.6 USD/GJ
<1.15 USD/GJ
<2.3 USD/GJ
Canada
11.4
14.3
0.0
7.9
<4.6 USD/GJ
9.4
USA
17.8
34.0
0.0
6.9
18.7
C America
7.0
13.0
0.0
2.0
2.9
S America
11.7
73.5
0.0
5.3
14.8
N Africa
0.9
2.0
0.0
0.7
1.3
W Africa
6.6
26.4
28.5
7.9
14.6
15.5
E Africa
8.1
23.8
24.4
3.6
6.2
6.4
S Africa
12.5
16.6
0.1
0.3
0.7
W Europe
3.0
11.5
0.0
5.6
12.5
E Europe
6.8
8.9
0.0
6.2
6.3
Former USSR
78.6
84.9
0.8
41.9
46.6
Middle East
0.1
3.0
0.0
0.0
1.3
South Asia
0.1
12.1
15.3
0.6
8.2
9.8
East Asia
16.3
63.6
0.0
0.0
5.8
SE Asia
8.8
9.7
0.0
6.9
7.0
Oceania
18.0
33.4
35.2
1.6
16.6
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
Global
15.5
271
438
14.6
129
177
0.7
Japan
Labour
3.5
Capital
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
Japan
Oceania
East Asia
South Asia
Middle East
Former USSR
Eastern Europe
OECD Europe
Southern Africa
Eastern Africa
Western Africa
Northern Africa
South America
Central America
USA
Canada
0.5
Figure 2.17 | Cost breakdown for energy crop production costs in the grid cells with the lowest production costs within each region for the SRES A1 scenario (IPCC, 2000) in 2050
(in USD2000 instead of USD2005)(Hoogwijk et al., 2009; reproduced with permission from Elsevier B.V.).
289
Bioenergy
Chapter 2
[UScents2005 /kWh]
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
[USD2005 /GJ]
Figure 2.18 | Typical recent levelized cost of energy service from commercially available bioenergy systems at 7% discount rate. Feedstock cost ranges differ between technologies.
For levelized cost at other discount rates (3 and 10%) see Annex III and Section 10.5. For biofuels, the range of LCOF represents production in a wide range of countries whereas LCOE
and LCOH are given only for major user markets of the technologies for which data were available. The underlying cost and performance assumptions used in the calculations are
summarized in Annex III. Calculations are based on HHV.
Abbreviations: BFB: Bubbling uidized bed; ORC: Organic Rankine cycle; ICE: Internal combustion engine.
290
Chapter 2
Bioenergy
the revenue from sugar was set at USD2005 4.3/GJfeed, though this value
varies with sugar market prices and can go up to about USD2005 5.6/
GJfeed. For the LCOF calculations, however, average by-product revenues
were assumed. Along with ethanol and sugar (and potentially other biomaterials in the future), the third co-product is electricity, revenues for
which were also assumed to be deducted in calculating the LCOF. A similar approach was used for other biofuel pathways (see Annex III). This
single example, however, illustrates the complexity of biofuel production
cost assessments.
Finally, the levelized cost of pyrolysis oil as an intermediate fuel, a densied energy carrier, was also assessed, because pyrolysis oils are already
used for heating and CHP applications and are also being investigated
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Biopower (Direct Dedicated & Stoker CHP, 25 - 100MW), 2,600 USD2005 /kW, CF 80%
35
Biopower (Direct Dedicated & Stoker CHP, 25 - 100MW), 3,400 USD2005 /kW, CF 75%
Biopower (Direct Dedicated & Stoker CHP, 25 - 100MW), 4,200 USD2005 /kW, CF 70%
Biopower (Co-ring, 20 - 100 MW), 430 USD2005 /kW, CF 80%
Biopower (Co-ring, 20 - 100 MW), 665 USD2005 /kW, CF 75%
30
25
Biopower (CHP, Steam turbine, 2.5 - 10 MW), 4,100 USD2005 /kW, CF 68%
Biopower (CHP, Steam turbine, 2.5 - 10 MW), 5,150 USD2005 /kW, CF 62%
Biopower (CHP, Steam turbine, 2.5 - 10 MW), 6,200 USD2005 /kW, CF 55%
Biopower (CHP, Gasication - ICE, 2 - 14 MW), 1,800 USD2005 /kW, CF 68%
20
15
10
0
0
291
Bioenergy
Chapter 2
50
45
40
35
Sugarcane Ethanol, Low Investment Cost, 3% DR
30
25
20
15
10
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
exist.) References used to generate the cost data are assembled in notes
to the gures.
2.7.2
292
For the production of corn, the highest cost decline occurred in costs
for capital, land and fertilizer until 2005. Additional drivers behind
cost reductions were increased plant sizes through cooperatives that
Chapter 2
Bioenergy
Table 2.17 | Experience curves for major components of bioenergy systems and nal energy carriers expressed as reduction (%) in cost (or price) per doubling of cumulative production.
LR (%)
Time frame
Region
R2
321
19752005
Brazil
2.9
0.81
451.5
19752005
USA
1.6
0.87
1215
19752003
Sweden/Finland
0.870.93
1925
19832002
Sweden
2.3
0.170.18
12
19841998
190.5
19752003
130.15
Learning system
Feedstock production
Sugarcane (tonnes sugarcane)1
2
0.69
Brazil
4.6
0.80
19832005
USA
6.4
0.88
7
29
19701985
19852002
Brazil
~6.1
n.a.
200.5
19752003
Brazil
4.6
0.84
180.2
19832005
USA
7.2
0.96
89
19902002
Sweden
~9
0.850.88
15
Unknown
OECD
n.a.
n.a.
015
19842001
Denmark
~10
0.97
Biogas4
Notes: Abbreviations: LR: Learning Rate, N: Number of doublings of cumulative production, R: Correlation coefcient of the statistical data.
References: 1. van den Wall Bake et al. (2009); 2. Hettinga et al. (2009); 3. Junginger et al. (2005); 4. Junginger et al. (2006); 5. Goldemberg et al. (2004); 6. IEA (2000).
2.7.3
2.7.3.1
For the production of ethanol from sugarcane and corn, future production cost scenarios based on direct experience curve analysis were found
in the literature:
For Brazilian sugarcane ethanol (van den Wall Bake et al., 2009), total
production costs in 2005 were approximately USD2005 340/m3 (USD2005
16/GJ). Based on the experience curves for the cost components shown
in Figure 2.21 (feedstock and ethanol without feedstock costs), total ethanol production costs in 2020 are estimated between USD2005 200 and
260/m3 (USD2005 9.2 to 12.2/GJ). These costs compare well with those in
Table 2.7 for Brazil with a current production cost estimate of USD2005
14.8/GJ and projected 2020 cost of USD2005 9 to 10/GJ. Ethanol production costs without feedstocks are in a range of USD2005 139 to 183/m3
(USD2005 6.5 to 8.6/GJ) in 2005 and could reach about USD2005113/m3
(USD2005 6.6/GJ) by 2020, assuming a constant 82 m3 hydrous ethanol
per t of sugarcane.
293
Bioenergy
Chapter 2
Average Production Cost of Ethanol [USD2005 /m3] and Sugarcane [USD2005 /t]
10
20
40
80
160
320
640
1280
800
PR = 0.81+ 0.02
400
200
2020
40
20
PR = 0.68 + 0.03
10
2020
Sugarcane
Ethanol Prod. Cost (excl. Feedstock)
Expected Range of Cane Prod. Costs in 2020
Expected Range of Ethanol Prod. Costs in 2020
1,000
2,000
4,000
8,000
16,000
32,000
6
For US ethanol from corn (Hettinga et al., 2009), costs of corn production and ethanol processing are estimated respectively as USD2005
75/t and USD2005 60 to 77/m3 by 2020. Overall ethanol production
costs could decline from a current level of USD2005 310/m3 to USD2005
248/m3 (USD2005 14.7 to 11.7/GJ) by 2020. This estimate excludes
the investment costs and the effect of future corn prices. The EPA
(2010) Regulatory Impact Analysis of the Renewable Fuel Standard 2
modelled the current corn ethanol industry in detail and projected a
decrease in total production cost from USD2005 17.5 to 16/GJ by 2022
by taking into account both feedstock and process improvements
listed in Table 2.7 and the anticipated co-product revenue.
Conrming the trend and supporting the projections to 2020, Table
2.13 illustrates key indicators for environmental performance of a
North American corn dry-grind natural gas-red mill and the Brazilian
sugarcane benchmark of 44 mills in terms of GHG emissions per
294
carbon content of the biomass feedstock (displacement factor), emissions reductions relative to the reference fossil fuel in the production
region (GHG savings), and a land use efciency (volume of production per unit area) indicator. The commercial North American systems
performance improved with time; for instance, using the relative GHG
savings, which were 26% in 1995 and 39% in 2005, and the projected
efciency improvements through application of commercial CHP systems alone or in combination with CCS, would lead to 55 and 72%
emissions savings by 2015, respectively. Similarly, the Brazilian sugarcane ethanol/electricity/sugar mill would go from 79 to 120 and 160%
in relative GHG savings for the 2005-2006 baseline and the CHP and
CCS scenarios, respectively.
In the Renewable Fuels for Europe project that focused on deployment
of biofuels in Europe (de Wit et al., 2010; Londo et al., 2010), specic
attention was paid to the effects of learning for lignocellulosic biofuels
2.7.3.2
Bioenergy
Chapter 2
1.30
1.20
BtL Diesel Pessimistic
1.10
LC Ethanol Pessimistic
1.00
0.90
LC Ethanol Optimistic
0.80
0.70
0.60
0.50
0.40
2010
2015
2020
2025
2030
2035
2040
2045
2050
Figure 2.22 | Cost projections for lignocellulosic ethanol and BTL diesel (Energy
Technology Perspectives 2008, OECD/IEA, Figure 9.11, p. 335 in IEA (2008a); for
additional future cost considerations see also Sims et al. (2008), IEA Renewable Energy
Division (2010) and IEA (2011)).
2.7.4
Synthesis
295
Bioenergy
Chapter 2
Table 2.18 | Projected production cost ranges estimated for developing technologies (see Section 2.6.3).
Energy Sector
(Electricity, Thermal, Transport)*
1530
Transport
1225
630
Gaseous biofuels
612
Transport
30140
Notes: 1. Feed cost USD2005 3.1/GJ, IGCC (future) 30 to 300 MW, 20-yr life, 10% discount rate; 2. ethanol, butanols, microbial hydrocarbons from sugar or starch crops or
lignocellulose sugars; 3. syndiesel, methanol and gasoline, etc.; syngas fermentation routes to ethanol; 4. biomass pyrolysis (or other thermal treatment) and catalytic upgrading to
gasoline and diesel fuel blend components or to jet fuels; 5. synfuel to SNG, methane, dimethyl ether, or H2 from biomass thermochemical and anaerobic digestion (larger scale).
*Several applications could be coupled with CCS when these technologies, including CCS, are mature and thus could remove GHGs from the atmosphere.
296
2.8
Potential Deployment76
2.8.1
Modern biomass use (for electricity and CHP for the power sector; modern residential, commercial, and public buildings heating; or transport
fuels) already provides a signicant contribution of about 11.3 EJ (see
Table 2.1; IEA, 2010a,b) out of the 2008 TPES from biomass of 50.3
EJ. Between 60 and 70% of the total biomass supply is used in rural
areas and relates to charcoal, wood, agricultural residues and manure
used for cooking, lighting and space heating, generally by the poorer
part of the population in developing countries. From 1990 to 2008, the
76 Complementary perspectives on potential deployment based on a comprehensive
assessment of numerous model-based scenarios of the energy system are presented
in Sections 10.2 and 10.3 of this report.
Chapter 2
average annual growth rate of solid biomass use for bioenergy was 1.5%,
while the average annual growth rate of modern liquid and gaseous
biofuels use was 12.1 and 15.4%, respectively, during the same period
(IEA, 2010c). As a result, biofuels share of global road transport fuels
was about 2% in 2008; and nearly 3% of global road transport fuels in
2009, as oil demand decreased for the rst time since 1980 (IEA, 2010b).
Government policies in various countries fostered the ve-fold increase
in global biofuels production from 2000 to 2008. Biomass and renewable waste power generation was 259 TWh (0.93 EJ) in 2007 and 267
TWh (0.96 EJ) in 2008, representing 1% of the worlds electricity and
a doubling since 1990 (from 131 TWh, 0.47 EJ) (Section 2.4.1). Modern
bioenergy heating applications, including space and hot water heating
systems such as for district heating, account for 3.4 EJ (see Table 2.1 and
Section 2.4.1).
International trade in biomass and biofuels has also become much more
important over the recent years, with roughly 6% (reaching levels of up to
9% in 2008) of biofuels (ethanol and biodiesel only) traded internationally and one-third of pellet production dedicated to energy use in 2009
(Figures 2.8 and 2.9; Junginger et al., 2010; Lamers et al., 2010; Sikkema
et al., 2011). The latter has proven to be an important facilitating factor in
both increased utilization of biomass in regions where supplies are constrained and mobilizing resources from areas where demand is lacking.
The policy context for bioenergy and particularly biofuels has changed
rapidly and dramatically since the mid-2000s in many countries. The food
versus fuel debate and growing concerns about other conicts created a
strong push for the development and implementation of sustainability
criteria and frameworks and changes in temporization of targets for bioenergy and biofuels. Furthermore, the support for advanced biorenery
and second-generation biofuel options drives bioenergy in more sustainable directions.
Nations like Brazil, Sweden, Finland and the USA have shown that persistent and stable policy support is a key factor in building biomass
production capacity and working markets, required competitive infrastructure and conversion capacity (see also Section 2.4) and results in
considerable economic activity.
2.8.2
Near-term forecasts
Bioenergy
2.8.3
The AR4 (IPCC, 2007d) demand projections for primary biomass for production of transportation fuel were largely based on WEO (IEA, 2006)
global projections, with a relatively wide range of about 14 to 40 EJ
of primary biomass, or 8 to 25 EJ of biofuels in 2030. However, higher
estimates were also included, in the range of 45 to 85 EJ of demand
for primary biomass for electricity generation in 2030 (equivalent to
roughly 30 to 50 EJ of biofuel). Demand for biomass for heat and power
was stated to be strongly inuenced by (availability and introduction of)
competing technologies such as CCS, nuclear power and non-biomass
RE. The demand in 2030 for biomass was estimated in the AR4 to be
around 28 to 43 EJ. These estimates focus on electricity generation.
Heat was not explicitly modelled or estimated in the WEO (on which
the AR4 was based); therefore it underestimates total demand for biomass. Also, potential future demand for biomass in industry (especially
new uses such as biochemicals, but also expansion of charcoal use for
iron and steel production) and the built environment (heating as well
as increased use of biomass as building material) was highlighted as
important, but no quantitative projections were included in potential
demand for biomass at the medium or longer term.
297
Bioenergy
Chapter 2
(a)
(b)
350
N=137
Baselines
Cat. III + IV (440 - 600 ppm)
250
200
150
100
N=98
60
40
100
20
2008
50
2008
2020
2030
2050
2020
2030
2050
Figure 2.23 | (a) The global primary energy supply from biomass in long-term scenarios; (b) global biofuels production in long-term scenarios reported in secondary energy terms of
the delivered product (median, 25th to 75th percentile range and full range of scenario results; colour coding is based on categories of atmospheric CO2 concentration levels in 2100;
the number of scenarios underlying the gure is indicated in the right upper corner) (adapted from Krey and Clarke, 2011). For comparison, the historic levels in 2008 are indicated
by the small black arrows on the left axis.
In Figure 2.23, the results for biomass deployment for energy under
these scenarios for 2020, 2030 and 2050 are presented for three GHG
stabilization ranges based on the AR4: Categories I and II (<440 ppm
CO2), Categories III and IV (440-600 ppm CO2) and Baselines (>600 ppm
CO2) all by 2100. Results are presented for the median scenario, the
25th to 75th percentile range among the scenarios, and the minimum
and maximum scenario results. Figure 2.23(a) shows a clear increase in
global primary energy supply from biomass over time in the baseline
scenarios, that is, absent climate policies, reaching about 55, 62 and
77 EJ/yr in the median cases by 2020, 2030 and 2050, respectively. At
the same time, traditional use of solid biomass is projected to decline
298
the precise future role of bioenergy across the scenarios, leading to fairly
wide deployment ranges in the different GHG stabilization categories.
For 2030, primary biomass supply estimates for energy vary (rounded)
between 30 and 200 EJ for the full range of results obtained. The 25th
to 75th percentiles cover a range of 45 to 120 EJ, with a comparatively
narrower range of 44 to 67 EJ/yr in the baselines and much wider ranges
of 47 to 98 EJ/yr in the 440 to 600 ppm stabilization category and 73 to
120 EJ/yr in the <440 ppm category. By 2050, the contribution of biomass to primary energy supply in the two GHG stabilization categories
ranges from 70 to 120 EJ/yr at the 25th percentile to about 150 to 190
EJ/yr at the 75th percentile, and to about 265-300 EJ/yr in the highest ranges. It should be noted that the net GHG mitigation impact of
Chapter 2
Bioenergy
(a)
140
Gas
120
Electricity
Biofuels
100
Oil
80
60
40
20
0
2009
2015
2020
2025
2030
2035
(b)
10.0
Current Policies
Scenario
9.5
Road
9.0
8.5
2020
Abatement
2030
2035
83%
80%
80%
Increased Efciency
67%
51%
43%
Switch to Gas
3%
1%
1%
Switch to Electricity
2%
11%
19%
Switch to Biofuels
11%
17%
17%
14%
15%
15%
Increase Efciency
14%
12%
11%
7.5
Switch to Biofuels
0%
3%
4%
7.0
Navigation
2%
3%
3%
Other Transport
2%
2%
1%
0.4
1.7
2.6
Aviation
8.0
450 Scenario
6.5
2008
2015
2020
2025
2030
2035
Figure 2.24 | (a) Evolution of fuel consumption in the transport sector including biofuels (World Energy Outlook 2010, OECD/IEA, gure 14.12, page 429 in IEA (2010b)) and (b)
shares of carbon mitigation by various technologies including biofuels for road and aviation transport from current policies baseline (upper red line) to the 450 ppm bottom curve of
the mitigation scenario. (World Energy Outlook 2010, OECD/IEA, gure 14.14, page 432 in IEA (2010b))
299
Bioenergy
Chapter 2
2.8.4
2.8.4.1
300
for food, fodder, bre and forest products, when expressed in equivalent
heat content, equals 219 EJ/yr (2000 data, Krausmann et al., 2008), the
entire current global biomass harvest would be required to achieve a 200
EJ/yr deployment level of bioenergy by 2050 (Section 2.2.1).
From a detailed assessment, the upper-bound technical potential of biomass was about 500 EJ with a minimum of about 50 EJ in the case that
even residues had signicant competition with other uses. The assessment of each contributing category performed by Dornburg et al. (2008,
2010) was based on literature up to 2007 (stacked bar of Figure 2.25)
and is roughly in line with the conditions sketched in the IPCC SRES A1 and
B1 storylines (IPCC, 2000), assuming sustainability and policy frameworks
to secure good governance of land use and major improvements in agricultural management (summarized in Figure 2.26). The resources used are:
Chapter 2
Bioenergy
1000
Literature Technical
Potentials Range:
0 to 1500 EJ
(Theoretical)
2050 Global
TPES
AR4, 2007
750
500
Technical Potential
Based on 2008
Model and Literature
Assessment
Deployment Levels
Chapter 10
Scenario Assessment
Plant
Productivity
Improvement
250
Technical
Potential
2050 Global
Biomass
for Energy
AR4, 2007
Land Use 5
Million km2
Land Use 3
Million km2
50
Marginal/
Degraded Land
440-600
ppm
Potential Deployment
Levels
300
<440 ppm
300
Maximum
190
75th
Median
118
25th
265
Surplus
Good Land
Chapter 2
Review
Surplus Forestry
100
150
80
20
25
Minimum
2050 Projections
Figure 2.25 | On the left-hand side, the lines represent the 2008 global primary energy supply from biomass, the primary energy supply, and the equivalent energy of
the worlds total harvest for food, fodder and bre in 2000. A summary of major global 2050 projections of primary energy supply from biomass is shown from left to right:
(1) The global AR4 (IPCC, 2007d) estimates for primary energy supply and technical potential for primary biomass for energy; (2) the theoretical primary biomass potential for energy
and the upper bound of biomass technical potential based on integrated global assessment studies using ve resource categories indicated on the stacked bar chart and limitations
and criteria with respect to biodiversity protection, water limitations, and soil degradation, assuming policy frameworks that secure good governance of land use (Dornburg et al.,
2010, reproduced with permission from the Royal Society of Chemistry); (3) from the expert review of available scientic literature, potential deployment levels of terrestrial biomass
for energy by 2050 could be in the range of 100 to 300 EJ; and (4) deployment levels of biomass for energy from long-term scenarios assessed in Chapter 10 in two cases of climate
mitigation levels (CO2 concentrations by 2100 of 440 to 600 ppm (orange) or <440 ppm (blue) bars or lines, see Figure 2.23(a)). Biomass deployment levels for energy from model
studies described in (4) are consistent with the expert review of potential biomass deployment levels for energy depicted in (3).The most likely range is 80 to 190 EJ/yr with upper
levels in the range of 265 to 300 EJ/yr.
criteria and including 88 EJ/yr from residues. They project a rampingup to this potential from around 100 EJ/yr in 2020 and 130 EJ/yr in 2030.
The expert review conclusions based on available scientic literature
(Sections 2.2.2 through 2.2.5) are:
Important uncertainties include:
Population and economic/technology development; food, fodder and bre demand (including diets); and development in
agriculture and forestry;
Climate change impacts on future land use including its adaptation capability (IPCC, 2007a; Lobell et al., 2008; Fischer et al.,
2009); and
Residue ows in agriculture and forestry and unused (or extensively used thus becoming marginal/degraded) agricultural land
are important sources for expansion of biomass production for
energy, both in the near and longer term. Biodiversity-induced
limitations and the need to ensure maintenance of healthy ecosystems and avoid soil degradation set limits on residue extraction in
agriculture and forestry (Lal, 2008; Blanco-Canqui and Lal, 2009;
WBGU, 2009).
The cultivation of suitable (especially perennial) crops and
woody species can lead to higher technical potential. These crops
can produce bioenergy on lands less suited for the cultivation
of conventional food crops that would also lead to larger soil
carbon emissions than perennial crops and woody species. Multifunctional land use systems with bioenergy production integrated
into agriculture and forestry systems could contribute to biodiversity conservation and help restore/maintain soil productivity and
healthy ecosystems (Hoogwijk et al., 2005; Berndes et al., 2008;
Folke et al., 2009; IAASTD, 2009; Malzieux et al., 2009; Dornburg
et al., 2010).
301
Bioenergy
Chapter 2
Material/Economic
(A2)
Food Trade:
Meat Consumption:
Technology Development:
Food Crop Fertilization:
Crop Intensity Growth:
2050 Population (Billion):
2100 Population (Billion):
Relative 2100 GDP:
Maximal High
High
High
Very High
High
8.7
7.1
100%
Low
High
Low
High
Low
11.3
15.1
46%
Globally Oriented
Regionally Oriented
High
Low
High
Low
High
8.7
7.1
61%
Very Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
9.4
10.4
44%
(B2)
(B1)
Future world convergent in
global population, with
rapid change in economic
structures toward a service
and information economy,
low material intensity, and
clean and resource efcient
technologies.
Food Trade:
Meat Consumption:
Technology Development:
Food Crop Fertilization:
Crop Intensity Growth:
2050 Population (Billion):
2100 Population (Billion):
Relative 2100 GDP:
Environment/Social
Figure 2.26 | Storylines for the key scenario variables of the IPCC SRES (IPCC, 2000) used to model biomass and bioenergy by Hoogwijk et al. (2005, reproduced with permission
from Elsevier B.V.), the basis for the 2050 sketches adapted for this report and used to derive the stacked bar showing the upper bound of the biomass technical potential for energy
in Figure 2.25.
2.8.4.2
To reach the upper range of the deployment level of 300 EJ/yr shown
in Figure 2.25 would require major policy efforts, especially targeting
improvements and efciency increases in the agricultural sector and
good governance, such as zoning, of land use.
Review scenario studies (as included in Dornburg et al., 2008) that calculate the amount of biomass used if energy demands are supplied
cost-efciently for different carbon tax regimes estimate that in 2050,
between about 50 and 250 EJ/yr of biomass are used (cf. Figure 2.25).
This is roughly in line with the scenarios reviewed in Chapter 10 (see
Figure 2.23, which shows that the maximum demand is 300 EJ and the
median value is about 155 EJ; note that the high end is only reached
under the stringent mitigation scenarios of Categories I+II (<440 ppm
CO2) only).
302
Chapter 2
(0.2 to 15.5 TJ/km2) for residues, while costs range from USD2005 0.9 to
16/GJ (data from 2005 to 2007). Feedstock production competes with
the forestry and food sectors, but integrated production systems such
as agro-forestry or mixed cropping may provide synergies along with
additional environmental services.
Handling and transport of biomass from production sites to conversion
plants may contribute 20 to up to 50% of the total costs of biomass
production. Factors such as scale increase, technological innovations
and increased competition contributed to decrease the economic and
energy costs of supply chains by more than 50%. Densication via pelletization or briquetting is required for transportation distances over
50 km. Charcoal made from biomass is a major fuel in developing
countries, and it should benet from the adoption of higher-efciency
kilns.
Different end-use applications require that biomass be processed
through a variety of conversion steps depending on the physical nature
and the chemical composition of feedstocks. Costs vary by world
regions, feedstock types, feedstock supply costs for conversion processes, the scale of bioenergy production, and production time during
the year. Examples of estimated commercial bioenergy levelized cost
ranges are roughly USD 2 to 48/GJ for liquid and gaseous biofuels;
roughly US cents2005 3.5 to 25/kWh (USD2005 10 to 50/GJ) for electricity or CHP systems larger than about 2 MW (with feedstock costs of
USD2005 3/GJ based on high heating value and a heat value of USD2005
5/GJ (steam) or USD2005 12/GJ (hot water)); and roughly USD2005 2 to
77/GJ for domestic or district heating systems with feedstock costs in
the range of USD2005 0 to 20/GJ (solid waste to wood pellets). These
calculations refer to 2005 to 2008 data and are expressed in USD2005 at
a 7% discount rate. Several bioenergy systems have deployed competitively, most notably sugarcane ethanol and heat and power generation
from wastes and residues. Other biofuels have also undergone cost
and environmental impact reductions but still require government
subsidies.
In the medium term, the performance of existing bioenergy technologies can still be improved considerably, while new technologies offer
the prospect of more efcient and competitive deployment of biomass
for energy (as well as materials). Bioenergy systems, namely for ethanol and biopower production, show rates of technological learning and
related cost reductions with learning comparable to those of other RE
technologies. This applies to cropping systems (following progress in
agricultural management when annual crops are concerned), to supply systems and logistics (as clearly observed in Scandinavia, as well
as international logistics) and in conversion (e.g., ethanol production,
power generation and biogas). Although not all bioenergy options discussed in this chapter have been investigated in detail with respect
to technological learning, several important bioenergy systems have
reduced their cost and improved environmental performance (Sections
2.3.4.2 and 2.7.2; Table 2.13). However, they usually still require
government subsidies provided for economic development, poverty
reduction and a secure energy supply or other country-specic reasons.
Bioenergy
There is clear evidence that further improvements in power generation technologies (e.g., via biomass IGCC technology), supply systems
for biomass, and production of perennial cropping systems can bring
the costs of power (and heat or fuels) generation from biomass down
to attractive cost levels in many regions. Nevertheless, the competitive
production of bio-electricity (through methane or biofuels) depends on
the integration with the end-use systems (Sections 8.2 and 8.3), performance of alternatives such as wind and solar energy, developing CCS
technologies coupled with coal conversion, and nuclear energy (Sections
10.2.2.4, 10.2.2.6, 9.3, and 9.4). The implications of successful deployment of CCS in combination with biomass conversion could result in
removal of GHG from the atmosphere and attractive mitigation cost levels but have so far received limited attention (Section 2.6.3.3).
With respect to lignocellulosic biofuels, recent analyses have indicated
that the improvement potential is large enough for competition with
oil at oil prices of USD2005 60 to 80/barrel (USD2005 0.38 to 0.44/litre).
Currently available scenario analyses indicate that if shorter-term R&D
and market support is strong, technological progress could allow for
their commercialization around 2020 (depending on oil and carbon
prices). Some scenarios also indicate that this would mean a major shift
in the deployment of biomass for energy, because competitive production would decouple deployment from policy targets (mandates), and
demand for biomass would move away from food crops to biomass residues, forest biomass and perennial cropping systems. The implications of
such a (rapid) shift are so far poorly studied.
Integrated biomass gasication is a major avenue for the development
of a variety of biofuels, with equivalent properties to gasoline, diesel
and jet fuel (see Table 2.15.C for composition of hydrocarbon fuels). An
option highlighted as promising in the literature is fuel product generation passing syngas through the catalytic reactor only once with
the unreacted gas going to the power generation system instead of
being recycled through the catalytic reactor. Other hybrid biochemical
and thermochemical concepts have also been contemplated (Laser et
al., 2009). Biomass pyrolysis routes and hydrothermal concepts are also
developing in conjunction with the oil industry and have demonstrated
that upgrading of oils to blendstocks of gasoline or diesel or even jet
fuel quality products is technically possible (IATA, 2009).
Lignocellulosic ethanol development and demonstration continues in
several countries. A key development step is pretreatment to overcome
the recalcitrance of the cell wall of woody, herbaceous or agricultural
residues to release the simple sugar components of biomass polymers
and lignin. A review of the progress in this area suggests that a 40%
reduction in cost could be expected by 2025 from process improvements,
which would bring down the estimated cost of pilot plant production
from USD2005 18 to 22/GJ to USD2005 12 to 15/GJ (Hamelinck et al., 2005a;
Foust et al., 2009; NRC, 2009a) and into a competitive range.
Photosynthetic organisms, such as algae, use CO2, water, and sunlight
to biologically produce a variety of carbohydrates and lipids, chemicals,
fuels like H2, other molecules and oxygen with high photosynthetic
303
Bioenergy
Chapter 2
efciency and possibly high potentials (Sections 2.6.1, 3.3.5 and 3.7.6).
Estimates of potential bioenergy supply from aquatic plants are very
uncertain because of the lack of sufcient data for their assessment
(Kheshgi et al., 2000; Smeets et al., 2009). Nevertheless these species
need to be explored further because their development can utilize
brackish waters and heavily saline soils and thus represent a strategy
for low LUC impacts (Chisti, 2007; Weyer et al., 2009). The prospects of
algae-based fuels and chemicals are at this stage uncertain, with wide
ranges for potential production costs reported in the literature.
Data availability is limited with respect to production of biomaterials;
cost estimates for chemicals from biomass are rare in the peer-reviewed
literature, and future projections and LRs are even rarer. This condition
is linked, in part, to the fact that successful bio-based products are
entering the market place either as partial components of otherwise
fossil-derived products or as fully new synthetic polymers, such as polylactides based on lactic acid derived from sugar fermentation. Analyses
indicate that, in addition to producing biomaterials to replace fossil
fuels, cascaded use of biomaterials and subsequent use of waste material for energy can offer more effective and larger mitigation impacts
per hectare or tonne of biomass used (e.g., Dornburg and Faaij, 2005).
The benets of biomass gasication and CCS alone or with coal are
signicant (see Figures 2.10 and 2.11). Similarly, capturing CO2 from
fermentation processes offers a signicant option in many regions of the
world, and coupling with CCS may become an attractive medium-term
mitigation option. However, such concepts are not deployed at present
and cost trends are not available in the literature, making investments in
biomass (or coal) gasication technologies risky. Also, geologic sequestration reliability and the uncertainty of the regulatory environment
pose further barriers. More detailed analysis is desired in this eld.
2.8.4.3
304
Chapter 2
Bioenergy
Air pollution effects of bioenergy depend on both the bioenergy technology (including pollution control technologies) and the displaced energy
technology (e.g., inefcient coal versus modern natural gas combustion)
(Figure 9.12). Improved biomass cookstoves for traditional biomass
use can provide large and cost-effective mitigation of GHG emissions
with substantial co-benets in terms of health and living conditions,
particularly for the 2.7 billion people in the world that rely on traditional biomass for cooking and heating (Sections 2.5.4, 9.3.4, 9.3.4.2
and 9.3.4.3). Efcient technologies for cooking are even cost-effective
compared to other major interventions in health, such as those addressing tobacco, undernourishment or tuberculosis (Figures 2.14 and 9.13).
Other key environmental impacts cover water use, biodiversity and
other emissions (Sections 2.5.5 and 9.3.4). Just as for GHG impacts,
proper management determines emission levels to water, air and soil.
Development of standards or criteria (and continuous improvement processes) will push bioenergy production to lower emissions and higher
efciency than todays systems.
Water is a critical issue that needs to be better analyzed at a regional
level to understand the full impact of changes in vegetation and land use
management. Recent studies (Berndes, 2002; Dornburg et al., 2008; Rost
et al., 2009; Wu et al., 2009) indicate that considerable improvements
can be made in water use efciency in conventional agriculture, bioenergy crops and, depending on location and climate, perennial cropping
systems, by improving water retention and lowering direct evaporation
from soils (Figure 9.14). Nevertheless, without proper management,
increased biomass production could come with increased competition
for water in critical areas, which is highly undesirable (Fingerman et al.,
2010).
Similar remarks can be made with respect to biodiversity, although more
scientic uncertainty exists due to ongoing debates about methods of
biodiversity impacts assessment. Clearly, development of large-scale
monocultures at the expense of natural areas is detrimental for biodiversity (for example, highlighted in UNEP. 2008b). However, as discussed
in Section 2.5, bioenergy can also lead to positive effects by integrating
different perennial grasses and woody crops into agricultural landscapes, which could also increase soil carbon and productivity, reduce
shallow landslides and local ash oods, reduce wind and water erosion, and reduce sediment and nutrients transported into river systems.
Forest residue harvesting improves forest site conditions for replanting,
and thinning generally improves productivity and growth of the remaining stand. Removal of biomass from overly-dense stands can reduce
wildre risk.
The impact assessments for all these areas deserve considerably more
research, data collection and proper monitoring, as exemplied by
ongoing activities of governments (see footnote 64) and roundtables78
for pilot studies.
78 See Roundtable on Sustainable Biofuels pilot studies at www2.ep.ch/energycenterjahia4/page65660.html.
305
Bioenergy
Chapter 2
2.8.5
306
However, large uncertainty exists about important factors such as market and policy conditions that affect this potential.
Several important bioenergy options (i.e., sugarcane ethanol production in Brazil, select waste-to-energy systems, efcient biomass
cookstoves, biomass-based CHP) are competitive today and can provide important synergies with longer-term options. Lignocellulosic
biofuels replacing gasoline, diesel and jet fuels, advanced bioelectricity options and biorenery concepts can offer competitive
deployment of bioenergy for the 2020 to 2030 timeframe. Combining
biomass conversion with CCS raises the possibility of achieving GHG
Chapter 2
Bioenergy
307
Bioenergy
Chapter 2
Material/Economic
Key Preconditions
Key Preconditions
High energy demand results in high energy prices and drive strong
biomass demand.
Limited oversight on biomass production and use, largely driven by
market demand.
Fully liberalized markets for bioenergy as well as in agriculture as a whole.
Strong technology development leading to increased demand for biochemicals
and advanced transport fuels from biomass.
High fossil fuel prices expected due to high demand and limited innovation,
which pushes demand for biofuels use from an energy security perspective.
Increased biomass demand directly affects food markets.
Key Impacts
Increased biomass demand partly covered by residues and wastes, partly by
annual crops.
Additional crop demand leads to signicant iLUC effects and
biodiversity impacts.
Overall increased food prices linked to high oil prices.
Limited net GHG benets.
Sub-optimal socio-economic benets.
Key Impacts
Production emphasis is on higher quality land, converted pastures, etc.
Biomass produced and used in large scale operations, limiting small
farmers benets.
Large scale global trade and conversion capacity developed in major seaports.
Competition with conventional agriculture for the better quality land, driving
up food prices and increasing pressure on forest resources.
GHG benets overall but sub-optimal due to signicant iLUC effects.
2050 Bioenergy
Storylines
Globally Oriented
Regionally Oriented
Key Preconditions
Key Preconditions
Key Impacts
Key Impacts
35% biomass from residues and wastes, 25% from marginal/degraded lands
and 40% from arable and pasture lands (3 and 1 million km2, respectively).
Moderate energy price (notably oil) due to strong increase of biomass and
biofuels supply.
Food and fuel conicts largely avoided due to strong land-use planning and
alignment of bioenergy production capacity with efciency increases in
agriculture and livestock management.
Soil quality and soil carbon improve and negative biodiversity impacts are
minimised using diverse and mixed cropping systems.
Environment/Social
Figure 2.27 | Possible futures for 2050 biomass deployment for energy: Four illustrative contrasting sketches describing key preconditions and impacts following world conditions
typical of the IPCC SRES storylines (IPCC, 2000) summarized in Figure 2.26.
308
Chapter 2
Bioenergy
References
Abbasi, T., and S.A. Abbasi (2010). Biomass energy and the environmental impacts
associated with its production and utilization. Renewable and Sustainable Energy
Reviews, 14(3), pp. 919-937.
Adam, J.C. (2009). Improved and more environmentally friendly charcoal production
system using a low-cost retort-kiln (Eco-charcoal). Renewable Energy, 34(8), pp.
1923-1925.
Adams, P.W., G.P. Hammond, M.C. McManus, and W.G. Mezzullo (2011). Barriers
to and drivers for UK bioenergy development. Renewable and Sustainable Energy
Reviews, 15(2), pp. 1217-1227.
improved cook stove in Michoacan Mexico. Indoor Air, 18(2), pp. 93-105.
Arndt, C., R. Benca, F. Tarp, and R. Uaiene (2010). Biofuels, poverty, and growth:
A computable general equilibrium analysis of Mozambique. Environment and
Development Economics, 15(1), pp. 81-105.
Asikainen, A., H. Liiri, S. Peltola, T. Karjalainen, and J. Laitila (2008). Forest
Energy Potential in Europe (EU 27). Working Papers of the Finnish Forest Research
Institute, No. 69, Finnish Forest Research Institute, Helsinki, Finland, 33 pp.
Asikainen, A., P. Anttila, J. Heinim, T. Smith, I. Stupak, and W. Ferreira Quirino
(2010). Forest and bioenergy production. In: Forest and Society Responding to
Process Design and Economics Utilizing Co-Current Dilute Acid Prehydrolysis and
Enzymatic Hydrolysis for Corn Stover. NREL/TP-510-32438, National Renewable
Energy Laboratory, Golden, Colorado, USA, 154 pp.
Ahrens, T.D., D.B. Lobell, J.I. Ortiz-Monasterio, Y. Li, and P.A. Matson (2010).
Narrowing the agronomic yield gap with improved nitrogen use efciency: a
modeling approach. Ecological Applications, 20(1), pp. 91-100.
Ainsworth, E.A., and S.P. Long (2005). What have we learned from 15 years of
targets and the role of bio-energy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS).
Badger, P. (2000). New process for torreed wood manufacturing. Bioenergy Update,
views from mid-2009. In: Proceedings of the Expert Meeting on How to Feed the
World in 2050, Rome, Italy, 24-26 June 2009. Economic and Social Development
Department, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome,
NL0400/gbinl0400.pdf.
Badgley, C., J. Moghtader, E. Quintero, E. Zakem, M.J. Chappell, K. Avils-
Alfstad, T. (2008). World Biofuels Study: Scenario Analysis of Global Biofuels Markets.
global food supply. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems, 22(02), pp. 86-86.
Baffes, J., and T. Haniotis (2010). Placing the 2006/08 Commodity Price Boom
into Perspective. Policy Research Working Paper 5371, The World Bank Group,
Washington, DC, USA, 42 pp.
Bai, Z.G., D.L. Dent, L. Olsson, and M.E. Schaepman (2008). Proxy global assessment of land degradation. Soil Use and Management, 24(3), pp. 223-234.
Bailis, R., A. Cowan, V. Berrueta, and O. Masera (2009). Arresting the killer in
the kitchen: The promises and pitfalls of commercializing improved cookstoves.
World Development, 37(10), pp. 1694-1705.
Bain, R.L. (2007). World Biofuels Assessment, Worldwide Biomass Potential:
Technology Characterizations. NREL/MP-510-42467, National Renewable Energy
Laboratory, Golden, CO, USA, 140 pp.
Bain, R.L. (2011). Biopower Technologies in Renewable Electricity Alternative
Futures. National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, CO, USA, in press.
APEC (2003). The New Brunswick Forest Industry: The Potential Economic Impact
Bain, R.L., W.P. Amos, M. Downing, and R.L. Perlack (2003). Biopower Technical
Halifax, Canada.
309
Bioenergy
Chapter 2
Bairiganjan, S., R. Cheung, E.A. Delio, D. Fuente, S. Lall, and S. Singh (2010).
Berndes, G. (2008a). Future biomass energy supply: The consumptive water use
Power to the People: Investing in Clean Energy for the Base of the Pyramid in
India. Centre for Development Finance, c/o Institute for Financial Management
and Research, World Resources Institute, Washington, DC, USA, 74 pp.
235-245.
Berndes, G. (2008b). Water Demand for Global Bioenergy Production: Trends,
1479-1492.
Ball, B.C., I. Bingham, R.M. Rees, C.A. Watson, and A. Litterick (2005). The
Berndes, G., and J. Hansson (2007). Bioenergy expansion in the EU: Cost-effective
role of crop rotations in determining soil structure and crop growth conditions.
Balmford, A., R.E. Green, and J.P.W. Scharlemann (2005). Sparing land for nature:
Berndes, G., M. Hoogwijk, and R. van den Broek (2003). The contribution of
exploring the potential impact of changes in agricultural yield on the area needed
biomass in the future global energy supply: a review of 17 studies. Biomass and
Barker, W.T., C.L. Lura, and J.L. Richardson (2009). Soil organic matter and native
plant production on the Missouri Coteau. North Dakota Farm Research, 44(2),
pp. 14-21.
Barth, T., and M. Kleinert (2008). Motor fuels from biomass pyrolysis. Chemical
Engineering & Technology, 31(5), pp. 773-781.
tions in India and Sweden. Biofuels, Bioproducts and Biorening, 2(1), pp. 16-25.
Berndes, G., N. Bird, and A. Cowie (2010). Bioenergy, Land Use Change and
and Reliable Energy Source: A Review of Status and Prospects. IEA Bioenergy:
Bauen, A., F. Vuille, P. Watson, and K. Vad (2009b). The RSB GHG accounting
bioenergy.com/LibItem.aspx?id=6770.
Berrueta, V.M., R.D. Edwards, and O.R. Masera (2008). Energy performance of
at: rsb.ep.ch/les/content/sites/rsb2/les/Biofuels/Documents%20and%20
859-870.
Resources/09-10-08_E4Tech%20Report%20GHG%20Accounting_V4%20
1_08October09.pdf.
Baum, C., P. Leinweber, M. Weih, N. Lamersdorf, and I. Dimitriou (2009).
Effects of short rotation coppice with willows and poplar on soil ecology.
Landbauforschung vTI Agriculture and Forestry Research, 59(3), pp. 183-186.
Baum, S., M. Weih, G. Busch, F. Kroiher, and A. Bolte (2009). The impact of
Short Rotation Coppice plantations on phytodiversity. Landbauforschung vTI
Agriculture and Forestry Research, 59(3), pp. 163-170.
Beer, T., and T. Grant (2007). Life-cycle analysis of emissions from fuel ethanol and
blends in Australian heavy and light vehicles. Journal of Cleaner Production,
15(8-9), pp. 833-837.
Biran, A., J. Abbot, and R. Mace (2004). Families and rewood: A comparative
(2000). Life Cycle Emissions Analysis of Alternative Fuels for Heavy Vehicles.
analysis of the costs and benets of children in rewood collection and use in
two rural communities in sub-Saharan Africa. Human Ecology, 32(1), pp. 1-25.
Blanco-Canqui, H., and R. Lal (2009). Corn stover removal for expanded uses
reduces soil fertility and structural stability. Soil Science Society of America
Journal, 73(2), pp. 418-426.
Blanco-Canqui, H., R. Lal, W.M. Post, R.C. Izaurralde, and L.B. Owens (2006).
Rapid changes in soil carbon and structural properties due to stover removal
from no-till corn plots. Soil Science, 171(6), pp. 468-482.
BNDES/CGEE (2008). Sugarcane-Based Bioethanol: Energy for Sustainable
Development. Brazilian Development Bank and Center for Strategic Studies and
Management Science, Technology and Innovation, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 304 pp.
production for water use and supply. Global Environmental Change, 12(4), pp.
Bohlmann, G.M., and M.A. Cesar (2006). The Brazilian opportunity for biorener-
253-271.
310
Chapter 2
Boman, C., B. Forsberg, and T. Sandstrm (2006). Shedding new light on wood
smoke: a risk factor for respiratory health. European Respiratory Journal, 27(3),
pp. 446-447.
Bon, E.P.S., and M.A. Ferrara (2007). Bioethanol production via enzymatic hydrolysis of cellulosic biomass. In: FAO Symposium on the Role of Agricultural
Biotechnologies for Production of Bioenergy in Developing Countries, 12 October
2007, Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome, Italy, 11 pp. Available at: http://
www.fao.org/biotech/docs/bon.pdf.
Brjesson, P. (2000). Economic valuation of the environmental impact of logging
residue recovery and nutrient compensation. Biomass and Bioenergy, 19(3), pp.
137-152.
Brjesson, P. (2009). Good or bad bioethanol from a greenhouse gas perspective
What determines this? Applied Energy, 86(5), pp. 589-594.
Brjesson, P., and G. Berndes (2006). The prospects for willow plantations for
wastewater treatment in Sweden. Biomass and Bioenergy, 30(5), pp. 428-438.
Borowitzka, M.A., R. Osinga, J. Tramper, J.G. Burgess, and R.H. Wijffels (1999).
Commercial production of microalgae: ponds, tanks, and fermenters. Progress in
Industrial Microbiology, 35, pp. 313-321.
Bouwman, A.F., L.J.M. Boumans, and N.H. Batjes (2002). Emissions of N2O and
NO from fertilized elds: Summary of available measurement data. Global
Biogeochemical Cycles, 16(4), 13 pp.
Bradley, D., F. Diesenreiter, M. Wild, and E. Tromborg (2009). World Biofuel
Maritime Shipping Study. IEA Bioenergy Task 40, IEA, Paris, France, 38 pp.
Bradley, R.L., A. Olivier, N. Thevathasan, and J. Whalen (2008). Environmental
and economic benets of tree-based intercropping systems. Policy Options,
February, pp. 46-49. Available at: www.irpp.org/po/archive/feb08/bradley.pdf.
Bravo, R., O. Masera, T. Chalico, D. Pandey, E. Riegelhaupt, and A. Uhlig (2010).
Case-studies from Brazil, India and Mexico. Food and Agriculture Organization,
Rome, Italy, 80 pp.
Bridgwater, A., S. Czernik, J. Diebold, D. Meier, A. Oasmaa, C. Peacocke, J.
Piskorz, and D. Radlein (2003). Fast Pyrolysis of Biomass: A Handbook. CPL
Press, Berks, UK, 180 pp.
Bioenergy
Bush, D.R., and J.E. Leach (2007). Translational genomics for bioenergy production:
Theres room for more than one model. The Plant Cell, 19(10), pp. 2971-2973.
Calder, I., J. Amezaga, J. Bosch, B. Aylward, and L. Fuller (2004). Forest and water
policies: the need to reconcile public and science conceptions. Geologica acta,
2(2), pp. 157-166.
Campbell, J.E., D.B. Lobell, and C.B. Field (2009). Greater transportation energy and
GHG offsets from bioelectricity than ethanol. Science, 324(5930), pp. 1055-1057.
CARB (2009). Proposed Regulation to Implement the Low Carbon Fuel Standard.
California Environmental Protection Agency, Air Resources Board, Stationary
Source Division, Sacramento, California, 374 pp.
Carlsson-Kanyama, A., and H. Shanahan (2003). Food and life cycle energy inputs:
consequences of diet and ways to increase efciency. Ecological Economics,
44(2-3), pp. 293-307.
Carolan, J., S. Joshi, and B.E. Dale (2007). Technical and nancial feasibility analysis of distributed bioprocessing using regional biomass pre-processing centers.
Journal of Agricultural & Food Industrial Organization, 5(2) Article 10, 29 pp.
Available at: www.bepress.com/jao/vol5/iss2/art10.
Carpita, N.C., and M.C. McCann (2008). Maize and sorghum: genetic resources for
bioenergy grasses. Trends in Plant Science, 13(8), pp. 415-420.
Carslaw, K.S., O. Boucher, D.V. Spracklen, G.W. Mann, J.G.L. Rae, S. Woodward,
and M. Kulmala (2010). A review of natural aerosol interactions and feedbacks within the Earth system. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 10(4), pp.
1701-1737.
Cascone, R. (2008). Biobutanol: a replacement for bioethanol? In: Chemical
Engineering Progress Special Edition Biofuels, 104, pp. S4S9.
Cassman, K.G. (1999). Ecological intensication of cereal production systems: Yield
potential, soil quality, and precision agriculture. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 96(11), pp. 5952-5959.
Cassman, K.G., A. Dobermann, D.T. Walters, and H. Yang (2003). Meeting cereal
demand while protecting natural resources and improving environmental quality.
Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 28(1), pp. 315-358.
Castiglioni, P., D. Warner, R.J. Bensen, D.C. Anstrom, J. Harrison, M. Stoecker, M.
Bridgwater, A. Ed. (2007). Success & Visions for Bioenergy: Thermal processing
Bacterial RNA chaperones confer abiotic stress tolerance in plants and improved
Bruinsma, J. (2009). The resource outlook to 2050: by how much do land, water and
Chapotin, S.M., and J. Wolt (2007). Genetically modied crops for the bioeconomy:
crop yields need to increase by 2050? In: Expert Meeting on How to Feed the
World in 2050, 24-26 June 2009, Economic and Social Development Department,
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy, 33 pp.
Brunner, A.M., S.P. DiFazio, and A.T. Groover (2007). Forest genomics grows up
and branches out. New Phytologist, 174(4), pp. 710-713.
Buchholz, T., E. Rametsteiner, T. Volk, and V. Luzadis (2009). Multi Criteria
Analysis for bioenergy systems assessments. Energy Policy, 37(2), pp. 484-495.
675-688.
Chapple, C., M. Ladisch, and R. Meilan (2007). Loosening lignins grip on biofuel
production. Nature Biotechnology, 25(7), pp. 746-748.
Cheng, J.J., and G.R. Timilsina (2010). Advanced Biofuel Technologies: Status and
Barriers. Policy Research Working Paper 5411, The World Bank, Washington, DC,
USA, 47 pp.
Cherubini, F., and A.H. Strmman (2010). Life cycle assessment of bioenergy sys-
policy: How far will public support go? In: Handbook of Bioenergy Economics
tems: State of the art and future challenges. Bioresource Technology, 102(2), pp.
437-451.
311
Bioenergy
Chapter 2
Dale, B.E., M.S. Allen, M. Laser, and L.R. Lynd (2009). Protein feeds coproduc-
Chum, H.L., and R.P. Overend (2003). Biomass and bioenergy in the United States.
Vol. 15. D.Y. Goswami (ed.), American Solar Energy Society (ASES), Boulder, CO,
Cirne, D.G., A. Lehtomki, L. Bjrnsson, and L.L. Blackall (2007). Hydrolysis and
Dantas, D.N., F.F. Mauad, and A.R. Ometto (2009). Potential for generation of
de Fraiture, C., and G. Berndes (2009). Biofuels and water. In: Biofuels:
1489-1493.
Cortright, R.D., R.R. Davda, and J.A. Dumesic (2002). Hydrogen from catalytic
reforming of biomass-derived hydrocarbons in liquid water. Nature, 418(6901),
pp. 964-967.
Cremers, M.F.G. (2009). Deliverable 4, Technical Status of Biomass Co-ring.
50831165-Consulting 09-1654, IEA Bioenergy Task 32, Arnhem, The Netherlands,
43 pp.
Crutzen, P., A. Moiser, K. Smith, and W. Winiwarter (2007). N2O release from
P.N. Mascia, J. Scheffran, and J.M. Widholm (eds.), Springer-Verlag, Berlin and
Curtis, B. (2010). 2008-2009 Review U.S. Biofuels Industry: Mind the Gap. Concentric
Energies & Resource Group, Inc., Los Gatos, CA, USA, 52 pp.
Cusick, R.D., B. Bryan, D.S. Parker, M.D. Merrill, M. Mehanna, P.D. Kiely, G. Liu,
and B.E. Logan (2011). Performance of a pilot-scale continuous ow microbial
electrolysis cell fed winery wastewater. Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology,
89, pp. 2053-2063.
da Costa Sousa, L., S.P.S. Chundawat, V. Balan, and B.E. Dale (2009). Cradle-to-
312
Chapter 2
Bioenergy
DEFRA (2009). The 2007/08 Agricultural Price Spikes: Causes and Policy Implications.
Dornburg, V., J. Vandam, and A. Faaij (2007). Estimating GHG emission mitiga-
tion supply curves of large-scale biomass use on a country level. Biomass and
G.J. van den Born, M. van Oorschot, F. Smout, J. van Vliet, H. Aiking, M.
Transportation Studies, University of California at Davis, Davis, CA, USA, 205 pp.
Land-Use Change and Its Impacts over Time. Biomass and Bioenergy, 1-24,
Biodiversity, Energy Demand and Economy. WAB 500102 012, The Netherlands
doi:10.1016/j.biombioe.2010.11.028 (2010).
DeLuchi, M.A. (1993). Greenhouse-gas emissions from the use of new fuels for transportation and electricity. Transportation Research Part A, 27A(3), pp. 187-191.
DeMeo, E.A., and J.F. Galdo (1997). Renewable Energy Technology Characterizations.
3, pp. 258-267.
Drigo, R., G. Chirici, B. Lasserre, and M. Marchetti (2007). Analisi su base
geograca della domanda e dellofferta di combustibili legnosi in Italia.
(Geographical analysis of demand and supply of woody fuel in Italy). Litalia
Forestale e Montana, LXII(5/6), pp. 303-324.
Drigo, R., A. Anschau, N. Flores Marcos, and S. Carballo (2009). Anlisis del bal-
pp.
Dudley, T.L. (2000). Arundo donax. In: Invasive Plants of Californias Wildlands. C.
Bossard and J. Randall (eds.), University of California Press, Berkeley, CA, USA,
pp. 53-58.
DiTomaso, J.M., J.K. Reaser, C.P. Dionigi, O.C. Doering, E. Chilton, J.D. Schardt,
and J.N. Barney (2010). Biofuel vs. bioinvasion: seeding policy priorities.
pp.
Dupraz, C., and F. Liagre (2008). Agroforestry: Trees and Crops. La France Agricole,
Paris, France.
Dutta, A., N. Dowe, K.N. Ibsen, D.J. Schell, and A. Aden (2010). An economic comparison of different fermentation congurations to convert corn stover to ethanol
using Z. mobilis and Saccharomyces. Biotechnology Progress, 26(1), pp. 64-72.
Duvick, D.N., and K.G. Cassman (1999). Post-green revolution trends in yield
potential of temperate maize in the north-central United States. Crop Science,
39(6), pp. 1622-1630.
Dymond, C.C., B.D. Titus, G. Stinson, and W.A. Kurz (2010). Future quantities and
spatial distribution of harvesting residue and dead wood from natural disturbances in Canada. Forest Ecology and Management, 260(2), pp. 181-192.
E4tech (2009). Review of the Potential for Biofuels in Aviation. Committee on
Climate Change (CCC) of the U.K. Government, London, UK, 117 pp.
Dornburg, V., and A.P.C. Faaij (2001). Efciency and economy of wood-red bio-
E4tech (2010). Biomass Prices in the Heat and Electricity Sectors in the UK. Report
mass energy systems in relation to scale regarding heat and power generation
prepared for the UK Department of Energy and Climate Change. URN 10D/546,
Dornburg, V., and A.P.C. Faaij (2005). Cost and CO2-emission reduction of bio-
mass cascading: methodological aspects and case study of SRF poplar. Climatic
(2007). Food, bre and forest products. In: Climate Change 2007: Impacts,
Dornburg, V., and G. Marland (2008). Temporary storage of carbon in the biosphere
does have value for climate change mitigation: a response to the paper by Miko
Parry, O.F. Canziani, J.P. Palutikof, P.J. van der Linden, and C.E. Hanson (eds.),
Kirschbaum. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 13(3), pp.
211-217.
313
Bioenergy
Chapter 2
Eaton, J., N. McGoff, K. Byrne, P. Leahy, and G. Kiely (2008). Land cover change
Elobeid, A., and C. Hart (2007). Ethanol expansion in the food versus fuel debate:
and soil organic carbon stocks in the Republic of Ireland 18512000. Climatic
How will developing countries fare? Journal of Agricultural & Food Industrial
EPE (2010). 2010 Balanco Energetico Nacional - Ano Base 2009. CDU
Commission, Joint Research Centre, Institute for Energy, Ispra, Italy, 150 pp.
Edwards, R., J.F. Lariv, V. Mahieu, and P. Rouveirolles (2007). Well-To-Wheels
Analysis of Future Automotive Fuels and Power Trains in the European Context.
Version 2c, Joint Research Center, Brussels, Belgium, 88 pp.
Edwards, R., J.F. Lariv, V. Mahieu, and P. Rouveirolles (2008). Well-To-Wheels
analysis of future automotive fuels and power trains in the European context.
Version 3, Joint Research Center, Brussels, Belgium, 43 pp.
EEA (2006). How Much Bioenergy can Europe Produce without Harming the
Environment? European Environment Agency (EEA), Copenhagen, Denmark, 72
pp.
EEA (2007). Estimating the Environmentally Compatible Bio-energy Potential from
Agriculture. European Environment Agency (EEA), Copenhagen, Denmark.
and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the promotion of the use of energy from
EIA (2009). 2006 Energy Consumption by Manufacturers Data Table 7.2. U.S. Energy
Information Administration, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, DC, USA.
EIA (2010a). Annual Energy Review, DOE/EIA-0384(2009) updated August 2011,
Energy Information Administration, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, DC,
USA.
EIA (2010b). Updated Capital Costs for Electricity Generation Plants. U.S. Energy
Information Administration, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, DC, USA.
EISA, 2007. Energy Independence and Security Act, United States Congress, Public
Law 110-140. U.S. Government Printing Ofce, Washington, DC, USA.
European Commission (2010). Report from the commission to the council and the
European parliament on sustainability requirements for the use of solid and gaseous biomass sources in electricity, heating and cooling. SEC(2010) 65, European
Commission, Brussels, Belgium, 20 pp.
Evans, L.T. (2003). Agricultural intensication and sustainability. Outlook on
Agriculture, 32(2), pp. 83-89.
Evenson, R.E., and D. Gollin (2003). Assessing the impact of the Green Revolution,
1960 to 2000. Science, 300(5620), pp. 758-762.
Ezeji, T., N. Quereshi, and H.P. Blaschek (2007a). Butanol production from agri-
Eisenbies, M., E. Vance, W. Aust, and J. Seiler (2009). Intensive utilization of har-
for nutrient budgets and sustainable site productivity. BioEnergy Research, 2(3),
1460-1467.
pp. 90-98.
Elander, R., B. Dale, M. Holtzapple, M. Ladisch, Y. Lee, C. Mitchinson, J. Saddler,
and C. Wyman (2009). Summary of ndings from the Biomass Rening
Consortium for Applied Fundamentals and Innovation (CAFI): corn stover pretreatment. Cellulose, 16(4), pp. 649-659.
Elferink, E.V., and S. Nonhebel (2007). Variations in land requirements for meat
production. Journal of Cleaner Production, 15, pp. 1778-1786.
Elliott, D.C. (2008). Catalytic hydrothermal gasication of biomass. Biofuels,
Bioproducts, Biorening, 2, pp. 254-265.
314
Ezeji, T.C., N. Qureshi, and H.P. Blaschek (2007b). Bioproduction of butanol from
biomass: from genes to bioreactors. Current Opinion in Biotechnology, 18(3),
pp. 220-227.
Ezzati, M., A. Lopez, S. Vander Hoorn, A. Rodgers, and C.L.J. Murray (2002).
Comparative Risk Assessment Collaborative Group. Selected major risk factors
and global regional burden of disease. The Lancet, 360(9343), pp. 1347-1360.
Ezzati, M., R. Bailis, D.M. Kammen, T. Holloway, L. Price, L.A. Cifuentes, B.
Barnes, A. Chaurey, and K.N. Dhanapala (2004). Energy management and
global health. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 29(1), pp. 383-419.
Chapter 2
Bioenergy
Making. FAO Forestry Paper 63, FAO Forestry Department, Food and Agriculture
(GAEZ 2008). Version 2, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis and
Food and Agriculture Organization, Laxenburg, Austria and Rome, Italy, 43 pp.
Fischer, G., E. Hizsnyik, S. Prieler, M. Shah, and H. van Velthuizen (2009).
Biofuels and Food Security. The OPEC Fund for International Development (OFID)
Biotechnology: Meeting the Needs of the Poor? 0081-4539, Food and Agriculture
228 pp.
Fischer, G., S. Prieler, H. van Velthuizen, G. Berndes, A. Faaij, M. Londo, and
M. de Wit (2010). Biofuel production potentials in Europe: Sustainable use of
cultivated land and pastures, Part II: Land use scenarios. Biomass and Bioenergy,
34(2), pp. 173-187.
Fitzherbert, E.B., M.J. Struebig, A. Morel, F. Danielsen, C.A. Brhl, P.F. Donald,
and B. Phalan (2008). How will oil palm expansion affect biodiversity? Trends
in Ecology & Evolution, 23(10), pp. 538-545.
Fleming, J.S., S. Habibi, and H.L. MacLean (2006). Investigating the sustainability
FAO (2010a). What Woodfuels can do to Mitigate Climate Change. 0258-6150, Food
and Agricultural Organization (FAO), Rome, Italy, 98 pp.
FAO (2010b). Criteria and Indicators for Sustainable Biofuels. FAO Forestry Paper 160,
Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO), Rome, Italy, 102 pp.
FAOSTAT (2011). FAOSTAT. Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome, Italy. Available
at: faostat.fao.org/default.aspx.
FAPRI (2009). FAPRI 2009: U.S. and World Agricultural Outlook. Food and Agricultural
Policy Research Institute, Ames, Iowa, 411 pp.
Fargione, J., J. Hill, D. Tilman, S. Polasky, and P. Hawthorne (2008). Land clearing
and the biofuel carbon debt. Science, 319(5867), pp. 1235-1238.
Farley, K.A., E.G. Jobbagy, and R.B. Jackson (2005). Effects of afforestation
on water yield: a global synthesis with implications for policy. Global Change
Biology, 11(10), pp. 1565-1576.
Farrell, A.E., R.J. Plevin, B.T. Turner, A.D. Jones, M. OHare, and D.M. Kammen
(2006). Ethanol can contribute to energy and environmental goals. Science,
311(5760), pp. 506-508.
Fearnside, P.M. (2008). The roles and movements of actors in the deforestation of
Brazilian Amazonia. Ecology and Society, 13(23), pp. 23-55.
Feng, Z., K.J. Stadt, and V.J. Lieffers (2006). Linking juvenile white spruce density,
dispersion, stocking, and mortality to future yield. Canadian Journal of Forest
Research, 36, pp. 3173-3182.
Field, C.B., J.E. Campbell, and D.B. Lobell (2008). Biomass energy: the scale of the
potential resource. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 23(2), pp. 65-72.
Foley, J.A., R. DeFries, G.P. Asner, B. Carol, G. Bonan, S.R. Carpenter, F.S. Chapin,
M.T. Coe, G.C. Daily, H.K. Gibbs, J.H. Helkowski, T. Holloway, E.A. Howard,
C.J. Kucharik, C. Monfreda, J.A. Patz, I.C. Prentice, N. Ramankutty, and
P.K. Snyder (2005). Global consequences of land use. Science, 309(5734), pp.
570-574.
Folha (2005). Bagao da cana ser usado para fabricao de papel. Folha da Regio
- Araatuba. So Paulo, Brazil.
Folke, C., S. Carpenter, B. Walker, M. Scheffer, T. Elmqvist, L. Gunderson, and
C.S. Holling (2004). Regime shifts, resilence, and biodiversity in ecosystem
management. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics, 35(1), pp.
557-581.
Folke, C., F.S. Chapin, and P. Olsson (2009). Transformations in ecosystem stewardship. In: Principles of Ecosystem Stewardship: Resilience-Based Natural Resource
Management in a Changing World. F.S. Chapin III, G.P. Konas, and C. Folke (eds.),
Springer Verlag, New York, NY, USA, pp. 103-128.
Forman, J. (2003). The introduction of American plant species into Europe: issues and
consequences. In: Plant Invasions: Ecological Threats and Management Solutions.
L. Child, J. H. Brock, G. Brundu, K. Prach, P. Pysek, P. M. Wade, and M. Williamson
(eds.), Backhuys Publishers, Leiden, Netherlands, pp. 17-39.
Foust, T.D., A. Aden, A. Dutta, and S. Phillips (2009). Economic and environmental
comparison of a biochemical and a thermochemical lignocellulosic ethanol conversion process. Cellulose, 16, pp. 547-565.
Francis, G., R. Edinger, and K. Becker (2005). A concept for simultaneous waste-
Fingerman, K.R., M.H. Torn, M.S. OHare, and D.M. Kammen (2010). Accounting
315
Bioenergy
Chapter 2
Gan, J. (2007). Supply of biomass, bioenergy, and carbon mitigation: Method and
application. Energy Policy, 35(12), pp. 6003-6009.
Gan, J., and C. Smith (2010). Integrating biomass and carbon values with soil pro-
Fulton, L., T. Howes, and J. Hardy (2004). Biofuels for Transport - An International
ductivity loss in determining forest residue removals. Biofuels, 1(4), pp. 539-546.
GAIN (2009a). Biofuels Impact on Food Crops (China). CH9059, Global Agriculture
USA, 14 pp.
GAIN (2009b). Biofuels Impact on Food Crops (Indonesia). ID9017, Global Agriculture
7 pp.
GAIN (2009c). Biofuels Impact on Food Crops (Thailand). TH9047, Global Agriculture
Information Network, United States Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC,
USA, 11 pp.
GAIN (2010a). Biofuels Impact on Food Crops (Argentina). Global Agriculture
Information Network, United States Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC,
USA, 15 pp.
GAIN (2010b). Biofuels Impact on Food Crops (Brazil). BR10006, Global Agriculture
of energy wood from Northwest Russia. Working Papers of the Finnish Forest
USA, 52 pp.
GAIN (2010c). Biofuels Impact on Food Crops (Canada). CA0023, Global Agriculture
Information Network, United States Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC,
USA, 34 pp.
GAIN (2010d). Biofuels Impact on Food Crops (India). IN1058, Global Agriculture
Information Network, United States Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC,
USA, 11 pp.
GAIN (2010e). Biofuels Impact on Food Crops (Korea). KS1001, Global Agriculture
Information Network, United States Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC,
USA, 6 pp.
GAIN (2010f). Biofuels Impact on Food Crops (Malaysia). MY0008, Global Agriculture
Information Network, United States Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC,
USA, 9 pp.
GAIN (2010g). Biofuels Impact on Food Crops (Peru). Global Agriculture Information
Network, United States Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC, USA, 7 pp.
GAIN (2010h). Biofuels Impact on Food Crops (Philippines). Global Agriculture
Information Network, United States Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC,
USA, 21 pp.
GAIN (2010i). Biofuels Impact on Food Crops (Thailand). TH0098, Global Agriculture
Information Network, United States Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC,
USA, 15 pp.
GAIN (2010j). Biofuels Impact on Food Crops (Turkey). Global Agriculture Information
Network, United States Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC, USA, 6 pp.
Finland, 21 pp.
Gerbens-Leenes, P., and S. Nonhebel (2002). Consumption patterns and their
effects on land required for food. Ecological Economics, 42(1-2), pp. 185-199.
Gerbens-Leenes, W., A.Y. Hoekstra, and T.H. van der Meer (2009). The water
footprint of bioenergy. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,
106(25), pp. 10219-10223.
Gerber, N. (2008). Bioenergy and Rural Development in Developing Countries: A
Review of Existing Studies. Discussion Papers On Development Policy No. 122,
Center for Development Research (ZEF), Bonn, Germany, 58 pp.
Gerten, D., W. Lucht, S. Schaphoff, W. Cramer, T. Hickler, and W. Wagner (2005).
Hydrologic resilience of the terrestrial biosphere. Geophysical Research Letters,
32(21), L21408.
Gibbs, H.K., M. Johnston, J.A. Foley, T. Holloway, C. Monfreda, N. Ramankutty,
and D. Zaks (2008). Carbon payback times for crop-based biofuel expansion in
the tropics: the effects of changing yield and technology. Environmental Research
Letters, 3(3), 034001 (10 pp.).
Gielen, D., J. Newman, and M.K. Patel (2008). Reducing industrial energy use
and CO2 emissions: The role of materials science. In: MRS Bulletin Harnessing
Materials for Energy, 33, pp. 471-477.
Gisladottir, G., and M. Stocking (2005). Land degradation control and its global
environmental benets. Land Degradation & Development, 16(2), pp. 99-112.
Glass, R. (2006). Disease control priorities in developing countries. The New England
Journal of Medicine, 355(10), pp. 1074-1075.
Galdos, M.V., C.C. Cerri, R. Lal, M. Bernoux, B. Feigl, and C.E.P. Cerri (2010). Net
J.F. Muir, J. Pretty, S. Robinson, and S.M. Thomas (2010). Food security: The
Goldemberg, J., S.T. Coelho, P.M. Nastari, and L. O (2004). Ethanol learning curve
- the Brazilian experience. Biomass and Bioenergy, 26, pp. 301-304.
Gorissen, L., V. Buytaert, D. Cuypers, T. Dauwe, and L. Pelkmans (2010). Why the
(2003). Biomass from Crop Residues: Cost and Supply Estimates. Agricultural
debate about land use change should not only focus on biofuels. Environmental
Economic Report No. 819, Economic Research Service, United States Department
316
Chapter 2
Grann, H. (1997). The industrial symbiosis at Kalundborg, Denmark. In: The Industrial
Green Game. Implications for Environmental Design and Management. D.J.
Richards (ed.), National Academy Press, Washington, DC, USA, pp. 117-123.
Grassi, G., A. Nardi, and S. Vivarelli (2006). Low cost production of bioethanol from
sweet sorghum. In: Proceedings of the 14th European Biomass Conference, Paris,
France, 17-21 October 2005, pp. 91-95.
Green, R.E., S.J. Cornell, J.P.W. Scharlemann, and A. Balmford (2005). Farming
and the fate of wild nature. Science, 307(5709), pp. 550-555.
Gronowska, M., S. Joshi, and H.L. MacLean (2009). A review of U.S. and Canadian
biomass supply studies. BioResources, 4(1), pp. 341-369.
Grove, S. and J. Hanula (eds) (2006). Insect Biodiversity and Dead Wood:
Proceedings of the 22nd International Congress of Entomology. Report SRS93,
United States Department of Agriculture, Asheville, NC, USA, 109 pp.
Guille, T. (2007). Evaluation of the Potential Uses of Agricultural Residues for Energy
Purposes. Masters Thesis, Montpellier SupAgro, Paris, France.
Bioenergy
Headey, D., and S. Fan (2008). Anatomy of a crisis: the causes and consequences of
surging food prices. Agricultural Economics, 39, pp. 375-391.
Heggenstaller, A.H., R.P. Anex, M. Liebman, D.N. Sundberg, and L.R. Gibson
(2008). Productivity and nutrient dynamics in bioenergy double-cropping systems. Agronomy Journal, 100(6), pp. 1740-1748.
Heinim, J., and M. Junginger (2009). Production and trading of biomass for
energy An overview of the global status. Biomass and Bioenergy, 33(9), pp.
1310-1320.
Helynen, S., M. Flyktman, T. Mkinen, K. Sipil, and P. Vesterinen (2002). The
possibilities of bioenergy in reducing greenhouse gases. VTT Tiedotteita 2145,
VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland, Espoo, Finland, 110 pp.
Hemakanthi, D.A., and D.N. Heller (2010). Multiclass, multiresidue method for the
detection of antibiotic residues in distillers grains by liquid chromatography and
ion trap tandem mass spectrometry. Journal of Chromatography A, 1217(18),
pp. 3076-3084.
Gunderson, P. (2008). Biofuels and North American agriculture - Implications for the
pp. 219-224.
Gurbuz, E.I., E.L. Kunkes, and J.A. Dumesic (2010). Dual-bed catalyst system for
CC coupling of biomass-derived oxygenated hydrocarbons to fuel-grade compounds. Green Chemistry, 12(2), pp. 223-227.
Smart investments in sustainable food production: Revisiting mixed crop-livestock systems. Science, 327(5967), pp. 822-825.
Hertel, T.W., A.A. Golub, A.D. Jones, M. OHare, R.J. Plevin, and D.M. Kammen
(2010a). Effects of US maize ethanol on global land use and greenhouse gas
and G. Marland (2007). Using biomass for climate change mitigation and oil
223-231.
Hertel, T.W., W.E. Tyner, and D.K. Birur (2010b). Global impacts of biofuels. Energy
Journal, 31(1), pp. 35-100.
Hakala, K., M. Kontturi, and K. Pahkala (2009). Field biomass as global energy
Hamelinck, C.N., G.v. Hooijdonk, and A.P.C. Faaij (2005a). Ethanol from lignocel-
and D. Bonta (2009). Climate change and health costs of air emissions from
pp. 2077-2082.
Hamelinck, C.N., R.A.A. Suurs, and A.P.C. Faaij (2005b). International bioenergy
transport costs and energy balance. Biomass and Bioenergy, 29(2), pp. 114-134.
Hartley, M.J. (2002). Rationale and methods for conserving biodiversity in planta-
four bioenergy crops in England and Wales: Integrating spatial estimates of yield
and soil carbon balance in life cycle analyses. Global Change Biology Bioenergy,
1(4), pp. 267-281.
317
Bioenergy
Chapter 2
Huber, G.W., R.D. Cortright, and J.A. Dumesic (2004). Renewable alkanes by
and AMRET. The SEEP Network, Washington, DC, USA, 124 pp.
Himmel, M.E., Q. Xu, Y. Luo, S.-Y. Ding, R. Lamed, and E.A. Bayer (2010). Microbial
enzyme systems for biomass conversion: emerging paradigms. Biofuels, 1(2), pp.
323-341.
Hoefnagels, R., E. Smeets, and A. Faaij (2010). Greenhouse gas footprints of different biofuel production systems. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews,
4044-4098.
Huertas, D.A., G. Berndes, M. Holmen, and G. Sparovek (2010). Sustainability cer-
Hoekstra, A.Y., P.W. Gerbens-Leenes, and T.H. Van der Meer (2010). The water
Huo, H., M. Wang, C. Bloyd, and V. Putsche (2009). Life-cycle assessment of energy
American Water Works Association, IWA Publishing, London, UK, pp. 81-95.
Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development, Washington, DC, USA, 606
of the 32nd Arctic and Marine Oil Spill Program (AMOP) Technical Seminar on
pp.
upgrading pyrolysis oils into renewable fuels. Hydrocarbon Processing, 87(9), pp.
95-113.
Hoogwijk, M. (2004). On the Global and Regional Potential of Renewable Energy
Sources. PhD Thesis, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands, 257 pp.
Hoogwijk, M., A. Faaij, R. van den Broek, G. Berndes, D. Gielen, and W.
601 pp.
IEA (2007a). World Energy Outlook 2007. International Energy Agency, Paris, France,
600 pp.
IEA (2007b). Biomass for Power Generation and CHP. Energy Technology Essentials
578 pp.
IEA (2009). World Energy Outlook 2009. International Energy Agency, Paris, France,
CO2 Emissions from Drained Peatlands in SE Asia. Delft Hydraulics report Q3943,
WL Delft Hydraulics, Delft, The Netherlands, 41 pp.
696 pp.
IEA (2010a). World Energy Statistics 2010. International Energy Agency, Paris,
France.1
Howard, D., and S. Ziller (2008). Alien alert plants for biofuel may be invasive.
Bioenergy Business, July/August, pp. 14-16.
IEA (2010b). World Energy Outlook 2010. International Energy Agency, Paris, France,
736 pp.
IEA (2010c). Renewables Information 2010 with 2009 Data. International Energy
Hsu, D.D., D. Inman, G.A. Heath, E.J. Wolfrum, M.K. Mann, and A. Aden (2010).
Life cycle environmental impacts of selected U.S. ethanol production and use
pathways in 2022. Environmental Science & Technology, 44, pp. 5289-5297.
Hu, Q., M. Sommerfeld, E. Jarvis, M. Ghirardi, M. Posewitz, M. Seibert, and A.
Darzins (2008). Microalgal triacylglycerols as feedstocks for biofuel production:
perspectives and advances. The Plant Journal, 54, pp. 621-639.
318
Combination of four IEA publications: IEA energy balances and statistics databases
for most of the OECD countries for the years 1960 to 2008, with supply estimates
for 2009, and energy statistics and balances for more than 100 non-OECD countries
for the years 1971 to 2008.
Chapter 2
IEA Bioenergy (2009). Bioenergy: A Sustainable and Reliable Energy Source. Main
Report. IEA Bioenergy: ExCo:2009:06, 108 pp.
IEA Bioenergy (2010). Algae The Future for Bioenergy? Summary and conclusions
from the IEA Bioenergy ExCo64 Workshop. IEA Bioenergy: ExCo: 2010:02, 16 pp.
IEA Renewable Energy Division (2010). Sustainable Production of SecondGeneration Biofuels: Potential and Perspectives in Major Economies and
Developing Countries. International Energy Agency, Paris, France, 217 pp.
IFPRI (2008). High Food Prices: The What, Who, and How of Proposed Policy Actions.
International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, DC, USA, 12 pp.
Ileleji, K.E., S. Sokhansanj, and J.S. Cundiff (2010). Farm-gate to plant-gate delivery of lignocellulosic feedstocks from plant biomass for biofuel production. In:
Biofuels from Agricultural Wastes and Byproducts. H.P. Blaschek, T. Ezeji, and J.
Scheffran (eds.), Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford, UK, pp. 117-159.
Bioenergy
Jacobsen, N.B. (2006). Industrial symbiosis in Kalundborg, Denmark: A quantitative assessment of economic and environmental aspects. Journal of Industrial
Ecology, 10(1-2), pp. 239-255.
Jaggard, K.W., A. Qi, and E.S. Ober (2010). Possible changes to arable crop yields
by 2050. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences,
365(1554), pp. 2835-2851.
Jauhiainen, J., S. Limin, H. Silvennoinen, and H. Vasander (2008). Carbon dioxide
and methane uxes in drained tropical peat before and after hydrological restoration. Ecology, 89(12), pp. 3503-3514.
Jechura, J. (2005). Dry Mill Cost-By-Area: ASPEN Case Summary. National Renewable
Energy Laboratory, Golden, CO, USA, 2 pp.
Jeffries, T.W. (2006). Engineering yeasts for xylose metabolism. Current Opinion in
Biotechnology, 17(3), pp. 320-326.
IPCC (1996). Climate Change 1995: Impacts, Adaptation, and Mitigation: Scientic-
Technical Analyses. R.T. Watson, M.C. Zinyowera, and R.H. Moss (eds.), Cambridge
Jensen, E.S. (1996). Grain yield, symbiotic N2 xation and interspecic competition
for inorganic N in pea-barley intercrops. Plant and Soil, 182(1), pp. 25-38.
Jetter, J.J., and P. Kariher (2009). Solid-fuel household cook stoves: Characterization
of performance and emissions. Biomass and Bioenergy, 33(2), pp. 294-305.
IPCC (2000b). Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry. R.T. Watson, I.R. Noble,
Johansson, D., and C. Azar (2007). A scenario based analysis of land competition
B. Bolin, N.H. Ravindranath, D.J. Verardo and D.J. Dokken (eds.), Cambridge
between food and bioenergy production in the US. Climatic Change, 82(3), pp.
267-291.
IPCC (2005). Special Report on Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage. B. Metz, O.
of corn stover fermentation. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 68(1), pp.
139-147.
Palutikof, P.J. van der Linden, and C.E. Hanson (eds.),Cambridge University Press,
979 pp.
IPCC (2007b). Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report. Contributions of Working
Groups I, II and II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change. Core Writing Team, R.K. Pachauri, and A. Reisinger
(eds.), Cambridge University Press, 104 pp.
IPCC (2007c). Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of
Averyt, M. Tignor, and H.L. Miller (eds.), Cambridge University Press, 996 pp.
Jongschaap, R.E.E., W.J. Corr, P.S. Bindraban, and W.A. Brandenburg (2007).
Panel on Climate Change. B. Metz, O.R. Davidson, P.R. Bosch, R. Dave, and L.A.
BV, Wageningen, The Netherlands and Stichting Het Groene Woudt, Laren, The
IUCN (2009). Guidelines on Biofuels and Invasive Species. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland,
20 pp. (ISBN: 978-2-8317-1222-2).
Ivanic, M., and W. Martin (2008). Implications of higher global food prices for poverty in low-income countries. Agricultural Economics, 39, pp. 405-416.
Jackson, R.B., B.C. Murray, E.G. Jobbagy, R. Avissar, S.B. Roy, D.J. Barrett, C.W.
Netherlands, 66 pp.
Junginger, M. (2007). Lessons from (European) Bioenergy Policies; Results of
a Literature Review for IEA Bioenergy Task 40. Utrecht University, Utrecht,
Netherlands, 14 pp. Available at: www.bioenergytrade.org/downloads/jungingerlessonsfromeuropeanbioenergypolicies.pdf.
Cook, K.A. Farley, D.C. le Maitre, and B.A. McCarl (2005). Trading water for
Junginger, M., A. Faaij, R. van den Broek, A. Koopmans, and W. Hulscher (2001).
Fuel supply strategies for large-scale bio-energy projects in developing countries. Electricity generation from agricultural and forest residues in Northeastern
Thailand. Biomass and Bioenergy, 21(4), pp. 259-275.
319
Bioenergy
Chapter 2
Keeney, D., and T.W. Hertel (2008). Yield Response to Prices: Implications for Policy
learning and cost reductions in wood fuel supply chains in Sweden. Biomass and
Keeney, D., and T.W. Hertel (2009). The indirect land use impacts of United States
biofuel policies: The importance of acreage, yield, and bilateral trade responses.
Keeney, D., and M. Muller (2006). Water Use by Ethanol Plants: Potential Challenges.
Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, Minneapolis, MN, USA, 7 pp.
Keeney, R., and T. Hertel (2005). GTAP-AGR : A Framework for Assessing the
pp. 717-729.
Strategies to Overcome Them. IEA Bioenergy Task 40, 17 pp. Available at: www.
bioenergytrade.org/downloads/t40opportunitiesandbarriersforbioenergytrade.
pdf.
Jungk, N., and G. Reinhardt (2000). Landwirtschaftliche Referenzsysteme in
kologischen Bilanzierungen: eine Basis Analyse. Institute fr Energie- und
Umweltforschung, Heidelberg, Germany.
Kaliyan, N., R.V. Morey, and D.G. Tiffany (2010). Reducing life cycle greenhouse
gas emissions of corn ethanol by integrating biomass to produce heat and power
at ethanol plants. Biomass and Bioenergy, 35(3), pp. 1103-1113.
Kalnes, T.N., K.P. Koers, T. Marker, and D.R. Shonnard (2009). A technoeconomic
and environmental life cycle comparison of green diesel to biodiesel and syndiesel. Environmental Progress & Sustainable Energy, 28(1), pp. 111-120.
Kamm, B., P.R. Gruber, and M. Kamm (eds.) (2006). Bioreneries - Industrial
Processes and Products: Status Quo and Future Directions. Wiley-VCH, Weinheim,
UK, 949 pp.
Kinchin, C. and R.L. Bain (2009). Hydrogen Production from Biomass via Indirect
Policy. M. Khanna, J. Scheffran, and D. Zilberman (eds.), Springer New York, New
York, NY, USA, pp. 151-173.
Karekezi , S., and L. Majoro (2002). Improving modern energy services for Africas
urban poor. Energy Policy, 30(11-12), pp. 1015-1028.
Karekezi, S., and P. Turyareeba (1995). Woodstove dissemination in Eastern Africa
- a review. Energy for Sustainable Development, 1(6), pp. 12-19.
Karlen, D.L. (2010). Corn stover feedstock trials to support predictive modeling.
Global Change Biology Bioenergy, 2(5), pp. 235-247.
Karp, A., and I. Shield (2008). Bioenergy from plants and the sustainable yield challenge. New Phytologist, 179(1), pp. 15-32.
Kartha, S., P. Hazel, and R.K. Pachauri (2006). Environmental effects of bioenergy.
In: Bioenergy and Agriculture: Promises and Challenges. P.B.R. Hazell and R.K.
USA, 2 pp.
Kazi, F.K., J.A. Fortman, R.P. Anex, D.D. Hsu, A. Aden, A. Dutta, and G.
mate change. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 11(5),
for biochemical ethanol production from corn stover. Fuel, 89(Supplement 1),
pp. S20-S28.
Keasling, J.D., and H. Chou (2008). Metabolic engineering delivers next-generation
biofuels. Nature Biotechnology, 26(3), pp. 298-299.
320
pp. 1151-1164.
Kishore, V.V.N., P.M. Bhandari, and P. Gupta (2004). Biomass energy technologies
for rural infrastructure and village power opportunities and challenges in the
context of global climate change concerns. Energy Policy, 32(6), pp. 801-810.
Chapter 2
Bioenergy
Kumar, L.N.V., and S. Maithel (2007). Alternative feedstock for Bio-ethanol pro-
duction in India. In: Biofuels: Towards a Greener and Secure Energy Future. P.P.
Bhojvaid (ed.), The Energy Resources Institute Press (TERI Press), New Delhi,
Kline, K.L., and V.H. Dale (2008). Biofuels: Effects on land and re. Science,
321(5886), pp. 199-201.
Kline, K.L., G. Oladosu, A. Wolfe, R.D. Perlack, and M. McMahon (2007). Biofuel
pp. 2259-2268.
Kurz, W.A., C.C. Dymond, G. Stinson, G.J. Rampley, E.T. Neilson, A.L. Carroll,
T. Ebata, and L. Safranyik (2008b). Mountain pine beetle and forest carbon
feedback to climate change. Nature, 452(7190), pp. 987-990.
Kuuva, K., and L. Ruska (2009). Final Report of Feed-in Tariff Task Force. 59/2009,
Ministry of Employment and the Economy of Finland, Helsinki, Finland, 101 pp.
Laird, D.A. (2008). The charcoal vision: A win-win-win scenario for simultaneously
producing bioenergy, permanently sequestering carbon, while improving soil and
water quality. Agronomy Journal, 100(1), pp. 178-181.
Laird, D.A., R.C. Brown, J.E. Amonette, and J. Lehmann (2009). Review of the
pyrolysis platform for coproducing bio-oil and biochar. Biofuels, Bioproducts and
Biorening, 3(5), pp. 547-562.
Lal, R. (2003). Offsetting global CO2 emissions by restoration of degraded soils
and intensication of world agriculture and forestry. Land Degradation &
Development, 14(3), pp. 309-322.
Lal, R. (2004). Soil carbon sequestration impacts on global climate change and food
security. Science, 304(5677), pp. 1623-1627.
Lal, R. (2005). World crop residues production and implications of its use as a biofuel.
Environment International, 31(4), pp. 575-584.
Lal, R. (2008). Crop residues as soil amendments and feedstock for bioethanol production. Waste Management, 28(4), pp. 747-758.
Lal, R., and D. Pimentel (2007). Bio-fuels from crop residues. Soil & Tillage Research,
93(2), pp. 237-238.
Lamers , P., C. Hamelinck, M. Junginger, and A. Faaij (2011). International
Bioenergy, Trade - A Review of Past Developments in the Liquid Biofuels Market.
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 15(6), pp. 2655-2676.
from coal and biomass. In: Proceedings of the 25th International Pittsburgh Coal
J.A. Priess (2010). Indirect land-use changes can overcome carbon savings from
October 2008.
3388-3393.
Larson, E. (2006). A review of life-cycle analysis studies on liquid biofuel systems
and Potential of Renewable Energy and Energy Efciency for Global Energy
for the transport sector. Energy for Sustainable Development, 10(2), pp. 109-126.
Larson, E.D., G. Fiorese, G. Liu, R.H. Williams, T.G. Kreutz, and S. Consonni
336 pp.
Krey, V., and L. Clarke (2011). Role of renewable energy in climate change mitigation: A synthesis of recent scenarios. Climate Policy, in press.
Krich, K., D. Augenstein, J.P. Batmale, J. Benemann, B. Rutledge, and D. Salour
(2009). Co-production of synfuels and electricity from coal + biomass with zero
net carbon emissions: An Illinois case study. Energy Procedia, 1(1), pp. 4371-4378.
Larson, E.D., G. Fiorese, G. Liu, R.H. Williams, T.G. Kreutz, and S. Consonni (2010).
Co-production of decarbonized synfuels and electricity from coal + biomass with
(2005). Biomethane from Dairy: A Sourcebook for the Production and Use of
CO2 capture and storage: an Illinois case study. Energy & Environmental Science,
Dairymen with funding from USDA Rural Development, Washington, DC, USA,
Laser, M., E. Larson, B. Dale, M. Wang, N. Greene, and L.R. Lynd (2009).
Report.pdf.
Kumar, B.M. (2006). Agroforestry: the new old paradigm for Asian food security.
ics for mature biomass rening scenarios. Biofuels, Bioproducts and Biorening,
3(2), pp. 247-270.
321
Bioenergy
Chapter 2
Lattimore, B., C.T. Smith, B.D. Titus, I. Stupak, and G. Egnell (2009). Environmental
Lioubimtseva, E., and J.M. Adams (2004). Possible implications of increased car-
bon dioxide levels and climate change for desert ecosystems. Environmental
Lee, S.K., H. Chou, T.S. Ham, T.S. Lee, and J.D. Keasling (2008). Metabolic engi-
S. Prieler, H. van Velthuizen, and M. de Wit (2010). The REFUEL EU road map
Leemans, R., A. van Amstel, C. Battjes, E. Kreileman, and S. Toet, (1996). The
Lpez, R., and G.I. Galinato (2007). Should governments stop subsidies to private
goods? Evidence from rural Latin America. Journal of Public Economics, 91(5-6),
pp. 1071-1094.
Legros, G., I. Havet, N. Bruce, and S. Bonjour (2009). The Energy Access Situation
and Sub-Saharan Africa. United Nations Development Programme and the World
pp. 2188-2196.
on co-digestion of energy crops and crop residues with cow manure for meth-
Leng, R., C. Wang, C. Zhang, D. Dai, and G. Pu (2008). Life cycle inventory and
energy analysis of cassava-based fuel ethanol in China. Journal of Cleaner
Production, 16(3), pp. 374-384.
Considering time in LCA: Dynamic LCA and its application to global warming
Ciais, and J. Grace (2008). Old-growth forests as global carbon sinks. Nature,
Lywood, W., J. Pinkney, and S.A.M. Cockerill (2009a). Impact of protein con-
Lloyd, J.C. Lovett, J.-R. Makana, Y. Malhi, F.M. Mbago, H.J. Ndangalasi, J.
S.C. Thomas, R. Votere, and H. Woll (2009). Increasing carbon storage in intact
African tropical forests. Nature, 457(7232), pp. 1003-1006.
Li, W., R. Fu, and R.E. Dickinson (2006). Rainfall and its seasonality over the
Amazon in the 21st century as assessed by the coupled models for the IPCC AR4.
Journal of Geophysical Research, 111(D2), D02111.
Liebig, M., M. Schmer, K. Vogel, and R. Mitchell (2008). Soil carbon storage by
switchgrass grown for bioenergy. BioEnergy Research, 1(3), pp. 215-222.
Lindenmayer, D.B., and H.A. Nix (1993). Ecological principles for the design of
wildlife corridors. Conservation Biology, 7(3), pp. 627-631.
Lywood, W., J. Pinkney, and S.A.M. Cockerill (2009b). The relative contributions of
changes in yield and land area to increasing crop output. Global Change Biology
Bioenergy, 1(5), pp. 360-369.
Macedo, I.C., and J.E.A. Seabra (2008). Mitigation of GHG emissions using sugarcane bioethanol. In: Sugarcane Ethanol: Contributions to Climate Change
Mitigation and the Environment. P. Zuubier and J. van de Vooren (eds.),
Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen, The Netherlands, pp. 95-112.
Macedo, I.C., J.E.A. Seabra, and J.E.A.R. Silva (2008). Green house gases emissions
in the production and use of ethanol from sugarcane in Brazil: The 2005/2006
averages and a prediction for 2020. Biomass and Bioenergy, 32(7), pp. 582-595.
698-709.
322
Chapter 2
Bioenergy
Mayeld, C.A., C.D. Foster, C.T. Smith, J. Gan, and S. Fox (2007). Opportunities,
barriers, and strategies for forest bioenergy and bio-based product development
in the Southern United States. Biomass & Bioenergy, 31, pp. 631-637.
Maes, W., W. Achten, and B. Muys (2009). Use of inadequate data and methodolog-
McAloon, A., F. Taylor, W. Lee, K. Ibsen, and R. Wooley (2000). Determining the
43 pp.
McCoy, M. (2006). Glycerin surplus. Chemical & Engineering News, 83(4), pp. 21-22.
Mixing plant species in cropping systems: concepts, tools and models. A review.
McDonald, A., and L. Schrattenholzer (2001). Learning rates for energy technolo-
of biofuels for transport: Is re safety of concern? Fire and Materials, 33(1), pp.
Chains: Upgraded Biofuels from Russia and Canada to the Netherlands. VTT
1-19.
Research Notes 2312, VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland, Espoo, Finland,
65 pp.
McLeod, J.E., J.E. Nunez, and S.S. Rivera (2008). A discussion about how to model
biofuel plants for the risk optimization. In: Proceedings of the World Congress on
Engineering 2008, Vol. II, London, UK, 2-4 July 2008, pp. 1214-1219.
McWhorter, C. (1971). Introduction and spread of johnsongrass in the United States.
Weed Science, 19(5), pp. 496-500.
Melillo, J.M., J.M. Reilly, D.W. Kicklighter, A.C. Gurgel, T.W. Cronin, S. Paltsev,
B.S. Felzer, X. Wang, A.P. Sokolov, and C.A. Schlosser (2009). Indirect emissions from biofuels: How important? Science, 326(5958), pp. 1397-1399.
Menichetti, E., and M. Otto (2009). Energy balance and greenhouse gas emis-
Masera, O.R., and J. Navia (1997). Fuel switching or multiple cooking fuels:
Consequences and Interactions with Changing Land Use. R.W. Howarth and S.
Masera, O.R., B.D. Saatkamp, and D.M. Kammen (2000). From linear fuel switching to multiple cooking strategies: A critique and alternative to the energy ladder
model. World Development, 28(12), pp. 2083-2103.
Masera, O.R., R. Diaz, and V. Berrueta (2005). From cookstoves to cooking systems: the integrated program on sustainable household energy use in Mexico.
Energy for Sustainable Development, 9(1), pp. 25-36.
Masera, O., A. Ghilardi, R. Drigo, and M. Angel Trossero (2006). WISDOM: A GIS-
based supply demand mapping tool for woodfuel management. Biomass and
Matsuoka, S., J. Ferro, and P. Arruda (2009). The Brazilian experience of sugarcane
ethanol industry. In Vitro Cellular & Developmental Biology - Plant, 45(3), pp.
372-381.
Matthews, H.D., and K. Caldeira (2008). Stabilizing climate requires near-zero
emissions. Geophysical Research Letters, 35(4), L04705.
Matthews, H.D., N.P. Gillett, P.A. Stott, and K. Zickfeld (2009). The proportionality of global warming to cumulative carbon emissions. Nature, 459(7248), pp.
829-832.
Maus, J.A. (2007). Maximizacao da geracao eletrica a partir do bagaco e palha em
usinas de acucar e alcool. Revista Engenharia, 583, pp. 88-98.
pdf.
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005). Ecosystems and Human Well-being.
Island Press, Washington, DC, USA, 36 pp.
Mishra, V., X. Dai, K. Smith, and L. Mike (2004). Maternal exposure to biomass
smoke and reduced birth weight in Zimbabwe. Annals of Epidemiology, 14(10),
pp. 740-747.
Mitchell, D. (2008). A Note on Rising Food Prices. Policy Research Working Paper
4682, The World Bank Group, Washington, DC, USA, 22 pp.
Molden, D. (ed.) (2007). Water for Food, Water for Life: A Comprehensive Assessment
of Water Management in Agriculture. Earthscan, London, UK.
323
Bioenergy
Chapter 2
Molina Grima, E., E.H. Belarbi, F.G. Acien Fernandez, A. Robles Medina, and Y.
Nagatomi, Y., Y. Hiromi, Y. Kenji, I. Hiroshi, and Y. Koichi (2008). A system anal-
ysis of energy utilization and competing technology using oil palm residue in
Malaysia. Journal of Japan Society of Energy and Resources, 29(5), pp. 1-7.
Mllersten, K., J. Yan, and J. R. Moreira (2003). Potential market niches for bio-
Narayanan, D., Y. Zhang, and M.S. Mannan (2007). Engineering for Sustainable
mass energy with CO2 capture and storage Opportunities for energy supply
with negative CO2 emissions. Biomass and Bioenergy, 25(3), pp. 273-285.
Molofsky, J., S.L. Morrison, and C.J. Goodnight (1999). Genetic and environmen-
Nslund-Eriksson, L., and L. Gustavsson (2008). Biofuels from stumps and small
roundwood Costs and CO2 benets. Biomass and Bioenergy, 32(10), pp.
897-902.
Nassar, A., L. Harfurch, M.M.R. Moreira, L.C. Bachion, L.B. Antoniazzi, and G.
Sparovek (2009). Impacts on Land Use and GHG Emissions from a Shock on
Brazilian Sugarcane Ethanol Exports to the United States using the Brazilian
Moreira, J.R. (2006). Bioenergy and Agriculture, Promises and Challenges: Brazils
Experience with Bioenergy. International Food Policy Research Institute,
Washington, DC, USA, 2 pp.
Mosier, A., C. Kroeze, C. Nevison, O. Oenema, S. Seitzinger, and O. van Cleemput
Land Use Model (BLUM). EPA HQ OAR 2005 0161, Institute for International
Negotiations, Geneva, Switzerland, 32 pp.
Nassar, A., L.B. Antoniazzi, M.R. Moreira, L. Chiodi, and L. Harfurch (2010). An
Allocation Methodology to Assess GHG Emissions Associated with Land Use
(1998). Closing the global N2O budget: nitrous oxide emissions through the
NRC (2008). Water Implications of Biofuels Production in the United States. National
1385-1314.
Research Council, The National Academies Press, Washington, DC, USA, 88 pp.
NRC (2009a). Liquid Transportation Fuels from Coal and Biomass Technological
NRC (2009b). Americas Energy Future: Electricity from Renewable Resources: Status,
and ecological feasibility. In: 2nd World Conference and Technology Exhibition
on Biomass for Energy, Industry and Climate Protection, Rome, Italy, 10-14 May
rx04024.pdf.
Mukunda, H.S., S. Dasappa, P.J. Paul, N.K.S. Rajan, M. Yagnaraman, D.R. Kumar,
and M. Deogaonkar (2010). Gasier stoves - science, technology and eld
outreach. Current Science (Bangalore), 98(5), pp. 627-638.
35 pp.
Nehlsen, J., M. Mukherjee, and R.V. Porcelli (2007). Apply an integrated approach
to catalytic process design. Chemical Engineering Progress, 103(2), pp. 31-41.
Nelson, D.E., P.P. Repetti, T.R. Adams, R.A. Creelman, J. Wu, D.C. Warner, D.C.
R.W. Kumimoto, D.R. Maszle, R.D. Canales, K.A. Krolikowski, S.B. Dotson,
N. Gutterson, O.J. Ratcliffe, and J.E. Heard (2007). Plant nuclear factor Y
(NF-Y) B subunits confer drought tolerance and lead to improved corn yields on
Learned, Key Issues and Future Approach for Sustainable Village Development.
pp. 16450-16455.
Development, Antwerp, Brussels, 19-21 Nov 2001, 19 pp. Available at: www.
NETL (2008). Development of Baseline Data and Analysis of Life Cycle Greenhouse
inseda.org/Additional%20material/Lessons%20learnt%20NGOs%20Biogas%20
programme.pdf.
Crude Oils and the Impact on Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions. DOE/NETL-
changea simulation study with the EFISCEN model. Global Change Biology,
8(4), pp. 304-316.
Nabuurs, G.J., O. Masera, K. Andrasko, P. Benitez-Ponce, R. Boer, M. Dutschke,
E. Elsiddig, J. Ford-Robertson, P. Frumhoff, T. Karjalainen, O. Krankina,
Neumann, K., P.H. Verburg, E. Stehfest, and C. Mller (2010). The yield gap of
Sanchez, and X. Zhang (2007). Forestry. In: Climate Change 2007: Mitigation
316-326.
Nguyen, T.L.T., and S.H. Gheewala (2008). Life cycle assessment of fuel ethanol
Davidson, P.R. Bosch, R. Dave, and L.A. Meyer (eds.), Cambridge University Press,
pp. 541-584.
pp. 147-154.
324
Chapter 2
Bioenergy
Paustian, K., J.M. Antle, J. Sheehan, and A.P. Eldor (2006). Agricultures Role in
VA, USA.
and A. Walter (2007). Global Wood Pellets Markets and Industry: Policy Drivers,
Market Status and Raw Material Potential. IEA Bioenergy Task 40 Publication,
OHare, M., R.J. Plevin, J.I. Martin, A.D. Jones, A. Kendall, and E. Hopson (2009).
Proper accounting for time increases crop-based biofuels greenhouse gas decit
ing_tech__025919000_1434_30032010.pdf.
Phillips, S., A. Aden, J. Jechura, D. Dayton, and T. Eggeman (2007). Thermochemical
Ethanol via Indirect Gasication and Mixed Alcohol Synthesis of Lignocellulosic
Biomass. NREL/TP-510-41168, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden,
CO, USA, 132 pp.
Pimentel, D., S. McNair, J. Janecka, J. Wightman, C. Simmonds, C. OConnell, E.
Okada, M., C. Lanzatella, M.C. Saha, J. Bouton, R. Wu, and C.M. Tobias (2010).
Oliver, R.J., J.W. Finch, and G. Taylor (2009). Second generation bioenergy crops
Pingali, P.L., and P.W. Heisey (1999). Cereal Crop Productivity in Developing
and climate change: a review of the effects of elevated atmospheric CO2 and
Counties: Past Trends and Future Prospects. Working Paper 99-03, International
drought on water use and the implications for yield. Global Change Biology
Bioenergy, 1(2), pp. 97-114.
Oliverio, J.L. (2006). Technological evolution of the Brazilian sugar and alcohol sector: Dedinis contribution. International Sugar Journal, 108(1287), pp. 120-129.
Oliverio, J.L., and J.E. Ribeiro (2006). Cogeneration in Brazilian sugar and bioetha-
Greenhouse gas emissions from biofuels indirect land use change are uncertain
nol mills: Past, present and challenges. International Sugar Journal, 108(191),
but may be much greater than previously estimated. Environmental Science &
pp. 391-401.
Openshaw, K. (2000). A review of Jatropha curcas: an oil plant of unfullled promise. Biomass and Bioenergy, 19(1), pp. 1-15.
Pacca, S., and J.R. Moreira (2009). Historical carbon budget of the Brazilian ethanol
program. Energy Policy, 37(11), pp. 4863-4873.
than picking bioenergy winners, effective policy should let a lifecycle analysis
325
Bioenergy
Chapter 2
Rhodes, J.S., and D.W. Keith (2008). Biomass with capture: negative emissions
Eckert, W.J. Frederick, Jr., J.P. Hallett, D.J. Leak, C.L. Liotta, J.R. Mielenz, R.
Murphy, R. Templer, and T. Tschaplinski (2006). The path forward for biofuels
and biomaterials. Science, 311(5760), pp. 484-489.
Raghu, S., R.C. Anderson, C.C. Daehler, A.S. Davis, R.N. Wiedenmann, D.
Simberloff, and R.N. Mack (2006). Adding biofuels to the invasive species
re? Science, 313(5794), pp. 1742.
Rajagopal, D., G. Hochman, and D. Zilberman (2011). Indirect fuel use change
(IFUC) and the lifecycle environmental impact of biofuel policies. Energy Policy,
39(1), pp. 228-233.
Ramanathan, V., and G. Carmichael (2008). Global and regional climate changes
due to black carbon. Nature Geoscience, 1(4), pp. 221-227.
Randall, J.M. (1996). Plant Invaders: How Non-native Species Invade & Degrade
Natural Areas Invasive Plants. In: Weeds of the Global Garden. J. Marinelli and
J.M. Randall (eds.), Brooklyn Botanic Garden, Brooklyn, NY, pp. 7-12.
Ranius, T., and L. Fahrig (2006). Targets for maintenance of dead wood for biodiver-
Wander, W.J. Parton, P.R. Adler, J.N. Barney, R.M. Cruse, C.S. Duke, P.M.
M.W. Palmer, A. Sharpley, L. Wallace, K.C. Weathers, J.A. Wiens, and W.W.
Rauch, R. (2010). Indirect Gasication. In: IEA Bioenergy Joint Tasks 32 &33
www.ieabcc.nl/meetings/task32_Copenhagen/09%20TU%20Vienna.pdf.
pp. 826-837.
need for a paradigm shift. Agricultural Water Management, 97(4), pp. 543-550.
Regalbuto, J.R. (2009). Cellulosic biofuels got gasoline? Science, 325(5942), pp.
822-824.
Reijnders, L. (2008). Ethanol production from crop residues and soil organic carbon.
Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 52(4), pp. 653-658.
Romieu, I., H. Riojas-Rodriguez, A.T. Marron-Mares, A. Schilmann, R. PerezPadilla, and O. Masera (2009). Improved biomass stove intervention in
rural Mexico: Impact on the respiratory health of women. American Journal of
Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, 180(7), pp. 649-656.
Reinhardt, G. (1991). Biofuels: Energy and GHG balances: Methodology and Case
Rosegrant, M.W., T. Zhu, S. Msangi, and T. Sulser (2008). Biofuels: Long-run impli-
cations for food security and the environment. Review of Agricultural Economics,
Heidelberg, Germany.
Reinhardt, G., S. Gartner, A. Patyk, and N. Rettenmaier (2006). kobilanzen
zu BTL: Eine kologische Einschtzung. 2207104, ifeu Institut fr Energie- und
Umweltforschung Heidelberg gGmbH, Heidelberg, Germany, 108 pp.
REN21 (2007). Global Status Report. Renewable Energy Policy Network for the 21st
Century Secretariat, Paris, France, 54 pp.
REN21 (2009). Renewables Global Status Report: 2009 Update. Renewable Energy
Policy Network for the 21st Century Secretariat, Paris, France, 42 pp.
Rendleman, C.M., and H. Shapouri (2007). New Technologies in Ethanol
Production. Report Number 842, United States Department of Agriculture,
Washington, DC, USA.
RFA (2010). U.S. Cellulosic. Renewable Fuels Association, Washington, DC, USA.
Available at: www.ethanolrfa.org/pages/cellulosic-ethanol
RFA (2011). Biorenery Plant Locations. Renewable Fuels Association, Washington,
DC, USA. Available at: www.ethanolrfa.org/bio-renery-locations/.
Rentizelas, A.A., A.J. Tolis, and I.P. Tatsiopoulos (2009). Logistics issues of biomass: The storage problem and the multi-biomass supply chain. Renewable and
Sustainable Energy Reviews, 13(4), pp. 887-894.
Reynolds, M.P., and N.E. Borlaug (2006). Applying innovations and new technologies for international collaborative wheat improvement. The Journal of
Agricultural Science, 144(02), pp. 95-95.
326
Chapter 2
Bioenergy
Saarinen, V.-M. (2006). The effects of slash and stump removal on productivity
Poff, M.T. Sykes, B.H. Walker, M. Walker, D.H. Wall, F.S. Chapin, J.J. Armesto,
Seabra, J.E.A., L. Tao, H.L. Chum, and I.C. Macedo (2010). A techno-economic
R.B. Jackson (2000). Global biodiversity scenarios for the year 2100. Science,
ery options with sugarcane mill clustering. Biomass and Bioenergy, 34(8), pp.
1065-1078.
S. Tokgoz, D. Hayes, and T.H. Yu (2008). Use of U.S. croplands for biofuels
5270-5295.
Sannigrahi, P., A.J. Ragauskas, and G.A. Tuskan (2010). Poplar as a feedstock
for biofuels: A review of compositional characteristics. Biofuels, Bioproducts and
Biorening, 4(2), pp. 209-226.
Sawin, J.L. (2004). National Policy Instruments: Policy Lessons for the Advancement
International by the German Biomass Research Center, Leipzig, Germany, 137 pp.
and Diffusion of Renewable Energy Technologies around the World. World Watch
Semere, T., and F. Slater (2007). Ground ora, small mammal and bird species
Shapouri, H., and M. Salassi (2006). The Economic Feasibility of Ethanol Production
USA, 69 pp.
Sharma, M.M. (2002). Strategies of conducting reactions on a small scale. Selectivity
engineering and process intensication. Pure and Applied Chemistry, 74(12), pp.
2265-2269.
Sheehan, J., T. Dunahay, J. Benemann, G. Roessler, and C. Weissman (1998a). A
Look Back at the U.S. Department of Energys Aquatic Species Program: Biodiesel
(2005). Can the EU emission trading scheme support CDM forestry. Climate
prices and food security: A longer-term perspective. In: Energy Security in Europe:
Life Cycle Inventory of Biodiesel and Petroleum Diesel for Use in an Urban Bus.
24-25 September 2007, Lund University, Lund, Sweden, pp. 133-170. Available
314 pp.
at: www.cfe.lu.se/upload/LUPDF/CentrumforEuropaforskning/Confpap2.pdf.
Schneider, U.E., B. A. McCarl, and E. Schmid (2007). Agricultural sector analysis on
greenhouse gas mitigation in US agriculture and forestry. Agricultural Systems,
94 (2), pp. 128-140
pp. 627-635.
Sikkema, R., M. Junginger, W. Pichler, S. Hayes, and A.P.C. Faaij (2010). The inter-
national logistics of wood pellets for heating and power production in Europe:
Schwaiger, H.P., and D.N. Bird (2010). Integration of albedo effects caused by land
use change into the climate balance: Should we still account in greenhouse gas
Sweden and the Netherlands. Biofuels, Bioproducts and Biorening, 4(2), pp.
132-153.
327
Bioenergy
Chapter 2
(2011). The European wood pellet markets: current status and prospects for
Simpson, T.W., A.N. Sharpley, R.W. Howarth, H.W. Paerl, and K.R. Mankin
(2008). The new gold rush: Fueling ethanol production while protecting water
Simpson, T.W., L.A. Martinelli, A.N. Sharpley, R.W. Howarth, and S. Bringezu
(2009). Impact of ethanol production on nutrient cycles and water quality: the
Spatari, S., and H.L. MacLean (2010). Characterizing model uncertainties in the life
United States and Brazil as case studies. In: Biofuels: Environmental Consequences
and Interactions with Changing Land Use. R.W. Howarth and S. Bringezu (eds.),
Spranger, T., J.P. Hettelingh, J. Slootweg, and M. Posch (2008). Modelling and
Sims, R. (ed.) (2007). Renewables for Heating and Cooling. An Untapped Potential.
Sims, R.E.H., W. Mabee, J.N. Saddler, and M. Taylor (2010). An overview of second
Stehfest, E., L. Bouwman, D.P. Vuuren, M.G.J. Elzen, B. Eickhout, and P. Kabat
(2009). Climate benets of changing diet. Climatic Change, 95(1-2), pp. 83-102.
Skjoldborg, B. (2010). Optimization of I/S Skive District Heating Plant. In: IEA
Still, D., M. Pinnell, D. Ogle, and B. van Appel (2003). Insulative ceramics for
Smith, K.R., and E. Haigler (2008). Co-benets of climate mitigation and health
National Society for Clean Air and Environmental Protection, London, UK, 66 pp.
Swanson, R.M., A. Platon, J.A. Satrio, and R.C. Brown (2010). Techno-
of Liquid Biofuels from Evolving Technologies. VTT Research Notes 2482, VTT
asp?RecordID=2007.
Tao, L., and A. Aden (2009). The economics of current and future biofuels. In Vitro
Cellular & Developmental Biology - Plant, 45(3), pp. 199-217.
Thorn, J., J. Brisman, and K. Toren (2001). Adult-onset asthma is associated with
self-reported mold or environmental tobacco smoke exposures in the home.
Allergy, 56(4), pp. 287-292.
328
Chapter 2
Bioenergy
Update to the Billion-Ton Annual Supply. R.D. Perlack and B.J. Stokes (Leads),
pp. 890-903.
Tilman, D., K.G. Cassman, P.A. Matson, R. Naylor, and S. Polasky (2002).
Agricultural sustainability and intensive production practices. Nature, 418(6898),
pp. 671-677.
Tilman, D., J. Hill, and C. Lehman (2006a). Carbon-negative biofuels from low-input
high-diversity grassland biomass. Science, 314(5805), pp. 1598-1600.
Tilman, D., P.B. Reich, and J.M.H. Knops (2006b). Biodiversity and ecosystem stability in a decade-long grassland experiment. Nature, 441(7093), pp. 629-632.
Titus, B.D., D.G. Maynard, C.C. Dymond, G. Stinson, and W.A. Kurz (2009). Wood
energy: Protect local ecosystems. Science, 324(5933), pp. 1389-1390.
van Dam, J., M. Junginger, A. Faaij, I. Jrgens, G. Best, and U. Fritsche (2008).
K. Barry, M.C. McCann, N.C. Carpita, and G.R. Lazo (2008). Comparative
Tonkovich, A.Y., S. Perry, Y. Wang, D. Qiu, T. LaPlante, and W.A. Rogers (2004).
Part A: Potential and economic feasibility for national and international markets.
Towle, D.W., and J.S. Pearse (1973). Production of the giant kelp, Macrocystis, esti-
van Dam, J., A.P.C. Faaij, J. Hilbert, H. Petruzzi, and W.C. Turkenburg (2009b).
Tyner, W., F. Taheripour, Q. Zhuang, D. Birur, and U. Baldos (2010). Land Use
van Dam, J., M. Junginger, and A.P.C. Faaij (2010). From the global efforts on certi-
Changes and Consequent CO2 Emissions due to U.S. Corn Ethanol Production:
use planning. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 14(9), pp. 2445-2472.
van den Wall Bake, J.D. (2006). Cane as Key in Brazilian Ethanol Industry. Masters
Thesis, Copernicus Institute, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands, 83 pp.
van den Wall Bake, J.D., M. Junginger, A. Faaij, T. Poot, and A. Walter (2009).
Explaining the experience curve: Cost reductions of Brazilian ethanol from sugarcane. Biomass and Bioenergy, 33(4), pp. 644-658.
van der Horst, D., and J. Evans (2010). Carbon claims and energy landscapes:
Exploring the political ecology of biomass. Landscape Research, 35(2), pp.
173-193.
van Iersel, S., L. Gamba, A. Rossi, S. Alberici, B. Dehue, J. van de Staaij, and
van Minnen, J.G., B.J. Strengers, B. Eickhout, R.J. Swart, and R. Leemans (2008).
tory/price_history.htm.
329
Bioenergy
Chapter 2
van Vliet, O.P.R., A.P.C. Faaij, and W.C. Turkenburg (2009). Fischer-Tropsch diesel
van Vuuren, D., M. den Elzen, P. Lucas, B. Eickhout, B. Strengers, B. van Ruijven,
Wang, M., C. Saricks, and D. Santini (1999). Effects of fuel ethanol use on fuel-
Wang, M., M. Wu, and H. Huo (2007). Life-cycle energy and greenhouse gas emission impacts of different corn ethanol plant types. Environmental Research
Letters, 2(2), 024001.
Wang, M., H. Huo, and S. Arora (2010). Methods of dealing with co-products of
biofuels in life-cycle 3 analysis and consequent results within the U.S. context.
Energy Policy, in press, doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2010.03.052.
Wang, M.Q., J. Han, Z. Haq, W.E. Tyner, M. Wu, and A. Elgowainy (2011). Energy
and greenhouse gas emission effects of corn and cellulosic ethanol with technology improvements and land use changes. Biomass and Bioenergy, 35(5), pp.
1885-1896.
Venkataraman, C., A.D. Sagar, G. Habib, N. Lam, and K.R. Smith (2010). The
Warwick, S.I., H.J. Beckie, and L.M. Hall (2009). Gene ow, invasiveness, and eco-
logical impact of genetically modied crops. Annals of the New York Academy of
WBGU (2009). World in Transition Future Bioenergy and Sustainable Land Use.
German Advisory Council on Global Change (WBGU), Berlin, Germany, 393 pp.
(ISBN 978-1-84407-841-7).
Weyer, K., D. Bush, A. Darzins, and B. Willson (2009). Theoretical maximum algal
oil production. BioEnergy Research, 3(2), pp. 204-213.
used frying oil on light and heavy duty vehicles. In: 2005 SAE Brasil Fuels &
Wicke, B., V. Dornburg, M. Junginger, and A. Faaij (2008). Different palm oil
Lubricants Meeting. SAE International, Rio De Janeiro, Brasil, May 2005, 7 pp.,
production systems for energy purposes and their greenhouse gas implications.
doi:10.4271/2005-01-2201.
logical community in biogas systems and evaluation of microbial risks from gas
von Blottnitz, H., and M.A. Curran (2007). A review of assessments conducted
Wilhelm, W.W., J.M.F. Johnson, J.L. Hateld, W.B. Voorhees, and D.R. Linden
(2004). Crop and soil productivity response to corn residue removal: A literature
Wilkie, A.C., K.J. Riedesel, and J.M. Owens (2000). Stillage characterization and
Air Pollution on the Health of the Poor - Implications for Policy Action and
330
Chapter 2
Bioenergy
Wirsenius, S., C. Azar, and G. Berndes (2010). How much land is needed for global
WWI (2006). Biofuels for Transportation Global Potential and Implications for
Sustainable Agriculture and Energy in the 21st Century. World Watch Institute,
centrations for land use and energy. Science, 324(5931), pp. 1183-1186.
Wiskerke, W.T., V. Dornburg, C.D.K. Rubanza, R.E. Malimbwi, and A.P.C. Faaij
pp.
(2010). Cost/benet analysis of biomass energy supply options for rural small-
Wyman, C.E., B.E. Dale, R.T. Elander, M. Holtzapple, M.R. Ladisch, and Y.Y. Lee
Wolf, J., P.S. Bindraban, J.C. Luijten, and L.M. Vleeshouwers (2003). Exploratory
Yamashita, K., and L. Barreto (2004). Biomass Gasication for the Co-production
study on the land area required for global food supply and the potential global
Wooley, R., M. Ruth, D. Glassner, and J. Sheehan (1999). Process design and cost-
Yanowitz, J., and R.L. McCormick (2009). Effect of biodiesel blends on North
ing of bioethanol technology: A tool for determining the status and direction of
Woolf, D., J.E. Amonette, F.A. Street-Perrott, J. Lehmann, and S. Joseph (2010).
World Bank (2009). The World Bank - Global Economic Prospects - Commodities at
Yeh, S., S.M. Jordaan, A.R. Brandt, M.R. Turetsky, S. Spatari, and D.W. Keith
the Crossroad. The World Bank, The International Bank for Reconstruction and
(2010). Land use greenhouse gas emissions from conventional oil production
and oil sands. Environmental Science & Technology, 44(22), pp. 8766-8772.
Yokoyama, S., and Y. Matsumura (eds.) (2008). The Asian Biomass Handbook:
Lessons from Household Energy and Sanitation Programs. The World Bank, The
A Guide for Biomass Production and Utilization. The Japan Institute of Energy,
Wu, M., M. Mintz, M. Wang, and S. Arora (2009). Water consumption in the pro-
pp. 981-997.
331
332
Chapter 3
Lead Authors:
Luisa F. Cabeza (Spain), K.G. Terry Hollands (Canada), Arnulf Jger-Waldau (Italy/Germany),
Michio Kondo (Japan), Charles Konseibo (Burkina Faso), Valentin Meleshko (Russia),
Wesley Stein (Australia), Yutaka Tamaura (Japan), Honghua Xu (China),
Roberto Zilles (Brazil)
Contributing Authors:
Armin Aberle (Singapore/Germany), Andreas Athienitis (Canada), Shannon Cowlin (USA),
Don Gwinner (USA), Garvin Heath (USA), Thomas Huld (Italy/Denmark), Ted James (USA),
Lawrence Kazmerski (USA), Margaret Mann (USA), Koji Matsubara (Japan),
Anton Meier (Switzerland), Arun Mujumdar (Singapore), Takashi Oozeki (Japan),
Oumar Sanogo (Burkina Faso), Matheos Santamouris (Greece), Michael Sterner (Germany),
Paul Weyers (Netherlands)
Review Editors:
Eduardo Calvo (Peru) and Jrgen Schmid (Germany)
333
Chapter 3
Table of Contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 340
3.2
3.2.1
3.2.2
3.2.3
3.2.4
3.3
3.3.1
3.3.2
3.3.2.1
3.3.2.2
3.3.2.3
3.3.2.4
3.3.3
3.3.3.1
3.3.3.2
3.3.3.3
3.3.3.4
3.3.3.5
3.3.4
3.3.5
3.4
3.4.1
3.4.2
3.4.3
334
.......................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................................
342
342
358
Chapter 3
3.5
3.5.1
3.5.2
3.5.3
3.5.4
3.6
3.6.1
3.6.2
Social impacts
3.7
3.7.1
3.7.2
3.7.3
3.7.4
3.7.5
3.7.6
3.8
Cost trends
3.8.1
3.8.2
3.8.3
3.8.4
3.8.5
....................................................................
..........................................................................................................................................
..............................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................................
368
372
375
377
..............................................................................................................
378
..........................................................................................................................................
378
..............................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................................
380
385
335
Chapter 3
3.9
3.9.1
3.9.2
3.9.3
.............................................................................
386
..............................................................................................................
390
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 391
336
Chapter 3
Executive Summary
Solar energy is abundant and offers signicant potential for near-term (2020) and long-term (2050) climate change mitigation. There are a wide variety of solar technologies of varying maturities that can, in most regions of the world, contribute to
a suite of energy services. Even though solar energy generation still only represents a small fraction of total energy consumption, markets for solar technologies are growing rapidly. Much of the desirability of solar technology is its inherently
smaller environmental burden and the opportunity it offers for positive social impacts. The cost of solar technologies has
been reduced signicantly over the past 30 years and technical advances and supportive public policies continue to offer
the potential for additional cost reductions. Potential deployment scenarios range widelyfrom a marginal role of direct
solar energy in 2050 to one of the major sources of energy supply. The actual deployment achieved will depend on the
degree of continued innovation, cost reductions and supportive public policies.
Solar energy is the most abundant of all energy resources. Indeed, the rate at which solar energy is intercepted by
the Earth is about 10,000 times greater than the rate at which humankind consumes energy. Although not all countries
are equally endowed with solar energy, a signicant contribution to the energy mix from direct solar energy is possible
for almost every country. Currently, there is no evidence indicating a substantial impact of climate change on regional
solar resources.
Solar energy conversion consists of a large family of different technologies capable of meeting a variety of
energy service needs. Solar technologies can deliver heat, cooling, natural lighting, electricity, and fuels for a host of
applications. Conversion of solar energy to heat (i.e., thermal conversion) is comparatively straightforward, because any
material object placed in the sun will absorb thermal energy. However, maximizing that absorbed energy and stopping
it from escaping to the surroundings can take specialized techniques and devices such as evacuated spaces, optical
coatings and mirrors. Which technique is used depends on the application and temperature at which the heat is to be
delivered. This can range from 25C (e.g., for swimming pool heating) to 1,000C (e.g., for dish/Stirling concentrating
solar power), and even up to 3,000C in solar furnaces.
Passive solar heating is a technique for maintaining comfortable conditions in buildings by exploiting the solar irradiance incident on the buildings through the use of glazing (windows, sun spaces, conservatories) and other transparent
materials and managing heat gain and loss in the structure without the dominant use of pumps or fans. Solar cooling for
buildings can also be achieved, for example, by using solar-derived heat to drive thermodynamic refrigeration absorption
or adsorption cycles. Solar energy for lighting actually requires no conversion since solar lighting occurs naturally in buildings through windows. However, maximizing the effect requires specialized engineering and architectural design.
Generation of electricity can be achieved in two ways. In the rst, solar energy is converted directly into electricity in a
device called a photovoltaic (PV) cell. In the second, solar thermal energy is used in a concentrating solar power (CSP)
plant to produce high-temperature heat, which is then converted to electricity via a heat engine and generator. Both
approaches are currently in use. Furthermore, solar driven systems can deliver process heat and cooling, and other solar
technologies are being developed that will deliver energy carriers such as hydrogen or hydrocarbon fuelsknown as
solar fuels.
The various solar technologies have differing maturities, and their applicability depends on local conditions
and government policies to support their adoption. Some technologies are already competitive with market prices
in certain locations, and in general, the overall viability of solar technologies is improving. Solar thermal can be used for
a wide variety of applications, such as for domestic hot water, comfort heating of buildings, and industrial process heat.
This is signicant, as many countries spend up to one-third of their annual energy usage for heat. Service hot water
heating for domestic and commercial buildings is now a mature technology growing at a rate of about 16% per year
and employed in most countries of the world. The world installed capacity of solar thermal systems at the end of 2009
has been estimated to be 180 GWth.
337
Chapter 3
Passive solar and daylighting are conserving energy in buildings at a highly signicant rate, but the actual amount is
difcult to quantify. Well-designed passive solar systems decrease the need for additional comfort heating requirements
by about 15% for existing buildings and about 40% for new buildings.
The generation of electricity using PV panels is also a worldwide phenomenon. Assisted by supportive pricing policies,
the compound annual growth rate for PV production from 2003 to 2009 was more than 50%making it one of the
fastest-growing energy technologies in percentage terms. As of the end of 2009, the installed capacity for PV power
production was about 22 GW. Estimates for 2010 give a consensus value of about 13 GW of newly added capacity.
Most of those installations are roof-mounted and grid-connected. The production of electricity from CSP installations has
seen a large increase in planned capacity in the last few years, with several countries beginning to experience signicant
new installations.
Integration of solar energy into broader energy systems involves both challenges and opportunities. Energy
provided by PV panels and solar domestic water heaters can be especially valuable because the energy production
often occurs at times of peak loads on the grid, as in cases where there is a large summer daytime load associated with
air conditioning. PV and solar domestic water heaters also t well with the needs of many countries because they are
modular, quick to install, and can sometimes delay the need for costly construction or expansion of the transmission grid.
At the same time, solar energy typically has a variable production prole with some degree of unpredictability that must
be managed, and central-station solar electricity plants may require new transmission infrastructure. Because CSP can be
readily coupled with thermal storage, the production prole can be controlled to limit production variability and enable
dispatch capability.
Solar technologies offer opportunities for positive social impacts, and their environmental burden is small.
Solar technologies have low lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions, and quantication of external costs has yielded favourable values compared to fossil fuel-based energy. Potential areas of concern include recycling and use of toxic materials
in manufacturing for PV, water usage for CSP, and energy payback and land requirements for both. An important social
benet of solar technologies is their potential to improve the health and livelihood opportunities for many of the worlds
poorest populationsaddressing some of the gap in availability of modern energy services for the roughly 1.4 billion
people who do not have access to electricity and the 2.7 billion people who rely on traditional biomass for home cooking
and heating needs. On the downside, some solar projects have faced public concerns regarding land requirements for
centralized CSP and PV plants, perceptions regarding visual impacts, and for CSP, cooling water requirements. Land use
impacts can be minimized by selecting areas with low population density and low environmental sensitivity. Similarly,
water usage for CSP could be signicantly reduced by using dry cooling approaches. Studies to date suggest that none of
these issues presents a barrier against the widespread use of solar technologies.
Over the last 30 years, solar technologies have seen very substantial cost reductions. The current levelized costs
of energy (electricity and heat) from solar technologies vary widely depending on the upfront technology cost, available
solar irradiation as well as the applied discount rates. The levelized costs for solar thermal energy at a 7% discount rate
range between less than USD2005 10 and slightly more than USD2005 20/GJ for solar hot water generation with a high
degree of utilization in China to more than USD2005 130/GJ for space heating applications in Organisation for Economic
Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries with relative low irradiation levels of 800 kWh/m2/yr. Electricity generation costs for utility-scale PV in regions of high solar irradiance in Europe and the USA are in the range of approximately
15 to 40 US cents2005 /kWh at a 7% discount rate, but may be lower or higher depending on the available resource and
on other framework conditions. Current cost data are limited for CSP and are highly dependent on other system factors
such as storage. In 2009, the levelized costs of energy for large solar troughs with six hours of thermal storage ranged
from below 20 to approximately 30 US cents2005 /kWh. Technological improvements and cost reductions are expected, but
the learning curves and subsequent cost reductions of solar technologies depend on production volume, research and
338
Chapter 3
development (R&D), and other factors such as access to capital, and not on the mere passage of time. Private capital is
owing into all the technologies, but government support and stable political conditions can lessen the risk of private
investment and help ensure faster deployment.
Potential deployment scenarios for solar energy range widelyfrom a marginal role of direct solar energy in
2050 to one of the major sources of global energy supply. Although it is true that direct solar energy provides only
a very small fraction of global energy supply today, it has the largest technical potential of all energy sources. In concert
with technical improvements and resulting cost reductions, it could see dramatically expanded use in the decades to
come. Achieving continued cost reductions is the central challenge that will inuence the future deployment of solar
energy. Moreover, as with some other forms of renewable energy, issues of variable production proles and energy
market integration as well as the possible need for new transmission infrastructure will inuence the magnitude, type
and cost of solar energy deployment. Finally, the regulatory and legal framework in place can also foster or hinder the
uptake of direct solar energy applications.
339
3.1
Introduction
340
Chapter 3
very little greenhouse gases, and it has the potential to displace large
quantities of non-renewable fuels (Tsilingiridis et al., 2004).
Solar energy conversion is manifest in a family of technologies having
a broad range of energy service applications: lighting, comfort heating, hot water for buildings and industry, high-temperature solar heat
for electric power and industry, photovoltaic conversion for electrical
power, and production of solar fuels, for example, hydrogen or synthesis
gas (syngas). This chapter will further detail all of these technologies.
Several solar technologies, such as domestic hot water heating and
pool heating, are already competitive and used in locales where they
offer the least-cost option. And in jurisdictions where governments have
taken steps to actively support solar energy, very large solar electricity
(both PV and CSP) installations, approaching 100 MW of power, have
been realized, in addition to large numbers of rooftop PV installations.
Other applications, such as solar fuels, require additional R&D before
achieving signicant levels of adoption.
In pursuing any of the solar technologies, there is the need to deal with
the variability and the cyclic nature of the Sun. One option is to store
excess collected energy until it is needed. This is particularly effective for
handling the lack of sunshine at night. For example, a 0.1-m thick slab
of concrete in the oor of a home will store much of the solar energy
absorbed during the day and release it to the room at night. When
totalled over a long period of time such as one year, or over a large
geographical area such as a continent, solar energy can offer greater
service. The use of both these concepts of time and space, together with
energy storage, has enabled designers to produce more effective solar
systems. But much more work is needed to capture the full value of solar
energys contribution.
Because of its inherent variability, solar energy is most useful when integrated with another energy source, to be used when solar energy is not
available. In the past, that source has generally been a non-renewable
one. But there is great potential for integrating direct solar energy with
other RE technologies.
The rest of this chapter will include the following topics. Section 3.2
summarizes research that characterizes this solar resource and discusses
the global and regional technical potential for direct solar energy as well
as the possible impacts of climate change on this resource. Section 3.3
describes the ve different technologies and their applications: passive
solar heating and lighting for buildings (Section 3.3.1), active solar heating and cooling for buildings and industry (Section 3.3.2), PV electricity
generation (Section 3.3.3), CSP electricity generation (Section 3.3.4),
and solar fuel production (Section 3.3.5). Section 3.4 reviews the current
status of market development, including installed capacity and energy
currently being generated (Section 3.4.1), and the industry capacity and
supply chain (Section 3.4.2). Following this are sections on the integration of solar technologies into other energy systems (Section 3.5), the
environmental and social impacts (Section 3.6), and the prospects for
Chapter 3
future technology innovations (Section 3.7). The two nal sections cover
cost trends (Section 3.8) and the policies needed to achieve the goals for
deployment (Section 3.9). Many of the sections, such as Section 3.3, are
segmented into subsections, one for each of the ve solar technologies.
3.2
The solar irradiance reaching the Earths surface (Figure 3.1) is divided
into two primary components: beam solar irradiance on a horizontal
surface, which comes directly from the Suns disk, and diffuse irradiance,
which comes from the whole of the sky except the Suns disk. The term
global solar irradiance refers to the sum of the beam and the diffuse
components.
Resource potential
40
80
120
160
200
240
280
320
There are several ways to assess the global resource potential of solar
energy. The theoretical potential, which indicates the amount of irradiance at the Earths surface (land and ocean) that is theoretically available
for energy purposes, has been estimated at 3.9106 EJ/yr (Rogner et
al., 2000; their Table 5.18). Technical potential is the amount of solar
irradiance output obtainable by full deployment of demonstrated and
likely-to-develop technologies or practices (see Annex I, Glossary).
3.2.1
The amount of solar energy that could be put to human use depends
signicantly on local factors such as land availability and meteorological conditions and demands for energy services. The technical potential
varies over the different regions of the Earth, as do the assessment methodologies. As described in a comparative literature study (Krewitt et al.,
2009) for the German Environment Agency, the solar electricity technical
potential of PV and CSP depends on the available solar irradiance, land
use exclusion factors and the future development of technology improvements. Note that this study used different assumptions for the land use
factors for PV and CSP. For PV, it assumed that 98% of the technical
potential comes from centralized PV power plants and that the suitable
land area in the world for PV deployment averages 1.67% of total land
area. For CSP, all land areas with high direct-normal irradiance (DNI)a
minimum DNI of 2,000 kWh/m2/yr (7,200 MJ/m2/yr)were dened as
suitable, and just 20% of that land was excluded for other uses. The
40
80
120
160
200
240
280
320
Figure 3.1 | The global solar irradiance (W/m2) at the Earths surface obtained from satellite imaging radiometers and averaged over the period 1983 to 2006. Left panel: December,
January, February. Right panel: June, July, August (ISCCP Data Products, 2006).
341
resulting technical potentials for 2050 are 1,689 EJ/yr for PV and 8,043
EJ/yr for CSP.
Analyzing the PV studies (Hofman et al., 2002; Hoogwijk, 2004; de Vries
et al., 2007) and the CSP studies (Hofman et al., 2002; Trieb, 2005; Trieb
et al., 2009a) assessed by Krewitt et al. (2009), the technical potential
varies signicantly between these studies, ranging from 1,338 to 14,778
EJ/yr for PV and 248 and 10,791 EJ/yr for CSP. The main difference
between the studies arises from the allocated land area availabilities
and, to some extent, on differences in the power conversion efciency
used.
The technical potential of solar energy for heating purposes is vast and
difcult to assess. The deployment potential is mainly limited by the
demand for heat. Because of this, the technical potential is not assessed
in the literature except for REN21 (Hoogwijk and Graus, 2008) to which
Krewitt et al. (2009) refer. In order to provide a reference, REN21 has
made a rough assessment of the technical potential of solar water
heating by taking the assumed available rooftop area for solar PV applications from Hoogwijk (2004) and the irradiation for each of the regions.
Therefore, the range given by REN21 is a lower bound only.
3.2.2
Table 3.1 shows the minimum and maximum estimated range for total
solar energy technical potential for different regions, not differentiating the ways in which solar irradiance might be converted to secondary
energy forms. For the minimum estimates, minimum annual clear-sky
irradiance, sky clearance and available land used for installation of solar
collectors are assumed. For the maximum estimates, maximum annual
Chapter 3
3.2.3
Table 3.1 | Annual total technical potential of solar energy for various regions of the world, not differentiated by conversion technology (Rogner et al., 2000; their Table 5.19).
REGIONS
Range of Estimates
Minimum, EJ
Maximum, EJ
North America
181
7,410
113
3,385
Western Europe
25
914
154
199
8,655
412
11,060
Sub-Saharan Africa
372
9,528
Pacic Asia
41
994
South Asia
39
1,339
116
4,135
Pacic OECD
TOTAL
Ratio of technical potential to primary energy supply in 2008 (492 EJ)
73
2,263
1,575
49,837
3.2
101
Note: Basic assumptions used in assessing minimum and maximum technical potentials of solar energy are given in Rogner et al. (2000):
Annual minimum clear-sky irradiance relates to horizontal collector plane, and annual maximum clear-sky irradiance relates to two-axis-tracking collector plane; see Table 2.2 in
WEC (1994).
Maximum and minimum annual sky clearance assumed for the relevant latitudes; see Table 2.2 in WEC (1994).
342
Chapter 3
3.2.4
3.3
Table 3.2 | International and national projects that collect, process and archive information on solar irradiance resources at the Earths surface.
Available Data Sets
Responsible Institution/Agency
Ground-based solar irradiance from 1,280 sites for 1964 to 2009 provided by national meteorological services around the
world.
National Solar Radiation Database that includes 1,454 ground locations for 1991 to 2005. The satellite-modelled solar
data for 1998 to 2005 provided on 10-km grid. The hourly values of solar data can be used to determine solar resources for
collectors.
European Solar Radiation Database that includes measured solar radiation complemented with other meteorological data
necessary for solar engineering. Satellite images from METEOSAT help in improving accuracy in spatial interpolation. Test
Reference Years were also included.
The Solar Radiation Atlas of Africa contains information on surface radiation over Europe, Asia Minor and Africa. Data
covering 1985 to 1986 were derived from measurements by METEOSAT 2.
The solar data set for Africa based on images from METEOSAT processed with the Heliosat-2 method covers the period 1985
to 2004 and is supplemented with ground-based solar irradiance.
Typical Meteorological Year (Test Reference Year) data sets of hourly values of solar radiation and meteorological parameters
derived from individual weather observations in long-term (up to 30 years) data sets to establish a typical year of hourly data.
Used by designers of heating and cooling systems and large-scale solar thermal power plants.
The solar radiation data for solar energy applications. IEA/SHC Task36 provides a wide range of users with information on
solar radiation resources at Earths surface in easily accessible formats with understandable quality metrics. The task focuses
on development, validation and access to solar resource information derived from surface- and satellite-based platforms.
Solar and Wind Energy Resource Assessment (SWERA) project aimed at developing information tools to simulate RE
development. SWERA provides easy access to high-quality RE resource information and data for users. Covered major areas
of 13 developing countries in Latin America, the Caribbean, Africa and Asia. SWERA produced a range of solar data sets and
maps at better spatial scales of resolution than previously available using satellite- and ground-based observations.
343
3.3.1
Passive solar energy technologies absorb solar energy, store and distribute it in a natural manner (e.g., natural ventilation), without using
mechanical elements (e.g., fans) (Hernandez Gonzalvez, 1996). The term
passive solar building is a qualitative term describing a building that
makes signicant use of solar gain to reduce heating energy consumption based on the natural energy ows of radiation, conduction and
convection. The term passive building is often employed to emphasize
use of passive energy ows in both heating and cooling, including redistribution of absorbed direct solar gains and night cooling (Athienitis and
Santamouris, 2002).
Daylighting technologies are primarily passive, including windows, skylights and shading and reecting devices. A worldwide trend, particularly
in technologically advanced regions, is for an increased mix of passive
and active systems, such as a forced-air system that redistributes passive solar gains in a solar house or automatically controlled shades that
optimize daylight utilization in an ofce building (Tzempelikos et al.,
2010).
The basic elements of passive solar design are windows, conservatories
and other glazed spaces (for solar gain and daylighting), thermal mass,
protection elements, and reectors (Ralegaonkar and Gupta, 2010). With
the combination of these basic elements, different systems are obtained:
direct-gain systems (e.g., the use of windows in combination with walls
able to store energy, solar chimneys, and wind catchers), indirect-gain
systems (e.g., Trombe walls), mixed-gain systems (a combination of
direct-gain and indirect-gain systems, such as conservatories, sunspaces
and greenhouses), and isolated-gain systems. Passive technologies are
integrated with the building and may include the following components:
Windows with high solar transmittance and a high thermal resistance facing towards the Equator as nearly as possible can be
employed to maximize the amount of direct solar gains into the living space while reducing heat losses through the windows in the
heating season and heat gains in the cooling season. Skylights are
also often used for daylighting in ofce buildings and in solaria/
sunspaces.
Building-integrated thermal storage, commonly referred to as thermal mass, may be sensible thermal storage using concrete or brick
materials, or latent thermal storage using phase-change materials
(Mehling and Cabeza, 2008). The most common type of thermal storage is the direct-gain system in which thermal mass is adequately
distributed in the living space, absorbing the direct solar gains.
Storage is particularly important because it performs two essential
functions: storing much of the absorbed direct solar energy for slow
344
Chapter 3
Chapter 3
BIPV/T
Roof
Exhaust
Fan
q
External
Rolling
Shutter
Variable
Speed Fan
Solar
Tilted
Slats
Dryer
Air
Inlet
Geothermal
Pump
HRV
Passive
Slab
Light
Shelf
DHW
Ventilated
Slab
Internal
Rolling
Shutter
Blinds
Side-Fin
Figure 3.2 | Left: Schematic of thermal mass placement and passive-active systems in a house; solar-heated air from building-integrated photovoltaic/thermal (BIPV/T) roof heats
ventilated slab or domestic hot water (DHW) through heat exchanger; HRV is heat recovery ventilator. Right: Schematic of several daylighting concepts designed to redistribute daylight
into the ofce interior space (Athienitis, 2008).
345
346
Chapter 3
3.3.2
Active solar heating and cooling technologies use the Sun and mechanical elements to provide either heating or cooling; various technologies
are discussed here, as well as thermal storage.
3.3.2.1
Solar heating
In a solar heating system, the solar collector transforms solar irradiance into heat and uses a carrier uid (e.g., water, air) to transfer
that heat to a well-insulated storage tank, where it can be used when
needed. The two most important factors in choosing the correct type
of collector are the following: 1) the service to be provided by the
solar collector, and 2) the related desired range of temperature of the
heat-carrier uid. An uncovered absorber, also known as an unglazed
collector, is likely to be limited to low-temperature heat production
(Dufe and Beckman, 2006).
A solar collector can incorporate many different materials and be manufactured using a variety of techniques. Its design is inuenced by the
system in which it will operate and by the climatic conditions of the
installation location.
Flat-plate collectors are the most widely used solar thermal collectors
for residential solar water- and space-heating systems. They are also
used in air-heating systems. A typical at-plate collector consists of an
absorber, a header and riser tube arrangement or a single serpentine
Chapter 3
Single or
Double
Glazing
Pump
Flow
Glazing Frame
Metal Deck
Rubber
Grommet
Serpentine Plastic
Pipe Collector
Box
Flow Passages
Absorber
Plate
Insulation
Backing
Typically
1 1/2 ABS Pipe
Pump Flow
Evacuated-tube collectors are usually made of parallel rows of transparent glass tubes, in which the absorbers are enclosed, connected to
a header pipe (Figure 3.3c). To reduce heat loss within the frame by
convection, the air is pumped out of the collector tubes to generate
a vacuum. This makes it possible to achieve high temperatures, useful
Evacuated-Tube Collectors
ater
ed W
Heat
Insulation
Solar
Energ
Heat
Heat
es to
r Ris
Vapo
Top
ns to
ensed
Cond
Vacuum Indicator
etur
uid R
Botto
fe
Trans
fe
Trans
Copper
Sleeve in
Manifold
Aluminium
Header
Casing
Liq
Copper
Manifold
347
Chapter 3
households with signicant daytime and evening hot water needs; but
it does not work well in households with predominantly morning draws
because sometimes the tanks can lose most of the collected energy
overnight.
Active solar water heaters rely on electric pumps and controllers to circulate the carrier uid through the collectors. Three types of active solar
water-heating systems are available. Direct circulation systems use pumps
to circulate pressurized potable water directly through the collectors.
These systems are appropriate in areas that do not freeze for long periods
and do not have hard or acidic water. Antifreeze indirect-circulation systems pump heat-transfer uid, which is usually a glycol-water mixture,
through collectors. Heat exchangers transfer the heat from the uid to
the water for use (Figure 3.4, right). Drainback indirect-circulation systems
use pumps to circulate water through the collectors. The water in the
collector and the piping system drains into a reservoir tank when the
pumps stop, eliminating the risk of freezing in cold climates. This system should be carefully designed and installed to ensure that the piping
always slopes downward to the reservoir tank. Also, stratication should
be carefully considered in the design of the water tank (Hadorn, 2005).
A solar combisystem provides both solar space heating and cooling as
well as hot water from a common array of solar thermal collectors, usually backed up by an auxiliary non-solar heat source (Weiss, 2003). Solar
combisystems may range in size from those installed in individual properties to those serving several in a block heating scheme. A large number
of different types of solar combisystems are produced. The systems on
the market in a particular country may be more restricted, however,
because different systems have tended to evolve in different countries.
Solar
Collector
A Close-Coupled
Solar
Energy
Solar Water
Heater
Solar Energy
To Taps
Tank
Controller
Boiler
Arrows Show
Direction of Water
Flow Through Copper
Cold
Water
Feed
Figure 3.4 | Generic schematics of thermal solar systems. Left: Passive (thermosyphon). Right: Active system.
348
Pump
Chapter 3
include the heat recovery units, heat exchangers and humidiers. Liquid
sorption techniques have been demonstrated successfully.
3.3.2.3
3.3.2.2
Solar cooling
Solar cooling can be broadly categorized into solar electric refrigeration, solar thermal refrigeration, and solar thermal air-conditioning.
In the rst category, the solar electric compression refrigeration uses
PV panels to power a conventional refrigeration machine (Fong et al.,
2010). In the second category, the refrigeration effect can be produced
through solar thermal gain; solar mechanical compression refrigeration,
solar absorption refrigeration, and solar adsorption refrigeration are the
three common options. In the third category, the conditioned air can be
directly provided through the solar thermal gain by means of desiccant
cooling. Both solid and liquid sorbents are available, such as silica gel
and lithium chloride, respectively.
Solar electrical air-conditioning, powered by PV panels, is of minor interest from a systems perspective, unless there is an off-grid application
(Henning, 2007). This is because in industrialized countries, which have
a well-developed electricity grid, the maximum use of photovoltaics is
achieved by feeding the produced electricity into the public grid.
Solar thermal air-conditioning consists of solar heat powering an absorption chiller and it can be used in buildings (Henning, 2007). Deploying
such a technology depends heavily on the industrial deployment of lowcost small-power absorption chillers. This technology is being studied
within the IEA Task 25 on solar-assisted air-conditioning of buildings,
SHC program and IEA Task 38 on solar air-conditioning and refrigeration, SHC program.
Closed heat-driven cooling systems using these cycles have been known
for many years and are usually used for large capacities of 100 kW
and greater. The physical principle used in most systems is based on
the sorption phenomenon. Two technologies are established to produce
thermally driven low- and medium-temperature refrigeration: absorption and adsorption.
Open cooling cycle (or desiccant cooling) systems are mainly of interest
for the air conditioning of buildings. They can use solid or liquid sorption. The central component of any open solar-assisted cooling system
is the dehumidication unit. In most systems using solid sorption, this
unit is a desiccant wheel. Various sorption materials can be used, such
as silica gel or lithium chloride. All other system components are found
in standard air-conditioning applications with an air-handling unit and
Thermal storage
349
3.3.2.4
For active solar heating and cooling applications, the amount of hot
water produced depends on the type and size of the system, amount of
sun available at the site, seasonal hot-water demand pattern, and installation characteristics of the system (Norton, 2001).
Solar heating for industrial processes is at a very early stage of development in 2010 (POSHIP, 2001). Worldwide, less than 100 operating solar
thermal systems for process heat are reported, with a total capacity of
about 24 MWth (34,000 m collector area). Most systems are at an experimental stage and relatively small scale. However, signicant potential
exists for market and technological developments, because 28% of the
overall energy demand in the EU27 countries originates in the industrial
sector, and much of this demand is for heat below 250C. Education and
knowledge dissemination are needed to deploy this technology.
In the short term, solar heating for industrial processes will mainly be used
for low-temperature processes, ranging from 20C to 100C. With technological development, an increasing number of medium-temperature
applicationsup to 250Cwill become feasible within the market.
According to Werner (2006), about 30% of the total industrial heat
demand is required at temperatures below 100C, which could theoretically be met with solar heating using current technologies. About 57%
of this demand is required at temperatures below 400C, which could
largely be supplied by solar in the foreseeable future.
In several specic industry sectorssuch as food, wine and beverages,
transport equipment, machinery, textiles, and pulp and paperthe
share of heat demand at low and medium temperatures (below 250C)
is around 60% (POSHIP, 2001). Tapping into this low- and mediumtemperature heat demand with solar heat could provide a signicant
opportunity for solar contribution to industrial energy requirements. A
substantial opportunity for solar thermal systems also exists in chemical industries and in washing processes.
Among the industrial processes, desalination and water treatment
(e.g., sterilization) are particularly promising applications for solar
thermal energy, because these processes require large amounts of
350
Chapter 3
Chapter 3
treatment for low-contaminant waste (Gumy et al., 2006). Multipleeffect humidication (MEH) desalination units indirectly use heat
from highly efcient solar thermal collectors to induce evaporation
and condensation inside a thermally isolated, steam-tight container.
These MEH systems are now beginning to appear in the market. Also
see the report on water desalination by CSP (DLR, 2007) and the discussion of SolarPACES Task VI (SolarPACES, 2009b).
In solar drying, solar energy is used either as the sole source of the
required heat or as a supplemental source, and the air ow can be
generated by either forced or free (natural) convection (Fudholi et al.,
2010). Solar cooking is one of the most widely used solar applications
in developing countries (Lahkar and Samdarshi, 2010) though might still
be considered an early stage commercial product due to limited overall
deployment in comparison to other cooking methods. A solar cooker
uses sunlight as its energy source, so no fuel is needed and operating
costs are zero. Also, a reliable solar cooker can be constructed easily and
quickly from common materials.
Anti-Reection Coating
n-Type Semiconductor
Front Contact
Electron (-)
Hole (+)
Recombination
p-Type Semiconductor
Back Contact
3.3.3
3.3.3.1
351
cell is 24.2% for 155.1 cm2 (Bunea et al., 2010). Commercial module
efciencies for wafer-based silicon PV range from 12 to 14% for multicrystalline Si and from 14 to 20% for monocrystalline Si.
Commercial thin-lm PV technologies include a range of absorber
material systems: amorphous silicon (a-Si), amorphous silicon-germanium, microcrystalline silicon, CdTe and CIGS. These thin-lm cells have
an absorber layer thickness of a few m or less and are deposited on
glass, metal or plastic substrates with areas of up to 5.7 m2 (Stein et al.,
2009).
The a-Si solar cell, introduced in 1976 (Carlson and Wronski, 1976) with
initial efciencies of 1 to 2%, has been the rst commercially successful
thin-lm PV technology. Because a-Si has a higher light absorption coefcient than c-Si, the thickness of an a-Si cell can be less than 1 mthat
is, more than 100 times thinner than a c-Si cell. Developing higher efciencies for a-Si cells has been limited by inherent material quality and
by light-induced degradation identied as the Staebler-Wronski effect
(Staebler and Wronski, 1977). However, research efforts have successfully lowered the impact of the Staebler-Wronski effect to around 10%
or less by controlling the microstructure of the lm. The highest stabilized efciencythe efciency after the light-induced degradationis
reported as 10.1% (Benagli et al., 2009).
Higher efciency has been achieved by using multijunction technologies
with alloy materials, e.g., germanium and carbon or with microcrystalline silicon, to form semiconductors with lower or higher bandgaps,
respectively, to cover a wider range of the solar spectrum (Yang and
Guha, 1992; Yamamoto et al., 1994; Meier et al., 1997). Stabilized
efciencies of 12 to 13% have been measured for various laboratory
devices (Green et al., 2010b).
CdTe solar cells using a heterojunction with cadmium sulphide (CdS)
have a suitable energy bandgap of 1.45 electron-volt (eV) (0.232 aJ)
with a high coefcient of light absorption. The best efciency of this
cell is 16.7% (Green et al., 2010b) and the best commercially available
modules have an efciency of about 10 to 11%.
The toxicity of metallic cadmium and the relative scarcity of tellurium
are issues commonly associated with this technology. Although several
assessments of the risk (Fthenakis and Kim, 2009; Zayed and Philippe,
2009) and scarcity (Green et al., 2009; Wadia et al., 2009) are available,
no consensus exists on these issues. It has been reported that this potential hazard can be mitigated by using a glass-sandwiched module design
and by recycling the entire module and any industrial waste (Sinha et
al., 2008).
The CIGS material family is the basis of the highest-efciency thin-lm
solar cells to date. The copper indium diselenide (CuInSe2)/CdS solar
cell was invented in the early 1970s at AT&T Bell Labs (Wagner et al.,
1974). Incorporating Ga and/or S to produce CuInGa(Se,S)2 results in the
benet of a widened bandgap depending on the composition (Dimmler
and Schock, 1996). CIGS-based solar cells have been validated at an
352
Chapter 3
3.3.3.2
Chapter 3
3.3.3.5
3.3.3.3
3.3.3.4
Photovoltaic applications
Photovoltaic systems
353
25,000
Cumulative Grid-Connected
20,000
Cumulative Off-Grid
15,000
10,000
5,000
0
92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09
Figure 3.6 | Historical trends in cumulative installed PV power of off-grid and gridconnected systems in the OECD countries (IEA, 2010e). Vertical axis is in peak megawatts.
354
Chapter 3
Grid-connected centralized PV systems perform the functions of centralized power stations. The power supplied by such a system is not
associated with a particular electricity customer, and the system is
not located to specically perform functions on the electricity network
other than the supply of bulk power. Typically, centralized systems are
mounted on the ground, and they are larger than 1 MW.
The economical advantage of these systems is the optimization of installation and operating cost by bulk buying and the cost effectiveness of
the PV components and balance of systems at a large scale. In addition,
the reliability of centralized PV systems can be greater than distributed
PV systems because they can have maintenance systems with monitoring equipment, which can be a smaller part of the total system cost.
Multi-functional PV, daylighting and solar thermal components involving PV or solar thermal that have already been introduced into the built
environment include the following: shading systems made from PV
and/or solar thermal collectors; hybrid PV/thermal (PV/T) systems that
generate electricity and heat from the same panel/collector area; semitransparent PV windows that generate electricity and transmit daylight
from the same surface; faade collectors; PV roofs; thermal energy roof
systems; and solar thermal roof-ridge collectors. Currently, fundamental and applied R&D activities are also underway related to developing
other products, such as transparent solar thermal window collectors, as
well as faade elements that consist of vacuum-insulation panels, PV
panels, heat pump, and a heat-recovery system connected to localized
ventilation.
Solar energy can be integrated within the building envelope and with
energy conservation methods and smart-building operating strategies.
Much work over the last decade or so has gone into this integration,
culminating in the net-zero energy building.
Much of the early emphasis was on integrating PV systems with thermal
and daylighting systems. Bazilian et al. (2001) and Tripanagnostopoulos
(2007) listed methods for doing this and reviewed case studies where
the methods had been applied. For example, PV cells can be laid on
the absorber plate of a at-plate solar collector. About 6 to 20% of the
solar energy absorbed on the cells is converted to electricity; the remaining roughly 80% is available as low-temperature heat to be transferred
to the uid being heated. The resulting unit produces both heat and
Chapter 3
electricity and requires only slightly more than half the area used if the
two conversion devices had been mounted side by side and worked
independently. PV cells have also been developed to be applied to windows to allow daylighting and passive solar gain. Reviews of recent
work in this area are provided by Chow (2010) and Arif Hasan and
Sumathy (2010).
gas, nuclear, oil or biomasscomes from creating a hot uid. CSP simply provides an alternative heat source. Therefore, an attraction of this
technology is that it builds on much of the current know-how on power
generation in the world today. And it will benet not only from ongoing
advances in solar concentrator technology, but also as improvements
continue to be made in steam and gas turbine cycles.
The idea of the net-zero-energy solar building has sparked recent interest. Such buildings send as much excess PV-generated electrical energy
to the grid as the energy they draw over the year. An IEA Task is considering how to achieve this goal (IEA NZEB, 2009). Recent examples for
the Canadian climate are provided by Athienitis (2008). Starting from a
building that meets the highest levels of conservation, these homes use
hybrid air-heating/PV panels on the roof; the heated air is used for space
heating or as a source for a heat pump. Solar water-heating collectors
are included, as is fenestration permitting a large passive gain through
equatorial-facing windows. A key feature is a ground-source heat pump,
which provides a small amount of residual heating in the winter and
cooling in the summer.
Smart solar-building control strategies may be used to manage the collection, storage and distribution of locally produced solar electricity
and heat to reduce and shift peak electricity demand from the grid. An
example of a smart solar-building design is given by Candanedo and
Athienitis (2010), where predictive control based on weather forecasts
one day ahead and real-time prediction of building response are used to
optimize energy performance while reducing peak electricity demand.
3.3.4
355
Chapter 3
(a)
(b)
Reector
Absorber Tube
Curved Mirrors
Curved Mirrors
(c)
(d)
Central Receiver
Reector
Receiver/Engine
Heliostats
Figure 3.7 | Schematic diagrams showing the underlying principles of four basic CSP congurations: (a) parabolic trough, (b) linear Fresnel reector, (c) central receiver/power tower,
and (d) dish systems (Richter et al., 2009).
linear Fresnel reectors is that the installed costs on a per square metre
basis can be lower than for trough systems. However, the annual optical
performance is less than that for a trough.
Central receivers (or power towers), which are one type of point-focus
collector, are able to generate much higher temperatures than troughs
and linear Fresnel reectors, although requiring two-axis tracking as
the Sun moves through solar azimuth and solar elevation. This higher
356
Chapter 3
Dish systems include an ideal optical reector and therefore are suitable
for applications requiring high temperatures. Dish reectors are paraboloid
and concentrate the solar irradiation onto a receiver mounted at the
focal point, with the receiver moving with the dish. Dishes have been
used to power Stirling engines at 900C, and also for steam generation. There is now signicant operational experience with dish/Stirling
engine systems, and commercial rollout is planned. In 2010, the capacity of each Stirling engine is smallon the order of 10 to 25 kWelectric.
The largest solar dishes have a 485-m2 aperture and are in research
facilities or demonstration plants.
In thermal storage, the heat from the solar eld is stored prior to
reaching the turbine. Thermal storage takes the form of sensible or
latent heat storage (Gil et al., 2010; Medrano et al., 2010). The solar
eld needs to be oversized so that enough heat can be supplied to
both operate the turbine during the day and, in parallel, charge the
thermal storage. The term solar multiple refers to the total solar eld
area installed divided by the solar eld area needed to operate the turbine at design point without storage. Thermal storage for CSP systems
needs to be at a temperature higher than that needed for the working uid of the turbine. As such, system temperatures are generally
between 400C and 600C, with the lower end for troughs and the
higher end for towers. Allowable temperatures are also dictated by
the limits of the media available. Examples of storage media include
molten salt (presently comprising separate hot and cold tanks), steam
accumulators (for short-term storage only), solid ceramic particles,
high-temperature phase-change materials, graphite, and high-temperature concrete. The heat can then be drawn from the storage to
generate steam for a turbine, as and when needed. Another type of
storage associated with high-temperature CSP is thermochemical storage, where solar energy is stored chemically. This is discussed more
fully in Sections 3.3.5 and 3.7.5.
Thermal energy storage integrated into a system is an important attribute of CSP. Until recently, this has been primarily for operational
purposes, providing 30 minutes to 1 hour of full-load storage. This
eases the impact of thermal transients such as clouds on the plant,
assists start-up and shut-down, and provides benets to the grid.
Trough plants are now designed for 6 to 7.5 hours of storage, which is
enough to allow operation well into the evening when peak demand
can occur and tariffs are high. Trough plants in Spain are now operating with molten-salt storage. In the USA, Abengoa Solars 280-MW
Solana trough project, planned to be operational by 2013, intends
to integrate six hours of thermal storage. Towers, with their higher
temperatures, can charge and store molten salt more efciently.
Gemasolar, a 17-MWe solar tower project under construction in Spain,
is designed for 15 hours of storage, giving a 75% annual capacity factor (Arce et al., 2011).
Thermal storage is a means of providing dispatchability. Hybridization
with non-renewable fuels is another way in which CSP can be
designed to be dispatchable. Although the back-up fuel itself may
357
3.3.5
Solar fuel technologies convert solar energy into chemical fuels, which
can be a desirable method of storing and transporting solar energy.They
can be used in a much wider variety of higher-efciency applications
than just electricity generation cycles. Solar fuels can be processed into
liquid transportation fuels or used directly to generate electricity in
fuel cells; they can be employed as fuels for high-efciency gas-turbine
cycles or internal combustion engines; and they can serve for upgrading
fossil fuels, CO2 synthesis, or for producing industrial or domestic heat.
The challenge is to produce large amounts of chemical fuels directly
from sunlight in cost-effective ways and to minimize adverse effects on
the environment (Steinfeld and Meier, 2004).
Solar fuels that can be produced include synthesis gas (syngas, i.e.,
mixed gases of carbon monoxide and hydrogen), pure hydrogen (H2)
gas, dimethyl ether (DME) and liquids such as methanol and diesel. The
high energy density of H2 (on a mass basis) and clean conversion give it
attractive properties as a future fuel and it is also used as a feedstock for
many industrial processes. H2 has a higher energy density than batteries,
although batteries have a higher round-trip efciency. However, its very
low energy density on a volumetric basis poses economic challenges
associated with its storage and transport. It will require signicant new
distribution infrastructure and either new designs of internal combustion
engine or a move to fuel cells. Additionally, the synthesis of hydrogen
with CO2 can produce hydrocarbon fuels that are compatible with existing infrastructures. DME gas is similar to liqueed petroleum gas (LPG)
and easily stored. Methanol is liquid and can replace gasoline without
signicant changes to the engine or the fuel distribution infrastructure.
Methanol and DME can be used for fuel cells after reforming, and DME
can also be used in place of LPG. Fischer-Tropsch processes can produce
hydrocarbon fuels and electricity (see Sections 2.6 and 8.2.4).
There are three basic routes, alone or in combination, for producing
storable and transportable fuels from solar energy: 1) the electrochemical route uses solar electricity from PV or CSP systems followed by an
electrolytic process; 2) the photochemical/photobiological route makes
direct use of solar photon energy for photochemical and photobiological
processes; and 3) the thermochemical route uses solar heat at moderate
and/or high temperatures followed by an endothermic thermochemical
process (Steinfeld and Meier, 2004). Note that the electrochemical and
thermochemical routes apply to any RE technology, not exclusively to
solar technologies.
358
Chapter 3
Chapter 3
Concentrated
Solar Energy
H2O
Solar Thermolysis
Decarbonization
H2O Splitting
Solar Thermochemical
Cycle
Solar Reforming
Solar Cracking
Fossil Fuels
(NG, Oil, Coal)
Solar
Gasication
Optional CO2/C
Sequestration
Solar Fuels (Hydrogen, Syngas)
Figure 3.8 | Thermochemical routes for solar fuels production, indicating the chemical source of H2: water (H2O) for solar thermolysis and solar thermochemical cycles to produce H2
only; fossil or biomass fuels as feedstock for solar cracking to produce H2 and carbon (C); or a combination of fossil/biomass fuels and H2O/CO2 for solar reforming and gasication to
produce syngas, H2 and carbon monoxide (CO). For the solar decarbonization processes, sequestration of the CO2/C may be considered (from Steinfeld and Meier, 2004; Steinfeld, 2005).
atmosphere or other sources in a synthesis reactor with a nickel catalyst. In this way, a substitute for natural gas is produced that can be
stored, transported and used in gas power plants, heating systems
and gas vehicles (Sterner, 2009).
Solar methane can be produced using water, air, solar energy and a
source of CO2. Possible CO2 sources are biomass, industry processes
or the atmosphere. CO2 is regarded as the carrier for hydrogen in this
energy system. By separating CO2 from the combustion process of
solar methane, CO2 can be recycled in the energy system or stored
permanently. Thus, carbon sink energy systems powered by RE can
be created (Sterner, 2009). The rst pilot plants at the kW scale with
atmospheric CO2 absorption have been set up in Germany, proving the
technical feasibility. Scaling up to the utility MW scale is planned in
the next few years (Specht et al., 2010).
In an alternative conversion step, liquid fuels such as Fischer-Tropsch
diesel, DME, methanol or solar kerosene (jet fuel) can be produced
from solar energy and CO2/water (H2O) for long-distance transportation. The main advantages of these solar fuels are the same range
as fossil fuels (compared to the generally reduced range of electric
vehicles), less competition for land use, and higher per-hectare yields
compared to biofuels. Solar energy can be harvested via natural photosynthesis in biofuels with an efciency of 0.5%, via PV power and
3.4
3.4.1
359
For passive solar technologies, no estimates are available at this time for
the installed capacity of passive solar or the energy generated or saved
through this technology.
For active solar heating, the total installed capacity worldwide was
about 149 GWth in 2008 and 180 GWth in 2009 (Weiss and Mauthner,
2010; REN21, 2010).
In 2008, new capacity of 29.1 GWth, corresponding to 41.5 million m2 of
solar collectors, was installed worldwide (Weiss and Mauthner, 2010).
In 2008, China accounted for about 79% of the installations of glazed
collectors, followed by the EU with 14.5%.
The overall new installations grew by 34.9% compared to 2007. The
growth rate in 2006/2007 was 18.8%. The main reasons for this growth
were the high growth rates of glazed water collectors in China, Europe
and the USA.
In 2008, the global market had high growth rates for evacuated-tube
collectors and at-plate collectors, compared to 2007. The market for
unglazed air collectors also increased signicantly, mainly due to the
installation of 23.9 MWth of new systems in Canada.
Compared to 2007, the 2008 installation rates for new unglazed, glazed
at-plate, and evacuated-tube collectors were signicantly up in Jordan,
Cyprus, Canada, Ireland, Germany, Slovenia, Macedonia (FYROM),
Tunisia, Poland, Belgium and South Africa.
New installations in China, the worlds largest market, again increased
signicantly in 2008 compared to 2007, reaching 21.7 GWth. After a
market decline in Japan in 2007, the growth rate was once again positive in 2008.
Market decreases compared to 2007 were reported for Israel, the Slovak
Republic and the Chinese province of Taiwan.
The main markets for unglazed water collectors are still found in the
USA (0.8 GWth), Australia (0.4 GWth), and Brazil (0.08 GWth). Notable
markets are also in Austria, Canada, Mexico, The Netherlands, South
Africa, Spain, Sweden and Switzerland, with values between 0.07 and
0.01 GWth of new installed unglazed water collectors in 2008.
Comparison of markets in different countries is difcult due to the
wide range of designs used for different climates and different demand
requirements. In Scandinavia and Germany, a solar heating system
will typically be a combined water-heating and space-heating system,
known as a solar combisystem, with a collector area of 10 to 20 m2. In
Japan, the number of solar domestic water-heating systems is large, but
most installations are simple integral preheating systems. The market in
Israel is large due to a favourable climate, as well as regulations mandating installation of solar water heaters. The largest market is in China,
where there is widespread adoption of advanced evacuated-tube solar
360
Chapter 3
To enable comparison, the IEAs Solar Heating and Cooling Programme, together
with the European Solar Thermal Industry Federation and other major solar thermal
trade associations, publish statistics in kWth (kilowatt thermal) and use a factor of
0.7 kWth/m2 to convert square metres of collector area into installed thermal capacity
(kWth).
Chapter 3
Figure 3.9 illustrates the cumulative installed capacity for the top eight
PV markets through 2009, including Germany (9,800 MW), Spain (3,500
MW), Japan (2,630 MW), the USA (1,650 MW), Italy (1,140 MW), Korea
(460 MW), France (370MW) and the Peoples Republic of China (300
MW). By far, Spain and Germany have seen the largest amounts of
growth in installed PV capacity in recent years, with Spain seeing a huge
surge in 2008 and Germany having experienced steady growth over the
last ve years.
10,000
9,000
8,000
Germany
Italy
7,000
Spain
Korea
6,000
Japan
France
5,000
USA
China
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
0
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Figure 3.9 | Installed PV capacity in eight markets. Data sources: EurObservER (2009);
IEA (2009c); REN21 (2009); and Jger-Waldau (2010b).
661/2007 has been a major driving force for CSP plant construction and
expansion plans. As of November 2009, 2,340 MWe of CSP projects had
been preregistered for the tariff provisions of the Royal Decree. In the
USA, more than 4,500 MWe of CSP are currently under power purchase
agreement contracts. The different contracts specify when the projects
must start delivering electricity between 2010 and 2015 (Bloem et al.,
2010). More than 10,000 MWe of new CSP plants have been proposed in
the USA. More than 50 CSP electricity projects are currently in the planning phase, mainly in North Africa, Spain and the USA. In Australia, the
federal government has called for 1,000 MWe of new solar plants, covering both CSP and PV, under the Solar Flagships programme. Figure 3.10
shows the current and planned deployment to add more CSP capacity
in the near future.
Hybrid solar/fossil plants have received increasing attention in recent
years, and several integrated solar combined-cycle (ISCC) projects
have been either commissioned or are under construction in the
Mediterranean region and the USA. The rst plant in Morocco (Ain
Beni Mathar: 470 MW total, 22 MW solar) began operating in June
2010, and two additional plants in Algeria (Hassi RMel: 150 MW total,
30 MW solar) and Egypt (Al Kuraymat: 140 MW total, 20 MW solar)
are under construction. In Italy, another example of an ISCC project is
Archimede; however, the plants 31,000-m2 parabolic trough solar eld
will be the rst to use molten salt as the heat transfer uid (SolarPACES,
2009a).
Solar fuel production technologies are in an earlier stage of development. The high-temperature solar reactor technology is typically being
developed at a laboratory scale of 1 to 10 kWth solar power input.
12,000
South Africa
China
10,000
Israel
Jordan
Egypt
8,000
Algeria
Morocco
Tunesia
6,000
Abu Dhabi
Australia
Spain
4,000
USA
2,000
0
1990
2000
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2012
2015
Figure 3.10 | Installed and planned concentrated solar power plants by country (Bloem
et al., 2010).
361
3.4.2
This subsection discusses the industry capacity and supply chain within
the ve technology areas of passive solar, active solar heating and cooling, PV electricity generation, CSP electricity generation and solar fuel
production.
In passive solar technologies, people make up part of the industry
capacity and the supply chain: namely, the engineers and architects
who collaborate to produce passively heated buildings. Close collaboration between the two disciplines has often been missing in the past,
but the dissemination of systematic design methodologies issued by
362
Chapter 3
Chapter 3
Figure 3.11 plots the increase in production from 2000 through 2009,
showing regional contributions (Jger-Waldau, 2010a). The compound
annual growth rate in production from 2003 to 2009 was more than
50%.
12,000
Rest of World
10,000
United States
China
8,000
Europe
Japan
6,000
4,000
Solar cell production capacities mean the following: for wafer-silicon-based solar
cells, only the cells; for thin lms, the complete integrated module. Only those companies that actually produce the active circuit (solar cell) are counted; companies
that purchase these circuits and then make modules are not counted.
2,000
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
70,000
60,000
ROW
India
50,000
South Korea
USA
40,000
30,000
China
Europe
Japan
20,000
10,000
0
Estimated
Production
2009
Planned
Capacity
2009
Planned
Capacity
2010
Planned
Capacity
2012
Planned
Capacity
2015
363
Chapter 3
70,000
60,000
50,000
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
0
2006
2009
2010
2012
2015
Figure 3.13 | Actual (2006) and announced (2009 to 2015) production capacities of
thin-lm and crystalline silicon-based solar modules (Jger-Waldau, 2010b).
364
Chapter 3
and Haugwitz, 2010; Ruhl et al., 2010). The possible solar cell production will also depend on the material use per Wp. Material consumption
could decrease from the current 8g/Wp to 7g/Wp or even 6g/Wp (which
could increase delivered PV capacity from 31 to 36 to 42 GW, respectively), but this may not be achieved by all manufacturers.
Forecasts of the future costs of vital materials have a high-prole history,
and there is ongoing public debate about possible material shortages
and competition regarding some (semi-)metals (e.g., In and Te) used in
thin-lm cell production. In a recent study, Wadia et al. (2009) explored
material limits for PV expansion by examining the dual constraints of
material supply and least cost per watt for the most promising semiconductors as active photo-generating materials. Contrary to the commonly
assumed scarcity of indium and tellurium, the study concluded that
the currently known economic reserves of these materials would allow
about 10TW of CdTe or CuInS2 solar cells to be installed.
In CSP electricity generation, the solar collector eld is readily scalable,
and the power block is based on adapted knowledge from the existing
power industry such as steam and gas turbines. The collectors themselves
benet from a range of existing skill sets such as mechanical, structural
and control engineers, and metallurgists. Often, the materials or components used in the collectors are already mass-produced, such as glass
mirrors.
By the end of 2010, strong competition had emerged and an increasing number of companies had developed industry-level capability to
supply materials such as high-reectivity glass mirrors and manufactured components. Nonetheless, the large evacuated tubes designed
specically for use in trough/oil systems for power generation remain
a specialized component, and only two companies (Schott and Solel)
have been capable of supplying large orders of tubes, with a third
company (Archimedes) now emerging. The trough concentrator itself
comprises know-how in both structures and thermally sagged glass mirrors. Although more companies are now offering new trough designs
and considering alternatives to conventional rear-silvered glass (e.g.,
polymer-based reective lms), the essential technology of concentration remains unchanged. Direct steam generation in troughs is under
demonstration, as is direct heating of molten salt, but these designs are
not yet commercially available. As a result of its successful operational
history, the trough/oil technology comprised most of the CSP installed
capacity in 2010.
Linear Fresnel and central-receiver systems comprise a high level of
know-how, but the essential technology is such that there is the potential for a greater variety of new industry participants. Although only a
couple of companies have historically been involved with central receivers, new players have entered the market over the last few years. There
are also technology developers and projects at the demonstration level
(China, USA, Israel, Australia, Spain). Central-receiver developers are
aiming for higher temperatures, and, in some cases, alternative heat
transfer uids such as molten salts. The accepted standard to date has
been to use large heliostats, but many of the new entrants are pursuing
much smaller heliostats to gain potential cost reductions through highvolume mass production. The companies now interested in heliostat
development range from optics companies to the automotive industry
looking to diversify. High-temperature steam receivers will benet from
existing knowledge in the boiler industry. Similarly, with linear Fresnel,
a range of new developments are occurring, although not yet as developed as the central-receiver technology.
Dish technology is much more specialized, and most effort presently
has been towards developing the dish/Stirling concept as a commercial
product. Again, the technology can be developed as specialized components through specic industry know-how such as the Stirling engine
mass-produced through the automotive industry.
Within less than 10 years prior to 2010, the CSP industry has gone from
negligible activity to over 2,400 MWe either commissioned or under
construction. A list of new CSP plants and their characteristics can be
found at the IEA SolarPACES web site.3 More than ten different companies are now active in building or preparing for commercial-scale
plants, compared to perhaps only two or three who were in a position to
build a commercial-scale plant three years ago. These companies range
from large organizations with international construction and project
management expertise who have acquired rights to specic technologies, to start-ups based on their own technology developed in-house. In
addition, major independent power producers and energy utilities are
playing a role in the CSP market.
The supply chain does not tend to be limited by raw materials, because
the majority of required materials are bulk commodities such as glass,
steel/aluminium, and concrete. The sudden new demand for the specic
solar salt mixture material for molten-salt storage is claimed to have
impacted supply. At present, evacuated tubes for trough plants can be
produced at a sufcient rate to service several hundred MW per year.
However, expanded capacity can be introduced readily through new factories with an 18-month lead time.
Solar fuel technology is still at an emerging stagethus, there is no
supply chain in place at present for commercial applications. However,
solar fuels will comprise much of the same solar-eld technology being
deployed for other high-temperature CSP systems, with solar fuels
requiring a different receiver/reactor at the focus and different downstream processing and control. Much of the downstream technology,
such as Fischer-Tropsch liquid fuel plants, would come from existing
expertise in the petrochemical industry. The scale of solar fuel demonstration plants is being ramped up to build condence for industry,
which will eventually expand operations.
3
See: www.solarpaces.org.
365
Chapter 3
Steam reforming of natural gas for hydrogen production is a conventional industrial-scale process that produces most of the worlds
hydrogen today, with the heat for the process derived from burning a
signicant proportion of the fossil fuel feedstock. Using concentrated
solar power, instead, as the source of the heat embodies solar energy in
the fuel. The solar steam-reforming of natural gas and other hydrocarbons, and the solar steam-gasication of coal and other carbonaceous
materials yields a high-quality syngas, which is the building block for a
wide variety of synthetic fuels including Fischer-Tropsch-type chemicals,
hydrogen, ammonia and methanol (Steinfeld and Meier, 2004).
3.4.3
Impact of policies4
366
Most successful solar policies are tailored to the barriers posed by specic applications. Across technologies, there is a need to offset relatively
high upfront investment costs (Denholm et al., 2009). Yet, in the case
of utility-scale CSP and PV projects, substantial and long-term investments are required at levels that exceed solar applications in distributed
markets. Solar heating and cooling technologies are included in many
policies, yet the characteristics of their applications differ from electricity-generating technologies. Policies based on energy yield rather than
collector surface area are generally preferred for various types of solar
thermal collectors (IEA, 2007). See Section 1.5 for further discussion.
Similar to other renewable sources, there is ongoing discussion about
the merits of existing solar policies to spur innovation and accelerate
deployment using cost-effective measures. Generallyand as discussed
Chapter 3
in Chapter 11the most successful policies are those that send clear,
long-term and consistent signals to the market. In addition to targeted
economic policies, government action through educationally based
schemes (e.g., workshops, workforce training programs and seminars)
and engagement of regulatory organizations are helping to overcome
many of the barriers listed in this section.
3.5
This section discusses how direct solar energy technologies are part of
the broader energy framework, focusing specically on the following:
low-capacity energy demand; district heating and other thermal loads;
PV generation characteristics and the smoothing effect; and CSP generation characteristics and grid stabilization. Chapter 8 addresses the
broader technical and institutional options for managing the unique
characteristics, production variability, limited predictability and locational dependence of some RE technologies, including solar, as well as
existing experience with and studies associated with the costs of that
integration.
3.5.1
There can be comparative advantages for using solar energy rather than
non-renewable fuels in many developing countries. Within a country, the
advantages can be higher in un-electried rural areas compared to urban
areas. Indeed, solar energy has the advantage, due to being modular, of
being able to provide small and decentralized supplies, as well as large
centralized ones. For more on integrated buildings and households, see
Section 8.3.2.
In a wide range of countries, particularly those that are not oil producers,
solar energy and other forms of RE can be the most appropriate energy
source. If electricity demand exceeds supply, the lack of electricity can
prevent development of many economic sectors. Even in countries with
high solar energy sustainable development potential, RE is often only considered to satisfy high-power requirements such as the industrial sector.
However, large-scale technologies such as CSP are often not available to
them due, for example, to resource conditions or suitable land area availability. In such cases, it is reasonable to keep the electricity generated near
the source to provide high amounts of power to cover industrial needs.
Applications that have low power consumption, such as lighting in rural
areas, can primarily be satised using onsite PVeven if the business plan
for electrication of the area indicates that a grid connection would be
more protable. Furthermore, the criteria to determine the most suitable
technological option for electrifying a rural area should include benets
such as local economic development, exploiting natural resources, creating jobs, reducing the countrys dependence on imports, and protecting
the environment.
5
3.5.2
Highly insulated buildings can be heated easily with relatively lowtemperature district-heating systems, where solar energy is ideal, or
quite small quantities of renewable-generated electricity (Boyle, 1996).
A district cooling and heating system (DCS) can provide both cooling
and heating for blocks of buildings. Since the district heating system
already makes the outdoor pipe network available, a district cooling system becomes a viable solution to the cooling demand of buildings. There
are already many DCS installations in the USA, Europe, Japan and other
Asian countries because this system has many advantages compared to
a decentralized cooling system. For example, it takes full advantage of
economy of scale and diversity of cooling demand of different buildings,
reduces noise and structure load, and saves considerable equipment area.
It also allows greater exibility in designing the building by removing the
cooling tower on the roof and chiller plant in the building or on the roof,
and it can provide more reliable and exible services through a specialized professional team in cold-climate areas (Shu et al., 2010). For more
on RE integration in district heating and cooling networks, see Section
8.2.2.3.
In China, Greece, Cyprus and Israel, solar water heaters make a signicant
contribution to supplying residential energy demand. In addition, solar
water heating is widely used for pool heating in Australia and the USA.
In countries where electricity is a major resource for water heating (e.g.,
Australia, Canada and the USA), the impact of numerous solar domestic
water heaters on the operation of the power grid depends on the utilitys load management strategy. For a utility that uses centralized load
switching to manage electric water heater load, the impact is limited to
fuel savings. Without load switching, the installation of many solar water
heaters may have the additional benet of reducing peak demand on the
grid. For a utility that has a summer peak, the time of maximum solar
water heater output corresponds with peak electrical demand, and there is
a capacity benet from load displacement of electric water heaters. Largescale deployment of solar water heating can benet both the customer
and the utility. Another benet to utilities is emissions reduction, because
solar water heating can displace the marginal and polluting generating
plant used to produce peak-load power.
Combining biomass and low-temperature solar thermal energy could provide zero emissions and high capacity factors to areas with less frequent
direct-beam solar irradiance. In the short term, local tradeoffs exist for
areas that have high biomass availability due to increased cloud cover
and rainfall. However, solar technology is more land-efcient for energy
production and greatly reduces the need for biomass growing area and
biomass transport cost. Some optimum ratio of CSP and biomass supply
is likely to exist at each site. Research is being conducted on tower and
dish systems to develop technologiessuch as solar-driven gasication of
biomassthat optimally combine both these renewable resources. In the
longer term, greater interconnectedness across different climate regimes
may provide more stability of supply as a total grid system; this situation
could reduce the need for occasional fuel supply for each individual CSP
system.
367
3.5.3
368
Chapter 3
Chapter 3
3.5.4
3.6
3.6.1
Environmental impacts
No consensus exists on the premium, if any, that society should pay for
cleaner energy. However, in recent years, there has been progress in
analyzing environmental damage costs, thanks to several major projects
to evaluate the externalities of energy in the USA and Europe (Gordon,
2001; Bickel and Friedrich, 2005; NEEDS, 2009; NRC, 2010). Solar energy
has been considered desirable because it poses a much smaller environmental burden than non-renewable sources of energy. This argument
has almost always been justied by qualitative appeals, although this
is changing.
Results for damage costs per kilogram of pollutant and per kWh were
presented by the International Solar Energy Society in Gordon (2001).
The results of studies such as NEEDS (2009), summarized in Table 3.3
for PV and in Table 3.4 for CSP, conrm that RE is usually comparatively
benecial, though impacts still exist. In comparison to the gures presented for PV and CSP here, the external costs associated with fossil
generation options, as summarized in Chapter 10.6, are considerably
higher, especially for coal-red generation.
Considering passive solar technology, higher insulation levels provide
many benets, in addition to reducing heating loads and associated
costs (Harvey, 2006). The small rate of heat loss associated with high
levels of insulation, combined with large internal thermal mass, creates
a more comfortable dwelling because temperatures are more uniform.
This can indirectly lead to higher efciency in the equipment supplying the heat. It also permits alternative heating systems that would not
Table 3.3 | Quantiable external costs for photovoltaic, tilted-roof, single-crystalline silicon, retrot, average European conditions; in US2005 cents/kWh (NEEDS, 2009).
2005
2025
2050
Health Impacts
0.17
0.14
0.10
Biodiversity
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
Material Damage
0.00
0.00
0.00
Land Use
Total
N/A
0.01
0.01
0.18
0.17
0.12
Table 3.4 | Quantiable external costs for concentrating solar power; in US2005 cents/
kWh (NEEDS, 2009).
2005
2025
2050
Health Impacts
0.65
0.10
0.06
Biodiversity
0.03
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Material Damage
0.01
0.00
0.00
Land Use
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.69
0.10
0.06
Total
369
370
Chapter 3
see Sinha et al. (2008), Zayed and Philippe (2009) and Wadia et al.
(2009).
It is noted that, in certain locations, periodic cleaning of the PV
panels may be necessary to maintain performance, resulting in nonnegligible water requirements.
With respect to lifecycle GHG emissions, Figure 3.14 shows the result
of a comprehensive literature review of PV-related lifecycle assessment (LCA) studies published since 1980 conducted by the National
Renewable Energy Laboratory. The majority of lifecycle GHG emission estimates cluster between about 30 and 80 g CO2eq/kWh, with
potentially important outliers at greater values (Figure 3.14). Note
that the distributions shown in Figure 3.14 do not represent an
assessment of likelihood; the gure simply reports the distribution
of currently published literature estimates passing screens for quality and relevance. Refer to Annex II for a description of literature
search methods and complete reference list, and Section 9.3.4.1
for further details on interpretation of LCA data. Variability in estimates stems from differences in study context (e.g., solar resource,
technological vintage), technological performance (e.g., efciency,
silicon thickness) and methods (e.g., LCA system boundaries). Efforts
to harmonize the methods and assumptions of these studies are
recommended such that more robust estimates of central tendency
and variability can be realized, as well as a better understanding of
the upper-quartile estimates. Further LCA studies are also needed to
increase the number of estimates for some technologies (e.g., CdTe).
As for the energy payback of PV (see also Box 9.3), Perpinan et al.
(2009) report paybacks of 2.0 and 2.5 years for microcrystalline silicon and monocrystalline silicon PV, respectively, taking into account
use in locations with moderate solar irradiation levels of around
1,700 kWh/m2/yr (6,120 MJ/m2/yr). Fthenakis and Kim (2010) show
payback times of grid-connected PV systems that range from 2 to
5 years for locations with global irradiation ranges from 1,900 to
1,400 kWh/m2/yr (6,840 MJ/m2/yr).
For CSP plants, the environmental consequences vary depending
on the technology. In general, GHG emissions and other pollutants
are reduced without incurring additional environmental risks. Each
square metre of CSP concentrator surface is enough to avoid the
annual production of 0.25 to 0.4 t of CO2. The energy payback time
of CSP systems can be as low as ve months, which compares very
favourably with their lifespan of about 25 to 30 years (see Box 9.3
for further discussion). Most CSP solar eld materials can be recycled
and reused in new plants (SolarPACES, 2008).
Land consumption and impacts on local ora and wildlife during the
build-up of the heliostat eld and other facilities are the main environmental issues for CSP systems (Pregger et al., 2009). Other impacts are
associated with the construction of the steel-intensive infrastructure for
solar energy collection due to mineral and fossil resource consumption,
Chapter 3
225
Maximum
75th Percentile
200
Median
25th Percentile
175
Minimum
Single Estimates
150
125
100
75
50
25
0
All Values
Mono-Crystalline Poly-Crystalline
Silicon (m-Si)
Silicon (p-Si)
Amorphous
Silicon (a-Si)
Cadmium
Telluride
(CdTe)
Nano-Crystalline
Dye Sensitized
(DSC)
Concentrator
Ribbon
Silicon
Cadmium
Selenide
Quantum Dot
(QDPV)
1
Estimates:
124
30
56
12
13
2*
References:
26
15
1
*same value
Figure 3.14 | Lifecycle GHG emissions of PV technologies (unmodied literature values, after quality screen). See Annex II for details of the literature search and citations of literature
contributing to the estimates displayed.
India (Rajasthan and Gujarat states), Australia, Chile, Peru, Mexico and
south-western USA.
371
Chapter 3
110
Maximum
100
75th Percentile
90
Median
80
25th Percentile
Minimum
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
All Values
Trough
Tower
Stirling
Fresnel
Estimates:
42
20
14
References:
13
Figure 3.15 | Lifecycle GHG emissions of CSP technologies (unmodied literature values,
after quality screen). See Annex II for details of literature search and citations of literature
contributing to the estimates displayed.
3.6.2
Social impacts
Solar energy has the potential to meet rising energy demands and
decrease GHG emissions, but solar technologies have faced resistance
due to public concerns among some groups. The land area requirements
for centralized CSP and PV plants raise concerns about visual impacts,
372
Increased deployment of consumer-purchased systems still faces barriers with respect to costs, subsidy structures that may be confusing,
and misunderstandings about reliability and maintenance requirements
(Faiers and Neame, 2006). Effective marketing of solar technologies
including publicizing impacts relative to traditional power generation
facilities, environmental benets and contribution to a secure energy
supplyhave helped to accelerate social acceptance and increase
willingness to pay (Batley et al., 2001). Government spending on solar
technologies through scal incentives and R&D could garner increased
public support through increased quantication and dissemination of
the economic impacts associated with those programs. A recent study
comparing job impacts across energy technologies showed that solar
PV had the greatest job-generating potential at an average of 0.87 jobyears per GWh, whereas CSP yielded an average of 0.23 job-years per
GWh, both of which exceeded estimated job creation for fossil technologies (Wei et al., 2010). Section 9.3.1 discusses qualications and
limitations of assessing the job market impact of RE.
Solar technologies can also improve the health and livelihood opportunities for many of the worlds poorest populations. Solar technologies
have the potential to address some of the gap in availability of modern energy services for the roughly 1.4 billion people who do not have
access to electricity and the more than 2.7 billion people who rely on
traditional biomass for home cooking and heating needs (IEA, 2010d;
see Section 9.3.2).
Solar home systems and PV-powered community grids can provide economically favourable electricity to many areas for which connection to
a main grid is impractical, such as in remote, mountainous and delta
regions. Electric lights are the most frequently owned and operated
household appliance in electried households, and access to electric lighting is widely accepted as the principal benet of electrication programs
(Barnes, 1988). Electric lighting may replace light supplied by kerosene
lanterns, which are generally associated with poor-quality light and high
household fuel expenditures, and which pose re and poisoning risks.
The improved quality of light allows for increased reading by household
members, study by children, and home-based enterprise activities after
dark, resulting in increased education and income opportunities for the
Chapter 3
household. Higher-quality light can also be provided through solar lanterns, which can afford the same benets achieved through solar home
system-generated lighting. Solar lantern models can be stand-alone or
can require central-station charging, and programs of manufacture, distribution and maintenance can provide micro-enterprise opportunities.
Use of solar lighting can represent a signicant cost savings to households over the lifetime of the technology compared to kerosene, and it
can reduce the 190 Mt of estimated annual CO2 emissions attributed to
fuel-based lighting (Mills, 2005). Solar-powered street lights and lights
for community buildings can increase security and safety and provide
night-time gathering locations for classes or community meetings. PV
systems have been effectively deployed in disaster situations to provide
safety, care and comfort to victims in the USA and Caribbean and could
be similarly deployed worldwide for crisis relief (Young, 1996).
Solar home systems can also power televisions, radios and cellular telephones, resulting in increased access to news, information and distance
education opportunities. A study of Bangladeshs Rural Electrication
Program revealed that in electried households all members are more
knowledgeable about public health issues, women have greater knowledge of family planning and gender equality issues, the income and
gender discrepancies in adult literacy rates are lower, and immunization
guidelines for children are adhered to more regularly when compared
with non-electried households (Barkat et al., 2002). Electried households may also buy appliances such as fans, irons, grinders, washing
machines and refrigerators to increase comfort and reduce the drudgery
associated with domestic tasks (ESMAP, 2004).
Indoor smoke from solid fuels is responsible for more than 1.6 million
deaths annually and 3.6% of the global burden of disease. This mortality
rate is similar in scale to the 1.7 million annual deaths associated with
unsafe sanitation and more than twice the estimated 0.8 million yearly
deaths from exposure to urban air pollution (Ezzati et al., 2002; see
Sections 9.3.2 and 9.3.4.3). In areas where solar cookers can satisfactorily produce meals, these cookers can reduce unhealthy exposure to high
levels of particulate matter from traditional use of solid fuels for cooking
and heating and the associated morbidity and mortality from respiratory
and other diseases. Decreased consumption of rewood will correspondingly reduce the time women spend collecting rewood. Studies
in India and Africa have collected data showing that this time can total
2 to 15 hours per week, and this is increasing in areas of diminishing
fuelwood supply (Brouwer et al., 1997; ESMAP, 2004). Risks to women
collecting fuel include injury, snake bites, landmines and sexual violence
(Manuel, 2003; Patrick, 2007); when children are enlisted to help with
this activity, they may do so at the expense of educational opportunities
(Nankhuni and Findeis, 2004). Well-being may be acutely at risk in refugee situations, as are strains on the natural resource systems where fuel
is collected (Lynch, 2002). Solar cookers do not generally full all household cooking needs due to technology requirements or their inability to
cook some traditional foods; however, even partial use of solar cookers
3.7
3.7.1
Section 10.5 offers a complementary perspective on drivers and trends of technological progress across RE technologies.
373
Chapter 3
summer comfort conditions, the use of a hybrid system is the best choice
using at least 20% less energy than any purely mechanical system.
374
3.7.2
Improved designs for solar heating and cooling systems are expected to
address longer lifetimes, lower installed costs and increased temperatures. The following are some design options: 1) the use of plastics in
residential solar water-heating systems; 2) powering air-conditioning
systems using solar energy systems, especially focusing on compound
parabolic concentrating collectors; 3) the use of at-plate collectors
for residential and commercial hot water; and 4) concentrating and
evacuated-tube collectors for industrial-grade hot water and thermally
activated cooling (see Section 3.3.4).
Heat storage represents a key technological challenge, because the wide
deployment of active solar buildings, covering 100% of their demand
for heating (and cooling, if any) with solar energy, largely depends
on developing cost-effective and practical solutions for seasonal heat
storage (Hadorn, 2005; Dincer and Rosen, 2010). The European Solar
Thermal Technology Platform vision assumes that by 2030, heat storage
systems will be available that allow for seasonal heat storage with an
energy density eight times higher than water (ESTTP, 2006).
In the future, active solar systemssuch as thermal collectors, PV panels, and PV-thermal systemswill be the obvious components of roof
and faades, and will be integrated into the construction process at the
earliest stages of building planning. The walls will function as a component of the active heating and cooling systems, supporting thermal
energy storage by applying advanced materials (e.g., phase-change
materials). One central control system will lead to optimal regulation of
the whole HVAC system, maximizing the use of solar energy within the
comfort parameters set by users. Heat- and cold-storage systems will
play an increasingly important role in reaching maximum solar thermal
contributions to cover the thermal requirements in buildings.
Chapter 3
3.7.3
Wp), but also on lifecycle gains, that is, actual energy yield (kWh/Wp
or kJ/Wp over the economic or technical lifetime).
High-productivity manufacturing, including in-process monitoring and control. Throughput and yield are important parameters
in low-cost manufacturing and essential to achieve the cost targets. In-process monitoring and control are crucial tools to increase
product quality and yield. Focused effort is needed to bring PV manufacturing to maturity.
Environmental sustainability. The energy and materials requirements in manufacturing, as well as the possibilities for recycling,
are important parameters in the overall environmental quality of
the product. Further shortening of the energy payback time, design
for recycling and, ideally, avoiding the use of materials that are not
abundant on Earth are the most important issues to be addressed.
Applicability. As discussed in more detail in the paragraphs on BOS
and systems, standardization and harmonization are important to
bring down the investment costs of PV. Some related aspects are
addressed on a module level. In addition, improved ease of installation is partially related to module features. Finally, aesthetic quality
of modules (and systems) is an important aspect for large-scale use
in the built environment.
Advanced technologies include those that have passed some proofof-concept phase or can be considered as 10- to 20-year development
options for the PV approaches discussed in Section 3.3.3 (Green, 2001,
2003; Nelson, 2003). These emerging PV concepts are medium to high
risk and are based on extremely low-cost materials and processes
with high performance. Examples are four- to six-junction concentrators (Marti and Luque, 2004; Dimroth et al., 2005), multiple-junction
polycrystalline thin lms (Coutts et al., 2003), crystalline silicon in the
sub-100-m-thick regime (Brendel, 2003), multiple-junction organic PV
(Yakimov and Forrest, 2002; Sun and Sariciftci, 2005) and hybrid solar
cells (Gnes and Sariciftci, 2008).
Even further out on the timeline are concepts that offer exceptional performance and/or very low cost but are yet to be demonstrated beyond
some preliminary stages. These technologies are truly high risk, but have
extraordinary technical potential involving new materials, new device
architectures and even new conversion concepts (Green, 2001, 2003;
Nelson, 2003). They go beyond the normal Shockley-Queisser limits
(Shockley and Queisser, 1961) and may include biomimetic devices (BarCohen, 2006), quantum dots (Conibeer et al., 2010), multiple-exciton
generation (Schaller and Klimov, 2004; Ellingson et al., 2005) and plasmonic solar cells (Catchpole and Polman, 2008).
375
Chapter 3
376
Chapter 3
3.7.4
CSP is a proven technology at the utility scale. The longevity of components has been established over two decades, O&M aspects are
understood, and there is enough operational experience to have enabled
O&M cost-reduction studies not only to recommend, but also to test,
those improvements. In addition, eld experience has been fed back to
industry and research institutes and has led to improved components
and more advanced processes. Importantly, there is now substantial
experience that allows researchers and developers to better understand the limits of performance, the likely potential for cost reduction,
or both. Studies (Sargent and Lundy LLC Consulting Group, 2003) have
concluded that cost reductions will come from technology improvement,
economies of scale and mass production. Other innovations related to
power cycles and collectors are discussed below.
CSP is a technology driven largely by thermodynamics. Thus, the thermal
energy conversion cycle plays a critical role in determining overall performance and cost. In general, thermodynamic cycles with higher
temperatures will perform more efciently. Of course, the solar collectors that provide the higher-temperature thermal energy to the process
must be able to perform efciently at these higher temperatures, and
today, considerable R&D attention is on increasing the operating temperature of CSP systems. Although CSP works with turbine cycles used
by the fossil-fuel industry, there are opportunities to rene turbines such
that they can better accommodate the duties associated with thermal
cycling invoked by solar inputs.
Considerable development is taking place to optimize the linkage
between solar collectors and higher-temperature thermodynamic
cycles. The most commonly used power block to date is the steam turbine (Rankine cycle). The steam turbine is most efcient and most cost
effective in large capacities. Present trough plants using oil as the heat
transfer uid limit steam turbine temperatures to 370C and turbine
cycle efciencies to around 37%, leading to design-point solar-to-electric
efciencies of the order of 18% and annual average efciency of 14%.
To increase efciency, alternatives to the use of oil as the heat transfer
uidsuch as producing steam directly in the receiver or using molten
saltsare being developed for troughs.
These uids and others are already preferred for central receivers.
Central receivers and dishes are capable of reaching the upper temperature limits of these uids (around 600C for present molten salts)
for advanced steam turbine cycles, whether subcritical or supercritical,
and they can also provide the temperatures needed for higher-efciency
cycles such as gas turbines (Brayton cycle) and Stirling engines. Such
high-temperature cycles have the capacity to boost design-point solarto-electricity efciency to 35% and annual average efciency to 25%.
The penalty for dry cooling is also reduced, and at higher temperatures
thermal storage is more efcient.
The collector is the single largest area for potential cost reduction in
CSP plants. For CSP collectors, the objective is to lower their cost while
achieving the higher optical efciency necessary for powering highertemperature cycles. Trough technology will benet from continuing
advances in solar-selective surfaces, and central receivers and dishes
will benet from improved receiver/absorber design that allows collection of very high solar uxes. Linear Fresnel is attractive in part because
the inverted-cavity design can reduce some of the issues associated
with the heat collection elements of troughs, although with reduced
annual optical performance.
Improved overall efciency yields a corresponding decrease in the area
of mirrors needed in the eld, and thus, lower collector cost and lower
O&M cost. Investment cost reduction is expected to come primarily from
the benets of mass production of key components that are specic to
the solar industry, and from economies of scale as the xed price associated with manufacturing tooling and installation is spread over larger
and larger capacities. In addition, the benets of learning by doing cannot be overestimated. A more detailed assessment of future technology
improvements that would benet CSP can be found in ECOSTAR (2005), a
European project report edited by the German Aerospace Center.
3.7.5
The ability to store solar energy in the form of a fuel may be desirable not
only for the transportation industry, but also for high-efciency electricity generation using todays combined cycles, improved combined cycles
using advances in gas turbines, and fuel cells. In addition, solar fuels offer
a form of storage for solar electricity generation.
Future solar fuel processes will benet from the continuing development
of high-temperature solar collectors, but also from other elds of science
such as electrochemistry and biochemistry. Many researchers consider
hydrogen to offer the most attraction for the future, although intermediate and transitional approaches are also being developed. Hydrogen is
considered in this section, with other solar fuels having been covered in
previous sections.
Future technology innovation for solar electrolysis is the photoelectrochemical (PEC) cell, which converts solar irradiance into chemical energy
such as H2. A PEC cell is fabricated using an electrode that absorbs the
solar light, two catalytic lms, and a membrane separating H2 and oxygen
(O2). Semiconductor material can be used as a solar light-absorbing anode
in PEC cells (Bolton, 1996; Park and Holt, 2010).
Promising thermochemical processes for future clean hydrogen mass
production encompass the hybrid-sulphur cycle and metal oxide-based
cycles. The hybrid-sulphur cycle is a two-step water-splitting process using
an electrochemical, instead of thermochemical, reaction for one of the
two steps. In this process, sulphur dioxide depolarizes the anode of the
electrolyzer, which results in a signicant decrease in the reversible cell
potentialand, therefore, the electric power requirement for the electrochemical reaction step. A number of solar reactors applicable to solar
thermochemical metal oxide-based cycles have been developed, including
377
378
Chapter 3
approaches are still nascent, but could become viable in the future as
energy market prices increase and solar power generation costs continue to decrease.
3.7.6
There are also methods for producing electricity from solar thermal
energy without the need for an intermediate thermodynamic cycle.
This direct solar thermal power generation includes such concepts as
thermoelectric, thermionic, magnetohydrodynamic and alkali-metal
methods. The thermoelectric concept is the most investigated to date,
and all have the attraction that the absence of a heat engine should
mean a quieter and theoretically more efcient method of producing
electricity, with suitability for distributed generation. Specialized applications include military and space power.
Space-based solar power (SSP) is the concept of collecting vast quantities of solar power in space using large satellites in Earth orbit, then
sending that power to receiving antennae (rectennae) on Earth via
microwave power beaming. The concept was rst introduced in 1968 by
Peter Glaser. NASA and the US Department of Energy (US DOE) studied
SSP extensively in the 1970s as a possible solution to the energy crisis of
that time. Scientists studied system concepts for satellites large enough
to send GW of power to Earth and concluded that the concept seemed
technically feasible and environmentally safe, but the state of enabling
technologies was insufcient to make SSP economically competitive.
Since the 1970s, however, great advances have been made in these
technologies, such as high-efciency PV cells, highly efcient solid-state
microwave power electronics, and lower-cost space launch vehicles
(Mankins, 1997, 2002, 2009; Kaya et al., 2001; Hoffert et al., 2002). Still,
signicant breakthroughs will be required to achieve cost-competitive
terrestrial base-load power (NAS, 2004).
3.8
Cost trends8
3.8.1
Chapter 3
3.8.2
1 m of collector area is converted into 0.7 kWth of installed capacity (see Section 3.4.1).
379
Chapter 3
150
Solar Irradiation: 800 kWh/m/a;
Conversion Efciency/Degree of
Utilization: 35%
140
130
120
110
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
4
10
11
12
13
3.8.3
380
Chapter 3
100
1976
[65 USD/W]
50
10
2010
[1.4 USD/W]
0,5
10
100
1,000
10,000
100,000
Figure 3.17 | Solar price experience or learning curve for silicon PV modules. Data displayed follow the supply and demand uctuations. Data source: Maycock (1976-2003);
Bloomberg (2010).
381
Chapter 3
25
Europe Maximum
Europe Minimum
USA Maximum
20
USA Average
USA Minimum
Japan Average
15
10
0
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
Figure 3.18 | Installed cost of PV systems smaller than 100 kWp in Europe, Japan and the USA. Data sources: Urbschat et al. (2002); Jger-Waldau (2005); Wiser et al. (2009); Bundesverband Solarwirtschaft e.V. (2010); SEIA (2010a,b).
and 5 to 7 US cents2005/kWh for utilities (US DOE, 2008). All of these cost
targets are just below what seems to be possible to achieve for projects
of similar type realized around 2008 even under very optimistic conditions
(see Figure 3.19 as well as Annex III). Given continued cost reductions in
the near term, these cost targets appear to be well within reach for projects
that can be realized under favourable conditions. Relatively more progress
will be required, however, to allow achieving such costs on a broader scale.
3.8.4
382
The total investment for the nine plants comprising the Solar Electric
Generating Station (SEGS) in California was USD2005 1.18 billion, and construction and associated costs for the Nevada Solar One plant amounted to
245 million (USD2005, assumed 2007 base).
The two main parameters that inuence the solar capacity factor
of a CSP plant are the solar irradiation and the amount of storage or the availability of a gas-red boiler as an auxiliary heater,
for example, the SEGS plants in California (Fernndez-Garca et al.,
2010). In case of solar-only CSP plants, the capacity factor is directly
related to the available solar irradiation. With storage, the capacity
factor could in theory be increased to 100%; however, this is not an
economic option and trough plants are now designed for 6 to 7.5
hours of storage and a capacity factor of 36 to 41% (see Section
3.3.4). Tower plants, with their higher temperatures, can charge and
store molten salt more efciently, and projects designed for up to
Chapter 3
70
PV (residential rooftop), USD2005 3700
PV (residential rooftop), USD2005 5250
60
50
40
30
20
10
11%
13%
15%
17%
19%
21%
23%
25%
27%
80
PV - residential rooftop, Discount Rate = 3%
PV - residential rooftop, Discount Rate = 7%
PV - residential rooftop, Discount Rate = 10%
PV - commerical rooftop, Discount Rate = 3%
PV - commerical rooftop, Discount Rate = 7%
PV - commerical rooftop, Discount Rate = 10%
PV - utility scale, xed tilt, Discount Rate = 3%
PV - utility scale, xed tilt, Discount Rate = 7%
PV - utility scale, xed tilt, Discount Rate = 10%
PV - utility scale, 1-axis, Discount Rate = 3%
PV - utility scale, 1-axis, Discount Rate = 7%
PV - utility scale, 1-axis, Discount Rate = 10%
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
11%
13%
15%
17%
19%
21%
23%
25%
27%
383
Chapter 3
Table 3.5 | IEA price forecasts for 2020 and 2050. The ranges are given for 2,000 kWh/
kWp and 1,000 kWh/kWp (IEA, 2010c).
2020
(US cents2005 )
2050
(US cents2005)
2000
1000
2000
1000
22.8%
11.4%
22.8%
11.4%
Residential PV
14.5
28.6
5.9
12.2
Utility-scale PV
9.5
19.0
4.1
8.2
Economies of Scale
Implementation of
Major Technological
Improvements
Economies
of Scale
limited available performance data for the thermal storage state should
be noted.
For large, state-of-the-art trough plants, current investment costs are
reported as USD2005 3.82/W (without storage) to USD2005 7.65/W (with
storage) depending on labour and land costs, technologies, the amount
and distribution of direct-normal irradiance and, above all, the amount
of storage and the size of the solar eld (IEA, 2010b). Storage increases
the investment costs due to the storage itself, as well as the additional
collector area needed to charge the storage. But it also improves the
ability to dispatch electricity at times of peak tariffs in the market or
when balancing power is needed. Thus, a strategic approach to storage
can improve a projects internal rate of return.
The IEA (2010b) estimates LCOEs for large solar troughs in 2009 to
range from USD2005 0.18 to 0.27/kWh for systems with different amounts
of thermal storage and for different levels of solar irradiation. This is
broadly in line with the range of LCOEs derived for a system with six
hours of storage at a 10% discount rate (as applied by the IEA), although
the full range of values derived for different discount rates is broader
(see Annex III). Based on the data and assumptions provided in Annex III
of this report, and the methods specied in Annex II, the following two
5-30%
100%
70-95%
40-55%
Points
10-15%
Points
35-50%
90%
40-55%
80%
28-37%Points
21-33%
Points
45%-60%
70%
50-65%
60%
45-60%
50%
40%
2012
2015
Validated Proven
Improvement Measures
Estimated Tariff
Reductions
2020
2025
1st Large
Scale
Plants 1)
Cost
Efciency
Economies
of Scale
LCOE
2025
Conservative Outlook
Cost & Efciency
Improvements
Main Drivers
for Tariff
Reduction
Figure 3.20 | Expected cost decline for CSP plants from 2012 to 2025. The cost number includes the cost of the plant plus nancing (A.T. Kearney, 2010). As reduction ranges for cost,
efciency and economies of scale in the right panel overlap, their total contribution in 2025 amounts to less than their overall total.
Note: General. Tariffs equal the minimum required tariff, and are compared to 2012 tariffs. 1. Referring to 2010 to 2013 according to planned commercialization date of each technology (reference plant).
384
Chapter 3
30
28
commercially mature than troughs and thus presents slightly higher investment costs than troughs at the present time; however, cost reductions of
40 to 75% are predicted for central-receiver technology (IEA, 2010b).
26
24
The US DOE (2011) states its CSP goals for the USA in terms of USD/kWh,
rather than USD/W, because the Solar Energy Technologies Program is
designed to affect the LCOE and includes signicant storage. The specic
CSP goals are the following: 9 to 11 US cents2005/kWh by 2010; 6 to 8 US
cents2005/kWh (with 6 hours of thermal storage) by 2015; and 5 to 6 US
cents2005/kWh (with 12 to 17 hours of thermal storage) by 2020 (USD2005,
assumed 2009 base). The EU is pursuing similar goals through a comprehensive RD&D program.
22
20
18
16
14
12
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
Capacity Factor[%]
30
26
24
22
20
18
16
14
12
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
28
3.8.5
43
Capacity Factor[%]
Figure 3.21 | Levelized cost of CSP electricity generation, 2009. Upper panel: Cost of
CSP electricity generation as a function of capacity factor and investment cost1,3. Lower
panel: Cost of CSP electricity generation as a function of capacity factor and discount
rate2,3. Source: Annex III.
Notes: 1. Discount rate assumed to equal 7%. 2. Investment cost for CSP plant with six
hours of thermal storage assumed at USD2005 6,650/kW. 3. Annual O&M cost assumed
at USD2005 71/kW, lifetime at 25 years.
plots show the sensitivity of the LCOE of CSP plants with six hours of
thermal storage with respect to investment cost (Figure 3.21, upper) and
discount rates (Figure 3.21, lower) as a function of capacity factor.
The learning ratio for CSP, excluding the power block, is given as 10 5%
by Neij (2008; IEA, 2010b). Other studies provide learning rates according
to CSP components: Trieb et al. (2009b) give 10% for the solar eld, 8% for
storage, and 2% for the power block, whereas NEEDS (2009) and Viebahn
et al. (2010) state 12% for the solar eld, 12% for storage, and 5% for the
power block.
Cost reductions for trough plants of the order of 30 to 40% within the
next decade are considered achievable. Central-receiver technology is less
385
Chapter 3
Standard
Optimistic
159
136
114
Lifetime (years)
20
25
30
1,700
170
17
0.14
0.11
0.05
Electrolyzer (decrease in %)
-10
-20
-10
-20
-20
-40
3.9
Potential deployment12
3.9.1
Near-term forecasts
In 2010, the main market drivers are the various national support programs for solar-powered electricity systems or low-temperature solar
heat installations. These programs either support the installation of the
systems or the generated electricity. The market support for the different
solar technologies varies signicantly between the technologies, and
also varies regionally for the same technology. This leads to very different thresholds and barriers for becoming competitive with existing
technologies. Regardless, the future deployment of solar technologies
depends strongly on public support to develop markets, which can then
drive down costs due to learning. It is important to remember that learning-related cost reductions depend, in part at least, on actual production
and deployment volumes, not just on the passage of time, though other
factors such as R&D also act to drive costs down (see Section 10.5).
Table 3.7 presents the results of a selection of scenarios for the growth
in solar deployment capacities in the near term, until 2020. It should
be highlighted that passive solar gains are not included in these statistics, because this technology reduces demand and is therefore not
part of the supply chain considered in energy statistics. The same PV
technology can be applied for stand-alone, mini-grid, or hybrid systems
in remote areas without grid connection, as well as for distributed and
12 Complementary perspectives on potential deployment based on a comprehensive
assessment of numerous model-based scenarios of the energy system are presented
in Sections 10.2 and 10.3.
386
3.9.2
The IPCC Fourth Assessment Report estimated the available (technical) solar energy resource as 1,600 EJ/yr for PV and 50 EJ/yr for
CSP; however, this estimate was given as very uncertain, with sources
reporting values orders of magnitude higher (Sims et al., 2007). On
the other hand, the projected deployment of direct solar in the IPCC
Fourth Assessment Report gives an economic potential contribution of
Chapter 3
Table 3.7 | Evolution of cumulative solar capacities based on different scenarios reported in EREC-Greenpeace (Teske et al., 2010) and IEA Roadmaps (IEA, 2010b,c).
Current value
2015
2020
180
2009
2015
2020
22
2015
2020
0.7
180
230
44
80
12
715
1,875
98
335
25
105
780
2,210
108
439
30
225
IEA Roadmaps
N/A
951
210
N/A
148
direct solar to the world electricity supply by 2030 of 633 TWh (2.3 EJ/
yr) (Sims et al., 2007).
Chapter 10 provides a summary of the literature on the possible future
contribution of RE supplies in meeting global energy needs under a
range of GHG concentration stabilization scenarios. Focusing specically on solar energy, Figure 3.22(a) presents modelling results for
the global supply of solar energy. Figure 3.22(b) shows solar thermal
heat generation, and Figures 3.22(c) and (d) present solar PV and CSP
electricity generation respectively, all at the global scale. Depending
on the quantity shown, between 44 and about 156 different longterm scenarios underlie these gures derived from a diversity of
modelling teams and spanning a wide range of assumptions about
among other variablesenergy demand growth, cost and availability
of competing low-carbon technologies, and cost and availability of
RE technologies (including solar energy). Chapter 10 discusses how
changes in some of these variables impact RE deployment outcomes,
with Section 10.2.2 describing the literature from which the scenarios
have been taken. Figures 3.22(a) to 3.22(d) present the solar energy
deployment results under these scenarios for 2020, 2030 and 2050
for three GHG concentration stabilization ranges, based on the IPCCs
Fourth Assessment Report: >600 ppm CO2 (Baselines), 440 to 600
ppm (Categories III and IV) and <440 ppm (Categories I and II), all by
2100. Results are presented for the median scenario, the 25th to 75th
percentile range among the scenarios, and the minimum and maximum
scenario results.13
In the baseline scenarios, that is, without any climate policies assumed,
the median deployment levels for solar energy remain very low, in the
13 In scenario ensemble analyses such as the review underlying the gures, there is a
constant tension between the fact that the scenarios are not truly a random sample
and the sense that the variation in the scenarios does still provide real and often
clear insights into collective knowledge or lack of knowledge about the future (see
Section 10.2.1.2 for a more detailed discussion).
range of todays solar primary energy supply of below 1 EJ/yr, until 2050.
It is worthwhile noting that the much smaller set of scenarios that
reports solar thermal heat generation (44 compared to the full set
of 156 that report solar primary energy) shows substantially higher
median deployment levels of solar thermal heat of up to about 12 EJ/
yr by 2050 even in the baseline cases. In contrast, electricity generation from solar PV and CSP is projected to stay at very low levels.
The picture changes with increasingly low GHG concentration stabilization levels that exhibit signicantly higher median contributions
from solar energy than the baseline scenarios. By 2030 and 2050, the
median deployment levels of solar energy reach 1.6 and 12.2 EJ/yr,
respectively, in the intermediate stabilization categories III and IV that
result in atmospheric CO2 concentrations of 440-600 ppm by 2100. In
the most ambitious stabilization scenario category, where CO2 concentrations remain below 440 ppm by 2100, the median contribution
of solar energy to primary energy supply reaches 5.9 and 39 EJ/yr by
2030 and 2050, respectively.
The scenario results suggest a strong dependence of the deployment of
solar energy on the climate stabilization level, with signicant growth
expected in the median cases until 2030 and in particular until 2050
in the most ambitious climate stabilization scenarios. Breaking down
the development by individual technology, it appears that solar PV
deployment is most dependent on climate policies to reach signicant
deployment levels while CSP and even more so solar thermal heat
deployment show a lower dependence on climate policies. However,
this interpretation should be applied with care, because CSP electricity and solar thermal heat generation were reported by signicantly
fewer scenarios than solar PV electricity generation.
The ranges of solar energy deployment at the global level are extremely
large, also compared to other RE sources (see Section 10.2.2.5), indicating
387
Chapter 3
150
50
N=44
50
40
30
20
10
2020
2030
2050
2020
100
N=123
80
60
40
2050
2030
60
N=59
50
40
30
20
20
10
2020
2030
2050
2020
2030
2050
Figure 3.22 | Global solar energy supply and generation in long-term scenarios (median, 25th to 75th percentile range, and full range of scenario results; colour coding is based
on categories of atmospheric CO2 concentration level in 2100; the specic number of scenarios underlying the gure is indicated in the right upper corner): (a) Global solar primary
energy supply; (b) global solar thermal heat generation; (c) global PV electricity generation; and (d) Global CSP electricity generation (adapted from Krey and Clarke, 2011; see also
Chapter 10).
388
Chapter 3
In the most ambitious climate stabilization scenarios, the 75th percentiles of the solar primary energy supply by 2030 reach up to 26 EJ/yr, a
ve-fold increase compared to the median of the same category and
the highest estimates even reach up to 50 EJ/yr. For 2050 the equivalent numbers are 82 EJ/yr (75th percentile) and 130 EJ/yr (maximum
level), which can be attributed to a large extent to solar PV electricity
generation, which reaches deployment levels of more than 80 EJ/yr by
2050, but CSP electricity and solar thermal heat also contribute signicantly under these very high solar deployment levels. The share of
solar PV in global electricity generation in the most extreme scenarios
reaches up to about 12% by 2030 and up to one-third by 2050, but in
the vast majority of scenarios remains in the single digit percentage
range.
from CSP are anticipated for 2030 and 1,347 TWh (4,849 PJ) and 385
TWh (1,386 PJ) for 2050, respectively.
Achieving the higher global scenario results for solar energy would
clearly require substantial solar deployment in every region of the world.
The regional scenarios presented here suggest that regional deployment
paths may exist to support such a global result. Nonetheless, enabling
this growth in regions new to solar energy may present cost and institutional challenges that would require active management; institutional
and technical knowledge transfer from those regions that are already
witnessing substantial solar energy activity may be required.
Supply chain issues. Passive solar energy markets and industries have
largely developed locally to this point because the building market itself
is local. Enabling high-penetration solar energy futures may require a
globalization of at least knowledge on passive solar technologies to
enable broader market penetration. Low-temperature solar thermal is
implemented all over the world within local markets, with local suppliers, but a global market is starting to be developed. The PV industry is
already global in scope, with a global supply chain, while CSP is starting to develop a global supply chainin 2010, the CSP market was
driven by Spain and the USA, but other countries such as Germany and
India are also helping to expand the market. In general, supply chain
and materials constraints may impact the speed and scope of solar
energy deployment in certain regions and at certain times, but such
factors are unlikely to restrict the ability of solar energy technologies
to meet the higher penetrations envisioned by the more aggressive
scenarios presented earlier. In fact, the modular nature of many of
the solar technologies, both in manufacturing and use, as well as the
diverse applications for solar energy suggest that supply chain issues
are unlikely to constrain growth.
Technology and economics. The technical maturity and economic
competitiveness of solar technologies vary. Passive solar consists of
well-established technologies, though with room for improvement;
389
390
Chapter 3
corrosive liquids in its production lines. The presence and amount of those
materials depend strongly on the cell type, however, and rigorous control
methods are used to minimize the risk of accidental releases. Recycling of
PV materials may also become more common as deployment continues.
Water availability and consumption is the main environmental concern
for CSP, though dry cooling technology can substantially reduce water
usage. Finally, especially for central-station PV and CSP installations, the
ecological, social and visual impacts associated with plant infrastructure
may be of concern. Efforts to better understand the nature and magnitude of these impacts, together with efforts to minimize and mitigate
them, may need to be pursued in concert with increasing solar energy
deployment.
3.9.3
Chapter 3
References
R&D reactor. In: Proceedings of the 24th European Photovoltaic Solar Energy
Conference, Hamburg, Germany, 21-25 September 2009, pp. 2293-2298.
Bernreuther, J., and F. Haugwitz (2010). The Whos Who of Silicon Production.
Bernreuther Consulting, Wuerzburg, Germany.
Bett, A.W., F. Dimroth, W. Gulter, R. Hoheisel, E. Oliva, S.P. Philips, J. Schone,
G. Siefer, M. Steiner, A. Wekkeli, E. Welser, M. Meusel, W. Kostler, and
Arce, P., M. Medrano, A. Gil, E. Or, and L.F. Cabeza (2011). Overview of thermal
G. Strobl (2009). Highest efciency multi-junction solar cell for terrestrial and
energy storage (TES) potential energy savings and climate change mitigation in
Arif Hasan, M., and K. Sumathy (2010). Photovoltaic thermal module concepts
PV-plant applications. In: Proceedings of the 10th E.C. Photovoltaic Solar Energy
Asano, H., K. Yajima, and Y. Kaya (1996). Inuence of photovoltaic power generation on required capacity for load frequency control. IEEE Transactions on Energy
Conversion, 11(1), pp. 188-193.
ASHRAE (2009). ASHRAE Handbook Fundamentals. American Society of Heating,
Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Athienitis, A.K. (2008). Design of advanced solar homes aimed at net-zero annual
energy consumption in Canada. In: ISES-AP 3rd International Solar Energy
Society Conference Asia Pacic Region. Incorporating the 46th ANZSES
Conference, Sydney, Australia, 25-28 Nov. 2008, pp. 14.
Athienitis, A.K., and M. Santamouris (2002). Thermal Analysis and Design of
Passive Solar Buildings. James & James, London, UK, 288 pp.
Bosi, M., and C. Pelosi (2007). The potential of III-V semiconductors as terrestrial
Baoshan, L. (2010). Research on the progress of silicon materials in China. In: 6th
China SoG Silicon and PV Conference (CSPV) 2010, Shanghai, PR China, 16-18
tion sources from the system operations perspective. IEEE Transactions on Energy
March 2010.
Bar-Cohen, Y. (ed.) (2006). Biomimetics: Biologically Inspired Technologies. Taylor &
Francis, Boca Raton, FL, USA.
Barbose, G., N. Darghouth, and R. Wiser (2010). The Installed Cost of Photovoltaics
in the U.S. from 1998-2009. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley,
CA, USA.
Barkat, A., S.H. Khan, M. Rahman, S. Zaman, A. Poddar, S. Halim, N.N. Ratna,
power plants and local power generation. In: Proceedings of the 23rd European
Photovoltaic Solar Energy Conference, Valencia, Spain, 1-5 September 2008, pp.
3645-3652.
Brendel, R. (2003). Thin Film Crystalline Silicon Solar Cells. Wiley-VCH, Weinheim,
Germany.
Breyer, C., A. Gerlach, J. Mueller, H. Behacker, and A. Milner (2009). Grid-
Batley, S.L., D. Colbourne, P.D. Fleming, and P. Urwin (2001). Citizen versus con-
sumer: challenges in the UK green power market. Energy Policy, 29, pp. 479-487.
Bazilian, M.D., F. Leenders, B.G.C. Van der Ree, and D. Prasad (2001). Photovoltaic
progress ratio. In: Proceedings of the 24th European Photovoltaic Solar Energy
391
Chapter 3
Brouwer, I.D., J.C. Hoorweg, and M.J. van Liere (1997). When households run
Bunea, M.M., K. Johnston, C.M. Bonner, P. Cousins, D.D. Smith, D.H. Rose,
Silicon quantum dot based solar cells: addressing the issues of doping, voltage
of high efciency back contact solar cells for low concentration photovoltaics.
In: Proceedings of the 35th Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE)
doi:10.1002/pip.1045.
Photovoltaic Specialists Conference, Honolulu, Hawaii, 20-25 June 2010, pp. 823826 (ISSN: 0160-8371).
Butti, K., and J. Perlin (1980). A Golden Thread: 2500 Years of Solar Architecture and
Technology. Cheshire Books, Frodsham, UK, 289 pp.
Cabeza, L., A. Castell, M. Medrano, I. Martorell, G. Prez, and I. Fernndez
(2010). Experimental study on the performance of insulation materials in
Mediterranean construction. Energy and Buildings, 42(5), pp. 630-636.
Candanedo, J., and A.K. Athienitis (2010). A simulation study of anticipatory control strategies in a net zero energy solar-optimized house. ASHRAE Transactions,
116(1), pp. 246-260.
Carlson, D.E., and C.R. Wronski (1976). Amorphous silicon solar cell. Applied
Physics Letters, 28(11), pp. 671-673.
Coutts, T.J., J.S. Ward, D.L. Young, K.A. Emery, T.A. Gessert, and R. Nou (2003).
Critical issues in the design of polycrystalline, thin-lm tandem solar cells.
Progress in Photovoltaics: Research and Applications, 11(6), pp. 359-375.
Curtright, A., and J. Apt (2008). The character of power output from utility-scale
photovoltaic systems. Progress in Photovoltaics: Research and Applications,
16(3), pp. 241-247.
de Vries, B., D. van Vuuren, and M.M. Hoogwijk (2007). Renewable energy
sources: Their global potential for the rst half of the 21st century at a global
level: An integrated approach. Energy Policy, 35(4), pp. 2590-2610.
Denholm, P., E. Drury, R. Margolis, and M. Mehos (2009). Solar Energy: The
Largest Energy Resource, Generating Electricity in a Carbon Constrained World.
Elsevier, Paris, France.
DESERTEC Foundation (2007). Clean Power from Deserts - The DESERTEC Concept
Experimental study using PCM in brick constructive solutions for passive cooling.
for Energy, Water and Climate Security. 4th ed. WhiteBook, Protext Verlag, Bonn,
Germany.
Dimmler, B., and H.W. Schock (1996). Scaling-up of CIS technology for thin-lm
solar modules. Progress in Photovoltaics: Research and Applications, 4(6), pp.
425-433.
Dimroth, F., C. Baur, A.W. Bett, M. Meusel, and G. Strobl (2005). 3-6 junction photovoltaic cells for space and terrestrial concentrator. In: 31st Institute of Electrical
and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) Photovoltaic Specialists Conference, Lake Buena
Vista, Florida, 3-7 January 2005, pp. 525-529.
Dincer, I., and M. Rosen (2010). Thermal Energy Storage. Systems and Applications.
2nd ed. Wiley-Blackwell, Bogner Regis, UK.
efciency dye sensitized solar cells. In: Technical Digest, 15th International
and Research, San Jose, CA, USA. Available for subscribers at: www.displaybank.
392
com/eng/info/sread.php?id=5724.
DLR (2007). AQUA-CSP. Concentrating Solar Power for Seawater Desalination. Final
Report. Institute of Technical Thermodynamics, Section Systems Analysis and
Technology Assessment, German Aerospace Center (DLR), Stuttgart, Germany,
279 pp.
Dufe, J.A., and W.A. Beckman (2006). Solar Engineering of Thermal Processes. 3rd
ed. Wiley, New York, NY, USA, 928 pp.
Ecofys Netherlands BV (2007). Current State-of-the-Art and Best Practices of
BIPV. D6.1.1. European Commission Sixth Framework Programme. Contract No.
019718, Ecofys Netherlands BV, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
ECOSTAR (2005). European Concentrated Solar Thermal Road-Mapping. German
Aerospace Centre (DLR), Stuttgart, Germany.
Chapter 3
Faiers, A., and C. Neame (2006). Consumer attitudes towards domestic solar power
systems. Energy Policy, 34, pp. 1797-1806.
Fawer, M., and B. Magyar (2010). Solar Industry Entering New Dimensions:
Comparison of Technologies, Markets and Industries. Solar Energy 2010.
Eiffert, P., and G.K. Kiss (2000). Building-Integrated Photovoltaic Designs for
at: www.esocialsciences.com/data/articles/Document110122010400.3811609.pdf.
Felder, R., and A. Meier (2008). Well-to-wheel analysis of solar hydrogen production and utilization for passenger car transportation. Journal of Solar Energy
Engineering, 130(1), 011017.
Fernndez-Garca, A., E. Zarza, L. Valenzuela, and M. Prez (2010). Parabolictrough solar collectors and their applications. Renewable and Sustainable Energy
Reviews, 14, pp. 1695-1721.
Fong, K.F., T.T. Chow, C.K. Lee, Z. Lin, and L.S. Chan (2010). Comparative study
of different solar cooling systems for buildings in subtropical city. Solar Energy,
at: www.iea-pvps-task10.org/IMG/pdf/IEA-PVPS_T10-03-2006__Urban_BIPV_in_
the_New_Residential_Construction_Industry.pdf.
EPIA (2010). Global Market Outlook for Photovoltaics until 2014. European
Photovoltaic Industry Association (EPIA), Brussels, Belgium, 28 pp.
Epstein, M., G. Olalde, S. Santen, A. Steinfeld, and C. Wieckert (2008). Towards
the industrial solar carbothermic production of zinc. Journal of Solar Energy
Engineering, 130(1), 014505.
ESMAP (2004). The Impact of Energy on Womens Lives in Rural India. Energy Sector
Management Assistance Programme (ESMAP) Paper No. ESM276, Joint UNDP/
World Bank ESMAP, Washington, DC, 96 pp.
ESTTP (2006). Solar Thermal Vision 2030. Vision of the Usage and Status of Solar
Furbo, S., E. Andersen, S. Knudsen, N.K. Vejen, and L.J. Shah (2005). Smart
Make the Vision a Reality. European Solar Thermal Technology Platform (ESTTP)
solar tanks for small solar domestic hot water systems. Solar Energy, 78(2), pp.
269-279.
ESTTP (2008). Solar Heating and Cooling for a Sustainable Energy Future in Europe
Photovoltaic Power Systems Program (PVPS), Task 10, Activity 4.4, Report IEA-
the International Energy Agency, Hespu, Villeurbanne, France, 44 pp. Available at:
www2.epia.org/documents/NL_0606_002.pdf.
Luxembourg, 76 pp.
EurObservER (2009). Photovoltaic Energy Barometer. EurObservER, Observatoire
des Energies Renouvelables, Paris, France.
European Commission (2007). A European Strategic Energy Technology Plan (SETPlan) - Technology Map. European Commission, Brussels, Belgium.
Gil, A., M. Medrano, I. Martorell, A. Lazaro, P. Dolado, B. Zalba, and L.F. Cabeza
(2010). State of the art on high temperature thermal energy storage for power
generation. Part 1-Concepts, materials and modellization. Renewable and
Sustainable Energy Reviews, 14(1), pp. 31-55.
Goodrich, A. C., M. Woodhouse, and T. James (2011). Solar PV manufacturing
European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee
aspx?leticket=2WF9d-ukumA%3D&tabid=408.
Gordon, J.M. (ed.) (2001). Solar Energy: The State of the Art. ISES Position Papers.
James & James London, UK, 706 pp.
Sustainable Future. G. Boyle (ed.), Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, pp. 41-88.
Graf, D., N. Monnerie, M. Roeb, M. Schmitz, and C. Sattler (2008). Economic com-
Ezzati, M., A.D. Lopez, A. Rodgers, S. Vander Hoorn, and C.J.L. Murray (2002).
Selected major risk factors and global and regional burden of disease. Lancet,
393
Chapter 3
Hoffmann, W. (2009). The role of PV solar electricity to power the 21st centurys
global prime energy demand. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental
Sciences, 8, 012007.
Hoffmann, W., S. Wieder, and T. Pellkofer (2009). Differentiated price experience
curves as evaluation tool for judging the further development of crystalline
silicon and thin lm PV solar electricity products. In: Proceedings of the 24th
European Photovoltaic Solar Energy Conference, Hamburg, Germany, 21-25
September 2009, pp. 4387-4394 (ISBN: 3-936338-25-6).
Hofman, Y., D. de Jager, E. Molenbroek, F. Schilig, and M. Voogt (2002). The
Potential of Solar Electricity to reduce CO2 Emissions. Ecofys, Utrecht, The
Netherlands, 106 pp.
Hollands, K.G.T., J.L. Wright, and C.G. Granqvist (2001). Glazing and coatings. In:
Solar Energy: The State of the Art. ISES Position Papers. J.M. Gordon (ed.), James
& James, London, UK, pp. 24-107.
Holttinen, H. (2005). Hourly wind power variations in the Nordic countries. Wind
Energy, 8(2), pp. 173-195.
Hoogwijk, M. (2004). On the Global and Regional Potential of Renewable Energy
Sources. Department of Science, Technology and Society, Utrecht University,
Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Hoogwijk, M., and W. Graus (2008). Global Potential of Renewable Energy Sources:
A Literature Assessment. Ecofys, Utrecht, The Netherlands, 45 pp.
IEA (2007). Renewables for Heating and Cooling Untapped Potential. International
Energy Agency, Paris, 205 pp.
IEA (2008). World Energy Outlook 2008. International Energy Agency, Paris, France,
578 pp.
IEA (2009a). Global Renewable Energy Policies and Measures Database. International
Energy Agency, Paris, France. Available at: www.iea.org/textbase/pm/?mode=re.
IEA (2009b). Towards Net Zero Energy Solar Buildings. IEA Energy Conservation
in Buildings and Community Systems (ECBCS) Programme, Solar Heating and
Cooling Programme, SHC Task 40, ECBCS Annex 52, International Energy Agency,
Paris, France. Available at: www.iea-shc.org/task40/.
IEA (2009c). Trends in Photovoltaic Applications: Survey Report of Selected IEA
Countries between 1992 and 2008. IEA Photovoltaic Power Systems Program
(PVPS), Task 1, Report IEA-PVPS T1-18:2009, International Energy Agency, Paris,
France, 44 pp. Available at: www.iea-pvps.org/index.php?id=32.
IEA (2010a). Energy Technology Perspectives 2010. Scenarios & Strategies to 2050.
International Energy Agency, Paris, France, 708 pp.
IEA (2010b). Technology Roadmap, Concentrating Solar Power. International Energy
Agency, Paris, France, 48 pp.
IEA (2010c). Technology Roadmap, Solar Photovoltaic Energy. International Energy
Agency, Paris, France, 48 pp.
IEA (2010d). World Energy Outlook 2010. International Energy Agency, Paris, France,
736 pp.
Hoff, T.E., B.J. Pasquier, and J.M. Peterson (2010). Market transformation benets
Countries between 1992 and 2009. IEA Photovoltaic Power Systems Program
Hoffert, M.I., K. Caldeira, G. Benford, D.R. Criswell, C. Green, H. Herzog, A.K. Jain,
H.S. Kheshgi, K.S. Lackner, J.S. Lewis, H.D. Lightfoot, W. Manheimer, J.C. Mankins,
IEA ECES (2004). Energy Conservation through Energy Storage (ECES) Implementing
M.E. Mauel, L.J. Perkins, M.E. Schlesinger, T. Volk, and T.M.L. Wigley (2002).
Agreement, International Energy Agency, Paris, France, 24 pp. Available at: www.
iea-eces.org/les/iaeces_2004.pdf.
394
Chapter 3
IEA NZEB (2009). IEA Joint Project: Towards Net Zero Energy Solar Buildings (NZEBs).
Kern, E.J., and M. Russell (1988). Spatial and temporal irradiance variations over
SHC Task 40, ECBCS Annex 52, Revised 25 February 2009, IEA Solar Heating and
large array elds. In: Conference Record of the 20th IEEE Photovoltaic Specialists
tions/downloads/Solar_Heat_Worldwide-2010.pdf.
France.
Ilex Energy Consulting Ltd., Electricity Research Centre, Electric Power and
demand area power system. In: Transmission and Distribution Conference and
Power Engineering Society, Dallas, TX, 21-24 May 2006, pp. 548-555.
Komiyama, R., C. Marnay, M. Stadler, J. Lai, S. Borgeson, B. Coffey, and I. Lima
Azevedo (2009). Japans Long-term Energy Demand and Supply Scenario to
2050 Estimation for the Potential of Massive CO2 Mitigation. The Institute for
Energy Economics, Tokyo, Japan.
Komoto, K., M. Ito, P. van der Vleuten, D. Faiman, and K. Kurokawa (eds.)
(2009). Energy from the Desert: Very Large Scale Photovoltaic Systems: Socioeconomic, Financial, Technical and Environmental Aspects. Earthscan Publishers,
London, UK.
Koster, L.J.A., V.D. Mihailetchi, and P.W.M. Blom (2006). Ultimate efciency of
093511, doi:10.1063/1.2181635.
Krebs, F.C. (2005). Alternative PV: Large scale organic photovoltaics. REfocus, 6(3),
pp. 38-39.
Krewitt, W., K. Nienhaus, C. Klemann, C. Capone, E. Stricker, W. Graus,
M. Hoogwijk, N. Supersberger, U. von Winterfeld, and S. Samadi (2009).
Role and Potential of Renewable Energy and Energy Efciency for Global Energy
and Y. Tamaura (2007). Rotary-type solar reactor for solar hydrogen production
CIS-based thin-lm PV modules. Solar Energy Materials & Solar Cells, 93, pp.
with two-step water splitting process. Energy Fuels, 21(4), pp. 2287-2293.
1037-1041.
Lahkar, P.J., and S.K. Samdarshi (2010). A review of the thermal performance
analysis. Solar Energy Materials and Solar Cells, 90(18-19), pp. 3356-3363.
Kaya, N., J.C. Mankins, B. Erb, D. Vassaux, G. Pignolet, D. Kassing, and P. Collins
(2001). Report of workshop on clean and inexhaustible space solar power at
395
Chapter 3
Meier, J., S. Dubail, R. Platz, P. Torres, U. Kroll, J.A. Selvan, N. Pellaton Vaucher,
ence. In: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Working Contribution
K.-D. Ufert (1997). Towards high-efciency thin-lm silicon solar cells with
the micromorph concept. Solar Energy Materials and Solar Cells, 49(1-4), pp.
35-44.
Meleshko, V.P., V.M. Kattsov, B.A. Govorkova, P.V. Sporyshev, I.M. Skolnik,
and B.E. Sneerov (2008). Climate of Russia in the 21st century. Part 3. Future
Lee, S., and Z. Yamayee (1981). Load-following and spinning-reserve penalties for
eral circulation CMIP3 models. Meteorology and Hydrology, 33(9), pp. 541-552.
Li, G., V. Shrotriya, J.S. Huang, Y. Yao, T. Moriarty, K. Emery, and Y. Yang (2005).
Miller, J.E., M.D. Allendorf, R.B. Diver, L.R. Evans, N.P. Siegel, and J.N. Stuecker
(2008). Metal oxide composites and structures for ultra-high temperature solar
Lynch, M. (2002). Reducing environmental damage caused by the collection of cooking fuel by refugees. Refuge, 21(1), pp. 18-27.
Mankins, J.C. (1997). A fresh look at space solar power: New architectures, concepts,
and technologies. Acta Astronautica, 41(4-10), pp. 347-359.
Mankins, J.C. (2002). A technical overview of the Suntower solar power satellite
concept. Acta Astronautica, 50(6), pp. 369-377.
Mankins, J.C. (2009). New directions for space solar power. Acta Astronautica, 65,
pp. 146-156.
Manuel, J. (2003). The quest for re: Hazards of a daily struggle. Environmental
Health Perspectives, 111(1), pp. A28-A33.
Mills, A., and R. Wiser (2010). Implications of Wide-Area Geographic Diversity for
Short-Term Variability of Solar Power. DE-AC02-05CH11231, LBNL-3884E, Ernest
Orlando Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, USA.
Mills, B.F., and J. Schleich (2009). Prots or preferences? Assessing the adoption
of residential solar thermal technologies. Energy Policy, 37(10), pp. 4145-4154.
Mills, E. (2005). The specter of fuel-based lighting. Science, 308(5726), pp.
1263-1264.
Ministry of New and Renewable Energy (2009). Jawaharlal Nehru National Solar
Mission Towards Building SOLAR INDIA. Ministry of New and Renewable Energy,
New Delhi, India, 15 pp.
Marcos, J., L. Marroyo, E. Lorenzo, D. Alvira, and E. Izco (2010). Power output
Mints, P. (2010). The PV industrys black swan. Photovoltaics World, 18 March 2010.
uctuations in large scale PV plants: One year observations with one second
Mints, P. (2011). PV sector market forecast Thin-lm in the era of cheap crystalline
Meeder, A., A. Neisser, U. Rhle, and N. Mayer (2007). Manufacturing the rst
Narayan, G.P., M.H. Sharqawy, E.K. Summers, J.H. Lienhard, S.M. Zubair, and
ress. In: Proceedings of the 22nd European Photovoltaic Solar Energy Conference,
A.J. Weaver, and Z.-C. Zhao (2007). Global climate projections. In: Climate
Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the
and Use. National Research Council (NRC), The National Academies Press,
396
Chapter 3
NEDO (2009). The Roadmap PV2030+. New Energy and Industrial Technology
Organization (NEDO), Kawasaki, Japan.
NEEDS (2009). New Energy Externalities Development for Sustainability (NEEDS).
Final Report and Database. New Energy Externalities Development for
Sustainability, Rome, Italy.
Neij, L. (2008). Cost development of future technologies for power generation A
study based on experience curves and complementary bottom-up assessments.
Energy Policy, 36, pp. 2200-2211.
Nelson, J. (2003). Over the limit: Strategies for high efciency. In: The Physics of Solar
Cells. Imperial College Press, London, England, pp. 289-323.
Piwko, R.J., X. Bai, K. Clark, G.A. Jordan, and N.W. Miller (2007). Intermittency
door conditions and its effect on occupant satisfaction, and the use of lights and
Norton, B. (2001). Solar process heat: Distillation, drying, agricultural and industrial
Piwko, R., K. Clark, L. Freeman, G. Jordan, and N. Miller (2010). Western Wind
uses. In: Solar Energy: The State of the Art. ISES Position Papers. J.M. Gordon (ed.),
and Solar Integration Study. National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, CO,
USA.
POSHIP (2001). Calor Solar Para Provesos Industriales: Proyecto POSHIP (Potential of
Solar Heat for Industrial Processes). Instituto Para Lad Diversicacion y Ahorro de
Energia (IDAE), Madrid, Spain.
Pregger, T., D. Graf, W. Krewitt, C. Sattler, M. Roeb, and S. Moeller (2009).
Prospects of solar thermal hydrogen production processes. International Journal
of Hydrogen Energy, 34(10), pp. 4256-4267.
Probst, M.M., and C. Roecker (2007). Towards an improved architectural quality of building integrated solar thermal systems (BIST). Solar Energy, 81(9), pp.
1104-1116.
taic systems in a large area. The Institute of Energy Economics, Japan (IEEJ)
tion uctuation by spatial smoothing effect. In: 19th European Photovoltaic Solar
SolarPACES (Solar Power and Chemical Energy Storage), and ESTELA (European
571-574.
raw/content/international/press/reports/concentrating-solar-power-2009.pdf.
Park, H.G., and J.K. Holt (2010). Recent advances in nanoelectrode architecture for
heating and cooling policy in the United States. Policy and Society, 27(4), pp.
1028-1036.
365-377.
397
Chapter 3
SEMI (2009c). The Solar PV Landscape in India An Industry Perspective (SEMI India
(2000). Energy resources. In: World Energy Assessment. Energy and the
Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, World Energy Council, New
Service, R.F. (2009). Sunlight in your tank. Science, 326(5959), pp. 1471-1475.
Germany, 28 pp.
Santamouris, M., and D. Asimakopoulos (eds.) (1996). Passive Cooling of
Buildings. James & James, London, 472 pp.
Sargent and Lundy LLC Consulting Group (2003). Assessment of Parabolic Trough
and Power Tower Solar Technology Cost and Performance Forecasts. National
Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, CO, USA, 344 pp.
Y. Uchiyama, S.J.V. Vuori, N. Wamukonya, and X. Zhang (2007). Energy supply. In: Climate Change 2007: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of
Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change. B. Metz, O.R. Davidson, P.R. Bosch, R. Dave and L.A.
Meyer (eds.), Cambridge University Press, pp. 251-322.
Sinha, P., C.J. Kriegner, W.A. Schew, S.W. Kaczmar, M. Traister, and D.J. Wilson
Schaeffer, G.J., A.J. Seebregts, L.W.M. Beurskens, H.H.C. Moor, E.A. Alsema, W. Sark,
Learning from the Sun: Analysis of the Use of Experience Curves for Energy Policy
Purposes The Case of Photovoltaic Power. Final Report of the Photex Project.
DEGO: ECN-C-04-035, Energy Research Centre of the Netherlands, Petten, The
Netherlands.
Schaller, R., and V. Klimov (2004). High efciency carrier multiplication in PbSe
nanocrystals: Implications for solar energy conversion. Physical Review Letters,
92(18), 186601.
Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, R.B. Alley, T. Berntsen, N.L. Bindoff, Z. Chen,
Germany.
Technical summary. In: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis.
(2008). A receiver-reactor for the solar thermal dissociation of zinc oxide. Journal
Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor, and H.L. Miller (eds.),
Schunk, L.O., W. Lipinski, and A. Steinfeld (2009). Heat transfer model of a solar
Spath, P.L., and W.A. Amos (2003). Using a concentrating solar reactor to produce
hydrogen and carbon black via thermal decomposition of natural gas: Feasibility
502-508.
SEIA (2010a). US Solar Industry Year in Review 2009. US Solar Energy Industries
Association (SEIA), Washington, DC, USA.
SEIA (2010b). US Solar Market Insight, 2nd Quarter 2010 Executive Summary. US
Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA), Washington, DC, USA.
398
Chapter 3
Twidell, J. and A.D. Weir (2006). Renewable Energy Resources. Taylor & Francis,
Oxon, UK.
Tzempelikos, A., A.K. Athienitis, and A. Nazos (2010). Integrated design of perimeter zones with glass facades. ASHRAE Transactions, 116(1), pp. 461-478.
UBS (2009). UBS Wealth Management Research (5 March 2009). Solar Energy. Union
J. Springer, and S. Klein (2009). Status of thin-lm Si high-efciency tandem junction module fabrication on ultra-large substrates of 2.20 x 2060 m2
at Sunlm. In: Proceedings of the 24th EU PV Solar Energy Conference, 6th
European PV Industry Forum, Hamburg, Germany, 23 September 2009.
Steinfeld, A. (2005). Solar thermochemical production of hydrogen - a review. Solar
Energy, 78(5), pp. 603-615.
Steinfeld, A., and A. Meier (2004). Solar Fuels and Materials. In: Encyclopedia of
Energy. Vol. 5. Elsevier, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, pp. 623-637.
Sterner, M. (2009). Bioenergy and Renewable Power Methane in Integrated 100%
Renewable Energy Systems. Limiting Global Warming by Transforming Energy
Systems. Dissertation, Kassel University, Kassel, Germany.
Sun, S.-S., and N.S. Sariciftci (eds.) (2005). Organic Photovoltaics: Mechanisms,
Materials, and Devices. CRC Press, Taylor & Francis, Boca Raton, FL, USA.
Taguchi, M., Y. Tsunomura, H. Inoue, S. Taira, T. Nakashima, T. Baba, H. Sakata,
and E. Maruyama (2009). High-efciency HIT solar cell on thin (< 100 m)
silicon wafer. In: Proceedings of the 24th European Photovoltaic Solar Energy
Conference, Hamburg, Germany, 21-25 September 2009, pp. 1690.
reports/UBS_Solar_Energy_Report_3-5-09.pdf.
UNEP (2007). Buildings and Climate Change Status, Challenges and Opportunities.
United Nations Environment Programme, Nairobi, Kenya.
Urbschat, C., F. Barban, B. Baumgartner, M. Beste, M. Herr, A. Schmid-Kieninger,
F. Rossani, G. Stry-Hipp, and M. Welke (2002). Sunrise 2002 The Solar
Thermal and Photovoltaic Markets in Europe. Market Survey. eclareon GmbH,
Berlin, Germany.
US Photovoltaic Industry Roadmap Steering Committee (2001). Solar-Electric
Power: The U.S. Photovoltaic Industry Roadmap. Sandia National Laboratories,
Albuquerque, NM, USA, 36 pp.
US DOE (2008). Solar Energy Technologies Programme, Multi Year Program Plan
2008-2012. U.S. Department of Energy (US DOE), Washington, DC, USA.
US DOE (2009). Concentrating Solar Power Commercial Application Study: Reducing
Water Consumption of Concentrating Solar Power Electricity Generation. Report
to Congress. U.S. Department of Energy (US DOE), Washington, DC, USA, 35 pp.
US DOE (2011). Solar Vision Study (draft). U.S. Department of Energy (US DOE),
Washington DC, USA, nal publication currently postponed.
Teske, S., T. Pregger, S. Simon, T. Naegler, W. Graus, and C. Lins (2010). Energy
Viebahn, P., Y. Lechon, and F. Trieb (2010). The potential role of concentrated solar
doi:10.1007/s12053-010-9098-y.
opment, cost development and life cycle inventories until 2050. Energy Policy,
The European Parliament and the Council of the European Union (2010).
doi:10.1016/j.enpol.210.09.026.
Voss, K., S. Herkel, J. Pfafferott, G. Lhnert, and A. Wagner (2007). Energy ef-
cient ofce buildings with passive cooling Results and experiences from a
Torres, J.M.M., N.G. Lpez, and C. Mrquez (2010). The Global Concentrator Solar
Power Industry Report 2010-2011. First Conferences Ltd., London, UK.
Trieb, F. (2005). Concentrating Solar Power for the Mediterranean Region, Final
Report, German Aerospace Centre (DLR), Stuttgart, 285 pp.
Trieb, F., M. OSullivan, T. Pregger, C. Schillings, and W. Krewitt (2009a).
Wadia, C., A.P. Alivisatos, and D.M. Kammen (2009). Materials availability
expands the opportunity for large-scale photovoltaic deployment. Environmental
Science & Technology, 43(6), pp. 2072-2077.
Wagner, S., J.L. Shay, P. Migliorato, and H.M. Kasper (1974). CuInSe2/CdS heterojunction photovoltaic detectors. Applied Physics Letters, 25, pp. 434.
WEC (1994). New Energy Resources. World Energy Council (WEC), London, UK.
Wei, M., S. Patadia, and D. Kammen (2010). Putting renewables to work: How
many jobs can the clean energy industry generate in the US? Energy Policy, 38,
pp. 919-931.
Weiss, W. (2003). Solar Heating Systems for Houses. A Design Handbook for Solar
Combisystems. Earthscan, London, UK.
Weiss, W., and F. Mauthner (2010). Solar Heat Worldwide Markets and
Contribution to the Energy Supply 2008. AEE - Institute for Sustainable
with electrical and gas water heating. Renewable Energy, 29, pp. 1277-1288.
tions/downloads/Solar_Heat_Worldwide-2010.pdf.
Wentzel, M., and A. Pouris (2007). The development impact of solar cookers: A
review of solar cooking impact research in South Africa. Energy Policy, 35(3),
pp. 1909-1919.
Werner, S. (2006). Ecoheatcool. WP1: The European Heat Market 2003, WP4: District
Heating Possibilities, WP2: The European Cooling Market. In: Nordic Energy
Perspectives Conference, Helsinki, Finland, 24 January 2006. Available at: www.
nordicenergyperspectives.org/doc24jan06.asp.
399
Chapter 3
Wiemken, E., H.G. Beyer, W. Heydenreich, and K. Kiefer (2001). Power character-
grid connected PV systems distributed over the area of Germany. Solar Energy,
a novel low temperature process. Japanese Journal of Applied Physics, 33, pp.
L1751-L1754.
Wiser, R., G. Barbose, and C. Peterman (2009). Tracking the Sun: The Installed
Yang, C.J. (2010). Reconsidering solar grid parity. Energy Policy, 38, pp. 3270-3273.
Yang, J., and S. Guha (1992). Double-junction amorphous silicon-based solar cells
with 11-percent stable efciency. Applied Physics Letters, 61(24), pp. 2917-2919.
Young, W.R. (1996). History of Applying Photovoltaics to Disaster Relief. Florida Solar
Energy Center, Cocoa, FL, USA, 16 pp.
ZGraggen, A., and A. Steinfeld (2008). Hydrogen production by steam-gasication
681 pp.
World Bank Global Environment Facility Program (2006). Assessment of the
Thermal Power. The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, The
Zervos, A., C. Lins, and J. Muth (2010). RE-thinking 2050 A 100% Renewable
400
Energy Vision for the European Union. European Renewable Energy Council,
Brussels, Belgium.
Zhang, X., W. Ruoshui, H. Molin, and E. Martinot (2010). A study of the role
played by renewable energies in Chinas sustainable energy supply. Energy,
35(11), pp.4392-4399, doi:10.1016/j.energy.2009.05.030.
Zoellner, J., P. Schweizer-Ries, and C. Wemheuer (2008). Public acceptance of
renewable energies: Results from case studies in Germany. Energy Policy, 26,
pp. 4136-4141.
Chapter 4
Geothermal Energy
Coordinating Lead Authors:
Barry Goldstein (Australia) and Gerardo Hiriart (Mexico)
Lead Authors:
Ruggero Bertani (Italy), Christopher Bromley (New Zealand),
Luis Gutirrez-Negrn (Mexico), Ernst Huenges (Germany), Hirofumi Muraoka (Japan),
Arni Ragnarsson (Iceland), Jefferson Tester (USA), Vladimir Zui (Republic of Belarus)
Contributing Authors:
David Blackwell (USA), Trevor Demayo (USA/Canada), Garvin Heath (USA),
Arthur Lee (USA), John W. Lund (USA), Mike Mongillo (New Zealand),
David Newell (Indonesia/USA), Subir Sanyal (USA), Kenneth H. Williamson (USA),
Doone Wyborne (Australia)
Review Editors:
Meseret Teklemariam Zemedkun (Ethiopia) and David Wratt (New Zealand)
401
Geothermal Energy
Chapter 4
Table of Contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 406
4.2
4.2.1
4.2.2
4.2.3
4.3
4.3.1
4.3.2
4.3.3
Power plants
4.3.4
4.3.5
Direct use
4.4
4.4.1
4.4.2
4.4.3
4.4.4
4.5
4.5.1
4.5.2
402
.......................................................................................................................
............................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................
410
412
412
418
Chapter 4
Geothermal Energy
4.5.3
4.5.3.1
4.5.3.2
4.5.3.3
4.5.4
4.6
4.6.1
4.6.2
4.6.3
4.6.4
4.7
Cost trends
4.7.1
4.7.2
4.7.3
4.7.4
4.7.5
4.7.6
4.8
4.8.1
4.8.2
4.8.3
........................................................................
422
...........................................................................................
423
..........................................................................................................................................
423
...................................................
424
.............................................................................
429
..............................................................................................................
432
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 433
403
Geothermal Energy
Chapter 4
Executive Summary
Geothermal energy has the potential to provide long-term, secure base-load energy and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reductions. Accessible geothermal energy from the Earths interior supplies heat for direct use and to generate
electric energy. Climate change is not expected to have any major impacts on the effectiveness of geothermal energy
utilization, but the widespread deployment of geothermal energy could play a meaningful role in mitigating climate
change. In electricity applications, the commercialization and use of engineered (or enhanced) geothermal systems
(EGS) may play a central role in establishing the size of the contribution of geothermal energy to long-term GHG emissions reductions.
The natural replenishment of heat from earth processes and modern reservoir management techniques
enable the sustainable use of geothermal energy as a low-emission, renewable resource. With appropriate
resource management, the tapped heat from an active reservoir is continuously restored by natural heat production,
conduction and convection from surrounding hotter regions, and the extracted geothermal uids are replenished by
natural recharge and by injection of the depleted (cooled) uids.
Global geothermal technical potential is comparable to global primary energy supply in 2008. For electricity generation, the technical potential of geothermal energy is estimated to be between 118 EJ/yr (to 3 km depth) and
1,109 EJ/yr (to 10 km depth). For direct thermal uses, the technical potential is estimated to range from 10 to 312 EJ/yr.
The heat extracted to achieve these technical potentials can be fully or partially replenished over the long term by the
continental terrestrial heat ow of 315 EJ/yr at an average ux of 65 mW/m2. Thus, technical potential is not likely to be
a barrier to geothermal deployment (electricity and direct uses) on a global basis. Whether or not the geothermal technical potential will be a limiting factor on a regional basis depends on the availability of EGS technology.
There are different geothermal technologies with distinct levels of maturity. Geothermal energy is currently
extracted using wells or other means that produce hot uids from: a) hydrothermal reservoirs with naturally high
permeability; and b) EGS-type reservoirs with articial uid pathways. The technology for electricity generation from
hydrothermal reservoirs is mature and reliable, and has been operating for more than 100 years. Technologies for
direct heating using geothermal heat pumps (GHP) for district heating and for other applications are also mature.
Technologies for EGS are in the demonstration stage. Direct use provides heating and cooling for buildings including
district heating, sh ponds, greenhouses, bathing, wellness and swimming pools, water purication/desalination and
industrial and process heat for agricultural products and mineral drying.
Geothermal resources have been commercially used for more than a century. Geothermal energy is currently
used for base load electric generation in 24 countries, with an estimated 67.2 TWh/yr (0.24 EJ/yr) of supply provided in
2008 at a global average capacity factor of 74.5%; newer geothermal installations often achieve capacity factors above
90%. Geothermal energy serves more than 10% of the electricity demand in 6 countries and is used directly for heating
and cooling in 78 countries, generating 121.7 TWh/yr (0.44 EJ/yr) of thermal energy in 2008, with GHP applications having the widest market penetration. Another source estimates global geothermal energy supply at 0.41 EJ/yr in 2008.
Environmental and social impacts from geothermal use are site and technology specic and largely manageable. Overall, geothermal technologies are environmentally advantageous because there is no combustion process
emitting carbon dioxide (CO2), with the only direct emissions coming from the underground uids in the reservoir.
Historically, direct CO2 emissions have been high in some instances with the full range spanning from close to 0 to 740
g CO2/kWhe depending on technology design and composition of the geothermal uid in the underground reservoir.
Direct CO2 emissions for direct use applications are negligible and EGS power plants are likely to be designed with
zero direct emissions. Life cycle assessment (LCA) studies estimate that full lifecycle CO2-equivalent emissions for geothermal energy technologies are less than 50 g CO2eq/kWhe for ash steam geothermal power plants, less than 80 g
CO2eq/kWhe for projected EGS power plants, and between 14 and 202 g CO2eq/kWhth for district heating systems and
GHP. Local hazards arising from natural phenomena, such as micro-earthquakes, may be inuenced by the operation
of geothermal elds. Induced seismic events have not been large enough to lead to human injury or relevant property
404
Chapter 4
Geothermal Energy
damage, but proper management of this issue will be an important step to facilitating signicant expansion of future
EGS projects.
Several prospects exist for technology improvement and innovation in geothermal systems. Technical advancements can reduce the cost of producing geothermal energy and lead to higher energy recovery, longer eld and
plant lifetimes, and better reliability. In exploration, research and development (R&D) is required for hidden geothermal
systems (i.e., with no surface manifestations such as hot springs and fumaroles) and for EGS prospects. Special research
in drilling and well construction technology is needed to reduce the cost and increase the useful life of geothermal production facilities. EGS require innovative methods to attain sustained, commercial production rates while reducing the
risk of seismic hazard. Integration of new power plants into existing power systems does not present a major challenge,
but in some cases can require extending the transmission network.
Geothermal-electric projects have relatively high upfront investment costs but often have relatively low
levelized costs of electricity (LCOE). Investment costs typically vary between USD2005 1,800 and 5,200 per kW, but
geothermal plants have low recurring fuel costs. The LCOE of power plants using hydrothermal resources are often
competitive in todays electricity markets, with a typical range from US cents2005 4.9 to 9.2 per kWh considering only
the range in investment costs provided above and medium values for other input parameters; the range in LCOE across
a broader array of input parameters is US cents2005 3.1 to 17 per kWh. These costs are expected to decrease by about
7% by 2020. There are no actual LCOE data for EGS power plants, as EGS plants remain in the demonstration phase,
but estimates of EGS costs are higher than those for hydrothermal reservoirs. The cost of geothermal energy from EGS
plants is also expected to decrease by 2020 and beyond, assuming improvements in drilling technologies and success in
developing well-stimulation technology.
Current levelized costs of heat (LCOH) from direct uses of geothermal heat are generally competitive with
market energy prices. Investment costs range from USD2005 50 per kWth (for uncovered pond heating) to USD2005 3,940
per kWth (for building heating). Low LCOHs for these technologies are possible because the inherent losses in heat-toelectricity conversion are avoided when geothermal energy is used for thermal applications.
Future geothermal deployment could meet more than 3% of global electricity demand and about 5% of the
global demand for heat by 2050. Evidence suggests that geothermal supply could meet the upper range of projections derived from a review of about 120 energy and GHG reduction scenarios summarized in Chapter 10. With its
natural thermal storage capacity, geothermal energy is especially suitable for supplying base-load power. By 2015, geothermal deployment is roughly estimated to generate 122 TWhe/yr (0.44 EJ/yr) for electricity and 224 TWhth/yr (0.8 EJ/yr)
for heat applications. In the long term (by 2050), deployment projections based on extrapolations of long-term historical growth trends suggest that geothermal could produce 1,180 TWhe/yr (~4.3 EJ/yr) for electricity and 2,100 TWhth/yr
(7.6 EJ/yr) for heat, with a few countries obtaining most of their primary energy needs (heating, cooling and electricity)
from geothermal energy. Scenario analysis suggests that carbon policy is likely to be one of the main driving factors for
future geothermal development, and under the most favourable climate policy scenario (<440 ppm atmospheric CO2
concentration level in 2100) considered in the energy and GHG scenarios reviewed for this report, geothermal deployment could be even higher in the near and long term.
High-grade geothermal resources have restricted geographic distributionboth cost and technology barriers exist for the use of low-grade geothermal resources and EGS. High-grade geothermal resources are already
economically competitive with market energy prices in many locations. However, public and private support for research
along with favourable deployment policies (drilling subsidies, targeted grants for pre-competitive research and demonstration to reduce exploration risk and the cost of EGS development) may be needed to support the development
of lower-grade hydrothermal resources as well as the demonstration and further commercialization of EGS and other
geothermal resources. The effectiveness of these efforts may play a central role in establishing the magnitude of geothermal energys contributions to long-term GHG emissions reductions.
405
Geothermal Energy
4.1
Introduction
406
Chapter 4
Vapour Dominated
Geothermal System
Liquid Dominated
Geothermal System
Hot Spring
Geyser
Impermeable
Rocks
Permeable
Rocks
Natural
Fracture
or Joint
Conned
Permeable
Reservoir
Impermeable Rocks
Heat Source
Figure 4.1a | Scheme showing convective (hydrothermal) resources. Adapted from Mock
et al. (1997) and from US DOE publications.
Chapter 4
Geothermal Energy
Heat
Exchanger
Cooling
Unit
Rechange
Reservoir
ORC or
Kalina
Cycle
Reservoir
Monitoring
Power
District
Heating
Monitoring
Well
Monitoring
Well
Produ
uction
Production
Wells
3 km to 10 km
Injjection
Injection
We
ell
Well
Enhanced
Reservoir
.5
~0
.5
-1
km
Figure 4.1b | Scheme showing conductive (EGS) resources. Adapted from Mock et al. (1997) and from US DOE publications.
407
Geothermal Energy
Chapter 4
In-situ uids
Yes
Conductive systems
No
Yes
Subtype
Temperature
Range
Continental
H, I & L
Submarine
Utilization
Current
Future
Power, direct use
None
Power
Shallow (<400 m)
H, I
Prototypes
Magma bodies
None
Direct use
Direct use
Hydrostatic aquifers
H, I & L
Geo-pressured
Note: Temperature range: H: High (>180C), I: Intermediate (100-180C), L: Low (ambient to 100C). EGS: Enhanced (or engineered) geothermal systems. GHP: Geothermal heat
pumps.
4.2.1
4.2
Resource Potential
The total thermal energy contained in the Earth is of the order of 12.6 x
1012 EJ and that of the crust of the order of 5.4 x 109 EJ to depths of up
to 50 km (Dickson and Fanelli, 2003). The main sources of this energy are
due to the heat ow from the Earths core and mantle, and that generated
408
Regarding geothermal technical potentials,1 one recent and comprehensive estimate for conventional hydrothermal resources in the world was
presented by Stefansson (2005). For electric generation, he calculated
the global geothermal technical potential for identied hydrothermal
1
Chapter 4
Geothermal Energy
Table 4.2 | Global continental stored heat and EGS technical potentials for electricity.
Depth range (km)
(10 EJ)
Source
010
403
Rowley, 1982
1051.8
010
110.4
288.1
05
139.5
364.2
05
55.9
145.9
03
34.1
EPRI, 1978
89.1
stored in the Earths crust that is both accessible and recoverable (see
Table 4.2, fourth column).
Therefore, the global technical potential of geothermal resources for
electricity generation can be estimated as the sum of the upper (56.8
EJ/yr) and lower (28.4 EJ/yr) of Stefanssons estimate for hydrothermal resources (identied and hidden) and the EGS technical potentials
of Table 4.2 (fourth column), obtaining a lower value of 117.5 EJ/yr
(down to 3 km depth) to a maximum of 1,108.6 EJ/yr down to 10 km
depth (Figure 4.2). It is important to note that the heat extracted to
achieve these technical potentials can be fully or partially replenished
over the long term by the continental terrestrial heat ow of 315 EJ/yr
(Stefansson, 2005) at an average ux of 65 mW/m2. Although hydrothermal resources are only a negligible fraction of total theoretical potential
given in Tester et al. (2005), their contribution to technical potential
might be considerably higher than implied by the conversion from theoretical potential data to technical potential data. This is the rationale
for considering the Rowley (1982) estimate for EGS technical potential
only and adding the estimate for hydrothermal technical potential from
Stefansson (2005).
Electricity
Electric or Thermal [EJ/yr]
Thermal
1200
1000
800
600
400
Max
200
Min
0
10
Direct Uses
Depth [km]
2
1 x 106 EJ stored heat equals approximately 2.61 EJ/yr of technical potential for
electricity at a 90% CF for 30 years.
Figure 4.2 | Geothermal technical potentials for electricity and direct uses (heat). Direct
uses do not require development to depths greater than approximately 3 km (Prepared
with data from Tables 4.2 and 4.3).
409
Geothermal Energy
Chapter 4
4.2.3
4.3
4.2.2
Some discharge thermal energy of up to 60 MWth (Lupton, 1995) but there are other
submarine vents, such as the one known as Rainbow, with an estimated output of
1 to 5 GWth (German et al., 1996).
410
For the last 100 years, geothermal energy has provided safe, reliable, environmentally benign energy used in a sustainable manner
to generate electric power and provide direct heating services from
hydrothermal-type resources, using mature technologies. Geothermal
typically provides base-load generation, but it has also been used for
meeting peak demand. Todays technologies for using hydrothermal
resources have demonstrated high average CFs (up to 90% in newer
plants, see DiPippo (2008)) in electric generation with low GHG emissions. However, technologies for EGS-type geothermal resources are still
in demonstration (see Section 4.3.4).
Geothermal energy is currently extracted using wells or other means that
produce hot uids from: (a) hydrothermal reservoirs with naturally high
permeability; or (b) EGS-type reservoirs with articial uid pathways.
Production wells discharge hot water and/or steam. In high-temperature
hydrothermal reservoirs, as pressure drops a fraction of the liquid water
component ashes to steam. Separated steam is piped to a turbine
to generate electricity and the remaining hot water may be ashed
again at lower pressures (and temperatures) to obtain more steam. The
Chapter 4
Geothermal Energy
Table 4.3 | Geothermal technical potentials on continents for the International Energy Agency (IEA) regions (prepared with data from EPRI (1978) and global technical potentials
described in section 4.2.1).
Electric technical potential in EJ/yr at depths to:
REGION*
3 km
5 km
10 km
Lower
Upper
Lower
Upper
Lower
Upper
Lower
Upper
25.6
31.8
38.0
91.9
69.3
241.9
2.1
68.1
Latin America
15.5
19.3
23.0
55.7
42.0
146.5
1.3
41.3
OECD Europe
6.0
7.5
8.9
21.6
16.3
56.8
0.5
16.0
Africa
16.8
20.8
24.8
60.0
45.3
158.0
1.4
44.5
Transition Economies
19.5
24.3
29.0
70.0
52.8
184.4
1.6
51.9
Middle East
3.7
4.6
5.5
13.4
10.1
35.2
0.3
9.9
Developing Asia
22.9
28.5
34.2
82.4
62.1
216.9
1.8
61.0
OECD Pacic
Total
7.3
9.1
10.8
26.2
19.7
68.9
0.6
19.4
117.5
145.9
174.3
421.0
317.5
1108.6
9.5
312.2
Note: *For regional denitions and country groupings see Annex II.
4.3.1
4.3.2
Reservoir engineering
411
Geothermal Energy
Given sufcient, accurate calibration with eld data, geothermal reservoir evolution can be adequately modelled and proactively managed.
Field operators monitor the chemical and thermodynamic properties of
geothermal uids, and map their ow and movement in the reservoir.
This information, combined with other geophysical data, is fed back to
recalibrate models for better predictions of future production (Grant et
al., 1982).
4.3.3
Power plants
The basic types of geothermal power plants in use today are steam
condensing turbines and binary cycle units. Steam condensing turbines6 can be used in ash or dry-steam plants operating at sites with
intermediate- and high-temperature resources (150C). The power
plant generally consists of pipelines, water-steam separators, vaporizers, de-misters, heat exchangers, turbine generators, cooling systems,
and a step-up transformer for transmission into the electrical grid (see
Figure 4.3, top). The power unit size usually ranges from 20 to 110 MWe
(DiPippo, 2008), and may utilize a multiple ash system, ashing the
uid in a series of vessels at successively lower pressures, to maximize
the extraction of energy from the geothermal uid. The only difference
between a ash plant and a dry-steam plant is that the latter does not
require brine separation, resulting in a simpler and cheaper design.
Binary-cycle plants, typically organic Rankine cycle (ORC) units, are commonly installed to extract heat from low- and intermediate-temperature
geothermal uids (generally from 70 to 170C), from hydrothermal- and
EGS-type reservoirs. Binary plants (Figure 4.3, bottom) are more complex than condensing ones since the geothermal uid (water, steam or
both) passes through a heat exchanger heating another working uid.
This working uid, such as isopentane or isobutene with a low boiling
point, vaporizes, drives a turbine, and then is air cooled or condensed
with water. Binary plants are often constructed as linked modular units
of a few MWe in capacity.
There are also combined or hybrid plants, which comprise two or more
of the above basic types, such as using a binary plant as a bottoming
cycle with a ash steam plant, to improve versatility, increase overall
thermal efciency, improve load-following capability, and efciently
cover a wide resource temperature range.
Chapter 4
a CHP plant provides most of the electricity needs and all the heat
demand (Lund and Boyd, 2009).
4.3.4
4.3.5
Direct use
Direct use provides heating and cooling for buildings7 including district
heating, sh ponds, greenhouses, bathing, wellness and swimming
pools, water purication/desalination, and industrial and process heat
for agricultural products and mineral extraction and drying.
For space heating, two basic types of systems are used: open or closed
loop. Open loop (single pipe) systems utilize directly the geothermal
water extracted from a well to circulate through radiators (Figure 4.4,
top). Closed loop (double pipe) systems use heat exchangers to transfer
heat from the geothermal water to a closed loop that circulates heated
freshwater through the radiators (Figure 4.4, bottom). This system is
commonly used because of the chemical composition of the geothermal water. In both cases the spent geothermal water is disposed of into
injection wells and a conventional backup boiler may be provided to
meet peak demand.
412
Space and water heating are signicant parts of the energy budget in large parts
of the world. In Europe, 30% of energy use is for space and water heating alone,
representing 75% of total building energy use (Lund et al., 2010a).
Chapter 4
Geothermal Energy
Cooling Tower
Condenser
Turbo Generator
Steam
Water
Steam
Water
Production Well
Separator
Steam
Water Pump
Water
Injection Well
Cooling Tower
Heat Exchanger
Turbo Generator
Heat Exchanger
Feed Pump
Steam
Water
Production Well
Water Pump
Injection Well
Figure 4.3 | Schematic diagram of a geothermal condensing steam power plant (top) and a binary-cycle power plant (bottom) (adapted from Dickson and Fanelli (2003)).
this chapter they are treated as a form of direct geothermal use. GHP
technology is based on the relatively constant ground or groundwater
temperature ranging from 4C to 30C to provide space heating, cooling
and domestic hot water for all types of buildings. Extracting energy during
heating periods cools the ground locally. This effect can be minimized by
dimensioning the number and depth of probes in order to avoid harmful
impacts on the ground. These impacts are also reduced by storing heat
underground during cooling periods in the summer months.
There are two main types of GHP systems: closed loop and open loop.
In ground-coupled systems a closed loop of plastic pipe is placed into
413
Geothermal Energy
Chapter 4
Gas Separator
Pump
Backup Boiler
Radiation Heating
80
40
Gas Separator
Heat Exchanger
Pump
Backup Boiler
Radiation Heating
80
85
45
40
Figure 4.4 | Two main types of district heating systems: top, open loop (single pipe system), bottom, closed loop (double pipe system) (adapted from Dickson and Fanelli, (2003)).
the ground, either horizontally at 1 to 2 m depth or vertically in a borehole down to 50 to 250 m depth. A water-antifreeze solution is circulated
through the pipe. Heat is collected from the ground in the winter and
rejected to the ground in the summer. An open loop system uses groundwater or lake water directly as a heat source in a heat exchanger and then
discharges it into another well or into the same water reservoir (Lund et
al., 2003).
Heat pumps operate similarly to vapour compression refrigeration units
with heat rejected in the condenser used for heating or extracted in the
evaporator used for cooling. GHP efciency is described by a coefcient of
performance (COP) that scales the heating or cooling output to the electrical energy input, and typically lies between 3 and 4 (Lund et al., 2003;
Rybach, 2005). The seasonal performance factor (SPF) provides a metric of
414
the overall annual efciency. It is the ratio of useful heat to the consumed
driving energy (both in kWh/yr), and it is slightly lower than the COP.
4.4
Chapter 4
4.4.1
Geothermal Energy
Around 11% of the installed capacity in the world in 2009 was composed of binary plants (Bertani, 2010).
In 2009, electricity was being produced from conventional (hydrothermal) geothermal resources in 24 countries with an installed capacity of
10.7 GWe (Figure 4.5), with an annual increase of 405 MW (3.9%) over
the previous year (Bertani, 2010, see his Table X). The worldwide use of
geothermal energy for power generation was 67.2 TWh/yr (0.24 EJ/yr)8
in 2008 (Bertani, 2010) with a worldwide CF of 74.5% (see also Table
4.7). Many developing countries are among the top 15 in geothermal
electricity production.
In 2009, the worlds top geothermal producer was the USA with almost
29% of the global installed capacity (3,094 MWe ; Figure 4.5). The US
geothermal industry is currently expanding due to state Renewable
Portfolio Standards (RPS) and various federal subsidies and tax incentives (Holm et al., 2010). US geothermal activity is concentrated in a few
western states, and only a fraction of the geothermal technical potential
has been developed so far.
Outside of the USA, about 29% of the global installed geothermal
capacity in 2009 was located in the Philippines and Indonesia. Mexico,
Italy, Japan, Iceland and New Zealand together account for one-third of
the global installed geothermal capacity. Although some of these markets have seen relatively limited growth over the past few years, others
3,750
Total: 10,715 MW
3,500
3,250
3,094
3,000
2,750
2,500
2,250
1,904
Conventional geothermal resources currently used to produce electricity are either high-temperature systems (>180C), using steam power
cycles (either ash or dry steam driving condensing turbines), or low
to intermediate temperature (<180C) using binary-cycle power plants.
2,000
1,750
1,197
1,500
1,250
40
60
50
70
80
90
100
110
1,000
150
[mW/m2]
750
500
Australia
Thailand
Austria
Germany
Ethiopia
France
China
Portugal
Guatemala
Papua-N.G.
Russia
Turkey
Nicaragua
Costa Rica
Kenya
El Salvador
Japan
Iceland
N. Zealand
Italy
Mexico
Indonesia
Philippines
United States
250
Figure 4.5 | Geothermal-electric installed capacity by country in 2009. Inset gure shows worldwide average heat ow in mW/m2 and tectonic plates boundaries (gure from Hamza
et al. (2008), used with kind permission from Springer Science+Business Media B.V.; data from Bertani (2010)).
8
415
Geothermal Energy
Chapter 4
such as Iceland and New Zealand doubled the installed capacity from
2005 to 2009 (IEA-GIA, 2009). Moreover, attention is turning to new
markets such as Chile, Germany and Australia.
The majority of existing geothermal assets are operated by state-owned
utilities or independent power producers. Currently, more than 30
companies globally have an ownership stake in at least one geothermal eld. Altogether, the top 20 owners of geothermal capacity control
approximately 90% of the installed global market (Bertani, 2010).
At the end of 2008, geothermal electricity contributed only about 0.3%
of the total worldwide electric generation. However, 6 of the 24 countries shown in Figure 4.5 (El Salvador, Kenya, Philippines, Iceland, Costa
Rica and New Zealand) obtained more than 10% of their national electricity production from high-temperature geothermal resources (Bromley
et al., 2010).
Worldwide evolution of geothermal power and geothermal direct uses
during the last 40 years is presented in Table 4.4, including the annual
average rate of growth over each period. The average annual growth of
geothermal-electric installed capacity over the last 40 years is 7%, and
for geothermal direct uses (heat applications) is 11% over the last 35
years.
Table 4.4 | Average annual growth rate in geothermal power capacity and direct uses
(including GHP) in the last 40 years (prepared with data from Lund et al., 2005, 2010a;
Fridleifsson and Ragnarsson, 2007; Gawell and Greenberg, 2007; Bertani, 2010).
Year
Electric capacity
MWe
MWth
1970
720
N/A
1975
1,180
10.4
1,300
1980
2,110
12.3
1,950
8.5
1985
4,764
17.7
7,072
29.4
1990
5,834
4.1
8,064
2.7
1995
6,833
3.2
8,664
1.4
2000
7,972
3.1
15,200
11.9
2005
8,933
2.3
27,825
12.9
2010*
10,715
3.7
50,583
12.7
7.0
11.0
4.4.2
Status of EGS
416
4.4.3
China is the worlds largest user of geothermal heat for space heating (Lund et al.,
2010a).
Chapter 4
Bathing, swimming and balneology are globally widespread. In addition to the thermal energy, the chemicals dissolved in the geothermal
uid are used for treating various skin and health diseases. Greenhouses
heated by geothermal energy and heating soil in outdoor agricultural
elds have been developed in several countries. A variety of industrial
processes utilize heat applications, including drying of forest products,
food and minerals industries as in the USA, Iceland and New Zealand.
Other applications are process heating, evaporation, distillation, sterilization, washing, and CO2 and salt extraction. Aquaculture using
geothermal heat allows better control of pond temperatures, with tilapia, salmon and trout the most common sh raised. Low-temperature
geothermal water is used in some colder climate countries for snow
melting or de-icing. City streets, sidewalks and parking lots are equipped
with buried piping systems carrying hot geothermal water (Lund et al.,
2005, 2010a).
Geothermal direct uses have experienced a signicant global increase in
the last 15 years (Table 4.4) after a period of stagnation (1985 to 1995),
mainly due to the increasing costs of fossil fuels for heating and cooling
and the need to replace them with renewable sources. The technical
potential of direct-use applications for heating and cooling buildings is
still largely unrealized (Lund et al., 2010a).
4.4.4
Impact of policies10
Geothermal Energy
of services and education programs (geothermal engineering programs) for an expanding workforce to replace retiring staff.
Market failures and economic barriers, due to un-priced or underpriced environmental impacts of energy use, and poor availability of
capital risk insurance.
Institutional barriers due in many countries to the lack of specic
laws governing geothermal resources, which are commonly considered as mining or water resources.
Policies set to drive uptake of geothermal energy work better if local
demand and risk factors are taken into account (Rybach, 2010). For
example, small domestic heat customers can be satised using GHP
technologies, which require relatively small budgets. For other countries, district heating systems and industrial heat applications are more
efcient and provide greater mitigation of CO2 emissions, but these
markets typically require larger-scale investments and a different policy
framework.
Policies that support improved applied research and development would
benet all geothermal technologies, but especially emerging technologies such as EGS. Specic incentives for geothermal development can
include scal incentives, public nance and regulation policies such
as targeted grants for pre-competitive research and demonstration,
subsidies, guarantees, tax write-offs to cover the commercial upfront
exploration costs, including the higher-risk initial drilling costs, feed-in
tariffs and additional measures like portfolio standards (Rybach, 2010).
Feed-in tariffs (FITs, see Section 11.5.4.3) with dened geothermal pricing have been very successful in attracting commercial investment in
some European countries such as Germany, Switzerland, Belgium,
Austria, Spain and Greece, among others (Rybach, 2010). Direct subsidies for new building heating, refurbishment of existing buildings with
GHP, and for district heating systems may be also applicable.
Experience has shown that the relative success of geothermal development in particular countries is closely linked to their governments
policies, regulations, incentives and initiatives. Successful policies have
taken into account the benets of geothermal energy, such as its independence from weather conditions and its suitability for base-load
power. Another important policy consideration is the opportunity to support the price of geothermal kWh (both power and direct heating and
cooling) through the United Nations Clean Development Mechanism
(CDM) program. A recent example is the Darajat III geothermal power
plant, developed by a private company in Indonesia in 2007, and registered with the CDM. The plant currently generates about 650,000 carbon
credits (or certied emission reductions, CER) per year, thus reducing
the lifecycle cost of geothermal energy by about 2 to 4% (Newell and
Mingst, 2009).
417
Geothermal Energy
4.5.1
4.5.2
Lifecycle assessment
4.5
Chapter 4
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
In direct heating applications, emissions of CO2 are also typically negligible (Fridleifsson et al., 2008). For instance, in Reykjavik, Iceland, the
CO2 content of thermal groundwater used for district heating (0.05 mg
CO2/kWhth) is lower than that of the cold groundwater. In China (Beijing,
11 A comprehensive assessment of social and environmental impacts of all RE sources
covered in this report can be found in Chapter 9.
418
Flashed Steam
EGS
Estimates:
References:
Figure 4.6 | Estimates of lifecycle GHG emissions from geothermal power generation
(ashed steam and EGS technologies). Unmodied literature values, after quality screen.
(See Annex II and Section 9.3.4.1 for details of literature search and citations.)
Chapter 4
g CO2eq/kWh for ash steam plants and less than 80 g CO2eq/kWh for
projected EGS plants.
The Bertani and Thain (2002) estimates are higher than these for several
reasons. First, Bertani and Thain collected information from a very large
fraction of global geothermal facilities (85% of world geothermal capacity in 2001), whereas qualifying LCA studies were few. Some open-loop
facilities with high dissolved CO2 concentrations can emit CO2 at very
high rates, though this is relevant for a minority of installed capacity
only. For closed-loop geothermal systems with more common dissolved
CO2 concentrations, most lifecycle GHG emissions are embodied in plant
materials and emitted during construction. These were the cases examined in the qualifying LCA literature displayed in Figure 4.6. Despite few
available studies, it is tentatively observed that systems using ashed
or dry geothermal steam appear to have lower GHG emissions than do
systems combining EGS reservoir development with binary power conversion systems, though this difference is small relative to, for instance,
coal-red electricity generation GHG emissions (see Section 9.3.4.1).
A key factor contributing to higher reported emissions for EGS/binary
systems versus steam-driven geothermal systems is higher energy and
materials requirements for EGS well-eld development. Additional LCA
studies to increase the number of estimates for all geothermal energy
technologies are needed.
Frick et al. (2010) compared LCA environmental indicators to those of
European and German reference power mixes, the latter being composed of lignite coal (26%), nuclear power (26%), hard coal (24%),
natural gas (12%), hydropower (4%), wind power (4%), crude oil (1%)
and other fuels (3%), and observed that geothermal GHG emissions fall
in a range between 8 and 12% of these reference mixes. At sites with
above-average geological conditions, low-end GHG emissions from
closed loop geothermal power systems can be less than 1% of corresponding emissions for coal technologies.
For lifecycle GHG emissions of geothermal energy, Kaltschmitt (2000)
published gures of 14.3 to 57.6 g CO2eq/kWhth for low-temperature district heating systems, and 180 to 202 g CO2eq/kWhth for GHP,
although the latter values depend signicantly on the mix of electricity
sources that power them.
The LCA of intermediate- to low-temperature geothermal developments
is dominated by larger initial material and energy inputs during the construction of the wells, power plant and pipelines. For hybrid electricity/
district heating applications, greater direct use of the heat generally provides greater environmental benets.
In conclusion, the LCA assessments show that geothermal is similar
to other RE and nuclear energy in total lifecycle GHG emissions (see
Geothermal Energy
4.5.3
4.5.3.1
Geothermal systems involve natural phenomena, and typically discharge gases mixed with steam from surface features, and minerals
dissolved in water from hot springs. Apart from CO2, geothermal uids
can, depending on the site, contain a variety of other minor gases, such
as hydrogen sulphide (H2S), hydrogen (H2), methane (CH4), ammonia
(NH3) and nitrogen (N2). Mercury, arsenic, radon and boron may be
present. The amounts depend on the geological, hydrological and thermodynamic conditions of the geothermal eld, and the type of uid
collection/ injection system and power plant utilized.
Of the minor gases, H2S is toxic, but rarely of sufcient concentration
to be harmful after venting to the atmosphere and dispersal. Removal
of H2S released from geothermal power plants is practised in parts of
the USA and Italy. Elsewhere, H2S monitoring is a standard practice
to provide assurance that concentrations after venting and atmospheric dispersal are not harmful. CH4, which has warming potential,
is present in small concentrations (typically a few percent of the CO2
concentration).
Most hazardous chemicals in geothermal uids are in aqueous phase.
If present, boron and arsenic are likely to be harmful to ecosystems
if released at the surface. In the past, surface disposal of separated
water has occurred at a few elds. Today, this happens only in exceptional circumstances, and geothermal brine is usually injected back into
the reservoir to support reservoir pressures, as well as avoid adverse
environmental effects. Surface disposal, if signicantly in excess of
natural hot spring ow rates, and if not strongly diluted, can have
adverse effects on the ecology of rivers, lakes or marine environments.
Shallow groundwater aquifers of potable quality are protected from
contamination by injected uids by using cemented casings, and impermeable linings provide protection from temporary uid disposal ponds.
419
Geothermal Energy
4.5.3.2
Chapter 4
formations causing them to compact anomalously and form local subsidence bowls. Management by targeted injection to maintain pressures
at crucial depths and locations can minimize subsidence effects. Some
minor subsidence may also be related to thermal contraction and minor
tumescence (ination) can overlie areas of injection and rising pressure.
Local hazards arising from natural phenomena, such as micro-earthquakes, hydrothermal steam eruptions and ground subsidence may
be inuenced by the operation of a geothermal eld (see also Section
9.3.4.7). As with other (non-geothermal) deep drilling projects, pressure
or temperature changes induced by stimulation, production or injection
of uids can lead to geo-mechanical stress changes and these can affect
the subsequent rate of occurrence of these phenomena (Majer et al.,
2008). A geological risk assessment may help to avoid or mitigate these
hazards.
Routine seismic monitoring is used as a diagnostic tool and management
and protocols have been prepared to measure, monitor and manage systems proactively, as well as to inform the public of any hazards (Majer
et al., 2008). In the future, discrete-element models would be able to
predict the spatial location of energy releases due to injection and
withdrawal of underground uids. During 100 years of development,
although turbines have been tripped ofine for short periods, no buildings or structures within a geothermal operation or local community
have been signicantly damaged by shallow earthquakes originating
from geothermal production or injection activities.
With respect to induced seismicity, ground vibrations or noise have been
a social issue associated with some EGS demonstration projects, particularly in populated areas of Europe. The process of high-pressure injection
of cold water into hot rock generates small seismic events. Induced
seismic events have not been large enough to lead to human injury
or signicant property damage, but proper management of this issue
will be an important step to facilitating signicant expansion of future
EGS projects. Collaborative research initiated by the IEA-GIA (Bromley
and Mongillo, 2008), the USA and Australia (International Partnership
for Geothermal Technology: IPGT)12 and in Europe (GEISER)13, is aimed
at better understanding and mitigating induced seismicity hazards, and
providing risk management protocols.
Land use
Good examples exist of unobtrusive, scenically landscaped developments (e.g., Matsukawa, Japan), and integrated tourism/energy
developments (e.g., Wairakei, New Zealand and Blue Lagoon, Iceland).
Nonetheless, land use issues still seriously constrain new development
options in some countries (e.g., Indonesia, Japan, the USA and New
Zealand) where new projects are often located within or adjacent to
national parks or tourist areas. Spa resort owners are very sensitive to
the possibility of depleted hot water resources. Potential pressure and
temperature interference between adjacent geothermal developers
or users can be another issue that affects all types of heat and uid
extraction, including heat pumps and EGS power projects (Bromley et
al., 2006). Good planning should take this into account by applying predictive simulation models when allocating permits for energy extraction.
Table 4.5 presents the typical operational footprint for conventional
geothermal power plants, taking into account surface installations (drilling pads, roads, pipelines, uid separators and power-stations). Due to
directional drilling techniques, and appropriate design of pipeline corridors, the land area above geothermal resources that is not covered
by surface installations can still be used for other purposes such as
farming, horticulture and forestry, as occurs, for example, at Mokai and
Rotokawa in New Zealand (Koorey and Fernando, 2010), and a national
park at Olkaria, Kenya.
Table 4.5 | Land requirements for typical geothermal power generation options expressed in terms of square meter per generation capacity and per annual energy output.
Type of power plant
Land Use
2
m /MWe
m2/GWh/yr
1,260
160
7,460
900
2,290
290
1,415
170
Notes: FC: Flash cycle. RC: Rankine cycle (data from Tester et al. (2006) taken from
DiPippo (1991); the CFs originally used to calculate land use vary between 90 and 95%
depending on the plant type).
Land subsidence has been an issue at a few high-temperature geothermal elds where pressure decline has affected some highly compressible
4.5.4
420
Chapter 4
4.6
Geothermal Energy
4.6.1
421
Geothermal Energy
Chapter 4
Table 4.6 | Priorities for advanced geothermal research (HTHF: high temperature and high ow rate).
Complementary research & share knowledge
Education / training
able to predict reservoir behaviour with time, to recommend management strategies for prolonged eld operation and to minimize potential
environmental impacts.
4.6.2
422
4.6.3
Chapter 4
Geothermal Energy
4.6.4
4.7
Cost trends16
423
Geothermal Energy
Some historic and current investment costs for typical geothermalelectric projects are shown in Figure 4.7. For condensing ash power
plants, the current (2009) worldwide range is estimated to be USD2005
1,780 to 3,560/kWe, and for binary cycle plants USD2005 2,130 to 5,200/
kWe (Bromley et al., 2010).
One additional factor affecting the investment cost of a geothermalelectric project is the type of project: eld expansion projects may cost
10 to 15% less than a greeneld project, since investments have already
been made in infrastructure and exploration and valuable resource
information has been learned from drilling and producing start-up wells
(Stefansson, 2002; Hance, 2005).
Most geothermal projects are nanced with two different kinds of capital with different rates of return: equity and debt interest. Equity rates
can be up to 20% while debt interest rates are lower (6 to 8%). The capital structure of geothermal-electric projects is commonly composed of
55 to 70% debt and 30 to 45% equity, but in the USA, debt lenders usually require 25% of the resource capacity to be proven before lending
money. Thus, the early phases of the project often have to be nanced
by equity due to the higher risk of failure in these phases (Hance, 2005).
Real and perceived risks play major roles in setting equity rates and in
determining the availability of debt interest nancing.
From the 1980s until about 2003-2004, investment costs remained at
or even decreased (Kagel, 2006; Mansure and Blankenship, 2008). Since
then project costs have increased (Figure 4.7) due to increases in the
cost of engineering, commodities such as steel and cement, and particularly drilling rig rates. This cost trend was not unique to geothermal and
was mirrored across most other power sectors.
[USD2005 / KWe]
4.7.1
Chapter 4
6,000
Binary Plants
5,000
Flash Plants
Binary Range
Flash Range
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
424
0
1997
2000
2002
2003
2004
2006
2008
2009
Figure 4.7 | Historic and current investment costs for typical turnkey (installed) geothermal-electric projects (rounded values taken from Kutscher, 2000; Owens, 2002; Stefansson,
2002; Hance, 2005; GTP, 2008; Cross and Freeman, 2009; Bromley et al., 2010; Hjartarson
and Einarsson, 2010).
Chapter 4
4.7.2
O&M costs consist of xed and variable costs directly related to the
electricity production phase. O&M per annum costs include eld operation (labour and equipment), well operation and work-over and facility
maintenance. For geothermal plants, an additional factor is the cost of
make-up wells, that is, new wells to replace failed wells and restore lost
production or injection capacity. Costs of these wells are typically lower
than those for the original wells, and their success rate is higher.
Each geothermal power plant has specic O&M costs that depend on
the quality and design of the plant, the characteristics of the resource,
environmental regulations and the efciency of the operator. The major
factor affecting these costs is the extent of work-over and make-up well
requirements, which can vary widely from eld to eld and typically
increase with time (Hance, 2005). For the USA, O&M costs including
make-up wells have been calculated to be between US cents2005 1.9 and
2.3/kWh (Lovekin, 2000; Owens, 2002), and Hance (2005) proposed
an average cost of US cents2005 2.5/kWh. In terms of installed capacity,
current O&M costs range between USD2005 152 and 187/kW per year,
depending of the size of the power plant. In New Zealand, O&M costs
range from US cents2005 1.0 to 1.4/kWh for 20 to 50 MWe plant capacity
(Barnett and Quinlivan, 2009), which are equivalent to USD2005 83 to
117/kW per year.
4.7.3
Geothermal Energy
Table 4.7 | World installed capacity, electricity production and capacity factor of geothermal power plants from 1995 to 2009 (adapted from data from Bertani (2010).
Year
Installed
Capacity (GWe )
Electricity Production
(GWh/yr)
Capacity Factor
(%)
1995
6.8
38,035
63.5
2000
8.0
49,261
70.5
2005
8.9
55,709
71.2
2008-20091
10.7
67,246
74.5
Mexico was 84% (data from Gutirrez-Negrn et al., 2010), while for
the USA it was 62% (Lund et al., 2010b) and in Indonesia it was 78%
(Darma et al., 2010; data from their Table 1).
The geothermal CF worldwide average increased signicantly between
1995 and 2000, with a lower increase in the last decade. This lower
increase can be partially explained by the degradation in resource
productivity (temperature, ow, enthalpy or combination of these) in
geothermal elds operated for decades, although make-up drilling
can offset this effect. The complementary explanation is that in the
last decade some operating geothermal turbines have exceeded their
economic lifetime, and thus require longer periods of shut-down for
maintenance or replacement. For instance, out of the 48 geothermalelectric power units of >55 MWe operating in the world in 2009, 13
(27%) had been in operation for 27 years or more (Bertani, 2010, Table
IX). Moreover, 15 new power plants, with a combined capacity of 456
MWe, started to operate during 2008, but their generation contributed
for only part of the year (Bertani, 2010, Table X). Typical CFs for new
geothermal power plants are over 90% (Hance, 2005; DiPippo, 2008;
Bertani, 2010).
4.7.4
425
Geothermal Energy
Chapter 4
(b)
Levelized Cost of Energy [UScent2005 /kWh]
(a)
Geothermal (Condensing-Flash), USD2005 1,800
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
0
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
Figure 4.8 | Current LCOE for geothermal power generation as a function of (left panel) capacity factor and investment cost (discount rate at 7%, mid-value of the O&M cost range,
and mid-value of the lifetime range), and (right panel) capacity factor and discount rate (mid-value of the investment cost range, mid-value of the O&M cost range, and mid-value of
the lifetime range) (see also Annex III).
lowest and highest investment cost, respectively. Achieving a 90% lifetime average CF in new power plants can lead to a roughly 17% lower
LCOE (Figure 4.8). The complete range of LCOE estimates, considering
variations in plant lifetime, O&M costs, investment costs, discount rates
and CFs, can vary from US cents2005 3.1 to 13/kWh for condensing ash
plants and from US cents2005 3.3 to 17/kWh for binary plants (see also
Annex III and Chapters 1 and 10).
No actual LCOE data exist for EGS, but some projections have been
made using different models for several cases with diverse temperatures
and depths (Table 9.5 in Tester et al., 2006). These projections do not
include projected cost reductions due to future learning and technology
improvements, and all estimates for EGS carry higher uncertainties than
for conventional hydrothermal resources. The obtained LCOE values for
the Massachusetts Institute of Technology EGS model range from US
cents2005 10 to 17.5/kWh for relatively high-grade EGS resources (250C
to 330C, 5-km depth wells) assuming a base case present-day productivity of 20 kg/s per well. Another model for a hypothetical EGS project
in Europe considers two wells at 4 km depth, 125C to 165C reservoir
temperature, 33 to 69 kg/s ow rate and a binary power unit of 1.6 MWe
running with an annual capacity factor of 86%, and obtains LCOE values
of US cents2005 30 to 37/kWh (Huenges and Frick, 2010).17
4.7.5
The prospects for technical improvements outlined in Section 4.6 indicate that there is potential for cost reductions in the near and longer term
for both conventional geothermal technology and EGS. Additionally, the
future costs for geothermal electricity are likely to vary widely because
17 Further assumptions, for example, about O&M costs, lifetime, CFs and the discount
rate may be available from the references.
426
future deployment will include an increasing percentage of unconventional development types, such as EGS, as mentioned in Section 4.8.
Chapter 4
Geothermal Energy
4.7.6
Table 4.8 | Investment costs and calculated levelized cost of heat (LCOH) for several geothermal direct applications (investment costs are rounded and taken from Lund, 1995; Balcer,
2000; Radeckas and Lukosevicius, 2000; Reif, 2008; Lund and Boyd, 2009).
Heat application
Space heating (buildings)
7%
10%
2050
2465
2877
5701,570
1224
1431
1538
Greenhouses
5001,000
7.713
8.614
9.316
50100
8.511
8.612
8.612
9403,750
1442
1756
1968
volume and replication of EGS units, with increasing the maximum practicable pumping rate from a well, and with the reduced rate of cooling
of the produced uid (LCOE increases approximately US cents2005 0.45/
kWh per additional degree Celsius of cooling per year), which in turn
can be achieved by improving the effectiveness of stimulation by closely
spaced fractures (Sanyal, 2010). Tester et al. (2006) suggested that a
four-fold improvement in productivity to 80 kg/s per well by 2030 would
be possible and that the projected LCOE values would range from US
cents2005 3.6 to 5.2/kWh for high-grade EGS resources, and for low-grade
geologic settings (180C to 220C, 5- to 7-km depth wells) LCOE would
also become more economically viable at about US cents2005 5.9 to 9.2/
kWh.18
18 Further assumptions, for example, about future O&M costs, lifetime, CFs and the
discount rate may be available from the references.
427
Geothermal Energy
has a large inuence on the installed cost (Lund and Boyd, 2009). The
LCOH reported in Table 4.8 assumed 25 to 30% as the load factor and
20 years as the operational lifetime. It is worth taking into account that
actual LCOH are inuenced by electricity market prices, as operation of
GHPs requires auxiliary power input. In the USA, recent trends in lower
natural gas prices have resulted in poor GHP project economics compared to alternative options for heat supply, and drilling costs continue
to be the largest barrier to GHP deployment.
Industrial applications are more difcult to quantify, as they vary widely
depending upon the energy requirements and the product to be produced. These plants normally require higher temperatures and often
compete with power plant use; however, they do have a high load factor
of 0.40 to 0.70, which improves the economics. Industrial applications
vary from large food, timber and mineral drying plants (USA and New
Zealand) to pulp and paper plants (New Zealand).
4.8
Potential deployment19
Geothermal energy can contribute to near- and long-term carbon emissions reductions. In 2008, the worldwide geothermal-electric generation
was 67.2 TWhe (Sections 4.4.1 and 4.7.3) and the heat generation from
geothermal direct uses was 121.7 TWhth (Section 4.4.3). These amounts
of energy are equivalent to 0.24 EJ/yr and 0.44 EJ/yr, respectively, for a
total of 0.68 EJ/yr (direct equivalent method). The IEA (2010) reports only
0.41 EJ/yr (direct equivalent method) as the total primary energy supply
from geothermal resources in 2008 (see Chapter 1); the reason for this difference is unclear. Regardless, geothermal resources provided only about
0.1% of the worldwide primary energy supply in 2008. By 2050, however,
geothermal could meet roughly 3% of global electricity demand and 5%
of the global demand for heating and cooling, as shown in Section 4.8.2.
This section starts by presenting near-term (2015) global and regional
deployments expected for geothermal energy (electricity and heat) based
on current geothermal-electric projects under construction or planned,
observed historic growth rates, as well as the forecast generation of
electricity and heat. Subsequently, this section presents the middle- and
long-term (2020, 2030, 2050) global and regional deployments, compared
to the IPCC AR4 estimate, displays results from scenarios reviewed in
Chapter 10 of this report, and discusses their feasibility in terms of technical
potential, regional conditions, supply chain aspects, technological-economic conditions, integration-transmission issues, and environmental and
social concerns. Finally, the section presents a short conclusion regarding
potential deployment.
19 Complementary perspectives on potential deployment based on a comprehensive
assessment of numerous model-based scenarios of the energy system are presented
in Chapter 10 and Sections 10.2 and 10.3 of this report.
428
Chapter 4
4.8.1
Near-term forecasts
Chapter 4
Geothermal Energy
Table 4.9 | Regional current and forecast installed capacity for geothermal power and direct uses (heat, including GHP) and forecast generation of electricity and heat by 2015.
Current capacity (2010)
REGION*
Direct (GWt h )
Electric (GWe )
Direct (GWt h )
Electric (GWe )
13.9
4.1
27.5
6.5
72.3
43.1
Latin America
0.8
0.5
1.1
1.1
2.9
7.2
OECD Europe
20.4
1.6
32.8
2.1
86.1
13.9
Africa
0.1
0.2
2.2
0.6
5.8
3.8
Transition Economies
1.1
0.08
1.6
0.2
4.3
1.3
Middle East
2.4
2.8
7.3
Developing Asia
9.2
3.2
14.0
6.1
36.7
40.4
OECD Pacic
TOTAL
2.8
1.2
3.3
1.8
8.7
11.9
50.6
10.7
85.2
18.5
224.0
121.6
Notes: * For regional denitions and country groupings see Annex II.
Current and forecast data for electricity taken from Bertani (2010), and for direct uses from Lund et al. (2010a), both as of December 2009. Estimated average annual growth rate in
2010 to 2015 is 11.5% for power and 11% for direct uses. Average worldwide capacity factors of 75% (for electric) and 30% (for direct use) were assumed by 2015.
Andes mountain chain, also have signicant untappedand underexploredhydrothermal resources (Bertani, 2010).
For island nations with mature histories of geothermal development,
such as New Zealand, Iceland, the Philippines and Japan, identied
geothermal resources could allow for a future expansion potential
of two to ve times existing installed capacity, although constraints
such as limited grid capacity, existing or planned generation (from
other renewable energy sources) and environmental factors (such as
national park status of some resource areas) may limit the hydrothermal geothermal deployment. Indonesia is thought to be one of
the worlds richest countries in geothermal resources and, along
with other volcanic islands in the Pacic Ocean (Papua-New Guinea,
Solomon, Fiji, etc.) and the Atlantic Ocean (Azores, Caribbean, etc.)
has signicant potential for growth from known hydrothermal
resources, but is market-constrained in growth potential.
Remote parts of Russia (Kamchatka) and China (Tibet) contain identied high-temperature hydrothermal resources, the use of which
could be signicantly expanded given the right incentives and grid
access to load centres. Parts of other South-East Asian nations and
India contain numerous hot springs, inferring the possibility of potential, as yet unexplored, hydrothermal resources.
Additionally, small-scale distributed geothermal developments could
be an important base-load power source for isolated population centres in close proximity to geothermal resources, particularly in areas
of Indonesia, the Philippines and Central and South America.
4.8.2
The IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) estimated a potential contribution of geothermal to world electricity supply by 2030 of 633 TWh/
20 In scenario ensemble analyses such as the review underlying Figure 4.9, there is a
constant tension between the fact that the scenarios are not truly a random sample
and the sense that the variation in the scenarios does still provide real and often
clear insights into collective knowledge or lack of knowledge about the future (see
Section 10.2.1.2 for a more detailed discussion).
429
Geothermal Energy
Chapter 4
(b)
60
N=122
Baselines
Cat. III + IV (440 - 600 ppm)
Cat. I + II (< 440 ppm)
40
20
20
(a)
Heat
Electricity
50
40
30
20
10
10
60
2020
2030
2050
2020
2030
2050
Figure 4.9 | Global primary energy supply of geothermal energy. Left panel: In long-term scenarios (median, 25th to 75th percentile range, and full range of scenario results; colour
coding is based on categories of atmospheric CO2 concentration level in 2100; the specic number of scenarios underlying the gure is indicated in the right upper corner) (adapted
from Krey and Clarke, 2011; see also Chapter 10). Right panel: Estimated in Section 4.8.2 as potential geothermal deployments for electricity and heat applications.
Table 4.10 | Potential geothermal deployments for electricity and direct uses in 2020 through 2050.
Year
2020
2030
2050
Use
Capacity1 (GW)
Generation (TWh/yr)
Generation (EJ/yr)
Electricity
25.9
181.8
0.65
Direct
143.6
377.5
1.36
Electricity
51.0
380.0
1.37
Direct
407.8
1,071.7
3.86
Electricity
150.0
1,182.8
4.26
Direct
800.0
2,102.3
7.57
Total (EJ/yr)
2.01
5.23
11.83
Note: 1. Installed capacities for 2020 and 2030 are extrapolated from 2015 estimates at 7% annual growth rate for electricity and 11% for direct uses, and for 2050 are the middle
value between projections from Bertani (2010) and Goldstein et al. (2011). Generation was estimated with an average worldwide CF of 80% (2020), 85% (2030) and 90% (2050)
for electricity and of 30% for direct uses.
to 1.38 EJ/yr by 2020, 0.10 to 2.85 EJ/yr by 2030 and 0.11 to 5.94 EJ/yr
by 2050. The scenario medians range from 0.39 to 0.71 EJ/yr for 2020,
0.22 to 1.28 EJ/yr for 2030 and 1.16 to 3.85 EJ/yr for 2050. The medians
for 2030 are lower than the IPCC AR4 estimate of 2.28 EJ/yr, which is
for electric generation only, although the latter lies in the 25th to 75th
percentile range of the most ambitious GHG concentration stabilization
scenarios presented in Figure 4.9 (left). Figure 4.9 (left) shows that geothermal deployment is sensitive to the GHG concentration level, with
greater deployment correlated with lower GHG concentration stabilization levels.
Based on geothermal technical potentials and market activity discussed
in Sections 4.2 and 4.4, and on the expected geothermal deployment by
2015, the projected medians for geothermal energy supply and the 75th
percentile amounts of all the modelled scenarios are technically reachable for 2020, 2030 and 2050.
430
Chapter 4
Geothermal Energy
and 10 to 312 EJ/yr for heat, see Figure 4.2) and even within the upper
range of hydrothermal resources (28.4 to 56.8 EJ/yr). Thus, technical
potential is not likely to be a barrier in reaching more ambitious levels
of geothermal deployment (electricity and direct uses), at least on a
global basis.
Regional deployment: Future deployment of geothermal power
plants and direct uses are not the same for every region. Availability of
nancing, water, transmission and distribution infrastructure and other
factors will play major roles in regional deployment rates, as will local
geothermal resource conditions. For instance, in the USA, Australia and
Europe, EGS concepts are already being eld tested and deployed, providing advantages for accelerated deployment in those regions as risks
and uncertainties are reduced. In other rapidly developing regions in
Asia, Africa and South America, as well as in remote and island settings
where distributed power supplies are needed, factors that would affect
deployment include market power prices, population density, market
distance, electricity and heating and cooling demand.
Supply chain issues: No mid- or long-term constraints to materials
supply, labour availability or manufacturing capacity are foreseen from
a global perspective.
Technology and economics: GHP, district heating, hydrothermal and
EGS methods are available, with different degrees of maturity. GHP systems have the widest market penetration, and an increased deployment
can be supported by improving the coefcient of performance and
installation efciency. The direct use of thermal uids from deep aquifers, and heat extraction using EGS, can be increased by further technical
advances in accessing and fracturing geothermal reservoirs. Combined
heat and power applications may also be particularly attractive for EGS
and low-temperature hydrothermal resource deployment. To achieve a
more efcient and sustainable geothermal energy supply, subsurface
exploration risks need to be reduced and reservoir management needs
to be improved by optimizing injection strategies and avoiding excessive
depletion. Improvement in energy utilization efciency from cascaded
use of geothermal heat is an effective deployment strategy when markets permit. Evaluation of geothermal plants performance, including
heat and power EGS installations, needs to take into account heat quality of the uid by considering the useful energy that can be converted
to electric power. These technological improvements will inuence the
economics of geothermal energy.
Integration and transmission: The site-specic geographic location of
conventional hydrothermal resources results in transmission constraints
for future deployment. However, no integration problems have been
observed once transmission issues are solved, due to the base-load characteristic of geothermal electricity. In the long term, fewer transmission
431
Geothermal Energy
constraints are foreseen since EGS developments are less geographydependent, even though EGS resource grades can vary substantially
on a regional basis.
Social and environmental concerns: Concerns expressed about
geothermal energy development include the possibility of induced
local seismicity for EGS, water usage by geothermal power plants in
arid regions, land subsidence in some circumstances, concerns about
water and soil contamination and potential impacts of facilities on
scenic quality and use of natural areas and features (such as geysers) that might otherwise be used for tourism. Sustainable practices
will help protect natural thermal features valued by the community,
optimize water and land use and minimize adverse effects from disposal of geothermal uids and gases, induced seismicity and ground
subsidence.
4.8.3
432
Chapter 4
conditions are met. Some new technologies are entering the eld demonstration phase to evaluate commercial viability (e.g., EGS), or the early
investigation stage to test practicality (e.g., utilization of supercritical
temperature and submarine hydrothermal vents). Power generation with
binary plants permits the possibility of producing electricity in countries
that have no high-temperature resources, though overall costs are higher
than for high-temperature resources.
Direct use of geothermal energy for heating and cooling is competitive
in certain areas, using accessible, hydrothermal resources. A moderate
increase can be expected in the future development of such resources for
direct use, but a sustained compound annual growth is expected with the
deployment of GHP. Direct use in lower-grade regions for heating and/or
cooling in most parts of the world could reach 800 GWth by 2050 (Section
4.8.2). Cogeneration and hybridization with other thermal sources may
provide additional opportunities.
Evidence suggests that geothermal supply could meet the upper range of
projections derived from a review of about 120 energy and GHG-reduction
scenarios. With its natural thermal storage capacity, geothermal is especially suitable for supplying base-load power. Considering its technical
potential and possible deployment, geothermal energy could meet roughly
3% of global electricity demand by 2050, and also has the potential to
provide roughly 5% of the global demand for heating and cooling by 2050.
Chapter 4
Geothermal Energy
References
Ltd. for the Australian Geothermal Energy Association (AGEA), Unley, South
WGC/2010/0225.pdf.
Armstead, H.C.H., and J.W. Tester (1987). Heat Mining. E&FN Spon Ltd, London, UK
and New York, NY, USA, 478 pp (ISBN 0-419-12230-3).
Cataldi, S. Hodgson and J.W. Lund (eds.), Geothermal Resources Council and
World Geothermal Congress 2005, Antalya, Turkey, 24-29 April 2005 (ISBN
0934412197).
Cataldi, R. (1999). The year zero of geothermics. In: Stories from a Heated Earth.
R. Cataldi, S. Hodgson and J.W. Lund (eds.), Geothermal Resources Council and
ment of geothermal resources and utilisation for 100 300 years. In: Proceedings
World Geothermal Congress 2005, Antalya, Turkey, 24-29 April 2005 (ISBN
9759833204). Available at: www.geothermal-energy.org/pdf/IGAstandard/WGC/
2005/0507.pdf.
0934412197).
Cloetingh, S., J.D.v. Wees, P.A. Ziegler, L. Lenkey, F. Beekman, M. Tesauro, A. Frster,
B. Norden, M. Kaban, N. Hardebol, D. Bont, A. Genter, L. Guillou-Frottier,
Axelsson, G.V., C.J. Bromley, M.A. Mongillo, and L. Rybach (2010). Sustainability
In: Proceedings World Geothermal Congress 2010, Bali, Indonesia, 25-30 April 2010.
Cooper, G.T., G.R. Beardsmore, B.S. Waining, N. Pollington, and J.P. Driscoll
(in Polish). In: Symposium on the Role of Geothermal Energy in the Sustainable
IGAstandard/WGC/2010/3115.pdf.
Cross, J., and J. Freeman (2009). 2008 Geothermal Technologies Market Report.
Power Generation in New Zealand (2007 Basis). Report by SKM for New Zealand
market_report.pdf.
thermal.org.nz\industry_papers.html.
Congress 2010, Bali, Indonesia, 25-29 April, 2010. Available at: www.geothermal-
WGC/2010/0008.pdf.
Bertani, R., and I. Thain (2002). Geothermal power generating plant CO2 emis-
energy.org/pdf/IGAstandard/WGC/2010/0128.pdf.
De Jesus, A.C. (2005). Social issues raised and measures adopted in Philippine geo-
sion survey. International Geothermal Association (IGA) News, 49, pp. 1-3 (ISSN:
Bloomquist, R.G., J. Nimmons, and M. Spurr (2001). Combined Heat and Power
energy.org/pdf/IGAstandard/WGC/2005/0219.pdf.
Dickson, M.H., and M. Fanelli (2003). Geothermal energy: Utilization and technol-
ogy. Renewable Energy Series, United Nations Educational, Scientic and Cultural
Bromley, C.J., and M.A. Mongillo (2008). Geothermal energy from fractured reservoirs: dealing with induced seismicity. IEA OPEN Energy Technology Bulletin Feb.
2008, 48, 7 pp. Available at: www.iea.org/impagr/cip/pdf/Issue48Geothermal.pdf.
and Environmental Impact. Elsevier, London, UK, 493 pp. (ISBN: 9780750686204).
433
Geothermal Energy
Chapter 4
36 pp.
technology_framework_and_roadmaps/hydrogen_technology_roadmap/
Documents/GEOTHERMAL%20FRAMEWORK.pdf.
Congress 2010, Bali, Indonesia, 25-29 April 2010. Available at: www.geothermal-
energy.org/pdf/IGAstandard/WGC/2010/0101.pdf.
Hamza, V.M., R.R. Cardoso, and C.F.P. Neto (2008). Spherical harmonic analysis
Innovative Network for Europe, Orlans, France, pp. 4-7. Available at: engine.brgm.
fr/bulletins/ENGINE_Newsletter11_062008.pdf.
pp. 205-226.
Entingh, D.J., and G. Mines (2006). A framework for evaluating research to improve
EPRI (1978). Geothermal Energy Prospects for the Next 50 Years ER-611-SR, Special
Report for the World Energy Conference. Electric Power Research Institute, Palo
Alto, CA, USA.
Affecting%20Cost%20of%20Geothermal%20Power%20Development%20
-%20August%202005.pdf.
Hettkamp, T., J. Baumgrtner, D. Teza, P. Hauffe, and B. Rogulic (2010). Erfahrungen
Frick, S., G. Schrder, and M. Kaltschmitt (2010). Life cycle analysis of geothermal
binary power plants using enhanced low temperature reservoirs. Energy, 35(5),
pp. 2281-2294.
Fridleifsson, I.B., and A. Ragnarsson (2007). Geothermal energy. In: 2007 Survey
Hiriart, G. (2007). Impacto del cambio climtico sobre la generacin elctrica con
of Energy Resources. World Energy Council, London, UK, pp. 427-437 (ISBN:
online_version_1.pdf.
Fridleifsson, I.B., R. Bertani, E. Huenges, J.W. Lund, A. Ragnarsson, and L. Rybach
(2008). The possible role and contribution of geothermal energy to the mitiga-
tion of climate change. In: IPCC Scoping Meeting on Renewable Energy Sources,
Luebeck, Germany, 21-25 January 2008, pp. 36. Available at: www.ipcc.ch/pdf/
supporting-material/proc-renewables-lubeck.pdf.
la AMEE, Colegio de Mxico, 28-29 November 2005, pp. 153-159. Available at:
http://www.iie.org.mx/economia-energetica/MemoriasVIIIConfAnualAMEE.pdf.
Project. The rst IDDP drill hole drilled and completed in 2009. In: Proceedings
World Geothermal Congress 2010, Bali, Indonesia, 25-29 April, 2010. Available
World Geothermal Congress 2010, Bali, Indonesia, 25-29 April, 2010. Available
at: www.geothermal-energy.org/pdf/IGAstandard/WGC/2010/3902.pdf.
at: http://www.geothermal-energy.org/pdf/IGAstandard/WGC/2010/3704.pdf.
Gawell, K., and G. Greenberg. (2007). 2007 Interim Report. Update on World
Hjartarson, A., and J.G. Einarsson (2010). Geothermal resources and properties of
2007.pdf.
German, C.R., G.P. Klinkhammer, and M.D. Rudnicki (1996). The Rainbow
2979-2982.
Goldstein, B.A., A.J. Hill, A. Long, A.R. Budd, B. Ayling, and M. Malavazos (2009).
Hot rocks down under Evolution of a new energy industry. Transactions of the
Geothermal Resources Council, 33, pp. 185-198.
Goldstein, B.A., G. Hiriart, J.W. Tester, R. Bertani, C.J. Bromley, L.C. GutirrezNegrn, E. Huenges, A. Ragnarsson, M.A. Mongillo, H. Muraoka, and V.I. Zui
GEA_International_Market_Report_Final_May_2010.pdf.
Huenges, E., and S. Frick (2010). Costs of CO2 mitigation by deployment of Enhanced
Geothermal Systems plants. In: Proceedings World Geothermal Congress 2010,
Bali, Indonesia, 25-30 April 2010. Available at: www.geothermal-energy.org/pdf/
IGAstandard/WGC/2010/0238.pdf.
(2011). Great expectations for geothermal energy to 2100. In: Proceedings of the
Current status of the large scale research project in Germany. Transactions of the
Grant, M.A., I.G. Donaldson, and P.F. Bixley (1982). Geothermal Reservoir
Engineering. Academic Press, New York, NY, USA.
434
Chapter 4
IEA (2010). Key World Energy Statistics 2010. International Energy Agency, Paris,
France.
IEA-GIA (2009). IEA Geothermal Energy 12th Annual Report 2008. International
Energy Agency Geothermal Implementing Agreement, Paris, France, 257 pp.
Geothermal Energy
Lund, J.W., D.H. Freeston, and T.L. Boyd (2010a). Direct utilization of geothermal energy 2010 worldwide review. In: Proceedings World Geothermal Congress
2010, Bali, Indonesia, 25-30 April 2010. Available at: www.geothermal-energy.
org/pdf/IGAstandard/WGC/2010/0007.pdf.
Lund, J.W., K. Gawell, T.L. Boyd, and D. Jennejohn (2010b). The United States of
America country update 2010. In: Proceedings World Geothermal Congress 2010,
WGC/2010/0314.pdf.
IGAstandard/WGC/2010/0102.pdf.
Lupton, J. (1995). Hydrothermal plumes: Near and far eld. In: Seaoor Hydrothermal
Kaltschmitt, M. (2000). Environmental effects of heat provision from geothermal energy in comparison to other resources of energy. In: Proceedings World
91, American Geophysical Union, Washington, DC, USA, pp. 317-346 (ISBN
0875900488).
Majer, E., E. Bayer, and R. Baria (2008). Protocol for induced seismicity associated
WGC/2000/R0908.PDF.
Koorey, K.J., and A.D. Fernando (2010). Concurrent land use in geothermal steameld developments. In: Proceedings World Geothermal Congress 2010, Bali,
Indonesia, 25-29 April 2010. Available at: www.geothermal-energy.org/pdf/
IGAstandard/WGC/2010/0207.pdf.
Mgel, T., and L. Rybach (2000). Production capacity and sustainability of geother-
Role and Potential of Renewable Energy and Energy Efciency for Global Energy
mal-energy.org/pdf/IGAstandard/WGC/2000/R0102.PDF.
Mock, J.E., J.W. Tester, and P.M. Wright (1997). Geothermal energy from the Earth:
Its potential impact as an environmentally sustainable resource. Annual Review
of Energy and the Environment, 22, pp. 305-356 (ISBN: 978-0-8243-2322-6).
Newell, D., and A. Mingst (2009). Power from the Earth. Trading Carbon, 2(10),
p. 24.
OSullivan, M., and W. Mannington (2005). Renewability of the Wairakei-Tauhara
Proceedings World Geothermal Congress 2005, Antalya, Turkey, 24-29 April 2005
(ISBN 9759833204).
Lippmann, M.J. (2002). Geothermal and the electricity market in Central America.
Transactions of the Geothermal Resources Council, 26, pp. 37-42.
mal-energy.org/pdf/IGAstandard/WGC/2005/0508.pdf.
Owens, B. (2002). An Economic Valuation of a Geothermal Production Tax Credit.
NREL/TP-620-31969, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, CO, USA,
24 pp. Available at: www.nrel.gov/docs/fy02osti/31969.pdf.
Lund, J.W., and T.L. Boyd (2009). Geothermal utilization on the Oregon Institute of
Pruess, K., and N. Spycher (2010). Enhanced Geothermal Systems (EGS) with CO2
Technology campus, Klamath Falls, Oregon. In: Proceedings of the 34th Workshop
energy with geologic storage of CO2. In: Proceedings World Geothermal Congress
Lund, J.W., B. Sanner, L. Rybach, R. Curtis, and G. Hellstrm (2003). Groundsource heat pumps A world overview. Renewable Energy World, 6(14), pp.
218-227.
Lund, J.W., D.H. Freeston, and T.L. Boyd (2005). Direct application of geothermal
energy: 2005 worldwide review. Geothermics, 24, pp. 691-727.
org/pdf/IGAstandard/WGC/2010/3107.pdf.
Radeckas, B., and V. Lukosevicius (2000). Klaipeda Geothermal demonstration
project. In: Proceedings World Geothermal Congress 2000, Kyushu-Tohoku,
Japan, 28 May 10 June 2000, pp. 3547-3550 (ISBN: 0473068117). Available at:
www.geothermal-energy.org/pdf/IGAstandard/WGC/2000/R0237.PDF.
435
Geothermal Energy
Chapter 4
Geo-Heat Center Quarterly Bulletin, 28(4), pp. 1-4. Available at: geoheat.oit.edu/
bulletin/bull28-4/bull28-4-all.pdf.
REN21 (2010). Renewables 2010: Global Status Report. Renewable Energy Policy
Network for the 21st Century (REN21) Secretariat, Paris, France. Available at:
www.ren21.net/Portals/97/documents/GSR/REN21_GSR_2010_full_revised%20
Panel on Climate Change, B. Metz, O.R. Davidson, P.R. Bosch, R. Dave and L.A.
Sept2010.pdf.
Rowley, J.C. (1982). Worldwide geothermal resources. In: Handbook of Geothermal
Energy. Gulf Publishing, Houston, TX, USA, pp. 44-176 (ISBN 0-87201-322-7).
Rybach, L. (2005). The advance of geothermal heat pumps world-wide. International
Energy Agency (IEA) Heat Pump Centre Newsletter, 23, pp. 13-18.
Rybach, L. (2010). Legal and regulatory environment favourable for geothermal
development investors. In: Proceedings World Geothermal Congress 2010, Bali,
Indonesia, 25-30 April 2010. Available at: www.geothermal-energy.org/pdf/
IGAstandard/WGC/2010/0303.pdf.
Saadat, A., S. Frick, S. Kranz, and S. Regenspurg (2010). Energy use of EGS reser-
Tester, J.W., E.M. Drake, M.W. Golay, M.J. Driscoll, and W.A. Peters (2005).
E. Huenges and P. Ledru (eds.), Wiley-VCH, Berlin, Germany, pp. 303-372 (ISBN:
978-3527408313).
Tester, J.W., B.J. Anderson, A.S. Batchelor, D.D. Blackwell, R. DiPippo, E.M. Drake,
R.W. Veatch Jr. (2006). The Future of Geothermal Energy: Impact of Enhanced
Sanyal, S.K. (2010). On minimizing the levelized cost of electric power from
org/pdf/IGAstandard/WGC/2010/3154.pdf.
Sanyal, S.K., and S.J. Butler (2010). Geothermal power capacity from petroleum
wells Some case histories and assessment. In: Proceedings World Geothermal
Congress 2010, Bali, Indonesia, 25-30 April 2010. Available at: www.geothermalenergy.org/pdf/IGAstandard/WGC/2010/3713.pdf.
geothermal_energy.pdf.
Wonstolen, K. (1980). Geothermal legislative policy concerns. In: Proceedings
Sanyal, S.K., J.W. Morrow, S.J. Butler, and A. Robertson-Tait (2007). Is EGS commer-
cially feasible? Transactions of the Geothermal Resources Council, 31, pp. 313-322.
R.G. and K. Wonstolen (eds.), Seattle, WA, 2 June 1980. Available at: www.osti.
gov/bridge/product.biblio.jsp?query_id=0&page=0&osti_id=6238884.
436
Chapter 5
Hydropower
Coordinating Lead Authors:
Arun Kumar (India) and Tormod Schei (Norway)
Lead Authors:
Alfred Ahenkorah (Ghana), Rodolfo Caceres Rodriguez (El Salvador),
Jean-Michel Devernay (France), Marcos Freitas (Brazil), Douglas Hall (USA),
nund Killingtveit (Norway), Zhiyu Liu (China)
Contributing Authors:
Emmanuel Branche (France), John Burkhardt (USA), Stephan Descloux (France),
Garvin Heath (USA), Karin Seelos (Norway)
Review Editors:
Cristobal Diaz Morejon (Cuba) and Thelma Krug (Brazil)
437
Hydropower
Chapter 5
Table of Contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 443
5.1.1
5.1.2
5.2
Resource potential
5.2.1
5.2.2
5.2.2.1
5.2.2.2
5.3
5.3.1
5.3.2
5.3.2.1
5.3.2.2
5.3.2.3
5.3.2.4
5.3.3
5.3.3.1
5.3.3.2
5.3.3.3
5.3.4
5.4
5.4.1
5.4.2
5.4.3
5.4.3.1
5.4.3.2
438
............................................................................................................
443
............................................................................................................................
444
............................................................................................................
449
....................................................................................................................
450
...................................................................................................
..............................................
454
455
Chapter 5
Hydropower
5.4.3.3
5.4.3.4
5.5
5.5.1
Grid-independent applications
5.5.2
Rural electrication
5.5.3
5.5.4
5.5.5
5.6
5.6.1
5.6.1.1
5.6.1.2
5.6.1.3
5.6.1.4
5.6.1.5
5.6.1.6
5.6.1.7
5.6.1.8
5.6.1.9
5.6.1.10
5.6.1.11
5.6.2
5.6.3
5.6.3.1
5.6.3.2
5.7
5.7.1
Variable-speed technology
5.7.2
Matrix technology
5.7.3
.......................................................................................
458
...................................................................................................................
458
..................................................................................................................................
458
............................................................................................
....................................................................................
.........................................................................................................................
459
460
468
..............................................................
474
.........................................................................................................................
475
.....................................................................................................................................
475
439
Hydropower
Chapter 5
5.7.4
5.7.5
New materials
5.7.6
5.7.7
5.7.8
Optimization of operation
5.8
Cost trends
5.8.1
5.8.2
5.8.3
5.8.4
5.8.5
5.9
5.9.1
5.9.2
5.9.3
5.10
5.10.1
5.10.2
5.10.3
..........................................................................................................................................
476
..........................................................................................................................
476
..........................................................................................................................................
477
....................................................................
...............................................................................................................
477
483
.............................................................................
485
..............................................................................................................
487
............................................................................................
.......................................................................................
488
488
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 491
440
Chapter 5
Hydropower
Executive Summary
Hydropower offers signicant potential for carbon emissions reductions. The installed capacity of hydropower by the
end of 2008 contributed 16% of worldwide electricity supply, and hydropower remains the largest source of renewable
energy in the electricity sector. On a global basis, the technical potential for hydropower is unlikely to constrain further
deployment in the near to medium term. Hydropower is technically mature, is often economically competitive with current market energy prices and is already being deployed at a rapid pace. Situated at the crossroads of two major issues
for development, water and energy, hydro reservoirs can often deliver services beyond electricity supply. The signicant
increase in hydropower capacity over the last 10 years is anticipated in many scenarios to continue in the near term
(2020) and medium term (2030), with various environmental and social concerns representing perhaps the largest challenges to continued deployment if not carefully managed.
Hydropower is a renewable energy source where power is derived from the energy of water moving
from higher to lower elevations. It is a proven, mature, predictable and typically price-competitive technology.
Hydropower has among the best conversion efciencies of all known energy sources (about 90% efciency, water to
wire). It requires relatively high initial investment, but has a long lifespan with very low operation and maintenance
costs. The levelized cost of electricity for hydropower projects spans a wide range but, under good conditions, can be
as low as 3 to 5 US cents2005 per kWh. A broad range of hydropower systems, classied by project type, system, head or
purpose, can be designed to suit particular needs and site-specic conditions. The major hydropower project types are:
run-of-river, storage- (reservoir) based, pumped storage and in-stream technologies. There is no worldwide consensus
on classication by project size (installed capacity, MW) due to varying development policies in different countries.
Classication according to size, while both common and administratively simple, isto a degreearbitrary: concepts
like small or large hydro are not technically or scientically rigorous indicators of impacts, economics or characteristics. Hydropower projects cover a continuum in scale and it may ultimately be more useful to evaluate hydropower
projects based on their sustainability or economic performance, thus setting out more realistic indicators.
The total worldwide technical potential for hydropower generation is 14,576 TWh/yr (52.47 EJ/yr) with a
corresponding installed capacity of 3,721 GW, roughly four times the current installed capacity. Worldwide
total installed hydropower capacity in 2009 was 926 GW, producing annual generation of 3,551TWh/y (12.8 EJ/y), and
representing a global average capacity factor of 44%. Of the total technical potential for hydropower, undeveloped
capacity ranges from about 47% in Europe and North America to 92% in Africa, which indicates large opportunities for continued hydropower development worldwide, with the largest growth potential in Africa, Asia and Latin
America. Additionally, possible renovation, modernization and upgrading of old power stations are often less costly
than developing a new power plant, have relatively smaller environment and social impacts, and require less time for
implementation. Signicant potential also exists to rework existing infrastructure that currently lacks generating units
(e.g., existing barrages, weirs, dams, canal fall structures, water supply schemes) by adding new hydropower facilities.
Only 25% of the existing 45,000 large dams are used for hydropower, while the other 75% are used exclusively for
other purposes (e.g., irrigation, ood control, navigation and urban water supply schemes). Climate change is expected
to increase overall average precipitation and runoff, but regional patterns will vary: the impacts on hydropower generation are likely to be small on a global basis, but signicant regional changes in river ow volumes and timing may pose
challenges for planning.
In the past, hydropower has acted as a catalyst for economic and social development by providing both
energy and water management services, and it can continue to do so in the future. Hydro storage capacity can
mitigate freshwater scarcity by providing security during lean ows and drought for drinking water supply, irrigation,
ood control and navigation services. Multipurpose hydropower projects may have an enabling role beyond the electricity sector as a nancing instrument for reservoirs that help to secure freshwater availability. According to the World
Bank, large hydropower projects can have important multiplier effects, creating an additional USD2005 0.4 to 1.0 of
indirect benets for every dollar of value generated. Hydropower can serve both in large, centralized and small, isolated
grids, and small-scale hydropower is an option for rural electrication.
441
Hydropower
Chapter 5
Environmental and social issues will continue to affect hydropower deployment opportunities. The local
social and environmental impacts of hydropower projects vary depending on the projects type, size and local conditions
and are often controversial. Some of the more prominent impacts include changes in ow regimes and water quality,
barriers to sh migration, loss of biological diversity, and population displacement. Impoundments and reservoirs stand
out as the source of the most severe concerns but can also provide multiple benecial services beyond energy supply.
While lifecycle assessments indicate very low carbon emissions, there is currently no consensus on the issue of land use
change-related net emissions from reservoirs. Experience gained during past decades in combination with continually
advancing sustainability guidelines and criteria, innovative planning based on stakeholder consultations and scientic
know-how can support high sustainability performance in future projects. Transboundary water management, including the management of hydropower projects, establishes an arena for international cooperation that may contribute to
promoting sustainable economic growth and water security.
Technological innovation and material research can further improve environmental performance and reduce
operational costs. Though hydropower technologies are mature, ongoing research into variable-speed generation
technology, efcient tunnelling techniques, integrated river basin management, hydrokinetics, silt erosion resistive
materials and environmental issues (e.g., sh-friendly turbines) may ensure continuous improvement of future projects.
Hydropower can provide important services to electric power systems. Storage hydropower plants can often be
operated exibly, and therefore are valuable to electric power systems. Specically, with its rapid response load-following and balancing capabilities, peaking capacity and power quality attributes, hydropower can play an important role in
ensuring reliable electricity service. In an integrated system, reservoir and pumped storage hydropower can be used to
reduce the frequency of start-ups and shutdowns of thermal plants; to maintain a balance between supply and demand
under changing demand or supply patterns and thereby reduce the load-following burden of thermal plants; and to
increase the amount of time that thermal units are operated at their maximum thermal efciency, thereby reducing
carbon emissions. In addition, storage and pumped storage hydropower can help reduce the challenges of integrating
variable renewable resources such as wind, solar photovoltaics, and wave power.
Hydropower offers signicant potential for carbon emissions reductions. Baseline projections of the global
supply of hydropower rise from 12.8 EJ in 2009 to 13 EJ in 2020, 15 EJ in 2030 and 18 EJ in 2050 in the median case.
Steady growth in the supply of hydropower is therefore projected to occur even in the absence of greenhouse gas
(GHG) mitigation policies, though demand growth is anticipated to be even higher, resulting in a shrinking percentage
share of hydropower in global electricity supply. Evidence suggests that relatively high levels of deployment over the
next 20 years are feasible, and hydropower should remain an attractive renewable energy source within the context of
global GHG mitigation scenarios. That hydropower can provide energy and water management services and also help to
manage variable renewable energy supply may further support its continued deployment, but environmental and social
impacts will need to be carefully managed.
442
Chapter 5
5.1
Introduction
5.1.1
Source of energy
5.1.2
Hydropower
443
Hydropower
Chapter 5
3,500
3,000
Asia Pacic
Africa
2,500
Middle East
Europe & Eurasia
South & Central America
2,000
North America
1,500
1,000
500
0
1965
1969
1973
1977
1981
1985
1989
1993
1997
2001
2005
2009
5.2
Resource potential
5.2.1
Chapter 1 presents current and future technical potential estimates for all RE sources
as assessed by Krewitt et al. (2009), based on a review of several studies. There,
hydropower technical potential by 2050 is estimated to be 50 EJ/y. However, this
chapter will exclusively rely on IJHD (2010) for technical potential estimates.
The Latin America region includes Central and South America, consistent with the
IEA world regions. This differs from the regions in IJHD (2010), which includes
Central America as part of North America. Data from the reference have been reaggregated to conform to regions used in this document.
The International Journal on Hydropower & Dams 2010 World Atlas &
Industry Guide (IJHD, 2010) provides the most comprehensive inventory
of current hydropower installed capacity and annual generation, and
hydropower resource potential. The Atlas provides three measures of
444
Chapter 5
Hydropower
North America
388 1659
GW TWh/yr
61%*
Latin America
608 2856
GW TWh/yr
74%*
Europe
338 1021
GW TWh/yr
47%*
Africa
283 1174
GW TWh/yr
92%*
Asia
2037 7681
GW TWh/yr
80%*
Australasia/
Oceania
67
185
GW TWh/yr
80%*
World Hydropower
Technical Potential:
14,576 TWh/yr
Technical Potential
Capacity [GW]
Generation [TWh/yr]
Installed [%]
*Undeveloped [%]
Figure 5.2 | Regional hydropower technical potential in terms of annual generation and installed capacity, and percentage of undeveloped technical potential in 2009. Source: IJHD (2010).
445
Hydropower
Chapter 5
Table 5.1 | Regional hydropower technical potential in terms of annual generation and installed capacity (GW); and current generation, installed capacity, average capacity factors in
percent and resulting undeveloped potential as of 2009. Source: IJHD (2010).
Technical potential,
annual generation
TWh/yr (EJ/yr)
Technical
potential, installed
capacity (GW)
2009
Total generation
TWh/yr (EJ/yr)
2009
Installed capacity
(GW)
Undeveloped
potential (%)
Average regional
capacity factor
(%)
North America
1,659 (5.971)
388
628 (2.261)
153
61
47
Latin America
2,856 (10.283)
608
732 (2.635)
156
74
54
Europe
1,021 (3.675)
338
542 (1.951)
179
47
35
Africa
1,174 (4.226)
283
98 (0.351)
23
92
47
Asia
7,681 (27.651)
2,037
1,514 (5.451)
402
80
43
185 (0.666)
67
37(0.134)
13
80
32
14,576 (52.470)
3,721
3,551 (12.783)
926
75
44
World region
Australasia/Oceania
World
North America
153 628
GW TWh/yr
47%*
Latin America
156 732
GW TWh/yr
54%*
Europe
179 542
GW TWh/yr
35%*
Africa
23
98
GW TWh/yr
47%*
Asia
402
GW
1514
TWh/yr
43%*
Australasia/
Oceania
13
37
GW TWh/yr
32%*
World Hydropower
Installed Capacity
in 2009: 926 GW
Installed Capacity [GW]
Generation [TWh/yr]
*Average Capacity
Factor [%]
Figure 5.3 | Total regional installed hydropower capacity and annual generation in 2009, and average regional capacity factors (derived as stated above). Source: IJHD (2010).
446
Chapter 5
While the total technical potentials of in-stream and constructed waterway resources have not been assessed, they may prove to be signicant
given their large extent.
5.2.2
5.2.2.1
Hydropower
A wide range of possible future climatic projections have been presented, with corresponding variability in projection of precipitation and
runoff (IPCC, 2007c; Bates et al., 2008). Climate projections using multimodel ensembles show increases in globally averaged mean water
vapour, evaporation and precipitation over the 21st century. At high latitudes and in part of the tropics, nearly all models project an increase in
precipitation, while in some subtropical and lower mid-latitude regions,
precipitation is projected to decrease. Between these areas of robust
increase or decrease, even the sign of projected precipitation change is
inconsistent across the current generation of models (Bates et al., 2008).
Changes in river ow due to climate change will primarily depend on
changes in volume and timing of precipitation, evaporation and snowmelt. A large number of studies of the effect on river ow have been
5.2.2.2
Four scenario families or storylines (A1, A2, B1 and B2) were developed by the IPCC
and reported in the IPCC Special Report On Emission Scenarios (SRES) as a basis for
projection of future climate change, where each represents different demographic,
social, economic, technological and environmental development over the 21st
century (IPCC, 2000). Therefore, a wide range of possible future climatic projections
have been presented based on the resulting emission scenarios, with corresponding
variability in projections of precipitation and runoff (IPCC, 2007b).
447
Hydropower
Chapter 5
High Latitude
Increases
Decreases Over
Some Dry Regions
Changes Less
Reliable in Lower
Latitudes, e.g.
Monsoon Regions
Percentage Changes
Uncertain in Desert Regions
-40
-20
-10
-5
-2
10
20
40
Figure 5.4 | Large-scale changes in annual runoff (water availability, in percent) for the period 2090 to 2099, relative to 1980 to 1999. Values represent the median of 12 climate
model projections using the SRES A1B scenario. White areas are where less than 66% of the 12 models agree on the sign of change and hatched areas are where more than 90% of
models agree on the sign of change. Source: IPCC (2007a).
448
Chapter 5
Hydropower
Table 5.2 | Power generation capacity in GW and TWh/yr (2005) and estimated changes
(TWh/yr) due to climate change by 2050. Results are based on an analysis using the SRES
A1B scenario in 12 different climate models (Milly et al., 2008), UNEP world regions and
data for the hydropower system in 2005 (US DOE, 2009) as presented in Hamududu and
Killingtveit (2010).
TWh/yr (PJ/yr)
Change by 2050
TWh/yr (PJ/yr)
Africa
22
90 (324)
0.0 (0)
Asia
246
996 (3,586)
2.7 (9.7)
Europe
177
517 (1,861)
-0.8 (-2.9)
North America
161
655 (2,358)
0.3 (1)
South America
119
661 (2,380)
0.3 (1)
Oceania
13
40 (144)
0.0 (0)
TOTAL
737
2931 (10,552)
2.5 (9)
In general the results given in Table 5.2 are consistent with the (mostly
qualitative) results given in previous studies (IPCC, 2007b; Bates et al.,
2008). For Europe, the computed reduction (-0.2%) has the same sign,
but is less than the -6% found by Lehner et al. (2005). One reason could
be that Table 5.2 shows changes by 2050 while Lehner et al. (2005) give
changes by 2070, so a direct comparison is difcult.
It can be concluded that the overall impacts of climate change on the
existing global hydropower generation may be expected to be small, or
even slightly positive. However, results also indicated substantial variations in changes in energy production across regions and even within
countries (Hamududu and Killingtveit, 2010).
Insofar as a future expansion of the hydropower system will occur incrementally in the same general areas/watersheds as the existing system,
these results indicate that climate change impacts globally and averaged across regions may also be small and slightly positive.
Still, uncertainty about future impacts as well as increasing difculty of
future systems operations may pose a challenge that must be addressed
in the planning and development of future HPP (Hamududu et al., 2010).
Indirect effects on water availability for energy purposes may occur if
water demand for other uses such as irrigation and water supply for
households and industry rises due to the climate change. This effect is
difcult to quantify, and it is further discussed in Section 5.10.
5.3
In a recent study (Hamududu and Killingtveit, 2010), the regional and
global changes in hydropower generation for the existing hydropower
system were computed, based on a global assessment of changes in
river ow by 2050 (Milly et al., 2005, 2008) for the SRES A1B scenario
using 12 different climate models. The computation was done at the
country or political region (USA, Canada, Brazil, India, China, Australia)
level, and summed up to regional and global values (see Table 5.2).
REGION
Head and also installed capacity (size) are often presented as criteria for
the classication of hydropower plants. The main types of hydropower,
however, are run-of-river, reservoir (storage hydro), pumped storage,
and in-stream technology. Classication by head and classication by
size are discussed in Section 5.3.1. The main types of hydropower are
presented in Section 5.3.2. Maturity of the technology, status and
449
Hydropower
Chapter 5
5.3.1
Table 5.3 | Small-scale hydropower by installed capacity (MW) as dened by various countries
Country
Reference Declaration
Brazil
30
Canada
<50
China
50
EU Linking Directive
20
India
25
Norway
10
Norwegian Ministry of Petroleum and Energy. Facts 2008. Energy and Water Resources in Norway; p.27
Sweden
1.5
USA
5100
US National Hydropower Association. 2010 Report of State Renewable Portfolio Standard Programs (US
RPS)
450
Norwegian Water Resources and Energy Directorate, Water resource act and
regulations, 2001.
Chapter 5
5.3.2
Hydropower
Hydropower plants are often classied in three main categories according to operation and type of ow. Run-of-river (RoR), storage (reservoir)
and pumped storage HPPs all vary from the very small to the very large
scale, depending on the hydrology and topography of the watershed. In
addition, there is a fourth category called in-stream technology, which is
a young and less-developed technology.
5.3.2.1
Run-of-River
A RoR HPP draws the energy for electricity production mainly from the
available ow of the river. Such a hydropower plant may include some
short-term storage (hourly, daily), allowing for some adaptations to the
demand prole, but the generation prole will to varying degrees be
dictated by local river ow conditions. As a result, generation depends
on precipitation and runoff and may have substantial daily, monthly or
seasonal variations. When even short-term storage is not included, RoR
HPPs will have generation proles that are even more variable, especially when situated in small rivers or streams that experience widely
varying ows.
5.3.2.2
Storage Hydropower
Hydropower projects with a reservoir are also called storage hydropower since they store water for later consumption. The reservoir
reduces the dependence on the variability of inow. The generating
stations are located at the dam toe or further downstream, connected
to the reservoir through tunnels or pipelines. (Figure 5.6). The type and
design of reservoirs are decided by the landscape and in many parts of
the world are inundated river valleys where the reservoir is an articial
lake. In geographies with mountain plateaus, high-altitude lakes make
up another kind of reservoir that often will retain many of the properties
Dam
Penstock
Powerhouse
Switch Yard
Tailrace
Desilting
Tank
Diversion
Weir
Headrace
Forebay
Penstock
Powerhouse
Tailrace
Intake
Stream
5.3.2.3
Pumped storage
may form cascades along a river valley, often with a reservoir-type HPP
in the upper reaches of the valley that allows both to benet from the
cumulative capacity of the various power stations. Installation of RoR
Pumped storage plants are not energy sources, but are instead storage
devices. In such a system, water is pumped from a lower reservoir into
an upper reservoir (Figure 5.7), usually during off-peak hours, while ow
is reversed to generate electricity during the daily peak load period or at
451
Hydropower
Chapter 5
5.3.3
Upper Reservoir
Pumping
Pumped Storage
Power Plant
Generating
Lower
Reservoir
5.3.3.1
other times of need. Although the losses of the pumping process make
such a plant a net energy consumer overall, the plant is able to provide
large-scale energy storage system benets. In fact, pumped storage is
the largest-capacity form of grid energy storage now readily available
worldwide (see Section 5.5.5).
Efciency
5.3.2.4
Spillway
Diversion Canal
Irrigation Canal
Switch Yard
Powerhouse
Tailrace Channel
452
Chapter 5
Hydropower
have lower efciency, and efciency can also be reduced due to wear
and abrasion caused by sediments in the water. The rest of the potential
energy is lost as heat in the water and in the generator.
In addition, some energy losses occur in the headrace section where
water ows from the intake to the turbines, and in the tailrace section
taking water from the turbine back to the river downstream. These losses,
called head loss, reduce the head and hence the energy potential for the
power plant. These losses can be classied either as friction losses or
singular losses. Friction losses depend mainly on water velocity and the
roughness in tunnels, pipelines and penstocks.
Efciency () [%]
5.3.3.2
Tunnelling capacity
In hydropower projects, tunnels in hard and soft rock are often used for
transporting water from the intake to the turbines (headrace), and from the
turbine back to the river, lake or fjord downstream (tailrace). In addition,
tunnels are used for a number of other purposes when the power station
is placed underground, for example for access, power cables, surge shafts
100
Francis
Kaplan
90
80
Pelton
70
Crossow
60
50
Propeller
40
30
20
10
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
453
Hydropower
Chapter 5
and ventilation. Tunnels are increasingly favoured for hydropower construction as a replacement for surface structures like canals and penstocks.
Tunnelling technology has improved greatly due to the introduction
of increasingly efcient equipment, as illustrated by Figure 5.10 (Zare
and Bruland, 2007). Today, the two most important technologies for
hydropower tunnelling are the drill and blast method and the use of
tunnel-boring machines (TBM).
The drill and blast method is the conventional method for tunnel excavation in hard rock. Thanks to the development in tunnelling technology,
excavation costs have been reduced by 25%, or 0.8%/yr, over the past 30
years (see Figure 5.10).
TBMs excavate the entire cross section in one operation without the use
of explosives. TBMs carry out several successive operations: drilling, support of the ground traversed and construction of the tunnel. The diameter
of tunnels constructed can be from <1 m (micro tunnelling) up to 15 m.
The excavation progress of the tunnel is typically from 30 up to 60 m/day.
3,000
2,500
In addition, for HPPs with reservoirs, their storage capacity can be lled
up by sediments, which requires special technical mitigation measures
or plant design.
Lysne et al. (2003) reported that the effects of sediment-induced wear of
turbines in power plants can be, among others:
All of these effects are associated with revenue losses and increased
maintenance costs. Several promising concepts for sediment control at
intakes and mechanical removal of sediment from reservoirs and for
settling basins have been developed and practised. A number of authors
(Mahmood, 1987; Morris and Fan, 1997; ICOLD, 1999; Palmieri et al.,
2003; White, 2005) have reported measures to mitigate the sedimentation problems by better management of land use practices in upstream
watersheds to reduce erosion and sediment loading, mechanical removal
of sediment from reservoirs and design of hydraulic machineries aiming
to resist the effect of sediment passing through them.
2,000
5.3.4
1,500
1,000
500
0
1975
1979
1983
1988
1995
2005
Figure 5.10 | Developments in tunnelling technology: the trend in excavation costs for a
60 m2 tunnel, in USD2005 per metre (adapted from Zare and Bruland, 2007).
5.3.3.3
Although sedimentation problems are not found in all rivers (see Section
5.6.1.4), operating a hydropower project in a river with a large sediment
load comes with serious technical challenges.
Specically, increased sediment load in the river water induces wear
on hydraulic machinery and other structures of the hydropower plant.
Deposition of sediments can obstruct intakes, block the ow of water
through the system and also impact the turbines. The sediment-induced
wear of the hydraulic machinery is more serious when there is no room
for storage of sediments.
Renovation, modernization and upgrading (RM&U) of old power stations is often less costly than developing a new power plant, often has
relatively smaller environment and social impacts, and requires less time
for implementation. Capacity additions through RM&U of old power
stations can therefore be attractive. Selective replacement or repair of
identied hydro powerhouse components like turbine runners, generator
windings, excitation systems, governors, control panels or trash cleaning
devices can reduce costs and save time. It can also lead to increased
efciency, peak power and energy availability of the plant (Prabhakar
and Pathariya, 2007). RM&U may allow for restoring or improving
environmental conditions in already-regulated areas. Several national
programmes for RM&U are available. For example, the Research Council
of Norway recently initiated a program with the aim to increase power
production in existing hydropower plants and at the same time improve
environmental conditions.10 The US Department of Energy has been
using a similar approach to new technology development since 1994
when it started the Advanced Hydropower Turbine Systems Program
that emphasized simultaneous improvements in energy and environmental performance (Odeh, 1999; Cada, 2001; Sale et al., 2006a).
Normally the life of hydroelectric power plants is 40 to 80 years.
Electromechanical equipment may need to be upgraded or replaced
after 30 to 40 years, however, while civil structures like dams, tunnels
10 Centre for Environmental Design of Renewable Energy: www.cedren.no/.
454
Chapter 5
Hydropower
etc. usually function longer before they requires renovation. The lifespan of properly maintained hydropower plants can exceed 100 years.
Using modern control and regulatory equipment leads to increased reliability (Prabhakar and Pathariya, 2007). Upgrading hydropower plants
calls for a systematic approach, as a number of hydraulic, mechanical,
electrical and economic factors play a vital role in deciding the course
of action. For techno-economic reasons, it can also be desirable to
consider up-rating (i.e., increasing the size of the hydropower plant)
along with RM&U/life extension. Hydropower generating equipment
with improved performance can also be retrotted, often to accommodate market demands for more exible, peaking modes of operation.
Most of the existing worldwide hydropower equipment in operation
will need to be modernized to some degree by 2030 (SER, 2007).
Refurbished or up-rated hydropower plants also result in incremental
increases in hydropower generation due to more efcient turbines and
generators.
In addition, existing infrastructure without hydropower plants (like
existing barrages, weirs, dams, canal fall structures, water supply
schemes) can also be reworked by adding new hydropower facilities. The majority of the worlds 45,000 large dams were not built
for hydropower purposes, but for irrigation, ood control, navigation
and urban water supply schemes (WCD, 2000). Retrotting these
5.4
5.4.1
Existing generation
1973
2008
Africa 2.2%
Asia 7.2%
Non-OECD
Europe
2.1%
Middle East
0.3%
Latin
America
7.2%
Asia 25.5%
Non-OECD
Europe
1.5%
Former
USSR 9.4%
Latin America
20.5%
Africa 3%
Former
USSR 7.3%
Middle East
0.3%
OECD 72%
OECD 41.9%
Figure 5.11 | 1973 and 2008 regional shares of hydropower production (IEA, 2010a).
455
Hydropower
Chapter 5
Rest of World;
1007; 31%
Sweden; 69; 2%
Venezuela; 87; 3%
PR of China;
585; 18%
Japan; 83; 2%
India; 114; 3%
Despite the signicant growth in hydroelectric production, the percentage share of hydroelectricity on a global basis has dropped during the
last three decades (1973 to 2008), from 21 to 16%. This is because
electricity demand and the deployment of other energy technologies
have increased more rapidly than hydropower generating capacity.
Norway; 141; 4%
Canada;
383; 12%
Brasil;
370; 11%
United
States;
282; 9%
Russia; 167; 5%
5.4.2
Table 5.4 | Major hydroelectricity producer countries with total installed capacity and percentage of hydropower generation in the electricity mix. Source: IJHD (2010).
Country
China
200
Norway
Brazil
84
Brazil
USA
78.2
Venezuela
73.4
Canada
74.4
Canada
59.0
Russia
49.5
Sweden
48.8
India
38
Russia
19.0
Norway
29.6
India
17.5
Japan
27.5
China
15.5
France
21
Italy
14.0
Italy
20
301.6
World
926.1
456
99
83.9
France
8.0
14.3
World
15.9
Chapter 5
5.4.3
Impact of policies12
5.4.3.1
Hydropower
investment capital, and international carbon markets offer one possible route to that capital. Out of the 2,062 projects registered by the
CDM Executive Board (EB) by 1 March 2010, 562 were hydropower
projects. When considering the predicted volumes of Certied Emission
Reductions to be delivered, registered hydropower projects are expected
to avoid more than 50 Mt of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions per year
by 2012. China, India, Brazil and Mexico represent roughly 75% of the
hosted projects.
5.4.3.2
Project nancing
5.4.3.3
457
Hydropower
5.4.3.4
Classication by size
Chapter 5
biomass and carbon uxes (see Section 5.6.3). As such, the PDI rule may
inadvertently impede the development of socially benecial hydropower
projects, while at the same time supporting less benecial projects. The
European Emission Trading Scheme and related trading markets similarly treat small- and large-scale hydropower stations differently.17
5.5
5.5.1
14 Dcret n2000-1196, Decree on capacity limits for different categories of systems for
the generation of electricity from renewable sources that are eligible for the feed-in
tariff: www.legifrance.gouv.fr.
15 EEG, 2009 - Act on Granting Priority to Renewable Energy and Mineral Sources:
bundesrecht.juris.de/eeg_2009/.
Grid-independent applications
Hydropower can be delivered through national and regional interconnected electric grids, through local mini-grids and isolated grids, and can
also serve individual customers through captive plants. Water mills in
England, Nepal, India and elsewhere, which are used for grinding cereals, for lifting water and for powering machinery, are early testimonies
of hydropower being used as captive power in mechanical and electrical
form. The tea and coffee plantation industries as well as small islands
and developing states have used and still make use of hydropower to
meet energy needs in isolated areas.
Captive power plants (CPPs) are dened here as plants set up by any
person or group of persons to generate electricity primarily for the
person or the groups members (Indian Electricity Act, 2003). CPPs are
often found in decentralized isolated systems and are generally built by
private interests for their own electricity needs. In deregulated electricity
markets that allow open access to the grid, hydropower plants are also
sometimes installedfor captive purposes by energy-intensive industries
such as aluminium smelters, pulp and paper mills, mines and cement factories in order to weather short-term market uncertainties and volatility
(Shukla et al., 2004). For governments of emerging economies such as
India facing shortages of electricity, CPPs are also a means to cope with
unreliable power supply systems and higher industrial tariffs by encouraging decentralized generation and private participation (Shukla et al.,
2004).
5.5.2
13 The Renewables Obligation Order 2006, No. 1004 (ROO 2006): www.statutelaw.
gov.uk.
Rural electrication
458
Chapter 5
5.5.3
Hydropower
459
Hydropower
5.5.4
Electricity systems worldwide rely upon widely varying amounts of hydropower today. In this range of hydropower capabilities, electric system
operators have developed economic dispatch methodologies that take
into account the unique role of hydropower, including coordinating the
operation of hydropower plants with other types of generating units. In
particular, many thermal power plants (coal, gas or liquid fuel, or nuclear
energy) require considerable lead times (often four hours for gas turbines
and over eight hours for steam turbines) before they attain an optimum
thermal efciency at which point fuel consumption and emissions per
unit output are minimum. In an integrated system, the considerable exibility provided by storage HPPs can be used to reduce the frequency
of start ups and shut downs of thermal plants; to maintain a balance
between supply and demand under changing demand or supply patterns and thereby reduce the load-following burden on thermal plants;
and to increase the amount of time that thermal units are operated at
their maximum thermal efciency. In some regions, for instance, hydroelectric power plants are used to follow varying peak load demands
while nuclear or fossil fuel power plants are operated as base-load units.
Chapter 5
5.5.5
Pumped hydropower storage can further increase the support of other
resources. In cases with pumped hydropower storage, pumps can use
the output from thermal plants during times that they would otherwise operate less efciently at part load or be shut down (i.e., low load
periods). The pumped storage plant then keeps water in reserve for generating power during peak period demands. Pumped storage has much
the same ability as storage HPPs to provide balancing and regulation
services.
Pumped storage hydropower is usually not a source for energy, however.
The hydraulic, mechanical and electrical efciencies of pumped storage
determine the overall cycle efciency, ranging from 65 to 80% (Egr
and Milewski, 2002). If the upstream pumping reservoir is also used as
a traditional reservoir the inow from the watershed may balance out
the energy loss caused by pumping. If not, net losses lead to pumped
460
Hydropower
1,000,000
Compressed Air/Thermal
10,000
1,000
Batteries
1 month
AA-CAES, RWE/GE,
Project
3d
100
32 h
In Operation
7d
16 h
Pumped Storage
Compressed Air
8h
10
4h
Under Construction/
Project
Chapter 5
Batteries
Thermal Storage
2h
1h
1
1
10
100
1,000
10,000
that adequate total annual energy demand can be met. Strong interconnections between diverse hydropower resources or between
hydro-dominated and thermal-dominated power systems have been
used in existing systems to ensure adequate energy generation (see
Section 8.2.1.3). In the future, interconnection to other renewable
resources could also ensure adequate energy. Wind and direct solar
power, for instance, can be used to reduce demands on hydropower,
either by allowing dams to save their water for later release in peak periods or letting storage or pumped storage HPPs consume excess energy
produced in off-peak hours.
5.6
461
Hydropower
Chapter 5
Table 5.5 | Types of hydropower projects, their main services and distinctive environmental and social characteristics (adapted from IEA, 2000d; Egr and Milewski, 2002). The number
of subsections within section 5.6.1 that address specic impacts are given in parentheses.
HPP Type
All
Barrier for sh migration and navigation (1,6), and sediment transport (4)
Physical modication of riverbed and shorelines (1)
Unchanged river ow when powerhouse in dam toe; when localized further downstream
reduced ow between intake and powerhouse (1)
Reservoir
(Storage)
Multipurpose
Pumped storage
Storage capacity for energy and water; net consumer of electricity due to pumping
No water management options
Impacts conned to a small area; often operated outside the river basin as a separate system
that only exchanges the water from a nearby river from time to time
Run-of-river
the main environmental and social impacts that can arise from development of the various types of hydropower projects, as well as a number of
practicable mitigation measures that can be implemented to minimize
negative effects and maximize positive outcomes. More information
about existing guidance for sustainable hydropower development is
provided in Section 5.6.2. Hydropower creates no direct atmospheric
pollutants or waste during operation, and GHG emissions associated
with most lifecycle stages are minor. However, methane (CH4) emissions
from reservoirs might be substantial under certain conditions. Thus,
there is a need to properly assess the net change in GHG emissions
induced by the creation of such reservoirs. The lifecycle GHG emissions
462
5.6.1
Although the type and magnitude of impacts will vary from project to
project, it is possible to describe some typical effects, along with the
experience that has been gained throughout the past decades in managing and solving problems. Though some impacts are unavoidable, they can
be minimized or compensated for, as experience in successful mitigation
Chapter 5
demonstrates. Information has been systematically gathered on effective assessment and management of impacts related to various types of
hydropower (IEA, 2000a; UNEP, 2007). By far the most effective measure
is impact avoidance, by weeding out less sustainable alternatives early in
the design stage.
All hydroelectric structures affect a rivers ecology mainly by inducing a
change in its hydrologic characteristics and by disrupting the ecological
continuity of sediment transport and sh migration through the building
of dams, dikes and weirs. However the extent to which a rivers physical,
chemical and biological characteristics are modied depends largely on
the type of HPP. Whereas run-of-river HPPs do not alter a rivers ow
regime, the creation of a reservoir for storage hydropower entails a major
environmental change by transforming a fast-running uvial ecosystem
into a still-standing lacustrine one. The extent to which a hydropower
project has adverse impacts on the riverbed morphology, on water quality and on fauna and ora is highly site-specic and to a certain degree
dependent on what resources can be invested into mitigation measures.
A more detailed summary of ecological impacts and their possible management measures are discussed in Sections 5.6.1.1 though 5.6.1.6.
Similar to a HPPs environmental effects, the extent of its social impacts
on the local and regional communities, land use, the economy, health
and safety or heritage varies according to project type and site-specic
conditions. While run-of-river projects generally introduce little social
change, the creation of a reservoir in a densely populated area can entail
signicant challenges related to resettlement and impacts on the livelihoods of the downstream populations. Restoration and improvement of
living standards of affected communities is a long-term and challenging
task that has been managed with variable success in the past (WCD,
2000). Whether HPPs can contribute to fostering socioeconomic development depends largely on how the generated services and revenues
are shared and distributed among different stakeholders. As documented
by Scudder (2005), HPPs can also have positive impacts on the living
conditions of local communities and the regional economy, not only
by generating electricity but also by facilitating, through the creation
of freshwater storage schemes, multiple other water-dependent activities, such as irrigation, navigation, tourism, sheries or sufcient water
supply to municipalities and industries while protecting against oods
and droughts. Yet, inevitably questions arise about the sharing of these
revenues among the local affected communities, government, investors
and the operator. Key challenges in this domain are the fair treatment of
affected communities and especially vulnerable groups like indigenous
people, resettlement if necessary, and public health issues, as well as
appropriate management of cultural heritage values that will be discussed in more detail in Sections 5.6.1.7 through 5.6.1.11.
All in all, for the sake of sustainability it is important to assess the
negative and positive impacts of a hydropower project in the light of
a regions needs for energy and water management services. An overview of the main energy and water management services and distinctive
Hydropower
5.6.1.1
Hydrological regimes
463
Hydropower
5.6.1.2
Reservoir creation
464
Chapter 5
5.6.1.3
Water quality
In some densely populated areas with rather poor water quality, RoR
hydropower plants are regularly used to improve oxygen levels and lter tonnes of oating waste out of the river, or to reduce high water
temperature levels from thermal power generating outlets. However,
maintaining the water quality of reservoirs is often a challenge, as reservoirs constitute a focal point for the river basin catchment. In cases
where municipal, industrial and agricultural waste waters entering the
reservoir are exacerbating water quality problems, it might be relevant
that proponents and stakeholders cooperate in the context of an appropriate land and water use plan encompassing the whole catchment area,
preventing, for example, excessive usage of fertilizers and pesticides.
Water quality issues related to reservoirs depend on several factors:
climate, reservoir morphology and depth, water retention time in the
reservoir, water quality of tributaries, quantity and composition of the
inundated soil and vegetation, and rapidity of impounding, which
affects the quantity of biomass available over time. Also, the operation
of the HPP and thus the reservoir can signicantly affect water quality,
both negatively and positively.
Water quality issues can often be managed by site selection and appropriate design, taking the future reservoir morphology and hydraulic
characteristics into consideration. The primary goals are to reduce the
submerged area and to minimize water retention in the reservoir. The
release of poor-quality water (due to thermal stratication, turbidity and
temperature changes both within and downstream of the reservoir) may
be reduced by the use of selective or multi-level water intakes. This may
also help to reduce oxygen depletion and the volume of anoxic waters.
Since the absence of oxygen may contribute to the formation of methane during the rst few years after impoundment, especially in warm
climates, measures to prevent the formation of anoxic reservoir zones
20 The Ramsar Convention on Wetlands of International Importance is an intergovernmental treaty that provides the framework for national action and international
cooperation on the conservation and wise use of wetlands and their resources. The
convention was signed in Ramsar, Iran, in 1971 and entered into force in 1975. The
Ramsar List of Wetlands of International Importance (2009) and other information is
available at http://www.ramsar.org.
Chapter 5
will also help mitigate potential methane emissions (see Section 5.6.3
for more details).
Spillways, stilling basins or structures that promote degassing, such as
aeration weirs, may help to avoid downstream gas super-saturation.
While some specialists recommend pre-impoundment clearing of the
reservoir area, this must be carried out carefully because (i) in some
cases, signicant re-growth may occur prior to impoundment (and will be
rapidly degraded once ooded) and (ii) the massive and sudden release
of nutrients (in the case of vegetation clearance through burning) may
lead to algal blooms and water quality problems. In some situations, lling up and then ushing out the reservoir prior to commercial operation
might contribute to water quality improvement. Planning periodic peak
ows can increase aquatic weed drift and decrease suitable substrates
for weed growth, reducing problems with undesired invasive species.
Increased water turbidity can be mitigated by protecting shorelines that
are highly sensitive to erosion, or by managing ow regimes in a manner
that reduces downstream erosion.
5.6.1.4
Sedimentation
Hydropower
5.6.1.5
Biological diversity
Although existing literature related to ecological effects of river regulations on wildlife is extensive (Nilsson and Dynesius, 1993; WCD, 2000),
the knowledge is mainly restricted to and based on environmental
impact assessments. A restricted number of long-term studies have been
carried out that enable predictions of species-specic effects of hydropower development on sh, mammals and birds. In general, four types
of environmental disturbances are singled out:
Habitat changes;
Geological and climatic changes;
Direct mortality; and
Increased human use of the area.
Most predictions are, however, very general and only able to focus on
the type of change, without quantifying the short- and long-term effects.
Thus, it is generally realized that current knowledge cannot provide a
465
Hydropower
basis for precise predictions. The impacts are, however, highly species-,
site-, seasonal- and construction-specic.
The most serious causes of ecological effects from hydropower development on wildlife are, in general:
466
Chapter 5
5.6.1.6
Chapter 5
5.6.1.7
Publicizing and disseminating project objectives and related information through community outreach programs, to ensure widespread
acceptance and success of the resettlement process;
Improving livelihoods byfostering the adoption of appropriate regulatory frameworks, by building required institutional capacities, by
providing necessary income restoration and compensation programs
and by ensuring the development and implementation of long-term
integrated community development programs;
5.6.1.8
Hydropower
5.6.1.9
Public health
467
Hydropower
5.6.1.10
Cultural heritage
468
Chapter 5
5.6.1.11
5.6.2
Chapter 5
Hydropower
Impact Assessment
(typical practice)
Environmental Impact
Assessment (EIA)
Stage 2
1990
Stage 3
1995
Integrated Environmental
and Social Impact
Assessment (ESIA)
Stage 4
2000
ESIA + Environmental
Management System
(EMS)
Stage 1
1980
Stage and Approximate Year
Stage 5
Future
Further evolution of the project management process for water resource projects is likely to include
sustainability as the overarching principle, with mechanisms to include sustainability assessment.
Useful approaches and tools are given in the IHAs Sustainability Guidelines and
Sustainability Assessment Protocol
Figure 5.14 | Evolution of environmental and social impact assessment and management (adapted from UNEP, 2007).
Throughout the past decades, project planning has increasingly witnessed a paradigm shift from a technocratic approach to a participative
one (Healey, 1992). This shift is also reected in the evolution of the
environmental and social impact assessment and management process that is summarized in Figure 5.14. Today, stakeholder consultation
has become an essential tool to improve project outcomes. It is therefore important to identify key stakeholders such as local, national or
regional authorities, affected populations, or environmental NGOs, early
in the development process in order to ensure positive and constructive
consultations, and develop a clear and common understanding of the
associated environmental and social impacts, risks and opportunities.
Emphasizing transparency and an open, participatory decision-making
process, this new approach is driving both present-day and future
hydropower projects towards increasingly more environment-friendly
and sustainable solutions. At the same time, the concept and scope of
environmental and social management associated with hydropower
development and operation have changed, moving from a mere impact
assessment process to a global management plan encompassing all sustainability aspects.
In particular, the planning of larger hydropower developments mandates guidelines and regulations to ensure that impacts are assessed as
469
Hydropower
Chapter 5
5.6.3
Life cycle assessment (LCA) aims at comparing the full range of environmental impacts assignable to products and services, across their
lifecycle, including all processes upstream and downstream of operation
or use of the product/service. The following subsection focuses on LCA
for GHG emissions, while other metrics are briey discussed in Box 5.2,
and more comprehensively in Section 9.3.4.
The lifecycle of hydropower plants consists of three main stages:
Construction: In this phase, GHGs are emitted from the production
and transportation of materials (e.g., concrete, steel etc.) and the
use of civil work equipment and materials for construction of the
facility (e.g., diesel engines).
Operation and maintenance: GHG emissions can be generated
by operation and maintenance activities, for example, building
470
23 For example, the World Bank, the Equator Principles Financial Institutions, the World
Wide Fund for Nature, the Nature Conservancy, Transparency International, Oxfam
and the IHA.
Chapter 5
Hydropower
5.6.3.1
LCAs carried out on hydropower projects up to now have demonstrated the difculty of generalizing estimates of lifecycle GHG
emissions for hydropower projects across climatic conditions,
200
160
180
Maximum
75th Percentile
140
Median
120
160
25th Percentile
Minimum
100
140
80
60
120
40
100
20
0
80
LUC-Related
Emissions
Reservoir
Estimates:
References:
60
16
7
LUC-Related
Emissions
Decommissioning
All Other
Lifecycle Emissions
3
2
16
7
40
20
Estimates:
References:
All Values
Reservoir
Run-of-River
Pumped Storage
27
11
18
9
8
2
1
1
Figure 5.15 | Lifecycle GHG emissions of hydropower technologies (unmodied literature values, after quality screen). See Annex II for details of literature search and citations of
literature contributing to the estimates displayed. Emissions from reservoirs are referred to as gross GHG emissions.
471
Hydropower
5.6.3.2
472
Chapter 5
Within a given region that shares similar ecological conditions, reservoirs and natural water systems produce similar levels of CO2 emissions
per unit area. In some cases, natural water bodies and freshwater reservoirs absorb more CO2 than they emit.
Reservoirs are collection points for material coming from the whole
drainage basin area upstream. As part of the natural cycle, organic
matter is ushed into these collection points from the surrounding
terrestrial ecosystems. In addition, domestic sewage, industrial waste
and agricultural pollution may also enter these systems and produce
GHG emissions. Therefore, the assessment of man-made net emissions
involves a) appropriate estimation of the natural emissions from the
terrestrial ecosystem, wetlands, rivers and lakes that were located in
the area before impoundment; and b) abstracting the effect of carbon
inow from the terrestrial ecosystem, both natural and related to human
activities, on the net GHG emissions before and after impoundment.
The main GHGs produced in freshwater systems are CO2 and methane
(CH4). Nitrous oxide (N2O) may be of importance, particularly in reservoirs with large drawdown zones 24 or in tropical areas, but no global
estimate of these emissions presently exists. Results from reservoirs in
boreal environments indicate a low quantity of N2O emissions, while
a recent study of tropical reservoirs does not give clear evidence of
whether tropical reservoirs act as sources of N2O to the atmosphere
(Guerin et al., 2008).
Two pathways of GHG emissions to the atmosphere are usually studied:
diffusive uxes from the surface of the reservoir and bubbling (Figure
5.16). Bubbling refers to the discharge of gaseous substances resulting from carbonation, evaporation or fermentation from a water body
(UNESCO/IHA, 2010). In addition, studies at Petit-Saut, Samuel and
Balbina have investigated GHG emissions downstream of the dams
(degassing just downstream of the dam and diffusive uxes along the
river course downstream of the dam). CH4 transferred through diffusive
uxes from the bottom to the water surface of the reservoir may undergo
oxidation (i.e., be transformed into CO2) in the water column nearby
the oxycline when methanotrophic bacteria are present. Regarding N2O,
Guerin et al. (2008) have identied several possible pathways for N2O
emissions: these could occur via diffusive ux, degassing and possibly
through macrophytes, but this last pathway has never been quantied
for either boreal or tropical environments.
Still, for the time being, only a limited amount of studies appraising
the net emissions from freshwater reservoirs (i.e., excluding unrelated
anthropogenic sources and pre-existing natural emissions) is available,
whereas gross uxes have been investigated in boreal (e.g., Rudd et al.,
24 The drawdown zone is dened as the area temporarily inundated depending on the
reservoir level variation during operation.
Chapter 5
Hydropower
Bubbling
Methane
Flux through
Macrophytes
CO2 CH4
Diffusive Flux
CO2, CH4
Dam
O2
CO2, CH4
Fluvial Organic Matter
Phytoplankton O2
Organic Matter
Oxicline
CH4
Degassing
CO2 ,CH4
CO2, CH4
O2
OM CH4 + CO2
Anaerobic Degradation
Methanogenesis
Figure 5.16 | Carbon dioxide and methane pathways in a freshwater reservoir with an anoxic hypolimnion (adapted from Guerin, 2006).
Table 5.6 | Range of gross CO2 and CH4 emissions from hydropower freshwater reservoirs; numbers of studied reservoirs are given in parentheses (UNESCO-RED, 2008).
Boreal and temperate
Tropical
GHG pathway
CO2
(mmol/m2/d)
CH4
(mmol/m2/d)
CO2
(mmol/m2/d)
CH4
(mmol/m2/d)
Diffusive uxes
-0.3 to 8 (56)
0.3 to 51 (14)
0 to 18 (4)
0 to 88 (12)
n.a.
4 to 23 (1)
4 to 30 (2)
n.a.
n.a.
Bubbling
Degassing1
River below the dam
2 to 350 (3)
2
Note: 1. The degassing (generally in mg/d) is attributed to the surface of the reservoir and is expressed in the same units as the other uxes (mmol/m /d).
amounts favour the production of CO2, the establishment of anoxic conditions, and thus the production of CH4. In new reservoirs, OM mainly
comes from submerged biomass and soil organic carbon with different
absolute and relative contents of OM (Galy-Lacaux et al., 1999; Blais et
al., 2005; Descloux et al., 2010). Later, OM may also come from primary
production or other biological processes within the reservoir.
According to the UN Educational, Scientic and Cultural Organization
(UNESCO) and the IHA (UNESCO/IHA, 2008), measurements of gross
emissions have been taken in the tropics at four Amazonian locations
and 16 additional sites in central and southern Brazil. They have shown,
in some cases, signicant gross GHG emissions. Measurements are not
available from reservoirs in other regions of the tropics or subtropics
except for Gatum in Panama, Petit-Saut in French Guyana and Nam
Theun 2, Nam Ngum and Nam Leuk in Lao Peoples Democratic Republic
(UNESCO/IHA, 2009). Preliminary studies of Nam Ngum and Nam Leuk
473
Hydropower
Chapter 5
indicate that an old reservoir might act as a carbon sink under certain
conditions (Harby et al., 2009). This underlines the necessity to also
monitor old reservoirs. The age of the reservoir has proven to be an
important issue as well as the organic carbon standing stock, water
residence time, type of vegetation, season, temperature, oxygen and
local primary production, themselves dependent on the geographic area
(Fearnside, 2002). According to the IPCC (2006), evidence suggests that
CO2 emissions for approximately the rst 10 years after ooding are
the results of decay of some of the organic matter on the land prior to
ooding, but, beyond this time period, these emissions are sustained
by the input of inorganic and organic carbon material transferred into
the ooded area from the watershed or by internal processes in the
reservoir. In boreal and temperate conditions, GHG emissions have been
observed to return to the levels found in neighbouring natural lakes
after the two to four years following impoundment (Tremblay et al.,
2005). Further measurements could resolve this question for tropical
conditions. Comparisons of these results are not easy to achieve, as different methodologies and data (e.g., concerning equipment, procedures,
units of measurement) were applied for each study. Few measurements
of material transported into or out of the reservoir have been reported,
and few studies have measured carbon accumulation in reservoir sediments (UNESCO-RED, 2008).
point, but this is not always possible and continued research is needed
to make more efcient operation possible over a broader range of ows.
Older turbines can have lower efciency by design or reduced efciency
due to corrosion and cavitation damage.
5.7
474
Chapter 5
5.7.1
Variable-speed technology
5.7.2
Matrix technology
5.7.3
Fish-friendly turbines
Hydropower
5.7.4
Hydrokinetic turbines
Generally, projects with a head under 1.5 or 2 m are not viable with
traditional technology. New technologies are being developed to take
advantage of these small water elevation changes, but they generally
rely on the kinetic energy in the stream ow as opposed to the potential
energy due to hydraulic head. These technologies are often referred to
as kinetic hydropower or hydrokinetic (see Section 6.3 for more details
on this technology). Hydrokinetic devices being developed to capture
energy from tides and currents may also be deployed inland in both
free-owing rivers and in engineered waterways such as canals, conduits, cooling water discharge pipes or tailraces of existing dams. One
type of these systems relies on underwater turbines, either horizontal
or vertical. Large turbine blades would be driven by the moving water,
just as windmill blades are moved by the wind; these blades would turn
the generators and capture the energy of the water ow (Wellinghoff
et al., 2008).
Free ow or hydrokinetic generation captures energy from moving
water without requiring a dam or diversion. While hydrokinetic technology includes generation from ocean tides, currents and waves, it is
believed that its most practical application in the near term is likely to
be in rivers and streams (see Section 6.3.4). Hydrokinetic turbines have
low energy density.
A study from 2007 concluded that the current generating capacity of
hydropower of 75,000 MW in the USA (excluding pumped storage)
could be nearly doubled, including a contribution from hydrokinetic generation in rivers and constructed waterways of 12,800 MW (EPRI, 2007).
In a Policy Statement issued on 30 November 2007 by the US Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC, 2007) it is stated that:
Estimates suggest that new hydrokinetic technologies, if fully
developed, could double the amount of hydropower production in
the United States, bringing it from just under 10 percent to close to
20 percent of the national electric energy supply. Given the potential benets of this new, clean power source, the Commission has
taken steps to lower regulatory barriers to its development.
The potential contributions from very low head projects and hydrokinetic
projects are usually not included in existing resource assessments for
hydropower (see Section 5.2). The assessments are also usually based
on rather old data and lower energy prices than today and future values.
It is therefore highly probable that the hydropower resource potential
27 Fish friendliness, Voith Hydro, June 2009, pp 18-21; www.voithhydro.com/media/
Hypower_18_18.pdf.
475
Hydropower
Chapter 5
will increase signicantly as these new sources are more closely investigated and technology is improved.
5.7.5
5.7.6
New materials
Recently, new equipment for very small tunnels (0.7 to 1.3 m diameter) based on oil-drilling technology has been developed and tested in
hard rock in Norway, opening up the possibility of directional drilling of
penstocks for small hydropower directly from the power station up to
intakes, up to 1 km or more from the power station (Jensen, 2009). This
could lower cost and reduce the environmental and visual impacts from
above-ground penstocks for small hydropower, and open up even more
sites for small hydropower.
5.7.7
Water in rivers often contains large amounts of sediments, especially
during ood events when soil erosion creates high sediment loads. In
reservoirs the sediments may have time to settle, but in run-of-the-river
projects most of the sediments may follow the water ow up to the turbines. If the sediments contain hard minerals like quartz, the abrasive
erosion of guide vanes, runners and other steel parts may become very
high and quickly reduce efciency or destroy turbines completely within
a very short time (Lysne et al., 2003; Gummer, 2009). Erosive wear of
hydropower turbine runners is a complex phenomenon, depending on
different parameters such as particle size, density and hardness, concentration, velocity of water and base material properties. The efciency
of the turbine decreases with the increase in the erosive wear. The traditional solution to the problem has been to build de-silting chambers
to trap the silt and ush it out in bypass outlets, but it is very difcult to trap all particles, especially the nes. New solutions are being
developed by coating steel surfaces with a very hard ceramic coating,
protecting against erosive wear or delaying the process.
The problem of abrasive particles in hydropower plants is not new, but
is becoming more acute with increasing hydropower development in
developing countries with sediment-rich rivers. For example, many new
projects in India, China and South America are planned in rivers with
high sediment concentrations (Gummer, 2009). The problem may also
become more important in cases of increased use of hydropower plants
in peaking applications.
Modern turbine design using three-dimensional ow simulation provides not only better efciencies in energy conversion by improved
shape of turbine runners and guide/stay vanes, but also leads to a
decrease in cavitation damages at high-head power plants and to
reduced abrasion effects when dealing with heavy sediment-loaded
propulsion water. Other inventions concern, for example, improved
476
Tunnelling technology
Dam technology
5.7.8
Optimization of operation
Chapter 5
5.8
Cost trends28
Hydropower generation is a mature RE technology and can provide electricity as well as a variety of other services at low cost compared to
many other power technologies. A variety of prospects for improvement
of currently available technology as outlined in the above section exist,
but these are unlikely to result in a clear and sustained cost trend due to
other counterbalancing factors.
This section describes the fundamental factors affecting the levelized
cost of electricity (LCOE) of hydropower plants: a) upfront investment
costs; b) operation and maintenance (O&M) costs; c) decommissioning costs; d) the capacity factor; e) the economic lifetime of the
investment; and f) the cost of project nancing (discount rate).
Discussion of costs in this section is largely limited to the perspective
of private investors. Chapters 1, 8, 10 and 11 offer complementary
perspectives on cost issues covering, for example, costs of integration, external costs and benets, economy-wide costs and costs of
policies.
Historic and probable future cost trends are presented throughout this
section drawing mainly on a number of studies that were published from
2003 up to 2010 by the IEA and other organizations. Box 5.3 contains
brief descriptions of each of those studies to provide an overview of the
material assessed for this section. The LCOEs provided in the studies themselves are not readily comparable, but have to be considered in conjunction
with the underlying cost parameters that affect them. The parameters and
resulting study-specic LCOE estimates range are summarized in Table 5.7a
for recent conditions and Table 5.7b with a view to future costs.
Later in this section, some of the underlying cost and performance parameters that impact the delivered cost of hydroelectricity are used to estimate
recent LCOE gures for hydropower plants across a range of input assumptions. The methodology used in these calculations is described in Annex II,
while the input parameters and the resulting range of LCOEs are also
listed in Annex III to this report and are reported in Chapters 1
and 10.
It is important to recognize, however, that the LCOE is not
the sole determinant of the economic value or profitability
of hydropower projects. Hydropower plants designed to meet
peak electricity demands, for instance, may have relatively high
LCOEs. However, in these instances, not only is the cost per unit
of power usually higher, but also average power prices during
periods of peak demand and thus revenues per unit of power
sold to the market.
Since hydropower projects may provide multiple services in
addition to the supply of electric power, the allocation of total
28 Chapter 10.5 offers a complementary perspective on drivers and trends of technological progress across RE technologies.
Hydropower
5.8.1
Basically, there are two major cost groups for hydropower projects: a)
the civil construction costs, which normally are the major costs of the
hydropower project, and b) the cost related to electromechanical equipment for energy transformation. Additionally, investment costs include
the costs of planning, environmental impact analysis, licensing, sh and
wildlife mitigation, recreation mitigation, historical and archaeological
mitigation and water quality monitoring and mitigation.
The civil construction costs follow the price trend of the country where
the project is going to be developed. In the case of countries with economies in transition, the civil construction costs are usually lower than in
developed countries due to the use of local labour and local construction materials.
Civil construction costs are always site specic, mainly due to the inherent characteristics of the topography, geological conditions and the
construction design of the project. This could lead to different investment cost and LCOE even for projects of the same capacity.
The costs of electromechanical equipmentin contrast to civil construction costfollow world market prices for these components.
Alvarado-Ancieta (2009) presents the typical cost of electromechanical
equipment from various hydropower projects in Figure 5.17.
Figure 5.18 shows the investment cost trend for a large number of investigated projects of different sizes in the USA. The gure is from a study
by Hall et al. (2003) that presents typical plant investment costs for new
sites.
Figure 5.18 shows that while there is a general tendency of increasing
investment cost as the capacity increases, there is also a wide range of
cost for projects of the same capacity, given by the spread from the general (blue) trend line. For example, a project of 100 MW in size has an
average investment cost of USD2002 200 million (USD2002 2,000/kW) but
the range of costs is from less than USD2002 100 million (USD2002 1,000/kW)
and up to more than USD2002 400 million (USD2002 4,000/kW). (There
could of course also be projects with higher costs, but these have
already been excluded from analysis in the selection process).
In hydropower projects where the installed capacity is less than 5 MW,
the electromechanical equipment costs tend to dominate. As the capacity increases, the costs are increasingly inuenced by the cost of civil
structures. The components of the construction project that impact
the civil construction costs most are dams, intakes, hydraulic pressure conduits (tunnels and penstocks) and power stations; therefore,
477
Hydropower
Chapter 5
478
generating units have higher costs per kW than plants using fewer,
but larger units. Higher costs per kW installed capacity associated
with a higher number of generating units are justied by greater
efciency and exibility of the hydroelectric plants integration into
the electric grid.
Chapter 5
Hydropower
Table 5.7a | Cost ranges for hydropower: Summary of main cost parameters from 10 studies.
Source
Investment cost
(IC) (USD2005 /kW)
O&M cost
(% of IC)
Capacity
Factor (%)
Lifetime
(years)
Discount
rate (%)
LCOE
(cents/kWh)
Comments
<500 6,200
Median 1,650
90% below 3,250
41 61
VLEEM-2003
Ref: Lako et al. (2003)
<500 4,500
Median 1,000
90% below 1,700
55 60
1,000 3,500
700 8,000
35 60
20 90
2 10
2 12
IEA-WEO 2008
Ref: IEA (2008a)
2,184
2.5
45
40
10
7.1
IEA-ETP 2008
Ref: IEA (2008b)
1,000 5,500
2,500 7,000
2.2 3
10
10
3 12
5.6 14
EREC/Greenpeace
Ref: Teske et al. (2010)
2,880 in 2010
45
40
10
10.4
2,440
7.3
Krewitt et al 2009
Ref: Krewitt et al. (2009)
1,000 5,500
33
30
9,8
51
80
80
2.3 45.9
4.8
5 12
35
5 40
WEA 2004
Ref: UNDP/UNDESA/WEC (2004)
IEA-2010
Ref: IEA (2010b)
REN21
Ref: REN21 (2010)
Large Hydro
Small Hydro (<10 MW)
(Not explicitly stated as levelized cost in
report)
Large Hydro
Small Hydro
Table 5.7b | Future cost of hydropower: Summary of main cost parameters from ve studies.
Source
Investment cost
(IC) (USD2005/kW)
O&M cost
(% of IC)
Capacity
Factor (%)
Lifetime
(years)
Discount
rate (%)
WEA 2004
Ref: UNDP/UNDESA/WEC (2004)
2 10
IEA-WEO 2008
Ref: IEA (2008a)
2,194 in 2030
2,202 in 2050
2.5
2.5
2.2 3
IEA-ETP 2008
Ref: IEA (2008b)
3,200 in 2030
3,420 in 2050
4
4
45
45
40
40
4
4
33
33
30
30
EREC/Greenpeace
Ref: Teske et al. (2010)
Krewitt et al 2009
Ref: Krewitt et al. (2009)
LCOE
(cents/kWh)
45
45
Specic investment costs (per installed kW) tend to be reduced for a higher
head and higher installed capacity of the project. With higher head, the
hydropower project can be set up to use less volume ow, and therefore
smaller hydraulic conduits or passages. The size of the equipment is also
smaller and related costs are lower.
Results from two of the studies listed in Box 5.3 and Table 5.7a can be
used to illustrate the characteristic distribution of investment costs within
certain geographic areas. The detailed investment cost surveys provide an
40
40
10
10
7.1
7.1
10
10
10
10
3 11.5
3 11
5.2 13
4.9 12
10
10
11.5
12.3
10.8
11.9
Comments
No trendFuture cost same as in 2004
Same for small and large hydro
Large Hydro
Large Hydro
Small Hydro
Small Hydro
479
Hydropower
Chapter 5
10,000
1,000
Argentina
Armenia
Austria
Brasil
Canada
Chile
China
Colombia
Congo
Ecuador
El Salvador
Ethiopia
Germany
Iceland
India
Iran
Japan
Kenya
Laos
Madagascar
Spalte O
Malaysia
Nepal
Nicaragua
Pakistan
Panama
Peru
Portugal
Rep. Dominicana
Ruanda
Rumania
Russia
South Africa
Sudan
Vietnam
Switzerland
Turkey
Uganda
USA
100
10
1
1
10
100
1,000
10,000
Capacity [MW]
Figure 5.17 | Costs of electrical and mechanical equipment as a function of installed capacity in 81 hydropower plants in America, Asia, Europe and Africa in USD2008. Source: AlvaradoAncieta (2009).
additional 25% at costs between USD2005 960 and 1,650/kW, and another
25% at costs between USD2005 1,650 and 2,700/kW.
A similar summary of cost estimates for 250 projects worldwide with a
total capacity of 202,000 MW has been compiled in the VLEEM-2003
study (Lako et al., 2003). Here, the range of investment costs are from
USD2005 450/kW up to more than USD2005 4500/kW. Weighted costs (percentiles) are: 25% can be developed at costs up to USD2005 660/kW, 50%
(median) at costs up to USD2005 1,090/kW, and 75% at costs up to USD2005
1,260/kW. In general, these and other studies suggest average recent
investment cost gures for storage hydropower projects of USD2005 1,000
to 3,000/kW. Small projects in certain areas may sometimes have investment costs that exceed these gures, while lower investment costs are
also sometimes feasible. For the purpose of the LCOE calculations that
480
5.8.2
Chapter 5
Hydropower
10,000.0
Y=3E6(C)
R=0,81
Undeveloped Sites
67% Lower Bound
0.90
1,000.0
100.0
10.0
1.0
1
10
100
1,000
10,000
Capacity [MW]
Figure 5.18 | Hydropower plant investment cost as a function of plant capacity for undeveloped sites. Adapted from Hall et al. (2003) (Note: both axes have a logarithmic scale).
The IEA WEO used 2.5% (IEA, 2008a) and 2.2% for large hydropower
increasing to 3% for smaller and more expensive projects in IEA-ETP (IEA,
2008b). A typical average O&M cost for hydropower is 2.5%, and this
gure is used in the LCOE calculations that follow.
Decommissioning cost: Hydropower plants are rarely decommissioned
and it is therefore very difcult to nd information about decommissioning
costs in the literature. An alternative to decommissioning is project relicensing and continued operation. A few cases of dam decommissioning
are reported in the literature, but these dams are usually not hydropower
dams. Due to the long lifetime of hydropower projects (see Section 5.8.3),
the decommissioning costs occurring 40 to 80 years into the future are
unlikely to contribute signicantly to the LCOE. Therefore, decommissioning costs are usually not included in LCOE analyses for hydropower.
5.8.3
Capacity factor: For variable energy sources like solar, wind and
waves, the statistical distribution of the energy resource will largely
determine the capacity factor. For hydropower, however, the capacity factor is usually designed in the planning and optimization of the
project, by considering both the statistical distribution of ow and the
market demand characteristics for power. A peaking power plant will
be designed to have a low capacity factor, for example 10 to 20%,
in order to supply peaking power to the grid only during peak hours.
On the other hand, a power plant designed for supplying energy to
aluminium plants may be designed to have a capacity factor of 80%
or more, in order to supply a nearly constant base load. Reservoirs
may be built in order to increase the stability of ow for base-load
production, but could also be designed for supplying highly variable
(but reliable) ow to a peaking power plant.
A low capacity factor gives low production and higher LCOE. Krewitt et
al. (2009) used a low value for hydropower, 2,900 hours or 33%, while,
for example, IEA (2010b) used an average of 4,470 hours or 51%. An
analysis of energy statistics from the IEA shows that typical capacity
factors for existing hydropower systems are in the range from below 40
to nearly 60% (USA 37%, China 42%, India 41%, Russia 43%, Norway
49%, Brazil 56%, Canada 56%). In Figure 5.3, average capacity factors are given for each region, with 32% in Australasia/Oceania, 35% in
481
Hydropower
Chapter 5
7,000
Unit Cost Distribution (USD2005 /kW) for 250 Projects in the VLEEM Study
6,000
5,000
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
0
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
45,000
50,000
Europe, 43% in Asia, 47% in North America, 47% in Africa and 54% in
Latin America. The weighted world average in 2009 was roughly 44%.
Based on the parameters listed in Annex III and methods described in
Annex II, Figure 5.20 (upper) illustrates the effect of capacity factors in
the range of 30 to 60% on the LCOE of hydropower under three different investment cost scenarios: USD2005 1,000/kW, 2,000/kW and 3,000/
kW; other parameter assumptions include a 2.5%/yr O&M cost as a proportion of investment cost, a 60-year economic design lifetime, and a
7% discount rate. Average regional hydropower capacity factors from
Figure 5.3 are also shown in the graph.
Lifetime: For hydropower, and in particular large hydropower, the largest cost components are civil structures with very long lifetimes, like
dams, tunnels, canals, powerhouses etc. Electrical and mechanical
equipment, with much shorter lifetimes, usually contribute less to the
cost. It is therefore common to use a longer lifetime for hydropower
than for other electricity generation sources. Krewitt et al. (2009) used
30 years, IEA-WEO 2008 (IEA, 2008a) and Teske et al. (2010) used 40
years and the IEA (2010b) used 80 years as the lifetime for hydropower
projects. A range of 40 to 80 years is used in the LCOE calculations presented in Annex III as well as in Chapters 1 and 10.
Discount rate:29 The discount rate is not strictly a performance parameter. Nonetheless, it can have a critical inuence on the LCOE depending
on the patterns of expenditures and revenues that typically occur over
29 For a general discussion of the effect of the choice of the discount rate on LCOE, see
Section 10.5.1.
482
5.8.4
Chapter 5
Average CF in
Australasia/
Oceania: 32%
Hydropower
Average CF in
Europe: 35%
Average CF
in Asia: 43%
Average CF
in Africa & North
America: 47%
Average CF in
Latin America: 54%
12
11
Hydro, USD2005 3,000
Hydro, USD2005 2,000
Hydro, USD2005 1,000
10
9
8
7
6
In the studies included in Box 5.3 and Table 5.7b, there is no consensus on the future cost trend. Some studies predict a gradually lowering
cost (IEA, 2008b; Krewitt et al., 2009), some a gradually increasing
cost and one no trend (UNDP/UNDESA/WEC, 2004).
5
4
3
2
1
0
30
32
34
36
38
40
42
44
46
48
50
52
54
56 58 60
Capacity Factor [%]
12
11
Hydro, Discount Rate = 10%
Hydro, Discount Rate = 7%
Hydro, Discount Rate = 3%
10
9
8
7
6
There is signicant technical potential for increased hydropower development, as discussed in other sections of this chapter. Since hydropower
projects are site-specic, this technical potential necessarily includes
projects with widely varying costs, likely ranging from under USD2005 500/
kW up to and over USD2005 5,000/kW.
5
4
3
2
1
0
30
32
34
36
38
40
42
44
46
48
50
52
54 56 58 60
Capacity Factor [%]
Figure 5.20 | Recent estimated levelized cost of hydropower. Upper panel: Cost of hydropower as a function of capacity factor and investment cost. Lower panel: Cost of
hydropower as a function of capacity factor and discount rate. Source: Annex III.
Note: In the upper panel the discount rate is assumed to equal 7%, in the lower panel
the investment cost is assumed to be USD 2,000/kW, and in both panels the annual O&M
cost is assumed at 2.5%/yr of investment cost and plant lifetime as 60 years.
As a general trend, it can be assumed that projects with low cost will
tend to be developed rst, and once the best projects have been developed, increasingly costly projects will be developed. (There are, however,
many barriers and the selection of the cheapest projects rst may not
always be possible. Some of these barriers are discussed in Section
5.4.5.) Overall, this general trend could lead to a gradually increasing
cost for new projects.
On the other hand, technological innovation and improvements (as
discussed in Section 5.7) could lower the cost in the future. Empirical evidence for reductions in the cost of specic components of hydropower
systems is provided for tunnelling costs in Figure 5.10. However, evidence for an overall trend with respect to the specic investment cost
of hydropower projects or the levelized cost of hydropower cannot be
deduced from such information and is very limited. Kahouli-Brahmi
(2008) found historical learning rates in the range from 0.5 to 2% for
Investment costs based on studies in Table 5.7a (recent) and Table 5.7b
(future) are typically in the range from USD2005 1,000 to 3,000/kW, though
higher and lower cost possibilities exist, as discussed earlier. Since different studies do not agree on trends in future cost, the present cost
range is assumed as typical for the near-term future up to 2020. With
investment costs ranging from USD2005 1,000 to 3,000/kW and capacity
factor and O&M costs as discussed earlier, typical values for the LCOE of
hydropower can be computed for different discount rates (3, 7, 10) and
lifetimes (40 and 80 years). The results are shown in Table 5.8, giving an
indication of the typical LCOE for hydropower in the near-term future up
to 2020. The O&M cost was xed at 2.5% per year and capacity factor at
45% for the purpose of the results presented in the table.
The LCOE values in Table 5.8 are well within the typical range of cost
estimates given in Table 5.7a, (UNDP/UNDESA/WEC, 2004; BMU,
2008; IEA, 2008b; IEA, 2010b; REN21, 2010) but somewhat lower
than the values found by Teske et al. (2010) and Krewitt et al. (2009).
The results demonstrate that LCOE is very sensitive to investment
costs and interest rates, but less sensitive to lifetime, within the lifetime range typical for hydropower (40 to 80 years). Particularly small
projects would be expected to have higher investment costs on a dollar per kW basis, and therefore may tend towards the higher end of
the range presented in Table 5.8, and may in some instances fall above
that range.
5.8.5
483
Hydropower
Chapter 5
Table 5.8 | LCOE estimation for parameters typical of current and near-term future hydropower projects in US cents2005 (2010 up to 2020).
Investment cost
(USD2005/kW)
Discount rate
(%)
O&M cost
(%/yr)
Capacity factor
(%)
Lifetime
(years)
LCOE
(cents/kWh)
Lifetime
(years)
LCOE
(cents/kWh)
1,000
2.5
45
40
1.7
80
1.5
1,000
2.5
45
40
2.5
80
2.4
1,000
10
2.5
45
40
3.2
80
3.2
2,000
2.5
45
40
3.5
80
2.9
2,000
2.5
45
40
5.1
80
4.8
2,000
10
2.5
45
40
6.5
80
6.3
3,000
2.5
45
40
5.2
80
4.4
3,000
2.5
45
40
7.6
80
7.3
3,000
10
2.5
45
40
9.7
80
9.5
drinking water supply, sh supply and recreation. Many of the purposes cannot be served alone as they have consumptive use of water
and may have different priority of use. There are different methods of
allocating the cost to individual purposes, each of which has advantages and drawbacks. The basic rules for cost allocation are that the
allocated cost to any purpose does not exceed the benet of that
purpose and each purpose will carry its separable cost. Separable cost
for any purpose is obtained by subtracting the cost of a multipurpose
project without that purpose from the total cost of the project with
the purpose included (Dzurik, 2003). Three commonly used cost allocation methods are: the separable cost-remaining benets method (US
Inter-Agency Committee on Water Resources, 1958), the alternative
justiable expenditure method (Petersen, 1984) and the proportionate
use-of-facilities method (Hutchens, 1999).
Historically, reservoirs were mostly funded and owned by the public
sector, thus project protability was not the highest consideration or
priority in the decision. Today, the liberalization of the electricity market has set new economic standards for the funding and management
of dam-based projects. The investment decision is based on an evaluation of viability and protability over the full lifecycle of the project.
The merging of economic elements (energy and water selling prices)
with social benets (ood protection, supplying water to farmers in
case of lack of water) and the value of the environment (to preserve a
minimum environmental ow) are becoming tools for consideration of
cost sharing for multipurpose reservoirs (Skoulikaris, 2008).
Votruba et al. (1988) reported the practice in Czechoslovakia for cost
allocation in proportion to benets and side effects expressed in monetary units. In the case of the Hirakund project in India, the principle of
the alternative justiable expenditure method was followed, with the
allocation of the costs of storage capacities between ood control, irrigation and power in the ratio of 38:20:42 (Jain, 2007). The Government
of India later adopted the use-of-facilities method for allocation of
joint costs of multipurpose river valley projects (Jain, 2007).
5.9
Potential deployment30
5.9.1
Near-term forecasts
The rapid increase in hydropower capacity over the last 10 years is expected
by several studies, among them EIA (2010) and IEA (2010c), to continue in
the near term (see Table 5.9). Much of the recent global increase in renewable electricity supply has been fuelled by hydropower and wind power.
From the 945 GW of hydropower capacity, including pumped storage
power plants, installed at the end of 2008, the IEA (2010c) and US Energy
Information Administration (EIA, 2010) reference-case forecasts predict
growth to 1,119 and 1,047 GW, respectively, by 2015 (e.g., and additional
25 and 30 GW/yr, respectively, by 2015).
30 Complementary perspectives on potential deployment based on a comprehensive
assessment of numerous model based scenarios of the energy system are presented
in Sections 10.2 and 10.3 of this report.
484
Chapter 5
Hydropower
Reference year
Installed
capacity (GW)
Electricity
generation
(TWh/EJ)
Percent of global
electricity supply
(%)
Installed
capacity
(GW)
Electricity
generation
(TWh/EJ)
Percent of global
electricity supply
(%)
IEA (2010c)
2008
9451
3 208/11.6
16
1,119
3,844/13.9
16%
EIA (2010)
2006
776
2 997/10.8
17
1,047
3,887/14
17%
Study
Non-OECD countries, and in particular Asia (China and India) and Latin
America, are projected to lead in hydropower additions over this period.
5.9.2
2030 and 2050 are presented for three GHG concentration stabilization
ranges, based on the AR4: Baselines (>600 ppm CO2), Categories III and
IV (440 to 600 ppm CO2) and Categories I and II (<440 ppm CO2), all by
2100. Results are presented for the median scenario, the 25th to 75th
percentile range among the scenarios, and the minimum and maximum
scenario results.31
The baseline projections of hydropowers role in global energy supply
span a broad range, with medians of roughly 13 EJ in 2020,32 15 EJ
in 2030 and 18 EJ in 2050 (Figure 5.21). Some growth of hydropower
is therefore projected to occur even in the absence of GHG mitigation
policies, but with hydropowers median contribution to global electricity supply dropping from about 16% today to less than 10% by 2050.
The decreasing share of hydroelectricity despite considerable absolute
growth in hydropower supply is a result of expected energy demand
growth and continuing electrication. The contribution of hydropower
grows to some extent as GHG mitigation policies are assumed to
become more stringent: by 2030, hydropowers median contribution
equals roughly 16.5 EJ in the 440 to 600 and <440 ppm CO2 stabilization ranges (compared to the median of 15 EJ in the baseline cases),
increasing to about 19 EJ by 2050 (compared to the median of 18 EJ in
the baseline cases).
The large diversity of approaches and assumptions used to generate
these scenarios results in a wide range of ndings. Baseline results for
hydropower supply in 2050 range from 14 to 21 EJ at the 25th and 75th
percentiles (median 18 EJ), or 7 to 11% (median 9%) of global electricity
supply. In the most stringent <440 ppm stabilization scenarios, hydropower supply in 2050 ranges from 16 to 24 EJ at the 25th and 75th
percentiles (median 19 EJ), equivalent to 8 to 12% (median 10%) of
global electricity supply.
31
In scenario ensemble analyses such as the review underlying the gures, there is a
constant tension between the fact that the scenarios are not truly a random sample
and the sense that the variation in the scenarios does still provide real and often
clear insights into collective knowledge or lack of knowledge about the future (see
Section 10.2.1.2 for a more detailed discussion).
32 12.78 EJ was reached already in 2009 and thus the average estimates of 13 EJ
for 2020 will be exceeded soon, probably already in 2010. Also, some scenario
results provide lower values than the current installed capacity for 2020, 2030 and
2050, which is counterintuitive given, for example, hydropowers long lifetimes, its
signicant market potential and other important services. These results could maybe
be explained by model/scenario weaknesses (see discussions in Section 10.2.1.2 of
this report).
485
Hydropower
Chapter 5
N=164
40
30
20
10
0
2020
2030
2050
Figure 5.21 | Global primary energy supply from hydro energy in long-term scenarios
(median, 25th to 75th percentile range, and full range of scenario results; colour coding is
based on categories of atmospheric CO2 concentration level in 2100; the specic number
of scenarios underlying the gure is indicated in the right upper corner) (adapted from
Krey and Clarke, 2011; see also Chapter 10).
N=161
40
CO2 Concentration Levels
Baselines
Cat. III + IV (440600 ppm)
30
20
10
2020
2030
2050
Figure 5.22 | Hydropower electricity share of total global electricity supply in the longterm scenarios (median, 25th to 75th percentile range, and full range of scenario results;
colour coding is based on categories of atmospheric CO2 concentration level in 2100; the
specic number of scenarios underlying the gure is indicated in the right upper corner)
(adapted from Krey and Clarke, 2011; see also Chapter 10).
Despite this wide range, hydropower has the lowest range compared
to other renewable energy sources (see Chapter 10). Moreover, the AR4
estimate for potential hydropower supply of 19.4 EJ by 2030 appears
somewhat conservative compared to the more recent scenarios literature presented above, which reaches 24 EJ in 2030 for the IEAs 450
ppm scenario (IEA, 2010c).
486
Chapter 5
Hydropower
Table 5.10 | Regional distribution of global hydropower generation in 2008 and projection for 2035 in TWh and EJ (percentage of hydropower generation in regional electricity
generation, CAAGR: compounded average annual growth rate from 2008 to 2035) for the IEA New Policies Scenario1 (IEA, 2010c).
2008
Hydropower generation by
region
World
OECD total
OECD
CAAGR 20082035
(%)
TWh/yr
EJ/yr
% of global
electricity
supply
TWh/yr
EJ/yr
% of global
electricity
supply
3,208
11.58
16
5,533
19.97
16
2.0
1,312
4.74
12
1,576
5.69
12
0.7
North America
678
2.45
13
771
2.78
12
0.5
USA
257
0.93
310
1.12
0.7
OECD Europe
521
1.88
14
653
2.36
15
0.8
EU
327
1.18
10
402
1.45
10
0.8
OECD Pacic
114
0.41
152
0.55
1.1
Non-OECD Total
Non-OECD
2035
1,895
6.84
20
3,958
14.29
18
2.8
Eastern Europe/Eurasia
284
1.03
17
409
1.48
17
1.4
Russia
165
0.60
16
251
0.91
18
1.6
834
3.01
16
2,168
7.83
14
3.6
China
585
2.11
17
1,348
4.87
14
3.1
India
114
0.41
14
408
1.47
13
4.8
Africa
95
0.34
15
274
0.99
23
4.0
673
2.43
63
1,054
3.81
59
1.7
Brazil
370
1.34
80
528
1.91
64
1.3
Note: 1. The new policy scenario reects conditions set forth by the UNFCCCs Copenhagen accord, and is considered a reference scenario by the IEA.
integrated water resources management, as was observed, for example, in the Nile Basin Initiative and the Greater Mekong Subregion
program (see Section 5.10.3).
Supply chain issues: 40 GW of new hydropower capacity was added
globally in 2008, which is equivalent to the highest annual long-term
IEA forecast scenario in its 450 ppm scenario (IEA, 2010c). As such,
though some efforts may be required to ensure an adequate supply
of labour and materials in the long term, no fundamental long-term
constraints to materials supply, labour availability or manufacturing
capacity are envisioned if policy frameworks for hydropower are sufciently attractive.
Technology and Economics: Hydropower is a mature technology
that under many circumstances is already cost-competitive compared
to market energy prices. Though additional technical advances are
anticipated, they are not central to achieving the lower ranges of GHG
concentration stabilization levels described earlier. Hydropower also
comes in a broad range of types and size, and can meet both large
centralized needs and small decentralized consumption, ensuring that
hydropower might be used to meet the electricity needs of many countries and in many different contexts.
Integration and Transmission: Hydropower development occurs in
synergy with other RE deployment. Indeed hydropower with reservoirs and/or pumped storage power plants (PSPP) provide a storage
capacity that can help transmission system operators to operate their
networks in a safe and exible way by providing balancing generation for variable RE (e.g., wind and solar PV). Hydropower is useful for
ancillary services and for balancing unstable transmission networks,
as hydropower is the most responsive energy source for meeting peak
demand (see Chapter 8). PSPPs and storage hydropower can therefore ensure transmission, and also distribution, security and quality
of services.
Social and Environmental Concerns: Social and environmental
impacts of hydropower projects vary depending on type, size and
local conditions. The most prominent impacts include barriers to sh
migration, GHG emissions and water quality degradation in some tropical reservoirs, loss of biological diversity, and population displacement
(Section 5.6.1). Impoundments and the existence of reservoirs stand out
as the source of the most severe concerns, but can also provides multiple
benecial services beyond energy supply. Efforts to better understand the
nature and magnitude of these impacts, together with efforts to mitigate
any remaining concerns, will need to be pursued in concert with increasing
hydropower deployment. This work has been initiated by the WCD (2000),
and has been endorsed and improved by the IHA (2006), providing guidelines and best practice examples.
5.9.3
487
Hydropower
Chapter 5
5.10
5.10.2
Therefore, hydropower development is part of water management
systems as much as energy management systems, both of which are
increasingly becoming climate driven.
5.10.1
488
Creating reservoirs is often the only way to adjust the uneven distribution of water in space and time that occurs in the unmanaged
environment. Reservoirs add great benet to hydropower projects,
because of the possibility to store water (and energy) during periods
of water surplus, and release the water during periods of decit, making it possible to produce energy according to the demand prole. This
is necessary because of large seasonal and year-to-year variability in
the inow. Such hydrological variability is found in most regions in the
world, caused by climatic variability in rainfall and/or air temperature.
Most reservoirs are built for supplying seasonal storage, but some also
have capacity for multi-year regulation, where water from two or more
wet years can be stored and released during a later sequence of dry
years. The need for water storage also exists for many other types of
water use, such as irrigation, water supply and navigation and for ood
control. In addition to these primary objectives, reservoirs can provide
a number of other uses like recreation and aquaculture. Reservoirs that
are created to serve more than one purpose are known as multipurpose
reservoirs. Harmonious and economically optimal operation of such
multipurpose schemes may involve trade-offs between the various uses,
including hydropower generation.
According to the WCD, about 75% of the existing 45,000 large dams
in the world were built for the purpose of irrigation, ood control,
Chapter 5
navigation and urban water supply schemes (WCD, 2000). About 25%
of large reservoirs are used for hydropower alone or in combination with
other uses, as multipurpose reservoirs (WCD, 2000).
For instance, China is constructing more than 90,000 MW of new
hydropower capacity and much of this development is designed for
multipurpose utilization of water resources. For the Three Gorges Project
(22,400 MW of installed capacity) the primary purpose of the project is
ood control (Zhu et al., 2007). In Brazil, it has been recommended that
hydropower generation be sustained and expanded, given the uncertainties of the current climate models when predicting future rainfall
patterns in the Brazilian and its trans-boundary drainage basins (Freitas,
2009; Freitas and Soito, 2009). On the other hand, signicant potential exists for increased hydropower deployment by upgrading existing
dams, or using low-head waterways at irrigation dams and conveyance
systems (see Sections 5.3.5 and 5.7).
In a context where multipurpose hydropower can be a tool to mitigate
both climate change and water scarcity, multipurpose hydropower
projects may play an enabling role beyond the electricity sector as a
nancing instrument for reservoirs, thereby helping to secure freshwater availability. However, multiple uses may increase the potential
for conicts and reduce energy production in times of low water levels. As many watersheds are shared by several nations, regional and
international cooperation is crucial to reach consensus on dam and river
management.
5.10.3
The availability and movement of water may cross political or administrative boundaries. There are 263 trans-boundary river basins and
33 nations have over 95% of their territory within international river
basins. While most trans-boundary river basins are shared between
two countries, this number is much higher in some river basins.
Worldwide, 13 river basins are shared between ve to eight countries.
Five river basins, namely the Congo, Niger, Nile, Rhine and Zambezi,
are shared between 9 to 11 countries. The Danube River ows through
the territory of 18 countries, which is the highest number of states for
any basin (CWC, 2009). Management of trans-boundary waters poses
a difcult and delicate problem, but the vital nature of freshwater also
provides a powerful natural incentive for cooperation. Fears have been
expressed that conicts over water might be inevitable as water scarcity increases. International cooperation is required to ensure that the
mutual benets of a shared watercourse are maximized and optimal
utilization of the water resources is achieved. This cooperation will be
key to facilitate economic development and maintain peaceful relations in the face of water scarcity.
Hamner and Wolf (1998) studied the details of 145 water treaties and
found that 124 (86%) are bilateral and the remaining multilateral.
Hydropower
489
Hydropower
Chapter 5
34 See: www.nilebasin.org/.
35 See: www.adb.org/gms/.
490
Chapter 5
Hydropower
References
Cole, J.J., Y.T. Prairie, N.F. Caraco, W.H. McDowell, L.J. Tranvik, R.R. Striegl,
C.M. Duarte, P. Kortelainen, J.A. Downing, J. Middleburg, and J.M. Melack
(2007). Plumbing the global carbon cycle: Integrating inland waters into the ter-
(2003). The development and climate nexus: the case of sub-Saharan Africa.
www.oecd.org/dataoecd/6/51/19742202.pdf.
Altinbilek, D., R. Abdel-Malek, J.-M. Devernay, R. Gill, S. Leney, T. Moss,
H.P. Schiffer, and R.M. Taylor (2007). Hydropowers contribution to energy
security. In: 20th World Energy Congress, Rome, Italy, 11-15 November 2007.
Available at: www.worldenergy.org/documents/congresspapers/P000960.pdf.
Alvarado-Ancieta, C.A. (2009). Estimating E&M powerhouse costs. International
Water Power and Dam Construction, 17 February 2009, pp. 21-25.
Amaral, S., G. Allen, G. Hecker, D. Dixon, and Fisher. R. (2009). Development and
application of an advanced sh-friendly hydro turbine. In: Proceedings of the
HYDRO 2009 conference, Session 2, Lyon, France, 26-28 October 2009, 14 pp.
Andreassen, K., U.H. Buenger, N. Henriksen, A. Oyvann, and O. Ullmann (2002).
Norwegian hydro energy in Germany. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy,
18(4), pp. 325-336.
Bain, M.B. (2007). Hydropower Operations and Environmental Conservation: St.
Marys River, Ontario and Michigan. Project Report for the International Lake
Superior Board of Control, Washington, DC, USA and Ottawa, Canada, 56 pp.
Baird, S. (2006). The future of electricity. Electricity Today, 18(5), pp. 9-11.
Bates, B.C., Z.W. Kundzewicz, S. Wu, and J.P. Palutikof (2008). Climate Change
and Water. Technical Paper VI, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
Secretariat, Geneva, Switzerland, 210 pp.
Beauchamp, A. (1997). Environnement et consensus social. Editions lEssentiel,
Montral, Canada, 141 pp. (ISBN 9782921970051).
Berga, L. (2008). Solving dam engineering challenges. Hydro Review, 16(1), pp.
14-15.
Deane, J.P., B.P. Gallachir, and E.J. McKeogh (2010). Techno-economic review
of existing and new pumped hydro energy storage plant. Renewable and
Sustainable Energy Reviews, 14(4), pp. 1293-1302.
Descloux, S., V. Chanudet, H. Poilv, and A. Grgoire (2010). Co-assessment
of biomass and soil organic carbon stocks in a future reservoir area located
in Southeast Asia. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 173(1-4), pp.
723-741.
Dzurik, A.A. (2003). Water Resources Planning. 3rd ed. Rowman & Littleeld,
Lanham, MD, USA, 393 pp.
Egr, D., and J.C. Milewski (2002). The diversity of hydropower projects. Energy
Policy, 30(14), pp. 1225-1230.
EIA (2010). International Energy Outlook. U.S. Energy Information Agency, US
Department of Energy, Washington, DC, USA, 328 pp.
EPRI (2007). Assessment of Waterpower Potential and Development Needs. Electrical
Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA, USA, 110 pp.
Fearnside, P.M. (2002). Greenhouse gas emissions from hydroelectric reservoir
(Brazils Tucurui dam) and the energy policy implications. Water, Air, and Soil
Pollution, 133, pp. 69-96.
FERC (2007). Assessment of Demand Response and Advanced Metering. Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC, USA, 92 pp.
Fozzard, A. (2005). Revenue and Expenditure Management, Nam Theun 2
Hydroelectric Project. World Bank. Washington, DC, USA, 346 pp.
Fraile, A.J., I.S. Moreno, J.I.P. Diaz, J.R.W. Ayza, and J. Fraile-Mora (2006). Speed
Optimization Module of a Hydraulic Francis turbine based on Articial Neural
Bhatia, R., M. Scatasta, and R. Cestti (2003). Study on the multiplier effects of
dams: Methodology issues and preliminary results. In: Third World Water Forum,
hydro plant. In: International Joint Conference on Neural Networks, 2006, IJCNN,
491
Hydropower
Gleick, P.H. (1993). Water in Crisis: A Guide to the Worlds Fresh Water Resources.
Oxford University Press, New York, NY, USA, 437 pp.
Chapter 5
Goldsmith, E., and N. Hilyard (1984). The Social and Environmental Effects of Large
Goodwin, P., M. Falte, and A.D.K. Betts (2001). Managing for Unforeseen
Guerin, F. (2006). Emissions de Gaz a Effet de Serre (CO2 CH4 ) par une Retenue
de Barrage Hydroelectrique en Zone Tropicale (Petit-Saut, Guyane Francaise):
Experimentation et Modelization. Thse de doctorat de lUniversit Paul
Sabatier (Toulouse III).
Guerin, F., A. Gwenal, A. Tremblay, and R. Delmas (2008). Nitrous oxide emissions from tropical hydroelectric reservoirs. Geophysical Research Letters, 35,
L06404.
Gummer, J.H. (2009). Combating silt erosion in hydraulic turbines. Hydro Review
Worldwide, 17(1), pp. 28-34.
Reports/CAREC/Water-Energy-Nexus/appendix-A-19.PDF.
ICOLD (1999). Dealing with sedimentation. Bulletin 115, International Commission
on Large Dams, Paris, France, 102 pp.
ICOLD (2004). Management of Reservoir Water Quality Introduction and
Recommendations. Bulletin 128, International Commission on Large Dams, Paris,
France, 111 pp.
IEA-ENARD (2010). Harnessing the North Sea Offshore Wind. Grid Policy Workshop.
International Energy Agency, Electricity Networks Analysis, Research & Development (ENARD), Paris, France, 28 April 2010.
Hall, D.G., Hunt, R.T., Reeves, K.S. and Carroll, G.R., (2003). Estimation of
IEA (2000b). Hydropower and the Environment: Survey of the Environmental and
Department of Energy Idaho Operations Ofce, Idaho Falls, ID, USA, 25 pp.
Halleraker, J.H., S.J. Saltveit, A. Harby, J.V. Arnekleiv, H.-P. Fjeldstad, and
International Energy Agency, Paris, France, 111 pp. Available at: www.ieahydro.
org/reports/IEA%20AIII%20ST1%20Vol%20I.pdf.
IEA (2000c). Hydropower and the Environment: Present Context and Guidelines
for Future Action. Volume I: Summary and Recommendations. Implementing
Hamner, J.H., and A.T. Wolf (1998). Patterns in international water resource trea-
uploads/les/hya3s5v1.pdf.
IEA (2000d). Hydropower and the Environment: Present Context and Guidelines for
Future Action. Volume II: Main Report. Implementing Agreement for Hydropower
492
Chapter 5
Hydropower
IPCC (2007a): Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report. Contributions of Work Groups
T. Petr (eds.), RAP Publication 2004/17, FAO Regional Ofce for Asia and the
Climate Change. Core Writing Team, R.K. Pachauri, and A. Reisinger (eds.),
LeCornu, J. (1998). Dams and water management. Report of the Secretary General,
International Commission on Large Dams to the Confrence Internationale Eau
et Dveloppement Durable, Paris, France, 19-21 March 1998.
Ledec, G., and J.D. Quintero (2003). Good Dams and Bad Dams: Environmental
Palutikof, P.J. van der Linden, and C.E. Hanson (eds.), Cambridge University Press,
Criteria for Site Selection of Hydroelectric Projects. World Bank, Washington, DC,
979 pp.
USA, 16 pp.
IPCC (2007c). Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of
Lehner, B., G. Czisch, and S. Vassolo (2005). The impact of global change on the
pp. 839-855.
Liu, H., and X.-b. Hu (2010). The development & practice of SHP CDM Project in
China. China Water Power & Electrication, 69(9), pp. 8-14.
Lysne, D., B. Glover, H. Stole, and E. Tesakar (2003). Hydraulic Design. Publication
No. 8, Norwegian Institute of Technology, Trondheim, Norway.
Mahmood, K. (1987). Reservoir Sedimentation: Impact, Extent, and Mitigation.
World Bank, Washington, DC, USA, pp. 113-118.
Mielke, E., L.D. Anadon, and V. Narayanamurti (2010). Water Consumption of
Energy Resource Extraction, Processing and Conversion. Discussion Paper No.
2010-15, Harvard Kennedy School, Cambridge, MA, USA.
Milly, P.C.D., K.A. Dunne, and A.V. Vecchia (2005). Global pattern of trends in
streamow and water availability in a changing climate. Nature, 438(7066), pp.
347-350.
Knight, U.G. (2001). The Black Start situation. Section 7.5 In: Power Systems in
Morris, G.L., and J. Fan (1997). Reservoir Sedimentation Handbook: Design and
493
Hydropower
Chapter 5
Mukherji, A. (2007). The energy-irrigation nexus and its impact on groundwater mar-
Sale, M.J., T.L. Acker, M.S. Bevelhimer, G.F. Cada, T. Carlson, D.D. Dauble, D.G.
kets in eastern Indo-Gangetic basin: Evidence from West Bengal, India. Energy
Natural Resources Canada (2009). Small Hydropower, Low Head and Very Low
Saltveit, S.J., J.H. Halleraker, J.V. Arnekleiv, and A. Harby (2001). Field experi-
ments on stranding in juvenile Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) and brown trout
ables/small_hydropower.html.
Nilsson, C., and M. Dynesius (1993). Ecological effects of river regulation on mammals and birds: A review. Regulated Rivers: Research and Management, 9(1),
pp. 45-53.
Nordel (2008). Annual Statistics 2008. Organisation of the Transmission System
Operators (TSOs) of Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden (www.nordel.org). Now merged into European Network of Transmission System Operators
upload/_library/publications/nordic/annualstatistics/Annual%20Statistics%20
of the Society for Ecological Restoration International (SER), San Jose, CA, USA,
2008.pdf.
Shukla, P.R., D. Biswas, T. Nag, A. Yajnik, T. Heller, and D.G. Victor (2004). Captive
Power Plants: Case Study of Gujarat India. Working Paper 22, Stanford University,
Idaho, 39 pp.
cpp_5mar04.pdf.
Silva, E.P.D., A.J.M. Neto, P.F.P. Ferreira, J.C. Camargo, F.R. Apolinrio, and
Palmieri, A., F. Shah, G.W. Annandale, and A. Dinar (2003). Reservoir Conservation
ics, wind energy and secondary hydroelectricity supply in Brazil. Solar Energy,
Prabhakar, B., and G.K. Pathariya (2007). Recent renovation and modernization
Hydropower Hydro Sri Lanka, Kandy, Sri Lanka, 22-24 October 2007, pp 161-168.
Panel on Climate Change. B. Metz, O.R. Davidson, P.R. Bosch, R. Dave and L.A.
SHP%20Kandy%20Srilanka%20All%20Details%5CPapers%5CTechnical%20
Aspects-A%5CA20.pdf.
Sinha, S., B. Sharma, and C.A. Scott (2006). Understanding and managing the
waterenergy nexus: Moving beyond the energy debate. In: Groundwater
Sharma, K.G. Villholth, and K.D. Sharma (eds.), International Water Management
Philippines, 84 pp.
REN21 (2010). Renewables 2010: Global Status Report. Renewable Energy Policy
Network for the 21st Century Secretariat, Paris, France, 80 pp.
Renard, K.G., G.R. Foster, G.A. Weesies, D.K. McCool, and D.C. Yoder (1997).
Predicting Soil Erosion by Water: A Guide to Conservation Planning with the
Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE). Agriculture Handbook 703, US
Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC, USA, 440 pp.
Rogner, H.-H., F. Barthel, M. Cabrera, A. Faaij, M. Giroux, D. Hall, V. Kagramanian,
Institute (IWMI), South Asia Ofce, New Delhi, India, pp. 242-257.
Skoulikaris, C. (2008). Mathematical Modeling Applied to Integrated Water
Resources Management: The Case of Mesta-Nestos Basin. PhD Thesis,
Dissertation No. 398, Hydrologie et Hydrogologie Quantitatives, GEOSC-Centre
de Gosciences, ENSMP, Greece, 306 pp.
Soumis, N., E. Duchemin, R. Canuel, and M. Lucotte (2004). Greenhouse gas
emissions from reservoirs of the western United States. Global Biogeochemical
Cycles, 18, GB2022.
(2000). Energy resources. In: World Energy Assessment. Energy and the
494
2968.
Sternberg, R. (2008). Hydropower: Dimensions of social and environmental coexistence. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 12(6), pp. 1588-1621.
Stickler, M., and K.T. Alfredsen (2009). Anchor ice formation in streams: a eld
study. Hydrological Processes, 23(16), pp. 2307-2315.
Sundqvist, E., and D. Wrlind (2006). The Importance of Micro Hydropower for
Rural Electrication in Lao PDR. Lund University, Lund, Sweden, 123 pp.
Chapter 5
Hydropower
Taylor, R. (2008). The possible role and contribution of hydropower to the mitiga-
Energy Resources, Working Group III, 20-25 January 2008, Lubeck, Germany, pp.
81-91.
Terens, L., and R. Schafer (1993). Variable speed in hydropower generation utiliz-
on Hydropower, Waterpower 93, Nashville, TN, USA, 10-13 August 1993, pp.
1860-1869.
org/images/0018/001831/183167e.pdf.
Teske, S., T. Pregger, S. Simon, T. Naegler, W. Graus, and C. Lins (2010). Energy
doi:10.1007/s12053-010-9098-y.
Thaulow, H., A. Tvede, T.S. Pedersen, and K. Seelos (2010). Managing catchments
Educational, Scientic and Cultural Organization, Paris, France, 584 pp. Available
Therrien, J., A. Tremblay, and R. Jacques (2005). CO2 emissions from semi-arid
at: www.unesco.org/water/wwap.
reservoirs and natural aquatic ecosystems. In: Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Fluxes
initiatives/renewable_energy.pdf.
US DOE (2009). Annual Energy Outlook 2009 with Projection to 2030. US Department
of Energy. Washington, DC, USA, 221 pp.
US Inter-Agency Committee on Water Resources (1958). Proposed Practices
for Economic Analysis of River Basin Projects. May 1950; revised May 1958. US
Interagency Committee on Water Resources, Washington, DC, USA, 56 pp.
Vennemann, P., L. Thiel, and H.C. Funke (2010). Pumped storage plants in the
future power supply system. Journal VGB Power Tech, 90(1/2), pp. 44-49.
Vinogg, L., and I. Elstad (2003). Mechanical Equipment. Norwegian University of
Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway, 130 pp.
Viravong, V. (2008). Lao PDR powering progress. In: Regional Consultation on
Watercourses Organization, United Nations, New York, NY, USA, 18 pp. Available
at: untreaty.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/8_3_1997.pdf.
UNDP/UNDESA/WEC (2000). World Energy Assessment Energy and the Challenge
of Sustainability. United Nations Development Programme, United Nations
Department of Economic and Social Affairs, and World Energy Council, New York,
NY, USA.
regional-hydro/2.2%20MRC-consultation_LAOPDR.pdf.
Votruba, L., Z. Kos, K. Nachazel, A. Patera, and V. Zeman (1988). Analysis of
Water Resource Systems. Elsevier (ISBN 9780 449 89444).
Wang, X. (2010). Installed capacity of small hydropower in China reaching 55.12
GW. Guangxi Electric Power, 120(4), pp. 11 (in Chinese).
Wang, Z., and C. Hu (2004). Interaction between uvial systems and large scale
United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, and World Energy
Council, New York, New York, USA, 85 pp.
UNEP (2007). A Compendium of Relevant Practices for Improved Decision-Making,
Planning and Management of Dams and Their Alternatives. United Nations
Environment Programme Dams and Development Project, Nairobi, Kenya, 52 pp.
495
Hydropower
WEC (2007). Hydropower. In: 2007 Survey of Energy Resources. World Energy Council
(WEC), London, UK, pp 271-313 (ISBN: 0 946121 26 5).
Wellinghoff, H.J., J. Pederson, and D.L. Morenoff (2008). Facilitating hydrokinetic energy development through regulatory innovation. Energy Law Journal,
29(398-419)
White, W.R. (2005). World Water Storage in Man-Made Reservoirs: Review of Current
Knowledge. Foundation for Water Research, Marlow, UK, 53 pp.
World Bank (1994). Culture Heritage and Environmental Assessment. Environmental
Chapter 5
Assessment Sourcebook Update, No. 8, World Bank, Washington, DC, USA, 8 pp.
Xu, J. (2002). River sedimentation and channel adjustment of the lower Yellow River
World Bank (2001). The World Bank position on the report of the World Commission
on Dams. In: Water Resources Sector Strategy: Strategic Directions for World
Bank Engagement. International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/The
World Bank, Washington, DC, USA, pp. 7578 (report published 2004).
World Bank (2004). Water Resources Sector Strategy: Strategic Directions for World
Bank Engagement. International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/
World Bank, Washington, DC, USA.
World Bank (2005). Shaping the Future of Water for Agriculture: A Sourcebook for
Investment in Agricultural Water Management. World Bank, Washington, DC,
USA.
496
Ocean Energy
Coordinating Lead Authors:
Anthony Lewis (Ireland) and Segen Estefen (Brazil)
Lead Authors:
John Huckerby (New Zealand), Kwang Soo Lee (Republic of Korea), Walter Musial (USA),
Teresa Pontes (Portugal), Julio Torres-Martinez (Cuba)
Contributing Authors:
Desikan Bharathan (USA), Howard Hanson (USA), Garvin Heath (USA),
Frederic Louis (France), Sandvik ystein Scrmest (Norway)
Review Editors:
Amjad Abdulla (Republic of Maldives), Jos M. Moreno (Spain) and Yage You (China)
497
Ocean Energy
Chapter 6
Table of Contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 503
6.2
6.2.1
6.2.2
6.2.3
Tidal currents
6.2.4
6.2.5
6.2.6
Salinity gradients
6.3
6.3.1
Introduction
6.3.2
6.3.2.1
6.3.2.2
6.3.2.3
6.3.2.4
6.3.3
6.3.4
6.3.5
6.3.6
6.3.6.1
6.3.6.2
6.4
6.4.1
6.4.1.1
6.4.1.2
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 513
Markets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 513
Industry development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 514
498
...........................................................................................................................................
506
................................................................................................................
507
.....................................................................................................................................
507
.............................................................................................................................................
............................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................
507
510
511
Chapter 6
Ocean Energy
6.4.2
6.4.3
6.4.4
6.4.5
6.4.6
Salinity gradients
6.4.7
6.5
6.5.1
6.5.2
6.5.2.1
6.5.2.2
6.5.2.3
6.5.2.4
6.5.2.5
6.6
6.6.1
6.6.2
6.6.3
6.6.4
6.6.5
Salinity gradients
6.7
Cost trends
6.7.1
Introduction
6.7.2
6.7.3
............................................................................................................................
515
................................................................................................................
516
......................................................................................................................................
516
.............................................................................................................
............................................................................................................................
517
521
................................................................................................................
521
.....................................................................................................................................
521
..........................................................................................................................................
522
.............................................................................................................................................
522
499
Ocean Energy
Chapter 6
6.7.4
................................................................................................................
525
6.7.5
Salinity gradients
......................................................................................................................................
526
6.8
6.8.1
6.8.2
6.8.3
6.8.4
.............................................................................
527
..............................................................................................................
528
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 530
500
Chapter 6
Ocean Energy
Executive Summary
Ocean energy offers the potential for long-term carbon emissions reduction but is unlikely to make a signicant shortterm contribution before 2020 due to its nascent stage of development. In 2009, additionally installed ocean capacity
was less than 10 MW worldwide, yielding a cumulative installed capacity of approximately 300 MW by the end of
2009. All ocean energy technologies, except tidal barrages, are conceptual, undergoing research and development
(R&D), or are in the pre-commercial prototype and demonstration stage. The performance of ocean energy technologies
is anticipated to improve steadily over time as experience is gained and new technologies are able to access poorer
quality resources. Whether these technical advances lead to sufcient associated cost reductions to enable broad-scale
deployment of ocean energy is the most critical uncertainty in assessing the future role of ocean energy in mitigating
climate change. Though technical potential is not anticipated to be a primary global barrier to ocean energy deployment, resource characteristics will require that local communities in the future select among multiple available ocean
technologies to suit local resource conditions.
Though ocean energy resource assessments are at a preliminary phase, the theoretical potential for ocean
energy easily exceeds present human energy requirements. Ocean energy is derived from technologies that
utilize seawater as their motive power or harness its chemical or heat potential. The renewable energy (RE) resource in
the ocean comes from six distinct sources, each with different origins and requiring different technologies for conversion: waves; tidal range; tidal currents; ocean currents; ocean thermal energy conversion (OTEC); and salinity gradients.
Ocean energy could be used not only to supply electricity but also for direct potable water production or to meet
thermal energy service needs. The theoretical potential for ocean energy technologies has been estimated at 7,400 EJ/
yr, well exceeding current and future human energy needs. Relatively few assessments have been conducted on the
technical potential of the various ocean energy technologies and such potentials will vary based on future technology
developments. One assessment places the global technical potential for 2050 at 331 EJ/yr, dominated by OTEC (300
EJ/yr) and wave energy (20 EJ/yr), whereas on the other end of the spectrum, another assessment lists the exploitable estimated available energy resource at just 7 EJ/yr. Whilst some potential ocean energy resources, such as ocean
currents and osmotic power from salinity gradients, are globally distributed, other forms of ocean energy have complementing distributions. Ocean thermal energy is principally distributed in the tropics around the Equator (latitudes 0
to 35), whilst wave energy principally occurs between latitudes of 30 to 60. Some ocean energy resources, such as
ocean thermal, ocean currents and salinity gradients may be used to generate base-load electricity, whereas others
have variable generation proles that differ in their predictability. Though the available literature is limited, the impact
of climate change on the technical potential for ocean energy is anticipated to be modest.
Ocean energy systems are at an early stage of development, but technical advances may progress rapidly
given the number of technology demonstrations. With the exception of tidal range energy, which can be harnessed by the adaptation of river-based hydroelectric dams to estuarine situations, most ocean energy technologies
have not yet been developed beyond the prototype stage. Although basic concepts have been known for decades, if
not centuries, ocean energy technology development really began in the 1970s, only to languish in the post-oil-price
crisis period of the 1980s. Research and development on a wide range of ocean energy technologies was rejuvenated
at the start of the 2000s and some technologies, specically wave and tidal current energy, have reached full-scale
prototype deployments. Unlike wind turbine generators, there is presently no convergence on a single design conguration for ocean energy converters and, given the range of options for energy extraction, a single device design is unlikely.
Worldwide developments of devices are accelerating with a large number of prototype wave and tidal current devices
under development.
Government policies are contributing to accelerate the implementation of ocean energy technologies. Some
national and regional governments are supporting ocean energy development through a range of initiatives, including
R&D and capital grants to device developers; performance incentives for produced electricity; marine infrastructure
development; standards, protocols and regulatory interventions for permitting; and space and resource allocation.
501
Ocean Energy
Chapter 6
Ocean energy has the potential to deliver long-term carbon emissions reductions and appears to have low
environmental impacts. Ocean energy technologies do not generate GHGs in operation and have low lifecycle GHG
emissions, providing the potential to signicantly contribute to emissions reductions. Utility-scale deployments with
transmission grid connections can be used to displace carbon-emitting energy supplies, while smaller-scale developments may supply electricity and/or drinking water to remote communities. As shown by a review of a limited number
of existing global energy scenarios, ocean energy has the potential to help mitigate long-term climate change by
offsetting GHG emissions with projected deployments resulting in energy delivery of up to 1,943 TWh/yr (~7 EJ/yr) by
2050. The local social and environmental impacts of ocean energy projects are being evaluated as actual deployments
multiply, but can be estimated based on the experience of other maritime and offshore industries. Environmental risks
from ocean energy technologies appear to be relatively low, but the early stage of ocean energy deployment creates
uncertainty on the degree to which social and environmental concerns might eventually constrain development.
Successful deployment will lead to cost reductions. Although ocean energy technologies are at an early stage of
development, there are encouraging signs that the investment cost of technologies and the levelized cost of electricity
generated will decline from their present non-competitive levels as R&D and demonstrations proceed, and as deployment occurs. Whether these cost reductions are sufcient to enable broad-scale deployment of ocean energy is the
most critical uncertainty in assessing the future role of ocean energy in mitigating climate change.
502
Chapter 6
6.1
Introduction
Ocean Energy
Finally, prospects for technology improvement, cost trends and potential deployment are considered in Sections 6.6, 6.7 and 6.8, respectively.
6.2
Resource potential
6.2.1
Wave energy
503
Ocean Energy
A map of the global offshore average annual wave power distribution (Figure 6.1) shows that the largest power levels occur off the west
coasts of the continents in temperate latitudes, where the most energetic winds and greatest fetch areas occur.
Chapter 6
Mean Power
kW/m
125
115
105
95
85
75
65
55
45
35
25
15
5
Figure 6.1 | Global offshore annual wave power level distribution (Cornett, 2008).
technical developments in wave energy devices. Sims et al. (2007) estimate a global technical potential of 500 GW for wave energy, assuming
that offshore wave energy devices have an efciency of 40% and are
only installed near coastlines with wave climates of >30 kW/m, whereas
Krewitt et al. (2009) report a wave energy potential of 20 EJ/yr.
Potential changes in wind patterns, caused by climate change, are likely
to affect the long-term wave climate distribution (Harrison and Wallace,
Table 6.1 | Regional theoretical potential of wave energy (Mrk et al., 2010).
REGION
Wave Energy
TWh/yr (EJ/yr)
2,800 (10.1)
1,300 (4.7)
4,000 (14.4)
Central America
1,500 (5.4)
South America
4,600 (16.6)
Africa
3,500 (12.6)
Asia
6,200 (22.3)
5,600 (20.2)
TOTAL
29,500 (106.2)
Note: The results presented in Mrk et al. (2010) regarding the overall theoretical global potential for wave energy are consistent with other studies (Cornett, 2008). No further studies
of regional theoretical potential of wave energy are available to validate the data provided in Table 6.1.
504
Chapter 6
6.2.2
Tidal range
Ocean Energy
also occur, but are of very low magnitude compared to diurnal, semidiurnal and spring-neap cycles (Sinden, 2007).
The timing and magnitude of the tide varies depending on global position and also on the shape of the ocean bed, the shoreline geometry
and Coriolis acceleration. Within a tidal system there are points where
the tidal range is nearly zero, called amphidromic points (Figure 6.2).
However, even at these points tidal currents will generally ow with
high velocity as the water surface on either side of the amphidromic
point is at different levels. This is a result of the Coriolis effect and
interference within oceanic basins, seas and bays, creating a tidal wave
pattern (called an amphidromic system), which rotates around the amphidromic point. See Pugh (1987) for full details of tidal behaviour.
Tidal periodicities can resonate with the natural oscillatory frequencies of estuaries and bays, resulting in greatly increased tidal range.
Consequently, the locations with the largest tidal ranges are at resonant
estuaries, such as the Bay of Fundy in Canada (17 m tidal range), the
Severn Estuary in the UK (15 m) and Baie du Mont Saint Michel in France
(13.5 m) (Kerr, 2007). In other places (e.g., the Mediterranean Sea), the
tidal range is less than 1 m (Shaw, 1997; Usachev, 2008).
Tidal range can be forecast with a high level of accuracy, even centuries
in advance: while the resultant power is variable, there is no resource
risk due to climate change. The worlds theoretical tidal power potential
(tidal range plus tidal currents) is in the range of 3 TW, with 1 TW located
in relatively shallow waters (Charlier and Justus, 1993), though Sims et
al. (2007) and Krewitt et al. (2009) note that only a fraction of the theoretical potential is likely to be exploited.
GOT99.2
NASA/GSFC
Tides are the regular and predictable change in the height of the ocean,
driven by gravitational and rotational forces between the Earth, Moon
and Sun, combined with centrifugal and inertial forces. Many coastal
areas experience roughly two high tides and two low tides per day
(called semi-diurnal); in some locations there is only one tide per day
(called diurnal). The lunar day of 24 hrs and 50 min means that the
timing of subsequent high and low tides advances each day as this
constituent is the predominant one. Diurnal and semi-diurnal tides also
occur at different times in different locations around the Earth.
During the year, the amplitude of the tides varies depending on the
respective positions of the Earth, the Moon and the Sun. Spring tides
(maximum tidal range) occur when the Sun, Moon and Earth are aligned
(at full moon and at new moon). Neap tides (minimum tidal range) occur
when the gravitational forces of the Earth-Moon axis are at 90 degrees
to the Earth-Sun axis. The spring-neap tide cycle is driven by the 29.5
day orbit of the Moon around the Earth and is experienced throughout
the world at the same time. Longer-period uctuations in tide height
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
cm
6/99
505
Ocean Energy
6.2.3
Chapter 6
Tidal currents
Tidal currents are the ocean water mass response to tidal range (see
Section 6.2.2). Tidal currents are generated by horizontal movements
of water, modied by seabed bathymetry, particularly near coasts or
other constrictions (e.g., islands). Tidal current ows result from the
rise and fall of the tide; although these ows can be slightly inuenced
by short-term weather uctuations, their timing and magnitude are
highly predictable and largely insensitive to climate change inuences.
6.2.4
A number of methods for the assessment of the tidal current energy
resource potential have been discussed (Hagerman et al., 2006;
Mackay, 2008). In the energy ux method, which is widely used, the
potential power of a tidal current is proportional to the cube of the
current velocity. Hence, the power density (in W/m2) of tidal currents
increases substantially with small increases in velocity. For near-shore
currents such as those occurring in channels between mainland and
islands or in estuaries, current velocity varies systematically and predictably in relation to the tide. In the specic case of tidal channels,
however, there is a further limitation on the calculation of the overall resource (Garrett and Cummins, 2005, 2008; Karsten et al., 2008;
Sutherland et al., 2008).
An atlas of wave energy and tidal current resource potential has been
developed for the UK (UK Department of Trade and Industry, 2004).
Similar resource estimates have been published for the EU (CEC, 1996;
Carbon Trust, 2004), Canada (Cornett, 2006) and China (CEC, 1998).
In Europe, the tidal current energy resource potential is of special interest for the UK, Ireland, Greece, France and Italy. Over 106 promising
N. Atlantic
Drift
Alaska
Oyashio
N. Pacic
N. Atlantic
Drift
N. Pacic
California
Kuroshio
N. Equatorial
N. Equatorial
N. Equatorial
Equatorial Counter
Equatorial Counter
S. Equatorial
S. Equatorial
Equatorial Counter
Benguela
Brazil
Antarctic Subpolar
W. Australia
S. Equatorial
E. Australia
Agulhas
S. Atlantic
S. Pacic
Antarctic Circumpolar
N. Equatorial
Equatorial Counter
S. Equatorial
Peru
Antarctic Circumpolar
Antarctic Subpolar
Figure 6.3 | Surface ocean currents, showing warm (red) and cold (blue) systems.
506
Ocean currents
S. Indian
Antarctic Circumpolar
S. Pacic
Chapter 6
6.2.5
Ocean Energy
About 15% of the total solar input to the ocean is retained as thermal
energy, with absorption concentrated at the top layers, declining exponentially with depth as the thermal conductivity of sea water is low. Sea
surface temperature can exceed 25C in tropical latitudes, while temperatures 1 km below the surface are between 5C and 10C (Charlier
and Justus, 1993).
A minimum temperature difference of 20C is considered necessary to
operate an OTEC power plant. Both coasts of Africa and India, the tropical west and south-eastern coasts of the Americas and many Caribbean
and Pacic islands have sea surface temperature of 25C to 30C,
declining to 4C to 7C at depths varying from 750 to 1,000 m. The
OTEC resource map showing annual average temperature differences
between surface waters and the water at 1,000-m depth shows a wide
tropical area with a potential greater than 20 C temperature difference
(Figure 6.4). A number of Pacic and Caribbean countries could develop
OTEC plants close to their shores (UN, 1984). It seems unlikely that climate change would have a meaningful impact on the size of the global
technical potential for OTEC.
Ocean Data View
16
18
20
22
24
Figure 6.4 | Worldwide average ocean temperature differences (C) between 20 and
1,000 m water depth (Nihous, 2010).
6.2.6
Salinity gradients
6.3
6.3.1
Introduction
6.3.2
Wave energy
507
Ocean Energy
Chapter 6
intermediate, shallow) and distance from shore (shoreline, nearshore, offshore). Efcient operation of oating devices requires
large motions, which can be achieved by resonance or by latching,
that is, with hold/release of moving parts until potential energy has
accumulated.
A generic scheme for characterizing ocean wave energy generation
devices consists of primary, secondary and tertiary conversion stages
(Khan et al., 2009). The primary interface subsystem represents uidmechanical processes and feeds mechanical power to the next stage.
The secondary subsystem can incorporate direct drive or include
short-term storage, so that power processing can be facilitated
before the electrical machine is operated. The tertiary conversion utilizes electromechanical and electrical processes.
Recent reviews have identied more than 50 wave energy devices
at various stages of development (Falco, 2009; Khan and Bhuyan,
2009; US DOE, 2010). The dimensional scale constraints of wave
devices have not been fully investigated in practice. The dimension
of wave devices in the direction of wave propagation is generally
limited to lengths below the scale of the dominant wavelengths that
characterize the wave power density spectrum at a particular site.
Utility-scale electricity generation from wave energy will require
device arrays, rather than larger devices and, as with wind turbine
generators, devices are likely to be chosen for specic site conditions.
Several methods have been proposed to classify wave energy systems (e.g., Falco, 2009; Khan and Bhuyan, 2009; US DOE, 2010).
The classication system proposed by Falco (2009) (Figure 6.5) is
based mainly upon the principle of operation. The rst column is the
genus, the second column is the location and the third column represents the mode of operation as outlined in the subsections below. A
small number of prototype devices based upon novel uses of electropolymers and bulging tubes fall outside of this classication scheme.
6.3.2.1
6.3.2.2
Oscillating-body systems
Oscillating-body (OB) wave energy conversion devices use the incident wave motion to induce oscillatory motions between two bodies;
these motions are then used to drive the power take-off system (Falco,
Shore-Based
Oscillating Water Column
Floating
Heaving Buoys
Surface Buoyant
Rotational Joints
Oscillating Body
Pressure Heaving
Submerged
Surge, Hinged Rotation
Non-Concentrating Breakwater
Shore-Based
Concentrating Breakwater
Overtopping
Floating
Figure 6.5 | Wave energy technologies: Classication based on principles of operation (Falco, 2009).
508
Chapter 6
Ocean Energy
Air Flow
In-Take
Electric
Generator
Rotor
Wave
Crest
Wave
Trough
Rising
Water
Column
Falling Water
Column
Reservoir
Stationary
Center
Spar
Float
Overtopping
Turbine
Upward
Motion
Turbine Outlet
Downward
Motion
Cable
Mooring
Lastly, there are hinged devices, which sit on the seabed relatively close
to shore and harness the horizontal surge energy of incoming waves.
6.3.2.3
Figure 6.6 | Wave energy converters and their operation: (top, left and right) oscillating
water column device; (bottom left) oscillating body device; and (bottom right) overtopping
device (design by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL)).
2009). OBs can be surface devices or, more rarely, fully submerged.
Commonly, axi-symmetric surface otation devices (buoys) use buoyant
forces to induce heaving motion relative to a secondary body that can
be restrained by a xed mooring (Figure 6.6, bottom left). Generically,
these devices are referred to as point absorbers, because they are nondirectional. Another variation of oating surface device uses angularly
articulating (pitching) buoyant cylinders linked together. The waves
induce alternating rotational motions of the joints that are resisted by
the power take-off device. Some OB devices are fully submerged and
rely on oscillating hydrodynamic pressure to extract the wave energy.
Overtopping devices
6.3.2.4
Power take-off systems are used to convert the kinetic energy, air
ow or water ow generated by the wave energy device into a useful
form, usually electricity. There are a large number of different options
depending upon the technology adopted and these are fully described
in Khan and Bhuyan (2009). Real-time wave oscillations will produce
509
Ocean Energy
6.3.3
Tidal range
6.3.4
Technologies to extract kinetic energy from tidal, river and ocean currents
are under development, with tidal energy converters the most common
to date. River current devices are covered in Chapter 5. The principal
510
Chapter 6
Chapter 6
Ocean Energy
Axial Flow
Turbines
Shrouded
Rotor
Cross Flow
Turbines
Open
Rotor
Shrouded
Rotor
Reciprocating
Devices
Open
Rotor
Vortex
Induced
Magnus
Effect
Flow
Flutter
Figure 6.7 | Classication of current tidal and ocean energy technologies (principles of operation).
Generator
Tidal
Stream
Rotation
Figure 6.8 | Tidal current energy converters and their operation: twin turbine horizontal
axis device (top left); cross-ow device (top right); and vertical axis device (bottom left)
(design by NREL).
Generator
will not impose a size restriction on the rotors due to lack of channel
constraints and therefore, ocean current systems may have larger rotors.
6.3.5
Tidal
Stream
Rotation
Ocean thermal energy conversion (OTEC) plants have three conversion schemes: open, closed and hybrid (Charlier and Justus, 1993). In
the open conversion cycle, about 0.5% of the warm surface seawater
is ash-evaporated in a vacuum chamber. This steam is the cycles
working uid, which passes through a power-generating turbine
before being condensed by deep cold seawater. Desalinated water can be
obtained as an additional product by employing an appropriate cycle.
511
Ocean Energy
Chapter 6
6.3.6
Salinity gradients
The mixing of freshwater and seawater, such as where a river ows into
a saline ocean, releases energy and causes a very small increase in local
water temperature (Scrmest et al., 2009). Reversed electro dialysis (RED)
and pressure-retarded osmosis (PRO) are among the concepts identied
for converting this heat into electricity. This form of energy conversion is
often called osmotic power and the rst 5 kW PRO pilot power plant was
commissioned in Norway in 2009.
6.3.6.1
Sea Water
C
CEM
AEM
C
CEM
AEM
C
CEM
AEM
CEM
C
Fe3+
Fe2+
-
Cl
e
Cl
Cl
eNa+
Na+
N
Na+
N
Fe2+
Anode
Na+
N
Fe3+
Cathode
River Water
Figure 6.9 | Reversed electro dialysis (RED) system (van den Ende and Groeman, 2007).
Notes: CEM = cation exchange membrane; AEM = anion exchange membrane, Na = sodium, Cl = Chlorine, Fe = iron.
512
Chapter 6
6.3.6.2
Ocean Energy
Pressure-retarded osmosis
6.4
6.4.1
Introduction
Since the 1990s, R&D projects on wave and tidal current energy technologies have proliferated, with some now reaching the full-scale
pre-commercial prototype stage. Presently, the only full-size and
operational ocean energy technology available is the tidal barrage, of
which the best example is the 240 MW La Rance Barrage in northwestern France, completed in 1966 (540 GWh/yr; De Laleu, 2009). The
254 MW Sihwa Barrage (South Korea) is due to become operational
in 2011. Technologies to develop the other ocean energy sources
ocean thermal energy conversion (OTEC), salinity gradients and ocean
currentsare still at the conceptual, R&D or early prototype stages.
Currently, more than 100 different ocean energy technologies are
under development in over 30 countries (Khan and Bhuyan, 2009).
6.4.1.1
Markets
Apart from tidal barrages, all ocean energy technologies are conceptual,
undergoing R&D or in the pre-commercial prototype stage. Consequently,
there is virtually no commercial market for ocean energy technologies at
present.
Brackish Water
Pressure
Exchanger
Pump
Water
Filter
Membrane Modules
Power
Turbine
Sea Water
Brackish Water
Pump
Pump
Water
Filter
Freshwater
Freshwater
Bleed
513
Ocean Energy
Some governments are using a range of initiatives and incentives to promote and accelerate the implementation of ocean energy technologies.
These are described in Section 6.4.7. The north-eastern Atlantic coastal
countries lead the development of the market for ocean energy technologies and their produced electricity. Funding mechanisms such as the
Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) or Joint Implementation (JI) projects enable governments to secure additional external funding for ocean
energy projects in developing nations. The Sihwa barrage project in the
Republic of Korea was funded, in part, by CDM nance (UNFCCC, 2005).
Since there are ocean energy technologies being developed that produce pressurized or potable water as well as, or instead of, electricity,
they may be able to compete in the market for water.
6.4.1.2
Industry development
As the marine energy industry moves from its present R&D phase, capacity and expertise from existing industries, such as electrical and marine
engineering and offshore operations, will be drawn in, encouraging
rapid growth of industry supply chains. The industry is presently underpinned by a large number of independent, entrepreneurial companies
with limited investment from the nance sector. Large utility investment
in device developments has become more commonplace in the last 10
years and some governments have recognized the skills and knowledge
transfer benets from other industries.
An unusual feature of ocean energy is the emergence of an international network of national marine energy testing centres, which includes
the European Marine Energy Centre1 (EMEC) in Scotlandthe rst of a
growing number of testing centres worldwidewhere device developers can reduce the costs of testing their prototypes by using existing
infrastructure, particularly the offshore cable, power purchase agreements and permits. These centres are accelerating the development of a
wide range of wave and tidal current technologies by effectively allowing device developers to share the costs of device prototype testing.
Industry development road maps and supply chain studies have been
developed for Scotland, the UK and New Zealand (AWATEA, 2008;
Mueller and Jeffrey, 2008; MEG, 2009). The USA (Thresher, 2010)
and Ireland (SEAI, 2010) have completed road mapping exercises
and Canada has begun road mapping exercises. Similar road maps
have been produced for the EU countries (EOEA, 2010) and European
marine energy science research (ESF MB, 2010). These countries have
begun to assess the market potential for ocean energy as an industry
or regional development initiative. Regions supporting industry cluster
development, leading to scalable power developments, seek to attract
concentrations of industry.
Chapter 6
6.4.2
Wave energy
Wave energy technologies started to be developed after the rst oil crisis in 1974. Many different converter types have been, and continue to
be, proposed and tested but they are still at the pre-commercial phase.
Recently, governments and developers have begun to use Technology
Readiness Levels to guide their structured development of marine
energy devices (Holmes and Nielsen, 2010). It is usual to test devices at
a small scale in laboratory test-tank facilities (1:15 to 1:50 scale) before
the rst open-sea prototype testing (1:4 to 1:10 scale). Pre-commercial
testing may be at half or full scale. Presently only a handful of devices
have been built and tested at full scale. Pre-commercial trials of individual modules and small arrays began in recent years and are expected
to accelerate through this decade. Given the early stage of development,
the costs for wave energy are relatively high, but signicant potential for cost reductions exist. Programmes such as the Marine Energy
Accelerator programme (Callaghan, 2006) and incentives for pilot markets are intended to accelerate the cost reduction experience to seek to
make wave energy technologies commercially competitive in the future.
A coast-attached oscillating water column device has been operational
in Portugal since 1999 (Falco et al., 2000; Aqua-RET, 2008) and a somewhat similar device (Voith Hydro Wavegens LIMPET device)5 has been
operating almost continuously on the island of Islay in Scotland since
2000. Two offshore oscillating water column devices have been tested
at prototype scale in Australia (Energetech/Oceanlinx)6 since 2006
2
514
Chapter 6
6.4.3
Tidal range
Ocean Energy
By the end of 2011, the worlds installed capacity of tidal range power
will still be less than 600 MW, assuming that the Sihwa power plant
comes on line. However, numerous projects have been identied,
some of them with very large capacities, including in the UK (Severn
Estuary), India, Korea and Russia (the White Sea and Sea of Okhotsk).
Total installed capacity under consideration is approximately 43.7 GW,
or 64.05 TWh/yr (233 PJ/yr) (Kerr, 2007).
6.4.4
There are probably more than 50 tidal current devices at the proof-ofconcept or prototype development stage, but large-scale deployment
costs are yet to be demonstrated. The most advanced example is
the SeaGen16 1.2 MW capacity tidal turbine, which was installed in
Strangford Lough in Northern Ireland and has delivered electricity into
the electricity grid for more than one year. An Irish company, Open
Hydro,17 has tested its open-ring turbine at EMEC in Scotland, and more
recently in Canada (Bay of Fundy). A number of devices have also been
tested in China (Zhang and Sun, 2007).
Two companies have demonstrated horizontal axis turbines at full scale:
Hammerfest Strom18 in Norway and Atlantis Resources Corporation19
in Scotland, whilst Ponte di Archimede20 has demonstrated a verticalaxis turbine in the Straits of Messina (Italy). Finally, Pulse Tidal Limited21
demonstrated a reciprocating device off the Humber Estuary in the UK
in 2009.
The resource for tidal current energy is not widespread, with potentially economically viable sites located where tidal current velocities
are accelerated around headlands or through channels between islands.
Potential sites have been identied in Europe (particularly Scotland,
Ireland, the UK and France), China, Korea, Canada, Japan, the Philippines,
Australasia and South America. A number of development projects will
begin during the present decade: experience and scale-up in these projects is expected to drive down costs.
Open ocean currents, such as the Gulf Stream, are being explored for
development. Because they are slower moving and unidirectional, harnessing open ocean currents may require different technologies from
those presently being developed for the faster, more restricted tidal
stream currents (MMS, 2006). No pilot or demonstration plants have
been deployed to date. Given the scale of open ocean currents, which
involve much larger water volumes than tidal currents, there is a promise
515
Ocean Energy
6.4.5
Presently only a small number of OTEC test facilities have been trialled
globally. A small Mini-OTEC prototype plant was tested in the USA
in 1979. Built on a oating barge, the plant used an ammonia-based
closed-cycle system with a 28,200 rpm radial inow turbine. Although
the prototype had a rated capacity of 53 kW, pump efciency problems
reduced its output to 18 kW. A second oating OTEC plant (OTEC-1)
using the same closed-cycle system but without a turbine was built in
1980. Rated at 1 MW, it was primarily used for testing and demonstration, including studies of issues with the heat exchanger and water pipe,
during its four months of operation in 1981.
In 1982 and 1983 in the Republic of Nauru, a 120-kW plant that used a
Freon-based closed-cycle system and a cold water pipe to a depth of 580
m was operated for several months. It was connected to the electric grid
and generated a peak of 31.5 kW of power.
An open-cycle OTEC plant was built in Hawaii in 1992 that operated
between 1993 and 1998, with peak production of 103 kW and 0.4 l/s of
desalinated water. Operational issues included seawater out-gassing in
the vacuum chamber, problems with the vacuum pump, varying output
from the turbogenerator and the connection to the electrical grid.
In 1984, India designed a 1 MW ammonia-based closed-cycle OTEC system. Construction began in 2000 but could not be completed due to
difculties in deployment of the long cold water pipe (Ravindran and
Raju, 2002). A 10-day experiment was conducted on the same barge off
Tuticorin in 2005, and desalination using ocean thermal gradients was
demonstrated in shallower depths.
By the early 2000s, Japan had tested a number of OTEC power plants
(Kobayashi et al., 2004). In 2006, the Institute of Ocean Energy at Saga
University built a prototype 30-kW hybrid OTEC plant that uses a mixed
water/ammonia working uid and continues to generate electrical
power.
Larger-scale OTEC developments could have signicant markets in tropical maritime nations, including the Pacic Islands, Caribbean Islands,
Central American and African nations, if the technology develops to the
point of being a cost-effective energy supply option.
6.4.6
Salinity gradients
516
Chapter 6
6.4.7
Impact of Policies23
Presently the north-western European coastal countries lead development of ocean energy technologies, with the North and South American,
north-western Pacic and Australasian countries also involved. Ocean
energy technologies could offer emission-free electricity generation and
potable water production, and a number of governments have introduced policy initiatives to promote and accelerate the uptake of marine
energy. Chapter 11 gives more details of policies and initiatives that promote renewable energy technology uptake. Some of these policies and
initiatives are applied to ocean energy and fall into six main categories:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Chapter 6
Ocean Energy
Most countries offer R&D grants for RE technologies but some have
ocean energy-specic grant programs. The UK has had the longest,
largest and most comprehensive programs, though the US Federal
Government has increased investment signicantly since 2008. Capital
grant programs for device deployments have been implemented by both
the UK and New Zealand as supply push mechanisms but both countries have a range of policy instruments in place (Table 6.2). Note that
Table 6.2 shows only examples of ocean energy policies existing at the
end of 2010.
6.5
6.5.1
Ocean energy does not directly emit CO2 during operation; however,
GHG emissions may arise from different aspects of the lifecycle of
ocean energy systems, including raw material extraction, component
manufacturing, construction, maintenance and decommissioning. A
comprehensive review of lifecycle assessment (LCA) studies published
Table 6.2 | Examples of ocean energy-specic policies (modied from Huckerby and McComb, 2008).
Policy Instrument
Country
Example Description
UK
Spain (Basque Government)
Canada
Ireland
Portugal
R&D Programs/Grants
USA
China
US Department of Energy Wind & WaterPower Program (capital grants for R&D and market
acceleration)
High Tech Research & Development Programme (#863)
UK
New Zealand
China
UK
Prizes
Scotland
Saltire Prize (GBP 10 million for rst ocean energy device to deliver over 100 GWh of electricity over a continuous two-year period)
Feed-In Tariffs
Portugal
Ireland/Germany
UK
Renewable Obligation Scheme - tradable certicates (in $/MWh or equivalent) for ocean
energy-generated electricity
Cluster developments
Ireland
New Zealand
USA
Two centres established (Oregon/Washington for wave/tidal and Hawaii for OTEC/wave)
Scotland,
Canada and others
Offshore Hubs
UK
Market Incentives
Industry Development
International Electrotechnical
Commission
Permitting Regimes
UK
USA
Notes: 1. See www.oreg.ca for description of roadmap. 2. See www.emec.org.uk for description of Centre. 3. See www.fundyforce.ca for description of Centre.
24 A comprehensive assessment of social and environmental impacts of all RE sources
covered in this report can be found in Chapter 9.
517
Ocean Energy
Chapter 6
since 1980 suggests that lifecycle GHG emissions from wave and tidal
energy systems are less than 23 g CO2eq/kWh, with a median estimate
of lifecycle GHG emissions of around 8 g CO2eq/kWh for wave energy
(Figure 6.11). (Note that the distributions shown in Figure 6.11 do not
represent an assessment of likelihood; the gure simply reports the distribution of currently published literature estimates passing screens for
quality and relevance. See Annex II for further description of the literature search methods and list of references.)
25
75th Percentile
Median
20
25th Percentile
Minimum
15
10
X Tidal Range
X Tidal Current
0
All Technologies
Wave
Tidal
Considered
Estimates:
10
References:
Figure 6.11 | Estimates of life-cycle GHG emissions of wave and tidal range technologies
(unmodied literature values, after quality screen). See Annex II for details of literature
search and citations of literature contributing to the estimates displayed.
6.5.2.1
6.5.2
Ocean energy projects may be long-lived, more than 25 years in general and over 100 years for tidal barrages (Sustainable Development
Commission, 2007), so the long-term effects of their development need
to be considered. While the transfer of experience from other offshore
technologies (such as oil and gas operations and offshore wind energy)
518
Wave energy
Chapter 6
Ocean Energy
of these impacts can be mitigated through adopting appropriate operational practices: for example, the La Rance barrage maintains two tides
a day inside the basin, which has resulted in the restoration of a natural biodiversity in the basin. However, sediments accumulating towards
the upstream end of the basin require regular dredging.
6.5.2.2
Tidal range
6.5.2.3
Tidal currents
Tidal current technologies are likely to involve large submarine structures,
although some devices have surface-piercing structures. Environmental
effects may be somewhat limited because devices will be located in
already energetic, moving water environments, which have low species
diversity and abundances.
While current technologies have moving parts (rotating rotor blades or
apping hydrofoils) that may harm marine life, there is no evidence to
date of harm from tidal current devices to marine life, such as whales,
dolphins, seals and sharks. This may be due in part to the limited number
and duration of device deployments, but it may also be due to slow rotation speeds (relative to escape velocities of the marine fauna) compared
with ship propulsion.
Ocean currents
Possible impacts from full-scale commercial deployments of ocean current energy systems can be grouped into four broad categories: the
physical environment (the ocean itself); benthic (ocean-bottom) communities; marine life in the water column; and competing uses for marine
space (Charlier and Justus, 1993; Van Walsum, 2003).
Physical effects on the ocean are expected to be limited: ocean current
energy devices will not be of sufcient scale to alter ocean circulation or
net mass transport. For example, the equatorward drift in wind-driven
circulation, for which western boundary currents are the poleward
return ow, is independent of the basins dissipative mechanisms (e.g.,
Stommel, 1966). Systems could, however, alter meander patterns and
upper-ocean mixing processes. These effects need to be fully evaluated
prior to full site development. Modelling studies of the Florida Current
are underway to assess these potential impacts (Chassignet et al., 2007).
519
Ocean Energy
6.5.2.4
6.5.2.5
Salinity gradients
520
Chapter 6
6.6
6.6.1
Wave energy
Chapter 6
Ocean Energy
6.6.2
6.6.4
Tidal range
6.6.3
Like wave energy converters, tidal and ocean current technologies are
at an early stage of development. Extensive operational experience with
horizontal-axis wind turbines may give axial ow water current turbines a
developmental advantage, since the operating principles are similar. Future
water current designs are likely to increase swept area (i.e., rotor diameter) to the largest practical machine size to increase generation capacity,
minimize the number of aggregate O&M service visits, reduce installation
and decommissioning costs and minimize substructure requirements. A key
area for R&D is likely to be in the development of deployment and recovery
equipment, since periods of slack water in tidal channels can be very brief.
The same applies to O&M requirements.
6.6.5
Salinity gradients
The total tidal and ocean current energy resource could be increased, if
commercial threshold current velocities can be reduced. Tidal energy device
optimization will follow a path of increasingly large turbines in lower ow
regimes (BWEA, 2005). A similar trend is well documented in the wind
energy industry in the USA, where wind turbine technology developments
targeted less energetic sites, creating a 20-fold increase in the available
resource (Wiser and Bolinger, 2010).
As with wave energy, performance and reliability will be top priorities for
future tidal and ocean current energy arrays, as commercialization and economic viability will depend on systems that need minimal servicing, thus
producing power reliably without costly maintenance. New materials that
The developers of the Dutch RED system have identied the Afsluitdijk
causeway in the Netherlands, which separates the salty North Sea
from the less brackish Lake Ijsselmeer, as the potential site for a 200
MW power plant (Ecofys, 2007). Further R&D will focus on material
521
Ocean Energy
6.7
Cost trends26
6.7.1
Introduction
522
Chapter 6
year 2018, which are much lower than those estimated by Callaghan
(2006) and ETSAP (2010b) for current conditions (see Table 6.3). A consistent set of input data and resulting LCOE are contained in ETSAP
(2010b). The medium LCOE values that it found for wave energy, tidal
range and tidal current projects are US cents2005 36, 24 and 31/kWh,
respectively, for a 10% discount rate. The ETSAP (2010b) values for both
wave and tidal current technology are at the low end of the range determined on the basis of the data in Table 6.3 for the 10% discount rate.
The calculated LCOE values for tidal range shown in Figure 6.12 are
based exclusively on the input data from ETSAP (2010b) and are in line
with those reported by ETSAP.
The LCOE presented in Sections 1.3.2 and 10.5 and included in Annex III
only include tidal range systems as this was the only ocean technology
that had reached commercial maturity.
Future cost estimates come with an even larger degree of uncertainty and
should be considered highly speculative. One of the methods, however,
that can be used to derive possible future cost is based on the concept
of learning. The accumulation of experience from increased deployment
of new technologies usually leads to cost reductions. Empirical studies have quantied the link between cumulative deployment and cost
reductions yielding so-called learning rates.28 Applying such learning
rates that have been found for technologies broadly similar to ocean
energy allows estimation of future cost under certain deployment
scenarios. Several estimates of the future costs of ocean energy technologies have been published. The underlying deployment scenarios and
detailed cost assumptions, however, remain largely unclear. The following subsections assess some of the published future cost estimates by
examining the conditions under which those cost levels can be achieved.
6.7.2
Some studies have estimated costs for wave and tidal current energy
devices by extrapolating from available prototype cost data (Binnie
Black & Veatch, 2001; Previsic, 2004; Callaghan, 2006; Li and Florig,
2006).
Wave and tidal current devices are at approximately the same early
stage of development. Investment costs could potentially decline with
experience to costs achieved by other RE technologies such as wind
energy (Bedard et al., 2006). This can only be demonstrated by extrapolation from a few limited data, since there is limited actual operating
experience. Present investment cost estimates were derived from single
prototypes, whose costs are likely to be higher than more mature future
commercial versions. Some O&M cost data appears in Table 6.3, for both
wave and tidal current energy, but it should be acknowledged that this
data was extrapolated from a limited amount of operating data.
28 An overview of the theory and empiricism of learning can, for instance, be found in
Section 10.5. Several technology chapters also provide information on technologyspecic assessments of learning effects.
Chapter 6
Ocean Energy
Table 6.3 | Summary of core available cost and performance parameters for all ocean energy technology subtypes.
Ocean Energy Technology
Wave
Investment costs
(USD2005/kW) i
Design Lifeiii
(years)
6,20016,100iv,v,vi
180v, vi
2540v,vi
20
vi
Tidal Range
4,5005,000
100
22.528.5
40vii
Tidal Current
5,40014,300iv,vi
140vi
2640vi
20
Ocean Current
N/A
N/A
N/A
20
Ocean Thermal
4,20012,300viii
N/A
N/A
20
N/A
N/A
N/A
20
Salinity Gradient
vi
vi
ii.
Capacity factors are estimated based on technology and resource characteristics, not on actual in-the-eld hardware experience.
iii. Design life estimates are based on expert knowledge. A standard assumption is to set the design lifetime of an ocean energy device to 20 years.
iv. Callaghan (2006). Higher ranges of investment cost based on this source.
v.
Previsic (2004) published a assessment of future cost based on 213 x 500 kW Pelamis wave energy converters with investment cost of USD2005 2,620/kW, annual O&M cost of
USD2005 123/kW and additional retrot cost after 10 years of USD2005 264/kW. Assumed CF was 38%; the design lifetime 20 years.
vi.
ETSAP (2010b). Lower ranges of investment cost for wave, tidal range and tidal current are all based on this source. Note that ETSAP (2010a) estimated that investment cost could
be as low as USD2005 5,200/kW for wave and as low as USD2005 4,500/kW for tidal current technology. Later in the same year, however, ETSAP (2010b) adjusted its estimates for
both wave and tidal stream technologies up signicantly to the lower bounds stated in the table, while the estimated investment cost for tidal barrages remained stable. With
respect to CFs, the more recent source (ETSAP, 2010b) is more optimistic. The ranges stated in the table are based on both references.
vii. Tidal barrages resemble hydropower plants, which in general have very long design lives. There are many examples of hydropower plants that have been in operation for more
than 100 years, with regular upgrading of electromechanical systems but no major upgrades of the most expensive civil structures (dams, tunnels etc). Tidal barrages are therefore
assumed to have a similar economic design lifetime as large hydropower plants that can safely be set to at least 40 years (see Chapter 5).
viii. Cost estimates for ocean thermal technologies are in different-year dollars and cover a range of different technologies and locations. Most are for plants of 100 MW size. Many are
highly speculative (see, e.g., Francis, 1985; SERI, 1989; Vega, 2002; Lennard, 2004; Cohen, 2009). The most current costs available for OTEC come from Lockheed-Martin, which
estimates investment costs at USD 32,500/kW for a 10 MW pilot plant, which shrink to an estimated USD 10,000/kW for a commercial 100 MW plant (Cooper et al., 2009).
Wave
Ba
Basedd on Previsic ((2004))
3% Discount Rate
Tidal Range
7% Discount Rate
10% Discount Rate
Tidal Current
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
90.0
[UScent2005 /kWh]
Figure 6.12 | LCOE of wave energy, tidal range and tidal current technology based on
primary cost and performance parameters drawn from various studies and listed in Table
6.3.
One of the few studies that provides analysis on future costs was commissioned by the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) in the United
States to examine theoretical commercial-scale project costs, using
Pelamis wave energy converters off the California coast (Previsic, 2004).
Overall plant size was assumed to be 213 x 500 kW devices (106.5
MW). The LCOE was calculated based on a 20-year design life and
95% availability. Energy capture technical potential was assumed to
take advantage of near-term R&D improvement opportunities not yet
realized but which were thought to be achievable at current assumed
investment costs. The study concluded that an LCOE of US cents2005 13.4/
kWh could be achieved, based upon an investment cost of USD2005 279
million (USD2005 2,620/kW), a discount rate of 7.5%, a capacity factor of
38% and annual O&M costs of USD2005 13.1 million (USD2005 123/kW/yr),
523
Ocean Energy
Chapter 6
costs of nearly three times corresponding to approximately nine capacity doublings from 2010 capacity levels (Figure 6.13).
Investment costs for wave and tidal current energy technologies under
this scenario reduce to a range from USD2005 2,600 to 5,400/kW (average: USD2005 4,000/kW), assuming worldwide deployments of 2 to 5 GW
by 2020. Note that this level of deployment is likely to be highly dependent on sustained policies of the UK, the USA, Canada and other ocean
technology countries.
524
Figure 6.14 shows projections of the LCOE for wave and tidal current
energy in 2020 as a function of capacity factor and investment costs,
using the methods summarized in Annex II, and with other assumptions
as used earlier in calculating LCOE values.
Figure 6.14 shows the possible impact of the capacity factor on LCOE
but is included for illustrative purposes only. These results are based
on only a single reference (Callaghan, 2006) and the previous learning
curve analysis applied to estimate possible 2020 costs given a deployment rate of 2 to 5 GW. The three curves correspond to the calculated
high, middle and low investment cost curves, that is, USD2005 5,600,
4,000 and 2,600/kW, estimated for the year 2020.
Figure 6.14 further shows that, if wave and tidal current devices can be
developed to operate with capacity factors in the range of 30 to 40%
at the above level of investment cost (USD2005 2,600 to 5,600/kW), they
can potentially generate electricity at rates comparable with some of
the other renewable technologies. Devices must be reliable and located
in a high-quality wave or tidal current resource to achieve such capacity
factors. Realization of the necessary investment cost levels may require
cost reductions that could potentially be derived from manufacturing
economies, new technology designs, knowledge and experience transfer
from other industries and design modications realized through operation and experience.
Although no denitive cost studies are available in the public domain
for ocean current technologies, the cost and economics for openocean current technologies may have attributes similar to tidal current
technologies.
6.7.3
Tidal range
Tidal barrages are considered the most mature of the ocean energy technologies reviewed in this report, since there are a number of examples
of sustained plant operation, although very little data on cost was available. Tidal barrage projects usually require a very high capital investment,
with relatively long construction periods. Civil construction in the marine
environmentwith additional infrastructure to protect against the
harsh sea conditionsis complex and expensive. Consequently, investment costs associated with tidal range technologies are high when
Chapter 6
Ocean Energy
18,000
High Initial Investment Cost (Wave)
16,000
14,000
12,000
10,000
Projected Range of Total Global Deployment by 2020 2-5 GW
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
0
1
10
100
1,000
10,000
140
Wave Energy, USD2005 /kW 2600 (Low 2020 Estimate)
120
100
80
60
6.7.4
40
20
0
0
0,05
0,1
0,15
0,2
0,25
0,3
0,35
0,4
Figure 6.14 | Capacity factor effect on LCOE for estimated 2020 wave and tidal current
investment costs. The data point showing the EPRI conceptual design, using Pelamis 500
kW machines at 38% capacity factor, is based on Previsic (2004).
The most current costs available for OTEC come from LockheedMartin, which estimates investment costs at USD 32,500/kW for a
10 MW pilot plant, which drop to an estimated USD 10,000/kW for a
commercial 100 MW plant (Cooper et al., 2009).
525
Ocean Energy
Chapter 6
Table 6.4 | Published investment costs and LCOE for OTEC pilot projects and concepts.
Source of Cost Data
Vega (2002)
SERI (1989)
Investment Cost
(USD/kW)
LCOE
(US cents/kWh)
12,300
22
Notes
12,200
Cohen (2009)
8,00010,000
1620
Francis (1985)
5,00011,000
Lennard (2004)
9,400
18 [11]
SERI (1989)
7,200
Onshore, open-cycle
Vega (2002)
6,000
10
Vega (2002)
4,200
8,000
15
Note: LCOEs listed in this table are from the published literature. Underlying assumptions are not always known. Neither investment cost nor LCOE have been converted to 2005 USD.
6.7.5
Salinity gradients
Salinity gradient technologies are immature and current costs are not
available. Statkraft has estimated that the future LCOE for salinity gradients power may fall in the same range as other more mature renewable
technologies, such as wind, based on their current hydropower knowledge, general desalination (reverse osmosis) engineering and a specic
membrane technology. Achieving competitive costs will, however, be
dependent on the development of reliable, large-scale and low-cost membranes. Statkraft estimates that investment costs will be much higher
than other RE technologies, but that capacity factors could be very high,
with 8,000 hours of operation annually (Scrmest et al., 2009).
6.8
Potential deployment30
Ocean energy may offer the potential for long-term carbon emissions
reduction but is unlikely to make a signicant short-term contribution
before 2020 due to its nascent stage of development. In 2009, additionally installed ocean capacity was less than 10 MW worldwide (Renewable
UK, 2010), yielding a cumulative installed capacity of about 300 MW
(REN21, 2010) at present.
6.8.1
Until about 2008, ocean energy was not considered in any of the
major energy scenario modelling activities worldwide and therefore
its potential impact on future world energy supplies and climate
change mitigation is just now beginning to be investigated. As such,
the results of the published scenarios literature as it relates to ocean
30 Complementary perspectives on potential deployment based on a comprehensive
assessment of numerous model-based scenarios of the energy system are presented
in Chapter 10 and Sections 10.2 and 10.3 of this report.
526
Chapter 6
Ocean Energy
Table 6.5 | Main characteristics of medium- to long-term scenarios from major published studies that include ocean energy.
Deployment TWh/yr (PJ/yr)
Scenario
Source
GW
2010
2020
2030
2050
2050
11
(36.6)
25
(90)
Notes
N/A
No policy changes
N/A
3
(10.8)
Energy [R]evolution
N/A
53
(191)
128
(461)
678
(2,440)
303
N/A
119
(428)
420
(1,512)
1943
(6,994)
748
WEO 2009
(IEA, 2009)
N/A
3
(10.8)
13
(46.8)
N/A
N/A
(IEA, 2010)
N/A
N/A
N/A
133
(479)
N/A
(IEA, 2010)
N/A
N/A
N/A
274
(986)
N/A
(IEA, 2010)
N/A
N/A
N/A
99
(356)
N/A
(IEA, 2010)
N/A
N/A
N/A
552
(1,987)
N/A
(IEA, 2010)
N/A
N/A
N/A
401
(1,444)
N/A
6.8.2
Near-term forecasts
6.8.3
527
Ocean Energy
sites are globally dispersed over all coastal boundaries, for example, but
the availability of mid-latitude sites (30 to 60) with lower levels of
seasonal variation, adequate incident wave energy, and that are close
to load centres may become a barrier in some regions under high penetration scenarios or in populated areas with competing uses. Similarly,
limited site availability may prevent widespread deployment of tidal
power plants, tidal current energy and ocean current energy beyond certain areas, while OTEC and salinity gradient opportunities are also not
equally distributed globally.
Regional deployment: Whether the more ambitious levels of deployment considered in Table 6.5 are feasible will depend, in part, on whether
locations of ocean energy resource potential are correlated with areas
that demand ocean energy services. Wave and tidal energy technologies
are under development in countries bordering the North Atlantic and
North Pacic, as well as Australasia, where government-sponsored programmes support R&D and deployments, with pro-active policy incentives
to promote early-stage projects. OTEC projects are likely to be developed
off the coasts of tropical islands and states. Tidal current, ocean current
and salinity gradient projects are most likely to be limited to specic
locations where resource quality is strong. These locations are likely to
become more numerous and widespread as the efciencies of these technologies mature. Overall, while technical potential is not anticipated to
be a primary global barrier to ocean energy deployment, resource characteristics will require that local communities in the future select among
multiple available ocean technologies to suit local resource conditions.
Chapter 6
Supply chain issues: Wave, tidal current and some other ocean energy
technologies require a sophisticated O&M infrastructure of sufcient
scale to be cost effective. Different technologies require different support vessels due to differences in insertion and extraction methods. Until
there is a critical mass of deployment for some of the ocean technologies,
lack of sufcient infrastructure could be a signicant barrier to industry
growth. Some benets may be realized from offshore wind energy development, which may contribute to this infrastructure requirement (in terms
of deployment vessels, moorings and export cable access) in advance of
signicant ocean energy deployment.
6.8.4
528
Chapter 6
Ocean Energy
the range of potential ocean energy technology subtypes, with better data
for resource potential, present and future investment costs, O&M costs and
anticipated capacity factors. Improving the availability of the data at global
and regional scales will be an important ingredient to improve coverage of
ocean energy in the scenarios literature (see also Section 10.2.4).
529
Ocean Energy
References
Chapter 6
Buckley, W.H. (2005). Extreme Waves for Ship and Offshore Platform Design: An
Overview. T&R Report, Society of Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering,
Jersey City, NJ, USA, pp. 7-30.
BWEA (2005). BWEA Brieng Sheet. Wind Turbine Technology. British Wind Energy
Association, London, UK.
California Energy Commission (2010). California Renewable Energy Transmission
Initiative. California Energy Commission, Sacramento, CA, USA.
Callaghan, J. (2006). Future Marine Energy - Results of the Marine Energy Challenge:
Cost Competitiveness and Growth of Wave and Tidal Stream Energy. CTC601,
Aqua-RET (2008). Case study European OWC pilot plant Pico/Azores Aquatic
Charlier, R.H., and J.R. Justus (1993). Ocean Energies: Environmental, Economic
ions.net/les/tr_downloads/Aquaret_Pico_OWC.pdf.
AWATEA (2008). Marine Energy Supply Chain: 2008 Directory. Aotearoa Wave and
Tidal Energy Association, Wellington, New Zealand.
Baker, A.C. (1991). Tidal Power. Peter Peregrinus Ltd. (pub.), London, UK.
Barber, N.F., and F. Ursell (1948). The generation and propagation of ocean waves
and swell. I. Wave periods and velocities. Philosophical transactions of the Royal
527.
Battin, J. (2004). When good animals love bad habitats. Conservation Biology, 18(6),
pp. 1482-1491.
Bedard , R., M. Previsic, and A. Casavant (2006). North America Tidal In-Stream
Energy Conversion. Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA, USA.
Bernitsas, M.M., K. Raghavan, Y. Ben-Simon, and E.M.H. Garcia (2006). VIVACE
(Vortex Induced Vibration Aquatic Clean Energy): A New Concept in Generation
of Clean and Renewable Energy from Fluid Flow. In: Proceedings of the 25th
Cooper, D.J., L.J. Meyer, and R.J. Varley (2009). OTEC Commercialization
06), Paper #92645, 4-9 June 2006, Hamburg, Germany. American Society of
Mechanical Engineers, New York, NY, USA.
Binnie Black & Veatch (2001). The commercial prospect of tidal stream power.
ETSU - T/06/00209/REP, UK Department of Trade and Industry New & Renewable
Energy Programme in association with IT Power Ltd., London, UK.
Boehlert, G.W., and A.B. Gill (2010). Environmental and ecological effects of ocean
renewable energy development: A current synthesis. Oceanography, 23: 68-81.
Boehlert, G.W., G.R. McMurray, and C.E. Tortorici (2007). Ecological Effects
Denniss, T. (2005). Energetech Wave Energy System. Doc No. 05-0145 Oahu Power
Plant LOL T-12, Hawaii Public Utilities Commission, Honolulu, HI, USA.
Ecofys (2007). Energie uit zout en zoet water met osmose: Een visualisatie bij de
Afsluitdijk. Ecofys Netherlands B.V., Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Bosc, J. (1997). Les groupes bulbes de la Rance aprs trente ans dexploitation :
Engineering Business (2003). Stingray Tidal Stream Energy Device Phase 2. Report
Retour dexprience; The Rance bulb turbines after 30 years service: feedback of
prepared for the DTI New and Renewable Energy Programme T/06/00218/00/
REP; URN 03/1433. The Crown Publishing Group, New York, NY, USA.
EOEA (2010). Oceans of Energy: European Ocean Energy Roadmap 2010-2050.
European Ocean Energy Association, Brussels, Belgium.
530
Chapter 6
Ocean Energy
Khan, J., and G.S. Bhuyan (2009). Ocean Energy: Global Technology Development
Status. Report prepared by Powertech Labs for the IEA-OES, Document T0104,
ETSAP (2010a). Marine Energy Technology Brief E13 - May, 2010. Energy Technology
Systems Analysis Program, Paris, France.
ETSAP (2010b). Marine Energy Technology Brief E13 - November, 2010. Energy
Technology Systems Analysis Program, Paris, France.
Falco, A. (2009). The development of wave energy utilization. In: 2008 Annual
Falco, A., C. Travassos, N. Marques, and R. Martino (2000). The shoreline OWC
wave power plant at the Azores. In: Proceedings of the 4th European Wave Power
Conference, Aalborg, Denmark, December 2000, Paper B1.
Francis, E.J. (1985). Economics of OTEC. Report prepared for the Solar Energy
Research Institute, Golden, CO, USA, 126 pp.
Friends of the Earth (2004). Severn Barrage or Tidal Lagoons? A Comparison.
Brieng, Friends of the Earth Cymru, Cardiff, Wales.
Garrett, C., and P. Cummins (2005). The Power potential of tidal currents in channels. Proceedings of the Royal Society A, 461, pp. 2563-2572.
Garrett, C., and P. Cummins (2008). Limits to tidal current power. Renewable
Energy, 33, pp. 2485-2490.
for Estimating Tidal Current Energy Resources and Power Production by Tidal
VirLib/MR0701.pdf.
Lang, F. (2008). The Rance Tidal Power Plant: review of 40-years operation, environmental effects. In: 2nd International Conference on Ocean Energy, Brest, France,
15-17 October 2008.
Leaman, K.D., R.L. Molinari, and P.S. Vertes (1987). Structure and variability of the
OES-IA, Report T02-2.1, OES-IA Annex II: Task 2.1, Implementing Agreement for
Lennard, D.E. (ed.) (2004). Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion. In: 2004 Survey of
Liu, Z., H. Shi, and B.-S. Hyan (2009). Practical design and investigation of the
IEA (2009). World Energy Outlook 2009. International Energy Agency, Paris, France,
696 pp.
IEA (2010). Energy Technology Perspectives 2010. Scenarios and Strategies to 2050.
International Energy Agency, Paris, France, 708 pp.
Johns, E., W.D. Wilson, and R.L. Molinari (1999). Direct observations of velocity
and transport in the passages between the Intra-Americas Sea and the Atlantic
Ocean, 1984-1996. Journal of Geophysical Research, 104(C11), pp. 25805-25820.
breakwater facility in China. In: Proceedings of the 8th European Wave and
Tidal Energy Conference (EWTEC), Uppsala, Sweden, 7-10 September 2009, pp.
304-308.
Loeb, S., and R.S. Norman (1975). Osmotic power plants. Science, 189(4203), pp.
654-655.
Mackay, D.J.C. (2008). Sustainable Energy Without the Hot Air. UIT Cambridge
Ltd., Cambridge, UK.
Karsten, R.H., J.M. McMillan, M.J. Lickley, and R.D. Haynes (2008). Assessment
MEG (2009). Marine Energy Road Map. Marine Energy Group, Forum for Renewable
of tidal current energy in the Minas Passage, Bay of Fundy. Proceedings of the
www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/281865/0085187.pdf.
pp. 493-507.
531
Ocean Energy
Chapter 6
Peyrard, C., C. Buvat, F. Lafon, and C. Abonnel (2006). Investigations of the wake
effects in marine current farms through numerical modelling with the telemac
Puerto Rico, Fajardo, Puerto Rico, 7-8 August 2008. Available at: www.ofnf.com/
EnviroSocialCIAPR.pdf.
MCCIP (2008). Marine Climate Change Impacts Annual Report Card 20072008.
Plocek, T.J., M. Laboy, and J.A. Marti (2009). Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion
Lowestoft, UK.
Miller, A.K. (2010). Cold Water Pipe. In: Technical Readiness of Ocean Thermal
Pontes, M.T., and M. Bruck (2008). Using remote sensed data for wave energy
docs/otectech1109.pdf.
MMS (2006). Technology White Paper on Ocean Current Energy Potential on the U.S.
Pontes, M.T., and A. Candelria (2009). Wave Data Catalogue for Resource
Alternate Use Program, U.S Department of the Interior, Washington, DC, USA.
Assessment of IEA-OES Member Countries. Report from INETI for the IEA-OES,
pdf.
Mrk, G., S. Barstow, M.T. Pontes, and A. Kabuth (2010). Assessing the global
wave energy potential. In: Proceedings of OMAE2010 (ASME), 29th International
Conference on Ocean, Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, Shanghai,
China, 6-11 June 2010.
Mueller, M., and H. Jeffrey (2008). UKERC Marine (Wave and Tidal Current)
Renewable Energy Technology Roadmap: Summary Report. UK Energy Research
Centre, University of Edinburgh, Scotland.
NASA (2006). TOPEX/Poseidon: Revealing Hidden Tidal Energy. NASA Goddard Space
Flight Center Scientic Visualization Studio, Greenbelt, Maryland. Available at:
svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/stories/topex/.
Nicholls-Lee, R.F., S.R. Turnock, and S.W. Boyd (2008). Performance prediction
org/_ch/6/Wave_Data_Catalogue-_9_April__2009_(1).pdf.
Previsic, M. (2004). System Level Design, Performance, and Costs of California
Pelamis Wave Power Plant. Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA, USA.
Pugh, D.T. (1987). Tides, Surges and Mean-Sea Level: A Handbook for Engineers and
Scientists. Wiley, Chichester, UK.
Ravindran, M., and A. Raju (2002). The Indian 1 MW demonstration OTEC plant and
the development activities. In: OCEANS 02 MTS/IEEE, Biloxi, Mississippi, 29-31
October 2002, 3, pp. 1622-1628.
Ravindran, M., V. Jayashankar, P. Jalihal, and A.G. Pathak (1997). The Indian
wave energy program - An overview. TERI Information Digest on Energy, 7(3),
pp. 173-188.
of a free stream tidal turbine with composite bend-twist coupled blades. In:
Latitude, 79.50 West Longitude for Ocean Current Power Generation. M.S.
Thesis, College of Engineering, Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, FL, USA.
Relini, G., M. Relini, and M. Montanari (2000). An offshore buoy as a small articial
Nihous, G.C. (2009). Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion (OTEC) and derivative
technologies: Status of development and prospects. In: 2008 Annual Report.
A. Brito-Melo and G. Bhuyan (eds.). International Energy Agency Implementing
Agreement on Ocean Energy Systems, Lisboa, Portugal, pp. 47-51.
Nihous, G.C. (2010). Mapping available Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion resources
around the main Hawaiian Islands with state-of-the-art tools. Journal of
Renewable and Sustainable Energy, 2, 043104.
Nihous, G.C., and L.A. Vega (1993). Design of a 100 MW OTEC-hydrogen plantship.
Marine Structures, 6(2-3), pp. 207-221.
Niiler, P.P., and W.S. Richardson (1973). Seasonal variability of the Florida Current.
Journal of Marine Research, 31, pp. 144-167.
Paik, D.H. (2008). Progress of the Sihwa tidal Power Project in South Korea. In:
(2000). Energy resources. In: World Energy Assessment. Energy and the
Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, World Energy Council, New
York, USA, 508 pp.
Scrmest, O.S., S.-E. Skilhagen, and W.K. Nielsen (2009). Power production
based on osmotic pressure. In: Waterpower XVI, Spokane, WA, USA, 27-30 July
2009.
532
Chapter 6
Ocean Energy
UNFCCC (2005). Sihwa Tidal Power Plant CDM project. CDM PDD Document, Version
US DOE (2010). Energy Efciency and Renewable Energy Marine and Hydrokinetic
Climate Change. B. Metz, O.R. Davidson, P.R. Bosch, R. Dave and L.A. Meyer
kinetic/default.aspx.
Usachev, I.N. (2008). The outlook for world tidal power development. International
Journal on Hydropower and Dams, 15(5), pp. 100-105.
van den Ende, K., and F. Groeman (2007). Blue Energy. Leonardo Energy, KEMA
Consulting, Arnhem, The Netherlands. Available at: www.leonardo-energy.org/
webfm_send/161.
Van Walsum, E. (2003). Barriers to tidal power: Environmental effects. International
Water Power and Dam Construction, 55(10), pp. 38-43.
VanZwieten, J., F.R. Driscoll, A. Leonessa, and G. Deane (2005). Design of a
prototype ocean current turbinePart I: mathematical modeling and dynamics
simulation. Ocean Engineering, 33(11-12), pp. 1485-1521.
Stoutenburg, E.D., N. Jenkins, and M.Z. Jacobson (2010). Power output variations
Vega, L.A. (1999). Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion (OTEC): OTEC and the
cles/ ocean-thermal-energy-conversion-otec-by-l-a-vega-ph-d/.
Vega, L.A. (2002). Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion Primer. Marine Technology
Society Journal, 6(4 Winter), pp. 25-35.
Venezia, W.A., and J. Holt (1995). Turbine under Gulf Stream: potential energy
source. Sea Technology, 36(9), pp. 10-14.
Wang, C., and W. Lu (2009). Analysis Method and Reserves Estimation on Ocean
Energy Resources. Ocean Press, Beijing, China.
Willemse, R. (2007). Case 27: Blue Energy (salinity power) in the Netherlands. Create
Acceptance, Petten, The Netherlands.
Wiser, R., and M. Bolinger (2009). Wind Technologies Market Report. US
Department of Energy, Washington, DC, USA.
Wiser, R., and M. Bolinger (2010). 2009 Wind Technologies Market Report. US
Department of Energy, Washington, DC, USA.
World Energy Council (2000). World Energy Assessment. World Energy Council,
London, UK.
Zhang, L. and K. Sun (2007). Tidal current energy developments in China,
Implementing Agreement for a Co-operative Programme on Ocean Energy
Systems (OES-IA) Newsletter, May 2007, p. 2.
533
534
Chapter 7
Wind Energy
Coordinating Lead Authors:
Ryan Wiser (USA), Zhenbin Yang (China)
Lead Authors:
Maureen Hand (USA), Olav Hohmeyer (Germany), David Ineld (United Kingdom),
Peter H. Jensen (Denmark), Vladimir Nikolaev (Russia), Mark OMalley (Ireland),
Graham Sinden (United Kingdom/Australia), Arthouros Zervos (Greece)
Contributing Authors:
Nam Darghouth (USA), Dennis Elliott (USA), Garvin Heath (USA), Ben Hoen (USA),
Hannele Holttinen (Finland), Jason Jonkman (USA), Andrew Mills (USA),
Patrick Moriarty (USA), Sara Pryor (USA), Scott Schreck (USA), Charles Smith (USA)
Review Editors:
Christian Kjaer (Belgium/Denmark) and Fatemeh Rahimzadeh (Iran)
535
Wind Energy
Chapter 7
Table of Contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 542
7.2
7.2.1
7.2.2
7.2.2.1
7.2.2.2
7.2.3
7.3
7.3.1
7.3.1.1
7.3.1.2
7.3.1.3
7.3.2
7.3.3
7.4
7.4.1
7.4.2
7.4.3
7.4.4
7.5
7.5.1
7.5.2
7.5.2.1
7.5.2.2
536
............................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................
........................................................................................................................
556
556
560
Chapter 7
Wind Energy
7.5.2.3
7.5.2.4
7.5.3
7.5.3.1
7.5.3.2
7.5.4
7.5.4.1
7.5.4.2
7.5.4.3
7.5.4.4
7.6
7.6.1
7.6.1.1
7.6.1.2
7.6.1.3
7.6.1.4
7.6.2
7.6.2.1
7.6.2.2
7.6.2.3
7.6.3
7.6.3.1
7.6.3.2
7.6.3.3
7.6.3.4
7.6.4
7.6.5
7.7
7.7.1
7.7.2
7.7.3
7.7.3.1
7.7.3.2
..................................................................................................................
..............................................................................................
..........................................................................................................
576
576
578
537
Wind Energy
Chapter 7
7.7.3.3
7.7.3.4
7.7.3.5
7.7.3.6
7.7.4
7.8
Cost trends
7.8.1
7.8.2
7.8.2.1
7.8.2.2
7.8.2.3
7.8.3
7.8.3.1
7.8.3.2
7.8.3.3
7.8.3.4
7.8.4
7.8.4.1
7.8.4.2
7.8.4.3
7.9
7.9.1
7.9.2
7.9.3
..........................................................................................................................................
...................................................................................................
583
583
.............................................................................
591
..............................................................................................................
595
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 596
538
Chapter 7
Wind Energy
Executive Summary
Wind energy offers signicant potential for near-term (2020) and long-term (2050) greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions
reductions. A number of different wind energy technologies are available across a range of applications, but the primary
use of wind energy of relevance to climate change mitigation is to generate electricity from larger, grid-connected wind
turbines, deployed either on- or offshore. Focusing on these technologies, the wind power capacity installed by the end
of 2009 was capable of meeting roughly 1.8% of worldwide electricity demand, and that contribution could grow to in
excess of 20% by 2050 if ambitious efforts are made to reduce GHG emissions and to address the other impediments to
increased wind energy deployment. Onshore wind energy is already being deployed at a rapid pace in many countries,
and no insurmountable technical barriers exist that preclude increased levels of wind energy penetration into electricity
supply systems. Moreover, though average wind speeds vary considerably by location, ample technical potential exists
in most regions of the world to enable signicant wind energy deployment. In some areas with good wind resources,
the cost of wind energy is already competitive with current energy market prices, even without considering relative
environmental impacts. Nonetheless, in most regions of the world, policy measures are still required to ensure rapid
deployment. Continued advances in on- and offshore wind energy technology are expected, however, further reducing
the cost of wind energy and improving wind energys GHG emissions reduction potential.
The wind energy market has expanded rapidly. Modern wind turbines have evolved from small, simple machines
to large, highly sophisticated devices, driven in part by more than three decades of basic and applied research and
development (R&D). Typical wind turbine nameplate capacity ratings have increased dramatically since the 1980s, from
roughly 75 kW to 1.5 MW and larger; wind turbine rotors now often exceed 80 m in diameter and are positioned on
towers exceeding 80 m in height. The resulting cost reductions, along with government policies to expand renewable
energy (RE) supply, have led to rapid market development. From a cumulative capacity of 14 GW by the end of 1999,
global installed wind power capacity increased 12-fold in 10 years to reach almost 160 GW by the end of 2009. Most
additions have been onshore, but 2.1 GW of offshore capacity was installed by the end of 2009, with European countries embarking on ambitious programmes of offshore wind energy deployment. From 2000 through 2009, roughly 11%
of all global newly installed net electric capacity additions (in GW) came from new wind power plants; in 2009 alone,
that gure was likely more than 20%. Total investment in wind power plant installations in 2009 equalled roughly
USD2005 57 billion, while direct employment in the wind energy sector has been estimated at 500,000. Nonetheless, wind
energy remains a relatively small fraction of worldwide electricity supply, and growth has been concentrated in Europe,
Asia and North America. The top ve countries in cumulative installed capacity by the end of 2009 were the USA, China,
Germany, Spain and India. Policy frameworks continue to play a signicant role in wind energy utilization.
The global technical potential for wind energy exceeds current global electricity production. Estimates of
global technical potential range from a low of 70 EJ/yr (19,400 TWh/yr) (onshore only) to a high of 450 EJ/yr (125,000
TWh/yr) (onshore and near-shore) among those studies that consider relatively more development constraints. Estimates
of the technical potential for offshore wind energy alone range from 15 EJ/yr to 130 EJ/yr (4,000-37,000 TWh/yr) when
only considering relatively shallower and near-shore applications; greater technical potential is available if also considering deeper water applications that might rely on oating wind turbine designs. Economic constraints, institutional
challenges associated with transmission access and operational integration, and concerns about social acceptance and
environmental impacts are more likely to restrict growth than is the global technical potential. Ample technical potential
also exists in most regions of the world to enable signicant wind energy deployment relative to current levels. The
wind resource is not evenly distributed across the globe nor uniformly located near population centres, however, and
wind energy will therefore not contribute equally in meeting the needs of every country. Research into the effects of
global climate change on the geographic distribution and variability of the wind resource is nascent, but research to
date suggests that those effects are unlikely to be of a magnitude to greatly impact the global potential for wind
energy deployment.
539
Wind Energy
Chapter 7
Analysis and operational experience demonstrate that successful integration of wind energy is achievable.
Wind energy has characteristics that pose new challenges to electric system planners and operators, such as variable
electrical output, limited (but improving) output predictability, and locational dependence. Acceptable wind electricity
penetration limits and the operational costs of integration are system-specic, but wind energy has been successfully
integrated into existing electric systems; in four countries (Denmark, Portugal, Spain, Ireland), wind energy in 2010 was
already able to supply from 10 to roughly 20% of annual electricity demand. Detailed analyses and operating experience primarily from certain Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries suggest that,
at low to medium levels of wind electricity penetration (up to 20% of total electricity demand), the integration of wind
energy generally poses no insurmountable technical barriers and is economically manageable. Concerns about (and
the costs of) wind energy integration will grow with wind energy deployment, however, and even at lower penetration
levels, integration issues must be addressed. Active management through exible power generation technologies, wind
energy forecasting and output curtailment, and increased coordination and interconnection between electric systems
are anticipated. Mass market demand response, bulk energy storage technologies, large-scale deployment of electric
vehicles, diverting excess wind energy to fuel production or local heating and geographic diversication of wind power
plant siting will also become increasingly benecial as wind electricity penetration rises. Wind energy technology
advances driven by electric system connection standards will increasingly enable wind power plants to become more
active participants in maintaining the operability of the electric system. Finally, signicant new transmission infrastructure, both on- and offshore, may be required to access areas with higher-quality wind resources. At low to medium
levels of wind electricity penetration, the additional costs of managing variability and uncertainty, ensuring generation
adequacy and adding new transmission to accommodate wind energy have been estimated to generally be in the range
of US cents2005 0.7 to 3/kWh.
Environmental and social issues will affect wind energy deployment opportunities. The energy used and GHG
emissions produced in the direct manufacture, transport, installation, operation and decommissioning of wind turbines
are small compared to the energy generated and emissions avoided over the lifetime of wind power plants: the GHG
emissions intensity of wind energy is estimated to range from 8 to 20 g CO2 /kWh in most instances, whereas energy
payback times are between 3.4 to 8.5 months. In addition, managing the variability of wind power output has not been
found to signicantly degrade the GHG emissions benets of wind energy. Alongside these benets, however, wind
energy also has the potential to produce some detrimental impacts on the environment and on human activities and
well-being. The construction and operation of wind power plants impacts wildlife through bird and bat collisions and
through habitat and ecosystem modications, with the nature and magnitude of those impacts being site- and speciesspecic. For offshore wind energy, implications for benthic resources, sheries and marine life must also be considered.
Prominent social concerns include visibility/landscape impacts as well various nuisance effects and possible radar interference. Research is also underway on the potential impact of wind power plants on the local climate. As wind energy
deployment increases and as larger wind power plants are considered, these existing concerns may become more acute
and new concerns may arise. Though attempts to measure the relative impacts of various electricity supply technologies
suggest that wind energy generally has a comparatively small environmental footprint, impacts do exist. Appropriate
planning and siting procedures can reduce the impact of wind energy development on ecosystems and local communities, and techniques for assessing, minimizing and mitigating the remaining concerns could be further improved. Finally,
though community and scientic concerns should be addressed, more proactive planning, siting and permitting procedures may be required to enable more rapid growth in wind energy utilization.
Technology innovation can further reduce the cost of wind energy. Current wind turbine technology has been
developed largely for onshore applications, and has converged to three-bladed upwind rotors, with variable speed
operation. Though onshore wind energy technology is already commercially manufactured and deployed on a large
scale, continued incremental advances are expected to yield improved turbine design procedures, more efcient materials usage, increased reliability and energy capture, reduced operation and maintenance (O&M) costs and longer
540
Chapter 7
Wind Energy
component lifetimes. In addition, as offshore wind energy gains more attention, new technology challenges arise and
more radical technology innovations are possible (e.g., oating turbines). Wind turbine nameplate capacity ratings of 2
to 5 MW have been common for offshore wind power plants, but 10 MW and larger turbines are under consideration.
Advances can also be made through more fundamental research to better understand the operating environment in
which wind turbines must operate. For onshore wind power plants built in 2009, levelized generation costs in good
to excellent wind resource regimes are estimated to average US cents2005 5 to 10/kWh, reaching US cents2005 15/kWh
in lower resource areas. Offshore wind energy has typical levelized generation costs that are estimated to range from
US cents2005 10/kWh to more than US cents2005 20/kWh for recently built or planned plants located in relatively shallow
water. Reductions in the levelized cost of onshore wind energy of 10 to 30% by 2020 are often reported in the literature. Offshore wind energy is often found to have somewhat greater potential for cost reductions: 10 to 40% by 2020.
Wind energy offers signicant potential for near- and long-term GHG emissions reductions. Given the commercial maturity and cost of onshore wind energy technology, wind energy offers the potential for signicant near-term
GHG emissions reductions: this potential is not conditioned on technology breakthroughs, and no insurmountable
technical barriers exist that preclude increased levels of wind electricity penetration. As technology advances continue,
greater contributions to GHG emissions reductions are possible in the longer term. Based on a review of the literature
on the possible future contribution of RE supplies to meeting global energy needs under a range of GHG concentration
stabilization scenarios, wind energys contribution to global electricity supply could rise from 1.8% by the end of 2009
to 13 to 14% by 2050 in the median scenario for GHG concentration stabilization ranges of 440 to 600 and <440 ppm
CO2. At the 75th percentile of reviewed scenarios, and under similarly ambitious efforts to reduce GHG emissions, wind
energys contribution is shown to grow to 21 to 25% by 2050. Achieving the higher end of this range would be likely
to require not only economic support policies of adequate size and predictability, but also an expansion of wind energy
utilization regionally, increased reliance on offshore wind energy, technical and institutional solutions to transmission
constraints and operational integration concerns, and proactive efforts to mitigate and manage social and environmental concerns. Additional R&D is expected to lead to incremental cost reductions for onshore wind energy, and enhanced
R&D expenditures may be especially important for offshore wind energy technology. Finally, for those markets with
good wind resources but that are new to wind energy deployment, both knowledge and technology transfer may help
facilitate early wind power plant installations.
541
Wind Energy
7.1
Introduction
542
Chapter 7
The primary use of wind energy of relevance to climate change mitigation is to generate electricity from larger, grid-connected wind turbines,
deployed either in a great number of smaller wind power plants or a
smaller number of much larger plants. As of 2010, such turbines often
stand on tubular towers exceeding 80 m in height, with three-bladed
rotors that often exceed 80 m in diameter; commercial machines with
rotor diameters and tower heights in excess of 125 m are operating,
and even larger machines are under development. Wind power plants
are commonly sited on land (termed onshore in this chapter): by the
end of 2009, wind power plants sited in sea- or freshwater were a relatively small proportion of global wind power installations. Nonetheless,
as wind energy deployment expands and as the technology advances,
offshore wind energy is expected to become a more signicant source
of overall wind energy supply.
Due to their potential importance to climate change mitigation, this
chapter focuses on grid-connected on- and offshore wind turbines for
electricity production. Notwithstanding this focus, wind energy has
served and will continue to meet other energy service needs. In remote
areas of the world that lack centrally provided electricity supplies, smaller
wind turbines can be deployed alone or alongside other technologies
to meet individual household or community electricity demands; small
turbines of this nature also serve marine energy needs. Small island or
remote electricity grids can also employ wind energy, along with other
energy sources. Even in urban settings that already have ready access
to electricity, smaller wind turbines can, with careful siting, be used
to meet a portion of building energy needs. New concepts for higheraltitude wind energy machines are also under consideration. Moreover,
in addition to electricity supply, wind energy can meet mechanical and
propulsion needs in specic applications. Though not the focus of this
chapter, some of these additional applications and technologies are
briey summarized in Box 7.1.
Drawing on available literature, this chapter begins by describing the
global technical potential for wind energy, the regional distribution
of that resource, and the possible impacts of climate change on the
resource (Section 7.2). The chapter then reviews the status of and trends
in modern onshore and offshore wind energy technology (Section 7.3).
The chapter discusses the status of the wind energy market and industry
developments, both globally and regionally, and the impact of policies on those developments (Section 7.4). Near-term issues associated
with the integration of wind energy into electricity supply systems are
addressed (Section 7.5), as is available evidence on the environmental
and social impacts of wind energy (Section 7.6). The prospects for further technology improvement and innovation are summarized (Section
7.7), and historical, current and potential future cost trends are reviewed
(Section 7.8). Based on the underpinnings offered in previous sections,
the chapter concludes with an examination of the potential future
deployment of wind energy, focusing on the GHG reduction and energy
scenarios literature (Section 7.9).
Chapter 7
Wind Energy
7.2
Resource potential1
The theoretical potential for wind, as estimated by the global annual ux,
has been estimated at 6,000 EJ/yr (Rogner et al., 2000). The global technical potential for wind energy, meanwhile, is not xed, but is instead
1
See Annex I for denitions of the terms used to refer to various types of resource
potential.
543
Wind Energy
the globe, however, and a variety of other regional factors are likely to
restrict growth well before any absolute global technical resource limits
are encountered. As a result, wind energy will not contribute equally in
meeting the needs of every country.
This section summarizes available evidence on the size of the global
technical potential of the wind energy resource (Section 7.2.1), the
regional distribution of that resource (Section 7.2.2) and the possible
impacts of climate change on wind energy resources (Section 7.2.3). It
focuses on long-term average annual technical potential; for a discussion of interannual, seasonal and diurnal uctuations and patterns in
the wind resource, as well as shorter-term wind power output variability,
see Section 7.5.
7.2.1
Wind power plant developers may rely upon global and regional wind resource
estimates to obtain a general sense for the locations of potentially promising
development prospects. However, on-site collection of actual wind speed data
at or near turbine hub heights remains essential for most wind power plants of
signicant scale.
The IPCC (2007) cites Johansson et al. (2004), which obtains its data from UNDP/
UNEP/WEC (2000), which in turn references WEC (1994) and Grubb and Meyer
(1993). To convert from TWh to EJ, the documents cited by IPCC (2007) use the
standard conversion, and then divide by 0.3 (i.e.., a method of energy accounting
in which RE supply is assumed to substitute for the primary energy of fossil fuel inputs into fossil power plants, accounting for plant conversion efciencies). The direct
equivalent method does not take this last step, and instead counts the electricity
itself as primary energy (see Annex II), so this chapter reports the IPCC (2007) gure
at 180 EJ/y, or roughly 50,000 TWh/y.
544
Chapter 7
0.4% of the estimated technical potential) was being used for wind
energy supply in 2008 (IEA, 2010a).
More generally, a number of analyses have been undertaken to estimate
the global technical potential for wind energy. The methods and results
of these global assessmentssome of which include offshore wind
energy and some of which are restricted to onshore wind energyare
summarized in Table 7.1.
No standardized approach has been developed to estimate the global
technical potential of wind energy: the diversity in data, methods,
assumptions and even denitions for technical potential complicate
comparisons. Consequently, the studies show a wide range of results.
Specically, estimates of global technical potential range from a low of
70 EJ/yr (19,400 TWh/yr) (onshore only) to a high of 450 EJ/yr (125,000
TWh/yr) (onshore and near-shore) among those studies that consider
relatively more development constraints (identied as more constraints in the table). This range equals from roughly one to six times
global electricity production in 2008. If those studies that apply more
limited development constraints are also included, the absolute range
of technical potential is greater still, from 70 EJ/yr to 3,050 EJ/yr (19,400
to 840,000 TWh/yr). Results vary based in part on whether offshore wind
energy is included (and under what assumptions), the wind speed data
that are used, the areas assumed available for wind energy development, the rated output of wind turbines installed per unit of land area,
and the assumed performance of wind power plants. The latter is, in
part, related to hub height and turbine technology. These factors depend
on technical assumptions as well as subjective judgements of development constraints, thus there is no single correct estimate of technical
potential.
Though research has generally found the technical potential for offshore
wind energy to be smaller than for onshore wind energy, the technical
potential is nonetheless sizable. Three of the studies included in Table
7.1 exclude the technical potential of offshore wind energy; even those
studies that include offshore wind energy often do so only considering
the wind energy technology likely to be deployed in the near to medium
term in relatively shallower water and nearer to shore. In practice, the
size of the offshore wind energy resource is, at least theoretically, enormous, and constraints are primarily economic rather than technical.
In particular, water depth, accessibility and grid connection may limit
development to relatively near-shore locations in the medium term,
though technology improvements are expected, over time, to enable
deeper water and more remote installations. Even when only considering relatively shallower and near-shore applications, however, study
results span a range from 15 to 130 EJ/yr (4,000 to 37,000 TWh/yr),
Chapter 7
Wind Energy
Table 7.1 | Global assessments of the technical potential for wind energy.
Scope
Updated Hoogwijk and Graus (2008), itself based on Hoogwijk et al. (2004), by revising offshore
wind power plant spacing by 2050 to 16 MW/km2
(more constraints):
121,000 TWh/yr
440 EJ/yr
Lu et al. (2009)
>20% capacity factor (Class 1); 100 m hub height; 9 MW/km2 spacing; based on coarse simulated model data set; exclusions for urban and developed areas, forests, inland water, permanent
snow/ice; offshore assumes 100 m hub height, 6 MW/km2, <92.6 km from shore, <200m depth,
no other exclusions
Technical
(limited constraints):
840,000 TWh/yr
3,050 EJ/yr
Updated Hoogwijk et al. (2004) by incorporating offshore wind energy, assuming 100 m hub
height for onshore, and altering cost assumptions; for offshore, study updates and adds to earlier
analysis by Fellows (2000); other assumptions as listed below under Hoogwijk et al. (2004); constrained technical potential dened here in economic terms separately for onshore and offshore
Technical/Economic
(more constraints):
110,000 TWh/yr
400 EJ/yr
Study
Results2
Technical
WBGU (2004)
>Class 3; 80 m hub height; 9 MW/km2 spacing; 48% average capacity factor; based on wind
speeds from surface stations and balloon-launch monitoring stations; near-shore wind energy
effectively included because resource data includes buoys (see study for details); constrained
technical potential = 20% of total technical potential
Multi-MW turbines; based on interpolation of wind speeds from meteorological towers; exclusions for urban areas, forest areas, wetlands, nature reserves, glaciers, and sand dunes; local
exclusions accounted for through corrections related to population density; offshore to 40 m
depth, with sea ice and minimum distance to shore considered regionally; constrained technical
potential (authors dene as sustainable potential) = 14% of total technical potential
Technical
(limited constraints):
627,000 TWh/yr
2,260 EJ/yr
Technical
(more constraints):
125,000 TWh/yr
450 EJ/yr
Technical
(limited constraints):
278,000 TWh/yr
1,000 EJ/yr
Technical
(more constraints):
39,000 TWh/yr
140 EJ/yr
Relatively few studies have investigated the global offshore technical wind energy
resource potential, and neither Archer and Jacobson (2005) nor WBGU et al. (2004)
report offshore potential separately from the total technical potential reported in
Table 7.1. In one study of global technical potential considering development constraints, Leutz et al. (2001) estimate an offshore wind energy potential of 130 EJ/
yr (37,000 TWh/yr) at depths less than 50 m. Building from Fellows (2000) and
Hoogwijk and Graus (2008), Krewitt et al. (2009) estimate a global offshore wind
energy technical potential of 57 EJ/yr by 2050 (16,000 TWh/yr). (Fellows (2000)
provides an estimate of 15 EJ/yr, or more than 4,000 TWh/yr, whereas Hoogwijk and
Graus (2008) estimate 23 EJ/yr, or 6,100 TWh/yr; see Table 7.1 for assumptions.) In
another study, Siegfriedsen et al. (2003) calculate the technical potential of offshore
wind energy outside of Europe as 17 EJ/yr (4,600 TWh/yr). Considering greater water
depths and distances to shore, Lu et al. (2009) estimate an offshore wind energy
resource potential of 540 EJ/yr (150,000 TWh/yr) at water depths less than 200 m
and at distances less than 92.6 km from shore, of which 150 EJ/yr (42,000 TWh/
yr) is available at depths of less than 20 m, though this study does not consider as
many development constraints or exclusion zones as the other estimates listed here.
Capps and Zender (2010) similarly do not consider many development constraints
(except that the authors exclude all area within 30 km off shore), and nd that the
technical potential for offshore wind energy increases from 224 EJ/yr (62,000 TWh/
yr) to 1,260 EJ/yr (350,000 TWh/yr) when maximum water depth increases from 45
m to 200 m. A number of regional studies have been completed as well, including
(but not limited to) those that have estimated the size of the offshore wind energy
resource in the EU (Matthies et al., 1995; Delft University et al., 2001; EEA, 2009),
the USA (Kempton et al., 2007; Jiang et al., 2008; Schwartz et al., 2010) and China
(CMA, 2006; Xiao et al., 2010).
There are two main reasons to believe that some these studies of onand offshore wind energy may understate the global technical potential.
First, several of the studies are dated, and considerable advances have
occurred in both wind energy technology (e.g., hub height) and resource
assessment methods. Partly as a result, the more recent studies listed
in Table 7.1 often calculate larger technical potentials than the earlier
studies. Second, even some of the more recent studies may understate
the global technical potential for wind energy due to methodological
limitations. The global assessments described in this section often use relatively simple analytical techniques with coarse spatial resolutions, rely
on interpolations of wind speed data from a limited number (and quality)
of surface stations, and apply limited validation from wind speed measurements in prime wind resource areas. Enabled in part by an increase
in computing power, more sophisticated and ner geographic resolution atmospheric modelling approaches are beginning to be applied
(and increasingly validated with higher-quality measurement data) on
a country or regional basis, as described in more depth in Section 7.2.2.
Experience shows that these techniques have often identied greater
technical potential for wind energy than have earlier global assessments
(see Section 7.2.2).
There are, however, at least two other issues that may suggest that the
estimates of global technical potential have been overstated. First, global
545
Wind Energy
Study
Fellows (2000)
WEC (1994)
Chapter 7
Scope
Onshore
Onshore
Onshore
Results2
>4 m/s at 10 m (some less than Class 2); 69 m hub height; 4 MW/km2 spacing; assumptions for
availability / array efciency; based on interpolation of wind speeds from meteorological towers;
exclusions for elevations >2000 m, urban areas, nature reserves, certain forests; reductions in use
for many other land-uses; economic potential dened here as less than US cents2005 10/kWh
50 m hub height; 6 MW/km2 spacing; based on upper-air model data set; exclusions for urban
areas, forest areas, nature areas, water bodies and steep slopes; additional maximum density
criterion; offshore assumes 60 m hub height, 8 MW/km2 spacing, to 4 0m depth, 5 to 40 km from
shore, with 75% exclusion; constrained technical potential dened here in economic terms: less
than US cents2005 23/kWh in 2020; focus on four regions, with extrapolations to others; some
countries omitted altogether
>Class 3; 8 MW/km2 spacing; 23% average capacity factor; based on an early global wind
resource map; constrained technical potential = 4% of total technical potential
>Class 3; 50 m hub height; assumptions for conversion efciency and turbine spacing; based on
an early global wind resource map; exclusions for cities, forests and unreachable mountain areas,
as well as for social, environmental and land use constraints, differentiated by region (results in
constrained technical potential = ~10% of total technical potential, globally)
Technical
(more constraints):
96,000 TWh/yr
350 EJ/yr
Economic:
(more constraints):
53,000 TWh/yr
190 EJ/yr
Technical
(limited constraints):
484,000 TWh/yr
1,740 EJ/yr
Technical
(more constraints):
19,400 TWh/yr
70 EJ/yr
Technical
(limited constraints):
498,000 TWh/yr
1,800 EJ/yr
Technical
(more constraints):
53,000 TWh/yr
190 EJ/yr
Notes: 1. Where used, wind resource classes refer to the following wind power densities at a 50 m hub height: Class 1 (<200 W/m2), Class 2 (200-300 W/m2), Class 3 (300-400 W/
m2), Class 4 (400-500 W/m2), Class 5 (500-600 W/m2), Class 6 (600-800 W/m2) and Class 7 (>800 W/m2). 2. Reporting of resource potential and conversion between EJ and TWh
are based on the direct equivalent method (see Annex II). Denitions for theoretical, technical, economic, sustainable and market potential are provided in Annex I, though individual
authors cited in Table 7.1 often use different denitions of these terms. In particular, several of the studies included in the table report technical potential only below a maximum cost
threshold. These are identied as economic potential in the table though it is acknowledged that this denition differs from that provided in Annex I.
546
7.2.2
7.2.2.1
The global assessments presented in Section 7.2.1 reach varying conclusions about the relative technical potential for onshore wind energy among
different regions, with Table 7.2 summarizing results from a subset of these
assessments. Differences in the regional results from these studies are due
to differences in wind speed data and key input parameters, including the
minimum wind speed assumed to be exploitable, land use constraints,
density of wind energy development, and assumed wind power plant
performance (Hoogwijk et al., 2004); differing regional categories also
Chapter 7
Wind Energy
Table 7.2 | Regional allocation of global technical potential for onshore wind energy.1
Grubb and Meyer (1993)
WEC (1994)
Lu et al. (2009)
Region
Region
Region
Region
Western Europe
Western Europe
OECD Europe
OECD Europe
%
4
North America
26
North America
26
42
North America
22
Latin America
10
11
Latin America
10
Latin America
9
26
20
22
Transition Economies
17
Africa
20
Sub-Saharan Africa
17
Australia
OECD Pacic
14
Oceania
13
Rest of Asia
Pacic
14
Rest of Asia
Rest of Asia
Rest of Asia
Notes: 1. Regions shown in the table are dened by each individual study. Some regions have been combined to improve comparability among the four studies. 2. Hoogwijk and Graus
(2008) and Hoogwijk et al. (2004) show similar results.
Central America, West Africa, the USA and the Middle East. Areas in which
onshore wind energy technical potential was estimated to be less than a
two-fold multiple of 1996 electricity consumption were South Asia (1.9),
Western Europe (1.6), East Asia (1.1), South Africa (1), Eastern Europe (1),
South East Asia (0.1) and Japan (0.1), though again, caution is warranted
in interpreting these results. More recent resource assessments and data
on regional electricity consumption would alter these gures.
The estimates reported in Table 7.2 exclude offshore wind energy technical potential. Ignoring deeper water applications, Krewitt et al. (2009)
estimate that of the 57 EJ/yr (16,000 TWh/yr) of technical offshore
resource potential by 2050, the largest opportunities exist in OECD
Europe (22% of global potential), the rest of Asia (21%), Latin America
(18%) and the transition economies (16%), with lower but still signicant technical potential in North America (12%), OECD Pacic (6%) and
Africa and the Middle East (4%).
Overall, these studies nd that ample technical potential exists in most
regions of the world to enable signicant wind energy deployment relative to current levels. The wind resource is not evenly distributed across
the globe, however, and a variety of other regional factors (e.g., distance
of resource from population centres, grid integration, social acceptance)
are likely to restrict growth well before any absolute limit to the technical potential of wind energy is encountered. As a result, wind energy will
not contribute equally in meeting the energy needs and GHG reduction
demands of every region or country.
7.2.2.2
The global wind resource assessments described above have historically relied primarily on relatively coarse and imprecise estimates of the
wind resource, sometimes relying heavily on measurement stations with
relatively poor exposure to the wind (Elliott, 2002; Elliott et al., 2004).5
5
Figure 7.1 | Example global wind resource map with 5 km x 5 km resolution (3TIER,
2009).
547
Wind Energy
For the latest publicly available European wind resource map, see www.windatlas.
dk/Europe/Index.htm. Publicly available assessments for individual EU countries are
summarized in EWEA (2009); see also EEA (2009).
A large number of publicly available US wind resource maps have been produced
at the national and state levels, many of which have subsequently been validated
by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (see www.windpoweringamerica.gov/
wind_maps.asp).
See http://swera.unep.net/.
See go.worldbank.org/OTU2DVLIV0.
10 See www.omenergie.com/.
11 See www.nrel.gov/wind/international_wind_resources.html.
12 See www.windatlas.dk/World/About.html.
548
Chapter 7
efciencies (see, e.g., Elliott, 2002; Elliot et al., 2004). Nevertheless, even
greater spatial and temporal resolution and enhanced validation of
model results with observational data are needed, as is an expanded
geographic coverage of these assessments (see, e.g., Schreck et al.,
2008; IEA, 2009). These developments will allow further renement of
estimates of the technical potential, and are likely to highlight regions
with high-quality technical potential that have not previously been
identied.
7.2.3
Chapter 7
Wind Energy
Wind Power
Density [W/m2]
800
750
700
650
600
550
500
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
V<3
4<V<5
3<V<4
6<V<7
5<V<6
8<V<9
7<V<8
V>9
Figure 7.2 | Wind resource maps for (left panel) China (Xiao et al., 2010) and (right panel) Russia, CIS, and the Baltic (Nikolaev et al., 2010).
2010), and whether that variability will change as the global climate
continues to evolve, is also being investigated.
Finally, the prevalence of extreme winds and the probability of icing
have implications for wind turbine design and operation (X. Wang et
al., 2009). Preliminary studies from northern and central Europe show
some evidence of increased wind speed extremes (Pryor et al., 2005;
Haugen and Iversen, 2008; Leckebusch et al., 2008), though changes
in the occurrence of inherently rare events are difcult to quantify, and
further research is warranted. Sea ice can impact turbine foundation
549
Wind Energy
Chapter 7
loading for offshore plants, and changes in sea ice and/or permafrost
conditions may also inuence access for performing wind power plant
O&M (Laakso et al., 2003). One study focusing on northern Europe
found substantial declines in sea ice under reasonable climate change
scenarios (Claussen et al., 2007). Other meteorological drivers of turbine
loading may also be inuenced by climate change but are likely to be
secondary in comparison to changes in resource magnitude, weather
extremes, and icing issues (Pryor and Barthelmie, 2010).
Power in
Wind
Rated Power
Power Captured
7.3
7.3.1
7.3.1.1
Generating electricity from the wind requires that the kinetic energy of
moving air be converted to mechanical and then electrical energy, thus
the engineering challenge for the wind energy industry is to design costeffective wind turbines and power plants to perform this conversion.
The amount of kinetic energy in the wind that is theoretically available
for extraction increases with the cube of wind speed. However, a turbine
only captures a portion of that available energy (see Figure 7.3).
550
Rotor RPM
Power
Wind Speed
Cut-In Speed
Region I
Region II
Rated Speed
Cut-Out Speed
Region III
Figure 7.3 | Conceptual power curve for a modern variable-speed wind turbine (US
DOE, 2008).
Chapter 7
Wind Energy
7.3.1.2
In the 1980s, larger machines were rated at around 100 kW and primarily
relied on aerodynamic blade stall to control power production from the
xed blades. These turbines generally operated at one or two rotational
speeds. As turbine size increased over time, development went from stall
control to full-span pitch control in which turbine output is controlled by
pitching (i.e., rotating) the blades along their long axis (EWEA, 2009). In
addition, a reduction in the cost of power electronics allowed variable
speed wind turbine operation. Initially, variable speeds were used to
smooth out the torque uctuations in the drive train caused by wind
turbulence and to allow more efcient operation in variable and gusty
winds. More recently, almost all electric system operators require the
continued operation of large wind power plants during electrical faults,
together with being able to provide reactive power: these requirements
have accelerated the adoption of variable-speed operation with power
electronic conversion (see Section 7.3.3 for a summary of power conversion technologies, Section 7.5 for a fuller discussion of electric system
integration issues, and Chapter 8 for a discussion of reactive power and
broader issues with respect to the integration of RE into electricity systems). Modern wind turbines typically operate at variable speeds using
full-span blade pitch control. Blades are commonly constructed with
composite materials, and towers are usually tubular steel structures that
taper from the base to the nacelle at the top (EWEA, 2009).
Over the past 30 years, average wind turbine size has grown signicantly (Figure 7.6), with the largest fraction of onshore wind turbines
installed globally in 2009 having a rated capacity of 1.5 to 2.5 MW; the
average size of turbines installed in 2009 was 1.6 MW (BTM, 2010). As
of 2010, wind turbines used onshore typically stand on 50- to 100-m
towers, with rotors that are often 50 to 100 m in diameter; commercial
Horizontal-Axis Turbines
Vertical-Axis Turbines
Figure 7.4 | Early wind turbine designs, including horizontal and vertical axis turbines (South et al., 1983).
551
Wind Energy
Chapter 7
Rotor Blade
Wind
Direction
D
ireectio
io
on
on
FFor
or aan
n
Upwind
Rotor
Wind
Direction
Nacelle with
Gearbox and
Generator
Low-Speed
Shaft
Rotor
Diameter
Swept Area
of Blades
Gear Box
Pitch
Generator
Rotor
Hub
Controller
Anemometer
Wind
Direction
Brake
Hub
Height
Yaw
Drive
Blades
Yaw
Motor
Tower
Tower
High-Speed
Shaft
Nacelle
Wind Vane
Transformer
Figure 7.5 | Basic components of a modern, horizontal-axis wind turbine with a gearbox (Design by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL)).
machines with rotor diameters and tower heights in excess of 125 m are
operating, and even larger machines are under development. Modern
turbines operate with rotational speeds ranging from 12 to 20 revolutions per minute (RPM), which compares to the faster and potentially
more visually disruptive speeds exceeding 60 RPM common of the
smaller turbines installed during the 1980s.13 Onshore wind turbines
are typically grouped together into wind power plants, sometimes also
called wind projects or wind farms. These wind power plants are often 5
to 300 MW in size, though smaller and larger plants do exist.
The main reason for the continual increase in turbine size to this point
has been to minimize the levelized generation cost of wind energy
13 Rotational speed decreases with larger rotor diameters. The acoustic noise resulting
from tip speeds greater than 70 to 80 m/s is the primary design criterion that governs
rotor speed.
552
Chapter 7
Wind Energy
320
250m
20,000kW
300
280
260
Future Wind
Turbines
150m
10,000kW
240
220
125m
5,000kW
200
180
100m
3,000kW
160
140
120
100
80m
1,800kW
50m
750kW
80
60
40
70m
1,500kW
17m
75kW
30m
300kW
20
0
1980- 19901990 1995
19952000
20002005
20052010
2010-?
2010-?
Future
Future
Figure 7.6 | Growth in size of typical commercial wind turbines (Design by NREL).
As a result of these and other developments, onshore wind energy technology is already being commercially manufactured and deployed on a
large scale. Moreover, modern wind turbines have nearly reached the
theoretical maximum of aerodynamic efciency, with the coefcient of
performance rising from 0.44 in the 1980s to about 0.50 by the mid
2000s.14 The value of 0.50 is near the practical limit dictated by the
drag of aerofoils and compares with the Lanchester-Betz theoretical
limit of 0.593 (see Section 7.3.1.1). The design requirement for wind
turbines is normally 20 years with 4,000 to 7,000 hours of operation
(at and below rated power) each year depending on the characteristics
of the local wind resource. Given the challenges of reliably meeting this
design requirement, O&M teams work to maintain high plant availability despite component failure rates that have, in some instances, been
higher than expected (Echavarria et al., 2008). Though wind turbines are
reportedly under-performing in some contexts (Li, 2010), data collected
through 2008 show that modern onshore wind turbines in mature markets can achieve an availability of 97% or more (Blanco, 2009; EWEA,
2009; IEA, 2009).
These results demonstrate that the technology has reached sufcient
commercial maturity to allow large-scale manufacturing and deployment. Nonetheless, additional advances to improve reliability, increase
electricity production and reduce costs are anticipated, and are discussed
in Section 7.7. Additionally, most of the historical technology advances
have occurred in developed countries. Increasingly, however, developing
countries are investigating the use of wind energy, and opportunities for
14 Wind turbines achieve maximum aerodynamic efciency when operating at wind
speeds corresponding to power levels below the rated power level (see Region II in
Figure 7.3). Aerodynamic efciency is limited by the control system when operating
at speeds above rated power (see Region III in Figure 7.3).
7.3.1.3
The rst offshore wind power plant was built in 1991 in Denmark,
consisting of eleven 450 kW wind turbines. Offshore wind energy technology is less mature than onshore, and has higher investment and
O&M costs (see Section 7.8). By the end of 2009, just 1.3% of global
installed wind power capacity was installed offshore, totalling 2,100
MW (GWEC, 2010a).
The primary motivation to develop offshore wind energy is to provide access
to additional wind resources in areas where onshore wind energy development is constrained by limited technical potential and/or by planning
and siting conicts with other land uses. Other motivations for developing
offshore wind energy include: the higher-quality wind resources located
at sea (e.g., higher average wind speeds and lower shear near hub height;
wind shear refers to the general increase in wind speed with height);
the ability to use even larger wind turbines due to avoidance of certain
land-based transportation constraints and the potential to thereby gain
additional economies of scale; the ability to build larger power plants than
onshore, gaining plant-level economies of scale; and a potential reduction
in the need for new, long-distance, land-based transmission infrastructure
553
Wind Energy
554
Chapter 7
lower than used for onshore wind power plants due to reduced wind
shear offshore relative to onshore.
Lower power plant availabilities and higher O&M costs have been common for offshore wind energy relative to onshore wind both because of
the comparatively less mature state of offshore wind energy technology
and because of the inherently greater logistical challenges of maintaining and servicing offshore turbines (Carbon Trust, 2008b; UKERC, 2010).
Wind energy technology specically tailored for offshore applications
will become more prevalent as the offshore market expands, and it is
expected that larger turbines in the 5 to 10 MW range may come to
dominate this market segment (EU, 2008). Future technical advancement possibilities for offshore wind energy are described in Section 7.7.
7.3.2
Wind turbines in the 1970s and 1980s were designed using simplied
design models, which in some cases led to machine failures and in other
cases resulted in design conservatism. The need to address both of these
issues, combined with advances in computer processing power, motivated designers to improve their calculations during the 1990s (Quarton,
1998; Rasmussen et al., 2003). Improved design and testing methods
have been codied in International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC)
standards, and the rules and procedures for Conformity Testing and
Certication of Wind Turbines (IEC, 2010) relies upon these standards.
Certication agencies rely on accredited design and testing bodies to
provide traceable documentation of the execution of rules and specications outlined in the standards in order to certify turbines, components
or entire wind power plants. The certication system assures that a wind
turbine design or wind turbines installed in a given location meet common guidelines relating to safety, reliability, performance and testing.
Figure 7.7(a) illustrates the design and testing procedures required to
obtain a wind-turbine type certication. Plant certication, shown in
Figure 7.7(b), requires a type certicate for the turbine and includes procedures for evaluating site conditions and turbine design parameters
associated with that specic site, as well as other site-specic conditions
including soil properties, installation and plant commissioning.
Insurance companies, nancing institutions and power plant owners
normally require some form of certication for plants to proceed, and
the IEC standards therefore provide a common basis for certication to
reduce uncertainty and increase the quality of wind turbine products
available in the market (EWEA, 2009). In emerging markets, the lack of
highly qualied testing laboratories and certication bodies limits the
opportunities for manufacturers to obtain certication according to IEC
standards and may lead to lower-quality products. As markets mature
and design margins are compressed to reduce costs, reliance on internationally recognized standards is likely to become even more widespread
to assure consistent performance, safety and reliability of wind turbines.
Chapter 7
Wind Energy
Site Conditions
Assessment
Design Basis
Evaluation
Type Certicate
Design Basis
Evaluation
Design
Evaluation
Foundation Design
Evaluation
Manufacturing
Evaluation
Foundation
Manufacturing
Evaluation
Integrated Load
Analysis
Wind Turbine/RNA
Design Evaluation
Support Structure
Design Evaluation
Other Installations
Design Evaluation
Wind Turbine/RNA
Manuf. Surveillance
Support Structure
Manuf. Surveillance
Other Installations
Manuf. Surveillance
Type Testing
Transportation &
Install Surveillance
Type Characteristics
Measurements
Commissioning
Surveillance
Project Characteristics
Measurements
Final Evaluation
Optional Module
Final Evaluation
Optional Module
Type Certicate
Project Certicate
Operational &
Maintainance Surveillance
Figure 7.7 | Modules for (a) turbine type certication and (b) wind power plant certication (IEC, 2010).
Notes: RNA refers to Rotor Nacelle Assembly. The authors thank the IEC for permission to reproduce information from its International Standard IEC 61400-22 ed.1.0 (2010). All such
extracts are copyright of IEC, Geneva, Switzerland. All rights reserved. Further information on the IEC is available from www.iec.ch. IEC has no responsibility for the placement and
context in which the extracts and contents are reproduced by the authors, nor is IEC in any way responsible for the other content or accuracy therein. Copyright 2010 IEC Geneva,
Switzerland, www.iec.ch.
7.3.3
555
Wind Energy
Chapter 7
7.4
The wind energy market expanded substantially in the 2000s, demonstrating the commercial and economic viability of the technology and
industry, and the importance placed on wind energy development by
a number of countries through policy support measures. Wind energy
expansion has been concentrated in a limited number of regions, however, and wind energy remains a relatively small fraction of global
electricity supply. Further expansion of wind energy, especially in regions
of the world with little wind energy deployment to date and in offshore
locations, is likely to require additional policy measures.
This section summarizes the global (Section 7.4.1) and regional (Section
7.4.2) status of wind energy deployment, discusses trends in the wind
energy industry (Section 7.4.3) and highlights the importance of policy
actions for the wind energy market (Section 7.4.4).
7.4.1
The majority of the capacity has been installed onshore, with offshore
installations constituting a small proportion of the total market. About 2.1
GW of offshore wind turbines were installed by the end of 2009; 0.6 GW
were installed in 2009, including the rst commercial offshore wind power
plant outside of Europe, in China (GWEC, 2010a). Many of these offshore
installations have taken place in the UK and Denmark. Signicant offshore
wind power plant development activity, however, also exists in, at a minimum, other EU countries, the USA, Canada and China (e.g., Mostafaeipour,
2010). Offshore wind energy is expected to develop in a more signicant
way in the years ahead as the technology advances and as onshore wind
energy sites become constrained by local resource availability and/or siting
challenges in some regions (BTM, 2010; GWEC, 2010a).
The total investment cost of new wind power plants installed in 2009 was
USD2005 57 billion (GWEC, 2010a). Direct employment in the wind energy
sector in 2009 has been estimated at roughly 190,000 in the EU and
85,000 in the USA. Worldwide, direct employment has been estimated at
approximately 500,000 (GWEC, 2010a; REN21, 2010).
Despite these trends, wind energy remains a relatively small fraction of
worldwide electricity supply. The total wind power capacity installed by the
end of 2009 would, in an average year, meet roughly 1.8% of worldwide
electricity demand, up from 1.5% by the end of 2008, 1.2% by the end of
2007, and 0.9% by the end of 2006 (Wiser and Bolinger, 2010).
7.4.2
The countries with the highest total installed wind power capacity by the
end of 2009 were the USA (35 GW), China (26 GW), Germany (26 GW),
Spain (19 GW) and India (11 GW). After its initial start in the USA in the
1980s, wind energy growth centred on countries in the EU and India during the 1990s and the early 2000s. In the late 2000s, however, the USA and
then China became the locations for the greatest annual capacity additions (Figure 7.9).
Regionally, Europe continues to lead the market with 76 GW of cumulative installed wind power capacity by the end of 2009, representing 48%
of the global total (Asia represented 25%, whereas North America
180
60
50
150
40
120
30
90
20
60
10
30
0
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Figure 7.8 | Global annual wind power capacity additions and cumulative capacity (Data sources: GWEC, 2010a; Wiser and Bolinger, 2010).
556
2007
2008
2009
Chapter 7
Wind Energy
40
35
2006
2007
30
2008
2009
25
20
15
10
5
0
US
China
Germany
Spain
India
Italy
France
UK
Portugal
Denmark
Figure 7.9 | Top-10 countries in cumulative wind power capacity (Date source: GWEC, 2010a).
16
14
2006
2007
12
2008
2009
10
8
6
4
2
0
Europe
North America
Asia
Latin America
Africa &
Middle East
Pacic
Figure 7.10 | Annual wind power capacity additions by region (Data source: GWEC, 2010a).
Note: Regions shown in the gure are dened by the study.
557
Wind Energy
Chapter 7
201 GW
324 GW
26 GW
Total Additions
25 GW
100
90
Other
80
Coal
Natural Gas
70
Wind
60
50
40
30
20
7.4.3
10
0
EU
US
EU
2000-2009
US
2009
Figure 7.11 | Relative contribution of electricity supply types to gross capacity additions
in the EU and the USA (Data sources: EWEA, 2010b; Wiser and Bolinger, 2010).
Note: The other category includes other forms of renewable energy, nuclear energy,
and fuel oil.
Industry development
The growing maturity of the wind energy sector is illustrated not only
by wind power capacity additions, but also by trends in the wind energy
industry. In particular, major established companies from outside the
traditional wind energy industry have become increasingly involved in
the sector. For example, there has been a shift in the type of companies
developing, owning and operating wind power plants, from relatively
small independent power plant developers to large power generation
22
20
Approximate Wind Penetration, End of 2009
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
TOTAL
Japan
Brazil
China
Turkey
Canada
Australia
France
Sweden
US
Austria
India
Italy
UK
Netherlands
Greece
Germany
Ireland
Spain
Portugal
Denmark
Figure 7.12 | Approximate annual average wind electricity penetration in the twenty countries with the greatest installed wind power capacity (Wiser and Bolinger, 2010).
roughly 11% of all newly installed net electric capacity additions came
from new wind power plants; in 2009 alone, that gure was probably
more than 20%.16
16 Worldwide capacity additions from 2000 through 2007 come from historical data
from the US Energy Information Administration. Capacity additions for 2008 and
2009 are estimated based on historical capacity growth from 2000 to 2007. The focus here is on capacity additions in GW terms, though it is recognized that electricity
generation technologies often have widely divergent average capacity factors, and
that the contribution of wind energy to new electricity demand (in GWh terms) may
differ from what is presented here.
558
Chapter 7
scale power plants, higher capacity and offshore turbines, and lower
wind speeds. More generally, the signicant contribution of wind energy
to new electric capacity investment in several regions of the world has
attracted a broad range of players across the industry supply chain,
from local site-focused engineering rms to global vertically integrated
utilities. The industrys supply chain has also become increasingly competitive as a multitude of rms seek the most protable balance between
vertical integration and specialization (BTM, 2010; GWEC, 2010a).
Despite these trends, the global wind turbine market remains somewhat
regionally segmented, with just six countries hosting the majority of
wind turbine manufacturing (China, Denmark, India, Germany, Spain
and the USA). With markets developing differently, market share for turbine supply has been marked by the emergence of national industrial
champions, the entry of highly focused technology innovators and the
arrival of new start-ups licensing proven technology from other regions
(Lewis and Wiser, 2007). Regardless, the industry continues to globalize:
Europes turbine and component manufacturers have penetrated the
North American and Asian markets, and the growing presence of Asian
manufacturers in Europe and North America is expected to become more
pronounced in the years ahead. Chinese wind turbine manufacturers, in
particular, are dominating their home market, and will increasingly seek
export opportunities. Wind turbine sales and supply chain strategies are
therefore expected to continue to take on a more international dimension as volumes increase.
Amidst the growth in the wind energy industry also come challenges. As
discussed further in Section 7.8, from 2005 through 2008, supply chain difculties caused by growing demand for wind energy strained the industry,
and prices for wind turbines and turbine components increased to compensate for this imbalance. Commodity price increases, the availability of skilled
labour and other factors also played a role in pushing wind turbine prices
higher, while the underdeveloped supply chain for offshore wind power
plants strained that portion of the industry. Overcoming supply chain difculties is not simply a matter of ramping up the production of wind turbine
components to meet the increased levels of demand. Large-scale investment decisions are more easily made based on a sound long-term outlook
for the industry. In most markets, however, both the projections and actual
demand for wind energy depend on a number of factors, some of which
are outside of the control of the industry, such as political frameworks and
policy measures.
7.4.4
Impact of policies18
Wind Energy
(though not all) regions of the world, wind energy is more expensive
than current energy market prices, at least if environmental impacts are
not internalized and monetized (NRC, 2010a). Wind energy also faces
a number of other challenges, some of which are somewhat unique to
wind energy or are at least particularly relevant to this sector. Some
of the most critical challenges include: (1) concerns about the impact
of wind energys variability on electricity reliability; (2) challenges to
building the new transmission infrastructure both on- and offshore (and
within country and cross-border) needed to enable access to the most
attractive wind resource areas; (3) cumbersome and slow planning, siting and permitting procedures that impede wind energy deployment;
(4) the technical advancement needs and higher cost of offshore wind
energy technology; and (5) lack of institutional and technical knowledge
in regions that have not experienced substantial wind energy deployment to this point.
As a result of these challenges, growth in the wind energy sector is
affected by and responsive to political frameworks and a wide range
of government policies. During the past two decades, a signicant
number of developed countries and, more recently, a growing number
of developing nations have laid out RE policy frameworks that have
played a major role in the expansion of the wind energy market. These
efforts have been motivated by the environmental, fuel diversity, and
economic development impacts of wind energy deployment, as well as
the potential for reducing the cost of wind energy over time. An early
signicant effort to deploy wind energy at a commercial scale occurred
in California, with a feed-in tariff and aggressive tax incentives spurring
growth in the 1980s (Bird et al., 2005). In the 1990s, wind energy deployment moved to Europe, with feed-in tariff policies initially established
in Denmark and Germany, and later expanding to Spain and then a
number of other countries (Meyer, 2007); renewable portfolio standards
have been implemented in other European countries and, more recently,
European renewable energy policies have been motivated in part by the
EUs binding 20%-by-2020 target for renewable energy. In the 2000s,
growth in the USA (Bird et al., 2005; Wiser and Bolinger, 2010), China (Li
et al., 2007; Li, 2010; Liu and Kokko, 2010), and India (Goyal, 2010) was
based on varied policy frameworks, including renewable portfolio standards, tax incentives, feed-in tariffs and government-overseen bidding.
Still other policies have been used in a number of countries to directly
encourage the localization of wind turbine and component manufacturing (Lewis and Wiser, 2007).
Though economic support policies differ, and a healthy debate exists
over the relative merits of different approaches, a key nding is that
both policy transparency and predictability are important (see Chapter
11). Moreover, though it is not uncommon to focus on economic policies for wind energy, as noted above and as discussed elsewhere in this
chapter and in Chapter 11, experience shows that wind energy markets
are also dependent on a variety of other factors (e.g., Valentine, 2010).
These include local resource availability, site planning and approval procedures, operational integration into electric systems, transmission grid
expansion, wind energy technology improvements, and the availability
of institutional and technical knowledge in markets unfamiliar with
559
Wind Energy
wind energy (e.g., IEA, 2009). For the wind energy industry, these issues
have been critical in dening both the size of the market opportunity
in each country and the rules for participation in those opportunities;
many countries with sizable wind resources have not deployed signicant amounts of wind energy as a result of these factors. Given the
challenges to wind energy listed earlier, successful frameworks for
wind energy deployment might consider the following elements: support systems that offer adequate protability and that ensure investor
condence; appropriate administrative procedures for wind energy
planning, siting and permitting; a degree of public acceptance of wind
power plants to ease implementation; access to the existing transmission system and strategic transmission planning and new investment
for wind energy; and proactive efforts to manage wind energys inherent output variability and uncertainty. In addition, R&D by government
and industry has been essential to enabling incremental improvements
in onshore wind energy technology and to driving the improvements
needed in offshore wind energy technology. Finally, for those markets
that are new to wind energy deployment, both knowledge (e.g., wind
resource mapping expertise) and technology transfer (e.g., to develop
local wind turbine manufacturers and to ease grid integration) can help
facilitate early installations.
7.5
560
Chapter 7
7.5.1
Chapter 7
Wind Energy
weather conditions. Variations can occur over multiple time scales, from
shorter-term sub-hourly uctuations to diurnal, seasonal, and ever interannual uctuations (e.g., Van der Hoven, 1957; Justus et al., 1979; Wan
and Bucaneg, 2002; Apt, 2007; Rahimzadeh et al., 2011). The nature of
these uctuations and patterns is highly site- and region-specic. Figure
7.13 illustrates some elements of this variability by showing the scaled
output of an individual wind turbine, a small collection of wind power
plants, and a large collection of wind power plants in Germany over 10
consecutive days. An important aspect of wind power variability for electric system operations is the rate of change in wind power output over
different relatively short time periods; Figure 7.13 demonstrates that the
aggregate output of multiple wind power plants changes much more
dramatically over relatively longer periods (multiple hours) than over very
short periods (minutes). An important aspect of wind power variability
for the purpose of electric sector planning, on the other hand, is the correlation of wind power output with the periods of time when electric
system reliability is at greatest risk, typically periods of high electricity
demand. In this case, the diurnal, seasonal, and even interannual patterns
of wind power output (and the correlation of those patterns with electricity demand) can impact the capacity credit assigned by system planners
to wind power plants, as discussed further in Section 7.5.3.4.
output use various approaches and have multiple goals, and signicant
improvements in forecasting accuracy have been achieved in recent
years (e.g., Costa et al., 2008). Despite those improvements, however,
forecasts remain imperfect. In particular, forecasts are less accurate
over longer forecast horizons (multiple hours to days) than over shorter
periods (e.g., H. Madsen et al., 2005), which, depending on the characteristics of the electric system, can have implications for the ability of
that system and related trading markets to manage wind power variability and uncertainty (Usaola, 2009; Weber, 2010).
The aggregate variability and uncertainty of wind power output
depends, in part, on the degree of correlation between the outputs of
different geographically dispersed wind power plants. This correlation
between the outputs of wind power plants, in turn, depends on the
geographic deployment of the plants and the regional characteristics
of weather patterns, especially wind speeds. Generally, the output of
wind power plants that are farther apart are less correlated with each
other, and variability over shorter time periods (minutes) is less correlated than variability over longer time periods (multiple hours) (e.g.,
Wan et al., 2003; Sinden, 2007; Holttinen et al., 2009; Katzenstein et
al., 2010). This lack of perfect correlation results in a smoothing effect
associated with geographic diversity when the output of multiple
wind turbines and power plants are combined, as illustrated in Figure
7.13: the aggregate scaled variability shown for groups of wind power
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
Single Turbine
0.1
0
7-Dec-06
9-Dec-06
11-Dec-06
13-Dec-06
15-Dec-06
17-Dec-06
Date
Figure 7.13 | Example time series of wind power output scaled to wind power capacity for a single wind turbine, a group of wind power plants, and all wind power plants in Germany
over a 10-day period in 2006 (Durstewitz et al., 2008)
561
Wind Energy
plants over a region is less than the scaled output of a single wind
turbine. This apparent smoothing of aggregated output is due to the
decreasing correlation of output between different wind power plants
as distance between those plants increases. If, on the other hand, the
output of multiple wind turbines and power plants was perfectly correlated, then the aggregate variability would be equivalent to the scaled
variability of a single turbine. With sufcient transmission capacity
between wind power plants, the observed geographic smoothing
effect has implications for the variability of aggregate wind power
output that electric systems must accommodate, and also inuences
forecast accuracy because accuracy improves with the number and
diversity of wind power plants considered (e.g., Focken et al., 2002).
7.5.2
Detailed system planning for new generation and transmission infrastructure is used to ensure that the electric system can be operated
reliably and economically in the future. Advanced planning is required
due, in part, to the long time horizons required to build new electricity
infrastructure. More specically, electric system planners22 must evaluate the adequacy of transmission to deliver electricity to demand centres
and the adequacy of generation to maintain a balance between supply and demand under a variety of operating conditions. Though not
an exhaustive list, four technical planning issues are prominent when
considering increased reliance on wind energy: the need for accurate
electric system models of wind turbines and power plants; the development of technical standards for connecting wind power plants with
electric systems (i.e., grid codes); the broader transmission infrastructure
needs of electric systems with wind energy; and the maintenance of
overall generation adequacy with increased wind electricity penetration.
7.5.2.1
562
Chapter 7
7.5.2.2
As wind power capacity has increased, so has the need for wind power
plants to become more active participants in maintaining (rather than
passively depending on) the operability and power quality of the electric
system. Focusing here primarily on the technical aspects of grid connection, the electrical performance of wind turbines in interaction with the
grid is often veried in accordance with international standards for the
characteristics of wind turbines, in which methods to assess the impact
of one or more wind turbines on power quality are specied (IEC, 2008).
Additionally, an increasing number of electric system operators have
implemented technical standards (sometimes called grid codes) that
wind turbines and/or wind power plants (and other power plants) must
meet when connecting to the grid to help prevent equipment or facilities
from adversely affecting the electric system during normal operation
and contingencies (see also Chapter 8). Electric system models and
operating experience are used to develop these requirements, which can
then typically be met through modications to wind turbine design or
through the addition of auxiliary equipment such as power conditioning
devices. In some cases, the unique characteristics of specic generation
types are addressed in grid codes, resulting in wind-specic grid codes
(e.g., Singh and Singh, 2009).
Grid codes often require fault ride-through capability, or the ability of
a wind power plant to remain connected and operational during brief
but severe changes in electric system voltage (Singh and Singh, 2009).
The requirement for fault ride-through capability was in response to the
increasing penetration of wind energy and the signicant size of individual wind power plants. Electric systems can typically maintain reliable
operation when small individual power plants shut down or disconnect
from the system for protection purposes in response to fault conditions.
When a large amount of wind power capacity disconnects in response to
a fault, however, that disconnection can exacerbate the fault conditions.
Electric system planners have therefore increasingly specied that wind
power plants must meet minimum fault ride-through standards similar
to those required of other large power plants. System-wide approaches
have also been adopted: in Spain, for example, wind power output may
be curtailed in order to avoid potential reliability issues in the event of
a fault; the need to employ this curtailment, however, is expected to
decrease as fault ride-through capability is added to new and existing wind power plants (Rivier Abbad, 2010). Reactive power control to
help manage voltage is also often required by grid codes, enabling wind
turbines to improve voltage stability margins particularly in weak parts
of the electric system (Vittal et al., 2010). Requirements for wind turbine inertial response to improve system stability after disturbances are
less common, but are under consideration (Hydro-Quebec TransEnergie,
Chapter 7
2006; Doherty et al., 2010). Active power control (including limits on how
quickly wind power plants can change their output) and frequency control are also sometimes required (Singh and Singh, 2009). Finally, controls
can be added to wind power plants to enable benecial dampening of
inter-area oscillations during dynamic events (Miao et al., 2009).
7.5.2.3
Transmission infrastructure
As noted earlier, the highest-quality wind resources (whether on- or offshore) are often located at a distance from electricity demand centres.
As a result, even at low to medium levels of wind electricity penetration,
the addition of large quantities of wind energy in areas with the strongest wind resources may require signicant new additions or upgrades
to the transmission system (see also Chapter 8). Transmission adequacy
evaluations must consider any tradeoffs between the costs of expanding the transmission system to access higher-quality wind resources and
the costs of accessing lower-quality wind resources that require less
transmission investment (e.g., Hoppock and Patio-Echeverri, 2010). In
addition, evaluations of new transmission capacity need to account for
the relative smoothing benets of aggregating wind power plants over
large areas, the amount of transmission capacity devoted to managing
the remaining variability of wind power output, and the broader nonwind-specic advantages and disadvantages of transmission expansion
(Burke and OMalley, 2010).
Irrespective of the costs and benets of transmission expansion to
accommodate increased wind energy deployment, one of the primary
challenges is the long time it can take to plan, site, permit and construct new transmission infrastructure relative to the shorter time it
often takes to add new wind power plants. Depending on the legal and
regulatory framework in any particular region, the institutional challenges of transmission expansion, including cost allocation and siting,
can be substantial (e.g., Benjamin, 2007; Vajjhala and Fischbeck, 2007;
Swider et al., 2008). Enabling increased penetration of wind electricity
may therefore require the creation of regulatory and legal frameworks
for proactive rather than reactive transmission planning (Schumacher
et al., 2009). Estimates of the cost of the new transmission required to
achieve low to medium levels of wind electricity penetration in a variety
of locations around the world are summarized in Section 7.5.4.
7.5.2.4
Wind Energy
Generation adequacy
The contribution of wind energy to long-term reliability can be evaluated using standard approaches, and wind power plants are typically
found to have a capacity credit of 5 to 40% of nameplate capacity (see
Figure 7.14). The correlation between wind power output and electrical demand is an important determinant of the capacity credit of an
individual wind power plant. In many cases, wind power output is uncorrelated or is weakly negatively correlated with periods of high electricity
demand, reducing the capacity credit of wind power plants; this is not
always the case, however, and wind power output in the UK, for example, has been found to be weakly positively correlated with periods of
high demand (Sinden, 2007). These correlations are case specic as they
depend on the diurnal, seasonal and yearly characteristics of both wind
power output and electricity demand. A second important characteristic of the capacity credit for wind energy is that its value generally
decreases as wind electricity penetration levels rise, because the capacity credit of a generator is greater when power output is well-correlated
with periods of time when there is a higher risk of a supply shortage.
As the level of wind electricity penetration increases, however, assuming that the outputs of wind power plants are positively correlated, the
period of greatest risk will shift to times with low average levels of wind
energy supply (Hasche et al., 2010). Aggregating wind power plants
over larger areas may reduce the correlation between wind power outputs, as described earlier, and can slow the decline in capacity credit
as wind electricity penetration increases, though adequate transmission
capacity is required to aggregate the output of wind power plants in this
way (Tradewind, 2009; EnerNex Corp, 2010).24
The relatively low average capacity credit of wind power plants (compared to fossil fuel-powered units, for example) suggests that systems
with large amounts of wind energy will also tend to have signicantly
more total nameplate generation capacity (wind and non-wind) to meet
the same peak electricity demand than will electric systems without
large amounts of wind energy. Some of this generation capacity will
operate infrequently, however, and the mix of other generation in an
electric system with large amounts of wind energy will tend (on economic grounds) to increasingly shift towards more exible peaking
23 As an example, the addition of a very reliable 100 MW fossil unit in a system with
numerous other reliable units will usually increase the load-carrying capability of the
system by at least 90 MW, leading to a greater than 90% capacity credit for the fossil
unit.
24 Generation resource adequacy evaluations are also beginning to include the capability of the system to provide adequate exibility and operating reserves to accommodate more wind energy (NERC, 2009). The increased demand from wind energy
for operating reserves and exibility is addressed in Section 7.5.3.
563
Wind Energy
Chapter 7
45
Germany
40
Ireland ESBNG 5GW
35
30
25
UK 2002
20
UK 2007
US California
15
US Minnesota 2004
10
US Minnesota 2006
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
7.5.3
7.5.3.1
564
and also a decrease in the minimum net demand. For example, Figure
7.15 depicts demand and ramp duration curves for Ireland.25 At relatively
low levels of wind electricity penetration, the magnitude of changes in
net demand, as shown in the 15-minute ramp duration curve, is similar to
the magnitude of changes in total demand (Figure 7.15(c)). At higher levels of wind electricity penetration, however, changes in net demand are
greater than changes in total demand (Figure 7.15(d)). Similar impacts on
changes in net demand with increased wind energy have been reported
in the USA (Milligan and Kirby, 2008). The gure also shows that, at
high levels of wind electricity penetration, the magnitude of net demand
across all hours of the year is lower than total demand, and that in some
hours net demand is near or even below zero (Figure 7.15(b)).
As a result of these trends, wholesale electricity prices will tend to decline
when wind power output is high (or is forecast to be high in the case of
day-ahead markets) and transmission interconnection capacity to other
energy markets is constrained, with a greater frequency of low or even
negative prices (e.g., Jnsson et al., 2010; Morales et al., 2011). As with
25 Figure 7.15 presents demand and ramp duration curves for Ireland with (net demand) and without (demand) the addition of wind energy. A demand duration curve
shows the percentage of the year that the demand exceeds a level on the vertical
axis. Demand in Ireland exceeds 4,000 MW, for example, about 10% of the year. The
ramp duration curves show the percentage of the year that changes in the demand
exceed the level on the vertical axis. The 15-min change in demand in Ireland exceeds 100 MW/15minutes, for example, less than 10% of the year.
Chapter 7
Wind Energy
5,000
Power [MW]
4,000
3,000
400
Demand
Net Demand
300
200
100
0
-100
2,000
-200
-300
1,000
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
Probability
Power [MW]
Probability
Demand
Net Demand
4,000
2,000
400
Demand
Net Demand
200
-200
-2,000
-400
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
Probability
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
Probability
Figure 7.15 | Demand duration and 15-minute ramp duration curves for Ireland in (a, c) 2008 (wind energy represents 7.5% of total annual average electricity demand), and (b, d)
projected for high wind electricity penetration levels (wind energy represents 40% of total annual average electricity demand).1 Source: Data from www.eirgrid.com.
Note: 1. Projected demand and ramp duration curves are based on scaling 2008 data (demand is scaled by 1.27 and wind energy is scaled on average by 7). Ramp duration curves
show the cumulative probability distributions of 15-minute changes in demand and net demand.
565
Wind Energy
7.5.4 and 7.6.1.3, respectively), increases wear and tear on boilers and
other equipment, increases maintenance costs, and reduces power plant
life (Denny and OMalley, 2009). Various kinds of economic incentives
can be used to ensure that the operational exibility of other generators is made available to system operators. Some electricity systems,
for example, have day-ahead, intra-day, and/or hour-ahead markets for
electricity, as well as markets for reserves, balancing energy and other
ancillary services. These markets can provide pricing signals for increased
(or decreased) exibility when needed as a result of rapid changes in or
poorly predicted wind power output, and can therefore reduce the cost of
integrating wind energy (J. Smith et al., 2007; Gransson and Johnsson,
2009). Markets with shorter scheduling periods have also been found
to be more responsive to variability and uncertainty, thereby facilitating wind energy integration (Holttinen, 2005; Kirby and Milligan, 2008;
Tradewind, 2009). In addition, coordinated electric system operations
across larger areas has been shown to benet wind energy integration,
and increased levels of wind energy supply may therefore tend to motivate greater investments in and electricity trade across transmission
interconnections (Milligan and Kirby, 2008; Denny et al., 2010). Where
wholesale electricity markets do not exist, other planning methods or
incentives would be needed to ensure that generating plants are exible
enough to accommodate increased deployment of wind energy.
Planning systems and incentives may also need to be adopted to
ensure that new generating plants are sufciently exible to accommodate expected wind energy deployment. Moreover, in addition to
exible fossil fuel-powered units, hydropower stations, bulk energy
storage, large-scale deployment of electric vehicles and their associated
contributions to system exibility through controlled battery charging,
diverting excess wind energy to fuel production or local heating, and
various forms of demand response can also be used to facilitate the integration of wind energy. The deployment of a diversity of RE technologies
may also help facilitate overall electric system integration. The role of
some of these technologies (as well as some of the operational and
planning methods noted earlier) in electric systems is described in more
detail in Chapter 8 because they are not all specic to wind energy and
because some are more likely to be used at higher levels of wind electricity penetration than considered here (up to 20%). Wind power plants,
meanwhile, can provide some exibility by briey curtailing output to
provide downward regulation or, in extreme cases, curtailing output for
extended periods to provide upward regulation. Modern controls on
wind power plants can also use curtailment to limit or even (partially)
control ramp rates (Fox et al., 2007). Though curtailing wind power output is a simple and often times readily available source of exibility,
there are sizable opportunity costs associated with curtailing plants that
have low operating costs before reducing the output of other plants that
have high fuel costs. These opportunity costs should be compared to the
possible benets of curtailment (e.g., reduced part-load efciency penalties and wear and tear for fossil generators, and avoidance of certain
transmission investments) when determining the prevalence of its use.
566
Chapter 7
7.5.3.2
Actual operating experience in different parts of the world demonstrates that electric systems can operate reliably with increased
contributions of wind energy (Sder et al., 2007). In four countries, as
discussed earlier, wind energy in 2010 was already able to supply from
10 to roughly 20% of annual electricity demand. The three examples
reported here demonstrate the challenges associated with this operational integration, and the methods used to manage the additional
variability and uncertainty associated with wind energy. Naturally,
these impacts and management methods vary across regions for reasons of geography, electric system design and regulatory structure,
and additional examples of wind energy integration associated with
operations, curtailment and transmission are described in Chapter 8.
Moreover, as more wind energy is deployed in diverse regions and electric systems, additional knowledge about the impacts of wind power
output on electric systems will be gained. To date, for example, there
is little experience with severe contingencies (i.e., faults) during times
with high instantaneous wind electricity penetration. Though existing
experience demonstrates that electric systems can operate with wind
energy, further analysis is required to determine whether electric systems are maintaining the same level of overall security, measured by
the ability of the system to withstand major contingencies, with and
without wind energy, and depending on various management options.
Limited analysis (e.g., EirGrid and SONI, 2010; Eto et al., 2010) suggests that particular systems are able to survive such conditions but,
if primary frequency control reserves are reduced as thermal generation is increasingly displaced by wind energy, additional management
options may be needed to maintain adequate frequency response. The
security of the electric system with high instantaneous wind electricity
penetrations is described in more detail in Chapter 8.
Denmark has the highest wind electricity penetration of any country in
the world, with wind energy supply equating to approximately 20% of
total annual electricity demand. Total wind power capacity installed by
the end of 2009 equalled 3.4 GW, while the peak demand in Denmark
was 6.5 GW. Much of the wind power capacity (2.7 GW) is located
in western Denmark, resulting in instantaneous wind power output
exceeding total demand in western Denmark in some instances (see
Figure 7.16). The Danish example demonstrates the benets of having
access to markets for exible resources and having strong transmission interconnections to neighbouring countries. Denmarks electricity
systems operate without serious reliability issues in part because the
country is well interconnected to two different electric systems. In conjunction with wind power output forecasting, this allows wind energy to
be exported to other markets and helps the Danish operators manage
wind power variability. The interconnection with the Nordic system, in
particular, provides access to exible hydropower resources, and balancing the Danish system is much more difcult during periods when
Chapter 7
Wind Energy
5,000
101%
100
98%
Demand
Wind
% Wind
4,000
3,000
90
80
70
60
50
2,000
40
The Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) operates a synchronous system with a peak demand of 63 GW and 8.5 GW of wind
power capacity, and with a wind electricity penetration level of 6%
of annual electricity demand by the end of 2009. ERCOTs experience
7.5.4
In addition to actual operating experience, a number of high-quality studies of the increased transmission and generation resources required to
accommodate wind energy have been completed, primarily covering
OECD countries. As summarized further below, these studies employ
a wide variety of methodologies and have diverse objectives, but typically seek to evaluate the capability of the electric system to integrate
increased penetrations of wind energy and to quantify the costs and
benets of operating the system with wind energy. The issues and costs
often considered by these studies are reviewed in this section, and
include: the increased operating reserves and balancing costs required
5,000
42%
4,000
40
3,000
30
Demand
2,000
20
20
Wind
% Wind
30
1,000
50
1,000
10
10
0
0
10/01
11/01
12/01
13/01
14/01
15/01
16/01
0
04-Apr-10
05-Apr-10
Figure 7.16 | Wind energy, electricity demand and instantaneous penetration levels in (left) West Denmark for a week in January 2005, and (right) the island of Ireland for two days
in April 2010. Source: Data from (left) www.energinet.dk; (right) www.eirgrid.com and System Operator for Northern Ireland.
567
Wind Energy
Chapter 7
integrating up to 20% wind energy into electric systems is, in most cases,
modest but not insignicant. Specically, at low to medium levels of wind
electricity penetration (up to 20% wind energy), the available literature
(again, primarily from a subset of OECD countries) suggests that the
additional costs of managing electric system variability and uncertainty,
ensuring generation adequacy and adding new transmission to accommodate wind energy will be system specic but generally in the range
of US cents2005 0.7 to 3/kWh.26 Concerns about (and the costs of) wind
energy integration will grow with wind energy deployment and, even at
lower penetration levels, integration issues must be actively managed.
7.5.4.1
7.5.4.2
Methodological challenges
Estimating the incremental impacts and costs of wind energy integration is difcult due to the complexity of electric systems and study data
requirements. One of the most signicant challenges in executing these
studies is simulating wind power output data at high time resolutions
for a chosen future wind electricity penetration level and for a sufcient
duration for the results of the analysis to accurately depict worst-case
conditions and correlations of wind and electricity demand. These data
are then used in electric system simulations to mimic system planning
and operations, thereby quantifying the impacts, costs and benets of
wind energy integration.
Addressing all integration impacts requires several different simulation models that operate over different time scales, and most individual
studies therefore focus on a subset of the potential issues. The results
of wind energy integration studies are also dependent on pre-existing
differences in electric system designs and regulatory environments:
important differences include generation capacity mix and the exibility of that generation, the variability of demand and the strength
and breadth of the transmission system. In addition, study results differ
and are hard to compare because standard methodologies and even
denitions have not been developed, though signicant progress has
been made in developing agreement on many high-level study design
principles (Holttinen et al., 2009). The rst-generation integration studies, for example, used models that were not designed to fully reect
the variability and uncertainty of wind energy, resulting in studies that
addressed only parts of the larger system. More recent studies, on the
other hand, have used models that can incorporate the uncertainty of
wind power output from the day-ahead time scale to some hours ahead
of delivery (e.g., Meibom et al., 2009; Tuohy et al., 2009). Integration
studies are also increasingly simulating high wind electricity penetration
scenarios over entire synchronized systems (not just individual, smaller
balancing areas) (e.g., Tradewind, 2009; EnerNex Corp, 2010; GE Energy,
2010). Finally, only recently have studies begun to explore in more depth
the capability of electric systems to maintain primary frequency control during system contingencies with high penetrations of wind energy
(e.g., EirGrid and SONI, 2010; Eto et al., 2010).
Regardless of the challenges of executing and comparing such studies, the
results, as described in more detail below, demonstrate that the cost of
568
Chapter 7
7.5.4.3
Wind Energy
7.5.4.4
Finally, a number of assessments of the need for and cost of upgrading or building large-scale transmission infrastructure between wind
resource regions and demand centres have similarly found modest, but
not insignicant, costs.28 The transmission cost for achieving 20% wind
electricity penetration in the USA, for example, was estimated to add
about USD2005 150 to 290/kW to the investment cost of wind power
plants (US DOE, 2008). The cost of this transmission expansion was
found to be justied because of the higher quality of the wind resources
accessed if the transmission were to be built relative to accessing only
lower-quality wind resources with less transmission expansion. More
0.6
Nordic 2004
Finland 2004
0.5
UK, 2002
UK, 2007
0.4
Ireland
Colorado US
Minnesota 2004
0.3
Minnesota 2006
California US
Pacicorp US
0.2
Greennet Germany
Greennet Denmark
Greennet Finland
0,1
Greennet Norway
Greennet Sweden
0.0
0
10
15
20
25
30
28 These costs are distinct from the costs to connect individual wind power plants to the
transmission system; connection costs are often included in estimates of the investment costs of wind power plants (see Section 7.8).
569
Wind Energy
Chapter 7
Transmission expansion for wind energy can be justied by the reduction in congestion costs that would occur for the same level of wind
energy deployment without transmission expansion. A European-wide
study, for example, identied several transmission upgrades between
nations and between high-quality offshore wind resource areas that
would reduce transmission congestion and ease wind energy integration (Tradewind, 2009). The avoided congestion costs associated with
transmission expansion were similarly found to justify transmission
investments in two US-based detailed integration studies of high wind
electricity penetrations (Milligan et al., 2009). At the same time, it is not
always appropriate to fully assign the cost of transmission expansion to
wind energy deployment. In some cases, these transmission expansion
costs can be justied for reasons beyond wind energy, as new transmission can have wider benets including increased electricity reliability,
decreased pre-existing congestion and reduced market power (Budhraja
et al., 2009). Moreover, wind energy is not unique in potentially requiring new transmission investment; other energy technologies may also
require new transmission, and the costs summarized above do not all
represent truly incremental costs.
7.6.1
7.6
570
This section summarizes the best available knowledge about the most
relevant environmental net benets of wind energy (Section 7.6.1),
while also addressing ecological impacts (Section 7.6.2), impacts on
human activities and well-being (Section 7.6.3), public attitudes and
acceptance (Section 7.6.4) and processes for minimizing social and environmental concerns (Section 7.6.5).
The environmental benets of wind energy come primarily from displacing the emissions from fossil fuel-based electricity generation. However,
the manufacturing, transport, installation, operation and decommissioning of wind turbines induces some indirect negative effects, and the
variability of wind power output also impacts the operations and emissions of fossil fuel-red plants. Such effects need to be subtracted from
the gross benets of wind energy in order to estimate net benets. As
shown below, these latter effects are modest compared to the net GHG
reduction benets of wind energy.
7.6.1.1
Direct impacts
The major environmental benets of wind energy (as well as other forms
of RE) result from displacing electricity generation from fossil fuel-based
power plants, as the operation of wind turbines does not directly emit
GHGs or other air pollutants. Similarly, unlike some other generation
sources, wind energy requires insignicant amounts of water, produces
little waste and requires no mining or drilling to obtain its fuel supply
(see Chapter 9).
Estimating the environmental benets of wind energy is somewhat
complicated by the operational characteristics of the electric system and
the decisions that are made about investments in new power plants to
economically meet electricity demand (Deutsche Energie-Agentur, 2005;
NRC, 2007; Pehnt et al., 2008). In the short run, increased wind energy
will typically displace the operations of existing fossil fuel-based plants
that are otherwise on the margin. In the longer term, however, new
generating plants may be needed, and the presence of wind energy can
inuence what types of power plants are built; specically, increased
wind energy will tend to favour on economic grounds exible peaking/
intermediate plants that operate less frequently over base-load plants
(Kahn, 1979; Lamont, 2008). Because the impacts of these factors are
both complicated and system specic, the benets of wind energy will
also be system specic and are difcult to forecast with precision.
7.6.1.2
Wind Energy
Chapter 7
90
Maximum
80
75th Percentile
Median
70
25th Percentile
Minimum
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
All Values
Figure 7.18 shows that the majority of lifecycle GHG emission estimates
cluster between about 8 and 20 g CO2eq/kWh, with some estimates
reaching 80 g CO2eq/kWh.31 Where studies have identied the signicance of different stages of the lifecycle of a wind power plant, it is clear
that emissions from the manufacturing stage dominate overall lifecycle
GHG emissions (e.g., Jungbluth et al., 2005). Variability in estimates
stems from differences in study context (e.g., wind resource, technological vintage), technological performance (e.g., capacity factor) and
methods (e.g., LCA system boundaries).32
In addition to lifecycle GHG emissions, many of these studies also
report on the energy payback time of wind power plants (i.e., the
amount of time a wind power plant must operate in order produce an
equivalent amount of energy that was required to build, operate and
decommission it). Among 50 estimates from 20 studies passing screens
for quality and relevance, the median reported energy payback time for
wind power plants is 5.4 months, with a 25th to 75th percentile range
of 3.4 months to 8.5 months (see also Chapter 9).
30 This calculation assumes that wind energy, on average, offsets fossil generation with
an emissions factor reasonably similar to natural gas, and that wind power plants
have an average capacity factor of roughly 24%.
31 Note that the distributions shown in Figure 7.18 do not represent an assessment of
likelihood; the gure simply reports the distribution of currently published literature
estimates passing screens for quality and relevance. See Annex II.5.2 for a further
description of the literature search methods.
32 Efforts to harmonize the methods and assumptions of these studies are
recommended such that more robust estimates of central tendency and variability
can be realized. Further LCA studies to increase the number of estimates for some
technologies (e.g., oating offshore wind turbines) would also be benecial.
Onshore
Offshore
Estimates:
126
107
16
References:
49
44
12
Figure 7.18 | Lifecycle GHG emissions of wind energy technologies (unmodied literature values, after quality screen). Offshore represents relatively shallow offshore
installations except for one oating offshore estimate. See Annex II.5.2 for details about
the literature search and the literature citations contributing to the estimates displayed.
The lifecycle impacts of wind energy in comparison to other energy technologies are covered in Chapter 9, including not just GHG emissions and
energy payback, but also local air pollutants, water consumption, land
use and other impact categories.
7.6.1.3
Another concern that is sometimes raised is that the temporal variability and limited predictability of wind energy will limit the GHG emissions
benets of wind energy by increasing the short-term balancing reserves
required for an electric system operator to maintain reliability (relative
to the balancing reserve requirement without wind energy). Short-term
reserves are generally provided by generating plants that are online and
synchronized with the grid, and plants providing these reserves may be
part-loaded to maintain the exibility to respond to short-term uctuations. Part-loading fossil fuel-based generators decreases the efciency
of the plants and therefore creates a fuel efciency and GHG emissions
penalty relative to a fully loaded plant. Analyses of the emissions benets
of wind energy do not always account for this effect.
571
Wind Energy
Chapter 7
concern for onshore wind power plants include the population-level consequences of bird and bat collision fatalities and more indirect habitat
and ecosystem modications. For offshore wind energy, the aforementioned impacts as well as implications for benthic resources, sheries
and marine life more generally must be considered. Finally, the possible
impacts of wind energy on the local climate have received attention.
The focus here is on impacts associated with wind power plants themselves, but associated infrastructure also has impacts to consider (e.g.,
transmission lines, transportation to site etc.). In addition, though more
systematic assessments are needed to evaluate the relative impacts of
different forms of energy supply, especially within the context of the
varying contributions of these energy sources towards global climate
change, those comparisons are not provided here but are instead discussed in Chapter 9.
7.6.2.1
7.6.1.4
7.6.2
Ecological impacts
572
Chapter 7
Wind Energy
7.6.2.2
573
Wind Energy
7.6.2.3
The possible impact of wind power plants on the local climate has also
been the focus of some research. Wind power plants extract momentum from the air ow and thus reduce the wind speed behind the
turbines, and also increase vertical mixing by introducing turbulence
across a range of length scales (Petersen et al., 1998; Baidya Roy and
Traiteur, 2010). These two processes are described by the term wind
turbine wake (Barthelmie et al., 2004). Though intuitively turbine wakes
must increase vertical mixing of the near-surface layer, and thus may
increase the atmosphere-surface exchange of heat, water vapour and
other parameters, the magnitude of the effect remains uncertain. One
study using blade element momentum theory suggests that even very
large-scale wind energy deployment, sufcient to supply global energy
needs, would remove less than 1/10,000th of the total energy within the
lowest 1 km of the atmosphere (Sta. Maria and Jacobson, 2009). Other
studies have sought to quantify more local effects by treating large
wind power plants as a block of enhanced surface roughness length
or an elevated momentum sink in regional and global models. These
studies have typically modelled scenarios of substantial wind energy
deployment, and have found changes in local surface temperature of
up to or even exceeding 1C and in surface winds of several metres
per second over (and even extending beyond) the areas of wind power
plant installation (Keith et al., 2004; Kirk-Davidoff and Keith, 2008;
C. Wang and Prinn, 2010); these local effects could also impact rainfall,
radiation, clouds, wind direction and other climate variables. Though
the global average impact of these local changes is much less pronounced, the local changes could have implications for ecosystems and
human activities.
The assumptions and methods used by these studies may not, however,
accurately represent the mechanisms by which wind turbines interact
with the atmosphere. Studies often incorrectly assume that wind turbines act as invariant momentum sinks,36 that turbine densities are
above what is the norm, and that wind energy deployment occurs at a
more substantial and geographically concentrated scale than is likely.
Observed data from and models of large offshore wind power plants,
for example, indicate that they may be of sufcient scale to perceptibly
interact with the entire (relatively shallow) atmospheric boundary layer
(Frandsen et al., 2006), but onsite measurements and remotely sensed
near-surface wind speeds suggest that wake effects from large developments may no longer be discernible in near-surface wind speeds and
turbulence intensity at approximately 20 km downwind (Christiansen
and Hasager, 2005, 2006; Frandsen et al., 2009). As a result, the impact
of wind energy on local climates remains uncertain. More generally, it
should also be recognized that wind turbines are not the only structures to potentially impact local climate variables, and that any impacts
caused by increased wind energy deployment should be placed in the
context of other anthropogenic climate inuences (Sta. Maria and
Jacobson, 2009).
36 In these instances, the aerodynamic effect of wind turbines is treated via an increase
in assumed surface roughness, in effect assuming that the turbines are operating all
of the time to decrease wind speeds.
574
Chapter 7
7.6.3
7.6.3.1
Wind turbines are sizable structures, and wind power plants can encompass a large area (5 to 10 MW per km2 is often assumed), thereby
using space that might otherwise be used for other purposes.37 The land
footprint specically disturbed by onshore wind turbines and their supporting roads and infrastructure, however, typically ranges from 2 to
5% of the total area encompassed by a wind power plant, allowing
agriculture, ranching and certain other activities to continue within the
area. Some forms of land use may be precluded from the area, such
as housing developments, airport approaches and some radar installations. Nature reserves and historical and/or sacred sites are also often
particularly sensitive. Somewhat similar issues apply to offshore wind
power plants.
The possible impacts of wind power plants on aviation, shipping, shing, communications and radar must also be considered, and depend on
the placement of wind turbines and power plants. By avoiding airplane
landing corridors and shipping routes, the interference of wind power
plants with shipping and aviation can be kept to a minimum (Hohmeyer
et al., 2005). Integrated marine spatial planning and integrated coastal
zone management approaches are also starting to include offshore wind
energy, thereby helping to assess the ecological impacts and economic
and social benets for coastal regions from alternative marine and
coastal uses, and to minimize conict among those uses (e.g., Murawski,
2007; Ehler and Douvere, 2009; Kannen and Burkhard, 2009).
Electromagnetic interference (EMI) associated with wind turbines can
take various forms (e.g., Krug and Lewke, 2009). In general, wind turbines
can interfere with detection of signals through reection and blockage
of electromagnetic waves and creation of large reected radar returns,
including Doppler produced by the rotation of turbine blades. Many EMI
effects can be avoided by appropriate siting, for example, not locating
wind turbines in close proximity to transmitters or receivers or relying
on landscape terrain to mask the turbines (Summers, 2000; Hohmeyer
et al., 2005). Moreover, there are no fundamental physical constraints
preventing mitigation of EMI impacts (Brenner et al., 2008). In the case
of military (or civilian) radar, reports have concluded that radar systems
can sometimes be modied to ensure that aircraft safety and national
defence are maintained (Butler and Johnson, 2003; Brenner et al., 2008).
In particular, radar systems may have to be replaced or upgraded, or
gap-lling and signal fusion systems installed, at some cost. In addition,
37 Chapter 9 addresses relative land use associated with multiple energy sources.
Chapter 7
7.6.3.2
Visual impacts
Visual impacts, and specically how wind turbines and related infrastructures t into the surrounding landscape, are often among the top
concerns of communities considering wind power plants (Firestone and
Kempton, 2007; NRC, 2007; Wolsink, 2007; Wustenhagen et al., 2007;
Firestone et al., 2009; Jones and Eiser, 2009), of those living near existing wind power plants (Thayer and Hansen, 1988; Krohn and Damborg,
1999; Warren et al., 2005) and of institutions responsible for overseeing
wind energy development (Nada and Labussire, 2009). Concerns have
been expressed for on- and offshore wind energy (Ladenburg, 2009;
Haggett, 2011). To capture the strongest and most consistent winds,
wind turbines are often sited at high elevations and where there are few
obstructions relative to the surrounding area. Moreover, wind turbines
and power plants have grown in size, making the turbines and related
transmission infrastructure more visible. Finally, as wind power plants
increase in number and geographic spread, plants are being located in
a wider diversity of landscapes (and, with offshore wind energy, unique
seascapes as well), including areas that are more highly valued.
Though concerns about visibility cannot be fully mitigated, many
jurisdictions require an assessment of visual impacts as part of the
siting process, including dening the geographic scope of impact and
preparing photo and video montages depicting the area before and
after wind energy development. Other recommendations that have
emerged to minimize visual intrusion include using turbines of similar
size and shape, using light-coloured paints, choosing a smaller number
of larger turbines over a larger number of smaller ones, burying connection cabling and ensuring that blades rotate in the same direction
(e.g., Hohmeyer et al., 2005). More generally, a rethinking of traditional
concepts of landscape to include wind turbines has sometimes been
recommended (Pasqualetti et al., 2002) including, for example, setting
aside areas in advance where development can occur and others where
it is precluded, especially when such planning allows for public involvement (Nada and Labussire, 2009).
7.6.3.3
Wind Energy
range, may cause health effects (Alves-Pereira and Branco, 2007), but
a variety of studies (Jakobsen, 2005; Leventhall, 2006) and government reports (e.g., FANM, 2005; MDOH, 2009; CMOH, 2010; NHMRC,
2010) have not found sufcient evidence to support those claims to
this point. Regarding audible noise from turbines, environmental noise
guidelines (EPA, 1974, 1978; WHO, 1999, 2009) are generally believed
to be sufcient to ensure that direct physiological health effects (e.g.,
hearing loss) are avoided (McCunney and Meyer, 2007). Some nearby
residents, however, do experience annoyance from wind turbine sound
(Pedersen and Waye, 2007, 2008; Pedersen et al., 2010), which can
impact sleep patterns and well-being. This annoyance is correlated
with acoustic factors (e.g., sound levels and characteristics) and also
with non-acoustic factors (e.g., visibility of, or attitudes towards, the
turbines) (Pedersen and Waye, 2007, 2008; Pedersen et al., 2010).
Concerns about noise emissions may be especially great when hubheight wind speeds are high, but ground-level speeds are low (i.e.,
conditions of high wind shear). Under such conditions, the lack of
wind-induced background noise at ground level coupled with higher
sound levels from the turbines has been linked to increased audibility and in some cases annoyance (van den Berg, 2004, 2005, 2008;
Prospathopoulos and Voutsinas, 2005).
Signicant efforts have been made to reduce the sound levels emitted
by wind turbines. As a result, mechanical sounds from modern turbines
(e.g., gearboxes and generators) have been substantially reduced.
Aeroacoustic noise is now the dominant concern (Wagner et al., 1996),
and some of the specic aeroacoustic characteristics of wind turbines
(e.g., van den Berg, 2005) have been found to be particularly detectable
(Fastl and Zwicker, 2007) and annoying (Bradley, 1994; Bengtsson et al.,
2009). Reducing aeroacoustic noise can be most easily accomplished by
reducing blade speed, but different tip shapes and airfoil designs have
also been explored (Migliore and Oerlemans, 2004; Lutz et al., 2007).
In addition, the predictive models and environmental regulations used
to manage these impacts have improved to some degree. Specically,
in some jurisdictions, both the wind shear and maximum sound power
levels under all operating conditions are taken into account when establishing regulations (Bastasch et al., 2006). Absolute maximum sound
levels during the day (e.g., 55 A-weighted decibels, dBA) and night (e.g.,
45 dBA) can also be coupled with maximum levels that are set relative to pre-existing background sound levels (Bastasch et al., 2006). In
other jurisdictions, simpler and cruder setbacks mandate a minimum
distance between turbines and other structures (MOE, 2009). Despite
these efforts, concerns about noise impacts remain a barrier to wind
energy deployment in some areas.
In addition to sound impacts, rotating turbine blades can also cast moving shadows (i.e., shadow icker), which may be annoying to residents
living close to wind turbines. Turbines can be sited to minimize these
concerns, or the operation of wind turbines can be stopped during acute
periods (Hohmeyer et al., 2005). Finally, wind turbines can shed parts
of or whole blades as a result of an accident or icing (or more broadly,
blades can shed built-up ice, or turbines could collapse entirely). Wind
energy technology certication standards are aimed at reducing such
575
Wind Energy
7.6.3.4
Property values
Concerns that the visibility of wind power plants may translate into
negative impacts on residential property values at the local level have
sometimes been expressed (Firestone et al., 2009; Graham et al., 2009;
Jones and Eiser, 2009). Further, if various proximal nuisance effects are
prominent, such as turbine noise or shadow icker, additional impacts
on local property values might occur. Although these concerns may be
reasonable given effects found for other environmental disamenities
(e.g., high-voltage transmission lines, fossil-fuelled power plants and
landlls; see Simons, 2006), published research has not found strong
evidence of any widespread effect for wind power plants (e.g., Sims and
Dent, 2007; Sims et al., 2008; Hoen et al., 2011). This might be explained
by the setbacks normally employed between homes and wind turbines;
studies on the impacts of transmission lines on property values, for
example, sometimes nd that effects can fade at distances of 100 m
(e.g., Des Rosiers, 2002). Alternatively, any effects may be too infrequent and/or small to distinguish statistically based on historical data.
Finally, turbine noise and other effects might be difcult to assess when
homes are sold, and therefore might not be fully priced into the market.
More research is needed on the subject, but based on other disamenity
research (e.g., Boyle and Kiel, 2001; T. Jackson, 2001; Simons and Saginor,
2006), it is likely that any effects that do exist are most pronounced
within short distances from wind turbines and in the period immediately
following a wind power plant announcement, when risks are most
difcult to quantify (Wolsink, 2007).
7.6.4
Despite the possible impacts described above, surveys have consistently found wind energy to be widely accepted by the general public
(e.g., Warren et al., 2005; Jones and Eiser, 2009; Klick and Smith, 2010;
Swofford and Slattery, 2010). Translating this broad support into
increased deployment (closing the social gap, see, e.g., Bell et al.,
2005), however, often requires the support of local host communities
and/or decision makers (Toke, 2006; Toke et al., 2008). To that end, a
number of concerns exist that might temper the enthusiasm of these
stakeholders about wind energy, such as land and marine use, and the
visual, proximal and property value impacts discussed previously.
In general, research has found that public concern about wind energy
development is greatest directly after the announcement of a wind
power plant, but that acceptance increases after construction when
actual impacts can be assessed (Wolsink, 1989; Warren et al., 2005;
Eltham et al., 2008). Some studies have found that those most familiar with existing wind power plants, including those who live closest
576
Chapter 7
to them, are more accepting (or less concerned) than those less familiar and farther away (Krohn and Damborg, 1999; Warren et al., 2005),
but other research has found the opposite to be true (van der Horst,
2007; Swofford and Slattery, 2010). Possible explanations for this
apparent discrepancy include differences in attitudes towards proposed
versus existing wind power plants (Swofford and Slattery, 2010), the
pre-existing characteristics and values of the local community (van
der Horst, 2007) and the degree of trust that the local community has
concerning the development process and its outcome (Thayer and
Freeman, 1987; Jones and Eiser, 2009). Research has also found that
pre-construction attitudes can linger after the turbines are erected: for
example, those opposed to a wind power plants development have
been found to consider the eventual plant to be noisier and more
visually intrusive that those who favoured the same plant in the preconstruction time period (Krohn and Damborg, 1999; Jones and Eiser,
2009). Some research has found that concerns can be compounding. For
instance, those who found turbines to be visually intrusive also found
the noise from those turbines to be more annoying (Pedersen and Waye,
2004). Finally, in some contexts at least, there appears to be some preference for offshore over onshore wind energy development, though
these preferences are dependent on the specic offshore power plant
location (Ladenburg, 2009) and are far from universal (Haggett, 2011).
7.6.5
Chapter 7
7.7
Over the past three decades, innovation in wind turbine design has led
to signicant cost reductions, while the capacity and physical size of
individual turbines has grown markedly (EWEA, 2009). The square-cube
law is a mathematical relationship that states that as the diameter of
a wind turbine increases, its theoretical energy output increases by the
square of the rotor diameter, while the volume of material (and therefore its mass and cost) required to scale at the same rate increases as
the cube of the rotor diameter, all else being equal (Burton et al., 2001).
As a result, at some size, the cost of a larger turbine will grow faster than
the resulting energy output and revenue, making further size increases
uneconomic. To date, engineers have successfully worked around this
relationship, preventing signicant increases in the cost of wind energy
as turbines have grown larger by optimizing designs with increasing
turbine size, by reducing materials use and by using lighter, yet stronger,
materials.
Signicant opportunities remain for design optimization of on- and
offshore wind turbines and power plants, and sizable cost reductions
39 Section 10.5 offers a complementary perspective on drivers of and trends in technological progress across RE technologies.
Wind Energy
7.7.1
Public and private R&D programmes have played a major role in the
technical advances seen in wind energy over the last decades (Klaassen
et al., 2005; Lemming et al., 2009). Government support for R&D, in
collaboration with industry, has led to system- and component-level
technology advances, as well as improvements in resource assessment,
technical standards, electric system integration, wind energy forecasting
and other areas. From 1974 to 2006, government R&D budgets for wind
energy in International Energy Agency (IEA) countries totalled USD2005
3.8 billion, representing an estimated 10% share of RE R&D budgets and
1% of total energy R&D expenditures (IEA, 2008; EWEA, 2009). In 2008,
OECD research funding for wind energy totalled USD2005 180 million, or
1.5% of all energy R&D funding; additional funding was provided by
non-OECD countries. Government-sponsored R&D programs have often
emphasized longer-term innovation, while industry-funded R&D has
focused on shorter-term production, operation and installation issues.
Though data on industry R&D funding are scarce, EWEA (2009), Carbon
Trust (2008b) and Wiesenthal et al. (2009) nd that the ratio of turbine
manufacturer R&D expenditures to net revenue typically ranges from 2
to 3%, while Wiesenthal et al. (2009) nd that corporate wind energy
R&D in the EU is three times as large as government R&D investments.
Wind energy research strategies have often been developed through
government and industry collaborations, historically centred on Europe
and the USA, though there has been growth in public and private R&D
in other countries as well (e.g., Tan, 2010). In a study to explore the
technical and economic feasibility of meeting 20% of electricity demand
40 This section focuses on scientic and engineering challenges directly associated with
reducing the cost of wind energy, but additional research areas of importance include: research on the integration of wind energy into electric systems and grid
compatibility (e.g., forecasting, storage, power electronics); social science research
on policy measures and social acceptance; and scientic research to understand the
impacts of wind energy on the environment and on human activities and well-being.
These issues are addressed only peripherally in this section.
577
Wind Energy
in the USA with wind energy, the US Department of Energy (US DOE)
found that key areas for further research included continued development of turbine technology, improved and expanded manufacturing
processes, electric system integration of wind energy, and siting and
environmental concerns (US DOE, 2008). The European Wind Energy
Technology Platform (TPWind), meanwhile, has developed a roadmap
through 2020 that is expected to form the basis for future European
wind energy R&D strategies, with the following areas of focus: wind
power systems (new turbines and components); offshore deployment
and operation (offshore structures, installation and O&M protocols);
wind energy integration (grid integration); and wind energy resources
(wind resource assessment and design conditions) (EU, 2008; EC, 2009).
In general, neither of these planning efforts requires a radical change in
the fundamental design of wind turbines: instead, the path forward is
seen as many evolutionary steps, executed through incremental technology advances, that may nonetheless result in signicant improvements
in the levelized cost of wind energy as well as larger turbines, up to
or exceeding 10 MW.
7.7.2
Wind power plants and turbines are sophisticated and complex systems that require integrated design approaches to optimize cost and
performance. At the plant level, considerations include the selection of
a wind turbine for a given wind resource regime, wind turbine siting,
spacing, and installation procedures, O&M methodologies and electric
system integration. Optimization of wind turbines and power plants
therefore requires a whole-system perspective that evaluates not only
the wind turbine as an individual aerodynamic device, mechanical
structure and control system, but that also considers the interaction
of the individual turbines at a plant level (EU, 2008).
Studies have identied a number of areas where technology advances
could result in changes in the investment cost, annual energy production, reliability, O&M cost, and electric system integration of
wind energy. Examples of studies that have explored the impacts of
advanced concepts include those conducted by the US DOE under the
Wind Partnership for Advanced Component Technologies (WindPACT)
project (GEC, 2001; Grifn, 2001; Shafer et al., 2001; D. Smith, 2001;
Malcolm and Hansen, 2006). One assessment of the possible impacts
of technical advances on onshore wind energy production and turbinelevel investment costs is summarized in Table 7.3 (US DOE, 2008).
Though not all of these improvements may be achieved, there is sufcient potential to warrant continued R&D. The most likely scenario,
as shown in Table 7.3, is a sizeable increase in energy production with
a modest drop in investment cost (compared to 2002 levels, which
is the baseline for the estimates in Table 7.3). Meanwhile, under the
EU-funded UPWIND project, a system-level analysis of the potential
challenges (e.g., manufacturing processes, installation processes and
structural integrity) and design solutions for very large (up to 20 MW)
onshore and offshore wind turbine systems is underway. This project
similarly includes the development of a model to evaluate the impact
578
Chapter 7
7.7.3
7.7.3.1
Taller towers allow the rotor to access higher wind speeds in a given
location, increasing annual energy capture. The cost of large cranes
and transportation, however, acts as a limit to tower height. As a
result, research is being conducted into several novel tower designs
that would eliminate the need for cranes for very high, heavy lifts.
One concept is the telescoping or self-erecting tower, while other
designs include lifting dollies or tower-climbing cranes that use towermounted tracks to lift the nacelle and rotor to the top of the tower.
Still other developments aim to increase the height of the tower without unduly sacricing material demands through the use of different
materials, such as concrete and breglass, or different designs, such
as space-frame construction or panel sections (see, e.g., GEC, 2001;
Malcolm, 2004; Lanier, 2005).
7.7.3.2
Chapter 7
Wind Energy
Table 7.3 | Areas of potential technology improvement from a 2002 baseline onshore wind turbine (based on US DOE, 2008).1
Increments from Baseline (Best/Expected/Least)
Technical Area
Potential Advances
Annual Energy Production (%)
+11/+11/+11
+8/+12/+20
Advanced materials
Improved structural-aero design
Active controls
Passive controls
Higher tip speed/lower acoustics
+35/+25/+10
-6/-3/+3
+7/+5/0
0/0/0
+8/+4/0
-11/-6/+1
0/0/0
-27/-13/-3
+61/+45/+21
-36/-10/+21
Manufacturing Learning
Totals
Note: 1. The baseline for these estimates was a 2002 turbine system in the USA. There have already been sizeable improvements in capacity factor since 2002, from just over 30% to
almost 35%, while investment costs have increased due to large increases in commodity costs in conjunction with a drop in the value of the US dollar. Therefore, working from a 2008
baseline, one might expect a more modest increase in capacity factor, but the 10% investment cost reduction is still quite possible (if not conservative), particularly from the higher
2008 starting point. Finally, the table does not consider any changes in the overall wind turbine design concept (e.g., two-bladed turbines).
using mechanisms that vary the angle of attack of the blade airfoil relative to the wind inow. This is primarily accomplished with full-span
blade pitch control. An elegant concept, however, is to build passive
means of reducing loads directly into the blade structure (Ashwill, 2009).
By carefully tailoring the structural properties of the blade using the
unique attributes of composite materials, for example, blades can be
built in a way that couples the bending deformation of the blade resulting from the wind with twisting deformation that passively mimics the
motion of blade pitch control. Another approach is to build the blade
in a curved shape so that the aerodynamic load uctuations apply a
twisting movement to the blade, which will vary the angle of attack
(Ashwill, 2009). Because wind inow displays a complex variation of
speed and character across the rotor area, partial blade span actuation
and sensing strategies to maximize load reduction are also promising
(Buhl et al., 2005; Lackner and van Kuik, 2010). Devices such as trailing edge aps and micro-tabs, for example, are being investigated, but
new sensors may need to be developed for this purpose, with a goal of
creating smart blades with embedded sensors and actuators to control
local aerodynamic effects (Andersen et al., 2006; Berg et al., 2009). To
fully achieve these new designs, a better understanding of wind turbine
7.7.3.3
579
Wind Energy
track and monitor ongoing conditions at critical locations in the turbine and report incipient failure possibilities and damage evolution,
so that improved maintenance procedures can minimize outages and
downtimes (Hameed et al., 2010). The full development of advanced
control and monitoring systems of this nature will require considerable operational experience, and optimization algorithms will likely be
turbine-specic; the general approach, however, should be transferable between turbine designs and congurations.
7.7.3.4
Several unique turbine designs are under development or in early commercial deployment to reduce drive train weight and cost while improving
reliability (Poore and Lettenmaier, 2003; Bywaters et al., 2004; EWEA,
2009). One option, already in limited commercial use, is a direct-drive generator (removing the need for a gearbox); more than 10% of the additional
wind power capacity installed in 2009 used rst-generation direct drive
turbines (BTM, 2010), but additional design advances are envisioned. The
trade-off is that the slowly rotating generator must have a high pole count
and be large in diameter, imposing a weight penalty. The availability and
cost of rare-earth permanent magnets is expected to signicantly affect
the size and cost of future direct-drive generator designs, as permanentmagnet designs tend to be more compact and potentially lightweight, as
well as reducing electrical losses in the windings.
Various additional drive train congurations are being explored and
commercially deployed. A hybrid of the current geared and direct-drive
approaches is the use of a single-stage drive using a low- or mediumspeed generator. This allows the use of a generator that is signicantly
smaller and lighter than a comparable direct-drive design, and reduces
(but does not eliminate) reliance on a gearbox. Another approach is
the distributed drive train, where rotor torque is distributed to multiple
smaller generators (rather than a single, larger one), reducing component size and (potentially) weight. Still other innovative drive train
concepts are under development.
Power electronics that provide full power conversion from variable frequency alternating current (AC) electricity to constant frequency 50 or
60 Hz are also capable of providing ancillary grid services. The growth
in turbine size is driving larger power electronic components as well as
innovative higher-voltage circuit topologies. In the future, it is expected
that wind turbines will use higher-voltage generators and converters
than are used today (Erdman and Behnke, 2005), and therefore also
make use of higher-voltage and higher-capacity circuits and transistors.
New power conversion devices will need to be fully compliant with
emerging grid codes to ensure that wind power plants do not degrade
the reliability of the electric system.
580
Chapter 7
7.7.3.5
Manufacturing learning
7.7.3.6
The cost of offshore wind energy exceeds that of onshore wind energy
due, in part, to higher O&M costs as well as more expensive installation and support structures. The potential component-level technology
advances described above will contribute to lower offshore wind energy
costs, and some of those possible advances may even be largely driven
by the unique needs of offshore wind energy applications. In addition,
several areas of possible advancement are more specic to offshore
wind energy, including O&M strategies, installation and assembly
schemes, support structure design and the development of larger turbines, possibly including new turbine concepts.
Offshore wind turbines operate in harsh environments driven by both
wind and wave conditions that can make access to turbines challenging or even impossible for extended periods (Breton and Moe, 2009).
A variety of methods to provide greater access during a range of conditions are under consideration and development, including inatable
boats or helicopters (Van Bussel and Bierbooms, 2003). Sophisticated
O&M approaches that include remote assessments of turbine operability and the scheduling of preventative maintenance to maximize access
during favourable conditions are also being investigated, and employed
(Wiggelinkhuizen et al., 2008). The development of more reliable turbine
components, even if more expensive on a rst-cost basis, is also expected
to play a major role in reducing the overall levelized cost of offshore
wind energy. Efforts are underway to more thoroughly analyze gearbox
dynamics, for example, to contribute to more reliable designs (Peeters
et al., 2006; Heege et al., 2007). A number of the component-level innovations described earlier, such as advanced direct-drive generators and
passive blade controls, may also improve overall technology reliability.
Offshore wind turbine transportation and installation is not directly
restricted by road or other land-based infrastructure limits. As a result,
though offshore wind turbines are currently installed as individual
Chapter 7
Wind Energy
2009). In 2009, the rst full-scale oating wind turbine pilot plant
was deployed off the coast of Norway at a 220 m depth. Figure 7.19
depicts some of the foundation concepts (left) in use or under consideration in the near term, while also (right) illustrating the concept
of oating wind turbines, which are being considered for the longer
term.
Future offshore wind turbines may be larger, lighter and more exible. Offshore wind turbine size is not restricted in the same way as
onshore wind energy technology, and the relatively higher cost of
offshore foundations provides additional motivation for larger turbines (EWEA, 2009). As a result, turbines of 10 MW or larger are
under consideration. Future offshore turbine designs can benet
from many of the possible component-level advances described previously. Nonetheless, the development of large turbines for offshore
applications remains a signicant research challenge, requiring continued advancement in component design and system-level analysis.
Concepts that reduce the weight of the blades, tower and nacelle
become more important as size increases, providing opportunities
for greater advancement than may be incorporated in onshore wind
energy technology. In addition to larger turbines, design criteria for
offshore applications may be relaxed in cases where noise and visual
impacts are of lesser concern. As a result, other advanced turbine
concepts are under investigation, including two-bladed and downwind turbines. Downwind turbine designs may allow less-costly yaw
mechanisms, and the use of softer, more exible blades (Breton and
Moe, 2009). Finally, innovative turbine concepts and signicant upscaling of existing designs will require improved turbine modelling to
better capture the operating environment in which offshore turbines
Monopile
Tri-Pod
Jacket
Suction Caisson
Buoyancy Stabilized
Barge with Catenary
Mooring Lines
Gravity Base
Figure 7.19 | Offshore wind turbine foundation designs: (left) near-term concepts and (right) oating offshore turbine concept. Sources: (left) UpWind (UpWind.eu) and (right) NREL.
581
Wind Energy
7.7.4
582
Chapter 7
Madsen et al., 2010), and empirical models of these effects have been
developed (Bierbooms, 1992; Du and Selig, 1998; Snel, 2003; Leishman,
2006). Currently, these aerodynamic models rely on blade-element
moment methods (Spera, 2009) augmented with analytically and empirically based models to calculate the aerodynamic forces along the span of
the blade. The availability of effective computational uid dynamics codes
and their potential to deliver improved predictive accuracy, however, is
prompting broader application (M.O. Hansen et al., 2006). Aeroelastic
models, meanwhile, are used to translate aerodynamic forces into structural responses throughout the turbine system. As turbines grow in size
and are optimized, the structural exibility of the components will necessarily increase, causing more of the turbines vibration frequencies to play
a prominent role. To account for these effects, future aeroelastic tools will
have to better model large variations in the wind inow across the rotor,
higher-order vibration modes, nonlinear blade deection, and aeroelastic
damping and instability (Quarton, 1998; Rasmussen et al., 2003; Riziotis
et al., 2004; M.H. Hansen, 2007). The application of novel load-mitigation
control technologies to blades (e.g., deformable trailing edges) (Buhl et
al., 2005) will require analysis based on aeroelastic tools that are adapted
for these architectures. Similarly, exploration of control systems that utilize wind speed measurements in advance of the blade, such as light
detection and ranging (Harris et al., 2006) or pressure probe measurements (T. Larsen et al., 2004), will also require improved aeroelastic tools.
Offshore wind energy will require that aeroelastic tools better model
the coupled dynamic response of the wind turbine and the foundation/
support platform, as subjected to combined wind and wave loads
(Passon and Khn, 2005; Jonkman, 2009). Finally, aeroacoustic noise
(i.e., the noise of turbine blades) is an issue for wind turbines (Wagner et
al., 1996), and increasingly sophisticated tools are under development
to better understand and manage these effects (Wagner et al., 1996;
Moriarty and Migliore, 2003; Zhu et al., 2005, 2007; Shen and Srensen,
2007). As turbine aerodynamic, aeroelastic and aeroacoustic modelling
advances, the crucial role (e.g., Simms et al., 2001) of research-grade
turbine aerodynamics experiments (Hand et al., 2001; Snel et al., 2009)
grows ever more evident, as does the need for future high-quality laboratory and eld experiments. Even though wind turbines now extract
energy from the wind at levels approaching the theoretical maximum,
improved understanding of aerodynamic phenomena will allow more
accurate calculation of loads and thus the development of lighter, less
costly, more reliable and higher-performing turbines.
Wind power plant siting and array effects impact energy production and
equipment reliability at the power plant level. As wind power plants
grow in size and move offshore, such impacts become more important.
Rotor wakes create aeroelastic effects on downwind turbines (G. Larsen
et al., 2008). Improved models of wind turbine wakes (Thomsen and
Srensen, 1999; Frandsen et al., 2009; Barthelmie and Jensen, 2010) will
therefore yield more reliable predictions of energy capture and better
estimates of fatigue loading in large, multiple-row wind power plants,
both on- and offshore. This improved understanding may then lead to
wind turbine and power plant designs intended to minimize energy capture degradations and manage wake-based load impacts.
Chapter 7
Wind Energy
Planetary boundary layer research is important for accurately determining wind ow and turbulence in the presence of various atmospheric
stability effects and complex land surface characteristics. Research in
mesoscale atmospheric processes aims at improving the fundamental
understanding of mesoscale and local wind ows (Banta et al., 2003;
Kelley et al., 2004). In addition to its contribution towards understanding
turbine-level aerodynamic and array wake effects, a better understanding of mesoscale atmospheric processes will yield improved wind energy
resource assessments and forecasting methods. Physical and statistical
modelling to resolve spatial scales in the 100- to 1,000-m range, a notable gap in current capabilities (Wyngaard, 2004), could occupy a central
role of this research.
The levelized cost of energy from on- and offshore wind power plants is
affected by ve primary factors: annual energy production, investment
costs, O&M costs, nancing costs and the assumed economic life of the
plant.43 Available support policies can also inuence the cost (and price)
of wind energy, as well as the cost of other electricity supply options, but
these factors are not addressed here.
7.8
Cost trends41
Though the cost of wind energy has declined signicantly since the
1980s, policy measures are currently required to ensure rapid deployment in most regions of the world (e.g., NRC, 2010b). In some areas
with good wind resources, however, the cost of wind energy is competitive with current energy market prices (e.g., Berry, 2009; IEA, 2009; IEA
and OECD, 2010). Moreover, continued technology advances in on- and
offshore wind energy are expected (Section 7.7), supporting further cost
reductions. The degree to which wind energy is utilized globally and
regionally will depend largely on the economic performance of wind
energy compared to alternative power sources.
This section describes the factors that affect the cost of wind energy
(Section 7.8.1), highlights historical trends in the cost and performance
of wind power plants (Section 7.8.2), summarizes data and estimates
the levelized generation cost of wind energy in 2009 (Section 7.8.3),
41 Discussion of costs in this section is largely limited to the perspective of private
investors. Chapters 1 and 8 to 11 offer complementary perspectives on cost issues
covering, for example, costs of integration, external costs and benets, economywide costs and costs of policies.
7.8.1
The nature of the wind resource, which varies geographically and temporally, largely determines the annual energy production from a prospective
wind power plant, and is among the most important economic factors
(Burton et al., 2001). Precise micro-siting of wind power plants and even
individual turbines is critical for maximizing energy production. The trend
towards turbines with larger rotor diameters and taller towers has led to
increases in annual energy production per unit of installed capacity, and
has also allowed wind power plants in lower-resource areas to become
more economically competitive. Larger wind power plants, meanwhile,
have led to consideration of array effects whereby the production of
downwind turbines is affected by those turbines located upwind. Offshore
power plants will, generally, be exposed to better wind resources than will
onshore plants (EWEA, 2009).
Wind power plants are capital intensive and, over their lifetime, the initial
investment cost ranges from 75 to 80% of total expenditure, with O&M
costs contributing the balance (Blanco, 2009; EWEA, 2009). The investment cost includes the cost of the turbines (turbines, transportation to site,
and installation), grid connection (cables, sub-station, connection), civil
works (foundations, roads, buildings), and other costs (engineering, licensing, permitting, environmental assessments and monitoring equipment).
Table 7.4 shows a rough breakdown of the investment cost components
for modern wind power plants. Turbine costs comprise more than 70%
of total investment costs for onshore wind power plants. The remaining
investment costs are highly site-specic. Offshore wind power plants are
dominated by these other costs, with the turbines often contributing less
than 50% of the total. Site-dependent characteristics such as water depth
and distance to shore signicantly affect grid connection, civil works and
42 The environmental impacts and costs of RE and non-RE sources are summarized in
Chapters 9 and 10, respectively.
43 Decommissioning costs also exist, but are not expected to be sizable in most instances.
583
Wind Energy
Chapter 7
Table 7.4 | Investment cost distribution for on- and offshore wind power plants (Data sources: Blanco, 2009; EWEA, 2009).
Cost Component
Offshore (%)1
Onshore (%)
Turbine
7176
3749
Grid connection
1012
2123
Civil works
79
2125
58
915
other costs. Offshore turbine foundations and internal electric grids are
also considerably more costly than those for onshore power plants.
The O&M costs of wind power plants include xed costs such as land
leases, insurance, taxes, management, and forecasting services, as well as
variable costs related to the maintenance and repair of turbines, including
spare parts. O&M comprises approximately 20% of total wind power plant
expenditure over a plants lifetime (Blanco, 2009), with roughly 50% of
total O&M costs associated directly with maintenance, repair and spare
parts (EWEA, 2009). O&M costs for offshore wind energy are higher than
for onshore due to the less mature state of technology as well as the
challenges and costs of accessing offshore turbines, especially in harsh
weather conditions (Blanco, 2009).
Financing arrangements, including the cost of debt and equity and the
proportional use of each, can also inuence the cost of wind energy, as
can the expected operating life of the wind power plant. For example,
ownership and nancing structures have evolved in the USA that minimize
the cost of capital while taking advantage of available incentives (Bolinger
et al., 2009). Other research has found that the predictability of the policy
measures supporting wind energy can have a sizable impact on nancing
costs, and therefore the ultimate cost of wind energy (Wiser and Pickle,
1998; Dinica, 2006; Dunlop, 2006; Agnolucci, 2007). Because offshore
wind power plants are still relatively new, with greater performance risk,
higher nancing costs are experienced than for onshore plants (Dunlop,
2006; Blanco, 2009), and larger rms tend to dominate offshore wind
energy development and ownership (Markard and Petersen, 2009).
7.8.2
Historical trends
7.8.2.1
Investment costs
584
7.8.2.2
Modern turbines that meet IEC standards are designed for a 20-year
life, and plant lifetimes may exceed 20 years if O&M costs remain at
an acceptable level. Few wind power plants were constructed 20 or
more years ago, however, and there is therefore limited experience in
plant operations over this entire time period (Echavarria et al., 2008).
Moreover, those plants that have reached or exceeded their 20-year
lifetime tend to have turbines that are much smaller and less sophisticated than their modern counterparts. Early turbines were also designed
using more conservative criteria, though they followed less stringent
standards than todays designs. As a result, early plants only offer limited guidance for estimating O&M costs for more recent turbine designs.
In general, O&M costs during the rst couple of years of a wind power
plants life are covered, in part, by manufacturer warranties that are
included in the turbine purchase, resulting in lower ongoing costs than
in subsequent years. Newer turbine models also tend to have lower initial O&M costs than older models, with maintenance costs increasing
Chapter 7
Wind Energy
5,000
4,500
Average Project Investment Cost
4,000
3,500
3,000
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
2006
2007
2008
2006
2007
2008
2009
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
1994
1993
1992
1991
1990
1989
1988
1987
1986
1985
1984
1983
2005
1982
5,000
4,500
4,000
3,500
3,000
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
2009
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
1994
1993
1992
1991
1990
1989
1988
1987
1986
1985
1984
1983
1982
Figure 7.20. Investment cost of onshore wind power plants in (upper panel) Denmark (Data source: Nielson et al., 2010) and (lower panel) the USA (Wiser and Bolinger, 2010).
as turbines age (Blanco, 2009; EWEA, 2009; Wiser and Bolinger, 2010).
Offshore wind power plants have historically incurred higher O&M costs
than onshore plants (Junginger et al., 2004; EWEA, 2009; Lemming et al.,
2009).
7.8.2.3
Energy production
The performance of wind power plants is highly site-specic, and is primarily governed by the characteristics of the local wind regime, which varies
geographically and temporally. Wind power plant performance is also
impacted by wind turbine design optimization, performance, and availability, however, and by the effectiveness of O&M procedures. Improved
resource assessment and siting methodologies developed in the 1970s
and 1980s played a major role in improved wind power plant productivity.
Advances in wind energy technology, including taller towers and larger
rotors, have also contributed to increased energy capture (EWEA, 2009).
Though plant-level capacity factors vary widely, data on average eetwide capacity factors45 for a large sample of onshore wind power
plants in the USA show a trend towards higher average capacity factors over time, as wind power plants built more recently have higher
45 A wind power plants capacity factor is only a partial indicator of performance
(EWEA, 2009). Most turbine manufacturers supply variations on a given generator
capacity with multiple rotor diameters and hub heights. In general, for a given generator capacity, increasing the hub height, the rotor diameter, or the average wind
speed will result in an increased capacity factor. When comparing different wind
turbines, however, it is possible to increase annual energy capture by using a larger
generator, while at the same time decreasing the capacity factor.
585
Wind Energy
Chapter 7
7,000
6,000
5,000
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
0
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
Figure 7.21 | Investment cost of operating and announced offshore wind power plants (Musial and Ram, 2010).
average capacity factors than those built earlier (Figure 7.22). Higher
hub heights and larger rotor sizes are primarily responsible for these
improvements, as the more recent wind power plants built in this time
period and included in Figure 7.22 were, on average, sited in relatively
lower-quality wind resource regimes.
7.8.3
Current conditions
7.8.3.1
Investment costs
The investment costs for onshore wind power plants installed worldwide
in 2009 averaged approximately USD2005 1,750/kW, with many plants
falling in the range of USD2005 1,400 to 2,100/kW (Milborrow, 2010);
data in IEA Wind (2010) are reasonably consistent with this range. Wind
power plants installed in the USA in 2009 averaged USD2005 1,900/
kW (Wiser and Bolinger, 2010). Costs in some markets were lower: for
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Projects:
11
17
77
124
137
163
190
217
258
299
242
MW:
701
1.158
2.199
3.955
4.458
5.784
6.467
9.289
11.253
16.068
22.346
Figure 7.22 | Fleet-wide average capacity factors for a large sample of wind power plants in the USA from 1999 to 2009 (Wiser and Bolinger, 2010).
586
Chapter 7
Wind Energy
Wind power plant investment costs rose from 2004 to 2009 (Figure 7.20),
an increase primarily caused by the rising price of wind turbines (Wiser
and Bolinger, 2010). Those price increases have been attributed to a number of factors. Increased rotor diameters and hub heights have enhanced
the energy capture of modern wind turbines, for example, but those
performance improvements have come with increased turbine costs,
measured on a dollar per kW basis. The costs of raw materials, including steel, copper, cement, aluminium and carbon bre, also rose sharply
from 2004 through mid-2008 as a result of strong global economic
growth. The strong demand for wind turbines over this period also
put upward pressure on labour costs, and enabled turbine manufacturers and their component suppliers to boost prot margins. Strong
demand, in excess of available supply, also placed particular pressure on critical components such as gearboxes and bearings (Blanco,
2009). Moreover, because many of the wind turbine manufacturers
have historically been based in Europe, and many of the critical components have similarly been manufactured in Europe, the relative
value of the Euro compared to other currencies also contributed to the
wind turbine price increases in certain countries. Turbine manufacturers and component suppliers responded to the tight supply over this
period by expanding or adding new manufacturing facilities. Coupled
with reductions in materials costs that began in late 2008 as a result
of the global nancial crisis, these trends began to moderate wind
turbine prices in 2009 (Wiser and Bolinger, 2010).
7.8.3.2
Though xed O&M costs such as insurance, land payments and routine maintenance are relatively easy to estimate, variable costs such as
repairs and spare parts are more difcult to predict (Blanco, 2009). O&M
costs can vary by wind power plant, turbine type and age, and the availability of a local servicing infrastructure, among other factors. Levelized
O&M costs for onshore wind energy are often estimated to range from
US cents2005 1.2 to 2.3/kWh (Blanco, 2009); these gures are reasonably
consistent with costs reported in EWEA (2009), IEA (2010c), Milborrow
(2010), and Wiser and Bolinger (2010).
Limited empirical data exist on O&M costs for offshore wind energy,
due in large measure to the limited number of operating plants and the
limited duration of those plants operation. Reported or estimated O&M
costs for offshore plants installed since 2002 range from US cents2005 2 to
4/kWh (EWEA, 2009; IEA, 2009, 2010c; Lemming et al., 2009; Milborrow,
2010; UKERC, 2010).
7.8.3.3
Energy production
Onshore wind power plant performance varies substantially, with capacity factors ranging from below 20 to more than 50% depending largely
on local resource conditions. Among countries, variations in average performance also reect differing wind resource conditions, as well as any
difference in the wind turbine technology that is deployed: the average
capacity factor for Germanys installed plants has been estimated at
20.5% (BTM, 2010); European country-level average capacity factors
range from 20 to 30% (Boccard, 2009); average capacity factors in China
are reported at roughly 23% (Li, 2010); average capacity factors in India
are reported at around 20% (Goyal, 2010); and the average capacity factor for US wind power plants is above 30% (Wiser and Bolinger, 2010).
Offshore wind power plants often experience a narrower range in capacity
factors, with a typical range of 35 to 45% for the European plants installed
to date (Lemming et al., 2009); some offshore plants in the UK, however,
have experienced capacity factors of roughly 30%, in part due to relatively
high component failures and access limitations (UKERC, 2010).
Because of these variations among countries and individual plants,
which are primarily driven by local wind resource conditions but are
also affected by turbine design and operations, estimates of the levelized cost of wind energy must include a range of energy production
estimates. Moreover, because the attractiveness of offshore plants
is enhanced by the potential for greater energy production than for
onshore plants, performance variations among on- and offshore wind
energy must also be considered.
587
Wind Energy
7.8.3.4
Chapter 7
35
Offshore USD 5,000/kW
30
25
20
15
10
The levelized cost of on- and offshore wind energy varies substantially,
depending on assumed investment costs, energy production and discount rates. For onshore wind energy, levelized generation costs in
good to excellent wind resource regimes are estimated to average US
cents2005 5 to 10/kWh. Levelized generation costs can reach US cents2005
15/kWh in lower- resource areas. The costs of wind energy in China and
Using the methods summarized in Annex II, the levelized generation cost
of wind energy is presented in Figure 7.23. For onshore wind energy,
estimates are provided for plants built in 2009; for offshore wind energy,
estimates are provided for plants built in 2008 and 2009 as well as those
plants planned for completion in the early 2010s.46 Estimated levelized
costs are presented over a range of energy production estimates to represent the cost variation associated with inherent differences in the wind
resource. The x-axis for these charts roughly correlates to annual average
35
Offshore Discount Rate = 10%
Offshore Discount Rate = 7%
30
25
20
15
10
5
China
European Low-Medium Wind Areas
US Great Plains
0
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Figure 7.23 | Estimated levelized cost of on- and offshore wind energy, 2009: (left) as a function of capacity factor and investment cost* and (right) as a function of capacity factor
and discount rate**.
Notes: * Discount rate assumed to equal 7%. ** Onshore investment cost assumed at USD2005 1,750/kW, and offshore at USD2005 3,900/kW.
the USA tend towards the lower range of these estimates, due to lower
average investment costs (China) and higher average capacity factors
(USA); costs in much of Europe tend towards the higher end of the range
due to relatively lower average capacity factors. Though the offshore
cost estimates are more uncertain, offshore wind energy is generally
more expensive than onshore, with typical levelized generation costs
that are estimated to range from US cents2005 10/kWh to more than US
cents2005 20/kWh for recently built or planned plants located in relatively
46 Because investment costs have risen in recent years, using the cost of recent and
planned plants reasonably reects the current cost of offshore wind energy.
48 Though the same discount rate range and mid-point are used for on- and offshore
wind energy, offshore wind power plants currently experience higher-cost nancing
than do onshore plants. As such, the levelized cost of energy from offshore plants
may, in practice, tend towards the higher end of the range presented in the gure, at
least in comparison to onshore plants.
47 Based on data presented earlier in this section, the mid-level investment cost for onand offshore wind power plants does not represent the arithmetic mean between
the low and high end of the range.
49 Decommissioning costs are generally assumed to be low, and are excluded from
these calculations.
588
Chapter 7
Wind Energy
7.8.4
7.8.4.1
Table 7.5 | Summary of learning curve literature for onshore wind energy.
Authors
Neij (1997)
Global or National
Data Years
Independent Variable
(cumulative capacity)
Dependent Variable
Denmark3
19821995
14
USA
19811996
Neij (1999)
Denmark3
19821997
Wene (2000)
32
USA2
19851994
Wene (2000)
18
EU
EU (generation cost)
19801995
10
Global
19711997
19
Global
UK (investment cost)
19922001
15
Global
19902001
19862000
14
Global
19811997
Jamasb (2007)
13
Global
19801998
19862000
19862000
Neij (2008)
17
Denmark
19812000
Kahouli-Brahmi (2009)
17
Global
19791997
Nemet (2009)
11
Global
19812004
17
Global
19862002
Global
19822009
Notes: 1. Two-factor learning curve that also includes R&D; others are one-factor learning curves. 2. Independent variable is cumulative production of electricity. 3. Cumulative
turbine production used as independent variable; others use cumulative installations.
50 It is too early to develop a meaningful learning curve for offshore wind energy based
on actual data from offshore plants. Studies have sometimes used learning rates to
estimate future offshore costs, but those learning rates have typically been synthesized based on judgment and on learning rates for related industries and offshore
subsystems (e.g., Junginger et al., 2004; Carbon Trust, 2008b).
589
Wind Energy
installed wind power capacity), data quality, and the time period over
which data are available. Because of these and other differences, the
learning rates for wind energy presented in Table 7.5 range from 4 to
32%, but need special attention to be accurately interpreted and compared. Focusing only on the smaller set of studies completed in 2004
and later that have prepared estimates of learning curves based on total
wind power plant investment costs and global cumulative installations,
the range of learning rates narrows to 9 to 19%; the lowest gure within
this range (9%) is the only one that includes data from 2004 to 2009, a
period of increasing wind power plant investment costs.
There are also a number of limitations to the use of such models to
forecast future costs (e.g., Junginger et al., 2010). First, learning curves
typically (and simplistically) model how costs have decreased with
increased installations in the past, but do not comprehensively explain
the reasons behind the decrease (Mukora et al., 2009). In reality, costs
may decline in part due to traditional learning and in part due to other factors, such as R&D expenditure and increases in turbine, power plant, and
manufacturing facility size. Learning rate estimates that do not account
for such factors may suffer from omitted variable bias, and may therefore
be inaccurate. Second, if learning curves are used to forecast future cost
trends, not only should the other factors that may inuence costs be
considered, but one must also assume that learning rates derived from
historical data can be appropriately used to estimate future trends. As
technologies mature, however, diminishing returns in cost reduction can
be expected, and learning rates may fall (Arrow, 1962; Ferioli et al., 2009;
Nemet, 2009). Third, the most appropriate cost measure for wind energy
is arguably the levelized cost of energy, as wind energy generation
costs are affected by investment costs, O&M costs and energy production (EWEA, 2009; Ferioli et al., 2009). Unfortunately, only two of the
published studies calculate the learning rate for wind energy using a levelized cost of energy metric (Wene, 2000; Neij, 2008); most studies have
used the more readily available metrics of investment cost or turbine
cost. Fourth, a number of the published studies have sought to explain
cost trends based on cumulative wind power capacity installations or
production in individual countries or regions of the world; because the
wind energy industry is global in scope, however, it is likely that much
of the learning is now occurring based on cumulative global installations (e.g., Ek and Sderholm, 2010). Finally, from 2004 through 2009,
wind turbine and power plant investment costs increased substantially,
countering the effects of learning, in part due to materials and labour
price increases and in part due to increased manufacturer protability.
Because production cost data are not generally publicly available, learning curve estimates typically rely upon price data that can be impacted
by changes in materials costs and manufacturer protability, resulting in
the possibility of poorly estimated learning rates if dynamic price effects
are not considered (Yu et al., 2011).
7.8.4.2
7.8.4.3
A number of studies have developed forecasted cost trajectories for onand offshore wind energy based on differing combinations of learning
curve estimates, engineering models, and/or expert judgement. These
estimates are sometimesbut not alwayslinked to certain levels of
assumed wind energy deployment. Representative examples of this literature include Junginger et al. (2004), Carbon Trust (2008b), IEA (2008,
2010b, 2010c), US DOE (2008), EWEA (2009), Lemming et al. (2009),
Teske et al. (2010), GWEC and GPI (2010) and UKERC (2010).
Recognizing that the starting year of the forecasts, the methodological approaches used, and the assumed deployment levels vary, these
recent studies nonetheless support a range of levelized cost of energy
reductions for onshore wind of 10 to 30% by 2020, and for offshore
wind of 10 to 40% by 2020. Some studies focused on offshore wind
energy technology even identify scenarios in which market factors lead
to continued increases in the cost of offshore wind energy, at least in the
near to medium term (BWEA and Garrad Hassan, 2009; UKERC, 2010).
Longer-term projections are more reliant on assumed deployment levels
and are subject to greater uncertainties, but for 2030, the same studies
support reductions in the levelized cost of onshore wind energy of 15 to
35% and of offshore wind energy of 20 to 45%.
590
Chapter 7
Chapter 7
are inherently more uncertain and depend, in part, on deployment levels and R&D expenditures that are also uncertain, the focus here is on
relatively nearer-term cost projections to 2020. Specically, Section
7.8.3.4 reported 2009 levelized cost of energy estimates for onshore
wind energy of roughly US cents2005 5 to 15/kWh, whereas estimates
for offshore wind energy were in the range of US cents2005 10 to 20/
kWh. Conservatively, the percentage cost reductions reported above can
be applied to these estimated 2009 levelized generation cost values to
develop low and high projections for future levelized generation costs.51
Based on these assumptions, the levelized generation cost of onshore
wind energy could range from roughly US cents2005 3.5 to 10.5/kWh by
2020 in a high cost-reduction case (30% by 2020), and from US cents2005
4.5 to 13.5/kWh in a low cost-reduction case (10% by 2020). Offshore
wind energy is often anticipated to experience somewhat deeper cost
reductions, with levelized generation costs that range from roughly US
cents2005 6 to 12/kWh by 2020 in a high cost-reduction case (40% by
2020) to US cents2005 9 to 18/kWh in a low cost-reduction case (10%
by 2020).52
Uncertainty exists over future wind energy costs, and the range of
costs associated with varied wind resource strength introduces greater
uncertainty. As installed wind power capacity increases, higher-quality
resource sites will tend to be utilized rst, leaving higher-cost sites for
later development. As a result, the average levelized cost of wind energy
will depend on the amount of deployment, not only due to learning
effects, but also because of resource exhaustion. This supply-curve
effect is not captured in the estimates presented above. The estimates
presented here therefore provide an indication of the technology
advancement potential for on- and offshore wind energy, but should be
used with some caution.
7.9
Potential deployment53
Wind energy offers signicant potential for near- and long-term GHG
emissions reductions. The wind power capacity installed by the end of
2009 was capable of meeting roughly 1.8% of worldwide electricity
demand and, as presented in this section, that contribution could grow
to in excess of 20% by 2050. On a global basis, the wind resource is
51 Because of the cost drivers discussed earlier in this section, wind energy costs in
2009 were higher than in some previous years. Applying the percentage cost reductions from the available literature to the 2009 starting point is, therefore, arguably a
conservative approach to estimating future cost reduction possibilities; an alternative
approach would be to use the absolute values of the cost estimates provided by the
available literature. As a result, and also due to the underlying uncertainty associated
with projections of this nature, future costs outside of the ranges presented here are
possible.
52 As mentioned earlier, the 2009 starting point values for offshore wind energy are
consistent with recently built or planned plants located in relatively shallow water.
53 Complementary perspectives on potential deployment based on a comprehensive
assessment of numerous model-based scenarios of the energy system are presented
in Sections 10.2 and 10.3 of this report.
Wind Energy
7.9.1
Near-term forecasts
The rapid increase in global wind power capacity from 2000 to 2009
is expected by many studies to continue in the near to medium term
(Table 7.6). From the roughly 160 GW of wind power capacity installed
by the end of 2009, the IEA (2010b) New Policies scenario and the
EIA (2010) Reference case scenario predict growth to 358 GW (forecasted electricity generation of 2.7 EJ/yr) and 277 GW (forecasted
electricity generation of 2.5 EJ/yr) by 2015, respectively. Wind energy
industry organizations predict even faster deployment rates, noting
that past IEA and EIA forecasts have understated actual growth by a
sizable margin (BTM, 2010; GWEC, 2010a). However, even these more
aggressive forecasts estimate that wind energy will contribute less
than 5% of global electricity supply by 2015. Asia, North America and
Europe are projected to lead in wind power capacity additions over
this period.
7.9.2
591
Wind Energy
Chapter 7
Generation (EJ/yr)
Year
IEA (2010b)1
358
2.7
3.1
2015
EIA (2010)2
277
2.5
3.1
2015
GWEC (2010a)
409
N/A
N/A
2014
BTM (2010)
448
3.4
4.0
2014
The IPCCs Fourth Assessment Report assumed that on- and offshore
wind energy could contribute 7% of global electricity supply by 2030, or
8 EJ/yr (2,200 TWh/yr) (IPCC, 2007). Not surprisingly, this gure is higher
than some commonly cited business-as-usual, reference-case forecasts
(the IPCC estimate is not a business-as-usual case, but was instead
developed within the context of efforts to mitigate global climate
change). The IEAs World Energy Outlook Current Policies scenario, for
example, shows wind energy increasing to 6.0 EJ/yr (1,650 TWh/yr) by
2030, or 4.8% of global electricity supply (IEA, 2010b).54 The US Energy
Information Administration (EIA) forecasts 4.6 EJ/yr (1,200 TWh/yr) of
wind energy in its 2030 reference case projection, or 3.9% of net electricity production from central producers (EIA, 2010).
A summary of the literature on the possible future contribution of RE
supplies in meeting global energy needs under a range of GHG concentration stabilization scenarios is provided in Chapter 10. Focusing
specically on wind energy, Figures 7.24 and 7.25 present modelling
results for the global supply of wind energy, in EJ/yr and as a percent
of global electricity supply, respectively. About 150 different long-term
scenarios underlie Figures 7.24 and 7.25. These scenario results derive
from a diversity of modelling teams, and span a wide range of assumptions foramong other variableselectricity demand growth, the cost
and availability of competing low-carbon technologies, and the cost and
availability of RE technologies (including wind energy). Chapter 10 discusses how changes in some of these variables impact RE deployment
outcomes, with Section 10.2.2 providing a description of the literature
from which the scenarios have been taken. In Figures 7.24 and 7.25,
the wind energy deployment results under these scenarios for 2020,
2030 and 2050 are presented for three GHG concentration stabilization
ranges, based on the IPCCs Fourth Assessment Report: Baselines (>600
ppm CO2), Categories III and IV (440 to 600 ppm) and Categories I and II
(<440 ppm), all by 2100. Results are presented for the median scenario,
the 25th to 75th percentile range among the scenarios, and the minimum and maximum scenario results.55
54 The IEA (2010b) Current Policies scenario only reects existing government policies,
and is most similar to past IEA Reference case forecasts. IEA (2010b) also presents
a New Policies scenario, in which stated government commitments are also considered, and in that instance wind energy grows to 8.2 EJ/yr (2,280 TWh/yr) by 2030,
or 7% of global electricity supply.
55 In scenario ensemble analyses such as the review underlying the gures, there is a
constant tension between the fact that the scenarios are not truly a random sample
and the sense that the variation in the scenarios does still provide real and often
clear insights into collective knowledge or lack of knowledge about the future (see
Section 10.2.1.2 for a more detailed discussion).
592
Chapter 7
Wind Energy
120
N=152
Baselines
Cat. III + IV (440 - 600 ppm)
80
60
40
20
0
2020
2030
2050
Figure 7.24 | Global primary energy supply of wind energy in long-term scenarios
(median, 25th to 75th percentile range, and full range of scenario results; colour coding is
based on categories of atmospheric CO2 concentration level in 2100; the specic number
of scenarios underlying the gure is indicated in the right upper corner) (adapted from
Krey and Clarke, 2011; see also Chapter 10).
50
N=149
40
median contribution of wind energy in the two GHG concentration stabilization scenarios is 23 to 27 EJ/yr (6,500 to 7,600 TWh/yr), increasing to 45
to 47 EJ/yr at the 75th percentile (12,400 to 12,900 TWh/yr), and to more
than 100 EJ/yr in the highest scenario (31,500 TWh/yr). Achieving this contribution would require wind energy to deliver around 13 to 14% of global
electricity supply by 2050 in the median scenario result, and 21 to 25% at
the 75th percentile of the reviewed scenarios. By 2030, the corresponding
wind electricity penetration levels are 9 to 10% in the median scenario
result, increasing to 23 to 24% at the 75th percentile of the reviewed
scenarios. Scenarios generated by wind energy and RE organizations
are consistent with this median to 75th percentile range; Lemming et al.
(2009), Teske et al. (2010), and GWEC and GPI (2010), for example, estimate
the possibility of 31 to 39 EJ/yr (8,500 to 10,800 TWh/yr) of wind energy
by 2050.
To achieve these levels of deployment, policies to reduce GHG emissions
and/or increase RE supplies would likely be necessary, and those policies
would need to be of adequate economic attractiveness and predictability
to motivate substantial private investment (see Chapter 11). A variety of
other possible challenges to aggressive wind energy growth also deserve
discussion.
Resource Potential: Even the highest estimates for long-term wind
energy supply in Figure 7.24 are below the global technical potential estimates for wind energy presented in Section 7.2, suggesting thaton a
global basis, at leasttechnical potential is unlikely to be a limiting factor
to wind energy deployment. Moreover, ample technical potential exists in
most regions of the world to enable signicant wind energy deployment
relative to current levels. In certain countries or regions, however, higher
deployment levels will begin to constrain the most economical resource
supply, and wind energy will therefore not contribute equally in meeting
the needs of every country.
30
20
10
0
2020
2030
2050
Figure 7.25 | Wind electricity share in total global electricity supply in long-term scenarios (median, 25th to 75th percentile range, and full range of scenario results; colour
coding is based on categories of atmospheric CO2 concentration level in 2100; the specic
number of scenarios underlying the gure is indicated in the right upper corner) (adapted
from Krey and Clarke, 2011; see also Chapter 10).
593
Wind Energy
Chapter 7
Table 7.7 | Regional distribution of global wind electricity supply (percentage of total worldwide wind electricity supply).
Region1
(IEA, 2010c)2
2050
Advanced Scenario
27%
19%
13%
Latin America
4%
9%
8%
OECD Europe
22%
15%
21%
4%
8%
4%
OECD Pacic
5%
10%
7%
Developing Asia
35%
34%
39%
Africa
3%
2%
2%
Middle East
1%
3%
5%
Notes: 1. Regions are dened by each study, except that: GWEC and GPI (2010) estimates for Non-OECD Asia are placed under Developing Asia; IEA (2010c) estimates for U.S. and
Other OECD North America are consolidated under OECD North America while estimates for Eastern EU and Former Soviet Union are placed under Eastern Europe / Eurasia; and
Teske et al. (2010) estimates for Transition Economies are placed under Eastern Europe / Eurasia. For all three studies, results for China and India are consolidated under Developing
Asia. (See also Annex II for denitions of regions and country groupings.) 2. For IEA (2010c), the percentage of worldwide wind power capacity investment through 2050 is presented.
that are already witnessing substantial wind energy activity (e.g., Lewis,
2007; IEA, 2009).
594
Chapter 7
Moreover, given the locational dependence of the wind resource, substantial new transmission infrastructure both on- and offshore would
be required under even the more modest wind energy deployment
scenarios presented earlier. Both cost and institutional barriers would
need to be overcome to develop this needed transmission infrastructure
(see Section 7.5 and Chapters 8 and 11).
Social and Environmental Concerns: Finally, given concerns about
the social and environmental impacts of wind power plants summarized
in Section 7.6, efforts to better understand the nature and magnitude
of these impacts, together with efforts to minimize and mitigate those
impacts, will need to be pursued in concert with increasing wind energy
deployment. Prominent environmental concerns about wind energy
include bird and bat collision fatalities and habitat and ecosystem modications, while prominent social concerns include visibility and landscape
impacts as well as various nuisance effects and possible radar interference. As wind energy deployment increases globally and regionally and as
larger wind power plants are considered, existing concerns may become
more acute and new concerns may arise. Though community and scientic concerns need to be addressed, more proactive planning, siting and
permitting procedures for both on- and offshore wind energy may be
Wind Energy
7.9.3
The literature presented in this section suggests that wind electricity penetration levels that approach or exceed 10% of global electricity supply
by 2030 are feasible, assuming that cost and policy factors are favourable
towards wind energy deployment. The scenarios further suggest that even
more ambitious policies and/or technology improvements may allow wind
energy to reach or exceed 20% of global electricity supply by 2050, and that
these levels of supply may be economically attractive within the context of
global climate change mitigation scenarios. However, a variety of challenges
would need to be overcome if wind energy was to achieve these aggressive levels of penetration. In particular, the degree to which wind energy is
utilized in the future will largely depend on: the economics of wind energy
compared to alternative power sources; policies to directly or indirectly support wind energy deployment; local siting and permitting challenges; and
real or perceived concerns about the ability to integrate wind energy into
electric supply systems.
595
Wind Energy
References
Chapter 7
Ashwill, T.D. (2009). Materials and innovations for large blade structures: research
opportunities in wind energy technology. In: 50th AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC
Structures, Structural Dynamics, and Materials Conference. Palm Springs, CA,
3TIER (2009). The First Look Global Wind Dataset: Annual Mean Validation. 3TIER,
Seattle, WA, USA, 10 pp.
Ackermann, T. (ed.) (2005). Wind Power in Power Systems. John Wiley and Sons,
London, UK.
Ackermann, T., and L. Soder (2002). An overview of wind energy-status 2002.
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 6, pp. 67-127.
Agnolucci, P. (2007). The effect of nancial constraints, technological progress
and long-term contracts on tradable green certicates. Energy Policy, 35, pp.
3347-3359.
USA, 4-7 May 2009, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 20 pp.
Auer, H., M. Stadler, G. Resch, C. Huber, T. Schuster, H. Taus, L.H. Nielsen, J.
Twidell, and D.J. Swider (2004). Cost and Technical Constraints of RES-E
Grid Integration: Working package 2. European Commission, Brussels, Belgium,
82 pp.
AWEA (2008). Wind Energy Siting Handbook. American Wind Energy Association,
Washington, DC, USA, 183 pp.
AWEA (2009). AWEA Small Wind Turbine Global Market Study: Year Ending 2008.
American Wind Energy Association, Washington, DC, USA, 24 pp.
AIGS (2008). All Island Grid Study (AIGS). Workstream 4: Analysis of Impacts and
88 pp.
Allen, S.R., G.P. Hammond, and M.C. McManus (2008). Prospects for and barriers
to domestic micro-generation: A United Kingdom perspective. Applied Energy,
85, pp. 528-544.
Alves-Pereira, M., and C. Branco (2007). In-home wind turbine noise is conducive
to vibroacoustic disease. Presented at the Second International Meeting on Wind
Turbine Noise INCE/Europe, Lyon, France, 20-21 September, 2007.
Al-Yahyai, S., Y. Charabi, and A. Gastli (2010). Review of the use of Numerical
Weather Prediction (NWP) Models for wind energy assessment. Renewable and
Sustainable Energy Reviews, 14, pp. 3192-3198.
Amelin, M. (2009). Comparison of capacity credit calculation methods for
conventional power plants and wind power. IEEE Transactions on Power Systems,
24, pp. 685-691.
Andersen, P.B., C.B. Mac Gaunaa, and T. Buhl (2006). Load alleviation on
wind turbine blades using variable airfoil geometry. In: 2006 European Wind
Energy Conference and Exhibition Proceedings, Athens, Greece, 27 February
2 March 2006.
Apt, J. (2007). The spectrum of power from wind turbines. Journal of Power Sources,
169, pp. 369-374.
Archer, C.L., and M.Z. Jacobson (2005). Evaluation of global wind power. Journal
of Geophysical Research, 110, D12110.
Archer, C., and K. Caldeira (2009). Global assessment of high-altitude wind power.
Energies, 2, pp. 307-319.
Argatov, I., and R. Silvennoinen (2010). Energy conversion efciency of the
pumping kite wind generator. Renewable Energy, 35, pp. 1052-1060.
Argatov, I., P. Rautakorpi, and R. Silvennoinen (2009). Estimation of the
mechanical energy output of the kite wind generator. Renewable Energy, 34,
pp. 1525-1532.
Arnett, E.B., W.K. Brown, W.P. Erickson, J.K. Fiedler, B.L. Hamilton, T.H. Henry, A.
Jain, G.D. Johnson, J. Kerns, and R.R. Koford (2008). Patterns of bat fatalities
at wind energy facilities in North America. Journal of Wildlife Management, 72,
pp. 61-78.
Baidya, R.S., and J.J. Traiteur (2010). Impacts of wind farms on surface air
temperatures. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107, pp. 1789917904.
Banta, R.M., Y.L. Pichugina, and R.K. Newsom (2003). Relationship between
low-level jet properties and turbulence kinetic energy in the nocturnal stable
boundary layer. Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, 60, pp. 2549-2555.
Barclay, R.M.R., E.F. Baerwald, and J.C. Gruver (2007). Variation in bat and bird
fatalities at wind energy facilities: assessing the effects of rotor size and tower
height. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 85, pp. 381-387.
Barrios, L., and A. Rodriguez (2004). Behavioral and environmental correlates of
soaring bird mortality at onshore wind turbines. Journal of Applied Ecology, 41,
pp. 72-81.
Barthelmie, R.J., and L.E. Jensen (2010). Evaluation of wind farm efciency and
wind turbine wakes at the Nysted offshore wind farm. Wind Energy, 13, pp. 573586.
Barthelmie, R.J., G. Larsen, S.C. Pryor, H. Jrgensen, H. Bergstrm, W. Schlez,
K. Rados, B. Lange, P. Vlund, S. Neckelmann, S. Mogensen, G. Schepers,
T. Hegberg, L. Folkerts, and M. Magnusson (2004). ENDOW (efcient
development of offshore wind farms): Modelling wake and boundary layer
interactions. Wind Energy, 7, pp. 225-245.
Bastasch, M., J. van-Dam, B. Sndergaard, and A. Rogers (2006). Wind turbine
noise An overview. Canadian Acoustics, 34, pp. 7-15.
Bell, D., T. Gray, and C. Haggett (2005). The social gap in wind farm siting
decisions: Explanations and policy responses. Environmental Politics, 14, pp.
460-477.
Bengtsson, L., K.I. Hodges, and N. Keenlyside (2009). Will extratropical storms
intensify in a warmer climate? Journal of Climate, 22, pp. 2276-2301.
Benitez, L.E., P.C. Benitez, and G.C. van Kooten (2008). The economics of wind
power with energy storage. Energy Economics, 30, pp. 1973-1989.
Benjamin, R. (2007). Principles for interregional transmission expansion. The
Electricity Journal, 20, pp. 36-47.
Berg, D.E., D.G. Wilson, M.F. Barone, B.R. Resor, J.C. Berg, J.A. Paquette, J.R. Zayas,
Arnett, E.B., M.M.P. Huso, M.R. Schirmacher, and J.P. Hayes (2011). Altering
S. Kota, G. Ervin, and D. Maric (2009). The impact of active aerodynamic load
control on fatigue and energy capture at low wind speed sites. In: European Wind
596
Chapter 7
Berry, D. (2009). Innovation and the price of wind energy in the US. Energy Policy,
37, pp. 4493-4499.
Wind Energy
Burton, T., D. Sharpe, N. Jenkins, and E. Bossanyi (2001). Wind Energy: Handbook.
J. Wiley, Chichester, UK and New York, NY, USA, 642 pp.
Butler, M.M., and D.A. Johnson (2003). Feasibility of Mitigating the Effects of Wind
Farms on Primary Radar. UK Department of Trade and Industry, London, UK, 210
pp. 23-33.
Bird, L., M. Bolinger, T. Gagliano, R. Wiser, M. Brown, and B. Parsons (2005).
Policies and market factors driving wind power development in the United States.
Energy Policy, 33, pp. 1397-1407.
pp.
BWEA and Garrad Hassan (2009). UK Offshore Wind: Charting the Right Course.
British Wind Energy Association, London, UK, 42 pp.
Byrne, J., A. Zhou, B. Shen, and K. Hughes (2007). Evaluating the potential of
Black and Veatch (2003). Strategic Assessment of the Potential for Renewable
pp. 4391-4401.
Black, M., and G. Strbac (2006). Value of storage in providing balancing services
for electricity generation systems with high wind penetration. Journal of Power
Blanco, M.I. (2009). The economics of wind energy. Renewable and Sustainable
Energy Reviews, 13, pp. 1372-1382.
April 12, 2001 to January 31, 2005. National Renewable Energy Laboratory,
Golden, CO, USA, 404 pp.
Capps, S.B., and C.S. Zender (2010). Estimated global ocean wind power potential
wind energy availability in the Eastern Mediterranean using the regional climate
model PRECIS. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences, 8, pp. 12491257.
Boccard, N. (2009). Capacity factor of wind power realized values vs. estimates.
Energy Policy, 37, pp. 2679-2688.
Boccard N. (2010). Economic properties of wind power: A European assessment.
Energy Policy, 38, pp. 3232-3244.
Bolinger, M., J. Harper, and M. Karcher (2009). A review of wind project nancing
structures in the USA. Wind Energy, 12, pp. 295-309.
Bossanyi, EA. (2003). Individual blade pitch control for load reduction. Wind Energy,
6, pp. 119-128.
Boyle, M.A., and K.A. Kiel (2001). A survey of house price hedonic studies of
the impact of environmental externalities. Journal of Real Estate Literature, 9,
pp. 117-144.
Bradley, J.S. (1994). Annoyance caused by constant-amplitude and amplitudemodulated sounds containing rumble. Noise Control Engineering Journal, 42, pp.
203-208.
Brenner, M., S. Cazares, M. Cornwall, F. Dyson, D. Eardley, P. Horowitz, D. Long,
J. Sullivan, J. Vesecky, and P. Weinberger (2008). Wind Farms and Radar. US
Department of Homeland Security, McLean, VA, USA, 21 pp.
Breslow, P.B., and D.J. Sailor (2002). Vulnerability of wind power resources to
climate change in the continental United States. Renewable Energy, 27, pp. 585598.
Breton, S.P., and G. Moe (2009). Status, plans and technologies for offshore wind
turbines in Europe and North America. Renewable Energy, 34, pp. 646-654.
BTM (2010). International Wind Energy Development. World Market Update 2009.
BTM Consult ApS, Ringkbing, Denmark, 124 pp.
Carbon Trust (2008a). Small-scale Wind Energy: Policy Insights and Practical
Guidance. Carbon Trust, London, UK, 108 pp.
Carbon Trust (2008b). Offshore Wind power: Big Challenge, Big Opportunity. The
Carbon Trust, London, UK, 40 pp.
Cavallo, A. (2007). Controllable and affordable utility-scale electricity from
intermittent wind resources and compressed air energy storage (CAES). Energy,
32, pp. 120-127.
Chao, D.D., and C.P. van Dam (2007). Computational aerodynamic analysis of a
blunt trailing edge airfoil modication to the NREL Phase VI rotor. Wind Energy,
10, pp. 529-550.
China Renewable Energy Association (2009). Annual Report of New Energy and
Renewable Energy in China, 2009. China Renewable Energy Association, Beijing,
China.
Christiansen, M.B., and C.B. Hasager (2005). Wake effects of large offshore wind
farms identied from satellite SAR. Remote Sensing of Environment, 98, pp. 251268.
Christiansen, M.B., and C.B. Hasager (2006). Using airborne and satellite SAR for
wake mapping offshore. Wind Energy, 9, pp. 437-455.
Claussen, N.E., P. Lundsager, R.J. Barthelmie, H. Holttinen, T. Laakso, and
S.C. Pryor (2007). Wind power. In: Impacts of Climate Change on Renewable
Energy Sources. Their Role in the Nordic Energy System. J. Fenger (ed.), Nordic
Council of Ministers, Copenhagen, Denmark, pp. 105-128.
CMA (2006). The Report of Wind Energy Resource Assessment in China. China
Meteorological Administration, China Meteorological Press, Beijing, China.
CMOH (2010). The Potential Health Impacts of Wind Turbines. Ontario Chief Medical
Buhl, T., M. Gaunaa, and C. Bak (2005). Potential load reduction using airfoils with
variable trailing edge geometry. Journal of Solar Energy Engineering, 127, pp.
review on the young history of the wind power short-term prediction. Renewable
503-516.
Burke, D.J., and M.J. OMalley (2010). Maximizing rm wind connection to security
749-759.
597
Wind Energy
Cryan, P.M., and R.M.R. Barclay RMR (2009). Causes of bat fatalities at
wind turbines: hypotheses and predictions. Journal of Mammalogy, 90, pp.
1330-1340.
Chapter 7
Drewitt, A.L., and R.W. Langston (2006). Assessing the impacts of wind farms on
birds. Ibis, 148, pp. 29-42.
Du, Z., and M.S. Selig (1998). A 3-D stall-delay model for horizontal axis wind
turbine performance prediction. In: Proceedings of the 1998 ASME Wind Energy
for an energy supply with wind power. In: Proceedings of Wind Power for the 21st
ASME International, Reno, NV, USA, 12-15 January 1998, pp. 9-19.
Dunlop, J. (2006). Wind power project returns What should equity investors
expect? Journal of Structured Finance, 12, pp. 81-89.
Drr, T., and L. Bach (2004). Bat deaths and wind turbines a review of current
knowledge, and of the information available in the database for Germany.
Bremer Beitrge fr Naturkunde und Naturschutz, 7, pp. 253-264.
Durstewitz, M., B. Hahn, B. Lange, K. Rohrig, and A. Wessel (2008). Windenergie
Report Deutschland 2007. Institut fr Solare Energieversorgungstechnik (ISET),
Kessel, Germany.
Ea Energianalyse (2007). 50% Wind Power in Denmark in 2025. Ea Energieanalyse,
Copenhagen, Denmark, 121 pp.
EC (2003). External Costs: Research Results on Socio-Environmental Damages Due
to Electricity and Transport. European Commission (EC), Brussels, Belgium,
28 pp.
EC (2006). European Energy and Transport: Scenarios on Energy Efciency and
Renewables. European Commission (EC), Brussels, Belgium, 124 pp.
EC (2009). Communication from the Commission on Investing in the Development of
Low Carbon Technologies (SET-Plan). A Technology Roadmap. Commission of the
European Communities, Brussels, Belgium, 1295 pp.
Echavarria, E., B. Hahn, G.J.W. Van Bussel, and T. Tomiyama (2008). Reliability
large penetrations of wind generation: A case study of Ireland and Great Britain.
130, 031005.
Des Rosiers, F. (2002). Power lines, visual encumbrance and house values: a
EEA (2009). Europes Onshore and Offshore Wind Energy Potential: An Assessment
Approach Towards
Desholm, M., and J. Kahlert (2005). Avian collision risk at an offshore wind farm.
Biology Letters, 1, pp. 296-298.
Deutsche Energie-Agentur GmbH (2005). Energy Management Planning for the
Integration of Wind Energy into the Grid in Germany, Onshore and Offshore by
2020. Deutsche Energie-Agentur GmbH, Cologne, Germany.
Dinica, V. (2006). Support systems for the diffusion of renewable energy technologies
investor perspective. Energy Policy, 34, pp. 461-480.
Doherty, R., and M. OMalley (2005). A new approach to quantify reserve demand
in systems with signicant installed wind capacity. IEEE Transactions on Power
Systems, 20, pp. 587-595.
Doherty, R., L. Bryans, P. Gardner, and M. OMalley (2004). Wind penetration
studies on the island of Ireland. Wind Engineering, 28, pp. 27-41.
Doherty, R., A. Mullane, G. Lalor, and D. Burke (2010). An assessment of the
impact of wind generation on system frequency. IEEE Transactions on Power
Systems, 25, pp. 452-460.
Dong Energy, Vattenfall, Danish Energy Authority, and Danish Forest and
Ecosystem
Based
Management. Intergovernmental
Nature Agency (2006). Danish Offshore Wind: Key Environmental Issues. DONG
towards a Cornish wind farm: Implications for planning. Energy Policy, 36, pp.
Energy, Vattenfall, the Danish Energy Authority and the Danish Forest and Nature
23-33.
EnerNex Corp (2010). Eastern Wind Integration and Transmission Study. National
Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, CO, USA, 242 pp.
598
Chapter 7
Wind Energy
Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety. Ofce of Noise
Garreaud, R.D., and M. Falvey (2009). The coastal winds off western subtropical
Grifn, D.A. (2001). WindPACT Turbine Design Scaling Studies Technical Area
231-246.
599
Wind Energy
Chapter 7
Hoen, B., R. Wiser, P. Cappers, M. Thayer, and G. Sethi (2011). Wind energy
facilities and residential properties: The effect of proximity and view on sales
Gross, R., and P. Heptonstall (2008). The costs and impacts of intermittency: An
ongoing debate: East is East, and West is West, and never the twain shall meet.
Energy Policy, 36, pp. 4005-4007.
Gross, R., P. Heptonstall, D. Anderson, T. Green, M. Leach, and J. Skea (2006).
Hohmeyer, O., D. Mora, and F. Wetzig (2005). Wind Energy. The Facts. Volume 4.
European Wind Energy Association, Brussels, Belgium, 60 pp.
Holttinen, H. (2005). Optimal electricity market for wind power. Energy Policy, 33,
pp. 2052-2063.
(2009). Design and Operation of Power Systems with Large Amounts of Wind
Power: Phase One 2006-2008. VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland, Espoo,
Finland, 200 pp.
Hoogwijk, M., and W. Graus (2008). Global Potential of Renewable Energy Sources:
A Literature Assessment. Ecofys, Utrecht, The Netherlands, 45 pp.
strategies. In: Renewable Energy: Sources for Fuels and Electricity. T.B. Johansson,
H. Kelly, A.K. Reddy, and R.H. Williams (eds.), Island Press, Washington, DC, USA,
pp. 157-212.
GWEC (2010a). Global Wind 2009 Report. Global Wind Energy Council (GWEC),
Brussels, Belgium, 4 pp.
GWEC (2010b). Global wind power boom continues despite economic woes. Global
Wind Energy Council (GWEC), Brussels, Belgium, 68 pp.
GWEC and GPI (2010). Global Wind Energy Outlook 2010. Global Wind Energy
Council (GWEC) and Greenpeace International (GPI), Brussels, Belgium, 60 pp.
Haggett, C. (2011). Understanding public responses to offshore wind power. Energy
Policy, 39, pp. 503-510.
Hameed, Z., S.H. Ahn, and Y.M. Cho (2010). Practical aspects of a condition
monitoring system for a wind turbine with emphasis on its design, system
architecture, testing and installation. Renewable Energy, 35, pp. 879-894.
Hand, M.M., and M.J. Balas (2007). Blade load mitigation control design for a wind
turbine operating in the path of vortices. Wind Energy, 10, pp. 339-355.
Hand, M.M., D.A. Simms, L.J. Fingersh, D.W. Jager, J.R. Cotrell, S. Schreck,
S.M. Larwood (2001). Unsteady aerodynamics experiment phase vi: Wind
tunnel test congurations and available data campaigns. National Renewable
Energy Laboratory, Golden, CO, USA, 310 pp.
Hansen, M.H. (2007). Aeroelastic instability problems for wind turbines. Wind
Energy, 10, pp. 551-577.
Hansen, M.O., J.N. Srensen, S. Voutsinas, N. Srensen, and H.A. Madsen
(2006). State of the art in wind turbine aerodynamics and aeroelasticity.
Progress in Aerospace Sciences, 42, pp. 285-330.
Harris, M., M. Hand, and A. Wright (2006). Lidar for Turbine Control. National
Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, CO, USA.
Hasche, B., A. Keane, and M. OMalley (2010). Capacity credit of wind power:
IEA and OECD (2010). Projected Costs of Generating Electricity, 2010 Edition.
calculation and data requirements; The Irish power system case. IEEE Transactions
600
Chapter 7
Wind Energy
Kahn, E. (1979). The compatibility of wind and solar technology with conventional
energy systems. Annual Review of Energy, 4, pp. 313-352.
Kahouli-Brahmi, S. (2009). Testing for the presence of some features of increasing
returns to adoption factors in energy system dynamics: An analysis via the
learning curve approach. Ecological Economics, 68, pp. 1195-1212.
Jackson, K.J., M.D. Zuteck, C.P. van Dam, K.J. Standish, and D. Berry (2005).
marine changes using the example of offshore wind farms: The coastal futures
Innovative design approaches for large wind turbine blades. Wind Energy, 8,
approach. GAIA - Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society, 18, pp.
pp. 141-171.
229-238.
Katzenstein, W., and J. Apt (2009). Air emissions due to wind and solar power.
Environmental Science & Technology, 43, pp. 253-258.
Katzenstein, W., E. Fertig, and J. Apt (2010). The variability of interconnected wind
plants. Energy, 38, pp. 4400-4410.
Keith, D.W., J.F. DeCarolis, D.C. Denkenberger, D.H. Lenschow, S.L. Malyshev,
S. Pacala, and P. J. Rasch (2004). The inuence of large-scale wind power
on global climate. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 101, pp.
16115-16120.
Kelley, N., M. Shirazi, D. Jager, S. Wilde, J. Adams, M. Buhl, P. Sullivan, and
E. Patton (2004). Lamar Low-Level Jet Program Interim Report. National
Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, CO, USA, 216 pp.
Network, Tennessee Valley Authority and Mid-continent Area Power Pool, 113 pp.
Jiang, Q., J.D. Doyle, T. Haack, M.J. Dvorak, C.L. Archer, and M.Z. Jacobson
(2008). Exploring wind energy potential off the California coast. Geophysical
Research Letters, 35, L20819.
Johansson, T.B., K. McCormick, L. Neij, and W. Turkenburg (2004). The Potentials
of Renewable Energy. Thematic Background Paper for the International
Conference for Renewable Energies, Bonn, Germany, 36 pp.
Johnson, K.E., and L.J. Fingersh (2008). Adaptive pitch control of variable-speed
wind turbines. Journal of Solar Energy Engineering, 130, pp. 031012-7.
Johnson, K.E., L.J. Fingersh, M.J. Balas, and L.Y. Pao (2004). Methods for
increasing region 2 power capture on a variable-speed wind turbine. Journal of
Solar Energy Engineering, 126, pp. 1092-1100.
Jones, C.R., and J.R. Eiser (2009). Identifying predictors of attitudes towards local
onshore wind development with reference to an English case study. Energy
Policy, 37, pp. 4604-4614.
Jonkman, J.M. (2009). Dynamics of offshore oating wind turbines-model
development and verication. Wind Energy, 12, pp. 459-492.
Jnsson. T., P. Pinson, and H. Madsen (2010). On the market impact of wind energy
forecasts. Energy Economics, 32, pp. 313-320.
Jungbluth, N., C. Bauer, R. Dones, and R. Frischknecht (2005). Life cycle
assessment for emerging technologies: Case studies for photovoltaic and wind
power. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 10, pp. 24-34.
Junginger, M., A. Faaij, and W.C. Turkenburg (2004). Cost reduction prospects for
offshore wind farms. Wind Engineering, 28, pp. 97-118.
Junginger, M., A. Faaij, and W.C. Turkenburg (2005). Global experience curves for
wind farms. Energy Policy, 33, pp. 133-150.
Junginger, M., W.V. Sark, and A. Faaij (eds.) (2010). Technological Learning in
the Energy Sector: Lessons for Policy, Industry and Science. Edward Elgar,
Justus, C.G., K. Mani, and A.S. Mikhail (1979). Interannual and month-to-month
variations of wind speed. Journal of Applied Meteorology, 18, pp. 913-920.
DLR (German Center for Aeronautics and Astronautics), Karlsruhe and Stuttgart,
Germany, 59 pp.
601
Wind Energy
Chapter 7
Lemming, J.K., P.E. Morthorst, N.E. Clausen, and P. Hjuler Jensen (2009).
and Potential of Renewable Energy and Energy Efciency for Global Energy
Kunz, T.H., E.B. Arnett, B.M. Cooper, W.P. Erickson, R.P. Larkin, T. Mabee,
and F.C. Bryant (2007). Wind energy development and wildlife conservation:
Renewable Energy Policy Network for the 21st Century, Paris, France, 95 pp.
Li, J., H. Gao, J. Shi, L. Ma, H. Qin, and Y. Song (2007). China Wind Power Report,
2487-2498.
Laakso, T., H. Holttinen, G. Ronsten, L. Tallhaug, R. Horbaty, I. Baring-Gould, A.
Lacroix, E. Peltola, and B. Tammelin (2003). State-of-the-art of Wind Energy
in Cold Climates. VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland, Espoo, Finland, 50 pp.
Lackner, M., and G. van Kuik (2010). A comparison of smart rotor control
approaches using trailing edge aps and individual pitch control. Wind Energy,
13, pp. 117-134.
Ladenburg, J. (2009). Stated public preferences for on land and offshore wind power
generationa review. Wind Energy, 12, pp. 171-181.
Lalor, G., A. Mullane, and M. OMalley (2005). Frequency control and wind turbine
technologies. IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, 20, pp. 1905-1913.
Lamont, A.D. (2008). Assessing the long-term system value of intermittent electric
generation technologies. Energy Economics, 30, pp. 1208-1231.
Lanier, M. (2005). Low Wind Speed Technology Phase I Concept Study: Evaluation
transport and electricity sectors through V2G. Energy Policy, 36, pp. 3578-3587.
Lund, H., and E. Mnster (2003). Modelling of energy systems with a high
Wind Turbine Towers. National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, CO, USA,
698 pp.
Larsen, G.C., H.A. Madsen, K. Thomsen, and T.J. Larsen (2008). Wake meandering:
a pragmatic approach. Wind Energy, 11, pp. 377-395.
percentage of CHP and wind power. Renewable Energy, 28, pp. 2179-2193.
Lutz, T., A. Herrig, W. Wrz, M. Kamruzzaman, and E. Krmer (2007). Design and
wind-tunnel verication of low-noise airfoils for wind turbines. AIAA Journal, 45,
pp. 779-785.
Larsen, T.J., H.A. Madsen, and K. Thomsen (2004). Active load reduction using
pp. 67-80.
Leckebusch, G.C., A. Weimer, J.G. Pinto, M. Reyers, and P. Speth (2008). Extreme
wind storms over Europe in present and future climate: a cluster analysis
approach. Meteorologische Zeitschrift, 17, pp. 67-82.
Leighty, W. (2008). Running the world on renewables: Hydrogen transmission
pipelines and rming geologic storage. International Journal of Energy Research,
32, pp. 408-426.
Leishman, J.G. (2006). Principles of Helicopter Aerodynamics. Cambridge University
Press, 536 pp.
602
Chapter 7
Wind Energy
knowledge and data needs. Marine Ecology-Progress Series, 309, pp. 279-295.
Integration Studies in the United States: Preliminary Results. In: 8th International
Malcolm, D.J. (2004). WindPACT Rotor Design. Period of performance: June 29, 2000
- February 28, 2004. National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, CO, USA,
Networks for Offshore Wind Farms, Bremen, Germany, 14-15 October 2009, pp.
44 pp.
1-8.
Malcolm, D.J., and A.C. Hansen (2006). WindPACT turbine rotor design study: June
Mills, A., R. Wiser, and K. Porter (2009a). The Cost of Transmission for Wind
2000 - June 2002. National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, CO, USA, 84
pp.
Markard, J., and R. Petersen (2009). The offshore trend: Structural changes in the
wind power sector. Energy Policy, 37, pp. 3545-3556.
Martinot, E., C. Dienst, L. Weiliang, and C. Qimin (2007). Renewable energy
futures: Targets, scenarios, and pathways. Annual Review of Environment and
Resources, 32, pp. 205-239.
MOE (2009). Development of Noise Setbacks for Wind Farms. Proposed Content
T. Schellin, and D.C. Quarton (1995). Study of Offshore Wind Energy in the
for the Renewable Energy Approval Regulation - Section 47.3(1) - under the
603
Wind Energy
Nada, A., and O. Labussire (2009). Wind power planning in France (Aveyron),
from state regulation to local planning. Land Use Policy, 26, pp. 744-754.
Neij, L. (1997). Use of experience curves to analyse the prospects for diffusion and
adoption of renewable energy technology. Energy Policy, 25, pp. 1099-1107.
Neij, L. (1999). Cost dynamics of wind power. Energy, 24, pp. 375-389.
Chapter 7
Palutikof, J.P., P.M. Kelly, T.D. Davies, and J.A. Halliday (1987). Impacts of spatial
and temporal windspeed variability on wind energy output. Journal of Climate
and Applied Meteorology, 26, pp. 1124-1133.
Pasqualetti, M.J., P. Gipe, R.W. Righter (2002). Wind Power in View: Energy
Landscapes in a Crowded World. Academic Press, San Diego, CA, USA, 248 pp.
Pedersen, E., F. van den Berg, R. Bakker, and J. Bouma (2010). Can road trafc
(2009). Specialist Committee V.4: Ocean, wind and wave energy utilization. In:
mask sound from wind turbines? Response to wind turbine sound at different
17th International Ship and Offshore Structures Congress, Seoul, Korea, 16-21
August 2009, pp. 201-257.
Nielsen, S.R. (1996). Wind energy planning in Denmark. Renewable Energy, 9, pp.
776-771.
Nielson, P., J.K. Lemming, P.E. Morthorst, H. Lawetz, E.A. James-Smith,
N.E. Clausen, S. Strm, J. Larsen, N.C. Bang, and H.H. Lindboe (2010).
The Economics of Wind Turbines. EMD International, Aalborg, Denmark, 86 pp.
Nikolaev, V.G., S.V. Ganaga, and K.I. Kudriashov (2008). National Kadastr of
Wind Resources of Russia and Methodological Grounds for their Determination.
Atmograph, Moscow, Russia, 590 pp.
Nikolaev, V.G., S.V. Ganaga, K.I. Kudriashov, R. Walter, P. Willems, and A.
Sankovsky (2010). Prospects of Development of Renewable Power Sources
in Russian Federation.The results of TACIS project. Europe Aid/116951/C/SV/RU.
Atmograph, Moscow, Russia.
NRC (2007). Environmental Impacts of Wind-Energy Projects. National Research
Council, The National Academy Press, Washington, DC, USA, 394 pp.
NRC (2010a). Hidden Costs of Energy: Unpriced Consequences of Energy Production
and Use. National Research Council, The National Academy Press, Washington,
DC, USA, 506 pp.
NRC (2010b). Electricity from Renewable Resources: Status, Prospects, and
Impediments. National Research Council, The National Academy Press,
Washington, DC, USA, 388 pp.
ORourke, R. (2006). Navy Ship Propulsion Technologies: Options for Reducing Oil
Pryor, S.C., and J.T. Schoof (2010). Importance of the SRES in projections of climate
USA, 41 pp.
pp. 267-274.
Pryor, S.C., R.J. Barthelmie, and E. Kjellstrm (2005). Potential climate change
127-156.
Palutikof, J.P., X. Guo, and J.A. Halliday (1992). Climate variability and the UK
Pryor, S.C., J.T. Schoof, and R.J. Barthelmie (2006). Winds of change? Projections
wind resource. Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, 39, pp.
243-249.
604
Chapter 7
Wind Energy
Pryor, S.C., R.J. Barthelmie, D.T. Young, E.S. Takle, R.W. Arritt, D. Flory, W.
Gutowski Jr., A. Nunes, and J. Roads (2009). Wind speed trends over the
D14105.
Punt, M.J., R.A. Groeneveld, E.C. van Ierland, and J.H. Stel (2009). Spatial
planning of offshore wind farms: A windfall to marine environmental protection?
Ecological Economics, 69, pp. 93-103.
Purohit, P. (2007). Financial evaluation of renewable energy technologies for
irrigation water pumping in India. Energy Policy, 35, pp. 3134-3144.
Quarton, D.C. (1998). The evolution of wind turbine design analysis a twenty year
progress review. Wind Energy, 1, pp. 5-24.
Rahimzadeh, F., A. Noorian, M. Pedram, and M. Kruk (2011). Wind speed
variability over Iran and its impact on wind power potential: A case study of
Esfehan Province. Meteorological Applications, doi:10.1002/met.229.
Rasmussen, F., M.H. Hansen, K. Thomsen, T.J. Larsen, F. Bertagnolio, J. Johansen,
H.A. Madsen, C. Bak, and A.M. Hansen (2003). Present status of aeroelasticity
of wind turbines. Wind Energy, 6, pp. 213-228.
REN21 (2010). Renewables 2010: Global Status Report. Renewable Energy Policy
Network for the 21st Century Secretariat, Paris, France, 80 pp.
Rivier Abbad, J. (2010). Electricity market participation of wind farms: the success
story of the Spanish pragmatism. Energy Policy, 38, pp. 3174-3179.
Riziotis, V.A., S.G. Voutsinas, E.S. Politis, and P.K. Chaviaropoulos (2004).
Aeroelastic stability of wind turbines: the problem, the methods and the issues.
Wind Energy, 7, pp. 373-392.
Schumacher, A., S. Fink, and K. Porter (2009). Moving beyond paralysis: How
states and regions are creating innovative transmission policies for renewable
energy projects. The Electricity Journal, 22, pp. 27-36.
Schwartz, M., D. Heimiller, S. Haymes, and W. Musial (2010). Assessment of
Offshore Wind Energy Resource for the United States. National Renewable
Energy Laboratory, Golden, CO, USA, 104 pp.
Sensfu, F., M. Ragwitz, and M. Genoese (2008). The merit-order effect: A detailed
analysis of the price effect of renewable electricity generation on spot market
prices in Germany. Energy Policy, 36, pp. 3086-3094.
Shafer, D.A., K.R. Strawmyer, R.M. Conley, J.H. Guidinger, D.C. Wilkie, T.F. Zellman,
and D.W. Bernadett (2001). WindPACT Turbine Design Scaling Studies: Technical
Area 4 Balance-of-Station Cost; 21 March 2000-15 March 2001. National
Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, CO, USA, 219 pp.
Shen, W.Z., and J.N. Srensen (2007). Aero-acoustic modelling using large eddy
simulation. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 75, pp. 012085.
Siegfriedsen, S., M. Lehnhoff, and A. Prehn (2003). Primary markets for offshore
wind energy outside the European Union. Wind Engineering, 27, pp. 419-429.
Sieros, G., P. Chaviaropoulos, J. Srensen, B. Bulder, and P. Jamieson (2011).
Upscaling wind turbines: theoretical and practical aspects and the impact on the
cost of energy. Wind Energy, accepted for publication.
Simms, D.A., S. Schreck, M. Hand, and L.J. Fingersh (2001). NREL Unsteady
Roberts, B.W., D.H. Shepard, K. Caldeira, M.E. Cannon, D.G. Eccles, A.J. Grenier,
and J.F. Freidin (2007). Harnessing high-altitude wind power. IEEE Transactions
B. Rockel, and K. Woth (2007). Extremes of near-surface wind speed over Europe
Simons, R.A., and J.D. Saginor (2006). A meta-analysis of the effect of environmental
Energy resources. In: World Energy Assessment. Energy and the Challenge
of Sustainability. United Nations Development Programme, United Nations
Department of Economic and Social Affairs, and World Energy Council, New York,
NY, USA, pp. 135-171.
Senz de Miera, G., P. del Ro Gonzlez, and I. Vizcano (2008). Analysing the
impact of renewable electricity support schemes on power prices: The case of
wind electricity in Spain. Energy Policy, 36, pp. 3345-3359.
Sailor, D.J., M. Smith, and M. Hart (2008). Climate change implications for wind
power resources in the Northwest United States. Renewable Energy, 33, pp.
2393-2406.
Schreck, S.J., and M.C. Robinson (2003). Boundary layer state and ow eld
Smallwood, K.S., and C. Thelander (2008). Bird mortality in the Altamont Pass
215-223.
Schreck, S.J., M.C. Robinson, M.M. Hand, and D.A. Simms (2000). HAWT dynamic
Smith, D.A. (2001). WindPACT Turbine Design Scaling Studies Technical Area 2:
Turbine, Rotor, and Blade Logistics; March 27, 2000 to December 31, 2000.
215-232.
Schreck, S.J., M.C. Robinson, M.M. Hand, and D.A. Simms (2001). Blade dynamic
Smith, J.C., M.R. Milligan, E.A. DeMeo, and B. Parsons (2007). Utility wind
stall vortex kinematics for a horizontal axis wind turbine in yawed conditions.
integration and operating impact state of the art. IEEE Transactions on Power
605
Wind Energy
Snel, H. (2003). Review of aerodynamics for wind turbines. Wind Energy, 6, pp. 203211.
Chapter 7
Snel, H., J.G. Schepers, and N. Siccama (2009). Mexico Project: the database and
Teske, S., T. Pregger, S. Simon, T. Naegler, W. Graus, and C. Lins (2010). Energy
results of data processing and interpretation. In: 47th AIAA Aerospace Sciences
Meeting Including the New Horizons Forum and Aerospace Exposition. American
Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA), Orlando, Florida, 5-8 January
2009, pp. 2009-1217.
409-433..
Thayer, R.L., and C.M. Freeman (1987). Altamont: Public perceptions of a wind
energy landscape. Landscape and Urban Planning, 14, pp. 379-398.
Snyder, B., and M.J. Kaiser (2009a). A comparison of offshore wind power
Thayer, R.L., and H. Hansen (1988). Wind on the land: Renewable energy and
development in Europe and the US: Patterns and drivers of development. Applied
pastoral scenery vie for dominance in the siting of wind energy developments.
Toke, D., S. Breukers, and M. Wolsink (2008). Wind power deployment outcomes:
How can we account for the differences? Renewable and Sustainable Energy
Sderholm, P., and T. Sundqvist (2007). Empirical challenges in the use of learning
(Phocoena phocoena (L.)). The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 126,
South, P., R. Mitchell, and E. Jacobs (1983). Strategies for the Evaluation of
Advanced Wind Energy Concepts. Solar Energy Research Institute, Golden, CO,
USA, 153 pp.
pp. 11-14.
Tradewind (2009). Integrating Wind. Developing Europes Power Market for the
Large Scale Integration of Wind. Tradewind, Brussels, Belgium, 104 pp.
Troy, N., E. Denny, and M.J. OMalley (2010). Base load cycling on a system
bird and bat fatalities from wind, fossil-fuel, and nuclear electricity. Energy Policy,
with signicant wind penetration. IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, 25, pp.
1088-1097.
Tuohy, A., P. Meibom, E. Denny, and M. OMalley (2009). Unit commitment for
Stewart, G.B., A.S. Pullin, and C.F. Coles (2007). Poor evidence-base for
Understanding the Past and Projecting the Future. UK Energy Research Centre,
pp. 1-11.
Stol, K.A., and M.J. Balas (2003). Periodic disturbance accommodating control for
US DOE (2008). 20% Wind Energy by 2030: Increasing Wind Energys Contribution
blade load mitigation in wind turbines. Journal of Solar Energy Engineering, 125,
pp. 379.
Stoner, A.M.K., K. Hayhoe, and D.J. Wuebbles (2009). Assessing general circulation
model simulations of atmospheric teleconnection patterns. Journal of Climate,
22, pp. 4348.
Summers, E. (2000). Operational effects of windfarm developments on air trafc
control (ATC) radar procedures for Glasgow Prestwick International Airport. Wind
Engineering, 24, pp. 431-435.
Sundqvist, T. (2004). What causes the disparity of electricity externality estimates?
Energy Policy, 32, pp. 1753-1766.
Swider, D.J., L. Beurskens, S. Davidson, J. Twidell, J. Pyrko, W. Prggler, H. Auer,
K. Vertin, and R. Skema (2008). Conditions and costs for renewables electricity
grid connection: Examples in Europe. Renewable Energy, 33, pp. 1832-1842.
Swofford, J., and M. Slattery (2010). Public attitudes of wind energy in Texas:
Local communities in close proximity to wind farms and their effect on decisionmaking. Energy Policy, 38, pp. 2508-2519.
248 pp.
Usaola, J. (2009). Probabilistic load ow in systems with wind generation. IET
Generation, Transmission & Distribution, 3, pp. 1031-1041.
Vajjhala, S.P., and P.S. Fischbeck (2007). Quantifying siting difculty: A case study
of US transmission line siting. Energy Policy, 35, pp. 650-671.
Valentine, S.V. (2010). A STEP toward understanding wind power development
policy barriers in advanced economies. Renewable and Sustainable Energy
Reviews, 14, pp. 2796-2807.
Van Bussel, G.J.W., and W. Bierbooms (2003). The DOWEC Offshore Reference
Windfarm: analysis of transportation for operation and maintenance. Wind
Engineering, 27, pp. 381-391.
van den Berg, GP. (2004). Effects of the wind prole at night on wind turbine sound.
Journal of Sound and Vibration, 277, pp. 955-970.
van den Berg, G.P. (2005). The beat is getting stronger: the effect of atmospheric
stability on low frequency modulated sound of wind turbines. Noise Notes, 4,
pp. 15-40.
606
Chapter 7
van den Berg, G.P. (2008). Wind turbine power and sound in relation to atmospheric
stability. Wind Energy, 11, pp. 151-169.
Wind Energy
WHO (2009). Night Noise Guidelines for Europe. World Health Organization, Geneva,
Switzerland, 162 pp.
van der Horst, D. (2007). NIMBY or not? Exploring the relevance of location and
Van der Hoven, I. (1957). Power spectrum of horizontal wind speed in the frequency
range from 0.0007 to 900 cycles per hour. Journal of Atmospheric Sciences, 14,
pp. 160-164.
Vittal, E., M.J. OMalley, and A. Keane (2010). A steady-state voltage stability
Wilhelmsson, D., and T. Malm (2008). Fouling assemblages on offshore wind power
plants and adjacent substrata. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 79, pp. 459-
466.
Wagner, S., R. Bareiss, and G. Guidati (1996). Wind Turbine Noise. Springer-Verlag
Telos, Emeryville, CA, USA, 204 pp.
Wahlberg, M., and H. Westerberg (2005). Hearing in sh and their reactions to
sounds from offshore wind farms. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 288, pp.
295-309.
Walter, A., K. Keuler, D. Jacob, R. Knoche, A. Block, S. Kotlarski, G. Muller-
Wilhelmsson, D., T. Malm, and M.C. Ohman (2006). The inuence of offshore
windpower on demersal sh. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 63, pp. 775.
Wilson, J.C., and M. Elliott (2009). The habitat-creation potential of offshore wind
farms. Wind Energy, 12, pp. 203-212.
Wiser, R., and M. Bolinger (2010). 2009 Wind Technologies Market Report. US
Department of Energy, Washington, DC, USA, 88 pp.
Wiser, R.H., and S.J. Pickle (1998). Financing investments in renewable energy:
the impacts of policy design. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 2, pp.
361-386.
Wolsink, M. (1989). Attitudes and expectancies about wind turbines and wind farms.
Wind Engineering, 13, pp. 196-206.
Wolsink, M. (2000). Wind power and the NIMBY-myth: institutional capacity and the
limited signicance of public support. Renewable Energy, 21, pp. 49-64.
Wolsink, M. (2007). Planning of renewables schemes: Deliberative and fair
decision-making on landscape issues instead of reproachful accusations of noncooperation. Energy Policy, 35, pp. 2692-2704.
Wright, A.D. (2004). Modern Control Design for Flexible Wind Turbines. National
Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, CO, USA, 233 pp.
Wustenhagen, R., M. Wolsink, and M. Burer (2007). Social acceptance of
renewable energy innovation: An introduction to the concept. Energy Policy, 35,
pp. 2683-2691.
Wyngaard, J.C. (2004). Toward numerical modeling in the Terra Incognita. Journal
of the Atmospheric Sciences, 61, pp. 1816-1826.
Xiao, Z., Z. Rong, and L. Song (2010). China Wind Energy Resource Assessment
2009. China Meteorological Press, Beijing, China, 150 pp.
Xue, H., R.Z. Zhu, Z.B. Yang, and C.H. Yuan (2001). Assessment of wind energy
reserves in China. Acta Energiae Solaris Sinica, 22, pp. 168-170.
Yu, C., W. van Sark, and E. Alsema (2011). Unraveling the photovoltaic technology
learning curve by incorporation of input price changes and scale effects.
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 15, pp. 324-337.
Zhu, W.J., W.Z. Shen, and J.N. Sorensen (2007). Computational aero-acoustic using
high-order nite-difference schemes. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 75,
pp. 012084.
Wene, C.O. (2000). Experience curves for energy technology policy. International
WHO (1999). Guidelines for Community Noise. World Health Organization, Geneva,
Switzerland, 141 pp.
607
608
Integration of Renewable
Energy into Present and
Future Energy Systems
Coordinating Lead Authors:
Ralph Sims (New Zealand), Pedro Mercado (Argentina), Wolfram Krewitt (Germany)
Lead Authors:
Gouri Bhuyan (Canada), Damian Flynn (Ireland), Hannele Holttinen (Finland),
Gilberto Jannuzzi (Brazil), Smail Khennas (Senegal/Algeria), Yongqian Liu (China),
Lars J. Nilsson (Sweden), Joan Ogden (USA), Kazuhiko Ogimoto (Japan),
Mark OMalley (Ireland), Hugh Outhred (Australia), ystein Ulleberg (Norway),
Frans van Hulle (Belgium)
Contributing Authors:
Morgan Bazilian (Austria/USA), Milou Beerepoot (France), Trevor Demayo (USA/Canada),
Eleanor Denny (Ireland), David Ineld (United Kingdom), Andrew Keane (Ireland),
Arthur Lee (USA), Michael Milligan (USA), Andrew Mills (USA), Michael Power (Ireland),
Paul Smith (Ireland), Lennart Sder (Sweden), Aidan Tuohy (USA),
Falko Ueckerdt (Germany), Jingjing Zhang (Sweden)
Review Editors:
Jim Skea (United Kingdom) and Kai Strunz (Germany)
This chapter should be cited as:
Sims, R., P. Mercado, W. Krewitt, G. Bhuyan, D. Flynn, H. Holttinen, G. Jannuzzi, S. Khennas, Y. Liu, M. OMalley,
L. J. Nilsson, J. Ogden, K. Ogimoto, H. Outhred, . Ulleberg, F. van Hulle, 2011: Integration of Renewable Energy
into Present and Future Energy Systems. In IPCC Special Report on Renewable Energy Sources and Climate
Change Mitigation [O. Edenhofer, R. Pichs-Madruga, Y. Sokona, K. Seyboth, P. Matschoss, S. Kadner, T. Zwickel,
P. Eickemeier, G. Hansen, S. Schlmer, C. von Stechow (eds)], Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United
Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.
609
Chapter 8
Table of Contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 615
8.1.1
Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 618
8.1.2
8.2
8.2.1
8.2.1.1
8.2.1.2
8.2.1.3
8.2.2
8.2.2.1
8.2.2.2
8.2.2.3
8.2.2.4
8.2.2.5
8.2.2.6
8.2.3
8.2.3.1
8.2.3.2
8.2.3.3
8.2.3.4
8.2.4
8.2.4.1
8.2.4.2
8.2.4.3
8.2.4.4
8.2.4.5
8.2.4.6
8.2.5
8.2.5.1
8.2.5.2
8.2.5.3
8.2.5.4
8.2.5.5
610
.............................................................................................................................
619
Chapter 8
8.3
8.3.1
8.3.1.1
8.3.1.2
8.3.1.3
8.3.1.4
8.3.1.5
8.3.1.6
Transport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 662
Sector status and strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 662
Renewable fuels and light-duty vehicle pathways . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 663
Transition pathways for renewable energy in light-duty transport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 666
Comparisons of alternative fuel/vehicle pathways . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 668
Low-emission propulsion and renewable energy options in other transport sectors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 670
Future trends for renewable energy in transport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 672
8.3.2
8.3.2.1
8.3.2.2
8.3.2.3
8.3.2.4
8.3.2.5
8.3.3
8.3.3.1
8.3.3.2
8.3.3.3
Industry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 681
Sector status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 681
Energy-intensive industries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 682
Less energy-intensive industries and enterprises . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 684
8.3.4
8.3.4.1
8.3.4.2
8.3.4.3
8.3.4.4
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 690
611
Chapter 8
Executive Summary
To achieve higher renewable energy (RE) shares than the low levels typically found in present energy supply
systems will require additional integration efforts starting now and continuing over the longer term. These
include improved understanding of the RE resource characteristics and availability, investments in enabling
infrastructure and research, development and demonstrations (RD&D), modications to institutional and
governance frameworks, innovative thinking, attention to social aspects, markets and planning, and capacity
building in anticipation of RE growth.
In many countries, sufcient RE resources are available for system integration to meet a major share of energy demands,
either by direct input to end-use sectors or indirectly through present and future energy supply systems and energy carriers, whether for large or small communities in Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) or
non-OECD countries. At the same time, the characteristics of many RE resources that distinguish them from fossil fuels and
nuclear systems include their natural unpredictability and variability over time scales ranging from seconds to years. These
can constrain the ease of integration and result in additional system costs, particularly when reaching higher RE shares of
electricity, heat or gaseous and liquid fuels.
Existing energy infrastructure, markets and other institutional arrangements may need adapting, but there are few, if
any, technical limits to the planned system integration of RE technologies across the very broad range of present energy
supply systems worldwide, though other barriers (e.g., economic barriers) may exist. Improved overall system efciency
and higher RE shares can be achieved by the increased integration of a portfolio of RE resources and technologies. This
can be enhanced by the exible cogeneration of electricity, fuels, heating and cooling, as well as the utilization of storage
and demand response options across different supply systems. Real-world case studies outlined throughout the chapter
exemplify how different approaches to integration within a specic context have successfully achieved RE deployment
by means of a combination of technologies, markets, and social and institutional mechanisms. Examples exist of islands,
towns and communities achieving high shares of RE, with some approaching 100% RE electricity penetration and over a
50% share of liquid fuels for their light duty vehicle eets.
Several mature RE technologies, including wind turbines, small and large hydropower generators, geothermal systems,
bioenergy cogeneration plants, biomethane production, rst generation liquid biofuels, and solar water heaters, have
already been successfully integrated into the energy systems of some leading countries. Further integration could be
encouraged by both national and local government initiatives. Over the longer term, integration of other less mature,
pre-commercial technologies, including advanced biofuels, solar fuels, solar coolers, fuel cells, ocean energy technologies,
distributed power generation, and electric vehicles, requires continuing investments in RD&D, infrastructure, capacity
building and other supporting measures.
To reach the RE levels being projected in many scenarios over future decades will require integration of RE
technologies at a higher rate of deployment than at present in each of the electricity generation, heating/
cooling, gas and liquid fuel distribution, and autonomous energy supply systems.
RE can be integrated into all types of electricity supply systems, from large, interconnected, continental-scale grids to
on-site generation and utilization in small, autonomous buildings. Technically and economically feasible levels of RE penetration depend on the unique characteristics of a system. These include the status of infrastructure development and
interconnections, mix of generation technologies, control and communication capability, demand pattern and geographic
location in relation to the RE resources available, market designs, and institutional rules.
The distribution, location, variability and predictability of the RE resources will also determine the scale of the integration
challenge. Short time-variable wind, wave and solar resources can be more difcult to integrate than dispatchable reservoir
hydro, bioenergy and geothermal resources, which tend to vary only over longer periods (years and decades). As variable RE
penetration levels increase, maintaining system reliability becomes more challenging and costly. Depending on the specics
of a given electricity system, a portfolio of solutions to minimize the risks to the system and the costs of RE integration can
include the development of complementary, exible generation; strengthening and extending the network infrastructure;
612
Chapter 8
interconnection; electricity demand that can respond in relation to supply availability; energy storage technologies (including hydro reservoirs); and modied institutional arrangements including regulatory and market mechanisms.
District heating (DH) and cooling (DC) systems offer exibility with regard to the primary energy source, thereby enabling
a gradual or rapid transition from the present use of fossil fuel sources to a greater share of RE. DH can use low temperature thermal RE inputs (such as solar or cascaded geothermal heat), or biomass with few competing uses (such as
refuse-derived fuels or industrial wastes). DC systems are less common but also offer resource exibility by being able to
use a variety of natural waterways for the source of cold as well as ground source heat pumps. Thermal storage capability
(hot or cold) can overcome the challenges of RE variability.
Injecting biomethane or, in the future, RE-derived hydrogen into gas distribution grids can be technically and economically
achieved in order to meet a wide range of applications, including for transport, but successful integration requires that
appropriate gas quality standards are met.
Liquid fuel systems can integrate biofuels either for cooking (such as ethanol gels and, in the future, dimethyl ether
(DME)) or for transport applications when bioethanol or biodiesel esters are usually, but not always, blended with
petroleum-based fuels to meet vehicle engine fuel specications. Advanced biofuels developed in the future to tight
specications may be suitable for direct, unblended use in current and future engine designs used for road, aviation and
marine applications.
Autonomous energy supply systems are typically small-scale and are often located in remote areas, small islands, or
individual buildings where the provision of commercial energy is not readily available through grids and networks. The
viability of autonomous RE systems depends upon the local RE resources available, the costs of RE technologies, future
innovation, and the possible avoidance of construction costs for new or expanded infrastructure to service the location.
There are multiple pathways for increasing the share of RE through integration across the transport, building, industry and primary production end-use sectors, but the ease and additional costs of integration vary
depending on the specic region, sector and technology.
Being contextual and complex, it is difcult to assess typical system integration costs. These differ widely depending
on the characteristics of the available RE resources; the geographic distance between the resource and the location of
energy demand; the different integration approaches for large centralized systems versus decentralized, small-scale,
local RE systems; the required balancing capacity; and the evolving status of the local and regional energy markets. The
few comparative assessments in the literature, mainly for relatively low shares of RE (such as wind electricity in Europe
and the USA and biomethane injection into European gas grids), show that the additional costs of integration are wideranging and site-specic.
To achieve higher RE shares across the end-use sectors requires planning, development and implementation of coherent
frameworks and strategies. These will vary depending on the diverse range of existing energy supply systems in terms
of scale, age and type. RE uptake can be achieved in all end-use sectors by either the direct use of RE (e.g., buildingintegrated solar water heating) or via energy carriers (e.g., blending of biofuels with gasoline or diesel at an oil renery).
Improved end-use energy efciency and exibility in the timing of energy use can further facilitate RE integration.
The transport sector shows good potential for increasing RE shares over the next few decades, but from a low base.
Currently the RE shares are mainly from liquid biofuels blended with petroleum products and some electric rail. To
obtain higher shares in the future, the RE energy carriers of advanced biofuels, biomethane, hydrogen and electricity could all be produced either onsite or in centralized plants and used to displace fossil fuels. When, and to what
extent, ex-fuel, plug-in hybrid, fuel cell or electric vehicles might gain a major share of the current light duty vehicle
eet partly depends on the availability of the energy carriers, the incremental costs of the commercial manufacturing
613
Chapter 8
of advanced drive trains, development of the supporting infrastructures, and the rate of technological developments
of advanced biofuels, fuel cells and batteries. Integration of fuels and technologies for heavy duty vehicles, aviation
and marine applications is more challenging. Advanced biofuels could become more fungible with petroleum fuels
and distribution systems, but will need to become more cost competitive to gain greater market share. The cost and
reliability of fuel cells and the limited range of electric vehicles are current constraints.
The building sector currently uses RE to meet around 10% of its total consumer energy demand, excluding traditional biomass. In the future, RE can be integrated more easily into urban environments when combined with energy
efcient green building designs that facilitate time- and/or resource-exible energy consumption. In rural areas in
developing countries, many modest dwellings could benet from the integration of RE technologies, often at the
small scale, to provide basic energy services. RE technologies integrated into either new or existing building designs
can enable the buildings to become net suppliers of electricity and heat. Individual heating systems using biomass
(for cooking and space heating), geothermal (including hydrothermal and ground source heat pumps) and solar
thermal (for water and space heating, and, to a lesser extent, for cooling) are already widespread at the domestic,
community and district scales.
For industry, integration of RE is site- and process-specic, whether for very large, energy-intensive heavy industries
or for light small- and medium-sized processing enterprises. At the large industrial scale, RE integration can be
combined with energy efciency, materials recycling, and, perhaps in the future, carbon dioxide capture and storage
(CCS). Some industries can also provide time-exible, demand response services that can support enhanced RE integration into electricity supply systems. In the food and bre processing industries, direct substitution of fossil fuels
onsite can be feasible, for example by the use of biomass residues for heat and power. Many such industries (sugar,
pulp and paper, rice processing) have the potential to become net suppliers of heat and electricity to adjacent grids.
Electro-thermal processes, process hydrogen, and the use of other RE carriers provide good opportunities for increasing the shares of RE for industry in the future.
Agriculture, ranging from large corporate-owned farms to subsistence peasant farmers, consumes relatively little
energy as a sector. (Fertilizer and machinery manufacture is included in the industrial sector). Local RE sources such
as wind, solar, crop residues and animal wastes are often abundant for the landowner or manager to utilize locally or
to earn additional revenue by generating, then exporting, electricity, heat or biogas off-farm.
Parallel developments in transport (including electric vehicles), heating and cooling (including heat pumps), exible demand
response services (including the use of smart meters with real-time prices and net metering facilities) and more efcient
thermal generation may lead to dramatic changes in future electrical power systems. Higher RE penetration levels and
greater system exibility could result (but also depend on nuclear power and CCS developments). Regardless of the present
energy system, whether in energy-rich or energy-poor communities, higher shares of RE are technically feasible but require
careful and consistent long-term planning and implementation of integration strategies and appropriate investments.
614
Chapter 8
8.1
Introduction
End-Use Sectors
Energy Supply
Systems
(Section 8.3)
(Section 8.2)
Electricity Generation and
Distribution
Gas Grids
Liquid Fuels Distribution
Energy
Carriers
Energy
Services
Energy
Consumers
Autonomous Systems
Energy Efciency
Measures
Energy Efciency
and Demand
Response Measures
Figure 8.1 | Pathways for RE integration to provide energy services, either into energy supply systems or on-site for use by the end-use sectors.
615
The terms shares and penetration levels of RE are used loosely throughout the
text to indicate either the percentage of total installed capacity or total energy that
comes from RE technologies.
616
Chapter 8
Chapter 8
2008
Modern Renewable
Traditional Biomass
Non-Renewable Energy
27 EJ
11 EJ
Primary Energy
492 EJ
427 EJ
159 EJ
33 EJ
31 EJ
4 EJ
2 EJJ
Final
Consumption
294 EJ
Losses
197 EJ
11 EJ
8 EJ
94 EJ
80 EJ
1 EJ
7 EJ
87 EJ
Agriculture
8 EJ
Buildings
92 EJ
Transport
96 EJ
Industry
98 EJ
2035
159 EJ
134 EJ
420 EJ
25 EJ
Primary Energy
577 EJ
44 EJ
128 EJ
L
Losses
203 EJ
29 EJ
4 EJ
101 EJ
18 EJ
Final
Consumption
374 EJ
34 EJ
100 EJ
30 EJ
Agriculture
9 EJ
78 EJ
Transport
119 EJ
Buildings
116EJ
2 EJ
7 EJ
Industry
130 EJ
617
Chapter 8
Figure 8.2 | (Preceding page) RE shares (red) of primary and nal consumption energy in the transport, buildings (including traditional biomass), industry and agriculture sectors in
2008 and an indication of the projected increased RE shares needed by 2035 in order to be consistent with a 450 ppm CO2eq stabilization target.
Notes: Areas of circles are approximately to scale. Energy system losses occur during the conversion, rening and distribution of primary energy sources to produce energy services for
nal consumption. Non-renewable energy (blue) includes coal, oil, natural gas (with and without CCS by 2035) and nuclear power. This scenario example is based upon data taken
from the IEA World Energy Outlook 2010 (IEA 2010d) but converted to direct equivalents (Annex II.4). Energy efciency improvements above the baseline are included in the 2035
projection. RE in the buildings sector includes traditional solid biomass fuels (yellow) for cooking and heating for 2.7 billion people in developing countries (Section 2.2) along with
some coal (UNDP and WHO, 2009). By 2035, some traditional biomass has been partly replaced by modern bioenergy conversion systems. Excluding traditional biomass, the overall
RE system efciency (when converting from primary to consumer energy) remains around 66% over the period.
8.1.1
Objectives
618
Chapter 8
8.1.2
8.2
Energy supply systems have evolved over many decades to enable the
efcient and cost-effective distribution of electricity, gas, heat and transport fuel energy carriers to provide useful energy services to end users.
Increasing the deployment of RE systems requires their integration into
these existing systems. This section outlines the issues and barriers involved
as well as some possible solutions to overcome them in order to achieve
increased RE penetration. The complexities of the various electricity supply systems and markets operating around the world result in marked
differences in the approach to integration. Prerequisites for efcient and
exible energy conversion, mutual support between energy sectors, and
an intelligent control strategy include coherent long-term planning and
a holistic approach. Over time this could result in an inter-linked energy
system to provide electricity, heating, cooling and mobility rather than
having distinct sectors for each as at present. A signicant increase in
global electricity demand could result from a higher share being substituted for current fossil fuel demands in the heating and transport sectors.
8.2.1
Modern electrical power systems (the grid) have been developing since
the late 19th century and take different forms around the world. Some
systems are very advanced and highly reliable but are at different scales,
for example the Eastern Interconnection in the USA that serves 228
million consumers across 8.85 million square kilometres contrasts with
smaller, more isolated systems such as Ireland serving a population of
6.2 million across 81,638 km2 (NISRA, 2009; CSO, 2010). Other systems
are not as well developed but are rapidly evolving. For example, China
installed an average of 85 GW of plant per year from 2004 to 2008 and
in the same period increased its electricity consumption by over 50% (J.
Li, 2009). Other systems are not well developed either in terms of access
or quality (e.g., many parts of sub-Saharan Africa). Autonomous and/
or micro-scale systems also exist to serve small communities or single
buildings or industrial plants (Section 8.2.5). Despite their variations,
these systems have a common purpose: the provision of a reliable and
cost-effective supply of electricity to loads by appropriate generation
and use of network infrastructure.
The versatility of energy in electrical form, the ability to transport it
across large distances (nearly) instantaneously, and its necessity for
the deployment of modern technology and the advancement of economic and social development has resulted in a dramatic increase in
the demand for electricity. This increase is projected to continue in a
wide range of scenarios, including some of those that keep greenhouse
gas (GHG) concentrations in the atmosphere below 450 ppm (e.g., IEA,
2010d; see also Section 10.2). The provision of modern energy services
is recognized as a critical foundation for sustainable development (e.g.,
DFID, 2002; Modi et al., 2005; UNEA, 2009). This growth of electricity
demand coupled with the geographically dispersed nature of many
renewable sources makes electricity an attractive energy vector to harness RE where adequate network infrastructure is available. With the
development of electric vehicles and heat pumps, electricity is also
taking a growing share in the transport and heat markets (Kiviluoma
and Meibom, 2010; Sections 8.3.1 and 8.3.2). Additionally, with the
development of inexpensive and effective communications systems and
technologies as well as smart meters, the electrical power system is
experiencing dramatic change.2 All these potential developmentsRE,
demand side participation, electric vehicles and any new thermal generation (i.e., fossil fuel or nuclear)need to be integrated into electrical
power systems. They collectively and individually pose common and
unique challenges.
This section is comprised of three sub-sections that focus on the integration issues for renewable electricity and begins with a brief description
of the basic principles of electrical power systemshow they are
designed, planned and operated (Section 8.2.1.1). This is followed
by a summary of the pertinent integration characteristics of renewable electricity sources and a high-level description of the integration
2
The term smart grid is often used to refer to this mixture of new technologies but it
is not used in this report.
619
8.2.1.1
The rst power plant used direct current (DC) that could transport electricity to consumers living close to the power station. However, a few
years after the construction of this rst power plant, alternating current
(AC) electricity systems were developed (El-Sharkawi, 2009). Alternating
currrent systems allow greater exibility in the transmission of electricity across the various voltage levels in the electricity network and, as
such, almost all electrical power systems across the world today use AC.
However, DC is still used in the transmission of electricity over long distances, for interconnection of AC systems (sub-sea and over land), and in
some very small domestic stand-alone systems. DC technology is developing rapidly and new application domains are being developed (Breuer
et al., 2004; EASAC, 2009).
Integration of RE into any electrical power system poses a number
of challenges (many shared with other technologies and developments) for the designers and operators of that system. In order to
appropriately address these challenges, a basic understanding of the
characteristics of electrical power systems is required and some salient
elements of planning, design and operation are discussed here (Bergen
and Vittal, 2000).
Electricity demand (including losses in the electrical power system)
varies with the needs of the user; typically at a minimum at night
and increasing to a peak during working hours. In addition, there are
normally differences between working days and weekends/holidays
and also between seasons; most systems also show an annual growth
in consumption from year to year. Therefore, generators on a system
must be scheduled (dispatched) to match these variations throughout
the year and appropriate network infrastructure to transfer that power
must be available. This balancing (of supply and demand) requires
complex operational planning from the management of second-tosecond changes in demand to the longer-term investment decisions
in generation and transmission assets. The balancing is carried out by
the system operator in balancing areas (or control areas), which often
are parts of large interconnected AC systems.
In order to maintain an AC power system at its nominal frequency (e.g., 50
Hz in Europe and 60 Hz in North America), the instantaneous power supplied to the system must match the demand. Insufcient power results in a
decreased frequency while excess power leads to an increased frequency.
Either scenario is a threat to the security of the system, since the generators, interconnectors and loads that constitute the system are physically
620
Chapter 8
designed to operate within certain limits, and must be removed from the
system once these limits are violated in order to ensure their integrity.
The electrical machines employed in the generation of electricity (and
in the conversion of electricity to end-use energy) are an important
component within electrical power systems. The traditional machine
used for generation is the synchronous machine (El-Sharkawi, 2009).
This machine is directly connected and synchronized to the frequency
of the system. A synchronous electrical power system consists of (i) a
network that connects (ii) synchronous generators to the (iii) demand.
The network can further be divided into the transmission network,
where large generators and consumers are connected and high
voltages are used to transmit power over long distances; and the distribution network, which is used to transmit power to consumers at
lower voltage levels and connect distributed generation. Synchronous
machines maintain synchronism with one another through restoring forces that act whenever there are forces tending to accelerate
or decelerate one or more generators with respect to other machines
(Kundur, 2007). As a result of this, synchronous machines can detect
and react to events on the system automatically; in particular inertial
response to a frequency change. Generators also have governors that
detect and react to frequency changes and this coupled with inertial
response is of benet to AC power systems as it allows for the support
of frequency on an almost instantaneous basis.
Matching demand and supply (balancing) on a minute-to-minute basis
is generally done by control of generation. This is known as regulation/
load following and requires small to medium variations in the output of
the power stations. It is usually controlled automatically or by a central
electricity system operator, who is responsible for monitoring and operating equipment in the transmission system and in power generating
stations. Dispatchable units are those that control their output between
a minimum and maximum level. The output of some units such as wind
generators cannot be fully controlled. Even here, however, some level
of control is possible through a reduction of the output of the units,
although such control strategies also lead to lost production. Units such
as wind generators are therefore considered partially dispatchable as
opposed to dispatchable.
Over slightly longer time periods (e.g., 30 minutes to 6 to 24 hours),
decisions must be made regarding which power stations should turn
on/turn off or ramp up/ramp down output to ensure the demand is
met throughout the day (e.g., to meet low demand at night and high
demand during the day). This is usually done using a method known
as unit commitment (Wood and Wollenberg, 1996). Unit commitment
involves complex optimizations that are conducted, typically one to
two days ahead, to create an hourly or half-hourly schedule of generators required to reliably meet the forecasted demand at least cost.
These schedules will usually instruct some units to run at their maximum capacity all day (these are known as base load units), some units
Chapter 8
to turn on in the morning and off at night (mid-merit units) and some
units to just turn on during times of peak demand (peaking units). The
running regime of a unit depends mainly on its operation cost (i.e.,
fuel used and efciency), as well as other characteristics such as how
long it takes to turn on or off, and the degree to which it can quickly
change its output power.
Organized electricity markets have emerged in some countries/regions
and they coordinate how the costs of the generators are included in
the unit commitment methods. Trading of electricity between producers
and consumers can be done in power exchanges (pools) or on a bilateral basis (Schweppe et al., 1988; Stoft, 2002). Sometimes these markets
run on very short time horizons, for example, ve minutes before the
electricity is expected to be needed (Harris, 2006; AEMO, 2010), and
in other cases the markets operate days, weeks or even months before
the electricity is required. An important market parameter is the gate
closure time, which is the time difference between bidding of generators
into the market and the actual delivery of power. Properly functioning markets support the long-term nancial investment in appropriate
generation capacity and network infrastructure to ensure supply meets
demand in a reliable manner and at least cost.
It should be noted that the principle of energy balance also applies to
the smallest stand-alone autonomous systems. An autonomous electrical power system is one without interconnections to other systems
and that cannot access the larger variety of balancing resources available to larger systems. In island systems, or developing economies, a
common solution is often to use small autonomous systems in order to
avoid the costs of transmission lines to areas with comparatively low
consumption. Balancing in many such cases is provided by expensive
battery energy storage and/or diesel generators and dump load resistors
to absorb surplus energy that cannot be absorbed otherwise (Doolla
and Bhatti, 2006). Autonomous systems can be as small as individual
homes or groups of homes working on the low voltage distribution
grid, sometimes referred to as microgrids (Tsikalakis and Hatziargyriou,
2008). Though the basic principles of electric power system operations
do not differ between large interconnected networks and small autonomous systems, the practical implications of those principles can vary.
Autonomous systems are addressed to some degree in this section, but
are also covered in a more-dedicated fashion in Section 8.2.5.
Over an annual time frame, it is necessary to ensure that the electricity
system always has enough generation capacity available to meet the
forecasted demand. This means that maintenance schedules must be
coordinated to ensure that all generating units and network infrastructure
do not shut down for maintenance at the same time, while also considering the fact that units will break down unexpectedly. In addition, planning
must also be done over much longer time horizons (5 to 20 years). The
construction of generators and networks involves long lead times, high
capital requirements, and long asset life and payback periods. Therefore,
the electricity sector requires signicant long-term planning to ensure that
generation will continue to meet the demand in the decades ahead and
network infrastructure is developed in a timely and economic manner.
Note that capacity credit is different than capacity factor. The capacity factor of a
power plant is the average output typically expressed as a percentage of its maximum (rated) output.
621
8.2.1.2
622
Chapter 8
1200
5300
1200
0.1300
Tidal range
Wave
120,000
Reservoir
Tidal current
0.11,500
2100
50250
Minutes to years
Minutes to years
Hours to days
Hours to days
Days to years
Hours to years
Years
Hours to years
+++
++
+++
++
Minutes to years
0.004100
modular
Run of river
storage
thermal
CSP with
PV
+++
0.1100
++
++
N/A
+**
++
Geographical
diversity
potential
(See legend)
++
++
++
++
++
++
++
Predictability
(See legend)
2040 onshore,
3045 offshore
2231
1960
22.528.5
3060
20 95
6090
3542
1227
5090
Capacity
factor range
(%)
540
16
1020
<10
Similar to thermal
090
Similar to thermal
90
<2575
Similar to thermal
and CHP
Capacity
credit range
(%)
++
++
++
++
++
++
Active power,
frequency
control
(See legend)
Voltage and reactive power control: technology possibilities enabling plant to participate in voltage and reactive power control during normal situations (steady state, dynamic) and during network fault situations (e.g., reactive power support
during FRT): + good possibilities, ++ full control possibilities.
Active power and frequency control: technology possibilities enabling plant to participate in active power control and frequency response during normal situations (steady state, dynamic) and during network fault situations (e.g., active power
support during FRT): + good possibilities, ++ full control possibilities.
Predictability: Accuracy to which plant output power can be predicted at relevant time scales to assist power system operation: + moderate prediction accuracy (typical <10% Root Mean Squared (RMS) error of rated power day ahead),
++ high prediction accuracy.
++
++
++
++
++
++
++
++
Voltage,
reactive power
control
(See legend)
Geographical diversity potential: degree to which siting of the technology may mitigate variability and improve predictability, without substantial need for additional network: + moderate potential, ++ high diversity potential.
Dispatchability: degree of plant dispatchability: + low partial dispatchability, ++ partial dispatchability, +++ dispatchable.
Characteristic time scales: time scales where variability signicant for power system integration occurs.
Notes:
*Assuming CSP system with 6 hours of thermal storage in US Southwest. **In areas with Direct Normal Irradiation (DNI) > 2,000 kWh/m2/yr (7,200MJ/m2/yr).
Wind energy
Ocean energy
Hydropower
Geothermal
Energy
Direct solar
energy
Bioenergy
Technology
Dispatchability
(See legend)
Variability:
Characteristic time scales
for power system operation
(Time scale)
Table 8.1 | Summary of integration characteristics for a selection of renewable energy technologies.
Chapter 8
Integration of Renewable Energy into Present and Future Energy Systems
623
624
Chapter 8
Chapter 8
but it has also been used for meeting peak demand. Geothermal plants
represent major investment and have low variable costs and thus would
tend to be operated at maximum, sustainable rated output. Operating in a
exible manner may be possible in some cases but it also may impact efciency (D.W. Brown, 1996). As a result, while it may be possible to balance
demand and/or variable generation with geothermal resources (Bromley
et al., 2006), the overall economic effectiveness of this approach requires
detailed evaluation at specic sites.
High-temperature hydrothermal-type geothermal reservoirs are geographically specic, and thus power generation will not always be near to
population and load centres. Adding new geothermal resources often necessitates extending the transmission network and thus involves infrastructure
investments (e.g., Mills et al., 2011). However, in the future enhanced geothermal systems will in principle have the potential of locating closer to
demand (Tester et al., 2006). For new geothermal plants, capacity factors
of 90% or higher are typically achieved (DiPippo, 2008), possibly declining
over time with ageing. Geothermal plants use heat engines to drive electrical generators and as such they are in general dispatchable to the degree
that dispatching the plant does not degrade the geothermal reservoir. In
some cases it may be possible for geothermal plants to provide other network services such as frequency response and voltage control similar to
thermal generation. The high availability of geothermal plants in California
led to an estimated capacity credit of close to 100% (Shiu et al., 2006).
Geothermal plant sizes can vary from small Stirling engine-based generators of a few kW up to steam plants of over 100 MW.
Hydropower (run-of-river, reservoir, pumped storage)
In addition to hydropower resources providing a source of RE, the generation characteristics of hydro resources further offer exibility to
the power system to manage the variable output of other renewable
resources. Through integrated strategies, hydropower can buffer uctuations in supply and demand, increasing the economic value of the power
delivered (US DOE, 2004). Hydropower plants can be classied in three
main categories according to operation and type of ow: run-of-river; reservoir based (storage hydropower); and pumped storage.
Run-of-river hydro facilities can exhibit substantial daily, monthly and
seasonal variations depending on the precipitation and runoff in the
catchment, and are built to operate with this variability. Some runof-river plants may have limited balancing storage (e.g., diurnal) for
meeting daily peak demand during periods of low water availability.
Variability and predictability can also be inuenced by hydrological
restrictions, for example from mutual inuences of plants operated in
cascade along a given river. There can also be limits due to minimum ow
in rivers or other similar hydrological factors. Variations in the water availability are in general well predicted at time scales relevant for system
operation. In-stream technology using existing facilities like weirs, barrages,
canals or falls generates power as per available water ow without any
restriction and storage (Section 5.3.1).
625
conversion systems, including variable speed systems with power electronic converters. As a consequence, electrical output characteristics of
these run-of-river plants in terms of power and voltage control possibilities are comparable to wind power plants. The size of hydropower plants
range from a few kW to over 20 GW.
Ocean energy (wave, tidal range, tidal and ocean currents, OTEC,
salinity gradient)
Ocean energy comprises several different types of plant: wave energy;
tidal range (due to the rise and fall of sea level, i.e., tidal barrages);
tidal and ocean currents; Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion (OTEC); and
salinity gradient. Virtually all ocean energy technologies are at best at
the development or demonstration stage. Therefore, data are scarce in
the scientic literature and much of what is available is heavily dependent on simulation studies with little operational eld data.
The different forms of ocean energy are driven by very different natural
energy ows and have different variability and predictability characteristics. Wave energy is a spatially integrated form of wind energy and
daily variability may to some extent be less than wind energy. Seasonal
variability has been reported to be similar to wind (Stoutenburg et al.,
2010), however this is device dependent. Initial work on wave models
and data shows that output can be forecasted and the models perform particularly well during high production situations (ECI, 2006).
Forecasting performance for wave energy is reported to be comparable
to wind and solar (Reikard, 2009).
Generation from both tidal range and tidal currents is variable in
most congurations but production proles are (almost) completely
predictable. Phase differences in tidal currents between different locations within the same electrical power system could be exploited to
realize signicant power smoothing (Khan et al., 2009). Ocean currents
have low variability at power system operational time scales. OTEC
derives from thermal gradients that are reasonably well understood
and near-continuous base load operations would be expected. Salinity
gradient power generation is at an early stage of research and should
the technology become commercial it is likely that plants would
operate at constant output.
Although all ocean technology requires access to the ocean, the appropriateness of specic locations varies by the type of ocean technology.
Wave energy can be collected on or reasonably near to the shore, and
perhaps in the future further out into the oceans. Tidal plants and ocean
current plants may locate in very specic locations, usually necessitating network infrastructure investments (University of Edinburgh, 2006).
Large collections of ocean energy generators will also result in temporal
smoothing of the power output (Salter et al., 2002), but are located
some way from land and/or load centres.
There are a few studies with indicative values for capacity factors and
capacity credit. Radtke et al. (2010) have shown that tidal range can
626
Chapter 8
have very low capacity credit (i.e., less than 10% for the example studied), while the capacity factor of tidal range is expected to be 22.5 to
28.5% (Section 6.3.3). Bryans et al. (2005) report capacity factors of 19
to 60% and capacity credit of 10 to 20% for tidal current. The higher end
of the capacity factor and capacity credit range is achieved by downsizing the electrical generator and curtailing output during peak tidal
currents. Stoutenburg et al. (2010) report capacity factors of 22 to 29%
and capacity credit of 16% for wave energy off the coast of California.
For Scottish wave energy, a capacity factor of 31% has been reported
(University of Edinburgh, 2006).
Tidal range uses synchronous generators, and has electrical characteristics similar to thermal plants. Wave devices usually make use of power
electronic converters for grid connection. Equally, tidal and ocean
current turbines tend to be variable speed and thus converter connected. The electrical plant characteristics of wave, tidal current and
ocean current may therefore be comparable to wind power plants. Plant
sizes are 0.1 to 300 MW for tidal range, and will vary depending on the
number of modules for other ocean energy technologies.
Wind energy
The electrical output of wind power plants varies with the uctuating
wind speed, with variations at all time scales relevant for power system
planning, scheduling and operations (Holttinen et al., 2009). The variability of aggregated wind power output diminishes with geographical
dispersion and area size, because of the decreasing correlation of wind
speeds (Section 7.5.1). Prediction accuracy of wind power plant output
decreases with the time span of prediction horizon, and improves with
area size considered (Chapter 7). Control systems at the wind turbine,
wind plant and area level (e.g., groups of distributed wind power plants)
can be used to reduce the power output uctuations when needed for
secure power system operation (e.g., during extreme weather and low
load situations), but at the cost of lost production.
In general, wind power plants are distributed over existing
networks. However, access to areas of high wind resources, for example offshore or remote onshore, often requires extension of existing
transmission networks.
Wind capacity factors depend on wind climate and technology used. Fleetwide wind capacity factors are of the order of 20% to as high as 40% for
onshore wind depending on the location, and even higher for offshore
wind (Section 7.2). The capacity credit of aggregated wind power at low
to medium penetrations is around 5 to 40%, depending on location, and
diminishes with increasing penetration level (Section 7.5). Electrical power
plant characteristics are determined by the type of conversion system and
control characteristics of wind power plants. Although many existing wind
plants have induction generators, as a general trend, modern wind power
plants are connected to the power system via power electronic converters, and can be equipped to provide grid services such as active power,
reactive power and voltage control, frequency response (inertial type
Chapter 8
response) FRT and power system support during network faults (Section
7.5.3). Recent onshore wind power plant sizes have typically ranged from
5 to 300 MW and offshore from 20 to 120 MW, though smaller and larger
plant sizes do exist, including the recently commissioned 500 MW Greater
Gabbard offshore plant in the UK.4
Challenges with integrating renewable resources into electrical
power systems
Most RE resources are location specic. Therefore, renewable-generated
electricity may need to be transported over considerable distances. For
example, Chinas windy regions are often far from population and load
centres. Scotlands tidal current resource is a long distance from a signicant population. In the USA, the largest high quality wind resource
regions and land with signicant biomass production are located in the
Midwest, a signicant distance from the predominantly coastal population. In many of these cases, additional transmission infrastructure
can be economically justied (and is often needed) to enable access to
higher quality (and therefore lower cost) renewable resource regions
by electricity load centres rather than utilizing lower quality renewable
resources located closer to load centres. Many renewable sources can
also be exploited as embedded generation in distribution networks,
which may have benets for the system when at moderate penetration
levels, but also can pose challenges at higher penetration levels (e.g.,
voltage rise, see Masters (2002)).
Also, as discussed above, certain RE sources lack the exibility needed
to deal with certain aspects of power system operation, in particular
balancing supply and demand. This is because they are subject to signicant variability across a wide range of time scales important to electrical
power systems and also experience more uncertainty in predicted output. Furthermore, renewable plants may displace non-renewable plants
that have heretofore provided the required exibility. Some renewable
sources (hydropower with reservoirs and bioenergy) may help to manage
this challenge by providing exibility. However, overall balancing will
become more difcult to achieve as partially dispatchable RE penetrations increase. Particular challenges to system balancing are situations
where balancing resources are limited (e.g., low load situations with
limited operational capacity).
Furthermore, increased penetration of RE production will require renewable generators to become more active participants in maintaining the
stability of the grid during power system contingencies. Depending on
local system penetration, network faults can trigger the loss of signicant amounts of generation if the renewable generation resources are
concentrated in a particular section of the power system and connection requirements have not properly accounted for this risk. A solution is
to require renewable capacity to participate when possible in transient
system voltage control thus supporting recovery from network faults
(EirGrid, 2009, 2010b).
4
www.sse.com/PressReleases2011/FirstElectricityGeneratedGreaterGabbardWalney/.
There are also challenges with regard to very short-term system balancing (i.e., frequency response). At high penetration levels the need
for frequency response will increase unless supplementary controls are
added (Pearmine et al., 2007). Many of the renewable technologies do
not lend themselves easily to such service provision. In addition, RE interfaced through power electronics may displace synchronous generators,
thereby reducing the overall system inertia and making frequency control more difcult. Research and development is in progress to deliver
frequency response from time variable sources such as modern wind
turbines,5 and some equipment with frequency response and inertial
response is already available (Section 7.7). This is a subject of ongoing
research (Doherty et al., 2010) and development (Miller et al., 2010).
The output of the different renewable sources is not in general well correlated in time, so if power systems include a wide range of renewable
sources, their aggregate output will be smoother thus easing the challenge of electrical power system balancing. Such a portfolio approach
to generation should thus be assessed, but as noted above, many of the
renewable resources are highly geographically specic so that benecial
combinations of renewable sources may not always be practicable.
Lastly there is the additional challenge of managing the transition from
the predominant generation mixes of today to sustainable sources
required for the low carbon power systems of the future. Major changes
will be required to the generation plant mix, the electrical power systems infrastructure and operational procedures if such a transition is to
be made. Specically, major investments will be needed and will need
to be undertaken in such a way, and far enough in advance, so as to not
jeopardize the reliability and security of electricity supply.
8.2.1.3
It is worth noting that older wind technologies provided this response inherently,
although not as well as synchronous generation (see Mullane and OMalley, 2005).
CSP without additional storage is partially dispatchable and with several hours of
storage can be considered dispatchable.
627
renewable electricity generation generally involve dispatchable renewable sources, in particular hydropower and geothermal (e.g., 2008
gures on an energy basis are: Norway 99% hydro; Iceland 75% hydro
and 25% geothermal (Nordel, 2008)). Large shares of bioenergy are not
so common in electrical energy systems, but Finland produces 11% of
its electrical energy from bioenergy (Statistics Finland, 2009). A number
of other countries have managed operations with more than 10% of
annual supply coming from wind energy. In addition, integration studies provide insight into possible options for future systems to cope with
higher penetration of partially dispatchable renewable sources.
This subsection addresses the integration of RE in three ways.
First, it discusses actual operational experience with RE integration.
Second, it highlights RE integration studies that have evaluated the
potential implications of even higher levels of RE supply. Finally, it
discusses the technical and institutional solutions that can be used to
help manage RE integration concerns. This section has a focus on the
developed world as this is where most experience and studies exist to
this point. Autonomous systems are covered here to a degree, while
issues associated with such systems are covered in a more dedicated
fashion in Section 8.2.5.
Integration experience
It is useful to distinguish between experience with RE generation plants
that can be dispatched (hydro, bioenergy, geothermal, CSP with storage) and variable renewable sources that are only partially dispatchable
(wind, solar PV, and certain types of ocean energy).
Dispatchable renewable sources (bioenergy, CSP with storage,
geothermal, hydro)
Experience from biopower plants is similar to that from fossil fuel thermal power plants in power system operation. As the plants are, at least
in principal, dispatchable they can also offer exibility to the power
system. Even with CHP plants there are ways to operate the plants so
that the electricity production is not totally dependent on the heat load.
In Finland, for example, the larger plants use back pressure turbines
equipped with auxiliary condensing units making it possible to maintain
efcient electricity production even when heat load is low (Alakangas
and Flyktman, 2001). Experience from Denmark shows that when operating with thermal storage, small biopower CHP plants can provide
electricity according to system needs (market prices) and thus help in
providing exibility (Holttinen et al., 2009).
A renewable integration cost report from California, analyzing real data
from CSP plants from 2002 to 2004 shows consistently high generation
during peak load periods given the natural tendency of solar generation
to track demand that is largely driven by cooling loads. The auxiliary
natural gas boilers on some of the CSP plants in the studied region
augmented solar generation during the peak demand periods. The variability and ramping of the CSP plants was reported to be of the same
(relative) magnitude as for wind power (Shiu et al., 2006).
628
Chapter 8
Chapter 8
629
the worlds largest market for wind power plant installations, and is
therefore also beginning to confront the challenges of transmission and
integration. Much of the wind power plant construction is occurring
in northern and north-western China, in locations remote from major
population centres, and is necessitating signicant new transmission
infrastructure (e.g., Liao et al., 2010; Liu and Kokko, 2010; Deng et al.,
2011). The pace of wind power plant construction has also created a lag
between the installation of wind power plants and the connection of
those plants to the local grid (e.g., Liao et al., 2010; Deng et al., 2011).
In North Germany, a transitional solution allowing curtailments of
wind power was made while waiting for the grid expansion in order
to protect grid equipment such as overhead lines or transformers from
overloads (Sder et al., 2007). Germany has also changed the standard transmission line rating calculation to increase the utilization of
the existing grid. Dynamic line ratings, taking into account the cooling
effect of the wind together with ambient temperature in determining
the transmission constraints, can increase transmission capacity and/or
delay the need for network expansion (Abdelkader et al., 2009; Hur et
al., 2010). In the UK, some wind projects accept curtailments in order
to lower the connection cost to the (distribution) grid that otherwise
would need reinforcements (Jupe and Taylor, 2009; Jupe et al., 2010).
Curtailment was particularly high in Texas in 2009 with 17% of all
potential wind energy generation within the Electric Reliability Council
of Texas curtailed (Wiser and Bolinger, 2010).
Many countries have already experienced high instantaneous wind penetration during low demand situations. Wind power is usually last to be
curtailed. However, when all other units are already at minimum (and
some shut down), system operators sometimes need to curtail wind
power (Sder et al., 2007) to control frequency. Denmark has solved
part of the curtailment issues by increasing exible operation of CHP
and by lowering the minimum production levels used in thermal plants
(Holttinen et al., 2009). Experience from both Denmark and Spain shows
that when reaching penetration levels of 5 to 10%, an increase in the
use of reserves can be required, especially for reserves activated on a
10 to 15 minute time scale although, so far, no new reserve capacity
has been built specically for wind power (Sder et al., 2007; Gil et al.,
2010). In Portugal and Spain, new pumped hydro is planned to be built
to increase the exibility of the power system, mainly to avoid curtailment of wind power (Estanqueiro et al., 2010). In small power systems
such as those on islands, system balancing is more challenging due to
a lack of load aggregation (Katsaprakakis et al., 2007). Power system
operators have reported challenging situations for system balancing
caused by high ramp rates for wind power production during storms
when individual wind power plant production levels can drop from rated
power to zero over a short time span, due to wind turbines cutting out.
Due to aggregation effects, the impact on the power system/control
area is often spread over 5 to 10 hours, however, and these events are
rare (once in one to three years) (Holttinen et al., 2009).
In Ireland some curtailments have been due to concerns about low inertia (Dudurych, 2010b) and consequently susceptibility to instability in
630
Chapter 8
the system due to high instantaneous wind penetration and low system
load. Currently, the issue of low inertia is unique to small systems like
Ireland and possible solutions are being investigated (EirGrid, 2010b).
In order to allow higher instantaneous penetration levels, the capability of wind power plants to provide (some) ancillary services must
be improved. Equally, exible balancing plants that can operate at
low output levels and deliver stabilizing services would facilitate high
instantaneous penetrations.
Low inertia has not, as yet, caused a problem for larger power systems
but is being investigated (Vittal et al., 2009; Eto et al., 2010). Concerns
about frequency regulation and stability have resulted in instantaneous
penetration limits in the range of 30 to 40% for wind power on some
Greek islands, including Crete (Caralis and Zervos, 2007a; Katsaprakakis
et al., 2007; RAE, 2007). Frequency control and frequency response
requirements associated with integration of Danish wind generation
are reported to be virtually nonexistent (Eto et al., 2010) because the
contribution of Danish wind generation is comparatively small in the
large interconnected Continental Europe and Nordic systems (Denmark
is connected to both). Experiences reported by the system operators in
the Iberian Peninsula (Spain and Portugal) are consistent with those in
Denmark in that no signicant frequency impacts have been observed
that are the result of wind power variation (Eto et al., 2010).
Formal forecasting methodologies are now implemented by system
operators in many countries with high wind penetration (e.g., Denmark,
Spain and Germany), with user acceptance/demonstration trials taking
place in countries elsewhere (Ackermann et al., 2009; Grant et al., 2009).
In Australia, the experience from a real-time, security-constrained, veminute dispatch spot market, associated derivative and frequency
control ancillary services markets, and a fully integrated wind energy
forecasting system show that markets can in principle be designed to
manage variable renewable sources (MacGill, 2010). Managing the variability and limited predictability of wind power output in China is made
more complex by (1) Chinas reliance on coal-red generation and the
relatively low capacity of more exible generation sources, especially in
the regions where wind development is most rapid; (2) the still-developing structure of Chinas electricity and ancillary services markets; (3) the
limited historical electricity trade among different regions of China; and
(4) grid code requirements for wind plant installations that, historically,
have been somewhat lenient (e.g., Yu et al. 2011). As a result of some of
these factors, wind power plant curtailment has become common, especially in northern China. In Japan, the low exibility of the power system
has led to the development of certain options, such as requiring batteries in wind farms to reduce the night time variability (Morozumi et
al., 2008).
There are short- and longer-term impacts of wind energy on wholesale
electricity prices (Section 7.5.3.1). In Denmark, the Nordic electricity
market is used for balancing wind power. The system operator balances the system net imbalance during the hour and passes this cost
to all generators that have contributed to the imbalance, as balancing
costs. Balancing costs for wind power are incurred when there are
Chapter 8
differences between the wind generation bid into the market (according to forecasts) and the actual production. The balancing cost of
Danish wind power from the Nordic market has been approximately
USD2005 1.37 to 2.98 per MWh (0.38 to 0.82 USD2005/GJ) of wind energy
(Holttinen et al., 2009). The Danish case also shows how interconnection benets the balancing task: when Denmark is separated from the
Nordic market area due to transmission constraints, the prices become
very volatile with day-ahead market prices going to zero during
windy low-load periods and with balancing prices also being affected
(Ackermann and Morthorst, 2005; see also Section 7.5.3.2). There is
already some initial experience in Germany and in the Denmark/Nordic
market about how wind power impacts day-ahead electricity market
pricesduring hours with a lot of wind, the market prices are lowered
(Munksgaard and Morthorst, 2008; Sensfu et al., 2008). Other experience shows that wind power will increase the volatility in market
prices when there is a high wind penetration in the market (Jnsson et
al., 2010). Chapter 7 discusses the short- and longer-term impacts of
wind energy on wholesale electricity prices (Section 7.5.3.1).
In Spain, the reliability impact of wind generation of greatest concern
has been when network faults (for example short circuits) occur (Smith
et al., 2010a). This concern is in part due to the older wind turbines
deployed in Spain not being capable of FRT. Large amounts of wind
power can therefore trip off the grid because of a short-lived transient disturbance of the grid (voltage drop). This problem has been
addressed by new grid code requirements for wind power that have
been adopted in many systems (Tsili and Papathanassiou, 2009)
(Section 7.5.2.2). Germany has also changed the grid code to require
FRT capability from wind turbines as simulated cases showed the
possibility of losing more than 3,000 MW of wind power in a rather
limited area in North Germany (Dena, 2005; Holttinen et al., 2009). The
USA has also adopted a FRT requirement in FERC Order 661-A (FERC,
2005) as have a number of other jurisdictions (see Section 7.5.2.2 for
more detail on grid codes for wind energy). The grid codes also require
wind turbines to provide reactive power and in some regions also to
take part in voltage and frequency control (Sder et al., 2007). Work
in Spain has shown that wind power plants can contribute to voltage
support in the network (Morales et al., 2008).
In Germany, wind and solar power have already created problematic
ows through neighbouring systems (mainly the Netherlands and
Poland; Ernst et al. (2010)).
Also of some concern is the possibility of low wind power production at
times of high load. However, so far wind power has been built as additional generation and thus no problems with capacity adequacy were
reported at least until 2007 (Sder et al., 2007).
Events in Germany in 2006 (UCTE, 2006) suggest that more and better
information is needed in the control rooms of system operators, and
also at the regional level (Section 7.5.3.2). Indeed, experiences from
Denmark, Germany, Spain, Portugal and the USA show that system
operators need to have on-line real-time variable renewable generation
631
Some of the studies also investigate other renewable sources but are dominated by
wind.
632
Chapter 8
Chapter 8
curtailment if higher targets are set (assuming non-synchronous generation technology) and the economic barriers could be very signicant.
Similar operational limitations have also been reported for other island
systems (Papathanassiou and Boulaxis, 2006).
Capacity credit of wind is in the range of 5 to 40% of installed capacity depending on penetration, wind regime and correlation between
wind and load (Keane et al., 2011a).
The cost of grid reinforcements due to wind power is very dependent on where the wind power plants are located relative to load
and grid infrastructure. Grid reinforcement costs roughly vary from 0
USD/kW to 378 USD/kW,9 reecting different systems, countries, grid
infrastructure and calculation methodologies. The costs are not continuous; there can be single very high cost reinforcements. There can
also be differences in how the costs are allocated to wind power.
Conversion to 2005 dollars is not possible given the range of study-specic assumptions.
633
634
Chapter 8
Chapter 8
635
Chapter 8
Delivering new network infrastructure will face institutional challenges, in particular to provide incentives for the required transmission
investments and to ensure social acceptance of new overhead lines or
underground or sub-sea cables (see also Sections 11.6.4, 11.6.5 and
8.2.1.3). Investment in new transmission is, for example in Europe,
the business of transmission system operators who recover their costs
through transmission usage system charges. In some situations it is
possible to divide the costs between different stakeholders. An effective framework should anticipate the need for transmission upgrades,
so as not to inhibit investment in desirable new generation capacity
(renewable or otherwise). Public opposition to new transmission lines
can develop, traditionally linked with visual impacts (Devine-Wright et
al., 2010), environmental concerns and the perceived impacts of electromagnetic elds on human health (Buijs et al., 2011). Underground
cables are an available, but not necessarily preferable, option to alleviate
such problems: cable reliability and maintenance concerns are potentially
higher, and the investment cost will be much higher. With long underground connection distances (i.e., over 50 km approximately), DC will be
the preferred technology (Schultz, 2007).
636
Synergies and connections also exist between the electricity sector and
other energy sectors, so, for example, combining electricity and heat
allows for greater exibility in the electricity side as thermal storage
options are already cost effective (Kiviluoma and Meibom, 2010). RE
will also have impacts on the dispatch of gas deliveries in the systems
where it is mainly gas power plants that react to increasing exibility
needs (Qadrdan et al., 2010).
Demand side measures
Flexible elements of demand, such as remotely switched night storage
heating (Fox et al., 1998), have long been used, and often with good
cost efciency (Buckingham, 1965), to aid system operation. However,
implementations tend to be proprietary in nature, installed over small
geographical areas and with limited demand controllability actually
offered. The development of advanced communications technology,
with smart electricity meters linked to control centres, offers the potential to access much greater levels of exibility from demand. One of the
key opportunities is to make domestic demand exible. Through pricing
electricity differently at different times, and in particular higher prices
during higher load periods, electricity users can be provided with incentives to modify and/or reduce their consumption. Such demand side
management schemes, in which individual discretionary loads respond
to price signals and/or external response request signals, are seen as
having a large potential (Brattle Group et al., 2009; Centolella, 2010).
Thermal loads are ideal and include air conditioning, water heating,
heat pumps and refrigeration, since the appliance can be temporarily
switched on/off without signicant impacts on service supply due to
Chapter 8
All forms of demand side management require consumer engagement, in terms of changes in behavioural patterns, social acceptance
and privacy/security issues. The implications of these various factors
are not fully understood at present and more research is required. In
addition, the amount of peaking plant that can be replaced by demand
side measures is not fully understood (Earle et al., 2009; Cappers et al.,
2010). Furthermore, a market or incentive system is required. Real-time
electricity pricing (or some approximation) may be more widely adopted,
whereby the electricity cost to the user more accurately reects the cost
of supply. However, demand side schemes are required that not only
enable consumers to participate but actively encourage such behaviour,
and correctly allocate charges and payments where required.
Energy storage
At any given time, the amount of energy stored at plants in the form of
fossil fuels or water reservoirs is large (Wilson et al., 2010). The amount
of energy that can be converted into electricity and then converted back
into stored energy, called electricity energy storage, is currently much
more modest. The most common form of large-scale electrical energy
storage is the mature technology of pumped hydro storage. Since the
rst pumped hydro storage plant was built in the late 1920s, over 300
plants with approximately 95 GW of pumped hydro capacity have been
built in the world (Deane et al., 2010). Additionally, two large-scale commercial compressed air energy storage plants have been operating in
Germany and the USA since 1978 and 1991, respectively, and a number of additional facilities are being planned or are under construction
(H. Chen et al., 2009). Electrical energy storage is used in power systems
to store energy at times when demand/price is low (i.e., off peak during the night /weekend) and generate when demand/price is high (i.e.,
at peak times during the afternoon). In addition, energy storage units
can be very exible resources for an electrical power system, and if correctly designed can respond quickly when needed (Mandle, 1988; Strunz
and Louie, 2009). Technologies such as batteries or ywheels that store
smaller amounts of energy (minutes to hours) can in theory be used
to provide power in the intra-hour timeframe to regulate the balance
between supply and demand in microgrids or in the internal network of
the energy user (behind the electricity meter). Whether such technologies
will be widely deployed will depend on capital costs, cycle efciency and
likely utilization (H. Chen et al., 2009; Ekman and Jensen, 2010). However,
coupled with demonstration programs, market rules and tariffs are gradually being introduced to provide incentives for the participation of new
technologies (Lazarewicz and Ryan, 2010; G. Rodriguez, 2010). Battery
technology is an area of active research, with costs, efciencies and other
factors such as lifetime being improved continuously.
Demand side participation may have a particular role in small autonomous systems where there is limited access to other balancing resources.
637
also reduce transmission congestion and may reduce the need for, or
delay, transmission upgrades (Denholm and Sioshansi, 2009). In autonomous systems, in particular, storage can play a particularly important
role (Section 8.2.5).
When using storage to assist the integration of variable generation,
storage should be viewed as a system asset to balance all forms of variability, including demand variations, as opposed to dedicating a storage
unit to a single variable source. It is generally not cost effective to provide dedicated balancing capacity for variable generation in large power
systems where the variability of all loads and generators is effectively
reduced by aggregation, in the same way as it is not effective to have
dedicated storage for outages of a certain thermal power plant, or to
have specic plants following the variation of a certain load.
Market prices or system costs should determine how the storage asset
is best used. The value of storage depends on the characteristics of
the power system in question: its generation mix; its demand prole;
connectivity to other systems; and the characteristics of the variable
renewable generation plant (Tuohy and OMalley, 2011). This is true
for all power systems, including small autonomous systems (Caralis
and Zervos, 2007a; Katsaprakakis et al., 2007). Storage must ultimately
compete against increased interconnection to other electrical power
systems, greater use of demand side measures, and the other options
outlined here (Denny et al., 2010). The most effective choice is likely
to be system specic and the economics will be affected by any specic electricity market incentives. Large-scale development of energy
storage at the present time, however, remains questionable due to the
generally high capital cost and inherent inefciency in operation, unless
these costs and inefciencies can be justied through a reduction in
curtailment, better use of other exible resources or more efcient
operation of the system more generally (DeCarolis and Keith, 2006;
Ummels et al., 2008; GE Energy, 2010; Nyamdash et al., 2010; Tuohy
and OMalley, 2011). At the same time, storage technologies have attributes that have not, to this point, been fully valued in all electricity
markets. For example, storage technologies that can provide ancillary
services and very fast injections of energy for short periods of time may
be able to provide virtual inertia particularly on isolated or weakly connected power systems (Wu et al., 2008; Delille et al., 2010). As these
additional benets are valued and as storage costs decline, the role of
electrical storage in balancing supply and demand and assisting in RE
integration is likely to increase.
Improved operational/market and planning methods
Existing operational, planning and electricity market procedures are
largely based around dispatchable generation and predictable load
patterns. The software tools that support these activities are largely
deterministic in nature. In order to cope with increased penetrations
of variable and uncertain generation, however, there is a greater need
to identify sources of exibility in operating the system, to develop
probabilistic (rather than deterministic) operations and planning tools
638
Chapter 8
Chapter 8
Parallel developments such as a move towards the use of electric vehicles, an increase in electric heating (including heat pumps), demand
side control through the use of smart meters and thermal generation
are providing complementary physical exibility and together with the
expansion of renewable power generation are driving dramatic changes
in electrical power systems. These changes also include altered institutional arrangements including regulatory and market mechanisms
(where markets exist), in particular those required to facilitate demand
response and that reward the desired electrical power system portfolio.
In addition, should variable RE penetration levels increase, deployment
could increase in both developed and developing countries and the
range of technologies could become more diverse (for example, if ocean
energy technologies become competitive).These changes and developments lead to several gaps in our knowledge related to integration
options that may become important in the future, including:
639
8.2.2
Heating, cooling and hot water account for a large share of energy use,
particularly in the building and industry sectors. These energy services
can be provided by using a range of fuels and technologies at the individual building level (Section 8.3.2) as can process heat and refrigeration
for individual industries (Sections 8.3.3 and 8.3.4). District heating and
cooling (DHC) is the alternative approach and this section deals with RE
integration into such distribution networks.
8.2.2.1
DHC networks enable the carrying of energy from one or several production units, using multiple energy sources, to many energy users. The
energy carrier, usually hot or cold water or steam, is typically pumped
through underground insulated pipelines to the point of end use and
then back to the production unit through return pipes. The temperatures
in district heating (DH) outward pipes typically average 80 to 90C, dropping to 45 to 60C in return pipes after heat extraction. Heat exchangers
are normally used to transfer the heat from the network to a hydronic
heating system with radiators or to a hot water system (Werner, 2004).
Heat and CHP production have historically been dominated by oil and
coal but, after the oil crises in the 1970s, oil was replaced by other
fuels in most systems. In Western Europe, where DH systems commonly
occur, the most popular fuels are natural gas and coal, although oil and
biomass (Section 2.4; Figure 2.8) are also used. Coal still dominates in
China and Eastern Europe. Waste heat from industrial processes, heat
from waste incineration, geothermal heat and solar heat are feasible
alternatives but less commonly used (Oliver-Sol et al., 2009).
Large DHC systems offer relatively high exibility with respect to the
energy source. Centralized heat production in DHC facilities can use
low quality fuels often unsuitable for individual boilers and furnaces
in buildings.11 They also require pollution control equipment. Improved
11 An example is a DHC in Kalundborg, Denmark (Section 2.4.3) that has several bioenergy components, including a pilot lignocellulosic ethanol plant.
640
Chapter 8
urban air quality and the possibility to cogenerate heat and electricity at
low cost were, and still are, important motivations for DH (IEA, 2009c).
A good example of a central DHC plant is in Lillestrm, Norway (Figure
8.3). It uses several energy sources, including a heat pump based on
sewage efuent, to deliver heat and cold to commercial and domestic buildings. This system, and other DHC systems generally, includes
an accumulator tank for hot water storage to even out uctuations
in demand over the day(s) to facilitate more stable production conditions (Section 8.2.2.4). The total investment is estimated to be around
USD2005 25 million with completion planned in 2011.
Different production units dispatch heat in optimal ways to meet the
varying demand (including the use of dedicated fast-response boilers
and storage to meet peak demand). Higher overall system efciencies
can be obtained by combining the production of heat, cold and electricity and by using diurnal and seasonal storage of heat and cold. Using
heat and cold sources in the same distribution network is possible and
the selection of conversion technologies depends strongly on local conditions, including demand patterns. As a result, the energy supply mix
varies widely between different countries and systems (Werner, 2006a).
DHC systems can be most economically viable in more densely populated
urban areas where the concentration of heating and cooling demand is
high. DHC schemes have typically been developed where strong planning powers exist and where a centralized planning body can build the
necessary infrastructure, such as centrally planned economies, American
university campuses, countries with utilities providing multiple services
as in Scandinavia, and urban areas controlled by local municipalities.
Urbanization creates opportunities for new or expanded DHC systems, as
demonstrated on a large scale in China (Section 8.2.2.6). Development
of DHC systems in less dense or rural areas has been restricted by the
relatively high costs of distribution and higher heat distribution losses
(Oliver-Sol et al., 2009).
Development and expansion of most DHC systems took place after 1950
in countries with cold winters, but earlier examples exist, such as New
York in 1882 and Dresden in 1900. World annual district heat deliveries have been estimated at nearly 11 EJ (Werner, 2004) (around 10%
of total world heat demand; IEA, 2010b) but the data are uncertain.
Several high-latitude countries have a DH market penetration of 30 to
50%, and in Iceland, with abundant geothermal resources, the share has
reached 96% (Figure 8.4).
District cooling (DC) is becoming increasingly popular through the distribution of chilled or naturally cold water through pipelines, possibly
using the pipes of a DH network in higher latitudes to carry water to
buildings where it is passed through a heat exchanger system. The supply source, normally around 6 to 7C, is returned at 12 to 17C (Werner,
2004). Alternatively, heat from a DH scheme can be used during summer
to run heat-driven absorption chillers.
Chapter 8
A University
B R&D Centre
7 Hydrogen
Dispenser
2 Wood Chips
C Commercial &
Domestic Buildings
Energy Plant
1
Accumulator
(Hot Water)
5 Landll Gas
Heat Pump
for Heating & Cooling
(Heat Source: Sewage)
3 Bioenergy Oil
Figure 8.3 | An integrated RE-based energy plant in Lillestrm, Norway, supplying the University, R&D Centre and a range of commercial and domestic buildings using a district heating and cooling system that incorporates a range of RE heat sources, thermal storage and a hydrogen production and distribution system (Akershus Energi, 2010).
Notes: (1) Central energy system with 1,200 m3 accumulator tank; (2) 20 MWth wood burner system (with ue gas heat recovery); (3) 40 MWth bio-oil burner; (4) 4.5 MWth heat pump;
(5) 1.5 MWth landll gas burner and a 5 km pipeline; (6) 10,000 m2 solar thermal collector system (planned for completion in 2012); and (7) demonstration of RE-based hydrogen
production (using water electrolysis and sorption-enhanced steam methane reforming of landll gas) and fuel cell vehicle dispensing system planned for 2011.
8.2.2.2
Over the past two decades, many DHC systems have been switched
from fossil fuels to RE resources, initially in the 1980s to reduce oil
dependence, but since then, to reduce carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions.
Centralized heat production can facilitate the use of low cost and/or low
grade RE heat sources that are not suitable for use in individual heating systems. These include refuse-derived fuels, wood process residues
and waste heat from CHP generation, industrial processes or biofuel
production (Egeskog et al., 2009). In this regard, DHC systems can provide an enabling infrastructure for increased RE deployment.
The potential contribution and mix of RE in DHC systems depends
strongly on local conditions, including the availability of RE resources.
For biomass or geothermal systems it is not a technical problem to
achieve high penetration levels as they can have high capacity factors. Hence many geothermal and biomass heating or CHP plants have
been successfully integrated into DH systems operating under commercial conditions.
Woody biomass, crop residues, pellets and solid organic wastes
can be more efciently used in a DH-integrated CHP plant than
in individual small-scale burners (Table 2.6). Biomass fuels are
important sources of district heat in several European countries
where biomass is readily available, notably Sweden and Finland
(Euroheat&Power, 2007). In Sweden, nearly half of the DH fuel
share now comes from biomass (Box 11.11).
Near-surface and low temperature geothermal resources are well
suited to DH applications. Due to the often lower costs of competing fuels, however, the use of geothermal heat in DH schemes is
641
Chapter 8
Austria
Croatia
Czech Rep.
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Iceland
Italy
Korea
Latvia
Lithuania
Norway
Poland
Romania
Slovakia
Slovenia
Sweden
USA
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
[%]
Figure 8.4 | Share of total heat demand in buildings supplied by district heating schemes
for selected countries (Euroheat&Power, 2007).
low (with the exception of Iceland), even though the global technical potential of the resource is high (Section 4.2).
The global installed capacity of solar thermal collectors in 2009
was 180 GWth (Section 3.4.1) but only a small fraction was used for
DH (Weiss et al., 2009). Solar thermal DH plants are found mainly
in Germany, Sweden, Austria and Denmark (Dalenbck, 2010).
In Denmark, several have large-scale collector areas of around
10,000m (Epp, 2009). At solar shares of up to 20%, the large
number of customers connected to the DH system ensures a sufciently large demand for hot water even in summer, so that high
solar heat yields (~1,800 MJ/m2) can be achieved. Higher solar
shares can be achieved by using seasonal thermal storage systems,
for which integration into a DH system with a sufciently high heat
demand is an economic prerequisite. Pilot plants with a solar share
of more than 50% equipped with seasonal heat storage have demonstrated the technical feasibility of such systems (Section 8.2.2.6).
Using RE through electricity sources in DH systems in situations with low
or even negative electricity prices is possible through heat pumps and
electric boilers, with thermal storage also an option (Lund et al., 2010).
Through CHP plants, DH systems can also export electricity to the grid
as well as provide demand response services that facilitate increased
integration of RE into the local power system. Thermodynamically, using
electricity to produce low grade heat may seem inefcient, but under
some circumstances it can be a better economic option than spilling
potential electricity from variable RE resources (Section 8.2.1).
642
To use RE cooling most efciently in buildings from a quality perspective, a merit order of preferred cooling can be set up (as can also be
done for heating) (IEA, 2007c). The order will differ due to specic
local conditions and costs, but a typical example could be to supplement energy efciency and passive cooling options by including active
compression cooling and refrigeration powered by RE electricity; solar
thermal, concentrating solar power, or shallow geothermal heat to
drive active cooling systems (Section 3.7.2); and biomass-integrated
systems to produce cold, possibly as tri-generation. The Swedish town
of Vxj, for example, uses excess heat in summer from its biomassred CHP plant for absorption cooling in one district, and an additional
2 MW chiller is also planned (IEA, 2009b).
Ground source heat pumps can be used in summer for space cooling
(air-to-ground) at virtually any location, as well as in winter for space
heating (ground-to-air). They use the heat storage capacity of the
ground as an earth-heat sink since the temperature at depths between
15 and 20 m remains fairly constant all year round, being around 12
to 14C. They are commercially available at small to medium scales
between 10 and 200 kW capacity.
8.2.2.3
To meet growth in demand for heat or cold, and goals for integrating
additional RE into energy systems, expansion of existing networks may
be required. A DHC piping network involves up-front capital investment costs that are subject to large variations per kilometre depending
on the local heat density and site conditions for constructing the
underground, insulated pipes. Network capital investment costs and
distribution losses per unit of delivered heat (or cold) are lower in
areas with high annual demand (expressed as MJ/m2/yr, MWpeak/km2
or GJ/m of pipe length/yr). Area heat densities can range up to 1,000
MJ/m2 in dense urban, commercial and industrial areas down to below
70 MJ/m2 in areas with dispersed, single family houses. Corresponding
heat distribution losses can range from less than 5% in the former to
more than 30% in the latter. The extent to which losses and network
costs are considered an economic constraint depends on the cost and
source of the heat. Under certain conditions, areas with either a heat
Chapter 8
Extraction of geothermal heat is reliable but may entail local environmental impacts (Section 4.5).
8.2.2.4
RE sources can be integrated into existing systems by replacing and retrotting older production units or incorporating them into the designs of
new DHC systems. DHC networks can be constructed or extended where
a growing number of customers seek RE supply sources. These can be
more cheaply integrated into existing systems at the slow natural rate of
capital building stock turnover, or dedicated policies can speed up the grid
connection process.
New technological options for heating
As new RE technologies are developed, additional technical options for
increasing the shares of RE in DH systems are presented. Fuel switching
and co-ring of biomass in existing fossil fuel-red heat-only or CHP
boilers present an option in the near term. The suitability of biomass
fuels, their moisture contents, and whether they need to be pulverized
or not, depend on the existing boiler design (whether grate, circulating
or bubbling uidized bed).
Heat from geothermal and solar thermal sources can be more readily
integrated into existing DH systems. Enhanced geothermal systems
(EGS) could be operated in CHP mode coupled with DH networks.
The commercial exploitation of large heat ows is necessary to
compensate for the high drilling costs of these deep geothermal systems
(Thorsteinsson and Tester, 2010). Such a large heat demand is usually only available through DH networks or to supply major industries
directly (Hotson, 1997).
Storage options
Heat storage systems can bridge the gap between variable and unsynchronized heat supply and demand. The capacity of a thermal storage
system can range from a few MJ up to several TJ; the storage time from
hours to months; and the temperature from 20C up to 1,000C. These
wide ranges are made possible by choosing between solids, water, oil
or salt as different thermal storage materials together with their corresponding storage mechanisms.
A hot water storage system design depends on the local geological
and hydro-geological conditions, and the supply and demand characteristics of the DHC system. For short-term storage (hours and days)
the thermal capacity of the distribution system itself can act as storage
(Figure 8.5). Longer-term seasonal storage, usually between winter and
summer, is less common. In this case, the main storage options include
underground tanks, pits, boreholes and aquifers (Heidemann and MllerSteinhagen, 2006). With geological storage, relatively small temperature
differences are employed. In aquifers, heat may be injected during the
643
Heating Central
Chapter 8
Solar Collectors
Condensing
Boiler
Gas
Solar Net
Domestic Heat
Transfer Station
Seasonal Thermal
Energy Store
Figure 8.5 | Solar-supported centralized heating plant with seasonal tank storage connected to a district heating system (modied from Bodmann et al., 2005).
644
Chapter 8
Capital Costs
30,000
O&M Costs
25,000
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
0
Electric
Boiler
GroundSource
Heat
Pump
District
Heating
Natural
Gas
Boiler
Oil
Boiler
Wood
Pellets
Boiler
Figure 8.6 | Comparative average annual heating and unit costs (USD2005), including
climate, energy and carbon taxes, as seen by the end user in a typical Swedish 1,000 m2
multi-family building with a heat demand around 700 GJ/yr.
Notes: Capital investment costs are for the end-user investment in the grid connection
terminal, heat exchanger, boiler, heat pump etc. O&M costs are the end-user payments for
electricity, district heat or fuel (including system capital costs, fuel, taxes, prot etc). For
district heat, distribution cost is typically about 25% of total production and distribution
costs and the distribution capital cost is about 35% of the total system capital cost. Data
adapted from the Swedish Energy Markets Inspectorate (Ericsson, 2009). For the fuel mix
of Swedish DH systems, see Figure 11.11.
same network. However, most DHC systems are too small to host
several producers. Thus, third party access into an existing DHC system
must be evaluated on a case by case basis to ensure it is nancially
sustainable and benecial for the customer.
8.2.2.5
645
additional benets such as improved urban air quality, and the provision
of heating and cooling at low or zero CO2 emissions. (For a full discussion of these benets of RE, see Chapter 9.)
DH networks represent a relatively mature technology. Expected reductions in heat network costs through improved design and reduced losses
suggest that the expansion of DH will remain economically feasible in
many locations, even in areas with relatively low heat densities (Bruus
and Kristjansson, 2004). Improved designs include the co-insulation of
paired, small diameter outward and return ow distribution pipes.
The total costs of a RE-based DHC system are highly contextual and site
specic. The onsite heating of buildings using natural gas from grids
in condensing boilers, small-scale heat pumps, biomass boilers, solar
thermal systems or geothermal heat pumps can be strong competitors to DH in many locations. However, the ability of DHC systems to
provide reliable supplies, avoid the need for maintenance of individual
appliances, as well as integrate a broad spectrum of energy sources,
facilitates competition among various heating/cooling sources, fuels
and technologies (Gronheit and Mortensen, 2003). RE integration in
itself does not lead to signicant additional costs, except in the case
where heat storage is necessary for high shares of solar thermal.
8.2.2.6
Case studies
646
Chapter 8
Chapter 8
3,500
3,000
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
1994
1993
1992
1991
1990
500
Figure 8.7 | Total area of building oor space served by district heating in China increased over twelve fold from 1990 through 2008 (adapted from Kang and Zhang (2008),
updated with 2006-2008 data from the National Bureau of Statistics China, 2010).
generation plants. In the case of the city of Harbin, the result of installing a DH system was improved air quality in addition to 0.5 Mt/yr CO2
emission reductions (WBCSD, 2008). Local air pollution concerns, as in
Beijing and Tianjin, have motivated a shift from coal to natural gas in
recent years, but interest in the integration of geothermal, biomass and
solar thermal applications is now growing. For example, Shenyang, a
leading city in the application of geothermal heat pumps, is meeting
nearly one quarter of its 200 Mm2 heated building oor area by taking
water at 12 to 14C from 80 to 160 m depths (Shenyang, 2006; Jiang
and Hai, 2010). Eco-city developments, such as Caofeidian in Tangshan,
are also fuelling a growing interest in RE for DHC systems.
District cooling in North America
Successful examples of DC installations include 51 MW of cooling
at Cornell University, Ithaca, USA. Around 1,200 m3/hr of 4C water
is pumped from the bottom of nearby Cayuga Lake through a heat
exchanger before it is stored in a 20,000 m stratied thermal storage tank (Zogg et al., 2008). A separate water loop runs back 2 km
before passing through the air-conditioning systems of the 75 campus
buildings and Ithaca High School. In this USD2005 68 million scheme, the
cooling water is discharged back to the lake at around 8 to 10C and
mixed with the surface water by 38 injection nozzles to maintain stable
water temperatures. The 1.6 m diameter intake pipe has a screen at 76m
depth and this, and the discharge nozzles, were carefully designed to
minimize maintenance and environmental problems.
Compared with the original refrigeration-based cooling system, since the
project started in 1999, GHG emissions have been reduced signicantly
due to both reducing the power demand for cooling by around 80 to 90%
of the previous 25 GWh/yr (90 TJ/yr) and by avoiding the 12 to 13 t of chlorouorocarbons (CFCs) that were used in the six chillers (Cornell, 2005).
8.2.3
647
8.2.3.1
Chapter 8
8.2.3.2
Over the past decade there has been an increasing interest in greening existing natural gas grids. In Europe the EU Directive 2003/55/EC of
the European Parliament opened up the existing grid to carry alternative
gases such as hythane (a blend of hydrogen and natural gas), hydrogen
and biogas (Persson et al., 2006; NATURALHY, 2009). Furthermore, an
EU directive14 included measures for increasing the share of biogas and
enabling access to the gas grid. As a result, in Germany, for example, the
target for 2020 is to substitute 20% (by volume; around 1.12 PJ/year)
of compressed natural gas (CNG) used for transport with biomethane
and a 2030 target is to substitute 10% of natural gas in all sectors with
biomethane (382 PJ/year) (Mller-Langer et al., 2009). Similar proposals
have been made for the natural gas grid running along the West Coast
of North America, with a Bioenergy Action Plan having been introduced
by the Governor of California (CEC, 2006).
Until recently, most of the raw biogas produced around the world (from
landlls, urban sewage and industrial and agricultural wastes) has been
used onsite or distributed in dedicated local gas systems, primarily for
heating purposes. Biogas can be upgraded to biomethane of natural gas
quality and suitable for blending with natural gas for transporting via
gas grids. In a few cases biomethane has been transported via trucks to
lling stations to supply gas-fuelled vehicles (Hagen et al., 2001; Persson
et al., 2006). The biogas business is growing rapidly and is currently
being commercialized by larger industrial players (Biogasmax, 2009).
14 Promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources. EU Directive 2009/28/EC.
648
Chapter 8
These include major gas companies that are planning to upgrade and
inject large quantities of biogas into national/regional transmission gas
pipelines (NationalGrid, 2009) to offset some of the demand for natural
gas in existing and future markets.
Synthesis gas can be produced via gasication (partial oxidation) of
coal or biomass feedstocks (Section 2.2). The Lebon gasication process
has been used since the beginning of the 19th century and the gas is
already used for cooking, heating and power generation, especially in
areas where natural gas is unavailable.
Hydrogen is today mainly produced from natural gas but it can also be
produced from RE sources. The main current use is by industry (Section
8.3.3), but it can also be used as a transport fuel (Section 8.3.1). To establish a RE-based hydrogen economy, it will be necessary to develop more
efcient small-scale distributed hydrogen production technologies such
as water electrolyzers and steam methane reformers (Riis et al., 2006;
NRC, 2008; Ogden and Yang, 2009). Small- to medium-scale hydrogen
production based on wind (Section 8.3.4), solar or biomass has been
evaluated favourably in some regions such as North Rhine-Westphalia,
Germany (CEP, 2010) and the North American Great Plains (Leighty et
al., 2006). Such RE technologies could conceivably provide the basis for
large-scale hydrogen production in the future (IEA-HIA, 2006).
Several different options are available for hydrogen delivery, including
road or rail transport of gaseous hydrogen compressed in cylinders of
various sizes, trucking of cryogenic liquid hydrogen, and transmission
by pipelines. The technical and economic competitiveness of each delivery option depends on the geographical area and gas volume demand.
For small consumers, transport of liqueed or compressed hydrogen
by trucks is the most viable option, while pipeline delivery can only
be justied for a very high ow rate of hundreds of tonnes per day
(Castello et al., 2005). The building of hydrogen production and distribution infrastructure over the next few decades could be a mix of
centralized and decentralized systems (Bonhoff et al., 2009). Initially,
hydrogen will mainly be distributed by trucks, while pipelines will only
become important at a later stage as demand increases. For example, in
North Rhine-Westphalia, a region with existing gas pipelines supplying
industry, there are progressive plans to construct a hydrogen transport
infrastructure based initially on the existing gas grid. Dedicated hydrogen pipelines could be needed after 2025 (Pastowski and Grube, 2009)
and by 2050, about 80% of all hydrogen produced centrally in Germany
could be transported by pipeline (Bonhoff et al., 2009).
with CO2 (arising from biogas, fossil fuel combustion or extracted from
the atmosphere) using the process of methanation to produce methane
as an energy store and carrier (Sterner, 2009). Currently this process is
not commercially viable.
8.2.3.3
CO2 can be removed by several methods, but each have operational and
cost issues (Persson et al., 2006).
Local gas distribution grids can complement heating and cooling networks (Section 8.2.2). At the national and regional scales, electricity and
gas transmission grids can complement each other in the long-distance
transport of energy carriers. The design of a future hydrogen infrastructure, for example, could depend strongly on its interaction with the
electricity system (Sherif et al., 2005; C. Yang, 2008), which over time is
expected to gain an increasing share of RE. Using surplus RE power to
produce hydrogen by electrolysis is an example, possibly combining this
649
Chapter 8
stations for cars, taxis and eet vehicles, and a refuelling system for
a converted diesel train with 600 km range (IEA, 2010a). The system
payback time is sensitive to the estimated long-term gas production
and price, which in turn is affected by taxation and carbon values,
the future end-use demands for the gas and the clean-up costs. The
economic payback time to integrate scrubbed biomethane into a gas
grid depends on the location of injection. If injection is at the end of a
pipeline as incremental capacity, then the cost can be relatively low.
Local and regional differences in existing infrastructure make it difcult to make specic recommendations for planning and integration
costs at a national and regional level.
Hydrogen transported via existing natural gas grids may rst require
some upgrading of the pipelines and components (Mohitpour and
Murray, 2000; Huttenrauch and Muller-Syring, 2006). Since pure hydrogen has a lower volumetric density compared to natural gas, hydrogen
pipelines will require either operation at higher pressures or around
three times larger diameter pipes in order to carry the same amount
of energy per unit time as a natural gas pipeline. In a dedicated hydrogen gas grid, depending on the hydrogen pathway but particularly if
used with fuel cells rather than for direct combustion, the hydrogen
needs to be puried and dried before it is stored and distributed. For
Table 8.2 | Examples of composition and parameters of gases from a range of carbon-based sources, using typical data for landll gas, biogas from anaerobic digestion (AD), (Persson
et al., 2006) and biomass-based syngas (Ciferno and Marano, 2002), and compared with natural gas.
Parameter
Unit
Landll Gas
MJ/Nm
16
23
418
40
Density
kg/Nm3
1.3
1.2
0.84
MJ/Nm3
18
27
55
70
Methane number
>130
>135
Methane, typical
vol-%
45
63
10
87
Methane, variation
vol-%
3565
5370
318
Higher hydrocarbons
vol-%
12
Hydrogen
vol-%
03
543
vol-%
30
vol-%
947
vol-%
40
47
25
1.2
vol-%
1550
3037
1140
Nitrogen, typical
vol-%
15
0.2
35
0.3
Nitrogen variation
vol-%
540
1356
Oxygen, typical
vol-%
<0.2
Oxygen, variation
vol-%
05
ppm
<100
<1,000
~0
1.5
ppm
0100
010,000
12
Ammonia
Total chlorine (as Cl-)
Tars
ppm
<100
mg/Nm3
20200
05
vol-%
<1
Notes: 1. Anaerobic digestion. 2. From gasication using bubbling or circulating uidized beds with direct or indirect heating. Syngas followed by methanation can produce 83 to 97%
methane and 1 to 8% hydrogen. Nm3 is an uncompressed normal cubic metre of gas at standard conditions of 0C temperature and atmospheric pressure.
650
Chapter 8
example, for fuel cell vehicles (Section 8.3.1), the hydrogen needs to
be of a very high purity (>99.9995% H2 and <1 ppm CO). Industrial
hydrogen with lower purity can be transported in dedicated transmission and distribution pipelines so long as there is no risk of water
vapour building up, or any other substances that could lead to internal
corrosion. Regular checking for corrosion and material embrittlement
in pipelines, seals and storage equipment is important when dealing
with hydrogen (EIGA, 2004).
8.2.3.4
Technical options
Pipeline compatibility and gas storage are the two main technical challenges when integrating RE-based gases into existing gas systems. For
variable RE-based systems, a constant stream of gas may not be produced so some storage may be essential to balance supply with demand.
Since RE-based gases can be produced regionally and locally, storage is
likely to be located close to the demand of the end user. Hence, the size
and shape of a storage facility will depend on the primary energy source
and the end use. In small applications, pressure variations in the pipeline
(Section 8.3.4) could act as storage depending on the varying rates of
production and use (Gardiner et al., 2008). In cases where there are
several complementary end users for the gas, infrastructure and storage
costs can be shared.
Simpler system designs enable RE-derived gases with a lower volumetric energy density to be distributed locally in relatively cheap polymer
pipelines. Such dedicated distribution gas pipelines can be operated at
relatively low pressures but will then need a larger diameter to provide
similar volume ow rates and energy delivery. After a RE gas has been
upgraded, puried, dried, brought up to the prescribed gas quality, then
safely injected into a distribution grid, the main operational challenge is
to avoid leaks and regulate the pressure and ow rate so that it complies
with the pipeline specications. Continuously available compressors,
safety pressure relief systems and gas buffer storage systems are used to
maintain the optimum pressures and ow rates.
Small- to medium-sized gas buffer storage such as inatable rubber
or vinyl bags (normally with four or ve days of gas demand capacity)
can be used to collect and store biogas, biomethane or syngas produced
from variable RE feedstocks to help balance supply and local demand.
The options for large-scale storage of biomethane are similar to those
of CNG or liqueed natural gas (LNG). In large landll gas or industrialized biogas plants, upgraded biomethane gas can be stored at high
pressures in steel storage cylinders (as used for CNG). These can be connected to a local dispenser, to a gas pipeline, or transported by truck to
the place of demand. Liquefaction before transport is possible, as used
for LNG, but this is likely to add signicant cost and complexity to a
system. Producing LNG requires a large amount of energy and is therefore mainly an option for gas transport by boat or truck over thousands
of kilometres when it can compete with constructing new gas pipelines.
Meeting gas quality standards poses a barrier, but is not fundamentally technically challenging. For biomethane, this can often be
achieved at relatively low additional costs. However, gas quality standards vary: Sweden and Germany, for example, have developed their
own national standards for biomethane that differ widely (Persson
et al., 2006) (Table 8.3). There is as yet no single international gas
standard for pipeline quality RE-based gases.
15 See www.dynetek.com.
651
Table 8.3 | National standards for biomethane to be met before allowing injection into
Swedish and German natural gas grids (Persson et al., 2006).
Parameter
Unit
Demand in Standard
Sweden
MJ/Nm3
<Tambient 5
CO2 + O2 + N2
vol %
<5
O2
vol %
<1
Total sulphur
mg/Nm3
<23
NH2
mg/Nm3
20
MJ/Nm3
Germany
Higher Wobbe index
MJ/Nm
Relative density
0.550.75
Dust
Technically zero
CO2
vol %
<6
O2
vol %
mg/Nm
<30
via Global Positioning System (GPS) technology to allow rapid location of a problem and corrective action. Diverse local or regional RE
resources used for gas production can offer more secure supply than
a single source of imported gas.
Safety procedures and regulations for hydrogen used in the chemical and petroleum rening industries are already in place. Industrial
hydrogen pipeline standards and regulations for on-road transport
of liquid and compressed hydrogen have also been established.
However, there is a lack of safety information on components and
systems, which poses a challenge to the commercialization of hydrogen energy technologies. Codes and standards are necessary to gain
the condence of local, regional and national ofcials involved in the
planning of hydrogen and fuel cell projects, hence, several organizations are developing safety and operational standards.
Chapter 8
Given relative costs, policy support for the integration of RE gases may
be needed if higher rates of deployment are sought. For example, feed-in
regulations could enable the injection of biomethane into natural gas
grids, similary to how RE power is fed into electricity grids (Section 11.5.2).
Benets and costs of large-scale penetration of RE gases
Benets and costs can be assessed using both economic (capital expenditure, operation and maintenance costs) and environmental (GHG
emissions, local air pollution, energy input ratio, air pollution) indicators. The relevant parameters are signicantly affected by the type of RE
source, gas production technology, storage and distribution system, and
end-use application being either transport (Section 8.3.1) or stationary
(Sections 8.3.2 and 8.3.3).
652
-0.15
-0.10
-0.05
0.05
0.10
Figure 8.8 | For a 500 kWe CHP plant fuelled by biogas produced from either the anaerobic digestion of animal manure slurry or a corn silage energy crop, the potential reductions
of GHG emissions can be compared with using natural gas to fuel the CHP plant. Methane
leaks to atmosphere reduce the GHG reduction benets (Pehnt et al., 2009b).
Biogas Base
200
Bio-Synthesis Gas Base
Biogas Base
100
2005
10.8 EJ/yr
10
Commonwealth of
Independent States
300
EU+3
15
Compressed Methane
Transported in Pipelines
EU+10
20
400
Manure
Germany
25
Compressed Gas
Transported by Truck
500
30
[USD2005 /GJ]
The cost per unit of energy delivered using a gas pipeline depends on
the economies of scale and gas ow rate. The main cost is the pipe itself
plus costs for installation, permits and rights of way. The cost of a local
distribution pipeline is similar to that for district heating (Section 8.2.2)
and depends mainly on the density of the urban demand. More dense
systems yield a lower cost per unit of energy delivered. When designing
a new gas grid, planning for anticipated future expansions is recommended because adding new pipes can be a costly option. Increasing
the pressure to provide additional gas ow may be cheaper than adding
larger diameter pipelines. The cost for distribution and dispensing of compressed biomethane at the medium scale is around USD2005 15/GJ when
transported by truck (Figure 8.9), which is substantially higher than by
pipeline or as liqueed methane (hman, 2010).
The limiting factors for hydrogen distribution are likely to be capital costs
and the time involved to build a new infrastructure. In Germany, the cost
for hydrogen production and distribution to supply some 7 million fuel
cell light duty vehicles in 2030 is estimated to be around USD2005 40 billion (Bonhoff et al., 2009). In the USA, for refuelling 200 million fuel cell
vehicles, several hundred billion dollars would need to be invested over
four decades (NRC, 2008). Incorporating variable RE sources would add
to the cost due to the additional need for hydrogen storage.
In order to blend RE gases into a gas grid, the gas source needs to be
located near the existing system to avoid high connection costs. More
remotely located plants should ideally use the biomethane or hydrogen
onsite to avoid the cost of gas distribution. Blending syngas or hydrogen into a natural gas system may require changes to the natural gas
distribution and end-use equipment. Local networks in urban areas that
currently carry fossil fuel-derived syngas (town gas) may also be suitable
for biomass-derived syngas.
Manure
Chapter 8
2020
17.4 EJ/yr
5
Figure 8.10 | Technical annual potentials of biomethane at standard temperature and
pressure (STP) as produced from a range of biomass feedstocks in the EU region in 2005
and 2020 (Mller-Langer et al., 2009).
0
Figure 8.9 | Relative costs for distributing and dispensing biomethane (either compressed
or liqueed) at the medium scale by truck or pipeline (hman, 2010).
653
et al., 2009), but this partly depends on the competition for the available
biomass resources (Eurogas, 2008).
8.2.4
8.2.4.1
Renewable liquid fuels can take advantage of existing infrastructure components (storage, blending, transportation and dispensing) already used
by petroleum-based fuels, with some adaptations. Integration issues may
therefore be less problematic as compared to electricity or gas systems.
The structure of a biomass-to-liquid fuel system for rst generation biofuels is well understood (Figure 8.11) but sustainable production and
land use remain controversial (Fritsche et al., 2010) (Sections 2.5.4 and
9.3.4.1).
The transport of bulky, low energy density biomass feedstocks to a biorenery by road can be costly and normally produces GHGs. Rail transport
can be a more efcient and cost effective delivery mode (Reynolds, 2000).
Biofuels can be blended with gasoline or diesel at oil reneries or blend
centres during the distribution of petroleum fuels to vehicle relling stations. Biofuels and blends can be stored at their production sites, alongside
oil reneries or in underground storage tank facilities at service stations.
As for petroleum products, similar care needs to be taken regarding safety
and environmental protection. Due to the seasonality of agricultural crops
Chapter 8
8.2.4.2
Currently most liquid biofuels are produced from sugar, carbohydrate and
vegetable oil crops and integrated into existing fuel supplies by using
blends, typically up to 25% (in volumetric terms) with gasoline and diesel (Sections 2.3.3 and 2.6.3). However, ethanol can be blended in any
proportion with gasoline for use in ex-fuel vehicles (Section 8.3.1) and
biodiesel can be used in compression ignition engines either neat (100%
or B100) or blended with regular diesel. Modied diesel engines may
also run on almost neat alcohol (E95) with an ignition improver (Scania,
2010). Several manufacturers produce trucks and agricultural machinery
with engines certied for use with B20 and B100 fuels (NBB, 2010; New
Holland Information Center, 2010; Power-Gen, 2009).
Solid lignocellulosic biomass sources can be converted to liquid fuels by
means of biochemical processes such as enzymatic or acid hydrolysis, or
by thermo-chemical processes to produce synthesis gas (mainly carbon
monoxide (CO) and hydrogen (H2)) followed by Fischer-Tropsch conversion
Terminals/ Distribution
Points
Final Consumption
Transportation of Raw
Material to Processing Plants
Transportation to Blending
Centres
Storage
Preparation and
Conversion Process
into Liquid Fuel
(Industrial Phase)
Production of Biomass
(Agricultural Phase)
Transportation to Terminals or
Distributing Centres
Figure 8.11 | The various phases in a typical biofuel production, blending and distribution system for transport fuel.
654
Transportation of Biofuels to
Retailers and Final Consumers
Chapter 8
to produce a range of synthetic liquid fuels suitable for road transport, aviation, marine and other applications (Sims et al., 2008; Section 2.3.3). Fuel
quality issues are important because they can affect the performance of
vehicle engines and transport emissions (Section 8.3.1.2). Biomethane, if
it meets appropriate specications (Section 8.2.3), can also be combusted
directly in spark-ignition ICEs as for compressed natural gas (CNG).
Most of the projected demand for liquid biofuels is for transport, though
industrial demand for bio-lubricants, and chemicals such as methanol
for use in chemical industries, could also increase (Section 2.6.3.5).
Some biofuels are also used in stationary CHP engines as a substitute
for petroleum fuels. The demand for large amounts of traditional solid
biomass primarily in developing countries for cooking and heating could
be replaced by more convenient gaseous fuels such as LPG, but also by
liquid fuels produced from biomass such as ethanol gels (Utria, 2004;
Rajvanshi et al., 2007) or dimethyl ether (DME) (Sims et al., 2008).
Liquid biofuels can be integrated into the existing oil product distribution infrastructure. Transition barriers are relatively low as biofuel
blends could be introduced without costly modications to existing
petroleum storage and delivery systems, and could take advantage
of existing infrastructure components (NAS, 2009). Some related
costs could eventuate for blending and for additional technical modications of fuel storage tanks and fuel pumps, or provision of new
installations. The type of fuel storage and delivery system will vary
depending on the properties of the biofuel and its compatibility with
the existing petroleum-based fuel system. Most common biofuels have
similar properties to gasoline and diesel so can be blended reasonably easily with these. Cold temperature conditions can represent
difculties, during transport and storage and in engines, especially for
some biodiesels that may form polymer gels that restrict fuel ow.
Overcoming these constraints is imperative if biofuels are to be used
as aviation fuels.
Transport and delivery modes from reneries to terminals include trucks,
barges, tankers and pipelines. From the terminals, trucks or distribution
pipelines can supply the retail outlets depending on the distances and
volume of biofuels involved. Storage and distribution costs would be
similar to petroleum-based fuels.
Bio-reneries that produce biofuels and other co-products are generally
much smaller in capacity than oil reneries and could be widely located
in geographic regions where the resource exists. For example, numerous ethanol processing plants are situated throughout the mid-western
and south-eastern corn belt of the USA, whereas a few oil reneries are
concentrated along the coasts. Brazil already has many bio-reneries in
operation producing sugar, ethanol, biodiesel, animal fodder, electricity,
steam and heat.
Although the cost of fuel delivery is a small fraction of the overall production cost, the logistics and capital requirements for widespread
expansion and integration could present hurdles if not well planned.
Technical issues regarding ethanol and gasoline blends (gasohol) during storage and transport can arise if water is absorbed by anhydrous
ethanol in the pipelines (Section 8.2.4.3). However, in Brazil, ethanol
produced from sugar cane has been successfully transported in pipelines also used for oil products for over 20 years, though the clean-up
and maintenance procedures have increased. Since ethanol has around
two-thirds the volumetric energy density of gasoline, larger storage
systems, more rail cars or vessels, and larger capacity pipelines would
be needed to store and transport a similar amount of energy and
hence would increase the fuel storage and delivery costs compared to
oil-based products.
The possibility exists to use by-products of biofuel production as raw
materials for biogas production or electricity generation, for example
from bagasse, the sugarcane residue. Integration with the existing electricity grid system has been successfully achieved in Brazil and elsewhere
in cogeneration schemes after the energy demands of the processing
plant have been met (Rodrigues et al., 2003; Pacca and Moreira, 2009).
Anaerobic digestion of the by-products from bioethanol and biodiesel
processing has the potential to be integrated with various existing
bio-renery models. The biogas can either be used for heat and electricity generation, as a vehicle fuel (Brjesson and Mattiasson, 2008), or
injected into gas grids (Section 8.2.3).
8.2.4.3
655
strategy is to send a sacricial buffer of neat ethanol down a pipeline to absorb any moisture ahead of sending the primary batches of
ethanol or blends. The buffer shot is discarded or re-distilled.
Ethanol in high concentrations can lead to accelerated stress corrosion cracking (SCC) in steel pipelines and storage tanks, especially at
weld joints and bends (NAS, 2009). This can be avoided by adding tank
liners, using selective post-weld heat treatments, and coating internal
critical zones (at pipeline weld points, for example). However, these all
increase system costs. Ethanol may degrade certain elastomers and polymers found in seals and valves in pipelines and terminals as well as some
engines, so these may need replacement. New pipelines could be constructed with ethanol-compatible polymers in valves, gaskets and seals
and be designed to minimize SCC (NAS, 2009).
8.2.4.5
8.2.4.4
Technical options
Technologies will continue to evolve to produce biofuels that are more
compatible with the existing petroleum infrastructure (Sims et al., 2008).
Advanced biofuels in the future may need to meet stringent quality specications in order to match the fuels with existing and new engine designs
installed in heavy transport, marine and aviation applications. In some
countries, the development of codes and standards for biofuels has been
slow and delayed their integration into the supply system. Quality control
procedures also need to be implemented to ensure that biofuels meet all
applicable product specications (Hoekman, 2009) and hence facilitate
integration.
The facilitation of international trade in biofuels instigated a need for
more homogeneous international standards to be developed. A comparison was made of existing biofuel standards (NCEP, 2007). The standards
for biodiesel in Brazil and USA reect its use only as a blending component in conventional mineral diesel fuel, whereas the European standard
allows for its use either as a blend or as neat fuel. Variations also exist
in current standards for regulating the quality of biodiesel reaching the
market due to the different oil and fat feedstocks available. This translates
to variations in the performance characteristics of each biofuel, less so
for ethanol, which is a simple chemical compound compared with longchain biodiesels. Bioethanol technical specications differ with respect
to the water content but do not constitute an impediment to international trade (NIST, 2007). Blending levels of biofuels need to account for
regional differences in the predominant age and type of vehicle engines,
ambient temperatures and local emission regulations.
Institutional aspects
Policy support has played an important role in creating a market for
biofuels. For example, the mandatory blending of biodiesel and ethanol
in diesel and gasoline respectively has been used in several countries
(Section 11.5.5). Agencies in charge of regulating oil product markets
could also include biofuels under their jurisdiction. These agencies are the
656
Chapter 8
Chapter 8
Table 8.4 | Capacities and costs of a range of equipment suitable for ethanol storage and long-distance transport.
Truck/trailer
Capacity
Cost (USD2005)
Reference
25 m3
103,000
141,000
90 m3
85,000
EPA (2007)
River barge
EPA (2007)
Ocean ship
3,00030,000 m3
Not known
Reynolds (2000)
12,000 m3/day
0.34-0.85 million/km
3,000 m3
6,000 m3
360,000
540,000
Reynolds (2000)
Reynolds (2000)
1,200 m3
18,800
EPA (2007)
170,000-450,000
Reynolds (2000)
1.13 million
Reynolds (2000)
Rail car
Blending equipment
Total terminal ret
6,000 m3
Rail shipment is generally the most cost effective delivery system for
medium and longer distances (500 to 3,000 km) and to destinations without port facilities (Reynolds, 2000). Rail shipments require more handling
at the terminals because of the greater number and smaller volumes of
units compared to barges, as well as the more labour-intensive efforts
for cargo loading, unloading and inspection, Trains containing up to 75
railcars have been proposed for ethanol as an alternative to pipeline development (Reynolds, 2000).
Barges are used for long distance transport when biofuel production
plants have access to waterways. In the USA, for example, barges travel
down the Mississippi River from ethanol plants in the Midwest to ports
at the Gulf of Mexico where the ethanol is stored before being transferred to ships for transport to overseas or national coastal destination
terminals for blending.
Estimates for the costs of transporting large ethanol volumes over long
distances (Reynolds, 2000) (Section 2.6.2) range from USD2005 6 to 10/m3
for ocean shipping, USD2005 20 to 90/m3 for barge, USD2005 10 to 40/m3
for rail and, over shorter haul distances, USD2005 10 to 20/m3 for trucks
(Section 2.6.2). In Brazil, depending on the origin of the biofuel, the costs
of transporting ethanol from the producing regions to the export ports
is around USD2005 35 to 64/m3, which also includes storage costs at the
terminal (Scandifo and Leal, 2008). More pipelines are being planned
to connect main rural ethanol producing centres to coastal export ports
with the expected costs ranging from USD2005 20 to 29/m3; 70% less than
by road and 45% less than by rail (CGEE, 2009).
8.2.4.6
657
introduced to enable the electricity to be sold to local utilities or monitored and dispatched by the national transmission system operator
(Section 8.2.1). Since the sugar cane harvesting period coincides with
the dry season in Brazil, generation of electricity from bagasse complements the countrys hydroelectric system. In 2009, the total installed
capacity of bagasse-fuelled CHP was 5.6 GWe and generated around
4.75% of total electricity (BEN, 2010).
Brazils experience suggests that the integration of high shares of biofuels can be successfully achieved by implementing blending mandates
in combination with other policies to address economic, social and
environmental barriers (Section 11.5).
8.2.5
658
8.2.5.1
Chapter 8
Several types of autonomous systems exist and can make use of either
single energy carriers (electricity, heat, liquid, gaseous or solid fuels) or
a combination. A full range of energy services can usually be provided,
including heating, lighting, drying, space cooling, refrigeration, desalination, water pumping (Bouzidi et al., 2009) and telecommunications.
Unlike large electrical power systems, smaller autonomous systems
often have fewer RE supply options that are readily available at a local
scale. Additionally, some of the technical and institutional options for
managing integration within large electrical power systems, including sophisticated RE supply forecasting, stochastic unit commitment
procedures, stringent fuel quality standards and beneting from the
smoothing effects of geographical and technical diversity, become more
difcult or even implausible for smaller autonomous systems.
RE integration solutions typically become more restricted as supply
systems become smaller, particularly where there are high shares of
variable RE sources. Autonomous systems will naturally have a tendency
to focus on storage, various types of demand response and highly exible generation to help match supply and demand. RE supply options
that better match local load proles or that are dispatchable may be
chosen over lower-cost RE supply options that do not have as strong a
match with load patterns or that are variable. Managing RE integration
within autonomous systems can, all else being equal, be more costly
than in larger electrical power systems. One implication of this observation is that autonomous systems face harder tradeoffs between a
desire for reliable/continuous supply and a desire to minimize overall
supply costs than do larger networks. For those without ready access to
electricity, cost comparisons with larger electrical power systems may
be irrelevant and standards of reliability may vary.
For electricity generation in small to medium-sized autonomous systems, fossil fuels such as diesel, gasoline or LPG have been commonly
used in stationary engines that drive generator sets (gensets). Due to
the potential supply constraints and costs of delivering fossil fuel supplies to remote locations in developing countries, there is a growing
trend towards using local RE resources where available. Supply/demand
balancing problems associated with variable RE sources may emerge for
autonomous electrical power systems, similarly as for larger centralized
systems but perhaps more acutely. Discussion of the variability and predictability of different RE technologies and their effect on the reliability
of electrical power system supply can be found in Section 8.2.1.2. In
rural communities with small electric distribution networks, in small villages using simple, low voltage DC mini-grids, or in individual buildings,
limited deployment of a single type of RE generation technology such as
solar PV or micro-hydro is possible. However, in such cases, variable RE
supplies will need to be coupled with other options such as demand side
measures, energy storage and increasing generation exibility to ensure
reliability (Section 8.2.5.2).
Chapter 8
8.2.5.2
only when available. These include solar stills, humidiers and dehumidiers, membrane distillers, reverse osmosis or electro-dialysis water
desalinators (Mathioulakis et al., 2007), water pumps using solar PV and
an AC or DC motor (Delgado-Torres and Garcia-Rodriguez, 2007), solar
adsorption refrigerators (Lemmini and Errougani, 2007) and oilseed
presses (Mpagalile et al., 2005). Various other forms of load management may also be important for balancing autonomous systems that
feature signicant amounts of supply and demand variability.
Electrical energy storage technologies (Section 8.2.1.3) may often be
the more attractive option for autonomous RE systems, despite their
relatively high cost. Where, for example, pumped hydro is not an option,
battery storage can be employed with installed capacity sufcient to
meet two to three days of electricity demand. The cost of such storage options should be carefully evaluated against the level of reliability
desired during the design and planning stages, alongside capital investment and operational costs of the system. Several simulation analyses,
demonstration assessments and commercial operations of the application of energy storage technologies to autonomous systems have been
reported. These include solar PV plus wind with hydrogen storage in
Greece (Ipsakis et al., 2009), wind/hydrogen in Norway (Ulleberg et al.,
2010; Section 8.2.5.5), pumped hydro systems plus wind integration on
three Greek islands (Caralis and Zervos, 2007b, 2010) and a wind/solar/
pumped hydro demonstration on the Spanish Canary Islands (Bueno
and Carta, 2006; Section 8.2.5.5). Small PV systems coupled with
battery storage are already in widespread use in many countries.
Alternatively, a portfolio of RE and non-RE technologies could be
integrated to enhance system reliability. For example, small diesel- or
gasoline-powered gensets and dump load (usually a resistance heater
to use any excess electricity generated above the demand) could be
cheaper to operate than having batteries for short periods when wind or
solar resources are not available (Doolla and Bhatti, 2006).
Gaseous or liquid biofuels that are produced locally from biomass
(Section 2.2.2) could be an option for heating or the fuelling of gensets
or vehicles (Section 8.3.1). To maintain the desired supply reliability and
exibility of autonomous electricity system operation (Section 8.2.1),
the present use of gasoline or diesel to fuel small gensets could, in
future, be totally displaced by RE gases and biofuels. RE gases are easy
to store under low or medium pressure in butyl containers or cylinders
(Section 8.2.3) and liquid biofuels can be stored in steel or butyl rubber
tanks (Section 8.2.4).
For many autonomous RE systems (with the possible exception of bioenergy CHP and certain run-of-river micro-hydro schemes), energy storage
and low-energy utilization technologies are integral (Lone and Mufti,
2008). Autonomous micro-hydro schemes are popular in hilly regions,
particularly in developing countries such as Nepal, to provide a resourcedependent continuous power supply (except possibly in dry seasons).
For run-of-river hydro, a cost efcient solution for system balancing
(Section 8.2.1) has been to use load control instead of controlling the
power generation output (Paish, 2002).
659
8.2.5.3
8.2.5.4
660
Chapter 8
For each type of autonomous RE system, appropriate planning methods could assist developers to build projects (Giatrakos et al., 2009),
though the variety of possible RE technologies that could be deployed
and integrated makes development of broad planning guidelines difcult to achieve. To improve planning methodology, databases could be
established from RD&D projects as well as from commercial experiences
to enable comparisons between sustainability criteria (Igarashi et al.,
2009), lifestyles (Amigun et al., 2008; Himri et al., 2008) and various
combinations of technologies under specic site conditions.
The integration of RE into autonomous systems on a broad scale may
also require policy measures to help cover the additional costs and to
provide an enabling environment (Section 11.6). Even where an autonomous, RE-integrated system is assessed to be economically feasible over
its lifetime, appropriate nancial schemes to remove the barrier of high
capital investment costs could be warranted.
8.2.5.5
Case studies
Chapter 8
Five 2.2 MW turbines have been installed and surplus wind power
will be used to pump water up a 3 km long, 0.5 m diameter pipe
to the upper storage system, which is a lined volcanic crater giving
200,000m3 storage capacity and a 700 m head potential. This reservoir will be used to run a hydro plant to meet peak power demands
and also act as balancing reserve during calm periods of up to seven
days. Any surplus water could be used for irrigation purposes along
with water from a desalination plant used to top up the system. The
existing diesel generating plant remains for system balancing (and
also as backup under extreme conditions) and is anticipated to initially
meet around 20% of the annual total electricity demand.
Solar PV is used for street lighting and is also to be installed on 10
public buildings. Each 5 kW capacity system will feed any surplus power
into the low voltage grid. Local, sustainably produced woody biomass is
already used to meet a share of the heat demand. Biogas, produced from
a range of feedstocks, is used to power a hybrid bus and could also be
used for heat and power generation in the future (Insula, 2010). Electric
vehicles are planned and the potential for ocean energy development is
being assessed (Iglesias and Carballo, 2010). Successful initiation of the
project resulted from major awareness campaigns undertaken for the
islanders in 2005. Training sessions were also provided for locals so as to
create a workforce of installers and maintenance personnel from within
the population (de Angelis et al., 2010).
8.3
661
GT CO2 eq/yr
Chapter 8
7
Non-OECD/EIT
EIT
OECD
World total
4
3
2
1
0
<20
<50
<100
Energy Supply
<20
<50
Transport
<100
<20
<50
<100
<20
Buildings
<50
<100
Industry
<20
<50
<100
<20
Agriculture
<50
Forestry
<100
<20
<50
<100
Waste
USD/tCO2-eq
Figure 8.12 | Estimated economic potential ranges for GHG mitigation in the energy supply and end-use sectors, above the assumed baseline for different regions, as a function of the
carbon price in 2030, and based on end-use allocations of emissions including from electricity generation (IPCC, 2007). Regional categories presented here include the entire world,
member countries of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), Economy In Transition (EIT) countries, and Non-OECD/EIT countries.
8.3.1
Transport
8.3.1.1
In 2008, the direct combustion of oil products for transport accounted for
around 18% of global primary energy use and produced approximately
22%20 of energy-related GHG emissions (IEA, 2009d) and between 5 and
70% of air pollutant emissions, (varying with the pollutant and region).
Of the total transport fuel consumption worldwide in 2008 (around 96
EJ, Figure 8.2), light duty vehicles (LDVs) consumed about half, with
heavy duty vehicles (HDVs) accounting for 24%, aviation 11%, shipping
10% and rail 3% (IEA, 2009d). Future energy supply security is a serious
concern for the sector.
To help meet future goals for both energy supply security and GHG
reduction, oil use would need to be substantially reduced over a period
of several decades. Many mitigation scenarios (Section 10.2) and other
recent studies (C. Yang, 2008; IEA, 2008c; NRC, 2008) suggest that,
other than diversifying the primary energy supply, a combination of
20 23% in 2005 on a well-to-wheel basis.
662
Chapter 8
approaches will be needed to accomplish 50 to 80% reductions in transport-related GHG emissions by 2050 (compared to current values) whilst
meeting the projected growth in demand (IEA, 2009c).21
21 In IEA scenarios, vehicles become about twice as efcient by 2050. In the Energy
Technology Perspectives Blue Map scenario (50% GHG reduction by 2050), conventional gasoline and diesel-powered LDVs are largely replaced by a portfolio of
vehicle drive trains (IEA 2010c). At least half of GHG emission reductions come from
a mix of improved efciency measures and alternative fuels (biofuels, electricity and
hydrogen). These account for 25 to 50% of total transport fuel use in 2050, with
liquid biofuels used more extensively in HDVs, aviation and marine applications.
22 Assuming that mass transit is operating at relatively high capacity. On a passengerkm basis, the transport modes with the lowest GHG intensity are rail, bus and twowheel motor bikes, and the highest are LDVs and aviation.
23 For freight, shipping is the lowest GHG intensity mode on a tCO2-km basis, followed
by rail, and then HDVs and aviation by at least an order of magnitude higher.
8.3.1.2
663
Oil
Unconv. Oil
Nat. Gas
Coal
Chapter 8
Solar,
Hydropower,
Wind, Ocean,
Geothermal
Biomass
Nuclear
Primary
Energy Source
Renewable
Fossil
Nuclear
Gasoline
Diesel
SYNTHETIC LIQUIDS
Methanol, DME, F-T, CH4, Ethanol
Electricity
H2
Energy
Carrier
Liquid Fuel
Gaseous Fuel
Fuel Processor
ICEV
HEV
Plug-in HEV
Battery EV
Fuel Cell EV
Electricity
Vehicle
Figure 8.13 | Possible fuel/vehicle pathways from primary energy sources, through energy carriers (yellow, to vehicle end-use drive-train options (with RE resources highlighted in orange).
Notes: F-T= Fischer-Tropsch process. Unconventional oil refers to oil sands, oil shale and other heavy crudes.
664
4.0
Chapter 8
3.5
3.0
IEA, 2009c
Plotkin and Singh, 2009
18,000
Bandivadekar et al., 2008
16,000
NRC, 2008
CONCAWE, 2007
14,000
IEA, 2009c
Plotkin and Singh, 2009
Duvall, 2010
12,000
2.5
10,000
2.0
8,000
1.5
6,000
1.0
4,000
0.5
2,000
Figure 8.14 | Relative fuel economies of future alternative drive train light duty vehicles
compared to advanced spark ignition, gasoline-fuelled, internal-combustion engine vehicles,
based on several selected studies.
Notes: The comparative ratios only represent tank-to-wheel energy use. In a full analysis, wellto-tank energy use should also be considered (Section 8.3.1.2) with overall system losses
typically 5 to 15% for gasoline and diesel extraction, rening and delivery; 20 to 80% for
biofuels depending on the type and biomass feedstock; 40 to 80% for electricity; and 40 to
90% for hydrogen (M. Wang et al., 2006). Biofuels can be used in gasoline, diesel and hybrid
drive train and biomethane in CNG engines. PHEV30 implies a 30 mile all-electric range (also
termed PHEV 50km).
different vehicle types also varied, especially for less mature technologies,
although the overall ndings of all studies were fairly consistent.
Several trends are apparent in fuel consumption of light-duty vehicles:
There is signicant potential to improve fuel economy by adopting new
fuels and drivetrains and more advanced engines, improving aerodynamic design of the vehicle and employing lighter weight materials.
HEVs increase efciency and improve tank-to-wheel fuel economy of
the vehicle by 15 to 70% over advanced conventional gasoline ICEVs.
Although still under development and in the demonstration phase,
HFCVs may be 2 to 2.5 times more efcient on a tank-to-wheel basis
than non-hybrid gasoline ICEVs.
HFCV
EV
PHEV-40
PHEV-30
PHEV-10
CNG/Biomethane
Diesel HEV
Diesel ICEV
Gasoline ICEV
Vehicle Type
Gasoline HEV
FCV
EV
PHEV-30
CNG
Diesel HEV
Diesel ICEV
Gasoline HEV
Gasoline ICEV
Vehicle Type
Figure 8.15 | Relative incremental retail price for future mid-sized alternative drive light
duty vehicles compared to advanced gasoline, spark ignition, internal combustion engine
vehicles as the reference price (= $0).
Notes: The reference gasoline ICEV had a price range of USD2005 21,000 to 24,000 as
quoted in the various studies. Bandivadekar et al. (2008) gave projections for 2035. NRC
(2008) assumed mature technologies with cost reductions due to experience learning and
mass production post-2025. CONCAWE (2007) was for 2010 technologies; IEA (2009c)
and Plotkin and Singh (2009) were for 2030 technology projections. The pure battery
EVs in these studies had an assumed shorter range (typically 320 km) compared to the
reference gasoline car because of imposed battery weight and cost limits. PHEV-10, -30
and -40 imply the range in miles on electricity only. Biofuels can be used in all gasoline
and diesel vehicles.
On a total WTW fuel cycle basis, the relative efciency improvements for HFCVs and EVs are considerably less when electricity
generation and hydrogen production losses are included.
Losses related to electricity generation, transmission and
distribution range between 40 and 80%, depending on the
source of power and transmission distance. A similar loss
range occurs for hydrogen production, depending on the
665
There is uncertainty in the fuel economy and cost projections, particularly for HFCVs and EVs that are not yet commercially produced
at high volumes.
8.3.1.3
666
Chapter 8
Each fuel/vehicle pathway faces its own transition challenges that can
vary by region. In terms of technology readiness of fuels and vehicles,
challenges include infrastructure compatibility, consumer acceptance
(costs, travel range, refuelling times, reliability and safety concerns), primary resource availability for fuel production, life-cycle GHG emissions,
and environmental and sustainability issues including air pollutant
emissions and competing demands for water, land and materials.
Millions of vehicles capable of running on liquid biofuels or biomethane are already commercially available in the global eet. The cost,
weight and life of present battery technologies are the main barriers
to both EVs and PHEVs but the vehicles are undergoing rapid development, spurred by recent policy initiatives worldwide. Several companies
have announced plans to commercialize them within the next few years,
albeit in relatively small numbers initially (tens of thousands of vehicles
per year) and at higher retail prices than comparable vehicles, even with
proposed subsidies. Electric two-wheel motor-bikes and scooters are a
large and fast-growing market in the developing world, especially in
China with 20 million annual sales in 2007 (Kamakat and Gordon,
2009). They have signicant potential for fuel efciency improvements
and GHG reductions. HFCVs have been demonstrated, but are unlikely
to be fully commercialized until at least 2015 to 2020 due to barriers of
fuel cell durability and cost, on-board hydrogen storage and hydrogen
infrastructure availability and cost. The timing for commercializing each
technology is discussed in Section 8.3.1.4.
Liquid biofuel pathways
Biofuels are generally compatible with ICEV technologies and many
vehicle owners already regularly choose liquid biofuels and blends,
whereas only a small fraction of vehicles are adapted to run on gaseous fuels (CNG, LPG or hydrogen). Most of the existing gasoline and
diesel ICEV and HEV eet, however, can only operate on relatively low
fraction biofuel blends. Blends above 10% by volume of ethanol or 5%
of biodiesel risk possible adverse effects on some engine designs and,
in some cases, higher air pollution levels. Over 22 million exible fuel
vehicles (FFVs), including motor bikes, have been designed to use either
100% gasoline or blends of ethanol between E20 and E100 in Brazil
(Section 8.2.4.6), up to E85 in the USA and Canada, and up to E75 in
Sweden under winter conditions. The incremental cost to produce an
FFV is estimated to be only USD2005 50 to 100 per vehicle, so in many
cases, manufacturers offer these vehicles at the same price as a comparable gasoline ICEV (EPA, 2010).
Biomass can be converted into liquid fuels using many different routes
(Section 2.3.3). First generation processes are commercially available
and second generation and more advanced processes, aiming to convert non-food, cellulosic materials and algae, are under development
(Section 8.2.4). Advanced biofuels have potential for lower WTW GHG
emissions than some rst generation and petroleum-derived fuels, but
these technologies are still several years from market (Sims et al., 2008)
(Section 2.6.3).
Chapter 8
availability and the high cost of both vehicle and fuel remain key barriers to consumer acceptance. Hydrogen is not yet widely distributed
to consumers in the same way as gasoline, diesel and, depending on
the market, electricity, natural gas and biofuels. Bringing hydrogen to
large numbers of vehicle owners would require building a new refuelling
infrastructure over several decades (Section 8.2.3.5). Hydrogen and fuel
cells exhibit the chicken and egg problem that vehicle makers will not
introduce hydrogen cars until refuelling stations are in place, and fuel
providers will not build refuelling stations until there are enough cars
to use them. A solution is to introduce the rst hydrogen vehicles and
stations in a coordinated fashion in a series of demonstration projects
(Gronich, 2006; CAFCP, 2009; Nicholas and Ogden, 2010).
Hydrogen can be produced regionally in industrial plants or locally
onsite at vehicle refuelling stations or in buildings. The rst steps to
supply hydrogen to HFCV test eets and demonstrate refuelling technologies in mini-networks have been constructed in Iceland, California,
Germany and elsewhere.29 System-level learning from these programmes is valuable and necessary, including development of safety
codes and standards. In the longer term, in the USA for example, a mix
of low-carbon resources including natural gas, coal (with CCS), biomass
and wind power could supply ample hydrogen (NRC, 2008). The primary
resources required to provide sufcient fuel for 100 million passenger
vehicles in the USA using various gasoline and hydrogen pathways have
been assessed (Ogden and Yang, 2009). Enough hydrogen could be
produced from wind-powered electrolysis using about 13% of the technically available wind resource. However, the combined inefciencies of
producing the hydrogen via electrolysis from primary electricity sources,
then converting it back into electricity on a vehicle via a fuel cell, loses
more than 60% of the original RE inputs. Electricity would be used more
efciently in an EV or PHEV but hydrogen might be preferred in large
vehicles requiring a longer range and faster refuelling times.
Hydrogen production and delivery pathways have a signicant impact
on the cost to the consumer. In addition, compared to industrial uses,
fuel cell grade hydrogen needs to be >99.99% pure and generally
compressed to 35 to 70 MPa before dispensing. Using optimistic
assumptions in the near-term, hydrogen at the pump might cost around
USD2005 7 to 12/kg excluding taxes, potentially decreasing to USD2005
3 to 4/kg30 over time (NRC, 2008). However, estimates range from
about USD 8 to 10/kg for dispensed hydrogen produced from natural
gas reforming and about USD 10 to 13/kg for hydrogen from electrolysis using grid electricity (NREL, 2009). RE electricity may increase the
electrolyzed hydrogen cost. Given the potential higher efciency of
fuel cell vehicles, the fuel cost per kilometre could eventually become
competitive with ICEVs (Kromer and Heywood, 2007; NRC, 2008).
29 These include the GermanHy project (Bonhoff et al., 2009), Norways Hynor project
(www.hynor.no), the California Fuel Cell Partnership (www.fuelcellpartnership.org),
Japans Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Demonstration Project (www.nedo.go.jp), the European Clean Energy Partnership (www.cleanenergypartnership.de) and the EU Fuel
Cells and Hydrogen - Joint Undertaking (ec.europa.eu/research/fch).
30 1 kg of hydrogen at 120.2 MJ (lower heat value) has a similar energy content to 1
US gallon (3.78 litres) of gasoline.
667
668
Chapter 8
Level 2 charging could take less time but would require a specialized higher power outlet and cost USD 800 to 1,900 to install.
Level 3 fast-charge outlets at publicly accessible recharging stations might bring batteries to near full charge after only 10 to 15
minutes, faster than level 1 or 2 charging technologies, but taking
more time than relling an ICEV. They would costs tens of thousands
of dollars for each recharging point.
An EV can have a range of 200 to 300 km under good conditions compared with a similar size ICEV of 500 to 900 km (Bandivadekar et al.,
2008). While this range is adequate for 80% of car trips in urban/suburban areas, long distance EV travel would be less practical. This could be
overcome by owners of small commuter EVs using rental or community
cooperative car share HEVs or PHEVs31 for longer journeys (IEA, 2009b).
The added vehicle cost for PHEVs, while still signicant, is less than for
a similar size EV and the range is comparable to a gasoline HEV. One
strategy could be to introduce PHEVs initially while developing and
scaling up battery technologies for EVs. This could help lead to more costcompetitive EVs. However, HEVs will always be cheaper to manufacture
than PHEVs due to their smaller battery capacity. Any advances in battery
technologies will apply to HEVs as well as to PHEVs and EVs.
8.3.1.4
Chapter 8
300
EVs would give only around 20 to 40% GHG emission reduction over
efcient gasoline vehicles (Figure 8.17). By way of contrast, the French
electric grid with a major share from nuclear power, or the Norwegian
system dependent on hydropower, would give relatively low-carbon
WTW emissions (Zgheib and Clodic, 2009).
250 CV
200
HEV
150
PHEV 30
100 PHEV 60
US Average
50 PHEV 90
Low-Carbon
0
0
Natural Gas
200
400
Coal
600
800
1000
Figure 8.16 | Life cycle GHG emissions (excluding land use change) from a range of light
duty vehicle types as a function of the GHG emission intensity of electricity generation
systems using coal, natural gas or low-carbon technologies including nuclear and RE
(Samaras and Meisterling, 2008).
Notes: The slight slopes of the conventional gasoline vehicle (CV) and HEV lines reect
the GHG emission intensity of the electricity used during production of the vehicles. Generation options correspond to various GHG intensities and provide insight into the impact
of different generation mixes. For example, a low-carbon portfolio could include nuclear,
wind and coal with CCS. The vertical line at 670 g CO2eq/kWh (186 CO2eq/MJ) indicates
the current US average life cycle GHG intensity. PHEV-30, -60, and -90 imply all-electric
vehicle range in miles.
For electricity and hydrogen, all emissions are well-to-tank and the
vehicle itself has zero GHG emissions except in the manufacturing
process. For RE biofuel pathways, carbon emissions at the vehicle are
partially offset by carbon uptake from the atmosphere by future biomass
feedstocks. The degree of this offset is uncertain because of indirect land
use issues (Searchinger et al., 2008; Fritsche et al., 2010; Section 2.5).
Various studies have developed scenarios for decarbonizing electricity
grids over the next few decades (Sections 8.2.1 and 10.2), which would
result in reduced WTW emissions for EVs, HEVs and PHEVs (EPRI, 2007;
IEA, 2009c). Using larger fractions of RE or other low-carbon electricity, WTW emissions would, over time, become smaller than they are
in many regions at present. EVs, having zero tailpipe emissions, can
also reduce urban air pollution. However, if the electricity is produced
1.2
Wang et al. 2006
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
EV - Current US Grid
Biomethane - ICEV
CNG -ICEV
Diesel HEV
Diesel ICEV
Gasoline HEV
Gasoline ICEV
0.0
Fuel/Vehicle Pathway
Figure 8.17 | Well-to-wheels GHG emissions per kilometre travelled from selected studies of alternative light duty fuel/vehicle pathways, normalized to the GHG emissions value of a
gasoline internal combustion engine light duty vehicle (ICEV) but excluding land use change, vehicle manufacturing, and fuel supply equipment manufacturing impacts.
Notes: WTW GHG emissions per kilometre for the gasoline ICEV reference vehicle (Gasoline ICEV = 1 on the y-axis) were normalized to the average emissions taken from the gasoline
ICEV in each study, which ranged from 170 to 394 gCO2/km. For all hydrogen pathways, hydrogen is stored onboard the vehicle as a compressed gas (GH2).
SMR = steam methane reformer.
669
8.3.1.5
670
Chapter 8
and buses.32 LNG might become an option for freight transport though
it faces the key hurdles of limited driving range and lack of refuelling
infrastructure. For example, an LNG truck could travel around 600 km
between refuelling, only around half the range of some diesel trucks. The
additional weight of onboard LNG tanks can pose constraints for vehicle
payloads. For urban eets where more stringent air pollution controls
and a common refuelling site exist, LNG may be viable for applications
such as refuse trucks (EIA, 2010). Another potential use of low-carbon
hydrogen or electricity might be to power onboard fuel cell APUs or
charge batteries, although neither of these options is yet cost effective.
Trucks could also plug into an electrical energy source at a truck stop to
run their accessories, but the GHG reduction benet would depend on
the carbon footprint of the local electricity source.
The reduction of fuel consumption and GHG emissions in HDVs may
be more difcult than for LDVs due to more limited weight reduction
potential, slower vehicle turnover, faster growth in vehicle kilometres
travelled (VKT), less discretionary freight movement, and inherent economic drivers that continuously aim to minimize HDV operating costs.
Many HDVs are purchased for eet operations, so there could be an
opportunity to integrate alternative fuels and vehicles by providing
eet-wide support for new fuelling infrastructure, technology maintenance and, if needed, driver training. According to the IEAs baseline
scenario (IEA, 2008c), HDV energy use by 2050, even with improved
energy efciency of about 20%, is projected to increase by 50% due
to double the current quantity of worldwide freight moved by trucks,
mostly in non-OECD countries.
Aviation
Aviation energy demand accounts for about 11% of all transport
energy and this could double or triple by 2050 (IEA, 2009c). Rapid
growth of aviation emissions is due to the increase of air trafc volumes for both passenger and freight, with aviation usually having the
highest energy and GHG intensity of all transport modes. About 90%
of fuel use and GHG emissions occur in ight, mostly at cruising altitude (TRB, 2009). Efciency improvements can play an important role
in reducing aviation energy use by 30 to 50% in future aircraft designs
compared with 2005 models (IEA, 2009c). These include improved
aerodynamics, airframe weight reduction, higher engine efciency,
as well as improvements in operation and air trafc control management to give higher load factors, improved routing, and more efcient
ground operations at airports (including gate electrication and use of
low carbon-fuelled service vehicles) (TRB, 2009). A slow average eet
turnover of around 30 years (IEA, 2009c; TRB, 2009) will delay the penetration of advanced aircraft designs. Although reductions in energy
use per passenger-km or per cargo tonne-km can be substantial, they
are unlikely to be able to completely offset the expected increase in
GHG emissions arising from higher demand for air freight and passenger transport.
32 An electric bus with a range of 200 km and recharged daily from 50 kWe of solar PV
panels installed on the roof of the bus station, has been operating in Adelaide since
2009 (IEA, 2009b).
Chapter 8
Aircraft will continue to rely mainly on liquid fuels due to the need for
high energy density fuels in order to minimize fuel weight and volume.
In addition, due to safety, the fuels need to meet more stringent requirements than for other transport modes, including thermal stability (to
assure fuel integrity at high engine temperatures and to avoid freezing
or gelling at low temperatures), specic viscosity, surface tension, ignition properties and compatibility with aircraft materials. Compared to
other transport sectors, aviation has less potential for switching to lower
carbon footprint fuels due to these special fuel requirements. In terms of
RE, various aircraft have already own test ights using various biofuel
blends, but signicantly more processing is needed than for road fuels
to ensure that stringent aviation fuel specications are met. Standards
to allow greater biofuel blend fractions into conventional aviation fuel
are currently under development. Industry and policy views on biofuels
as a share of total aviation fuels by 2050 range from a few percent up
to 30% (IEA, 2009c).
Liquid hydrogen is another long-term option, but faces signicant
hurdles due to its low volumetric energy density. Fundamental aircraft
design changes would be needed to accommodate cryogenic storage,
and airports would have to construct a hydrogen distribution and refuelling infrastructure. The most likely fuel alternatives to conventional jet
fuel are therefore synthetic jet fuels (from natural gas, coal or biomass)
since they have similar characteristics. Net carbon emissions will vary
depending on the fuel source.
Maritime
Marine transport, the most efcient mode for moving freight, currently
consumes about 9% of total transport fuel, 90% of which is used by
international shipping (IEA, 2009c). Ships rely mainly on heavy fuel
(bunker) oil, but lighter marine diesel oil is also used. Heavy fuel oil
accounts for nearly 80% of all marine fuels (IEA, 2009c). Its combustion
releases sulphates that in turn create aerosols that may actually mitigate
GHG impact by creating a cooling effect, though this will decline as
ever more stringent air quality regulations aimed at reducing particulate
emissions through cleaner fuels will require lower-sulphur marine fuels
in the future. An expected doubling to tripling of shipping transport by
2050 will lead to greater GHG emissions from this sector.
Due to a fragmented industry where ship ownership and operation
can occur in different countries, as well as a slow eet turnover with
typical ship replacement occurring about every 30 years (IEA, 2009c),
energy efciency across the shipping industry has not improved at the
same rate as in the HDV and aviation sectors. Hence, signicant opportunities exist to reduce fuel consumption through a range of technical
and operational efciency measures (IEA, 2009d; TRB, 2009) including
improvements in:
671
8.3.1.6
The most important single trend facing the transport sector is the
projected high growth of the road vehicle eet worldwide, which is
expected to triple from todays 700 million LDVs by 2050 (IEA, 2008c).
Achieving a low-carbon, sustainable and secure transport sector will
require substantial vehicle technology advancements and public
acceptance of these new vehicles and alternative fuels, strong policy
initiatives, monetary incentives, and possibly the willingness of customers to pay additional costs for fuels and vehicles. There is scope
for RE transport fuel use to grow signicantly over the next several
decades, playing a major role in this transition.
In the future, a wider diversity of transport fuels and vehicle types is
likely. These could vary by geographic region and transport sub-sector.
For applications such as air and marine, liquid fuels are currently the
only practical large-scale option. In the LDV sector, increased use of
electric drive-train technologies has already begun, beginning with
HEVs, and potentially progressing to PHEVs and EVs as well as possibly to HFCVs (IEA, 2008c). Historically, the electric and transport
sectors have been developed separately, but, through grid-connected
EVs, they are likely to interact in new ways by charging battery
vehicles, or possibly vehicle-to-grid electricity supply (Section 8.2.1;
McCarthy et al., 2007).
Environmental and secure energy supply concerns are important motivations for new transport systems but sustainability issues may impose
constraints on the use of alternative fuels or new vehicle drive trains.
Understanding these issues will be necessary if a sustainable, low-carbon future transport system is to be achieved. Meeting future goals
for GHG emissions and secure energy supplies will mean displacing
todays ICEVs, planes, trains and ships with higher efciency, lower
672
Chapter 8
8.3.2
Chapter 8
8.3.2.1
Sector status
The building sector in 2008 accounted for about 92 EJ, or 32% of total
global nal energy consumption (IEA, 2010b; Figure 8.2). Around 4 EJ
(15%) of this total consumer energy was from combustion of around
31 EJ of traditional biomass for cooking and heating, assuming efciency of combustion was around 15% (Section 2.1). Excluding this
biomass, the residential sector consumed over half the total building
energy demand followed by the commercial and public service buildings
that slightly increased their share of the total since 1990 (IEA, 2010b).
GHG emissions from the building sector, including through electricity
use, were about 8.6 Gt CO2 in 2004 with scope for signicant reduction
potential mainly from energy efciency34 (IPCC, 2007; IEA, 2009b).
Projections of energy demand for the building sector by region can vary
considerably as a result of different assumptions of population growth
rates, household numbers and service sector activity in each country. In
OECD countries, decreasing energy use for heating buildings in OECD
countries is expected as a result of energy efciency and other policies (IEA, 2010b). For example, the EU Energy Performance of Buildings
Directive, May 2010, demands that member states shall ensure that by
2020, all new buildings are nearly zero-energy buildings (EC, 2010). By
contrast, non-OECD countries, as a result of signicantly faster growing
populations and increased average standard of building stock, will be
faced with a potentially very large growth in energy demand, particularly for cooling. However, assuming stringent energy efciency policies
under the IEA 450 Policy Scenario, by 2035 the total sector demand
could rise by only 25% above current levels to ~116 EJ (Figure 8.2).
A broad typology of the building sector includes
The composition of age class of the building stock of a country inuences its future energy demand, especially for heating and cooling.
Many buildings in developed countries have average life spans of 120
years and above, hence energy efciency measures and the integration and deployment of RE technologies will need to result mainly from
the retrotting of existing buildings. Developing countries currently have
stock turnover rates of 25 to 35 years on average with relatively high
new building construction growth (IEA, 2010d), therefore offering good
opportunities to integrate RE technologies through new building designs.
34 Full details of the potential for energy efciency and RE in the building sector were
provided in Chapter 6 of the IPCC 4th Assessment Report Mitigation (Levine et al.,
2007).
673
Energy Supply
2000
Chapter 8
2030
Unused Energy
Conversion to Electricity etc.
2050
Thin Film
2100
Piezoelectric/Magneto Strictive/Bio Photovoltaic Conversion
Super-High Efciency
Photovoltaic Generation
Cost Reduction - High Efciency
Buildings
Monitoring
Installation Facilitation
Demand Forecasting
Integration with
Energy Storage System
Energy Accommodation
Integration with
Power and Energy Grid
Figure 8.18 | Technology development pathways in Japan for future energy efciency and RE technologies for use in residential and commercial buildings (METI, 2005).
674
approaches are in place (IEA, 2007c; Section 11.5.4). Electricity generated from RE sources is already widely utilized by the building sector.
Increasing shares (Sections 8.2.1 and 10.3) could result in reduced sector GHG emissions (as could the use of electricity from the increased
uptake of nuclear and CCS low-carbon supply side technologies). For
air-tight, single-residential, multi-residential or commercial building
designs, high energy demands for forced ventilation can be reduced
through appropriate selection and hybridization of RE power generation, solar chimneys and wind cowls (Antvorskov, 2007). An innovative
transition pathway to help decarbonize heat demand consists of using
thermal storage systems that can also aid the balancing of variable
electricity supplies (Hughes, 2010).
8.3.2.2
For any building class category in any given region, RE strategies and
associated RE technical options can be developed based on the characteristics of the present or planned buildings, the building energy demand
as a result of climatic conditions, and the RE resources available. This
section examines the options to integrate RE into the built environment of developed countries. Following are options for urban (Section
8.3.2.3) and rural (Section 8.3.2.4) areas of developing countries. These
contrasting situations face very different opportunities and challenges
when endeavouring to accelerate RE uptake.
In the OECD and other major economies, most urban buildings are connected to electricity, water and sewage distribution schemes, and some
to DHC schemes (Section 8.2.2). Many also use electricity, natural gas
or LPG for heating and cooking, giving greater convenience to residents
than using coal or oil products to provide these services. Woody biomass
is also used for space and water heating, normally in efcient enclosed
Chapter 8
stoves more than open res, but the fuel requires more handling and
storage space than coal or oil with greater energy densities. Wood pellet
stoves are therefore becoming popular, in part due to their operating
convenience and the greater energy density of pellets compared to rewood logs (Section 2.3.2.1). Other RE conversion technologies such as
solar water heaters and ground source heat pumps often have simple
economic payback periods of ve years or longer. Nevertheless, their
integration in buildings is expanding in order to improve the quality of
life of the residents whilst simultaneously realizing low carbon emission
ambitions and security of future energy supplies (IEA, 2009b).
Challenges caused by RE integration
Greater integration of RE into the built environment is directly dependent on how urban planning, architectural design, engineering and a
combination of technologies can be integrated. Tools and methods to
assess and support strategic decisions for planning new building construction and retrots are available (Doukas et al., 2008), including
computer simulations to project the outcomes of a planning strategy
(Dimoudi and Kostarela, 2008; Larsen et al., 2008). Therefore, to achieve
more rapid RE deployment in the building sector of a city, town or
municipality in an OECD country:
New buildings could be designed to accommodate the RE technologies for them to generate heat and electricity onsite rather than be
consumers of imported energy as at present; and
675
roofs, window overhangs, and walls during construction can replace the
function of traditional building materials and possibly improve building
aesthetics relative to non-building-integrated solutions. Losses occurring during electricity distribution from centralized power stations can
also be avoided.
In future, distributed energy systems could supply clusters of buildings
on industrial estates or new residential developments using locally generated RE heat and power or RE-produced hydrogen for use in fuel cells
at small to medium urban scales (Liu and Riffat, 2009). If sufcient heat
and power is produced to meet local demands, any excess electricity or
heat can be exported off-site to gain revenue (IEA, 2009b). Bioenergy
CHP combustion linked with steam engines, gas turbines and other conversion technologies is being undertaken at both medium (>50 MWe)
and small (<5 kWe) scales, with ongoing research into fuel cells and
other micro-CHP systems (Leilei et al., 2009).
Case study: RE house in Bruxelles, Belgium.
Among many buildings that have been retrotted to enable high RE penetration levels for meeting their heating, cooling and electricity demands,
the Renewable Energy House in Bruxelles is a good example (EREC,
2008). Opened in 2006, it now houses the headquarters of the European
Chapter 8
Wood Pellets
(Major Energy Source
in Winter)
Solar Radiation
(Back-Up in Winter)
Geothermal Heat
(Major Energy Source
in Winter)
Solar Radiation
(Major Energy Source
in Summer)
Wood Pellets
(Back-Up in Summer)
Biomass
Wood Boiler
Solar Thermal
Collector
4 Geothermal
Loops & Heat Pump
Solar Thermal
Collector
Biomass
Wood Boiler
1,000 L Heat
Storage Tank
Conversion
Storage
Energy Source
Conversion
Absorption Cooling
Machine
Use
Cooling
Heat Exchanger
in Ventilation
System
Radiators
Radiators
Air Conditioning
Excess Low
Grade Heat
Geothermal Loops
Figure 8.19 | RE integrated heating and cooling systems installed in a 120-year-old urban building in Bruxelles converted to commercial ofces prior to the retrot (EREC, 2008).
676
Chapter 8
8.3.2.3
Solar water heating (SWH) is considered to be a good RE option in gridconnected urban areas of many countries (as well as in off-grid rural
areas without modern water heating services such as in China where
over half the global SWH installations exist). Large-scale implementation
can benet both the customer and the utility. Where centralized switching (such as using ripple control communication over the power line) is
used to manage electric water heater loads, the impact of solar water
heaters is limited to energy savings. For utilities without this facility,
the installation of a large number of solar water heaters may have the
additional benet of reducing peak electricity demand loads on the grid,
especially in high sunshine regions where demand savings from using
solar water heaters can correspond with high summer electrical demand
for cooling. Hence there is a capacity benet from load displacement of
electric water heaters, particularly when used as a hybrid technology
integrated with PV modules (Dubey and Tiwari, 2010). Markets for SWHs
are apparent in the service sector such as hotels and lodges, in middle
and high income households and for buildings not connected to the
grid. Regulations and incentives could be necessary to reach a critical
mass of installations in many urban areas (IEA, 2009b) and hence gain
economies from greater dissemination.
Cooling demand in warmer climates has tended to rise where an
increase in afuence occurs. Heat pump penetration rates in most
developing countries are still low, but where coupled with high annual
cooling degree days, could result in a future rapidly growing cooling
demand as economies expand. This could cause peak power demand
during periods of hot weather that, if exceeding the available supply
capacity, could result in power outages. Offsetting cooling demand can
be achieved by energy efciency options such as reducing surface to
volume ratios of new building designs, passive solar building designs
and cooling towers (Chan et al., 2010). Active RE technologies for cooling include ground source heat pumps, district cooling using cold water
sources (Section 8.2.3) and solar-assisted coolers (R. Wang et al., 2009).
The latter technology offers the matching of peak cooling demand with
peak solar radiation and hence with peak electricity demand for conventional air conditioners (air-to-air heat pumps). Another option is to use
RE electricity to power conventional refrigeration appliances or air-toair heat pumps (also known as air conditioners).
Case Study: Urban settlements in Brazil.
The rapid urbanization process in many developing countries has created peri-urban settlements near to central metropolitan areas. In
Brazil, all major cities and a third of municipalities have a signicant
fraction of their population living in favelas. Dwellings are usually
precarious, fragile and temporary and frequently lack basic water,
sanitation, gas and electricity distribution infrastructures (IBGE, 2008).
Access to modern energy services is a challenge for many local governments and utilities. Energy planning is complex. Where an electricity
distribution grid is available, it often does not comply with safety and
regulatory standards of the utility. Furthermore, illegal connections
with no meters are common practice. New integration of RE technologies could provide opportunities for improvements.
677
Supply
Chain
Policy Process
Harvest/
Conversion
Marketing
Policy Formulation
Transport
Forest
Resources
Production
Consumption
Chapter 8
Figure 8.20 | A holistic approach using supply chain analysis for local or national policy development for the sustainable supply of biomass for domestic consumption in developing
countries (Khennas et al., 2009). The formulation of policies can impact on the supply chain resulting in a continuous learning-by-doing feedback loop.
Under current regulations, Brazils electricity utilities invest annually about USD2005 80M (half of their compulsory social investment)
in energy efciency programmes for low-income end users living in
favelas. Complex issues still needing to be tackled include enforcing
legal regulations, developing more creative and technical solutions
to reduce theft of electricity and fraud, and improving the economic
situation of the poor inhabitants. A pilot case study in one favela in
So Paulo indicated that, as a result of promoting energy efciency
and solar water heating programmes, average household electricity
consumption was reduced from 250 kWh/month to 151 kWh/month
(~900 to 540 MJ/month) with a payback period of only 1.36 years
(ICA, 2009). In addition there was opportunity for the uptake of stateof-the-art technologies including remote metering, real-time demand
monitoring, more efcient transformers, new cabling systems and
678
8.3.2.4
Rural households in developing countries relying on fuelwood, noncommercial crop residues and animal dung for their basic energy
needs, and with zero or only limited access to modern energy services, are a constraint to eradicating poverty and improving health,
education and social and economic development (Section 9.3.1). In
several sub-Saharan Africa and other developing countries, traditional
Chapter 8
biomass accounts for more than 75% of total primary energy. The
inefciency of the whole supply chain, together with indoor air pollution problems, affect a large proportion of the population, particularly
the many women who still rely on gathering fuelwood for their basic
cooking and heating needs. Solutions to fuelwood scavenging include
developing local forest plantations to be harvested sustainably, and
improved natural forest management, though these are not always
easy to accomplish due to land ownership, cost and social issues (CILSS,
2004).
Around one-quarter of the 2.7 billion people who rely on biomass (and
another 0.3 billion on coal) now use improved cook stoves (UNDP and
WHO, 2009). This amounts to 166 million households, around 70%
being in China. Lighting demands met by relatively costly kerosene
lamps, torches and candles, are being slowly replaced by RE electricity technologies that can deliver cost-effective high-quality lighting.
For example, around 1 million solar lanterns (REN21, 2010) have been
installed worldwide along with over 1.5 million solar PV home systems (also used for radio, television, refrigeration, communications and
mobile phone charging). Solar PV-powered water pumps, micro-hydro
schemes and mini-grids, small bioenergy gasiers and biogas plants are
all being widely deployed, but reliable statistics are not available to indicate rates of deployment with any accuracy (REN21, 2010).
Challenges and opportunities for RE integration
Although a variety of nancial, regulatory and infrastructure barriers
pose real challenges, they do not preclude RE having useful applications for reducing energy poverty in off-grid rural areas. RE applications,
such as from solar PV systems, can provide income-generating activities
to stimulate development of small and medium enterprises. To increase
energy access as well as grid expansion, innovative and affordable
More Formal
Insurance Companies
Commercial Banks/Postal Banks
Foreign Exchange/Remittances
Micronance Institutions
Less Formal
Very Poor
Poor
Less Poor
Figure 8.21 | Financing options to provide energy services for the poor, based on experiences in Burkina Faso, Kenya, Nepal and Tanzania (UNDP, 2009).
679
Congo, 46% in Cameroon and 47% in Gabon (IEA, 2006). Despite the
high hydro potential in the region, the rural electrication growth rate
is comparatively low at less than 1% of population per year. In addition to a good solar resource, some 325 potential hydro schemes have
been identied and preliminary data gathered (Khennas et al., 2009).
Developing this mini- and micro-hydro potential could dramatically
increase the rural electrication rate and ultimately improve the livelihood of many poor rural households. The implementation of such a
programme would dramatically increase the supply of RE for rural people to meet their needs for basic energy services. The Congo Basin, with
the second largest tropical rainforest area in the world, is experiencing some deforestation (de Wasseige et al., 2009). Developing local RE
resources could contribute to limiting deforestation around the villages
by reducing the demand for traditional biomass.
8.3.2.5
For ofce buildings in Japan, in parallel with energy efciency initiatives for heating and cooling equipment and lighting, solar PV
was the major RE source projected to be used onsite in 2050, but
to a limited degree especially in high-rise building designs.
Chapter 8
both RE and energy efciency in buildings can produce costs and CO2
emissions reductions, but the comparative savings per unit of investment
for either option will vary with the building type and location. In highdensity urban areas, the energy demand per hectare of built land area
usually greatly exceeds the local ows of RE, which are typically below
a 10 kW/ha annual average. Therefore, RE integration to provide a high
share of a buildings total energy demand directly is more feasible in
buildings located in rural and low-density urban areas. Therefore, compared with high-rise buildings, single-family homes could more easily
become autonomous for their net energy needs (excluding transport)
(Section 8.3.5). However, any savings in imported energy for such buildings located in rural or low-density urban areas could be partly offset by
increased transport energy demands.
The market situation for RE integration during retrotting of existing
buildings is in the early development phase, as compared to integration
into new buildings, but could strengthen in the near future as a result of
policy attention shifting towards the existing building stock because of
slow building stock turn-over.
In commercial buildings and urban and rural households in developing
countries, the opportunities for integrating RE systems are considerable. To meet the future needs of the millions of people who currently
rely on the inefcient combustion of traditional biomass (UN Energy,
2007), sustainable modern bioenergy systems, including small gasiers,
biogas engines, ethanol gels, pellet burners etc., coupled with efcient,
680
120
112
100
110
80
108
60
106
40
104
20
102
Investment Cost
Energy consumption of single-family houses in France is dominated by space heating (~60% of the total). Solar PV, along with
solar water heaters, were projected to be integrated into improved
energy efcient building designs by 2050 to meet a signicant
share of electricity demand.
100
2005
Current
Building
Technology
Low-Energy
Building with
Present
Technologies
2010
2015
Passive
House
Concept
2020
ZeroEnergy
Building
Concept
2025
Energy
EnergyPositive
Building
Concept
2030
Figure 8.22 | Relative performance of current building technologies to meet heat energy
demand compared with future designs of energy-efcient buildings with integrated RE
systems and related investment costs (from base year 2005 = 100), based on a full-scale
demonstration project in Finland (VTT, 2009).
Chapter 8
8.3.3
Industry
8.3.3.1
Sector status
Materials recovery and recycling that eliminate the energyintensive primary extraction and conversion steps for many basic
materials such as metals and paper pulp;
RE integration and feedstock substitution to reduce the use of fossil fuels; and
Indirect use of RE through other purchased RE-based energy carriers including liquid fuels, biogas, heat and hydrogen (Section
8.2.3);
Direct use of solar thermal energy for process heat and steam
demands (Section 3.5.3); and
681
also reduce the need for high marginal cost generation, offer low-cost
system balancing and decrease grid reinforcement investment. The
concept is already widely used to secure enough reserve- and peakingcapacity in many countries and is expected to become more important
in the future. Existing programmes have mainly focused on industrial
users that can shed relatively large loads through rescheduling, machinery interruption, and interruptible thermal energy storage, cool stores,
electric boilers etc. Typically, industries are contracted to reduce or shut
down load, sometimes remotely by the transmission system operator,
according to pre-dened rules and with various means of nancial
compensation (Section 8.2.1.3). For industry, reduced production and
risks of process equipment failure associated with demand response are
important considerations. There are few published studies of the potential for demand response through industrial manageable power demand.
In one example from Finland, the potential for demand response in the
energy-intensive industries was estimated at 1,280 MW, equivalent to
9% of total system peak demand (Torriti et al., 2010).
8.3.3.2
Energy-intensive industries
682
Chapter 8
Chapter 8
of iron, usually from coal. Natural gas for direct reduction of iron ore is
also an established technology. Using electric-arc furnaces to recycle
scrap steel, these energy-intensive steps can be bypassed and primary
energy use reduced to around 4 to 6 GJ/t. However, the amount of
scrap steel is limited and the increasing demand for primary steel is
mainly met from iron ore. Various R&D efforts, some of which involve
RE uptake, focus on reducing CO2 emissions (Croezen and Korteland,
2010; Miwa and Okuda, 2010).
Charcoal was for a long time the main energy source for the iron
and steel industry until coal and coke took over in the 1800s. During
its traditional production, roughly only one-third of the total wood
energy content is converted to charcoal, the rest being released as
gases (Section 2.3.2). Higher efciencies are attainable (Rossilo-Calle
et al., 2000). Charcoal can provide the reducing agent in the production of iron in blast furnaces but coke has the advantage of higher
heating value, purity and mechanical strength.
Present day steel mills mostly rely entirely on fossil fuels and electricity. Charcoal has not been able to compete, with the exception of
use in a few blast furnaces in Brazil. Options for increasing the use
of RE in the iron and steel industry in the near term include switching to RE electricity in electric-arc furnaces and substituting coal and
coke with charcoal, subject to resource and sustainability constraints.
Switching to biomethane is also an option. Research on electricity
and hydrogen-based processes for reducing iron shows potential in
the long term but CCS linked with coke combustion may be a less
expensive option.
Cement. Production of cement involves extraction and grinding of limestone and heating to temperatures well above 950C.
Decomposition of calcium carbonate into calcium oxide takes place in
a rotary kiln, driving off CO2 in the process of producing the cement
clinker. CO2 emissions from this reaction account for slightly more
than half of the total emissions with the remainder coming from the
combustion of fossil fuels. Hence, even a complete switch to RE fuels
would reduce emissions by less than half.
ethanol and methanol may be considered both as fuels and as platform chemicals for a range of products.
Steam-cracking is a key process step in the production of olens and
aromatics. Combustion of various biomass fuels and wastes could be
used for steam production. Methanol production is mostly based on
natural gas but it can also be produced from biomass or by reacting CO2
with hydrogen, possibly of renewable origin.
The potential for shifting to RE feedstocks in the chemicals sector is
large (Hatti-Kaul et al., 2007). Many of the rst man-made chemicals
were derived from biomass through, for example, using ethanol as
a platform chemical, before the shift was made to petroleum-based
feedstocks. A shift back to bio-based chemicals would involve four
principle approaches:
The cement process is not particularly sensitive to the type of fuel but
sufciently high ame temperatures are needed to heat the materials. Different types of waste, including used tyres, wood and plastics
are already co-combusted in some cement kilns. A variety of biomassderived fuels can be used to displace fossil fuels. Large reductions of
CO2 emissions from carbonate-based feedstock are not possible without
CCS, but emissions could also be reduced by using non-carbonate-based
feedstock (Phair, 2006).
There are many different pulping processes but the two main routes
are mechanical and chemical. For electricity-intensive mechanical
pulping, after debarking and chipping, the wood chips are processed
in large grinders and nearly all the bre ends up in the pulp, which is
used for producing paper such as newsprint. Heat is recovered from
the mechanical pulping process and the steam produced is used for
683
drying the paper and other processes. Chemical pulping is used to produce stronger high-quality bres and involves dissolving the lignin in a
chemical cooking process. About half of the wood, mainly lignin, ends
up in the spent pulping liquor that is concentrated in evaporators. This
black liquor can be combusted in chemical recovery boilers. Changing
from the traditional recovery boiler to black liquor gasication in
chemical pulping would increase the efciency of energy recovery and
facilitate higher electricity-to-heat ratios in the CHP system with the
syngas used for fuel production (see case study below).
Continuous incremental improvements in energy end-use efciency,
higher steam pressure in boilers and use of condensing steam turbines
are reducing the need for importing purchased energy in the pulp and
paper industry and can also free up a portion of the heat and electricity
generated to be sold as co-products (Axegrd et al., 2002).
Case study: Black liquor gasication for bio-DME production.
As an alternative to producing heat from black liquor in chemical
recovery boilers, gasication is a technology that has been subject to
R&D for more than 20 years and demonstrated in several pilot-scale
plants (Kberger and Kusar, 2008). The syngas produced (mainly CO
and H2) can be used with high efciency in combined cycle CHP plants
or for the production of biofuels via, for example, the Fischer-Tropsch
process (Section 8.2.4). The rst pilot plant demonstrating pressurized
gasication for producing DME (dimethyl ether) was inaugurated in
Pite, Sweden, in September 2010 with a rated capacity of about 4t/
day. Partner companies are Chemrec, Haldor Topsoe, Volvo, Preem, Total,
Delphi and ETC with nancial support from the Swedish Government
and the European Commission. Compared to gasication of solid biomass, one advantage of black liquor is that it is easier to feed into a
pressurized gasier. Depending on the overall plant energy balance and
layout there are often process integration advantages and potential
for signicant increases in energy efciency. Energy that is tapped off
for liquid or gaseous biofuel production (including DME) can be compensated for by using lower quality biomass to meet pulp and paper
process energy demands. In addition to DME production, the project
also involves four lling stations and 14 HDV trucks using DME for fuel
to assess the viability of bio-DME.
Chapter 8
Basic Metals
Chemical
Non-Metallic Minerals
Transport Equipment
Medium, 100-400C
Low, Below 100C
Machinery
8.3.3.3
684
Others
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
[PJ]
Figure 8.23 | Industrial heat demands by temperature quality and by manufacturing
sector for 32 European countries (Werner, 2006b).
Note: Data created from German industry experiences and applied to the IEA energy
database for the target region.
Chapter 8
between 120 and 180C since these higher process heat temperatures enable smaller areas of heat exchangers and heating networks
to be utilized. Solar energy opportunities focus more on engineering
designs for operating at lower temperatures in order to optimize the
whole system. For temperatures <80C, solar thermal collectors are
on the market, but there is limited experience for applications that
require temperatures up to 250C (Schnitzer et al., 2007). Such higher
temperatures are possible using heat pumps or, in appropriate areas,
concentrating solar thermal systems.
Industrial electro-technologies can save primary heat energy from coal
and gas by using electricity. Industrial CO2 emissions can be reduced
even if there are no primary energy savings, assuming electricity from
RE resources replaces or saves fossil fuel-based thermal generation.
Examples include freeze concentration instead of the thermal process of
evaporation; dielectric heating (radio frequency and microwave heating)
for drying; polymerization; and powder coatings using infra-red ovens for
curing instead of solvent-based coatings and conventional convection
ovens (Eurelectric, 2004). Other advantages include quick process startup, improved process control and higher productivity (EPRI, 2009). The
conventional wisdom that high quality (high exergy) electricity should not
be used to provide low quality (low exergy) thermal applications may be
challenged in the future once electricity systems become decarbonized.
Many SMEs in developing countries use substantial amounts of crop
residues in the form of husks, straw and shells from nuts, coffee, coconuts, rice etc. for heat and power generation. These residues are low
cost and often used, together with fuelwood and charcoal, as fuels to
supply heat for other local industries. In some food- and bre-processing
industries, wastewater with high organic content can also be used for
biogas production but the resource currently tends to be poorly utilized.
In developed countries, waste policies are an important factor driving
the increased utilization of biomass residues for energy. Bioenergy is
most common in the food- and bre-processing industries where, as for
forest products (Section 8.3.3.4), on-site biomass residues are widely
used to meet internal energy needs or the energy is exported off-site
for use elsewhere, which therefore avoids waste disposal problems. For
example, sugar and ethanol plants in Brazil use the bagasse by-product
to produce heat and power and sell any surplus to the grid (see case
study below). Any waste heat can be used by other industries and in
district heating systems (Section 8.2.2). Heated greenhouses and sh
farming are potential users of low-grade heat.
Industrial ecology and symbiosis are relatively new concepts used to
denote inter-rm exchanges of energy, water, by-products etc., although
these are not new phenomena. An inventory of the Swedish forest
industry found several examples of such inter-rm exchanges, but typically between different entities within the same company group (Wolf
and Petersson, 2007). The potential for increasing the indirect use of RE
in such innovative ways is difcult to estimate.
Dehydration of agricultural and other products is an important application of solar energy. In many developing countries, the traditional
method of dehydration in open air can result in food contamination,
nutritional deterioration and large product losses. Solar dryer technologies that improve product quality and reduce drying times have been
demonstrated. Examples include a solar tunnel dryer for hot chilli peppers (Hossain and Bala, 2007) and a solar dryer with thermal storage and
biomass backup heater for pineapple (Madhlopa and Ngwalo, 2007).
The potential for increasing the direct use of RE in both heavy and
light industries in general is poorly understood due to the complexity
and diversity of the sector, and the varying geographical and climatic
conditions of various locations. Aggregate mitigation and typical RE
integration cost estimates cannot be made for similar reasons.
Direct use of RE in industry has difculty competing at present due to
the relatively low fossil fuel prices and low- or zero-energy and carbon taxes for industry. Improved utilization of processing residues in
biomass-based industries to substitute for fossil fuels offers near-term
opportunities, particularly where biomass residue disposal costs can be
avoided. Solar thermal technologies are promising but further development of collectors, thermal storage, balancing systems and process
adaptation and integration is needed. Direct use of geothermal heat
is already used where industrial heat demands are nearby. Increased
use of energy carriers such as electricity and natural gas that are clean
and convenient at the point of end use is a general trend in industry.
Indirect RE integration using electricity generated from RE sources, and
facilitated through electro-technologies, may therefore have a large
impact in the near and long term. RE support policies in different countries tend to focus more on the energy, transport and building sectors
than on industry. Consequently the RE potential for the industry sector
is relatively uncharted.
Case studies
Sugar industry and CHP. Limited grid access and low prices offered
by monopoly buyers of electricity and independent power producers
have provided disincentives for industries to increase overall energy
efciency and electricity-to-heat ratios in CHP production. Process electricity consumption in sugar and sugar/ethanol mills, for example, is
typically in the range of 20 to 30 kWh (72 to 108 MJ) per tonne of
fresh cane. Most sugar mills have been designed to be self-sufcient
in heat and electricity using mainly bagasse as a fuel in inefcient, low
pressure boilers. With higher rates of residue recovery and the introduction of high pressure boilers and condensing extraction steam turbines,
more than 100 kWh/t (360 MJ/t) can be produced for export. In Brazil,
electricity generation is expected to increase from an average of about
9 kWh/t (32 MJ/t) of sugarcane in 2005 to 135 kWh/t (486 MJ/t) in 2020
(Macedo et al., 2008). However, sugar/ethanol mills provide opportunity
for integrating a much higher level of biomass for energy in industry.
The sugarcane tops and leaves are normally burned before harvest or
left in the eld after harvest. These could also be collected and brought
685
8.3.4
8.3.4.1
8.3.4.2
Complex relationships exist between energy inputs and crop yields, sustainable practices (including tillage and fertilizer practices), water use,
land use change, biodiversity, landscape and recreation, and soil carbon
balances. Large regional differences occur due to climate, soils and land
management (IPCC, 2007).
686
Chapter 8
The integration of RE with land use for primary production is well established. For example, wind turbines constructed on pasture and crop
36 Note that this section covers only on-farm and in-forest production and processing
activities, including harvest and post-harvest operations up to the farm gate. Food
and bre processing operations are covered in Section 8.3.3.
purchased to run the enterprise (Table 8.5). Biofuels and biogas can also
be produced on-farm, either for direct use on site (Section 8.2.3) or sold
to the market. Market drivers for RE power generation on rural land and
waterways include electrication of rural areas, a more secure energy
supply and the avoidance of costly transmission line capacity upgrading
in areas where demand loads are increasing (Section 8.2.1).
To meet the growing demands for primary products including biomass,
increasing productivity of existing arable, pastoral and plantation forest
lands by improving management and selecting higher yielding varieties
is one option. (Changing diets to eat less animal products is another).
Global average yields of staple crops have continued to increase over
the past few decades (Figure 8.24). This trend could continue over the
next few decades, with genetically modied crops possibly having a
positive inuence. Conversely, climate change trends including more
frequent extreme weather events could offset some of the productivity
gains expected from technological advances (Lobell and Field, 2007).
The primary production sector is making a slow transition to reducing
its dependence on energy inputs as well as to better using its natural endowment of RE sources. Integration of land use for agriculture
and energy purposes is growing but barriers to greater RE deployment
in rural areas include high capital costs, lack of available nancing,
remoteness from energy demand (including access to electricity and gas
grids), competition for land use, transport constraints, water supply limitations and lack of skills and knowledge in landowners and managers.
8.3.4.4
Chapter 8
450
400
Palm Oil
350
Rapeseed
Wheat
300
Maize
Paddy Rice
250
Sugarcane
200
8.3.4.3
150
100
1961
Much agricultural and forest land that produces food and bre products
could simultaneously be used for supplying RE, in many cases utilizing
the heat and electricity on the property to displace the energy inputs
1970
1980
1990
2000
2008
Figure 8.24 | Increased global productivity per hectare for a range of staple crops over
the past few decades compared with average yields in base year 1961 shown at 100
(based on FAO (2009) data).
687
688
High.
Dairying
Low.
High.
Medium.
Low. Medium if facilities offshore.
Medium.
Low.
Low.
Diesel/gasoline.
Electricity for ice or refrigeration.
Nursery cropping
Medium.
Medium if irrigated and post-harvest storage.
Medium.
Low for post-harvest.
Medium for cool stores.
Low.
Low.
Electricity from ocean energy possible in future.
None.
Forest residues.
Short rotation forest crops.
Spent oil palm bunches.
Reject sh dumped at sea.
Low.
Low.
Low.
Low.
Wind power.
Hydropower
Energy crops.
Wind and hydro if good sites.
Potential RE carriers
Medium.
High for pumped irrigation.
Type of enterprise
Table 8.5 | Primary production from industrial-scale enterprises requires direct energy inputs at various levels of energy use intensity (GJ input/unit of production or GJ/ha of land) that can either be purchased and brought in across the farm
boundary or produced from on-farm RE systems with the potential to export any energy carriers based on excess RE sources as a revenue earner.
Chapter 8
Hour of Day
[kWh]
Sep
Oct
Oct
Nov
Nov
Dec
Dec
Jan
Jan
22:00
Sep
20:00
Aug
18:00
Aug
16:00
Jul
14:00
Jun
Jul
12:00
May
Jun
10:00
Apr
May
08:00
Mar
Apr
06:00
Feb
Mar
04:00
Jan
Feb
02:00
Jan
00:00
22:00
20:00
18:00
16:00
14:00
12:00
10:00
08:00
06:00
04:00
(b)
02:00
00:00
(a)
electricity, but also to sell, hire or lease the RE equipment to the landowners (Jayamaha, 2003).
Hour of Day
13-14
10-11
7-8
4-5
6.5-7.0
5.0-5.5
3.5-4.0
12-13
9-10
6-7
3-4
6.0-6.5
4.5-5.0
3.0-3.5
11-12
8-9
5-6
2-3
5.5-6.0
4.0-4.5
[m/s]
Figure 8.25 | (a) Average seasonal and daily electricity demand for the Totara Valley community (in kWh consumption per 30 minute periods), and (b) annual and daily wind data,
showing some matching of wind power supply with evening and winter peak demands (Murray, 2005).
689
References
Chapter 8
Awerbuch, S. (2006). Portfolio-based electricity generation planning: policy implications for renewables and energy security. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies
for Global Change, 11(3), pp. 693-710.
Axegrd, P., B. Backlund, and B. Warnquist (2002). The Eco-Cyclic pulp mill: Focus
on closure, energy efciency and chemical recovery development. Pulp & Paper
In: European Wind Energy Conference (EWEC), Marseille, France, 16-19 March
2009.
Achilles, S., S. Schramm, and J. Bebic (2008). Transmission System Performance
Analysis for High-Penetration Photovoltaics, Subcontract Report. National
Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, CO, USA, 77 pp.
Azevedo, J.M., and F.D. Galiana (2009). The sugarcane ethanol power industry in
Brazil: obstacles, success and perspectives. In: IEEE Electrical Power & Energy
Conference, Montreal, Canada, 22-23 October 2009.
Bajgain, S., and I.S. Shakya (2005). The Nepal Biogas Support Program: A
Ackermann, T., G. Ancell, L.D. Borup, P.B. Eriksen, B. Ernst, F. Groome, M. Lange,
Development Organisation and the Biogas Support Programme, The Hague, The
wind blows. IEEE Power and Energy Magazine, 7(6), pp. 65-75.
Ackermann, T., and P. Morthorst (2005). Economic aspects of wind power in power
Bajnczy, G., G. Palffy, E. Prpostffy, and A. Zld (1999). Heat storage by two-
systems. In: Wind Power in Power Systems. T. Ackermann (ed.), John Wiley & Sons,
Ahlgren, S., S. Bernesson, . Nordberg, and P.A. Hansson (2008). Nitrogen fertil-
iser production based on biogas energy input, environmental impact and land
MA, USA.
Barroso, L.A., S. Granville, J. Trinkenreich, M.V. Pereira, and P. Lino. (2003).
Managing hydrological risks in hydro-based portfolios. IEEE Power Engineering
Society General Meeting, 2(274).
Bauer, D., R. Marx, J. Nubicker-Lux, F. Ochs, W. Heidemann, and H. MllerSteinhagen (2010). German central solar heating plants with seasonal heat
storage. Solar Energy, 84(4), pp. 612-623.
Bayem, H., L. Capely, F. Dufourd, and M. Petit (2009). Probabilistic study of the
maximum penetration rate of renewable energy in an island network. In: IEEE
PowerTech 2009, Bucharest, Romania, 28 June 2 July 2009, pp. 1-5.
BDEW (2008). Technical Conditions for Connection to the Medium-Voltage Network.
German Association of Energy and Water Industries, Berlin, Germany.
BEN (2010). Balano Energetico Nacional (National Energy Balance Brazil). Ministry
Balan%C3%A7o%20Energ%C3%A9tico%20Nacional%20%E2%80%93%20
Anant, S., D. Buddhi, and R.L. Sawhney (2008). Thermal cycling test of selected
inorganic and organic phase change materials. Renewable Energy, 33(12), pp.
2606-2614.
BEN/Estudos_13.aspx.
Bergen, A., and V. Vittal (2000). Power Systems Analysis. 2nd ed. Prentice-Hall Inc.,
NJ, USA, 619 pp.
E. Worrell, F. Yamba, and Z. Fengqi (2007). Industry. In: Climate Change 2007:
ARE (2009). Hybrid Power Systems Based on Renewable Energies: A Suitable and
O.R. Davidson, P.R. Bosch, R. Dave, and L.A. Meyer (eds.), Cambridge University
690
Chapter 8
BMU (2009). Richtlinien zur Frderung von Manahmen zur Nutzung erneuerbarer.
Guidelines Energien im Wrmemarkt, German Federal Ministry for the Environment,
Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety (BMU), Berlin, Germany, 25 pp.
BMU (2010). Renewable Energy Sources in Figures. German Federal Ministry for the
Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety (BMU), Berlin, Germany,
76 pp.
Bodmann, M., D. Mangold, J. Nubicker, S. Raab, A. Schenke, and T. Schmidt
(2005). Solar untersttzte Nahwrme und Langzeit-Wrmespeicher (Februar
2003 bis Mai 2005). Report 0329607F, Forschungsbericht zum BMWA/BMUVorhaben, Stuttgart, Germany, 159 pp.
Bonhoff, K., N. Parker, S. Joest, M. Fichtner, M. Wietschel, U. Bnger,
in Deutschland bis 2050? [Where will the Hydrogen in Germany come from
pp. 629-643.
CAFCP (2009). Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicle and Station Deployment Plan: A Strategy
for Meeting the Challenge Ahead. Action Plan. California Fuel Cell Partnership
(CAFCP), West Sacramento, CA, USA. Available at: www.fuelcellpartnership.org/
sites/les/Action%20Plan%20FINAL.pdf .
CAISO (2010). Fifth Replacement FERC Electric Tariff, Appendix V Large Generator
pumping system in the areas of the Algerian Sahara. Renewable and Sustainable
Brattle Group, Freeman Sullivan & Co, and Global Energy Partners LLC
(2009). A National Assessment of Demand Response Potential. Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC, USA, 254 pp.
Braun, T., T. Stetz, B. Reimann, G. Valov, and G. Arnold (2009). Optimal reactive
Caralis, G., and A. Zervos, (2007b): Analysis of the combined use of wind and
for PV systems. In: 24th European Photovoltaic Solar Energy Conference and
use. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Criteria Pollutant Emissions, General Motors
Medium and Long Term. Report EUR 21586 EN, Institute for Energy, Petten, The
CEC (2006). Bioenergy Action Plan for California. Action Plan CEC-600-2006-01,
691
Chan, H.-Y., B. Saffa, and J.Z. Riffat (2010). Review of passive solar heating and
cooling technologies. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 14, pp.
781-789.
Chapter 8
Curtright, A.E., and J. Apt (2008). The character of power output from utility-scale
photovoltaic systems. Progress in Photovoltaics, 16(3), pp. 241-247.
Dalenbck, J.O. (2010). Success factors in solar district heating CIT Energy man-
Chen, H.S., T.N. Cong, W. Yang, C.Q. Tan, Y.L. Li, and Y.L. Ding (2009). Progress in
agement AB, Project Report for Solar District Heating, (SDH) December. 62pp.
http://www.solar-district-heating.eu/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=c6-K2BVa2h
M%3d&tabid=69
Chen, Q., C. Kang, and Q. Xia (2010). Modeling exible operation mechanism
Dalton, G.J., D.A. Lockington, and T.E. Baldock (2008). Case study feasibility
of CO2 capture power plant and its effects on power-system operation. IEEE
Chen, Z., J.M. Guerrero, and F. Blaabjerg (2009). A Review of the state of the art
Davis, S., S. Diegel, and R. Boundy (2010). Transportation Energy Data Book.
Cheung, A., and M. Wilshire (2010). White paper from Consortium on Digital
Energy 2009-2010. Bloomberg New Energy Finance, London, UK, 40 pp.
North America: From theory to practice. In: Electric Utility Deregulation and
regions in Southern Italy. In: MED3 Proceedings, Tunis, Tunisia, 7-8 October
MAGNANTE-ROSSI-SINISCALCHI.pdf.
Chowdhury, B.H., and A.W. Sawab (1996). Evaluating the value of distributed
at: english.unica.com.br/multimedia/documentos/Default.asp?sqlPage=1.
Christidis, P., I. Hidalgo, and A. Soria (2003). Dynamics of the Introduction of New
Passenger Car Technologies: The IPTS Transport Technologies Model. Report EUR
(eds.) (2009). Etat des Forts 2008. Congo Basin Forest Partnership, Publications
DEA (2009). Danish Energy Agency. Danish Energy Agency, Copenhagen, Denmark. See:
www.ens.dk/en-US/supply/Renewable-energy/WindPower/Facts-about-Wind-
Power/Key-gures-statistics/Sider/Forside.aspx
Deane, J., B.. Gallachir, and E.J. McGeogh (2010). Techno-economic review
ment for wood energy production. Regional workshop. Comit Inter-Etate pour
of existing and new pumped hydro energy storage plant. Renewable and
DeCarolis, J., and D. Keith (2006). The economics of large-scale wind power in a
carbon constrained world. Energy Policy, 34(4), pp. 395-410.
texte, enjeux et ds. Regional workshop. Comit Inter-Etate pour la Lutte contre
Clean Air and Water in Europe (CONCAWE), Brussels, Belgium. Available at: ies.jrc.
power systems. In: Innovative Smart Grid Technologies Conference Europe (ISGT
ec.europa.eu/uploads/media/V3.1%20TTW%20Report%2007102008.pdf.
Contreras, A.B., M. Thomson, and D.G. Ineld (2007). Renewable energy powered
desalination in Baja California Sur, Mexico. Desalination, 220(1-3), pp. 431-440.
Cornell (2005). Lake Source Cooling. Cornell University Facilities Services, Utilities
ability.fs.cornell.edu/util/cooling/production/lsc/default.cfm.
CREZ (2010). CREZ Progress Report No. 1. Competitive Renewable Energy Zone
(CREZ) Program Oversight, Public Utility Commission of Texas, Austin, TX, USA,
95 pp.
Croezen, H., and M. Korteland (2010). A Long-Term View of CO2 Efcient
Manufacturing in the European Region. Report 10 7207 47, CE Delft, Delft, The
Netherlands, 87 pp.
CSO (2010). Population and Migration Estimates. Central Statistics Ofce, Cork,
Ireland, 9 pp.
692
Chapter 8
Deng, Y., Z. Yu, and S. Liu (2011). A review on scale and siting of wind farms in
China. Wind Energy, 14(3), pp. 463-470.
Denholm, P., and R.M. Margolis (2007). Evaluating the limits of solar photovoltaics (PV) in electric power systems utilizing energy storage and other enabling
technologies. Energy Policy, 35(9), pp. 4424-4433.
Denholm, P., and R. Sioshansi (2009). The value of compressed air energy storage with wind in transmission-constrained electric power systems. Energy Policy,
37(8), pp. 3149-3158.
Denholm, P., R.M. Margolis, and J.M. Milford (2009). Quantifying avoided fuel
use and emissions from solar photovoltaic generation in the western United
States. Environmental Science & Technology, 43(1), pp. 226-232.
Denholm, P., E. Ela, and B. Kirby (2010). The role of Energy Storage with Renewable
Electricity Generation. Technical report, National Renewable Energy Laboratory,
Golden, CO, USA, 61 pp.
Denny, E. (2009). The economics of tidal energy. Energy Policy, 37(5), pp. 1914-1924.
Denny, E., and M. OMalley (2006). Wind generation, power system operation, and
emissions reduction. IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, 21(1), pp. 341-347.
Denny, E., A. Tuohy, P. Meibom, A. Keane, D. Flynn, A. Mullane, and M. OMalley
(2010). The impact of increased interconnection on electricity systems with
large penetrations of wind generation: A case study of Ireland and Great Britain.
Energy Policy, 38(11), pp. 6946-6954.
DeValve, T., and B. Olsommer (2006). Micro-CHP Systems for Residential
Applications Final Report. US DOE Report (Contract No. DE-FC26-04NT42217),
United Technologies Research Center, East Hartford, CT, USA, 114 pp.
Devine-Wright, P., H. Devine-Wright, and F. Sherry-Brennan (2010). Visible
technologies, invisible organisations: An empirical study of public beliefs about
electricity supply networks. Energy Policy, 38(8), pp. 4127-4134.
DFID (2002). Energy for the Poor Underpinning the Millennium Development
Goals. UK Department for International Development (DFID), London, England.
Available at: http://www.ecn.nl/leadmin/ecn/units/bs/JEPP/energyforthepoor.pdf
Dimoudi, A., and P. Kostarela (2008). Energy monitoring and conservation potential in school buildings in the C climatic zone of Greece. Renewable Energy,
34(1), pp. 289-296.
DiPippo, R. (2008). Geothermal Power Plants: Principles, Applications, Case Studies
and Environmental Impact. 2nd ed. Elsevier Ltd., London, UK, 493 pp.
Doherty, R., H. Outhred, and M. OMalley (2006). Establishing the role that wind
EECA (2008). Hydro Energy on Your Farm, Technical Guide 5.0. Energy Efciency and
Conservation Authority (EECA) of New Zealand, Wellington, New Zealand.
Egeskog, A., J. Hansson, G. Berndes, and S. Werner (2009). Co-generation of
biofuels for transportation and heat for district heating systems an assessment
of the national possibilities in the EU. Energy Policy, 37, pp. 5260-5272.
EIA (2007). About U.S. Natural Gas Pipelines Transporting Natural Gas. Energy
Information Administration, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, DC, USA,
76 pp.
EIA (2010). International Energy Outlook 2010. Report DOE/EIA-0484(2010), Energy
Information Administration, US Department of Energy, Washington, DC, USA, 338
pp. Available at: www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/pdf/0484(2010).pdf.
EIGA (2004). Hydrogen Transportation Pipelines. Report IGC Doc 121/04, European
Industrial Gases Association, Brussels, Belgium, 77 pp.
EirGrid (2008). Grid 25: A Strategy for the Development of Irelands Electricity Grid
for a Sustainable and Competitive Future. EirGrid, Dublin, Ireland, 47 pp.
693
EirGrid (ed.) (2009). Grid Code Version 3.4. EirGrid, Dublin, Ireland, 316 pp.
EirGrid (2010a). Annual Renewable Report: Powering a Sustainable Future. EirGrid,
Dublin, Ireland, 32 pp.
EirGrid (2010b). All Island TSO Facilitation of Renewable Studies. EirGrid, Dublin,
Ireland, 77 pp.
Ekman, C.K., and S.H. Jensen (2010). Prospects for large scale electricity storage in
Denmark. Energy Conversion and Management, 51(6), pp. 1140-1147.
El-Sharkawi, M.A. (2009). Electric Energy An Introduction. CRC Press, Taylor &
Francis LLC, Oxford, UK, 472 pp.
Chapter 8
Ernst, B., U. Schreier, F. Berster, J.H. Pease, C. Scholz, H.P. Erbring, S. Schlunke,
and Y.V. Makarov (2010). Large-scale Wind and Solar Integration in Germany.
Pacic Northwest National Laboratory, prepared for the U.S. Department of
Energy, Oak Ridge, TN, USA, 52 pp.
Estanqueiro, A., C.B. Mateus, and R. Pestana (2010). Operational experience
of extreme wind penetrations. In: 9th International Workshop on Large-Scale
Integration of Wind Power into Power Systems as well as on Transmission
Networks for Offshore Wind Power Plants, Quebec City, Canada, 18-19 October
2010, pp. 34-39.
(2010). Use of Frequency Response Metrics to Assess the Planning and Operating
28 pp.
EWIS (2010). Towards a Successful Integration of Large Scale Wind Power into
62 pp.
Fan, Y., L. Luo, and B. Souyri (2007). Review of solar sorption refrigeration technolo-
at: miastrada.com/yahoo_site_admin/assets/docs/epriVolume1R2.36180810.pdf.
Fritsche, U.R., R.E.H. Sims, and A. Monti (2010). Direct and indirect land use com-
petition issues for energy crops and their sustainable production an overview.
Development Opportunities. Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA, USA.
EREC (2008). The Renewable Energy House. European Renewable Energy Council,
Brussels, Belgium. Available at: www.erec.org/reh.html.
Ericsson, K. (2009). Introduction and Development of the Swedish District Heating
Systems Critical Factors and Lessons Learned (Policy Paper). Policy develop-
Gardiner, A.I., E.N. Pilbrow, S.R. Broome, and A.E. McPherson (2008). Hylink
ment for improving Renewable Energy Sources Heating and Cooling penetration
Solar Energy Society Conference Asia Pacic Region (ISES-AP-08), ISES, Sydney,
694
Chapter 8
Affairs, and World Energy Council, New York, NY, USA, pp. 367-389. Available at:
www.undp.org/energy/activities/wea/drafts-frame.html.
Goldemberg, J. (2009). The Brazilian experience with biofuels. Innovations, 4(4),
pp. 91-107.
Gorenstin, B.G., N.M. Campodonico, J.P. Costa, and M.V.F. Pereira, 1992:
Henry, S., A.M. Denis, and P. Panciatici (2010). Feasibility study of off-shore HVDC
grids. In: Power and Energy Society General Meeting, 2010 IEEE, Minneapolis,
Herrmann, U., B. Kelly, and H. Price (2004). Two-tank molten salt storage for parabolic trough solar power plants. Energy, 29(5-6), pp. 883-893.
Himri, Y., A.B. Stambouli, B. Draoui, and S. Himri (2008). Techno-economical study
of hybrid power system for a remote village in Algeria. Energy for Sustainable
Development, 33(7), pp. 1128-1136.
Hingorani, N.G. (2007). FACTS technology State of the art, current challenges
and the future prospects. In: Power Engineering Society General Meeting, IEEE,
Tampa, FL, USA, 24-28 June 2007, pp. 1-4, 24-28.
Hoekman, S.K. (2009). Biofuels in the U.S. Challenges and opportunities.
Renewable Energy, 34(1), pp. 14-22.
Hoff, T., and R. Perez (2010). Quantifying PV power output variability. Solar Energy,
84(10), pp. 1782-1793.
Holttinen, H., P. Meibom, A. Orths, F. van Hulle, B. Lange, M. OMalley, J. Pierik,
Gronheit, P.E., and B.O.G. Mortensen (2003). Competition in the market for space
heating. District heating as the infrastructure for competition among fuels and
Design and Operation of Power Systems with Large Amounts of Wind Power.
Gronich, S. (2006). Hydrogen & FCV implementation scenarios, 2010 2025. In:
USDOE Hydrogen Transition Analysis Workshop. US Department of Energy,
Washington, DC, USA, 26 January 2006. Available at: www1.eere.energy.gov/
hydrogenandfuelcells/pdfs/transition_wkshp_summ.pdf.
Hagen, M., E. Polman, J.K. Jensen, A. Myken, O. Joensson, and A. Dahl (2001).
Adding Gas from Biomass to the Gas Grid. Technical Report ISSN 1102-7371,
Swedish Gas Center, Malm, Sweden, 142 pp.
Haj Seyed Hadi, M.R. (2006). Energy efciency and ecological sustainability in
conventional and integrated potato production. In: ATEF 2006 - Advanced
Technology in the Environmental Field, L. Ubertini (ed.), Acta Press, Lanzarote,
Final Report IEA Wind Task 25 (2006-2008), VTT, Vuorimiehentie, Finland, 229 pp.
(ISBN 978-951-38-7308-0).
Holttinen, H., P. Meibom, A. Orths, B. Lange, M. OMalley, J.O. Tande,
A. Estanqueiro, E. Gomez, L. Sder, G. Strbac, J.C. Smith, and F. van Hulle
(2011). Impacts of large amounts of wind power on design and operation of
power systems, results of IEA collaboration. Wind Energy, 14(2), pp. 179-192.
Hossain, M.A., and B.K. Bala (2007). Drying of hot chilli using a solar tunnel drier.
Solar Energy, 81(1), pp. 85-92.
Hotson, G.W. (1997). Utilisation of geothermal energy in a pulp and paper mill.
Energy Sources, 19(1), pp. 49-54.
695
Huang, S-H., Dumas, J., Gonzalez-Perez, C., Wei-Jen Lee (2009). Grid security
through load reduction in the ERCOT market. IEEE Transactions on Industry
Applications, 45(2), pp. 555-559.
Hughes, L. (2010). Meeting residential space heating demand with wind-generated
electricity. Renewable Energy, 35(8), pp. 1765-1772.
Hur, K., M. Boddeti, N.D.R. Sarma, J. Dumas, J. Adams, and S.K. Chai (2010).
High-wire act. IEEE Power & Energy Magazine, 8(1), pp. 37-45.
Huttenrauch, J., and G. Muller-Syring (2006). Assessment of repair And
Rehabilitation Technologies relating to the Transport of hythane (hydrogenmethane-mixture). Naturalhy Project Report No. R0016-WP4-P-0, DBI Gas- und
Umwelttechnik GmbH, Leipzig, Germany, 63 pp.
IANGV (2009). International Association for Natural Gas Vehicles. International
Association for Natural Gas Vehicles, Auckland, New Zealand. See: http://www.
iangv.org/tools-resources/statistics.html
IBGE (2008). Perl dos Municpios Brasileiros 2008. Instituto Brasileiro de Geograa
Chapter 8
IEA (2010d). World Energy Outlook 2010. International Energy Agency, Paris,
France, 736 pp.
IEA Bioenergy (2010a). 100 % Biogas for Urban Transport in Linkping, Sweden IEA
Bioenergy Task 37, International Energy Agency, Svensk Biogas AB, Linkping,
Sweden. Available at: www.iea-biogas.net/_download/linkoping_nal.pdf.
IEA Bioenergy (2010b). Country report Sweden IEA Bioenergy Task 37, Energy
from Biogas. IEA Bioenergy, International Energy Agency, Paris, France. See:
http://www.iea-biogas.net/_download/publications/country-reports/april2011/
Sweden_Country_Report.pdf.
IEA-HIA (2006). Prospects for Hydrogen from Biomass. IEA Hydrogen Implementing
Agreement Task 16, Subtask B, Final Report, International Energy Agency, Paris,
France, 69 pp. Available at: ieahia.org/pdfs/nalreports/Task16BFinal.pdf.
IEA-SHC (2010). Solar Heating and Cooling Implementing Agreement. International
Energy Agency, Paris, France. See: http://www.iea-shc.org/publications/downloads/Solar_Heat_Worldwide-2010.pdf.
munic2008.pdf.
change: Global risks, challenges and decisions. In: IOP Conference Series: Earth
696
Chapter 8
Jupe, S.C.E., and P.C. Taylor (2009). Distributed generation output control for
371-386.
pipelines/central_orida.cfm
Jupe, S.C.E., P.C. Taylor, and A. Michiorri (2010). Coordinated output control of
Kirby, B.J. (2007). Load response fundamentally matches power system reliability
requirements. In: Power Engineering Society General Meeting, IEEE, Tampa, FL,
pp. 283-297.
Kberger, T., and H. Kusar (2008). BioDME beslut enskilt project, Volvo Powertrain
Kirby, B., and M. Milligan (2010). Utilizing load response for wind and solar inte-
gration and power system reliability. In: WindPower 2010, Dallas, TX, 23-26 May
Sweden. 10 pp.
Kiviluoma, J., and P. Meibom (2010). Inuence of wind power, plug-in electric
vehicles, and heat storages on power system investments. Energy, 35(3), pp.
1244-1255.
Kalhammer, F.A., B.M. Kopf, D.H. Swan, V.P. Roan, and M.P. Walsh (2007). Status
Kiviluoma, J., and P. Meibom (2011). Methodology for modelling plug-in electric
and Prospects for Zero Emission Vehicle Technology. Report ARB Independent
vehicles in the power system and cost estimates for a system with either smart
Expert Panel, State of California Air Resources Board, Sacramento, CA, USA, 207
pp.
Kamakat, F. and D. Gordon (2009). Managing Motorcycles: Opportunities
to Reduce Pollution and Fuel Use from Two- and Three-Wheeled Vehicles.
Kobayashi, H., and I. Kurihara (2009). Research and development of grid inte-
gration of distributed generation in Japan. In: IEEE Power and Energy Society
at: www.theicct.org/pubs/managing_motorcycles.pdf.
Kang, Y., and J. Zhang (2008). Study on current status, barriers and recommendations for Chinas CHP/DHC market development. Energy of China (In Chinese),
30(10), pp. 8-13.
and Challenges in the U.S. Light-Duty Vehicle Fleet. Report LFEE 2007-02
Energy and Electrical Drives (POWERENG 2007), Setubal, Portugal, 12-14 April
lab/research/beforeh2/les/kromer_electric_powertrains.pdf.
wind power rejection in the islands of Crete and Rhodes. Wind Energy, 10(5),
pp. 415-434.
analysis. Solar Energy Materials and Solar Cells, 90(18-19), pp. 3356-3363.
Portaldata/73/Resources/dokumente/Soko/Soko2008/Poster/5_Parabolrinnen_
fuer_Prozesswaerme.pdf.
Kundur, P., (2007). Power system stability. Chapter 7 in: Power System Stability and
Control. L. Grigsby (ed.), CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, USA.
Keane, A., L.F. Ochoa, E. Vittal, C.J. Dent, and G.P. Harrison (2011b). Enhanced
Khan, J., G. Bhuyan, and A. Moshref (2009). Potential Opportunities and Differences
Associated with Integration of Ocean Wave and Marine Current Energy Plants in
evaluation of exibility. In: IEEE Power and Energy Society General Meeting,
Comparison to Wind Energy. Report prepared by Powertech Labs for the IEA-OES
Annex III, Powertech Labs Inc., Surrey, BC, Canada, 64 pp.
Khennas, S., C. Sepp, and S. Hunt (2009). Review and Appraisal of Potential
Transformative Rural Energy Interventions in the Congo Basin. Final report by
Practical Action Consulting and Eco Consulting, Department for International
Development, London, UK.
697
Larsen, X.G., and J. Mann (2009). Extreme winds from the NCEP/NCAR reanalysis
data. Wind Energy, 12(6), pp. 556-573.
Larson, E.D., R.H. Williams, M. Regis, and L.V. Leal (2001). A review of biomass
Chapter 8
Longhetto, A., G. Elisei, and C. Giraud (1989). Effect of correlations in time and
spatial extent on performance of very large solar conversion systems. Solar
Energy, 43(2), pp. 77-84.
Lorenz, E., J. Hurka, D. Heinemann, and H.G. Beyer (2009). Irradiance forecasting
tion in sugarcane industries, with an analysis for Cuba. Energy for Sustainable
of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observations and Remote Sensing, 2(1), pp.
Lazarewicz, M.L., and T.M. Ryan (2010). Integration of ywheel-based energy storage for frequency regulation in deregulated markets. In: IEEE Power and Energy
Society General Meeting, Minneapolis, MN, 25-27 July 2010, pp. 1-6, 25-29.
Lehmann, J. (2007). A handful of carbon. Nature, 447, pp. 143-144.
Leighty, W.C., J. Holloway, R. Merer, B. Somerday, C. Marchi, G. Keith, and
D.E. White (2006). Compressorless hydrogen transmission pipelines deliver
2-10.
Lorenz, E., T. Scheidsteger, J. Hurka, D. Heinemann, and C. Kurz (2010). Regional
PV power prediction for improved grid integration. Progress in Photovoltaics:
Research and Applications, doi:10.1002/pip.1033.
Lund, H. (2006). Large-scale integration of optimal combinations of PV, wind and
wave power into the electricity supply. Renewable Energy, 31(4), pp. 503-515.
large-scale stranded renewable energy at competitive cost. In: 23rd World Gas
Conference, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 5-9 June 2006. Available at: www.
leightyfoundation.org/les/WGC-Amsterdam/WGC-Abstract310.pdf.
Leilei, D., H. Liu, and S. Riffat (2009). Development of small-scale and micro-scale
biomass-fuelled CHP systems a literature review. Applied Thermal Engineering,
29(11-12), pp. 2119-2126.
Lemmini, F., and A. Errougani (2007). Experimentation of a solar adsorption refrigerator in Morocco. Renewable Energy, 32(15), pp. 2629-2641.
Levine, M., D. rge-Vorsatz, K. Blok, L. Geng, D. Harvey, S. Lang, G. Levermore,
Lund, H., and W. Kempton (2008). Integration of renewable energy into the transport and electricity sectors through V2G. Energy Policy, 36(9), pp. 3578-3587.
Lund, H., and G. Salgi (2009). The role of compressed air energy storage (CAES) in
future sustainable energy systems. Energy Conversion and Management, 50(5),
pp. 1172-1179.
Lund, J.W. (2005). Direct application of geothermal energy: 2005 worldwide review.
Geothermics, 34, pp. 691-727.
Lund, J.W., D.H. Freeston, and T.L. Boyd (2010). Direct utilisation of geothermal
org/pdf/IGAstandard/WGC/2010/0007.pdf.
Lundsager, P., and I. Baring-Gould (2005). Isolated systems with wind power.
In: Wind Power in Power Systems. T. Ackermann (ed.), John Wiley & Sons Ltd.,
London, UK, pp. 299-329.
Macedo, I.C., J.E.A. Seabra, and J.E.A.R. Silva (2008). Greenhouse gas emissions
in the production and use of ethanol from sugarcane in Brazil: the 2005/2006
averages and a prediction for 2020. Biomass & Bioenergy, 32, pp. 582-595.
MacGill, I. (2010). Electricity market design for facilitating the integration of wind
energy: Experience and prospects with the Australian National Electricity Market.
Energy Policy, 38(7), pp. 3180-3191.
MacLean, H.L., and L.B. Lave (2003). Evaluating automobile fuel/propulsion technologies. Progress in Energy and Combustion Science, 29, pp. 1-69.
Madhlopa, A., and G. Ngwalo (2007). Solar dryer with thermal storage and biomass-backup heater. Solar Energy, 81(4), pp. 449-462.
Mandle, K.T. (1988). Dinorwig pumped-storage scheme. Power Engineering Journal,
2(5), pp. 259-262.
Liu, E., and J. Bebic (2008). Distribution System Voltage Performance Analysis
Mangold, D., and T. Schmitt (2006). The new central solar heating plants with
seasonal storage in Germany. In: EuroSun 2006, ISES (ed.), International Solar
and the impacts of recent warming. Environmental Research Letters, 2(1), pp. 1-7.
Marcos, J., L. Marroyo, E. Lorenzo, D. Alvira, and E. Izco (2011). From irradiance
Loisel, R., A. Mercier, C. Gatzen, N. Elms, and H. Petric (2010). Valuation frame-
work for large scale electricity storage in a case with wind curtailment. Energy
Policy, 38(11), pp. 7323-7337.
Lone, S.A., and M.D. Mufti (2008). Modelling and simulation of a stand-alone
hybrid power generation system incorporating redox ow battery storage system. International Journal of Modelling and Simulation, 28(3), pp. 337-346.
698
Chapter 8
Masters, C.L. (2002). Voltage rise - the big issue when connecting embedded gen-
eration to long 11 kV overhead lines. Power Engineering Journal, 16(1), pp. 5-12.
Today and Tomorrow. Report from Working Committee 5 at the 23rd Word Gas
Mills, A., A.Phadke, and R. Wiser (2011). Exploration of resource and transmission
Conference, Study Group 5.3 on Natural Gas for Vehicles (NGV), International
Mintzer, I. (2009). Look before you leap: Exploring the implications of advanced
tem: The case of Enkping in Sweden. Journal of Cleaner Production, 13, pp.
vehicles for import dependence and passenger safety. In: Plug-in Electric
1003-1014.
Vehicles: What Role for Washington? D.B. Sandalow (ed.), Brookings Institution
fund.com/files/Potomac%20Energy%20Fund%20-%20Look%20Before%20
You%20Leap.pdf.
Meah, K., and S. Ula (2007). Comparative evaluation of HVDC and HVAC transmis-
Miwa, T., and H. Okuda (2010). CO2 ultimate reduction in steelmaking process by
sion systems. In: IEEE Power Engineering Society General Meeting, Tampa, FL,
innovative technology for Cool Earth 50. Journal of the Japan Institute of Energy,
Meah, K., S. Ula, and S. Barrett (2008). Solar photovoltaic water pumping oppor-
Modi, V., S. McDade, D. Lallement, and J. Saghir (2005). Energy Services for
tunities and challenges. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 12(4), pp.
1162 -1175.
Sustainable Development (ESD): Issues and Strategies, Chiang Mai, Thailand, 2-4
Energy use and economical analysis of potato production in Iran a case study:
METI (2005). Energy Vision 2100, Strategic Technology Roadmap (Energy Sector).
Morales, A., X. Robe, M. Sala, P. Prats, C. Aguerri, and E. Torres (2008). Advanced
Ministry of Economy, Trade, and Industry, Tokyo, Japan, 42 pp. Available at: www.
grid requirements for the integration of wind farms into the Spanish transmission
iae.or.jp/2100/main.pdf.
Miller, N., K. Clark, and M. Shao (2010). Impact of frequency responsive wind plant
Offshore Wind Farms, Quebec City, Canada, 18-19 October 2010, pp. 371-382.
Milligan, M., B. Kirby, R. Gramlich, and M. Goggin (2009). Impact of Electric
Industry Structure on High Wind Penetration Potential. Technical Report, National
Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, CO, USA.
Mills, A., and R. Wiser (2010). Implications of Wide-Area Geographic Diversity
for Short-Term Variability of Solar Power. LBNL-3884E, Environmental Energy
Moura, P.S., and A.T. de Almeida (2010). The role of demand-side management in
the grid integration of wind power. Applied Energy, 87(8), pp. 2581-2588.
Mpagalile, J.J., M.A. Hanna, and R. Weber (2005). Design and testing of a solar
photovoltaic operated multi-seeds oil press. Renewable Energy, 31(12), pp.
1855-1866.
MTEP (2008). The Midwest ISO Transmission Expansion Plan; Growing the grid
across the Heartland. Midwest ISO, Carmel, IN, USA, 402 pp.
699
Chapter 8
NETL (2008). NETL Modern Grid Strategy Powering Our 21st-Century Economy
based wind turbines. IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, 20(3), pp. 1496-1503.
us/en/information-center/Biodiesel-Support/Pages/default.aspx.
Newbery, D.M. (2005). Electricity liberalisation in Britain: the quest for a satisfactory
wholesale market design. Energy Journal, Special Issue on European Electricity
Liberalisation, 26(Special I), pp. 43-70.
Newbery, D.M. (2010). Market design for a large share of wind power. Energy Policy,
38(7), pp. 3131-3134.
Murata, A., H. Yamaguchi, and K. Otani (2009). A method of estimating the output
task force: Brazil, European Union and United States of America). Report, National
naturalhy.net/docs/Strategic_justication_NATURALHY.pdf.
Biodiesel Blends. National Biodiesel Board, Jefferson City, MO, USA. Available at:
www.biodiesel.org/resources/oems/default.aspx.
force.pdf
Nelson, P.A., D.J. Santini, and J. Barnes (2009). Factors determining the manufac-
NREL (2009). H2 Production Cost vs. Process Composite Data Product (CDP #15).
turing costs of lithium- ion batteries for PHEVs. In: EVS-24 Conference. Stavanger,
National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, CO, USA. Available at: www.
nrel.gov/hydrogen/docs/cdp/cdp_15.jpg.
Nelson-Santini-Barnes-paper.pdf.
Nema, P., R.K. Nema, and S. Rangnekar (2009). A current and future state of
art development of hybrid energy system using wind and PV-solar: A review.
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 13(8), pp. 2096-2103.
NERC (2009). Special Report: Accommodating High Levels of Variable Generation.
North American Reliability Corporation, Princeton, NJ, USA, 95 pp.
NREL (2010). Oahu Wind Integration and Transmission Study: Summary Report.
National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, CO, USA, 28 pp.
NSCA (2006). Biogas as transport fuel. Final Report, National Society for Clean Air
and Environmental Protection, Brighton, UK, 46 pp. (ISBN 978 0 903 47461 1).
Nyamdash, B., E. Denny, and M. OMalley (2010). The viability of balancing wind
generation with large scale energy storage. Energy Policy, 38(11), pp. 7200-7208.
NERC (2010a). NERC IVGTF Task 2.1 Report Variable Generation Power Forecasting
Zealand, 11 pp.
Ochoa, P., and A. van Ackere (2009). Policy changes and the dynamics of capacity
expansion in the Swiss electricity market. Energy Policy, 37(5), pp. 1983-1998.
Ogden, J.M., and C. Yang (2009). Build-up of a hydrogen infrastructure in the US.
Chapter 15 in: The Hydrogen Economy: Opportunities and Challenges. M. Ball
and M. Wietschel (eds.), Cambridge University Press, pp. 454-482.
Oleson, K.W., G.B. Bonan, and J. Feddema (2010). Effects of white roofs on
urban temperature in a global climate model. Geophysical Research Letters, 37,
L03701, doi:10.1029/2009GL042194.
700
Chapter 8
Phair, J.W. (2006). Green chemistry for sustainable cement production and use.
Green Chemistry, 8, pp. 763-780.
Pihl, E. (2009). Concentrating Solar Power. Energy Committee of the Royal Swedish
Academy of Sciences, Stockholm, Sweden, 32 pp.
Plotkin, S., and M. Singh (2009). Multi-Path Transportation Futures Study: Vehicle
Characterization and Scenario Analyses. Report ANL/ESD/09-5, Argonne National
Laboratory, Argonne, IL, USA, 310 pp. Available at: www.transportation.anl.gov/
pdfs/TA/613.PDF.
Power-Gen (2009). Cummins Approves B20 Biodiesel for 19- to 78-Litre High
Horsepower Engines. Power Engineering International, PennWell Publishing,
Tulsa, OK, USA.
PROINFA (2010). Programa de Incentivo s Fontes Alternativas de Energia Eltrica,
Minas e Energia, Braslia, Brazil. Available at: www.mme.gov.br/programas/
proinfa.
Qadrdan, M., M. Chaudry, J.Z. Wu, N. Jenkins, and J. Ekanayake (2010). Impact
of a large penetration of wind generation on the GB gas network. Energy Policy,
38(10), pp. 5684-5695.
Radtke, J., C.J. Dent, and S.J. Couch (2010). Capacity value of large tidal barrages.
IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, doi:10.1109/TPWRS.2010.2095433.
PCGCC (2010). State and Local Net Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Programs.
RAE (2007). Decision 85/2007, 25th April 2007: Adoption of a methodology for
Pew Center on Global Climate Change, Arlington, VA, USA. Available at: www.
cleanairconstruction.org/content/legislative/AB1493%20-%20Greenhouse%20
dance with the provisions of Article 4 1 of the Licensing Rules for electricity
Gas%20Emissions%20Reduction.pdf.
Production from RES and CHP (in Greek). Regulatory Authority for Energy,
Pearmine, R., Y.H. Song, and A. Chebbo (2007). Inuence of wind turbine behaviour on the primary frequency control of the British transmission grid. IET
Renewable Power Generation, 1(2), pp. 142-150.
Pehnt, M., A. Paar, F. Merten, W. Irrek, and D. Schwer (2009a). Intertwining
renewable energy and energy efciency: from distinctive policies to combined
strategies. In: ECEEE 2009 Summer Study, ECEEE, La Colle sur Loup, Cte dAzur,
Pelland, S., and I. Abboud (2008). Comparing photovoltaic capacity value metrics: A
Ren, T., and M.K. Patel (2009). Basic petrochemicals from natural gas, coal and
case study for the City of Toronto. Progress in Photovoltaics, 16(8), pp. 715-724.
biomass: Energy use and CO2 emissions. Resources, Conservation and Recycling,
Perez, R., M. Taylor, T. Hoff, and J.P. Ross (2008). Reaching consensus in the
Prez-Daz, J.I., and J.R. Wilhelmi (2010). Assessment of the economic impact of
environmental constraints on short-term hydropower plant operation. Energy
Policy, 38(12), pp. 7960-7970.
Persson, M. (2003). Utvrdering av uppgraderingstekniker fr biogas (Study of
Biogas Upgrading Techniques). Report SGC 142, ISSN 1102-7371, Swedish Gas
Centre, Malm, Sweden, 69 pp.
Persson, M., O. Jnsson, and A. Wellinger (2006). Biogas Upgrading to Vehicle
Fuel Standards and Grid Injection. IEA Report, Swedish Gas Center (SGC), Malm,
Sweden, 34 pp.
701
Chapter 8
Rodriguez, G.D. (2010). A utility perspective of the role of energy storage in the
Sensfu, F., M. Ragwitz, and M. Genoese (2008). The merit-order effect: A detailed
smart grid. In: IEEE Power and Energy Society General Meeting, Minneapolis, MN,
tion of renewable energy and the system operation: The Special Regime Control
Centre (CECRE) in Spain. In: IEEE Power and Energy Society General Meeting
Conversion and Delivery of Electrical Energy in the 21st Century, Pittsburgh, PA,
USA, 20-24 July 2008, pp. 1-6, 20-24.
Rossilo-Calle, F., S.V. Bajay, and H. Rothman (2000). Industrial Uses of Biomass
Energy: The Example of Brazil. Taylor & Francis, London and New York.
Rousseau, A. And P. Sharer (2004). Comparing Apples To Apples: Well-to-Wheel
Analysis of Current ICE and Fuel Cell Vehicle Technologies. Report No. 2004-011015, Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, IL, USA.
Salter, S., J. Taylor, and N. Caldwell (2002). Power conversion mechanisms for
wave energy. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part M:
Journal of Engineering for the Maritime Environment, 216(1), pp. 1-27.
Samaras, C., and K. Meisterling (2008). Life cycle assessment of greenhouse gas
emissions from plug-in hybrid vehicles: implications for policy. Environmental
Science & Technology, 42(9), pp. 3170-3176.
Sandsmark, M., and B. Tennbakk (2010). Ex post monitoring of market power in
hydro dominated electricity markets. Energy Policy, 38(3), pp. 1500-1509.
Scandifo, M., and M.R.V. Leal (2008). Novo desenho logstico para exportao de
etanol: uma viso de longo prazo. In: 7 Congresso Internacional sobre Gerao
the usage of wind generation. IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, 24(2), pp.
Distribuda e Energia no Meio Rural. L.B. Cortez (ed.), AGRENER, Fortaleza, Brazil,
516-524.
tion system for distribution networks with distributed energy resources. In:
renewable energy on US electricity markets. In: IEEE Power and Energy Society
General Meeting, Minneapolis, MN, USA, 25-27 July 2010, pp. 1-12, 25-29.
the post-2012 climate change policy architecture. Climate Policy, 8, pp. 494-515.
Transmission planning for wind energy: Status and prospects. In: EWEC 2010
Sder, L., and H. Holttinen (2008). On methodology for modelling power system
gas emissions through the application of solar thermal energy in industrial pro-
pp. 181-198.
Sder, L., L. Hofmann, A. Orths, H. Holttinen, Y.H. Wan, and A. Tuohy (2007).
Experience from wind integration in some high penetration areas. IEEE
Transactions on Energy Conversion, 22(1), pp. 4-12.
Stadler, I. (2008). Power grid balancing of energy systems with high renewable
energy penetration by demand response. Utilities Policy, 16(2), pp. 90-98.
Statistics Finland (2009). Production of Electricity and Heat 2009. Statistics Finland,
Helsinki, Finland, 14 pp.
Sterner, M. (2009). Bioenergy and Renewable Power Methane in Integrated
Sebastian, M., J. Marti, and P. Lang (2008). Evolution of DSO control centre tool in
978-3-89958-798-2).
702
Chapter 8
Stetz, T., W. Yan, and M. Braun (2010). Voltage control in distribution systems with
high level PV-penetration Improving absorption capacity for PV systems by
reactive power supply. In: 25th European Photovoltaic Solar Energy Conference
and Exhibition, Valencia, Spain, 6-10 September 2010, pp. 5000-5006.
Stoft, S. (2002). Power Systems Economics Designing Markets for Electricity. IEE
Press Editorial Board, Piscataway, NJ, USA, 496 pp.
Stoutenburg, E.D., N. Jenkins, and M.Z. Jacobson (2010). Power output variations
of co-located offshore wind turbines and wave energy converters in California.
Renewable Energy, 35(12), pp. 2781-2791.
Strauss, P. (2009). Einuss des Frequenzverhaltens kleiner Generatoren und lasten auf Stromnetze unter besonderer Bercksichtigung groer Netzstrungen.
Dissertation, University of Kassel, Kassel, Germany, 128 pp.
Strbac, G. (2008). Demand side management: Benets and challenges. Energy Policy,
36(12), pp. 4419-4426.
Strunz, K., and H. Louie (2009). Cache energy control for storage: Power system
integration and education based on analogies derived from computer engineering. IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, 24(1), pp. 12-19.
TradeWind (2009). Integrating Wind. Developing Europes Power Market for the
Large Scale Integration of Wind Power. TradeWind, 104 pp.
Transmission Code (2007). Transmission Code: Netz- und Systemregeln der
deutschen bertragungsnetzbetreiber. Verband der Netzbetreiber, Berlin,
Germany, 90pp.
TransPower (2008). Grid upgrade plan 2008 Instalment 1, part III: Wairakei Ring
Investment proposal. Transpower New Zealand Ltd., Wellington, NZ, 43 pp.
TRB (2009). Modal Primer on Greenhouse Gas and Energy Issues for the Transportation
Industry. Research Circular E-C143, Transportation Research Board, Washington,
DC, USA (ISSN 0097-8515).
Troy, N., E. Denny, and M. OMalley (2010). Base-load cycling on a system with
signicant wind penetration. IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, 25(2), pp.
1088-1097.
Tsikalakis, A.G., and N.D. Hatziargyriou (2008). Centralized control for optimizing microgrids operation. IEEE Transactions on Energy Conversion, 23(1), pp.
241-248.
Tsili, M., and S. Papathanassiou (2009). A review of grid code technical require-
Sudol, P. (2009). Modelling and Analysis of Hydrogen Based Wind Energy Transmission
ments for wind farms. IET Renewable Power Generation, 3(3), pp. 308-332.
Tuohy, A., and M. OMalley (2011). Pumped storage in systems with very high wind
Swider, D.J., and C. Weber (2007). The costs of winds intermittency in Germany:
application of a stochastic electricity market model. European Transactions on
Electrical Power, 17(2), pp. 151-172.
Takada, M., and N.A. Charles (2006). Energizing Poverty Reduction: A Review of
Uchida, H. (2010). Policy and action programs in Japan - Hydrogen energy as eco tech-
Development Programme, New York, NY, USA, 117 pp. Available at: www.undp.
nology. In: WHEC 2010 18th World Hydrogen Energy Conference, International
org/environment/sustainable-energy-library.shtml.
Takada, M., and S. Fracchia (2007). A Review of Energy in National MDG Reports.
United Nations Development Programme , New York, NY, USA, 48 pp. Available
at: www.undp.org/environment/sustainable-energy-library.shtml.
UCTE (2006). Final Report: System Disturbance on 4 November 2006. Union for the
Co-Ordination of Transmission of Electricity, Brussels, Belgium, 85 pp.
Ueda, Y., K. Kurokawa, T. Tanabe, K. Kitamura, and H. Sugihara (2008). Analysis
Taylor, C. (1994). Power System Voltage Stability. McGraw Hill, 273 pp.
results of output power loss due to the grid voltage rise in grid-connected pho-
Tester, J.W., B.J. Anderson, A.S. Batchelor, D.D. Blackwell, R. DiPippo, and E.M.
data and updated hydrogen energy system modeling tools. International Journal
Ummels, B.C., E. Pelgrum, and W.L. Kling (2008). Integration of large-scale wind
power and use of energy storage in the Netherlands electricity supply. IET
geothermal_energy.pdf.
Thomson, M., and D.G. Ineld (2007). Impact of widespread photovoltaics generation on distribution systems. IET Renewable Power Generation, 1(1), pp. 33-40.
Thorsteinsson, H.H., and J.W. Tester (2010). Barriers and enablers to geothermal
district heating development in the United States. Energy Policy, 38, pp. 803-813.
UNEA (2009). Energy for Sustainable Development: Policy Options for Africa. United
Thyholt, M., and A.G. Hestnes (2008). Heat supply to low-energy buildings in
Nations Energy Africa, New York, NY, USA. Available at: www.uneca.org/eca_
district heating areas: Analyses of CO2 emissions and electricity supply security.
Energy and Buildings, 40(131-139)
resources/publications/unea-publication-tocsd15.pdf.
UNDP (2007). World Urbanization Prospects: The 2007 Revision. United Nations
Population Division, United Nations, New York, NY, USA, 230 pp. Available at:
www.un.org/esa/population/publications/wup2007/2007WUP_Highlights_web.
biocombustivel.
pdf.
Torriti, J., M.G. Hassan, and M. Leach (2010). Demand response experience in
UNDP (2009). Small-Scale Finance for Modern Energy Services and the Role of
Governments. United Nations Development Programme, New York, NY, USA, 43 pp.
703
UNDP and WHO (2009). The Energy Access Situation in Developing Countries - A
Review Focusing on the Least Developed Countries and Sub-Saharan Africa.
Chapter 8
VTT (2009). Energy Visions 2050 Summary. VTT Technical Research Centre of
Finland, Helsinki, Finland.
und Khlen mit der Sonne. VDI Verlag GmbH, Dsseldorf, Germany, pp. 121-132.
room/publications/environment-energy/www-ee-library/sustainable-energy/
undp-who-report-on-energy-access-in-developing-countries-review-of-ldcs--ssas.en.
University of Edinburgh (2006). Matching Renewable Electricity Generation
with Demand: Academic study: Full report. University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh,
Scotland, 77 pp.
US DOE (2004). Energy Information Administration Annual Energy Review 2003. U.S.
Department of Energy, Washington, DC, USA, 428 pp.
US DOE (2008a). The Net-Zero Energy Commercial Building Initiative. U.S.
Department of Energy, Washington, DC, USA. Available at: www1.eere.energy.
gov/buildings/initiative.html.
US DOE (2008b). The Smart Grid: An Introduction. U.S. Department of Energy,
Washington, DC, USA. Available at: www.oe.energy.gov/DocumentsandMedia/
DOE_SG_Book_Single_Pages(1).pdf.
2074.htm.
Walter, A. (2006). Is Brazilian biofuels experience a model for other developing countries? Entwicklung & Lndlicher Raum, 40, pp. 22-24.
Wang, L. (2008). Contemporary issues in thermal gasication of biomass and its
application to electricity and fuel production. Biomass and Bioenergy, 32(7), pp.
573-581.
Wang, M., H. Huo, L. Johnson, and D. He (2006). Projection of Chinese Motor Vehicle
Growth, Oil Demand, and CO2 Emissions through 2050. Report ANL/ESD/06-6,
Argonne National Laboratory, Energy Systems Division, Argonne, IL, USA.
Wang, R.Z., T.S. Ge, C.J. Chen, Q. Ma, and Z.Q. Xiong (2009). Solar sorption cooling systems for residential applications: options and guidelines. International
Journal of Refrigeration, 32, pp. 638-660.
Wangdee, W., W. Li, and R. Billinton (2010). Coordinating wind and hydro genera-
tion to increase the effective load carrying capability. In: IEEE 11th International
Report, U.S. Department of Energy and EPRI, Washington, DC, USA and Palo Alto,
WBCSD (2008). Efcient Heat and Power for One Million People (ABB Case Study).
State Research Education and Extension Service, Washington, DC, USA. Available
at: www.csrees.usda.gov/precisiongeospatialsensortechnologies.cfm.
U.S. Forest Service (2010). Record of Decision - San Diego Gas & Electric Special
Use Authorization for the Sunrise Powerlink Transmission Line Project. San Diego
Available
EEBReport_WEB.pdf.
docs/ROD_SDGE_%20SpecialUse.pdf
Utria, B.E. (2004). Ethanol and gelfuel: clean renewable cooking fuels for poverty
alleviation in Africa. Energy for Sustainable Development, 8(3), pp. 107-114.
Vandezande, L., L. Meeus, R. Belmans, M. Saguan, and J.M. Glachant (2010).
Well-functioning balancing markets: A prerequisite for wind power integration.
Energy Policy, 38(7), pp. 3146-3154.
at:
www.wbcsd.org/DocRoot/Ge2Laeua8uu2rkodeu7q/91719_
Weber, C. (2010). Adequate intraday market design to enable the integration of wind
energy into the European power systems. Energy Policy, 38(7), pp. 3155-3163.
Wei, N., W. Yong, S. Yan, and D. Zhongcheng (2009). Government management
and implementation of national real-time energy monitoring system for China
large-scale public building. Energy Policy, 37(6), pp. 2087-2091.
Weiss, W., I. Bergmann, and R. Stelzer (2009). Solar Heat World Wide: Markets
Vannoni, C., R. Battisti, and S. Drigo (2008). Potential for Solar Heat in Industrial
and Contribution to the Energy Supply 2007. IEA Solar Heating and Cooling
Processes. Booklet IEA SHC Task 33 and SolarPACES, CIEMAT, Madrid, Spain, 17 pp.
Programme, International Energy Agency, Paris, France, 46 pp. Available at: www.
Velasco, D., C.L. Trujillo, and R.A. Pena (2011). Power transmission in direct
current. Future expectations for Colombia. Renewable & Sustainable Energy
Reviews, 15(1), pp. 759-765.
Verbruggen, A. (2006). Electricity intensity backstop level to meet sustainable backstop supply technologies. Energy Policy, 34, pp. 1310-1317.
energytech.at/pdf/SH_worldwide_2009.pdf.
Weisser, D., and R.S. Garcia (2005). Instantaneous wind energy penetration in
isolated electricity grids: concepts and review. Renewable Energy, 30(8), pp.
1299-1308.
Wenger, H.J., T.E. Hoff, and B.K. Farmer (1994). Measuring the value of distributed
Verheijen, F., I. Diafas, S. Jeffery, A.C. Bastos, and M. van der Velde (2010).
photovoltaic generation: nal results of the Kerman grid-support project. In: IEEE
Properties, Processes and Functions. Science and Technical Report EUR 24099
the Twenty Fourth IEEE Photovoltaic Specialists Conference, 5-9 December 1994,
704
Chapter 8
Widn, J., E. Wckelgrd, and P.D. Lund (2009). Options for improving the load
Yang, X., Y. Song, G. Wang, and W. Wang (2010). A comprehensive review on the
Wilson, I.A.G., P.G. McGregor, and P.J. Hall (2010). Energy storage in the UK electrical network: Estimation of the scale and review of technology options. Energy
Policy, 38(8), pp. 4099-4106.
Wiser, R., and M. Bolinger (2010). 2009 Wind Technologies Market Report. National
Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, CO, USA, 88pp.
Wolf, A., and K. Petersson (2007). Industrial symbiosis in the Swedish forest industry. Progress in Industrial Ecology, 4(5), pp. 348-362.
Wood, A.J., and B.F. Wollenberg (1996). Power Generation Operation and Control.
2nd ed. John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY, USA, 569 pp.
Woolf, D., J.E. Amonette, F.A. Street-Perrott, J. Lehmann, and S. Joseph (2010).
Available
at:
http://www.bfe.admin.ch/themen/00490/00496/index.
html?lang=en&dossier_id=01273
Zgheib, E., and D. Clodic (2009). CO2 emission and energy reduction evaluations of
plug-in hybrids (Paper 2009-01-1234). In: Advanced Hybrid Vehicle Powertrains.
SAE International, Warrendale, pp. 399.
Zhang, P., F. Li, and N. Bhatt (2010). Next-generation monitoring, analysis, and
control for the future smart control center. IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, 1(2),
doi:10.1038/ncomms1053.
pp. 186-192.
Wu, C., W. Lee, C.L. Cheng, and H.-W. Lan (2008). Role and value of pumped stor-
age units in an ancillary services market for isolated power systems Simulation
District Heating Distribution in Areas with Low Heat Demand Density. IEA R&D
pp. 1924-1929.
WWICS (2010). Land Grab: The Race for the Worlds Farmland (Event 5 May
2009). Woodrow Wilson International Centre for Scholars, Washington, DC,
USA.
Available
at:
www.wilsoncenter.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=events.
event_summary&event_id=517903.
report-5.pdf.
Zogg, R., K. Roth, and J. Brodrick (2008). Lake-source district cooling systems.
ASHRAE Journal, February 2008. Available at: ndarticles.com/p/articles/
mi_m5PRB/is_2_50/ai_n25376339/?tag=content;col1.
Xcel Energy (2009). An Effective Load Carrying Capability Analysis for Estimating
the Capacity Value of Solar Generation Resources on the Public Service Company
of Colorado System. Xcel Energy Services, Inc., Denver, CO, USA, 13 pp.
705
706
Renewable Energy
in the Context of
Sustainable Development
Coordinating Lead Authors:
Jayant Sathaye (USA), Oswaldo Lucon (Brazil), Atiq Rahman (Bangladesh)
Lead Authors:
John Christensen (Denmark), Fatima Denton (Senegal/Gambia), Junichi Fujino (Japan),
Garvin Heath (USA), Monirul Mirza (Canada/Bangladesh), Hugh Rudnick (Chile),
August Schlaepfer (Germany/Australia), Andrey Shmakin (Russia)
Contributing Authors:
Gerhard Angerer (Germany), Christian Bauer (Switzerland/Austria),
Morgan Bazilian (Austria/USA), Robert Brecha (Germany/USA), Peter Burgherr (Switzerland),
Leon Clarke (USA), Felix Creutzig (Germany), James Edmonds (USA),
Christian Hagelken (Germany), Gerrit Hansen (Germany), Nathan Hultman (USA),
Michael Jakob (Germany), Susanne Kadner (Germany), Manfred Lenzen (Australia/Germany),
Jordan Macknick (USA), Eric Masanet (USA), Yu Nagai (Austria/Japan), Anne Olhoff (USA/
Denmark), Karen Olsen (Denmark), Michael Pahle (Germany), Ari Rabl (France),
Richard Richels (USA), Joyashree Roy (India), Tormod Schei (Norway),
Christoph von Stechow (Germany), Jan Steckel (Germany), Ethan Warner (USA),
Tom Wilbanks (USA), Yimin Zhang (USA)
Review Editors:
Volodymyr Demkine (Kenya/Ukraine), Ismail Elgizouli (Sudan), Jeffrey Logan (USA)
Special Advisor:
Susanne Kadner (Germany)
This chapter should be cited as:
Sathaye, J., O. Lucon, A. Rahman, J. Christensen, F. Denton, J. Fujino, G. Heath, S. Kadner, M. Mirza,
H.Rudnick, A. Schlaepfer, A. Shmakin, 2011: Renewable Energy in the Context of Sustainable
Development. In IPCC Special Report on Renewable Energy Sources and Climate Change
Mitigation [O. Edenhofer, R.Pichs-Madruga, Y. Sokona, K. Seyboth, P. Matschoss, S. Kadner,
T.Zwickel, P. Eickemeier, G. Hansen, S. Schlmer, C. von Stechow (eds)], Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.
707
Chapter 9
Table of Contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 713
9.1.1
9.2
9.2.1
9.2.2
Sustainable development goals for renewable energy and sustainable development indicators
9.3
Social, environmental and economic impacts: global and regional assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 718
9.3.1
9.3.1.1
9.3.1.2
9.3.1.3
9.3.1.4
9.3.2
Energy access
9.3.3
9.3.3.1
9.3.3.2
9.3.4
9.3.4.1
9.3.4.2
9.3.4.3
9.3.4.4
9.3.4.5
9.3.4.6
9.3.4.7
Climate change mitigation and reduction of environmental and health impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 728
Climate change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 729
Local and regional air pollution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 736
Health impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 739
Water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 741
Land use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 743
Impacts on ecosystems and biodiversity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 744
Accidents and risks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 745
9.4
9.4.1
9.4.1.1
9.4.1.2
708
......................................................................................................
713
.................................
713
..............................................................
714
............................
...........................................................................................................................................
............................
715
721
747
Chapter 9
9.4.2
9.4.2.1
9.4.2.2
9.4.3
9.4.3.1
9.4.3.2
9.4.4
9.4.4.1
9.4.4.2
Climate change mitigation and reduction of environmental and health impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 756
Environmental and health impacts in scenarios of the future . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 756
Research gaps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 756
9.5
9.5.1
9.5.1.1
9.5.1.2
9.5.1.3
Barriers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 757
Socio-cultural barriers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 757
Information and awareness barriers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 758
Market failures and economic barriers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 759
9.5.2
9.5.2.1
9.5.2.2
Opportunities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 760
International and national strategies for sustainable development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 760
Local, private and nongovernmental sustainable development initiatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 763
9.6
Synthesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 764
9.6.1
Theoretical concepts and methodological tools for assessing renewable energy sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 764
9.6.2
9.6.3
Energy access
9.6.4
Energy security
9.6.5
Climate change mitigation and reduction of environmental and health impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 766
9.6.6
Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 766
9.7
...............................................................................................................
765
...........................................................................................................................................
765
.........................................................................................................................................
..............................................................................
765
767
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 769
709
Chapter 9
Executive Summary
Historically, economic development has been strongly correlated with increasing energy use and growth of
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Renewable energy (RE) can help decouple that correlation, contributing
to sustainable development (SD). In addition, RE offers the opportunity to improve access to modern energy
services for the poorest members of society, which is crucial for the achievement of any single of the eight Millennium
Development Goals.
Theoretical concepts of SD can provide useful frameworks to assess the interactions between SD and RE.
SD addresses concerns about relationships between human society and nature. Traditionally, SD has been framed in
the three-pillar modelEconomy, Ecology, and Societyallowing a schematic categorization of development goals,
with the three pillars being interdependent and mutually reinforcing. Within another conceptual framework, SD can
be oriented along a continuum between the two paradigms of weak sustainability and strong sustainability. The two
paradigms differ in assumptions about the substitutability of natural and human-made capital. RE can contribute to
the development goals of the three-pillar model and can be assessed in terms of both weak and strong SD, since RE
utilization is dened as sustaining natural capital as long as its resource use does not reduce the potential for
future harvest.
The relationship between RE and SD can be viewed as a hierarchy of goals and constraints that involve
both global and regional or local considerations. Though the exact contribution of RE to SD has to be evaluated
in a country specic context, RE offers the opportunity to contribute to a number of important SD goals: (1) social
and economic development; (2) energy access; (3) energy security; (4) climate change mitigation and the reduction of
environmental and health impacts. The mitigation of dangerous anthropogenic climate change is seen as one strong
driving force behind the increased use of RE worldwide. The chapter provides an overview of the scientic literature
on the relationship between these four SD goals and RE and, at times, fossil and nuclear energy technologies. The
assessments are based on different methodological tools, including bottom-up indicators derived from attributional
lifecycle assessments (LCA) or energy statistics, dynamic integrated modelling approaches, and qualitative analyses.
Countries at different levels of development have different incentives and socioeconomic SD goals to
advance RE. The creation of employment opportunities and actively promoting structural change in the economy are
seen, especially in industrialized countries, as goals that support the promotion of RE. However, the associated costs
are a major factor determining the desirability of RE to meet increasing energy demand and concerns have been voiced
that increased energy prices might endanger industrializing countries development prospects; this underlines the need
for a concomitant discussion about the details of an international burden-sharing regime. Still, decentralized grids
based on RE have expanded and already improved energy access in developing countries. Under favorable conditions,
cost savings in comparison to non-RE use exist, in particular in remote areas and in poor rural areas lacking centralized
energy access. In addition, non-electrical RE technologies offer opportunities for modernization of energy services,
for example, using solar energy for water heating and crop drying, biofuels for transportation, biogas and modern
biomass for heating, cooling, cooking and lighting, and wind for water pumping. RE deployment can contribute to
energy security by diversifying energy sources and diminishing dependence on a limited number of suppliers, therefore
reducing the economys vulnerability to price volatility. Many developing countries specically link energy access and
security issues to include stability and reliability of local supply in their denition of energy security.
Supporting the SD goal to mitigate environmental impacts from energy systems, RE technologies can
provide important benets compared to fossil fuels, in particular regarding GHG emissions. Maximizing
these benets often depends on the specic technology, management, and site characteristics associated with each
RE project, especially with respect to land use change (LUC) impacts. Lifecycle assessments for electricity generation
indicate that GHG emissions from RE technologies are, in general, considerably lower than those associated with
fossil fuel options, and in a range of conditions, less than fossil fuels employing carbon capture and storage (CCS).
The maximum estimate for concentrating solar power (CSP), geothermal, hydropower, ocean and wind energy is less
710
Chapter 9
than or equal to 100 g CO2eq/kWh, and median values for all RE range from 4 to 46 g CO2eq/kWh. The GHG balances
of bioenergy production, however, have considerable uncertainties, mostly related to land management and LUC.
Excluding LUC, most bioenergy systems reduce GHG emissions compared to fossil-fuelled systems and can lead to
avoided GHG emissions from residues and wastes in landll disposals and co-products; the combination of bioenergy
with CCS may provide for further reductions. For transport fuels, some rst-generation biofuels result in relatively
modest GHG mitigation potential, while most next-generation biofuels could provide greater climate benets. To
optimize benets from bioenergy production, it is critical to reduce uncertainties and to consider ways to mitigate the
risk of bioenergy-induced LUC.
RE technologies can also offer benets with respect to air pollution and health. Non-combustion-based RE power
generation technologies have the potential to signicantly reduce local and regional air pollution and lower associated
health impacts compared to fossil-based power generation. Impacts on water and biodiversity, however, depend
on local conditions. In areas where water scarcity is already a concern, non-thermal RE technologies or thermal RE
technologies using dry cooling can provide energy services without additional stress on water resources. Conventional
water-cooled thermal power plants may be especially vulnerable to conditions of water scarcity and climate change.
Hydropower and some bioenergy systems are dependent on water availability, and can either increase competition or
mitigate water scarcity. RE specic impacts on biodiversity may be positive or negative; the degree of these impacts
will be determined by site-specic conditions. Accident risks of RE technologies are not negligible, but the technologies
often decentralized structure strongly limits the potential for disastrous consequences in terms of fatalities. However,
dams associated with some hydropower projects may create a specic risk depending on site-specic factors.
The scenario literature that describes global mitigation pathways for RE deployment can provide some
insights into associated SD implications. Putting an upper limit on future GHG emissions results in welfare losses
(usually measured as gross domestic product or consumption foregone), disregarding the costs of climate change
impacts. These welfare losses are based on assumptions about the availability and costs of mitigation technologies
and increase when the availability of technological alternatives for constraining GHGs, for example, RE technologies,
is limited. Scenario analyses show that developing countries are likely to see most of the expansion of RE production.
Increasing energy access is not necessarily benecial for all aspects of SD, as a shift to modern energy away from, for
example, traditional biomass could simply be a shift to fossil fuels. In general, available scenario analyses highlight
the role of policies and nance for increased energy access, even though forced shifts to RE that would provide access
to modern energy services could negatively affect household budgets. To the extent that RE deployment in mitigation
scenarios contributes to diversifying the energy portfolio, it has the potential to enhance energy security by making
the energy system less susceptible to (sudden) energy supply disruption. In scenarios, this role of RE will vary with
the energy form. With appropriate carbon mitigation policies in place, electricity generation can be relatively easily
decarbonized through RE sources that have the potential to replace concentrated and increasingly scarce fossil fuels in
the building and industry sectors. By contrast, the demand for liquid fuels in the transport sector remains inelastic if no
technological breakthrough can be achieved. Therefore oil and related energy security concerns are likely to continue to
play a role in the future global energy system; as compared to today these will be seen more prominently in developing
countries. In order to take account of environmental and health impacts from energy systems, several models have
included explicit representation of these, such as sulphate pollution. Some scenario results show that climate policy can
help drive improvements in local air pollution (i.e., particulate matter), but air pollution reduction policies alone do not
necessarily drive reductions in GHG emissions. Another implication of some potential energy trajectories is the possible
diversion of land to support biofuel production. Scenario results have pointed at the possibility that climate policy could
drive widespread deforestation if not accompanied by other policy measures, with land use being shifted to bioenergy
crops with possibly adverse SD implications, including GHG emissions.
711
Chapter 9
The integration of RE policies and measures in SD strategies at various levels can help overcome existing
barriers and create opportunities for RE deployment in line with meeting SD goals. In the context of SD,
barriers continue to impede RE deployment. Besides market-related and economic barriers, those barriers intrinsically
linked to societal and personal values and norms will fundamentally affect the perception and acceptance of RE
technologies and related deployment impacts by individuals, groups and societies. Dedicated communication efforts are
therefore a crucial component of any transformation strategy and local SD initiatives can play an important role in this
context. At international and national levels, strategies should include: the removal of mechanisms that are perceived
to work against SD; mechanisms for SD that internalize environmental and social externalities; and RE strategies that
support low-carbon, green and sustainable development including leapfrogging.
The assessment has shown that RE can contribute to SD to varying degrees; more interdisciplinary research
is needed to close existing knowledge gaps. While benets with respect to reduced environmental and health
impacts may appear more clear-cut, the exact contribution to, for example, social and economic development is more
ambiguous. In order to improve the knowledge regarding the interrelations between SD and RE and to nd answers
to the question of an effective, economically efcient and socially acceptable transformation of the energy system, a
much closer integration of insights from social, natural and economic sciences (e.g., through risk analysis approaches),
reecting the different (especially intertemporal, spatial and intra-generational) dimensions of sustainability, is required.
So far, the knowledge base is often limited to very narrow views from specic branches of research, which do not fully
account for the complexity of the issue.
712
Chapter 9
9.1
Introduction
Sustainable development (SD) emerged in the political, public and academic arena in 1972 with the Founex report and again in 1987 with the
publication of the World Commission on Environment and Development
(WCED) report Our Common Futurealso known as the Brundtland
Report. This Special Report on Renewable Energy Sources and Climate
Change Mitigation follows the Brundtland denition that SD meets the
needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs (WCED, 1987; Boj et al., 1992). Due to
the difculty of putting such a concept into operation, many competing
frameworks for SD have been put forward since then (Pezzey, 1992;
Hopwood et al., 2005). In this chapter, some SD concepts will be introduced, links between SD and RE will be elucidated, and implications for
decision making will be claried.
SD was tightly coupled with climate change (and thence the IPCC) at
the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development
(UNCED) held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil in 1992 that sought to stabilize
atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases at levels considered to
be safe. As a consequence, and building on the IPCCs First Assessment
Report that focused on the technology and cost-effectiveness of mitigation activities, the Second Assessment Report included equity concerns
in addition to social considerations (IPCC, 1996a). The Third Assessment
Report addressed global sustainability comprehensively (IPCC, 2007b)
and the Fourth Assessment (AR4) included chapters on SD in both
Working Group (WG) II and III reports with a focus on a review of both
climate-rst and development-rst literature (IPCC, 2007a,b).
9.1.1
9.2
The relationship between RE and sustainability can be viewed as a hierarchy of goals and constraints that involve both global and regional or
local considerations. In this chapter, and consistent with the conclusion
of the AR4, a starting point is that mitigation of dangerous anthropogenic climate change will be one strong driving force behind increased
use of RE technologies worldwide. To the extent that climate change
713
9.2.1
This chapter provides an overview of the role that RE can play in advancing the overarching goal of SD. Chapter 1 in this report introduces RE and
makes the link to climate change mitigation, and Chapters 2 through 7
assess the potential and impacts of specic RE technologies in isolation.
Chapter 8 focuses on the integration of renewable sources into the current energy system, and Chapters 10 and 11 discuss the economic costs
and benets of RE and climate mitigation, and of RE policies, respectively.
As an integrative chapter, this chapter assesses the role of RE from a
SD perspective by comparing and reporting the SD impacts of different
energy technologies, by drawing on still limited insights from the scenario literature with respect to SD goals, and by discussing barriers to and
opportunities of RE deployment in relation to SD. Figure 9.1 illustrates the
links of Chapter 9 to other chapters in this report.
9.2
Interactions
Between
Sustainable
Development and
Renewable Energy
9.3
Social,
Environmental
and Economic
Impacts: Global
and Regional
Assessment
9.4
Implications of
Sustainable
Development
Pathways for
Renewable Energy
9.5
Barriers and
Opportunities for
Renewable Energies
in the Context of
Sustainable
Development
Chapter 1
Introduction
Chapter 2-7
Technologies
Chapter 10
Scenario Analyses
Chapter 1
Barriers
Chapter 8
Integration
Chapter 10.6
Social Costs
714
Chapter 9
Chapter 11
Policies
Chapter 9
9.2.2
715
716
Chapter 9
Chapter 9
are relevant to energy security, whether for current systems or for the
planning of future RE systems: availability and distribution of resources,
and variability and reliability of energy supply. Given the interdependence of economic growth and energy consumption, access to a stable
energy supply is a major political concern and a technical and economic
challenge facing both developed and developing economies, since
prolonged disruptions would create serious economic and basic functionality problems for most societies (Larsen and Snderberg Petersen,
2009).
In the long term, the potential for fossil fuel scarcity and decreasing
quality of fossil reserves represents an important reason for a transition to a sustainable worldwide RE system. The issue of recoverable
fossil fuel resource amounts is contentious, with optimists (Greene
et al., 2006) countered by more pessimistic views (Campbell and
Laherrre, 1998) and cautious projections of lacking investments falling between the two poles (IEA, 2009). However, increased use of RE
permits countries to substitute away from the use of fossil fuels, such
that existing reserves of fossil fuels are depleted less rapidly and the
point at which these reserves will eventually be exhausted is shifted
farther into the future (Kruyt et al., 2009).
Concerns about limited availability and distribution of resources are
also a critical component of energy security in the short term. All else
being equal, the more reliant an energy system is on a single energy
source, the more susceptible the energy system is to serious disruptions. Examples include disruptions to oil supply, unexpectedly large
and widespread periods of low wind or solar insolation (e.g., due to
weather), or the emergence of unintended consequences of any supply source.
Dependence on energy imports, whether of fossil fuels or the technology needed for implementation of RE, represents a potential source of
energy insecurity for both developing and industrialized countries. For
example, the response of member states of the International Energy
Agency (IEA; itself created in response to the rst oil shock of the
1970s) to vulnerability to oil supply disruption has been to mandate
that countries hold stocks of oil as reserves in the amount of 90 days
of net imports. Compared to fossil fuels, RE resources are far more
evenly distributed around the globe (WEC, 2007) and in general less
traded on the world market; increasing their share in a countrys
energy portfolio can thus diminish the dependence on actual energy
imports (Grubb et al., 2006). Hence, the extent to which RE sources
contribute to the diversication of the portfolio of supply options and
reduce an economys vulnerability to price volatility (Awerbuch and
Sauter, 2006) represent opportunities to enhance energy security at
the global, the national as well as the local level (Awerbuch, 2006;
Bazilian and Roques, 2008).
The introduction of renewable technologies that vary on different
time scales, ranging from minutes to seasonal, adds a new concern
to energy security. Not only will there be concerns about disruption
717
9.3
9.3.1
9.3.1.1
With the ability to control energy ows being a crucial factor for
industrial production and socioeconomic development (Cleveland et
al., 1984; Krausmann et al., 2008), industrial societies are frequently
characterized as high-energy civilizations (Smil, 2000). Globally,
per capita incomes are positively correlated with per capita energy
use and economic growth can be identied as the most relevant
factor behind increasing energy consumption in the last decades.
Nevertheless, there is no agreement on the direction of the causal
relationship between energy use and increased macroeconomic output, as the results crucially depend on the empirical methodology
employed as well as the region and time period under study (D. Stern,
1993; Asafu-Adjaye, 2000; S. Paul and Bhattacharya, 2004; Ang, 2007,
2008; Lee and Chang, 2008).
718
Chapter 9
Chapter 9
for many developing countries today). Apart from its signicance for
productive purposes, access to clean and reliable energy constitutes
an important prerequisite for fundamental determinants of human
development including health, education, gender equality and environmental safety (UNDP, 2007).
RoW 1990
2005
Figure 9.3 depicts the correlation between the HDI (see Section 9.2.2)
and primary energy use per capita for 135 countries. The graph reveals
a positive correlation between energy use and the HDI. In particular,
countries with the highest levels of human development are also
among the largest energy consumers. For countries with a relatively
low energy demand (<84 GJ per capita), the picture is more diverse:
while some are constrained to low HDI levels (<0.5), others display
medium ones (between 0.5 and 0.8) at comparable energy consumption. With rising levels of energy consumption, saturation of the
positive relationship between energy use and HDI sets in (Martinez
and Ebenhack, 2008), which means that a certain minimum amount
of energy is required to guarantee an acceptable standard of living.
Goldemberg (2001) suggests 42 GJ per capita, after which raising
energy consumption yields only marginal improvements in the quality
of life.
China 1990
2005
Russia 1990
2005
India 1990
2005
Brazil 1990
Other
9.3.1.3
Transport
2005
Services
Households
Mexico 1990
Manufacturing
2005
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
[EJ]
Figure 9.2 | Energy use (EJ) by economic sector. Note that the underlying data are calculated using the IEA physical content method, not the direct equivalent method1 (IEA,
2008c). Note: RoW = Rest of World.
Note: 1. Historical energy data have only been available for energy use by economic sector. For a conversion of the data using the direct equivalent method, the different energy
carriers used by each economic sector would need to be known.
9.3.1.2
Employment creation
719
HDI, 2010
Chapter 9
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
9.3.1.4
720
Chapter 9
regard to transparency and revenue management. Hence, this discussion emphasizes again that the decision to adopt RE cannot be based
on a single criterion, but has to factor in a variety of aspects, including
economic costs, ancillary benets (such as energy access, energy security and reduced impacts on health and the environment), as well as
additional funding possibilities by the means of climate nance.
9.3.2
Energy access
Table 9.1 | Millions of people without access to electricity in 2009 by region; projections to 2015 and 2030 under the IEA World Energy Outlook 2010, New Policies Scenario; and
percentage of total populations with future access as a result of anticipated electrication rates (IEA, 2010b).
2009
REGION
Rural
Africa
Urban
Total
2015
2030
2009
2015
2030
Total
Total
466
121
587
636
654
42
45
57
465
120
585
635
652
31
35
50
716
82
799
725
545
78
81
88
China
99
100
100
India
380
23
404
389
293
66
70
80
Other Asia
328
59
387
331
252
65
72
82
27
31
25
10
93
95
98
1,229
210
1,438
1,404
1213
73
75
81
1,232
210
1,441
1,406
1213
79
81
85
Sub-Saharan Africa
Developing Asia
Latin America
1
Developing Countries
2
World
Notes: 1. Includes Middle East countries. 2. Includes OECD and transition economies.
721
Chapter 9
Level 3
Modern Society Needs
Level 2
Productive Uses
Level 1
Basic Human Needs
Figure 9.4 | Incremental level of access to energy services (AGECC, 2010; based on IEA data and analysis). Note: kgoe = kilogram(s) of oil equivalent.
with other grid supply options or to local social and economic issues at
household or community levels; here, access is hampered by legal land
issues or affordability.
Today, around 2.7 billion people rely on traditional biomass like wood,
charcoal and dung for cooking energy and it is estimated that another
half billion use coal (Table 9.2). Uncertainty in these estimates is high,
but the span is limited across the different data sources (IEA, 2010a). In
addition to the more than 1.4 billion with no access to electricity around
another 1.3 billion people still use biomass, kerosene, coal or liquid propane gas (LPG) for energy-demanding services such as cooking despite
having access to some form of electricity (Bravo et al., 2008; Karekezi et
al., 2008; Dhingra et al., 2009, IEA, 2010b).
More detailed analysis of these statistics is generally hampered by
very poor data about energy consumption among the poor in many
Table 9.2 | Number of people (millions) relying on traditional biomass for cooking in
2009 (IEA, 2010b).
REGION
Africa
Sub-Saharan Africa
Developing Asia
Total
657
653
1,937
China
423
India
855
Other Asia
659
Latin America
85
Developing Countries1
2,679
World2
2,679
Notes: 1. Includes Middle East countries. 2. Includes OECD and transition economies.
722
developing countries. While an increasing number of national censuses include energy-related data, the coverage is still very limited
for poor peri-urban and rural households with no ofcial registration
or land ownership (GNESD, 2008; Dhingra et al., 2009). The analytical
constraints are compounded by the lack of well-dened and generally
accepted indicators (IEA, 2010a).
The very dominant, and mainly indoor, use of traditional biomass fuels
for cooking purposes has a number of documented negative effects.
These include health impacts (Barnes et al., 2009; see Section 9.3.4.3),
social effects, like the time spent gathering fuel or the high shares
of income paid for small amounts of commercial biomass, and environmental aspects, like deforestation in areas where charcoal and
market-based biomass are the dominant fuels.
A major challenge is to reverse the pattern of inefcient consumption of biomass by changing the present, often unsustainable, use to
more sustainable and efcient alternatives. As illustrated by Figure
9.5 there is a strong correlation between low household income and
use of low-quality fuels, illustrating that it is the poorest parts of the
population who are at risk. The introduction of liquid or gaseous RE
fuels, such as ethanol gels, to replace solid biomass for cooking could
play a critical role whilst improving the health of millions of people
(Lloyd and Visagle, 2007). While LPG has already displaced charcoal
in some regions, it is a costly option for the majority of poor people and only a few countries have achieved signicant penetration
(Goldemberg et al., 2004). Replacing biomass or LPG with dimethyl
ether produced from biomass shows some potential (Larson and Yang,
2004). The scale of liquid biofuel production required to meet cooking fuel demands is less than that for meeting transport fuel demand
(Sections 8.2.4 and 8.3.1).
[GJ]
Chapter 9
50
Other Petroleum Products
LPG & Kerosene
Coal
40
Gas
Electricity
Traditional Biomass
30
20
10
0
>75
40 - 75
5 - 40
<5
Share of Population with an Income of less than USD 2 per Day [%]
Figure 9.5 | The relationship between per capita nal energy consumption and income
in developing countries (IEA, 2010b). Data refer to the most recent year available during
the period 2000 to 2008. Note: LPG = liquid petroleum gas.
Energy access through some of these technologies allows local communities to widen their energy choices. As such, these technologies
stimulate economies, provide incentives for local entrepreneurial efforts
and meet basic needs and services related to lighting and cooking,
thus providing ancillary health and education benets. For example,
the non-electrical technologies outlined above were found to exhibit
a high potential for local job generation and increased economic activity through system manufacture and renewable resource extraction and
processing (GNESD, 2007a).
Table 9.3 | Transition to renewable energy in rural (off-grid) areas (REN21, 2010).
Rural Energy Service
723
9.3.3
Energy security
In addition to reducing energy consumption and improving energy efciency, RE constitutes a further option that can enhance energy security.
This section assesses the evidence for the potential contribution of RE
technologies to energy security goals based on the two broad themes of
energy security outlined in Section 9.2.2: availability and distribution of
resources, and variability and reliability of energy sources.
The potential of RE to substitute for fossil energythat is, theoretical
and technical RE potentialsis summarized in Section 1.2 and discussed in detail in the respective technology chapters (Sections 2.2,
3.2, 4.2, 5.2, 6.2 and 7.2). Moreover, Section 11.3.3 discusses aspects of
energy policies related to energy security.
9.3.3.1
The ratio of proven reserves to current production (R/P), that is, for how
many years production at current rates could be maintained before
724
Chapter 9
Recent improvements in extraction technologies for shale gas and coal-bed methane
are expected to result in notable production of natural gas from these non-conventional
resources in the near future (IEA, 2008b).
Since 1990, proven conventional reserves of oil and natural gas have moderately grown
due to revisions in ofcial statistics, new discoveries and increased recovery factors.
However, new discoveries have lagged behind consumption. Ultimately recoverable
reserves (which include reserves that are yet to be discovered) are considerably larger
than proven reserves; their actual size crucially depends on future oil prices and development costs (IEA, 2008b).
Chapter 9
Due to the fact that a substantial share of global energy trade is channelled through a rather small number of critical geographical areas
(so-called chokepoints), it is highly vulnerable to accidents or terrorist attacks and importers face a considerable risk of supply disruption
or price hikes (E. Gupta, 2008). Figure 9.6 shows that currently the
European Union (EU-27), North America, and Asia and the Pacic region
are net oil importers4 supplying 85, 32, and 61% of their oil consumption
from foreign producers, respectively. The EU-27 also relies on imports to
meet more than half of its gas consumption, while for the Asia-Pacic
region the import share is below 15% and North America almost fully
meets demand for gas through domestic production. The Middle East,
the Former Soviet Union (FSU), Africa and to some lesser extent Latin
America are the most important exporters of oil and gas (for Africa,
exports of both oil and gas exceed domestic consumption). Even though
the EU-27 and the Middle East also rely on imports of coal,5 energy
security concerns are less salient: the former possesses reserves that
exceed its annual consumption by a factor of more than 90, while for
the latter coal only accounts for a marginal fraction of total energy use
(BGR, 2009). This particular constellation of pronounced global imbalances in energy trade leads to a situation in which countries that heavily
depend on energy imports frequently raise concerns that their energy
consumption might be seriously affected by possible supply disruptions
(Sen and Babali, 2007).
The spatial distribution of reserves, production and exports of fossil fuels
is very uneven and highly concentrated in a few regions. Over 60% of
coal reserves are located in just three regions (the USA, China and the
FSU (BP, 2010)), and in 2009 China alone accounted for about half of
global production of hard coal (IEA, 2010b). Over 75% of natural gas
reserves are held by OPEC nations and states of the FSU, and 80% of the
global gas market is supplied by the top 10 exporters (IEA, 2010b). This
heavy concentration of energy resources, many of which are located
in regions in which political events can have an adverse impact on the
extraction or export of fossil fuel resources, creates a dependency for
100
50
1.5
0
-0.6
-50
-100
-150
Coal
-200
Oil
Gas
-250
-300
Africa
Asia Pacic
EU-27
FSU
Latin America
Middle East
North America
Figure 9.6 | Energy imports as the share of total primary energy consumption (%) for coal (hard coal and lignite), crude oil and natural gas for selected world regions in 2008. Negative
values denote net exporters of energy carriers. Based on BGR (2009).
Coal imports are hard coal; due to high transportation costs, lignite coal is in general
not traded.
725
importers and raises the danger of energy supply disruptions (E. Gupta,
2008). That said, it should also be noted that exporting countries have
a vested interest in maintaining income streams from the continued
sale of fossil fuel supplies, so they are unlikely to limit exports for a
prolonged period of time.
Further, for a number of countries (Moldova, Pakistan, Trinidad and
Tobago, Madagascar, India, Ukraine, Tajikistan) the share of energy
imports in total imports exceeded 25% for the period 2000 to 2005
and it was as high as 45% for Bahrain and 40% for Sierra Leone (World
Bank, 2007b). A related indicator is the share that energy imports constitutes of export earnings and overall GDP. For example, Kenya and
Senegal spend more than half of their export earnings for importing
energy, while India spends over 45% (GNESD, 2010; Jain, 2010). Such
dependence on energy imports exposes the affected economies to a
potential risk of price uctuations. The Energy Sector Management
Program (ESMAP) of the World Bank has assessed the impacts
of higher oil prices on low income countries and the poor (ESMAP,
2005).6 Table 9.4, which summarizes these ndings, illustrates that
oil-importing developing countries are signicantly affected by oil price
increases and that a rise in oil prices of USD1999-2001 10 per barrel might
result in GDP losses of almost 1.5% for the poorest countries (with per
capita income less than USD1999-2001 300). The ESMAP national case studies also showed that the poorest households experienced the highest
percentage changes in expenditures for commercial energy purchases
of, for example, kerosene, LPG and diesel.
For these countries, increased uptake of RE technologies could further be
an avenue to redirect foreign exchange ows away from energy imports
towards imports of goods that cannot be produced locally, such as hightech capital goods. For other developing countries that are net exporters
of energy, promoting the domestic use of RE can extend the lifetime of
their fossil resource base and prolong the time to diversify the scope of
economic activities by decreasing the dependence on resource exports
while strengthening their manufacturing and service sectors.
Governments frequently try to limit the impacts of international price
increases in the short term by adjusting subsidies or providing targeted
cash support to the poorest households, rationing supply or forcing
Chapter 9
9.3.3.2
Table 9.4 | Percentage change in GDP resulting from a USD1999-2001 10 per barrel rise in oil prices1 (analytical results grouped by income levels) (ESMAP, 2005).
Net Oil Importers
GDP (%)
GDP (%)
<300
-1.47
<300
+5.21
300900
-0.76
9009,000
+4.16
9009,000
-0.56
>9,000
-0.44
Note: 1. As the grouping of countries in this table does not correspond to any regional grouping, it was not possible to convert monetary values to year 2005 USD due to a lack of
appropriate conversion factors.
It should be noted that the data are based on a large number of country case studies
and thus are not necessarily universally valid.
726
Chapter 9
Box 9.1 | Access to raw materials for future renewable resources deployment.
While renewable resources can be a powerful instrument to mitigate fossil fuel depletion, scarcity of other raw materials may pose constraints to enhanced deployment of RE technologies. Securing access to required scarce inorganic mineral raw materials (IRM), above all
precious rare earth and some specialty metals, at reasonable prices is an upcoming challenge for all industries. For the complex renewable
energies sector no specic assessment of the structure and quantity of IRM demand is available. To identify potential areas of concern
for future renewable resources deployment, a large set of technologies and possible technology pathways has to be considered; several
reports are available as starting points for such analyses (Frondel et al., 2007; Reuscher et al., 2008; Angerer et al., 2009; Ziemann and
Schebek, 2010; US DOE, 2010; EC, 2010; Kristof and Hennicke, 2010; Teipel, 2010).
The IRM supply chain has to be understood as a vulnerable system and is subject to various threats. Sources of potential market distortions are concentration processes and political instability of some major mining countries. Currently, 97% of rare earth elements, 60%
of indium and 30% of gallium production are located in China, 56% of the global chromium supply is controlled by South Africa and
Kazakhstan and 55% of cobalt is mined in politically instable regions in Africa (USGS, 2010).
With some notable exceptions (e.g., silver), future IRM constraints will be caused by imbalances of demand and supply rather than by
depletion of geological resources (Angerer, 2010). Some metals are derived as by-products, mostlyfrom ores of major or carrier metals in
which they are present in low concentrations. Their production levels depend on the demand for the major metal as the main economic
driver of extraction (Hagelken and Meskers, 2010). Typical by-product metals are gallium, germanium, indium, tellurium and selenium.
In some deposits, groups of metals may occur as coupled elements without a real carrier metal. Notable examples include the platinum
group metals andrare earth elements that generally have to be mined and processed together. In such cases, it may not be economically
viable to increase production in response to rising demand for a certain element. As a result, complex price patterns and supply risks
emerge. Market tensions also occur in response to unexpected changes in demand, for example, as a result of fast-rising prosperity in
emerging and developing countries, or technology breakthroughs that cause a demand surge or drop.
In the future, demands for certain metals are projected to multiply signicantly. Indicators that relate raw material demand by emerging
technologies in 2030 to todays total world production show that as a result of expected technical innovations the demand for gallium
and neodymium may be 6 and 3.8 times higher, respectively (Angerer et al., 2009; see Table 9.5). Demand drivers for gallium are thinlayer photovoltaics and high-speed integrated circuits, and for neodymium high-performance permanent magnets used in generators of
wind turbines and energy efcient electric motors.
The vulnerability of industrial sectors is especially large if there is
Table 9.5 | Estimated global demand for selected metals by emerging technologies
no possibility for substitution. Current examples for such a lack
in 2030 as a multiple of world production in 2006 (Angerer et al., 2009).
of substitutes include chromium in stainless steels (e.g., for tidal
Element
Multiple
power plants), cobalt in wear-resistant super alloys, scandium
Gallium
6
in lightweight alloys, indium in transparent indium-tin-oxide
Neodymium
3.8
electrodes for photovoltaic panels and neodymium in strong
Indium
3.3
permanent magnets. At the same time there are also competing
Germanium
2.4
uses of raw materials between industries. Cobalt, for instance,
Scandium
2.3
is needed for the varied and growing applications of lithium-ion
Platinum
1.6
rechargeable batteries, for catalysts in the Fischer-Tropsch process
that may be used to produce future synthetic fuels from biomass,
Tantalum
1
and is an essential component of extremely wear-resistant parts in
Silver, Tin
0.8
automotive, mechanical and medical engineering. Table 9.6 gives
Cobalt
0.4
an overview of critical raw materials in some essential components
Palladium, titanium
0.3
of renewable resources technologies.
An important future contribution to a secure IRM supply is the set-up of effective recycling systems. End-of-life products such as electronics, batteries or catalysts contain in total signicant amounts of comparably enriched metals. For RE technologies it might become crucial
to develop closed loop recycling concepts from the very beginning. Besides several environmental advantages, this could enhance the
supply situation and long-term supply security of scarce raw materials and reduce dependency on (usually more energy intensive) primary
supply while mitigating metal price volatility (Hagelken and Meskers, 2010).
727
Chapter 9
Component
Corrosion-resistant components
Transparent electrode
Indium
Thin lm semiconductor
Photovoltaics
Electric contacts
Silver
Mirror
Silver
Platinum
Electric motor
Fischer-Tropsch synthesis
Vanadium
Lithium, cobalt
Electricity storage
Electricity grid
728
energy services, but it may also broadly increase productivity and avoid
parallel investments in infrastructure, from small-scale generation
equipment to parallel lighting and cooking systems, where most households have at least two different options to hedge against unstable
supply. However, decentralized RE is competitive mostly in remote and
rural areas, while grid-connected supply generally dominates denser
areas where the majority of households reside (Deichmann et al., 2011).
9.3.4
SD must ensure environmental quality and prevent undue environmental harm. No large-scale technology deployment comes without
environmental trade-offs, and a large body of literature is available
that assesses various environmental impacts of energy technologies
from a bottom-up perspective.
The goal of this section is to review and compare available evidence
about the environmental impacts associated with current and nearfuture energy technologies, including the full supply chain. This review
is largely based on literature from lifecycle assessments (LCA). LCA
does not attempt to determine a socially optimal energy supply portfolio; its aim is to aid technology comparisons in terms of environmental
burden. While the development of sustainable strategies and portfolios
needs to be viewed from a top-down, macro-economic and systemic
perspective, bottom-up evidence from LCA provides valuable insights
about the environmental performances of different technologies
across categories. Similarly, the energy payback time (EPT, see Box
9.3) provides a measure for the lifecycle energy efciency of individual technologies, which is helpful for identifying high-quality energy
sources, but must additionally be viewed in the broader economic and
Chapter 9
Table 9.7 | Indicators of the reliability of infrastructure services (World Bank, 2007a).
Sub-Saharan Africa
Developing countries
79.9
27.5
90.9
28.7
6.1
4.4
47.5
31.8
Within this subsection, the term impacts is not used in the strict sense of its denition within the eld of LCA.
the only renewable fuels that can be considered mature and available for large-scale application. A discussion of renewable electricity
generation for charging of electric battery vehicles, and other future
pathways is provided in Section 8.3.1. A broader discussion of technology integration options is provided in Chapter 8.
Data available for different impact categories vary widely regarding
the number and quality of sources. GHG emissions are generally well
covered (Section 9.3.4.1). A signicant number of studies report on air
pollutant emissions (Section 9.3.4.2), related health impacts (Section
9.3.4.3) and operational water use (Section 9.3.4.4), but evidence is
scarce for (lifecycle) emissions to water, land use (Section 9.3.4.5) and
health impacts other than those linked to air pollution. Discussion of
impacts on biodiversity and ecosystems is limited to qualitative summaries of potential areas of concern (Section 9.3.4.6), as no quantitative
basis for comparison is available. To account for burdens associated with
accidents as opposed to normal operation, Section 9.3.4.7 provides an
overview about risks associated with energy technologies.
9.3.4.1
Climate change
This section reviews available estimates of lifecycle GHG emissions from renewable and non-renewable electricity generation
technologies and liquid transportation fuels. Positive and negative
emissions related to land use change (LUC) are omitted from both
reviews, and discussed separately, albeit with a focus on biofuels.
LUC-related GHG emissions are potentially relevant to any technology, but are most signicant for technologies that transform
substantial amounts of land, and induce changes in carbon stocks of
that land. For bioenergy systems, LUC impacts could reduce, negate or
enhance potential GHG emission reduction benets depending on the
circumstance and assumptions. Methane emissions from submersed
biomass or organic sediments may produce substantial emissions for
certain hydropower reservoirs. However, the state of the science regarding actual net emissions from hydropower reservoirs is unresolved (see
Section 5.6.3 for details). Research on LUC related to resource extraction
for fossil fuels, for example, mountaintop-removal coal mining (Fox and
Campbell, 2010) or oil production (Yeh et al., 2010), is nascent (Gorissen
et al., 2010).
729
Chapter 9
Figure 9.7 | Illustration of generalized lifecycle stages for an energy technology. Fuel
cycle applies to fossil and nuclear chains and bioenergy.
LUC-related GHG emissions are excluded from the reviews for the
following reasons:
Uncertainty in LUC estimates stems from many sources that are currently unresolved and inconsistent, including: modelling and estimation
methods; data and modelling resolution (spatial, temporal, categorical);
system boundary and vintage; allocation of impacts among primary
products, co-products and residues; assumptions about the policy context and market size and characteristics; projections of technological
730
Chapter 9
Technology
Low value
High value
Low value
High value
1.9
3.7
30
2.0
5.4
0.5
3.6
30
2.5
20.0
1.0
2.6
30
2.9
10.1
1.9
3.9
30
1.9
5.6
1.2
3.6
30
2.5
8.6
Heavy-water reactors
2.4
2.6
40
2.9
5.6
Light-water reactors
0.8
3.0
40
2.5
16.0
Photovoltaics
0.2
8.0
25
0.8
47.4
Concentrating solar
0.7
7.5
25
1.0
10.3
Geothermal
0.6
3.6
30
2.5
14.0
Wind turbines
0.1
1.5
25
5.0
40.0
Hydroelectricity
0.1
3.5
70
6.0
280.0
Other uncertainties related to estimation of GHG emissions from bioenergy in particular include N2O emissions from fertilization and soils
(Crutzen et al., 2008; E. Davidson, 2009), how technologies perform
731
Chapter 9
2,000
1,750
Maximum
1,500
75th Percentile
Median
1,250
25th Percentile
Minimum
1,000
Single Estimates
with CCS
750
500
250
Natural Gas
Oil
Coal
10
126
125
83(+7)
24
169(+12)
Count of
References
52(+0)
26
13
11
49
32
36(+4)
10
50(+10)
Wind Energy
28
Ocean Energy
Hydropower
42
-1,000
Geothermal Energy
124
-750
222(+4)
-500
Photovoltaics
Count of
Estimates
-250
Biopower
Nuclear Energy
-1,250
* Avoided Emissions, no Removal of GHGs from the Atmosphere
-1,500
Figure 9.8 | Estimates of lifecycle GHG emissions (g CO2eq/kWh) for broad categories of electricity generation technologies, plus some technologies integrated with CCS. Land-use
related net changes in carbon stocks (mainly applicable to biopower and hydropower from reservoirs) and land management impacts are excluded; negative estimates1 for biopower
are based on assumptions about avoided emissions from residues and wastes in landll disposals and co-products. References and methods for the review are reported in Annex II. The
number of estimates is greater than the number of references because many studies considered multiple scenarios. Numbers reported in parentheses pertain to additional references
and estimates that evaluated technologies with CCS. Distributional information relates to estimates currently available in LCA literature, not necessarily to underlying theoretical or
practical extrema, or the true central tendency when considering all deployment conditions.
Note: 1. Negative estimates within the terminology of lifecycle assessments presented in this report refer to avoided emissions. Unlike the case of bioenergy combined with CCS,
avoided emissions do not remove GHGs from the atmosphere.
732
Chapter 9
Also, some existing formations may have high operational emissions of CO2 due to
conguration and high dissolved CO2 concentrations in geothermal uids, which are
not reected in LCA literature assessed. See Sections 4.5.1 and 4.5.2 for details.
In late 2010, some controversy emerged over potential revisions to the GHG prole of natural gas. Some observers believe that methane leakage associated with
upstream production and transport of natural gas is higher than historically categorized. See EPA (2010a) and Lustgarten (2011) for views of this emerging controversy.
733
Chapter 9
lower lifecycle GHG emissions compared to vehicles fuelled with existing biofuels if electricity from renewable sources is used, or higher
emissions than petroleum-based fuels if carbon-intensive fossil-based
power generation is used (Creutzig et al., 2009; van Vliet et al., 2011).
Although there is signicant overlap in the ranges of lifecycle GHG emissions for virtually all biofuels, not all biofuel systems are equally efcient
in reducing GHG emissions compared to their petroleum counterparts.
For example, ethanol from Brazilian sugarcane has lower GHG emissions
than that produced from wheat and corn (von Blottnitz and Curran,
2007; S. Miller, 2010). Estimates are reasonably comparable for biodiesel derived from rapeseed and soybean (Hill et al., 2006; CONCAWE,
2008; Huo et al., 2009a; Hoefnagels et al., 2010). Without LUC, palm oil
biodiesel could have similar lifecycle GHG emissions as rapeseed and
soybean biodiesel when the palm plantation and palm oil mill efuent
120
Petroleum
Gasoline
Ethanol
Biodiesel
RD and FTD
Lignocellulosic FTD
Rapeseed RD (EU)
Soybean RD (US)
-40
Soybean (US)
-20
Rapeseed (EU)
Lignocellulosic
20
Corn (US)
40
Wheat (EU)
60
Sugarcane (Brazil)
80
100
Figure 9.9 | Illustrative ranges in lifecycle GHG emissions of petroleum fuels, rst-generation biofuels and selected next-generation lignocellulosic biofuels without considering land
use change. (Sources for estimates plotted: Wu et al., 2005; Fleming et al., 2006; Hill et al., 2006, 2009; Beer et al., 2007; Wang et al., 2007; CONCAWE, 2008; Macedo and Seabra,
2008; NETL, 2008, 2009; CARB, 2009; Hoefnagels et al., 2010; Hsu et al., 2010; Kaliyan et al., 2010; Larson et al., 2010; Neely et al 2010). Note: FTD = Fischer-Tropsch diesel; RD =
Renewable diesel (RD is different from biodiesel in processing and product properties). For common feedstock and fuel categories shown in both Figure 2.10 and above (e.g., sugarcane
ethanol, FTD), the references cited and the ranges of GHG emission estimates are identical.
10 Sections 2.3 and 2.5 provide more detailed reviews of biofuel technologies and
congurations, including lifecycle GHG emissions.
734
Chapter 9
emission reduction benets for the use of bioenergy can accrue (Gibbs
et al., 2008). Results reported in Figure 9.10 are totals averaged over a
30-year time horizon. Not considered in the analyses reviewed here is
the time signature of these GHG emissions (an initial pulse followed by
a long tail), which is an important determinant of GHG climate impacts.
The lack of commercial-scale lignocellulosic feedstocks and fuels production leads to a high degree of uncertainty in estimates of lifecycle
GHG emissions for these systems. Uncertainty analysis indicates that the
GHG emissions of some projected lignocellulosic biofuel supply chains
could be higher than shown in Figure 9.9 assuming a combination of
worst-case conditions in different elements of the supply chain (e.g.,
poorly managed biomass production practices, and energy-intensive
biomass pre-processing) (Soimakallio et al., 2009; Hsu et al., 2010).
However, lignocellulosic biofuels under well-managed conditions can
have lower GHG emissions than grain ethanol and oilseed biodiesel.
The total lifecycle GHG emissions of fuels critically depend on the sign
and magnitude of direct and indirect LUC effects, which could potentially
negate or exceed any GHG reduction benet from the displacement of
petroleum fuels by biofuels discussed in this section (Berndes et al., 2010).
Land use change-related greenhouse gas emissions and
bioenergy
Conversion from one land cover type or use to another directly and
indirectly affects terrestrial GHG stocks and ows, and historically has
been a signicant contributor to global GHG emissions (IPCC, 1996b; Le
Quere et al., 2009). Agriculture and forestry systems are important drivers of these land use changes, with energy systems (especially bioenergy
but also reservoir hydropower, mining and petroleum extraction) being
an additional stressor (Schlamadinger, 1997). While GHG emissions from
LUC are difcult to quantify, they are important to investigate and evaluate, since any potential GHG emission reduction benets from increased
use of bioenergy compared to fossil energy sources could be partially or
wholly negated when LUC-related GHG emissions are considered.
Direct LUC (dLUC) occurs when bioenergy feedstock production modies
an existing land use, resulting in a change in above- and below-ground
carbon stocks. dLUC-related GHG emissions are dependent on sitespecic conditions such as the prior land use, soil type, local climate,
crop management practices and the bioenergy crop to be grown. In the
examples shown in Figure 9.10, the original land use is generally a more
important factor in determining dLUC-related GHG emissions than the
bioenergy feedstock type planted. The conversion of certain land types
(e.g., rainforest and peatland) can lead to very large GHG emissions;
conversely, the use of degraded land and sometimes former farmland
(e.g., when using lignocellulosic feedstocks) can enhance carbon stocks.
Any dLUC-related GHG emissions must be repaid over time before GHG
735
Wheat (Europe)
Maize (US)
Sugarcane (Brazil)
Average Case
Chapter 9
Jatropha (Tanzania)
Soybean (Brazil)
1,000
800
600
400
200
Logged-Over
Forest
Degraded
Land
Tropical
Rain Forest
Tropical
Moist Forest
Grassland
Miombo
Woodland (Wet)
Logged over
Woodland
Cropland
Woody Cerrado
and Cerrado
Grassland
Degraded
Pasture
Grassland
Abandoned
Cropland
Former Pasture
Land
Former Set
Aside Land
-200
wastes; and promoting the use of degraded or marginal lands or sustainability certication systems (van Dam et al., 2009; Berndes et al., 2010; see
Sections 2.2.4, 2.4.5, 2.5.2 and 2.8.4).
9.3.4.2
This section presents data on selected air pollutants that are emitted
by energy technologies and that have the most important impacts on
human health as indicated by the World Health Organization (WHO,
2006). These include particulate matter11 (PM), nitrous oxides (NOx),
sulphur dioxide (SO2) and non-methane volatile organic compounds
(NMVOC). Their dispersion in the atmosphere entails signicant impacts
at the local and regional scale (up to a few thousand kilometres) (e.g.,
Hirschberg et al., 2004b). Black carbon, which constitutes a fraction of
total PM emissions, and other aerosols can also have impacts on global
and regional climate (see Box 9.4). The location-specic impacts from air
pollutants depend on exposure, their concentrations in the atmosphere,
as well as the concentrations of further pollutants acting as reactants,
for example, for formation of secondary particulates (e.g., Kalberer et al.,
2004; Andreani-Aksoyoglu et al., 2008; Hallquist et al., 2009). Air pollu11 PM emissions are specied as PMd, where the subscript d indicates the largest
diameter (in m) of the particles that are included. Particles emitted by internal combustion engines are all very small and almost entirely included in the PM2.5 measure.
736
Figure 9.10 | Illustrative direct LUC-related GHG emission estimates from selected land use types and rst-generation biofuel (ethanol and biodiesel) feedstocks. Results are taken
from Hoefnagels et al. (2010) and Fargione et al. (2008) and, where necessary, converted (assuming a 30-year timeframe) to the functional units displayed using data from Hoefnagels
et al. (2010) and EPA (2010b). Ranges are based on different co-product allocation methods (i.e., allocation by mass, energy and market value).
200
Total Uncertainty Range
150
100
50
-50
References:
European
Wheat
Ethanol
US Maize
Ethanol
Brazilian
Sugarcane
Ethanol
Soybean
Biodiesel
Rapeseed
Biodiesel
2
Figure 9.11 | Illustrative estimates of direct and indirect LUC-related GHG emissions
induced by several rst-generation biofuel pathways, reported here as ranges in central
tendency and total reported uncertainty. Estimates reported here combine several different uncertainty calculation methods and central tendency measures and assume a
30-year time frame. Reported under the x-axis is the number of references with results
falling within these ranges (Sources: Searchinger et al., 2008; Al-Riffai et al., 2010; EPA,
2010b; Fritsche et al., 2010; Hertel et al., 2010; Tyner et al., 2010).
Chapter 9
Box 9.4 | Black carbon and aerosols: Climate effects of air pollutants.
Black carbon (BC) is a short-lived air pollutant formed by incomplete combustion of fossil or biomass fuels. Prime sources of BC are
agricultural and forest res, (diesel) combustion engines, in particular maritime vessels running on heavy oil, and residential use of heating and cooking fuels (Bond et al., 2004; Lack et al., 2008). BC emissions are particularly high in developing countries. BC has detrimental
health effects (see Section 9.3.4.3), and can accelerate climate change both through its heat-absorbing properties in the atmosphere, and
by reducing the albedo of cloud, snow and ice surfaces (Ramanathan and Carmichael, 2008; Flanner et al., 2009; Lau et al., 2010). BC is
emitted together with organic carbon (OC), and other aerosols like sulphates, that have a negative effect on radiative forcing. Therefore,
the net warming effect of aerosol emissions from combustion is source- and location-dependent, and still uncertain. Available literature
suggests that contained combustion of fossil fuels and residential combustion of solid biomass results in net warming, while the net
effects of open combustion (eld res) of biomass sources are negative, due to a higher ratio of reective OC to absorptive BC aerosols
(Bond et al., 2004; M. Jacobson, 2004; Hansen et al., 2005; Koch et al., 2007). Both processes play a prominent role in the formation of
atmospheric brown clouds and other processes that exhibit strong regional climate impacts (Ramanathan et al., 2005, 2007), for example,
alteration of the Indian Monsoon (Auffhammer et al., 2006) or larger warming in elevated regions of the tropics (Gautam et al., 2009).
BC abatement has been proposed as a signicant means not only for climate change mitigation, but also for addressing additional
sustainability concerns such as air pollution, inefcient energy services, and related health impacts on the poor (Grieshop et al., 2009). The
provision of energy efcient and smoke-free cookers and soot-reducing technologies for coal combustion in small industries could have
major benets by reducing radiative forcing and combating indoor air pollution and respiratory diseases in urban centres (Ramanathan
and Carmichael, 2008; see Sections 2.5.4 and 9.3.4.3). A switch from diesel to LPG in the public transport system in Delhi has resulted in
net GHG savings and substantial reductions in BC loads (C. Reynolds and Kandlikar, 2008). However, it has been suggested that removing
the masking effect of reective aerosols through air pollution control measures might accelerate the impacts from already-committed-to
warming (Ramanathan and Feng, 2008; Carmichael et al., 2009).
tion also varies signicantly between urban and rural areas. Therefore,
cumulative lifecycle inventory results, that is, quantities of pollutants
emitted per unit of energy delivered, must be interpreted with care
regarding conclusions about potential impacts on human health and
the environment (Torfs et al., 2007). The following results can only act
as basic data for the estimation of specic impacts (see Section 9.3.4.3).
Indoor air pollution caused by solid fuels in traditional cookstoves is
discussed in Box 9.4 and Section 9.3.4.3.
Heat and electricity supply
For space heating and electricity production with fossil fuels and
biomass (wood) combustion, the dominant contributor to lifecycle
inventory results (per kWh of end-use energy) is the combustion stage,
with typically a 70 to almost 100% share of the overall emissions (e.g.,
Jungbluth et al., 2005; C. Bauer, 2007; Dones et al., 2007) (see Figure
9.12). However, in the case of long distance transport of coal, natural
gas, oil and wood fuel, the transport stage might become more important (e.g., C. Bauer, 2007, 2008). In general, natural gas causes the
lowest emissions among fossil fuels. Contributions of different sections
of the energy chains as well as total emissions vary within orders of
magnitude with power plant technology, application of pollution control technologies (ue gas desulphurization, particulate lters, etc.) and
characteristics of fuel feedstock applied, as indicated by minimum and
maximum values in Figure 9.12.
In the case of space heating, for example, minimum and maximum gures represent the most and least efcient technology options among
the datasets evaluated. Additionally, the type of fuel (e.g., wood logs,
chips or pellets in case of biomass) affects the results. The gures for
solar heating are valid for a certain location in central Europe, and variation in solar irradiation is not considered in the range shown. In the case
of fossil electricity generation, the results include country-specic averages for current technology and fuel supply for all European and a few
other countries, such as the USA and China. Minimum and maximum
values therefore mainly represent the countries with the most and least
efcient power plant and pollution control technology, respectively.
The results from this assessment show that non-combustion RE technologies and nuclear power cause comparatively minor emissions of
air pollutants, only from upstream and downstream processes. Also,
the variations in the results, depending on both technologies applied
and site of power generation (in terms of, for example, solar irradiation (Jungbluth et al., 2009) and wind conditions (EWEA, 2004)), are
in general much lower for RE and nuclear than for fossil power and
heating systems. The potential increase in overall emissions from the
power system due to a more exible operation of fossil power plants
in response to feed-in of variable renewable electricity is not taken into
account. Although not shown in Figure 9.12, the type of electricity used
for the operation of the geothermal heat pump has a signicant impact
on the performance of this technology (Heck, 2007).
LCA literature including results on air pollution in developing countries
is scarce, and available case studies could not be integrated into the
results displayed in a consistent way. However, emissions at the higher
737
[g/kWh]
(a)
Chapter 9
Electricity
Heat
30
NOx minimum
NOx maximum
25
SO2 minimum
SO2 maximum
20
15
10
0
Boiler
Boiler
Boiler
Coal
Oil
Natural
Gas
[g/kWh]
(b)
Wood,
Boiler
Biogas,
Cogen
Biomass
Thermal
Collector
Solar
Steam
Turbine
Steam
Turbine,
incl CCS
Hard Coal
Steam
Turbine
Steam
Turbine,
incl CCS
Lignite
Steam
Turbine
Oil
Combined Combined
Cycle
Cycle, incl.
CCS
Steam
Turbine
Natural Gas
Gen II
Reactor
Nuclear
Wood,
Steam
Turbine
Biogas,
Cogen
Biomass
Run-ofPV,
River & Roof-Top
Reservoirs
Hydro
Solar
Thermal
Solar
On- &
Offshore
Enhanced
Geoth.
System
Wind
Geoth.
2.5
PM2.5 minimum
PM2.5 maximum
NMVOC minimum
2.0
NMVOC maximum
Not Analyzed
1.5
1.0
0.5
X
0.0
Boiler
Boiler
Boiler
Coal
Oil
Natural
Gas
Wood,
Boiler
Biogas,
Cogen
Biomass
Thermal
Collector
Solar
Steam
Turbine
Steam
Turbine,
incl CCS
Hard Coal
Steam
Turbine
Steam
Turbine,
incl CCS
Lignite
Steam
Turbine
Oil
Combined Combined
Cycle
Cycle, incl.
CCS
Natural Gas
Steam
Turbine
Gen II
Reactor
Nuclear
Wood,
Steam
Turbine
Biogas,
Cogen
Biomass
Run-ofPV,
River & Roof-Top
Reservoirs
Hydro
Solar
Thermal
Solar
On- &
Offshore
Enhanced
Geoth.
System
Wind
Geoth.
Figure 9.12 | Cumulative lifecycle emissions per unit of energy generated of (a) NOx and SO2 and (b) NMVOC and PM2.5 for current heat and electricity supply technologies
(C. Bauer, 2008; Viebahn et al., 2008; Ecoinvent, 2009); traditional biomass use not considered. Figures for coal and gas power chains with CCS are valid for near-future forecasts
(C. Bauer et al., 2009).
738
Chapter 9
end of the ranges shown may typically apply to developing economies that use older technologies, have less pollution control measures
in place and possibly consume lower-quality fuels. Also, lack of environmental regulation in developing countries results in comparatively
higher emissions. Molina and Molina (2004) report outdoor urban air
pollution in cities from industry, energy and transport that is a factor
of 10 or higher than in developed nations; the location of the emission
sources in combination with the prevailing meteorological conditions
are important factors in this respect. Air pollution abatement has gained
importance since the early 1990s, in particular in China, resulting in a
slowdown of sulphur emissions in Asia (Carmichael et al., 2002). The
substantial potential of RE to contribute to air pollution abatement has
been studied in particular for emerging economies electricity and transport sectors (Boudri et al., 2002; Aunan et al., 2004; Ramanathan and
Carmichael, 2008; Creutzig and He, 2009; see Sections 9.4.4 and 10.6).
Transport fuels
Under a lifecycle approach, well-to-wheels air pollutant emissions of
biomass fuel/vehicle systems differ signicantly. These differences are
caused by the feedstock used for fuel production, biomass yields, fuel
production pathways and technologies, location of biomass growth and
harvesting, as well as fuel characteristics and vehicle technologies (von
Blottnitz and Curran, 2007; Cherubini and Strmman, 2011).
The use of gaseous fuelsboth fossil and biomass origintends to
reduce air pollution compared to liquid fuels (Zah et al., 2007). The
effects of using biomass fuels and bioethanol and biodiesel blends
on tailpipe emissions have been examined by numerous authors with
varying results (Schifter et al., 2004, 2011; Niven, 2005; Coelho et al.,
2006; Fernando et al., 2006; Goldemberg et al., 2008; Graham et al.,
2008; Pang et al., 2008; Coronado et al., 2009; Costa and Sodr, 2009;
Demirbas, 2009; Hilton and Duddy, 2009; Roayaei and Taheri, 2009;
Yanowitz and McCormick, 2009; Yoon et al., 2009; Zhai et al., 2009; Park
et al., 2010). Fuel blends, combustion and ambient temperatures as well
as additives play a decisive role in air pollutant formation (Lucon et
al., 2005; Coelho et al., 2006; Graham et al., 2008; Ginnebaugh et al.,
2010). Overall, the studies tend to agree that carbon monoxide (CO) and
hydrocarbon emissions are reduced by use of both ethanol and biodiesel
blends compared to gasoline and diesel, respectively, while NOx emissions seem to be higher. Increased NOx and evaporative emissions from
oxygenates of biofuel blends can lead to higher concentrations of tropospheric ozone (Schifter et al., 2004; Agarwal, 2007). Increased aldehyde
emissions have been reported for bioethanol in Brazil, which are less
toxic than the formaldehydes originating from fossil fuels (Goldemberg
et al., 2008; Graham et al., 2008; Anderson, 2009). Second-generation
and future biofuels are expected to improve performance, when the
combustion system is specically adapted (Pischinger et al., 2008; Uner
and Mller-Langer, 2009).
Notter et al. (2010) and Zackrisson et al. (2010) suggested that future
electric or fuel cell vehicles (see Section 8.3.1) offer a substantial potential
for reductions in air pollution (as well as other environmental burdens)
if electricity or hydrogen from RE sources is used as the energy carrier.
Shifting emissions from urban to less-populated areas can result in less
exposure and therefore reduced impacts on human health (see Section
9.3.4.3). Despite increases in total emissions, some bioethanol blends
used in ex-fuel vehicles in Brazil contributed to reductions of up to 30%
in urban emissions, as most emissions originated from farming equipment, fertilizer manufacture and ethanol plants located in rural areas
(Huo et al., 2009b). Similarly, the formation of secondary pollutants as
aerosols and ozone in towns might be reduced, depending on atmospheric conditions including background concentrations of pollutants.
9.3.4.3
Health impacts
Table 9.9 | Health impacts of important air pollutants (adapted from Bickel and Friedrich, 2005).
Primary Pollutants1
Secondary
Pollutants2
Impacts
cardio-pulmonary morbidity (cerebrovascular and respiratory hospital admissions, heart failure, chronic bronchitis, upper and lower respiratory symptoms, aggravation of asthma), mortality
Particles
(PM10, PM 2.5, black carbon)
SO2
sulphates
like particles3
NOx
nitrates
NOx+VOC
ozone
CO
Polyaromatic Hydrocarbon
cancers
Lead, Mercury
Notes: 1. Emitted by pollution source. 2. created by chemical reactions in the atmosphere. 3. lack of specic evidence, as most available epidemiological studies are based on mass
PM without distinction of components or characteristics.
739
Chapter 9
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
2008 2030
2008 2030
2008 2030
2008 2030
Malaria
Tuberculosis
Smoke from
Biomass
HIV/AIDS
Figure 9.13 | Premature deaths from household air pollution and other diseases in 2008
and projected for 2030 (IEA, 2010a).
Oanh and Dung, 1999; Bailis and Cutler, 2004; Zhang and Smith,
2007). Mitigation optionsbesides the more costly switch to cleaner
fuels (see Section 9.3.2)for health impacts from IAP include
improved cookstoves (ICS), ventilation and building design and
behavioural changes (Smith et al., 2000; Bruce et al., 2004; Mehta
and Shahpar, 2004; Palanivelraja and Manirathinem, 2010). Modern
bioenergy technologies (ICS, biogas) can provide health benets without fuel switching (Smith et al., 2007; Bailis et al., 2009), as well as
additional environmental and social advantages (Haines et al., 2009)
(see Section 2.5.7.2).
Non-combustion-related health impacts
Health impacts from energy technologies other than those described
above can be regarded as relatively minor. Table 9.10 provides an
overview of areas of concern for RE technologies as identied in this
report.
For nuclear power, radiotoxicity of spent fuels and uranium tailings,
including windblown radioactive dust dispersal, and radon gas from
the mining stage are the most prominent health concerns (OECD/NEA,
2002; Abdelouas, 2006; Al-Zoughool and Krewski, 2009). Increased
cancer risk for residents, particularly children, near nuclear power
plants has been studied with contrasting results in different countries
(Ghirga, 2010).
Table 9.10 | Overview of potential impacts on human health by RE technologies as reported in Sections 2.5, 4.6, 5.6 and 7.6. For solar and ocean technologies, no impacts were
identied.
RE Technology
Bioenergy
Depending on feedstock and agricultural management, direct and indirect exposure to agrochemicals and derivatives like pesticides or nitrates, or smoke due to
residue burning may cause local impacts
Health impacts related to air pollutant emissions by combustion1
Geothermal Energy
For some operations, hydrogen sulphide emission may cause local impacts
Reservoir Hydropower
Standing water bodies can lead to spread of vector-borne diseases in tropical areas
Concentrations of population and migrant workers during construction of large dams may cause public health concerns
Wind Energy
740
Chapter 9
9.3.4.4
Water
741
Chapter 9
Recirculating Cooling
Once-Through
Cooling
Pond
Cooling
Hybrid Cooling
209 m3/MWh
Dry
Cooling
Non Renewables
Non-Thermal
Technologies
Renewables
CSP
Biopower Steam
Biopower Biogas
Nuclear
Natural Gas CC
Coal
Coal IGCC
Biopower Steam
Nuclear
Natural Gas CC
Coal
Biopower Steam
Nuclear
Natural Gas CC
Coal
CSP
Biopower Biogas
Natural Gas CC
CSP
PV
Wind
Ocean
Hydropower
N:
18
16
11
Sources:
11
Figure 9.14 | Ranges of rates of operational water consumption by thermal and non-thermal electricity-generating technologies based on a review of available literature (m3/MWh).
Bars represent absolute ranges from available literature, diamonds single estimates; n represents the number of estimates reported in the sources. Note that upper values for hydropower result from few studies measuring gross evaporation values, and may not be representative (see Box 5.2). Methods and references used in this literature review are reported
in Annex II.
Notes: CSP: concentrating solar power; CCS: carbon capture and storage; IGCC: integrated gasication combined cycle; CC: combined cycle; PV: photovoltaic.
al., 2006). Hydroelectric facilities can impact both temperature and dissolved oxygen content of the released water while also altering the ow
regime, disturbing ecosystems and disrupting the sediment distribution
process (Cushman, 1985; Liu and Yu, 1992; Jager and Smith, 2008; see
Section 5.6). Tidal energy facilities located at the mouths of estuaries
could affect the hydrology and salinity of estuaries and ocean thermal
742
Chapter 9
nearby freshwater wells (Brophy, 1997; Dogdu and Bayari, 2004; see
Section 4.5).
Water use of upstream processes
Water use in upstream processes (see Figure 9.7) can be high for some
energy technologies, particularly for fuel extraction and biomass feedstock production (Fthenakis and Kim, 2010). Specically, unconventional
fossil fuel (e.g., oil shale, shale gas) exploration and processing techniques can have signicantly greater water use rates than conventional
exploration techniques, and may require freshwater to be imported from
other watersheds (GAO, 2010; Kargbo et al., 2010; Partt, 2010; Veil,
2010). Further research is necessary to determine water use as a function of output energy content of the extracted fuel in unconventional
production to facilitate comparison to other conventionally produced
fuels.
Biomass feedstock may be used for electricity generation or converted
into liquid fuels. To account for both naturally variable precipitation and
irrigation freshwater required in feedstock production, the water footprint metric is used (Gerbens-Leenes et al., 2009). The water footprint of
feedstock production is highly dependent on feedstock type, geographic
region and local climatic conditions, and crop management practices
(Berndes, 2002, 2008; Gerbens-Leenes et al., 2009; Wu et al., 2009;
Harto et al., 2010; Stone et al., 2010). These factors may change from
year to year, and the water footprint for an individual case may differ
substantially from the global average. Estimates of water footprints for
biomass grown for multiple purposes can also vary signicantly due to
the choice of allocation method (S. Singh and Kumar, 2011).
The current water footprint of biomass feedstock production for
electricity generation is approximately 70 to 400 times greater than
operational water consumption requirements for thermal power plants
(Gerbens-Leenes et al., 2009; S. Singh and Kumar, 2011). The current
global average water footprint (weighted by production mass) of
biofuel feedstock production ranges from about 60 to 600 litres per
MJ fuel (Gerbens-Leenes et al., 2009). Biodiesel feedstock water footprints are nearly two to four times greater than the water footprint for
ethanol crops, because oilseed crops are less water efcient (GerbensLeenes et al., 2009; S. Singh and Kumar, 2011). Rening and processing
biofuels require around 0.1 to 0.5 litres of water per MJ fuel, which is
far less than feedstock production requirements but still considerably
higher than those of conventional petroleum products (Berndes, 2002;
King and Webber, 2008; Wu et al., 2009; Harto et al., 2010; S. Singh
and Kumar, 2011).
Without proper management, increased bioenergy production could
therefore increase competition for water in critical areas (see Section
2.5.5.1; Dornburg et al., 2008; Berndes, 2010; Fingerman et al., 2010).
However, the proportion of irrigation freshwater to total water consumed varies considerably, and the relationship between vegetation
and hydrological processes at the landscape scale is complex. Certain
9.3.4.5
Land use
743
In particular, the assessment of environmental impacts of land transformation is very complex, with many methodological challenges yet to be
solved (Dubreuil et al., 2007; Scholz, 2007). These include issues such
as landscape fragmentation (Jordaan et al., 2009), impacts on life support functions and ecosystem services, impacts on naturalness of areas,
like regeneration times after different types of use, and impacts on
biodiversity (Lindeijer, 2000; Scholz, 2007; Schmidt, 2008) (see Section
9.3.4.6).
For fossil energy chains and nuclear power, land use is dominated by
upstream and downstream processes (see Figure 9.7), depending on
type of mining operations or extraction (e.g., onsite, leaching, surface
or underground mining), quality of mineral deposits and fuel, and supply infrastructure (Hirschberg et al., 2006; Fthenakis and Kim, 2009;
Jordaan et al., 2009). As a result of high ash content, waste disposal
sites contribute signicantly to land use of coal red power stations
(Mishra, 2004; NRC, 2010). Aboveground land transformation of nuclear
power chains has lower ranges than do fossil fuel chains. However, the
necessity of maintaining future disposal sites for high-level radioactive
waste shielded from access for very long time spans (10,000 to 100,000
years) can increase the occupational land use of nuclear facilities substantially (Gagnon et al., 2002; Fthenakis and Kim, 2009).
For most RE sources, land use requirements are largest during the
operational stage. An exception is the land intensity of bioenergy from
dedicated feedstocks, which is signicantly higher than for any other
energy technology and shows substantial variations in energy yields per
hectare for different feedstocks and climatic zones. If biomass from residues or organic wastes is used, additional land use is small (see Section
2.3.1).
To the extent that solar PV and solar thermal installations can be roofmounted, operational land use is negligible, while for central PV plants
and CSP design considerations can inuence extent and exclusiveness
of the land use (Tsoutsos et al., 2005; Denholm and Margolis, 2008; see
Section 3.6.1). Geothermal generation has very low aboveground direct
land use, but it increases considerably if the geothermal eld is included
for risk of land subsidence (Evans et al., 2009). The conservation of
scenic landscapes and outstanding natural features, and related conicts with tourism may arise as areas of concern (see Section 4.5.3.3).
Similarly, the obstruction of landscape views both on- and offshore has
emerged as an issue for wind energy (see Section 7.6.3.2).
744
Chapter 9
Run-of-river hydropower has very low lifecycle land use, while the values
for reservoir hydropower differ greatly depending on the physical conditions of the site (Gagnon et al., 2002). The impoundment and presence
of a reservoir stands out as the most signicant source of impacts (Egr
and Milewski, 2002), with social issues such as involuntary population
displacement or the destruction of cultural heritage adding a critical
social dimension (see Sections 9.5.1 and 5.6.1.7). In the case of multipurpose reservoir use, inundation effects cannot be exclusively attributed to
electricity generation (see Section 5.10). For wind, wave and ocean or
tidal current energy, spacing between the facilities is needed for energy
dissipation. Thus, the total land or ocean area transformed is quite large,
but secondary uses such as farming, shing and recreation activities
are often feasible (Denholm et al., 2009; M. Jacobson, 2009), though
constrained access for competing uses may be an issue for certain ocean
technologies (see Section 6.5.2).
To conclude, it should be noted that land requirements for the establishment and upgrade of distribution and supply networks of future energy
systems may be substantial, and may increase in the future with rising
shares of variable renewable sources.
9.3.4.6
Fragmentation of habitats, degradation of ecosystems and disturbance of certain species, for example, by infrastructure, harvesting
operations or modications in the built environment; and
Chapter 9
Table 9.11 | Overview of potential negative impacts and concerns regarding ecosystems and biodiversity related to RE technologies as reported in Chapters 2 through 7 of this report;
in depth discussion of technology-specic impacts and appropriate mitigation measures can be found in Sections 2.5.5, 3.6.1, 4.5.3, 5.6.1, 6.5.2, 7.6.2 and 7.6.5.
Bioenergy (dedicated feedstocks)
Loss of high quality natural habitats by conversion to managed lands, pressure on conservation areas, effects on agro-biodiversity and
wildlife by agricultural intensication, soil degradation, eutrophication and pesticide emissions to aquatic habitats, introduction of
invasive or genetically modied species
Bioenergy (residues)
Residue removal may lead to soil degradation, loss of woody debris habitats in forestry systems
Disturbance through installation stage, plant community change due to shading effects
CSP
Geothermal
Impacts of hazardous chemicals in brine uids in case of surface disposal, modications of habitats in conservation areas
Alteration of littoral, riverine and lentic ecosystems, interference with sh migratory routes, reduced access to spawning grounds and
rearing zones, change in sediment loads of the river
Habitat and special biotope loss through inundation (change of terrestrial to aquatic and riverine to lentic ecosystems), impacts of
changes in chemical composition and water temperature (downstream), changes in seasonal ow and ooding regimes, extirpation
of native species/introduction of non-native species, alteration of the hydrological cycle downstream
Alteration of marine and coastal ecosystems, changes in water turbidity, salinity and sediment movements in estuary affecting
vegetation, sh and bird breeding spaces
Up-welling effect of nutrient rich water to surface may impact aquatic life
Rotating turbine blades, noise, vibration and electromagnetic elds may impact sensitive species (elasmobranchs, marine mammals),
disturbance of pelagic habitats and benthic communities
Wind (Onshore)
Disturbance of air routes of migratory birds, collision fatalities of birds/raptors and bats, avoidance or displacement from an area,
reduced reproduction
Wind (Offshore)
Sound waves during construction may negatively affect marine mammals, disturbance of benthic habitats
the technology chapters (see Sections 2.5.5, 3.6.1, 4.5.3, 5.6.1, 6.5.2,
7.6.2 and 7.6.5).
Scientic evidence regarding the impacts of RE technologies on biodiversity varies: for bioenergy, both local impacts of different feedstock
production systems and consequences of large-scale deployment have
been studied. There is evidence for both positive and negative local
impacts of different feedstock production and management systems
(including use of organic residues) on biodiversity (e.g., Semere and
Slater, 2007; Firbank, 2008; Fitzherbert et al., 2008; Baum et al., 2009;
Lovett et al., 2009; Schulz et al., 2009; Fletcher et al., 2011; Riffell et al.,
2011). However, the exploitation of large bioenergy potentials is considered a reason for concern, with potential impacts on already fragmented
and degraded areas that are rich in biodiversity and provide habitat for
endangered and endemic species (e.g., Firbank, 2008; Sala et al., 2009;
WBGU, 2009; Dauber et al., 2010; Beringer et al., 2011; see Sections
2.2.4., 2.5.5, 9.4.3.5, and 9.4.4). The overall impacts of bioenergy on
biodiversity will also depend on the balance between the long-term
positive effects of reduced future climate change, and the short-term
negative effects of land use change (Dornburg et al., 2008).
For site-specic effects, ample evidence largely based on environmental impact assessments is available for hydropower (e.g., Rosenberg
et al., 1997; Fearnside, 2001; IUCN, 2001; see Section 5.6), and to a
certain extent for on- and offshore wind farms (see Section 7.6.2) and
some solar technologies (e.g., Tsoutsos et al., 2005). Less evidence is
available for geothermal energy, and the variety of marine and tidal
devicesother than tidal barragesare in a too early stage of development to assess their biodiversity effects. However, the long-term and
9.3.4.7
745
Chapter 9
Coal
Oil
Nuclear Natural
Hydro
(Reservoir)
Gas
Other
Renewables
434
0.569
284
5.92
China 1994-1999
OECD
0.0932
EU 27
0.099
252
167
0.93
4, 386
0.0721
OECD
109
27
0.0679
0.115
EF: 0.000414; LF: 0.00685; TF: 0.00726
EU 27
non-OECD
Generation II (PWR; CH)
EF: 502;
LF: 9,738;
TF: 10,240
243
Chernobyl (RBMK)
EF: 0.0302; LF (LL): 8.76; LF(UL): 32.1 (not shown)
0.0027
OECD
PV (crystalline Silicon)
7.01
26,000
0.936
0.000245
2,500
5
Nuclear:
EF = early fatalities
LF = latent fatalities
TF = total fatalities
LL / UL = lower /upper limit
0.00189
0.00641
0.0149
5
10
10
0.001
0.00174
Geothermal: EGS
0.0001
EF: 31
14
0.0853
EU 27
non-OECD
3
non-OECD w/o Banqiao/Shimantan
65
0.135
non-OECD
272
0.12
OECD
EU 27
non-OECD w/o China
0.01
0.1
10
[Fatalities / GWeyr]
10
100
1,000
10,000
100,000
Fatalities
Figure 9.15 | Comparison of fatality rates and maximum consequences of currently operating large centralized and decentralized energy technologies. Fossil and hydropower is based
on the ENSAD database (period 1970 to 2008); for nuclear PSA is applied; and for other renewable sources a combination of available data, literature survey and expert judgment
is used. See Annex II for methodological details. Note: RBMK = reaktor bolshoy moshchnosty kanalny,a boiling water-cooled graphite moderated pressure tube type reactor; PWR =
pressurized-water reactor; CHP = combined heat and power; EGS = Enhanced Geothermal Systems.
12 A third core-melt event that occurred in Fukushima, Japan, in March 2011 is not
included in the current analysis.
746
Chapter 9
Table 9.12 | Overview of selected additional risk aspects for various energy technologies.
Risk aspect
Oil and gas production, coal mining (Klose, 2007, 2010b; Suckale, 2009); hydropower reservoirs (H. Gupta, 2002; Kangi and Heidari, 2008; Klose,
2010a; Lei, 2010); geothermal (Bommer et al., 2006; Majer et al., 2007; Dannwolf and Ulmer, 2009); carbon capture and storage (IPCC, 2005;
Benson, 2006; Holloway et al., 2007; Bachu, 2008; Ayash et al., 2009).
Resource competition
Bioenergy (Koh and Ghazoul, 2008; Ajanovic, 2011; Bartle and Abadi, 2010) reservoir hydro (Wolf, 1998; Sternberg, 2008; McNally et al., 2009).
Hazardous substances
Relevance for PV requires sector downscaling to allocate appropriate share of consequences (see Annex II) (Coburn and Cohen, 2004; Bernatik et
al., 2008).
In the case of geothermal, groundwater contamination may occur (Aksoy et al., 2009)
Disposal of nuclear waste (Adamantiades and Kessides, 2009; Sjberg, 2009); carbon capture and storage (IPCC, 2005; Huijts et al., 2007; HaDuong et al., 2009; Wallquist et al., 2009).
Proliferation
Nuclear (Toth and Rogner, 2006; Yim, 2006; Adamantiades and Kessides, 2009).
Security and energy geopolitics of hydrocarbons and renewable sources (e.g., solar thermal) (Le Coq and Paltseva, 2009; Giroux, 2010; Toft et al.,
2010; Lacher and Kumetat, 2010).
Pirate attacks on oil/gas tankers (Hastings, 2009; Hong and Ng, 2010).
wind turbines and the subsequent implementation of risk-reducing measures becomes an import aspect; although the frequency of occurrence
is low, the consequences could be large (Christensen et al., 2001; Biehl
and Lehmann, 2006). With the installation of large renewable capacities
in geopolitically less stable regions, threats to RE infrastructure (including the grid) and supply may become an important factor, including
intentional supply cuts as well as physical or cyber attacks by nonstate actors (e.g., sabotage, terrorism) (Lacher and Kumetat, 2010). Key
issues for bioenergy include potential competition with food production
and use of water resources (e.g., Koh and Ghazoul, 2008; see Sections
2.5.7.4 and 9.3.4.4). Despite numerous prototype installations and a
few small commercial projects, tidal and wave power technologies are
still at a relatively early stage of development, therefore their potential
impacts and risks are yet rather poorly understood (Westwood, 2007;
Gney and Kaygusuz, 2010; Langhamer et al., 2010; Shields et al., 2011).
In conclusion, accident risks of renewable technologies are not negligible, but their decentralized structure strongly limits the potential for
disastrous consequences in terms of fatalities. However, various additional risks, complementing a purely fatality-based approach, should
also be considered as outlined above because they may play an important role in public debate (e.g., risk aversion) and decision making (e.g.,
policies).
9.4
Table 9.12 and the following overview summarize a variety of risk
aspects that are not amenable to full quantication yet because only
limited data and experience are available or they cannot be fully covered by traditional risk indicators focusing mainly on consequences. The
impact of induced seismicity from enhanced geothermal systems (EGS)
has already been the cause of delays, and two major EGS projects in
the USA and Switzerland were even permanently abandoned (Majer et
al., 2007; Dannwolf and Ulmer, 2009). With the accelerating expansion
of offshore wind parks, the risk analysis of ship collisions with offshore
Implications of (sustainable)
development pathways for renewable
energy
747
748
Chapter 9
Chapter 9
how the modelling tools used to generate these scenarios can be improved
to provide a better understanding of sustainability issues in the future.
9.4.1
9.4.1.1
There has been an enormous amount of analysis over the past two
decades on the costs of reducing GHG emissions (see, e.g., IPCC,
1996a, 2001, 2007b). This work is typically based on cost-effectiveness analysis, in which the costs and means to meet a particular goal
are explored, rather than cost-benet analysis, in which the costs and
benets of mitigation and adaptation over centennial time scales
are considered simultaneously, and a primary objective is to determine the optimal pattern of mitigation and adaptation over time. In
cost-effectiveness studies, a long-term social goal is assumed, for
example, limiting atmospheric GHG concentrations to no more than
450 ppm CO2 equivalent. The limitation of emissions, concentrations,
or more generally radiative forcing is used to study the most costeffective pattern of emission reductions. These analyses are typically
based on a variety of socioeconomic, technological and geopolitical
assumptions extending over periods of decades to a century or more.
When a constraint is imposed on GHG emissions, very often welfare
losses are incurred. A variety of measures are used, ranging from
direct estimates of social welfare loss to the more common aggregate measures such as GDP or consumption (a major component of
GDP) foregone. Other concepts of welfare, as discussed in Section
9.3.1, for example, are usually not considered. Thus, at the heart of
such calculations are assumptions about the availability and costs of,
and GHG emissions generated by, those technologies used to satisfy
energy demandswith and without a GHG constraint.
The scenario review in Chapter 10 gives an impression of possible
welfare implications of RE. First note that, not surprisingly, GDP
749
Chapter 9
80
100
80
60
60
40
40
20
20
Biomass
Solar Geothermal
Hydro
Wind
Biomass
Solar Geothermal
Hydro
Wind
Figure 9.16 | Share of Non-Annex I countries in the global deployment of different RE sources in long-term scenarios by 2030 and 2050. The thick black line corresponds to the
median, the coloured box corresponds to the inter-quartile range (25th to 75th percentile) and the white surrounding bars correspond to the total range across all reviewed scenarios
(adapted from Krey and Clarke, 2011).
Although global average indicators of welfare are valuable for exploring the
general relationships among RE, climate mitigation and economic growth,
a great deal of interest centres not on global totals, but on the relative performance of developing and emerging economies. An important question is
how mitigation in general and RE in particular inuence economic growth.
Mitigation scenarios provide general insights into this issue. Overall, the
same fundamental lessons about RE, mitigation and economic growth
observed in global analyses are also found in analyses of developing
countries. The economic growth effects are generally found to be larger in
non-Annex I countries than in the Annex I countries. This is due to assumptions about more rapid economic growth and an increasingly large and
dominant share of GHG mitigation over time in non-Annex I countries.
Building upon the analysis in Chapter 10, Figure 9.16 shows the share of
non-Annex I countries in global RE deployment for different RE sources,
indicating that most future RE deployment is expected to take place in the
developing world (Krey and Clarke, 2011). This is particularly important
because developing countries have yet to go fully through their industrialization process. Even with huge advances in energy efciency, their
development process is likely to still involve substantial growth in energy
consumption. The key challenge of deploying a carbon-free energy system
in developing countries is to overcome the higher LCOEs of RE (and other
low-carbon technologies) compared to current market prices (see Annex
III). Successfully meeting this challenge could lead to leapfrogging the
750
Chapter 9
9.4.1.2
Research gaps
It should be stressed that the models used for the analyses mentioned above generally provide an incomplete measure of welfare
losses because they focus on aggregate measures such as GDP or
consumption losses. As noted in Section 9.2, GDP is considered by
most economists as an inadequate measure of welfare. However, the
use of other welfare indicators, such as, for example, life expectancy
or leisure time, is difcult in the current set of integrated models. Also,
losses are measured at the economy-wide level, whichalthough
correlated with per capita GDP lossescan be misleading. Finally,
the models do not give an indication of the distribution of wealth
across the population. Is it concentrated among a few or distributed
more evenly across the many?
Beyond the general insights presented in Section 9.4.1.1, particularly
with respect to RE and other energy technologies, scenarios do not generally provide strong assessments of many of the forces that might make
developing countries behave differently than developed countries; for
example, differences in physical and institutional infrastructure and the
efciency and effectiveness of economic markets. The modelling structures used to generate long-term global scenarios generally assume
perfectly functioning economic markets and institutional infrastructures
across all regions of the globe, discounting the special circumstances
that prevail in all countries, for example, in developing countries where
these assumptions are particularly tenuous. These sorts of differences
and the inuence they might have on social and economic development
among countries should be an area of active future research.
9.4.2
Energy access
9.4.2.1
751
of modern energy, it is vital to put effective policies in place and to trigger major investments.
Electrication, whether by grid extension or off-grid distributed generation, is capital intensive and requires large investment. The IEA estimates
that an investment of USD2005 558 billion from 2010 to 2030 is needed
for universal modern energy access by 2030, of which USD2005 515 billion, or USD2005 24 billion per year on average, is needed to accomplish
universal electricity access. If developing countries are not able to secure
nance for electrication, the number of people without electricity is
going to stay around the level of today (IEA, 2010b). During the build-up
of new energy infrastructure, the combination of the availability of the
low-cost traditional biomass and high initial investment cost for LPG
will continue to make fuelwood and other forms of traditional biomass
the main source of energy for cooking. Policies might induce higher penetration, but the structure of economic incentives must be calibrated to
the local economic situation. A scenario analysis of cooking fuel in India
by Ekholm et al. (2010) shows that without nancing, a 50% subsidy
for LPG is required for full penetration by 2020, but only a 20% subsidy is needed if improved nancing for the purchase of appliances is
also offered.
Having access to modern energy is not a guarantee to the path of SD.
First, a shift to modern energy may be simply a shift to fossil fuels, which
is not sustainable in the long run. Second, the distribution of energy
use within a country with respect to income is an essential element of
understanding access. For example, some countries have relatively equitable access to electricity (Norway, the USA), while others have highly
unequal access depending on income (Kenya, Thailand) (A. Jacobson
et al., 2005). Third, the use of RE can also have its own set of environmental or health impacts (see Section 9.3.4). However, to secure a
sustainable use of energy, measures to alleviate the overall environmental burden while providing access to modern energy are essential. One
aspect of such a shift would be an increasing fraction of energy supplied
by RE technologies, both grid and decentralized. In addition, there is a
social aspect of energy use, which relates to concerns that forced shifts
to RE could affect household budgets and macroeconomic costs. In an
analysis by Howells et al. (2005) on future rural household energy consumption in South Africa, a shift to electricity outside of lighting and
entertainment services only occurred in the scenario which included
health or other externalities from local combustion emissions.
9.4.2.2
Chapter 9
Research gaps
9.4.3
752
Energy security
As noted in Sections 9.2 and 9.3.3, energy security, like SD, suffers from
a lack of either a well-formed quantiable or qualitative denition. In
many countries, energy security is often taken to be inversely related to
the level of oil imports. The focus on oil results from the fact that many
countries are potentially vulnerable to supply disruptions, with many
developed countries having experienced an oil supply disruption during the Organization of the Petroleum-Exporting Countries (OPEC) oil
embargo of the mid-1970s. However, despite its importance, the real
Chapter 9
concern is not necessarily about oil, but about the vulnerability and
resilience to sudden disruptions in energy supply and consequent price
implications in general.
All other things being equal, the more reliant an energy system is on a
single energy source, the more susceptible the energy system is to serious disruptions. This is true for energy security concerns with respect to
both availability and distribution of resources, and the variability and
reliability of energy sources, as discussed in Sections 9.2 and 9.3.3. At
the same time, it is important to note that diversity of supply is only benecial to the extent that the risks of disruptions are equal across sources.
To the extent that risks are not equal, it is generally benecial to rely
more heavily on those sources with the lowest and most uncorrelated
risks. The following discussion will address how RE inuences energy
security in scenarios of the future by focusing on diversity of supply and
thereby energy suppliers market power, particularly looking at the oil
market; then the variability in energy supply associated with RE in the
context of energy security will be assessed.
9.4.3.1
technology breakthrough that makes electric power options competitive with liquid fuel transport options. This could only change if electric
vehicle technology improves sufciently in the future (see Sections 9.4.1
and 8.3.1).
Bioenergy, in contrast, is a versatile RE form that can be transformed
into liquid fuels that can compete directly with liquid fossil fuels. In
reference scenarios, liquids derived from biomass garner market share.
The interaction between bioenergy and oil consumption is potentially
sensitive to both policy and technology; the presence of a carbon price,
for example, increases bioenergys competitive advantage. However, the
sector in which bioenergy is utilized depends strongly on whether or
not CCS technology is available. Without CCS, bioenergy is used predominantly as a liquid fuel, whereas the availability of bioenergy with
CCS shifts its use towards power generationresulting in negative net
carbon emissions for the system (Luckow et al., 2010; see Figure 9.17).
Other studies show comparable results (van Vuuren et al., 2010b).
The emergence of bioenergy to supplant oil does not necessarily mean
a reduction in the market power and volatility that surround markets
for liquid fuels. While models generally assume that the emergence of
bioenergy as a major energy form would take place in a market characterized by a large number of sellers with relatively little market power,
this is by no means certain. If the bioenergy market were characterized
by a small number of sellers, then buyers would be exposed to the same
type of risk as is characteristic of the global oil market. However, this
sort of risk-to-portfolio linkage is simply not explored by existing mitigation scenarios and a future bioenergy market might entail precisely the
same volatility concerns as the current oil market.
The interaction between bioenergy production and food prices is another
critical issue, since the linkage of food prices to potentially volatile
energy markets has important implications for SD (see Section 2.5.7.4).
A number of authors have critically assessed this relationship (Edmonds
et al., 2003; Gurgel et al., 2007; Runge and Senauer, 2007; Gillingham et
al., 2008; Wise et al., 2010) and some highlighted the importance of the
policy environment and in particular the valuation of terrestrial carbon
stocks (Calvin et al., 2009; Wise et al., 2009). Emissions mitigation policies that cause large bioenergy markets to form would clearly benet
the sellers of bioenergy and in general the owners of land, which would
be more valuable. However, higher food prices clearly hurt the poor, even
in scenarios with generally rising incomes. Burney et al. (2010) and Wise
et al. (2009) also show the importance of traditional crop productivity in
reducing GHG emissions due to the resulting higher biomass availability.
Absent continued improvements in agricultural crop yields, bioenergy
production never becomes a signicant source of RE (Wise et al., 2010).
In the scenarios examined in Chapter 10, the consumption and price of
oil do not change as signicantly with more stringent mitigation as, for
example, the consumption and price of coal. This more modest change
in oil consumption is partly due to the fact that oil is primarily consumed
in the transportation sector. Alternatives to oil, such as biofuels and
753
300
Electricity
250
Chapter 9
[EJ/yr]
[EJ/yr]
300
250
Electricity CCS
Rened Liquids
200
200
Other
Direct Use
150
150
100
100
50
50
2005
2020
2035
2050
2065
2080
2095
2005
2020
2035
2050
2065
2080
2095
Figure 9.17 | Biomass consumption by use with (left) and without (right) CCS for a 450 ppm climate stabilization scenario using the GCAM model (Luckow et al., 2010).
754
35
35
30
30
25
25
20
20
15
15
10
10
0
Baseline
Cat III+IV
Cat I+II
Conventional
Oil Reserves
Chapter 9
Baseline
Baseline Median
Cat III+IV
Cat I+II
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
2005
2020
2040
2060
2080
2100
Figure 9.18 | Left: Conventional oil reserves compared to projected cumulative oil consumption (ZJ) from 2010 to 2100 in scenarios assessed in Chapter 10 for different scenario
categories: baseline scenarios, category III and IV scenarios and low stabilization (category I+II) scenarios. The thick dark blue line corresponds to the median, the light blue bar corresponds to the inter-quartile range (25th to 75th percentile) and the white surrounding bar corresponds to the total range across all reviewed scenarios. The last column shows the
range of proven recoverable conventional oil reserves (light blue bar) and estimated additional reserves (white surrounding bar) (Rogner, 1997).1 Right: Share of global oil consumption
in non-Annex I countries for different scenario categories over time, based on scenarios assessed in Chapter 10.
Note: 1. According to Rogner (1997), proved recoverable reserves are between 5.7 and 6.3 ZJ. In addition to that, estimated additional reserves range between 2.6 and 3.2 ZJ. This is in
line with more recent estimates for proved recoverable reserves of conventional crude oil and natural gas liquids of 1,239 billion barrels (or 7.3 ZJ) (WEC, 2010). The total consumption
of oil goes far beyond that in most scenarios reviewed in Chapter 10, which directly implies the use of unconventional reserves.
9.4.3.2
Research gaps
issues in recent memory, for example, disruptions to the global oil supply
and security issues surrounding nuclear energy production. However,
energy security issues go well beyond these aspects. For example, the
supply of rare Earth metals and other critical inputs could constrain
the production of some (renewable) energy technologies (see Box
9.1). These broader concerns as well as options for addressing them,
e.g., recycling, are largely absent from future scenarios of mitigation
and RE.
An important aspect of deploying RE sources at a large scale is their
integration into the existing supply structure. Systems integration
is most challenging for the variable and to a degree unpredictable
electricity generation technologies such as wind power, solar PV and
wave energy. A rst-order proxy for the challenges related to systems
integration is therefore the share of different variable and unpredictable RE sources at the global level (see also Figure 10.9). Again, those
scenarios with high proportions of wind and solar PV electricity in the
grid implicitly assume that any barriers to grid management in this
context are largely overcome, for example, through electricity storage technologies, demand-side management options, and advances
in grid management more generally (see Section 8.2.1). This is a
strong assumption and managing storage, balancing generation, grid
improvement and demand-side innovation will be essential to balancing variable RE generation and ensuring grid reliability. Improving the
spatial and temporal resolution of integrated models to better reect
755
9.4.4
In addition to evaluating alternate scenarios with respect to the potential contribution to energy access and energy security, any assessment
of energy futures under SD criteria must include a comparison of the
environmental impacts of energy services. Fundamentally, reductions in
environmental impacts can be derived from increases in the efciency
of providing services, changes in behaviour or shifting to lower-impact
sources of supply.
9.4.4.1
756
Chapter 9
9.4.4.2
Research gaps
Chapter 9
9.5
9.5.1
Barriers
9.5.1.1
Socio-cultural barriers
Most communities have traditionally viewed RE applications as environmentally friendly and a high level of general public support for RE is
documented in available studies and opinion polls (Devine-Wright, 2005;
McGowan and Sauter, 2005; Wolsink, 2007b; BERR, 2008). However,
public support of RE at the generic level does not necessarily translate
into active support and acceptance of RE at the local implementation
level, where RE deployment is often associated with direct impacts for
individuals and groups (Painuly, 2001; Bell et al., 2005; Wustenhagen
et al., 2007).20 Increased public resistance to large, new installations
has, for example, been experienced in many countries, often beyond the
narrow not in my backyard type of opposition (Wolsink, 2007b; DevineWright, 2009).
Socio-cultural barriers or concerns with respect to the deployment of RE
and its potential SD trade-offs have different origins and are intrinsically
linked to societal and personal values and norms (Sovacool and Hirsh,
2009). Such values and norms affect the perception and acceptance of
RE technologies and the potential impacts of their deployment by individuals, groups and societies (GNESD, 2007b; Sovacool, 2009; West et
al., 2010). From a SD perspective, barriers may arise from inadequate
attention to such socio-cultural concerns, which include barriers related
to behaviour; natural habitats and natural and human heritage sites,
including impacts on biodiversity and ecosystems (see Sections 2.5.5.2
and 9.3.4.6); landscape aesthetics; and water/land use and water/land
use rights (see Section 9.3.4.4 and 9.3.4.5) as well as their availability
for competing uses. These barriers are briey discussed below.
Deployment of RE technologies may be associated with behavioural
implications that challenge social and cultural values, norms and perceptions (Painuly, 2001; S. Reddy and Painuly, 2004; GNESD, 2007b;
Chaurey and Kandpal, 2010). In India, for example, multi-criteria analysis
of domestic cooking devices (Pohekar and Ramachandran, 2006) reveals
that behavioural concerns21 are second most important in determining
consumer preferences for cooking devices, only surpassed by technical
criteria. Behavioural concerns limit uptake not only of the relatively new
and technically advanced solar cookers. They also offer an important
explanation for the non-use of installed improved fuelwood cookstoves in India, where only 6 million out of a total of 23 million installed
improved fuelwood stoves were found to be functional (Neudoerffer et
al., 2001; Pohekar and Ramachandran, 2006). Similar ndings regarding the signicance of behavioural barriers for dissemination and use
20 Local opposition to renewable energy projects may also depend on methods used to
gather public opinion (van der Horst, 2007).
21 Related to ease of operation; types of dishes cooked; cleanliness of utensils; need for
additional cookstove; motivation to buy; taste of food; and aesthetics.
757
758
Chapter 9
is another important social concern (see Section 2.5.7.4) to which certication schemes are paying increased attention (see Section 2.4.5).
Public awareness and acceptance is, as indicated above, an important
element in the need to rapidly and signicantly scale-up RE deployment
to help meet climate change mitigation goals. Large scale implementation can only be undertaken successfully with the understanding and
support of the public (Zoellner et al., 2008). This may require dedicated
communication efforts related to the achievements and the opportunities associated with wider-scale applications (Barry et al., 2008). At the
same time, however, public participation in planning decisions as well as
fairness and equity considerations in the distribution of the benets and
costs of RE deployment play an equally important role and cannot be
side-stepped (see below and Section 9.5.2.2; Wolsink, 2007b; Malesios
and Arabatzis, 2010).
9.5.1.2
Chapter 9
9.5.1.1, and may affect public and personal perceptions of the implications of RE for consumption as well as for deeply held values regarding
trust, control and freedom (Sovacool, 2009; Walker et al., 2010). This
implies that attitudes towards RE in addition to rationality are driven
by emotions and psychological issues (Bang et al., 2000; Devine-Wright,
2009). To be successful, RE deployment and information and awareness
efforts and strategies need to take this explicitly into account (Jager,
2006; Nannen and van den Bergh, 2010; Litvine and Wstenhagen,
2011), particularly as barriers to information and awareness may have
implications for RE uptake, markets, uncertainty and hence capital costs
(Painuly, 2001; lz and Beerepoot, 2010).
9.5.1.3
759
premiums (see Section 11.4.3). In Indonesia, biomass-based power projects are viewed as facing additional hurdles linked to a general lack
of experience in bioenergy project development and related feedstock
supply issues among banks and national investors (lz and Beerepoot,
2010).
The effects of the timing of the stream of costs and benets from RE
investments lead to a trade-off with respect to sustainability, for example in cases where decision makers in developing countries have to
choose between investments in non-RE with shorter payback time, but
higher external costs, and RE investments with longer payback time, but
higher positive externalities for example, for job creation, health, GHG
emission reduction, etc. Barriers to RE nancing are also addressed in
Sections 9.3.1.4 and 11.4.3.
Externalities result from market distortions and are central when RE
deployment is addressed in the context of SD. The structure of subsidies
and/or taxes may, for example, favour non-RE with adverse implications for the competitiveness of RE (see Section 9.5.2.1). Similarly,
existing grid networks and engineering capacities will advantage some
forms of energy over others, with implications for the path dependency
of energy deployment (see Section 11.6.1). Path dependencies may
lock in societies into energy or infrastructure options that may be inferior in terms of cost efciency or accumulated social costs in the long
term (Unruh, 2000). In many cases, internalization of environmental
externalities has considerable effects for the levelized costs of RE technologies (Cowan et al., 2009; Harmon and Cowan, 2009; Fahlen and
Ahlgren, 2010) and subsequently their non-inclusion presents a barrier
for RE deployment. Internalization of damage costs resulting from combustion of fossil fuels into the price of the resulting output of electricity
could, for example, lead to a number of renewable technologies being
nancially competitive with generation from coal plants (Owen, 2006;
see Section 10.6). Similar conclusions were reached for PV mini-grids
for three remote rural regions in Senegal, where levelized electricity
costs from PV technologies were found to be lower than the cost of
energy from grid extension when environmental externalities are taken
into account (Thiam, 2010).
A number of recent studies include several social and environmental sustainability indicators in assessing and ranking energy options.
In addition to GHG emissions, these sustainability indicators include
land requirements, water consumption, social impacts and availability
of renewable sources, providing additional insight into potential barriers for RE deployment in a sustainability context (Afgan et al., 2007;
Becerra-Lopez and Golding, 2008; Brent and Kruger, 2009; Evans et al.,
2009; Brent and Rogers, 2010; Browne et al., 2010; Carrera and Mack,
2010; see Section 9.5.2.1).
9.5.2
Opportunities
760
Chapter 9
9.5.2.1
Chapter 9
24 Even though the underlying price gap approach has some limitations, it may serve as
a rst estimate.
The importance of eliminating barriers to trade in RE supplies and associated technologies as part of a broader strategy to reduce dependence
on more-polluting and less secure energy sources has been stressed
in several studies and events. This is the case for, among others, PV,
wind turbines and biofuels (Steenblik, 2005; Lucon and Rei, 2006; OECD,
2006). As outlined in Section 2.4.6.2, barriers to the market penetration and international trade of bioenergy include tariff barriers, technical
standards, inappropriately restrictive sustainability criteria and certication systems for biomass and biofuels, logistical barriers, and sanitary
requirements. More generally, the elimination or reduction of barriers
to trade can facilitate access to RE and other environmental goods that
can contribute to climate change mitigation by fostering a better dissemination of technologies at lower costs. Elimination of both tariffs
and non-tariff barriers to clean technologies could potentially result in a
14% increase in trade in these products (WTO, 2010).
As parties to the Kyoto Protocol of the UN Framework Convention
on Climate Change develop and implement policies and measures to
achieve GHG concentration stabilization, compatibility with World Trade
Organization (WTO) rules could become a recurrent issue. More generally, the nexus of investment rules inside and outside the WTO with the
climate regime needs further attention (Brewer, 2004). Interactions that
are the most problematic include the potential use of border measures
to offset cross-national differences in the energy costs of goods, Clean
Development Mechanism (CDM) and Joint Implementation projects in
relation to the WTO subsidies agreement, efciency standards in relationship to the WTO technical barriers agreement and carbon sequestration
in relationship to the WTO agriculture agreement (Tamiotti et al., 2009).
Mechanisms for sustainable development that internalize
environmental and social externalities
There is a constant need for mechanisms for SD that internalize environmental or social externalities. Diffusion of RE technologies is driven
by policies and incentives that help overcome high upfront costs and
lack of a level playing eld (Rao and Kishore, 2010). However, when
external costs (see Section 10.6) are included, the relative advantage of
renewable energies is highlightedespecially regarding GHG emissions
(Onat and Bayar, 2010; Varun et al., 2010). Incorporating external costs
requires good indicators. A methodological limitation found in studies of
different energy production systems is their use of an insufcient number of comparable sustainability indicators, which may lead to biases
and aws in the ranking of energy sources and technologies against
sustainability (Brent and Kruger, 2009; Eason et al., 2009; Kowalski et
al., 2009). Although multi-criteria decision analysis and approaches contribute signicantly, it is recognized that appraising the contribution of
RE options to SD is a complex task, considering the different aspects of
SD, the imprecision and uncertainty of the related information as well
as the qualitative aspects embodied that cannot be represented solely
by numerical values (Cavallaro, 2009; Michalena et al., 2009; Donat
Castello et al., 2010; Doukas et al., 2010).
761
762
Chapter 9
Chapter 9
9.5.2.2
At the local level, cities and local governments in alliance with business and citizen interests can be drivers of change for RE deployment
(REN21, 2009). In response to enabling framework conditions at
international and national levels, cities and local governments can
independently use their legislative and purchasing power to implement RE initiatives in their own operations and the wider community
(see Section 11.6). Typically, local policy initiatives are motivated by
sustainability goals such as low GHG concentration stabilization, the
share of renewable electricity production or total energy consumption
763
Chapter 9
9.6
Synthesis
764
9.6.1
Chapter 9
analyzed to derive conclusions about the contribution of RE deployment to the named SD goals within a macro-economic and systemic
perspective. However, any interpretation of these results needs to
be accompanied by the recognition that integrated models in existence today were generated around a relatively specic set of tasks.
These relate to understanding the effects of policy or economics on
the energy portfolios of fairly large world regions and the emissions
trajectories implied by changes in those energy portfolios over time.
While expanding the models beyond these tasks can be challenging,
there is room for improving treatment of sustainability in the future.
For example, questions relating to the ability of integrated models to
accurately represent cultural dimensions of energy use and the impact
of non-price policies on behaviour and investment are not resolved.
One of the key points that emerged from the literature assessment
is that the evaluation of energy system impacts (beyond GHG emissions), climate mitigation scenarios and SD goals has for the most
part proceeded in parallel without much interaction. Effective, economically efcient and socially acceptable transformations of the
energy system will require a much closer integration of results from
all three of these research areas. While the assessment carried out
within the context of this report generated a number of important
insights, it also disclosed some of these shortcomings. For example,
it highlights the need for the inclusion of additional boundaries (e.g.,
environmental) and more complex energy system models within an
integrated model framework to improve the representation of specic
local conditions, variability or biophysical constraints. However, it is
also evident that for the multi-dimensional challenge of integrating
RE and SD, no single global answer is possible. Many solutions will
depend strongly on local and regional cultural conditions, and the
approaches and emphases of developing and developed countries
may also be different.
9.6.2
economically more efcient RE technologies, they can redirect foreign exchange ows towards imports of other goods that cannot be
produced locally. However, generation costs of RE today are generally higher than current energy market prices, although further cost
reductions are expected. In poor rural areas lacking grid access, RE
can already lead to substantial cost savings today. Creating employment opportunities and actively promoting structural change in the
economy are seen, especially in industrialized countries, as goals that
support the promotion of RE.
Results from the scenario literature highlight the role of RE for costefcient mitigation efforts in the long runparticularly for low-GHG
stabilization levels. In developing countries, for which large-scale
integrated models suggest a higher share of global RE deployment
over time, RE may help accelerate the deployment of low-carbon
energy systems. Climate nance is expected to play a crucial role in
providing the funding required for large-scale adoption of RE.
9.6.3
Energy access
9.6.4
Energy security
765
9.6.5
RE technologies can provide important environmental benets compared to fossil fuels, including reduced GHG emissions. Maximizing
these benets often depends on the specic technology, management and site characteristics associated with each RE project. While
all energy technologies deployed at scale will create environmental
impactsdetermined in large measure by local implementation decisionsmost RE options can offer advantages across categories, in
particular regarding impacts on climate, water resources and air quality.
The environmental advantages of RE over other options are not always
clear-cut. Signicant differences exist between technologies, and some
might potentially result in difcult SD trade-offs.
In particular, bioenergy has a special role. It is the only RE based on
combustion, leading to associated burdens such as air pollution and
cooling water needs. Other impacts from bioenergy production may
be positive or negative and relate to land and water use, as well as
water and soil quality. These require special attention due to bioenergys
inherent connection to agriculture, forestry and rural development. The
net effects of bioenergy production, in particular in terms of lifecycle
GHG emissions, are strongly inuenced by land and biomass resource
management practices, and the prior condition of the land converted
for feedstock production. While most models do not yet include land
766
Chapter 9
use and terrestrial carbon stocks, those scenarios that have focused on
direct and indirect land use change highlight the possible negative consequences for SD. These result from high expansion rates without proper
policies in place and large future bioenergy markets, and can lead to
deforestation, land diversion and increased GHG emissions. Proper governance of land use, zoning and choice of biomass production systems
are key to achieving desired outcomes.
RE has the potential to signicantly reduce local and regional air pollution from power generation and associated health impacts. Scenarios
that explicitly address regional air pollutants, for example, PM and
sulphur emissions, found that climate policy can lead to important cobenets in that area. Indoor air pollution caused by the use of solid
fuels in traditional systems is a major health problem at a global scale,
and improved technologies and fuels could also address other SD concerns. Careful decisions based on local resources are needed to ensure
that water scarcity does not become a barrier to SD, and that increasing access to energy services does not exacerbate local water problems.
Non-thermal RE technologies (e.g., wind and PV) can provide clean
electricity without putting additional stress on water resources, whereas
operational water needs make thermal power plants and hydropower
vulnerable to changes in water availability. While accident risks of RE
technologies are not negligible, their often decentralized structure
strongly limits the potential for disastrous consequences in terms of
fatalities. However, dams associated with some hydropower projects
may create a specic risk depending on site-specic factors.
Insights from the modelling approaches show that integrated assessment
models might be well suited to include some important environmental
indicators in addition to GHG emissions (e.g., air pollutant emission,
water use), but may be challenged by addressing localized impacts, for
example, related to energy choices at the household level. Resulting
scenarios could be useful to demonstrate unanticipated or unquantied
environmental benets or costs.
9.6.6
Conclusions
Chapter 9
9.7
narrowed. In addition, possibilities for relating the two opposite paradigms of sustainability, weak and strong sustainability, need to be
explored. One possibility would be to allow for nonlinearities, tipping
points, and uncertainty about nonlinearities in intertemporal measures,
or to provide formal guidelines for consideration of the precautionary
principle. In the context of this report, this also means that specic indicators of weak sustainability like genuine savings, ISEW or GPI, but also
those of strong sustainability (e.g., land use boundaries) need to be statistically and logically related to RE indicators.
Apart from the denitions and indicators, data that are necessary
to assess sustainability and RE are insufciently available. There is
a clear need for better information and data on energy supply and
consumption for non-electried households and also low-end electricity consumers. Furthermore, there is a need for analysis of RE-based
mini-grid experiences for improving access and for the energy security
implications of regional power integration. The electrication of the
transport sector and its implications for energy security, environmental
impacts and GHG emissions also deserves attention.
Many aspects of the assessment of environmental impacts of energy technologies require additional research to resolve key scientic questions, or
provide conrmatory research for less contentious but also less-studied
aspects. Two key issues regarding GHG emissions caused by energy technologies are direct and indirect land use change. For RE technologies, these
issues mainly concern the production of biomass for bioenergy systems and
hydropower impoundments, but land use change associated with some
non-RE technologies deserve investigation as well (e.g., carbon emission
from soils exposed by mountaintop removal coal mining). Several energy
technologies are lacking substantial or any studies of lifecycle GHG emissions: geothermal, ocean energy and some types of PV cells. Water use
has not been consistently or robustly evaluated for any energy technology across its lifecycle. The state of knowledge about land use, especially
when considered on a lifecycle basis, is in a condition similar to water. For
both, metrics to quantify water and land use need consensus as well as
substantial additional study using those metrics. More is known about air
pollutants, at least for the operation of combustion systems, but this
knowledge has not been well augmented on a lifecycle basis, and the
interpretation of air pollutant emissions on a lifecycle basis needs to be
enhanced since the important effects of pollutants should not be summarized by summing masses over time and space. For LCAs as a whole,
heterogeneity of methods and assumptions thwarts fair comparison and
pooling of estimates from different studies. Ex post facto harmonization
of the methods of previous research (and meta-analysis) and perhaps
stronger standards guiding the conduct of new LCAs is critical to clarifying results and producing robust estimates.
Assessments of the scenario literature have provided some useful
insights on how SD pathways will interact with RE and vice versa.
However, in the past, models have focused on the technological and
macro-economic aspects of energy transitions and the evaluation of SD
pathways therefore mostly needs to rely on proxies that are not always
767
Chapter 9
768
Chapter 9
Ang, J.B. (2008). Economic development, pollutant emissions and energy consump-
References
Abdelouas, A. (2006). Uranium mill tailings: Geochemistry, mineralogy, and environmental impact. Elements, 2(6), pp. 335-341.
Achten, W.M.J., L.R. Lene R Nielsen, R. Aerts, A.G. Lengkeek, E.D. Erik D Kjr,
A. Trabucco, J.K. Hansen, W.H. Maes, L. Lars Graudal, F.K. Festus, K. Akinnifesi,
and B. Muys (2010). Towards domestication of Jatropha curcas. Biofuels, 1(1),
pp. 91-107.
Adamantiades, A., and I. Kessides (2009). Nuclear power for sustainable development: Current status and future prospects. Energy Policy, 37, pp. 5149-5166.
Afgan, N.H., F. Begic, and A. Kazagic (2007). Multi-criteria sustainability assessment A tool for evaluation of new energy system. Thermal Science, 11(3), pp.
43-53.
Agarwal, A.K. (2007). Biofuels (alcohols and biodiesel) applications as fuels for
internal combustion engines. Progress in Energy and Combustion Science, 33(3),
pp. 233-271.
shows that atmospheric brown clouds and greenhouse gases have reduced rice
the grid: Meeting the needs of rural and remote populations. Bulletin of Science,
19668-19672.
Aunan, K., J. Fang, H. Vennemo, K. Oye, and H.M. Seip (2004). Co-benets of
climate policy lessons learned from a study in Shanxi, China. Energy Policy,
32(4), pp. 567-581.
Awerbuch, S. (2006). Portfolio-based electricity generation planning: Policy implications for renewables and energy security. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies
for Global Change, 11(3), pp. 693-710.
Awerbuch, S., and R. Sauter (2006). Exploiting the oil-GDP effect to support renewables deployment. Energy Policy, 34(17), pp. 2805-2819.
Ayash, S.C., A.A. Dobroskok, J.A. Sorensen, S.L. Wolfe, E.N. Steadman, and
J.A. Harju (2009). Probabilistic approach to evaluating seismicity in CO2 storage
risk assessment. Energy Procedia, 1, pp. 2487-2494.
(IFPRI) for the Directorate General for Trade of the European Commission,
Azar, C., K. Lindgren, M. Obersteiner, K. Riahi, D.P. van Vuuren, K.M. den Elzen,
K. Mllersten, and E.D. Larson (2010). The feasibility of low CO2 concentra-
tions/biofuelsreportec.pdf.
tion targets and the role of bio-energy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS).
Al-Zoughool, M., and D. Krewski (2009). Health effects of radon: a review of the
literature. International Journal of Radiation Biology, 85(1), pp. 57-69.
Ale, B.J.M., H. Baksteen, L.J. Bellamy, A. Bloemhof, L. Goossens, A. Hale,
M.L. Mude, J.I.H. Oh, I.A. Papazoglou, J. Post, and J.Y. Whiston (2008).
Quantifying occupational risk: The development of an occupational risk model.
Safety Science, 46, pp. 176-185.
Americano, B. (2008). CDM in Brazil: Towards structural change for sustainable
development in some sectors. In: A Reformed CDM. K.H. Olsen and J. Fenhann
(eds.), UNEP Ris Centre, Roskilde, Denmark, pp. 23-46.
Anderson, L. (2009). Ethanol fuel use in Brazil: air quality impacts. Energy &
Environmental Science, 2, pp. 1015-1037.
Andreani-Aksoyoglu, S., J. Keller, A.S.H. Prvt, U. Baltensperger, and
J. Flemming (2008). Secondary aerosols in Switzerland and northern Italy:
Modeling and sensitivity studies for summer 2003. Journal of Geophysical
Research, 113, pp. 131-143.
Ang, J.B. (2007). CO2 emissions, energy consumption, and output in France. Energy
769
Chapter 9
Bao, G.J. (2010). Study on the relevance of cultural system and hydropower reset-
Barbier, E.B. (2009). Rethinking the Economic Recovery: A Global Green New Deal.
Beer, T., T. Grant, and P.K. Campbell (2007). The Greenhouse and Air Quality
Report prepared for the Green Economy Initiative and the Division of Technology,
www.unep.org/greeneconomy/portals/30/docs/GGND-Report-April2009.pdf.
Barnes, B., A. Mathee, E. Thomas, and N. Bruce (2009). Household energy, indoor
air pollution and child respiratory health in South Africa. Journal of Energy in
pp. 460-477.
Barnes, D.F., and W.M. Floor (1996). Rural energy in developing countries: A chal-
lenge for economic development. Annual Review of Energy and the Environment,
Benson, S.M. (2006). Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage: Assessment of Risks
populations: the Hudson River after 25 years. Environmental Science & Policy,
3, pp. 341-348.
Barry, J., G. Ellis, and C. Robinson (2008). Cool rationalities and hot air: A rhetorical
approach to understanding debates on renewable energy. Global Environmental
Politics, 8(2), pp. 67-98.
Bartle, J.R., and A. Abadi (2010). Toward sustainable production of second generation bioenergy feedstocks. Energy Fuels, 24, pp. 2-9.
Bauer, C. (2007). Holzenergie. Paul Scherrer Institut and Swiss Centre for Life Cycle
Inventories, Villigen and Duebendorf, Switzerland.
Bauer, C. (2008). Life Cycle Assessment of Fossil and Biomass Power Generation
Chains. Paul Scherrer Institut, Villigen, Switzerland.
Bauer, C., T. Heck, R. Dones, O. Mayer-Spohn, and M. Blesl (2009). Final Report
USA.
Bentley, R.W. (2002). Global oil and gas depletion: an overview. Energy Policy,
30(3), pp. 189-205.
Beringer, T.I.M., W. Lucht, and S. Schaphoff (2011). Bioenergy production potential
of global biomass plantations under environmental and agricultural constraints.
Global Change Biology - Bioenergy, doi:10.1111/j.1757-1707.2010.01088.x.
Bernatik, A., W. Zimmerman, M. Pitt, M. Strizik, V. Nevrly, and Z. Zelinger
(2008). Modelling accidental releases of dangerous gases into the lower troposphere from mobile sources. Process Safety and Environmental Protection, 86(3),
pp. 198-207.
on Technical Data, Costs, and Life Cycle Inventories of Advanced Fossil Power
ergy production for water use and supply. Global Environmental Change, 12,
Belgium
Bauer, N., A. Bowen, S. Brunner, O. Edenhofer, C. Flachsland, M. Jakob, and
pp. 253-271.
Berndes, G. (2008). Future biomass energy supply: The consumptive water use per-
Immediate G20 Action. Report prepared on behalf of the German Foreign Ofce,
Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK), The Grantham Research
Institute on Climate Change and Environment (GRI LSE), 49 pp.
Baum, S., M. Weih, G. Busch, F. Kroiher, and A. Bolte (2009). The impact of
bioenergy.com/LibItem.aspx?id=6770.
Greenhouse Gas Data and International Climate Policy. World Resource Institute,
Bazilian, M., and F. Roques (eds.) (2008). Analytical Methods for Energy Diversity
and Security. Portfolio Optimization in the Energy Sector: A Tribute to the work
Bhattacharyya, S.C. (2005). Energy access problem of the poor in India: Is rural
Netherlands.
Bickel, P., and R. Friedrich (2005). Externalities of Energy Methodology 2005 Update.
Biehl, F., and E. Lehmann (2006). Collisions of ships with offshore wind tur-
bines: Calculation and risk evaluation. In: Offshore Wind Energy: Research on
770
Chapter 9
Bishop, J.D.K., and G.A.J. Amaratunga (2008). Evaluation of small wind turbines in
Brent, A.C., and W.J.L. Kruger (2009). Systems analyses and the sustainable
Bloemkolk, J., and R. van der Schaaf (1996). Design alternatives for the use of
Brent, A.C., and D.E. Rogers (2010). Renewable rural electrication: Sustainability
BMU (1998). Nachhaltige Entwicklung in Deutschland, Entwurf eines umweltpolitischen Schwerpunktprogramms. Bundesministeriums fr Umwelt, Naturschutz
und Reaktorsicherheit (BMU), Bonn, Germany.
BMU (2009). Umweltwirtschaftsbericht 2009. Bundesministeriums fr Umwelt,
Naturschutz und Reaktorsicherheit (BMU), Bonn, Germany.
Boj, J., K.-G. Maler, and L. Unemo (1992). Environment and Development: An
Economic Approach. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands
and Boston, MA, USA.
Bollen, J., B. van der Zwaan, C. Brinka, and H. Eerensa (2009). Local air pollu-
Browne, D., B. ORegan, and R. Moles (2010). Use of multi-criteria decision analy-
tion and global climate change: A combined cost-benet analysis. Resource and
Bollen, J., S. Hers, and B. van der Zwaan (2010). An integrated assessment of
Bruce, N., R. Albalak, and P. Perez-Padilla (2002). The Health Effects of Indoor Air
climate change, air pollution, and energy security policy. Energy Policy, 38, pp.
4021-4030.
Bruce, N., J. McCracken, R. Albalak, M.A. Schei, K.R. Smith, V. Lopez, and
C. West (2004). Impact of improved stoves, house construction and child loca-
by a hot fractured rock geothermal project. Engineering Geology, 86, pp. 287-306.
Bond, T.C., D.G. Streets, K.F. Yarber, S.M. Nelson, J.H. Woo, and Z. Klimont
(2004). A technology-based global inventory of black and organic carbon emissions from combustion. Journal of Geophysical Research - Atmospheres, 109,
D14203, doi:10.1029/2003JD003697.
Bossel, H., 1999: Indicators for Sustainable Development: Theory, Methods,
Applications. International Institute for Sustainable Development, Winnipeg, MB,
Canada, 138 pp.
Boudri, J.C., L. Hordijk, C. Kroeze, M. Amann, J. Cofala, I. Bertok, L. Junfeng,
D. Lin, Z. Shuang, H. Runquing, T.S. Panwar, S. Gupta, D. Singh, A. Kumar,
S26-S33.
Brunnschweiler, C.N. (2010). Finance for renewable energy: an empirical analysis of
developing and transition economies. Environment and Development Economics
15(3), pp. 241-274.
Burgherr, P. (2007). In-depth analysis of accidental oil spills from tankers in the
context of global spill trends from all sources. Journal of Hazardous Materials,
140(1-2), pp. 245-256.
Burgherr, P., and S. Hirschberg (2007). Assessment of severe accident risks in the
M.C. Vipradas, P. Dadhich, N.S. Prasad, and L. Srivastava (2002). The poten-
Calvin, K., J. Edmonds, B. Bond-Lamberty, L. Clarke, S.H. Kim, P. Kyle, S.J. Smith,
assets/media/pdf/approachesto_LCA3_technical.pdf.
Bravo, G., R. Kozlulj, and R. Landaveri (2008). Energy access in urban and periurban areas of Buenos Aires. Energy for Sustainable Development, 12(4), pp.
56-72.
CO2 equivalent in the 21st century. Energy Economics, 31(Supplement 2), pp.
S107-S120.
Campbell, C.J., and J.H. Laherrre (1998). The end of cheap oil. Scientic American,
March 1998, pp. 80-85.
771
CARB (2009). Low Carbon Fuel Standard Program. Fuel Pathways Documents.
California Air Resources Board, Sacramento, CA, USA.
Carmichael, G.R., D.G. Streets, G. Calori, M. Amann, M.Z. Jacobson, J. Hansen,
Chapter 9
and H. Ueda (2002). Changing trends in sulfur emissions in Asia: Implications for
Clarke, S. (2009). Balancing environmental and cultural impact against the strate-
acid deposition, air pollution, and climate. Environmental Science & Technology,
gic need for wind power. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 15(2-3), pp.
175-191.
Cleveland, C.J. (2005). Net energy from the extraction of oil and gas in the United
States. Energy, 30(5), pp. 769-782.
Cleveland, C.J., R. Costanza, C.A.S. Hall, and R. Kaufmann (1984). Energy and
the U.S. economy: a biophysical perspective. Science, 225(4665), pp. 890-897.
Cleveland, C.J., R.K. Kaufman, and D.I. Stern (2000). Aggregation and the role of
energy in the economy. Ecological Economics, 32(2), pp. 301-317.
Coady, D., M. Grosh, and J. Hoddinott (2004). Targeting of Transfers in Developing
Countries: Review of Lessons and Experience. The World Bank, Washington, DC,
USA.
Coady, D., R. Gillingham, R. Ossowski, J. Piotrowski, T. Shamsuddin, and J. Tyson
(2010). Petroleum Product Subsidies: Costly, Inequitable, and Rising. IMF Staff
Position Note SPN/10/05, International Monetary Fund, Washington, DC, USA.
Coase, R.H. (1960). The problem of social cost. Journal of Law and Economics, 3,
pp. 1-44.
Coburn, A., and A. Cohen (2004). Catastrophe, Injury, and Insurance. The Impact
of Catastrophes on Workers Compensation, Life, and Health Insurance. Risk
Management Solutions, Newark, CA, USA, 80pp.
Chaurey, A., and T.C. Kandpal (2010). Assessment and evaluation of PV based
arcane ethanol: lessons learned. Energy for Sustainable Development, 10(2), pp.
26-39.
K. Gutschmidt, C.A. Pope III, I. Romieu, J.M. Samet, and K. Smith (2004).
Urban air pollution. In: Global and Regional Burden of Disease Attributable to
Cherian, A. (2009). Bridging the Divide Between Poverty Reduction and Climate
Change through Sustainable and Innovative Energy Technologies. Environment
and Energy Group, United Nations Development Programme, New York, NY, USA,
55 pp.
Cherubini, F., and A.H. Strmman (2011). Life cycle assessment of bioenergy sys-
tems: state of the art and future challenges. Bioresource Technology, 102(2), pp.
Rening and Distribution (CONCAWE), and the Institute for Environment and
437-451.
Coronado, C.R., J.A. de Carvalho Jr., J.T. Yoshioka, and J.L. Silveira (2009).
772
and Technology, PICMET 2009, Portland, OR, USA, 2-6 Aug 2009, pp. 2964-2974.
Cowie, A., P. Smith, and D. Johnson (2006). Does soil carbon loss in biomass production systems negate the greenhouse benets of bioenergy? Mitigation and
Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 11(5), pp. 979-1002.
Chapter 9
del Rio, P., and M. Burguillo (2009). An empirical analysis of the impact of renew-
Creutzig, F., and D. He (2009). Climate change mitigation and co-benets of feasible
1099-1104.
Denholm, P., and R.M. Margolis (2008). Land-use requirements and the per-capita
solar footprint for photovoltaic generation in the United States. Energy Policy,
Creutzig, F., A. Papson, L. Schipper, and D.M. Kammen (2009). Economic and
Denholm, P., M. Hand, M. Jackson, and S. Ong (2009). Land Use Requirements of
Modern Wind Power Plants in the United States. Technical report NREL/TP-6A2-
Letters, 4, 044011.
Croezen, H.J., G.C. Bergsma, M.B.J. Otten, and M.P.J. van Valkengoed (2010).
Biofuels: Indirect Land Use Change and Climate Impact. 10 8169 49, CE Delft,
for understanding public perceptions of wind energy. Wind Energy, 8(2), pp.
125-139.
Devine-Wright, P. (2009). Rethinking NIMBYism: The role of place attachment and
Curtis, L., W. Rea, P. Smith-Willis, E. Fenyves, and Y. Pan (2006). Adverse health
Dhingra, C., S. Gandhi, A. Chaurey, and P.K. Agarwal (2009). Access to clean
energy services for the urban and peri-urban poor: a case-study of Delhi, India.
Dauber, J., M.B. Jones, and J.C. Stout (2010). The impact of biomass crop cul-
G.J. van den Born, M. van Oorschot, F. Smout, J. van Vliet, H. Aiking,
289-309.
Biomass Potentials and Their Links to Food, Water, Biodiversity, Energy Demand
Davidson, E.A. (2009). The contribution of manure and fertilizer nitrogen to atmospheric nitrous oxide since 1860. Nature Geoscience, 2(9), pp. 659-662.
Davidson, O., K. Halsns, S. Huq, M. Kok, B. Metz, Y. Sokona, and J. Verhagen
(2003). The development and climate nexus: the case of sub-Saharan Africa.
work for land use impact assessment within LCA. The International Journal of
773
EC (1999). Pilot Study for the Update of the MARINA Project on the Radiological
Exposure of the European Community from Radioactivity in North European
Marine Waters. European Commission, Brussels, Belgium, 77 pp.
EC (2006). Reference Document on Best Available Techniques for Large Combustion
Plants. sic/tm/32, European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Institute for
Prospective Technological Studies, Seville, Spain.
EC (2010). Critical Raw Materials for the EU. European Commission, Enterprise and
Industry, Brussels, Belgium.
Ecoinvent (2009). The Ecoinvent LCI Database, Data v2.2. Swiss Centre for Life Cycle
Inventories, Duebendorf, Switzerland.
Edenhofer, O., B. Knopf, M. Leimbach, and N. Bauer (2010). The economics of low
stabilization. The Energy Journal, 31(Special Issue 1), pp. 11-48.
Edmonds, J.A., M.J. Scott, J.M. Roop, and C.N. MacCracken (1999). International
Emission Trading and the Cost of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Mitigation. Pew
Center for Global Climate Change, Washington, DC, USA.
Chapter 9
ESMAP (2006). Coping with Higher Oil Prices. Energy Sector Management Assistance
Program, World Bank, Washington, DC, USA.
ESMAP (2007). Technical and Economic Assessment of Off-grid, Mini-grid and Grid
Electrication Technologies. Energy Sector Management Assistance Program,
World Bank, Washington, DC, USA.
ESMAP (2008). Coping with Oil Price Volatility. Energy Sector Management
Assistance Program, World Bank, Washington, DC, USA.
ESMAP (2010). Regional Power Sector Integration Lessons from Global Case Studies
and a Literature Review. Energy Sector Management Assistance Program, World
Bank, Washington, DC, USA.
Evans, A., V. Strezov, and T.J. Evans (2009). Assessment of sustainability indicators
for renewable energy technologies. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews,
13(5), pp. 1082-1088.
EWEA (2004). Wind Energy The Facts. An Analysis of Wind Energy in the EU-25.
European Wind Energy Association (EWEA), Brussels, Belgium.
Edmonds, J., T. Wilson, M. Wise, and J. Weyant (2006). Electrication of the econ-
omy and CO2 emissions mitigation. Environmental Economics and Policy Studies,
global health. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 29(1), pp. 383-419.
Fahlen, E., and E.O. Ahlgren (2010). Accounting for external costs in a study of
term problem of climate change in the context of global energy and ecosystems.
In: Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Greenhouse Gas Control
Technologies, Kyoto, Japan, 1-4 October 2002, 2, pp. 1427-1432.
Egr, D., and J.C. Milewski (2002). The diversity of hydropower projects. Energy
Policy, 30(14), pp. 1225-1230.
EIA (2009). International Energy Outlook 2009. U.S. Department of Energy, Energy
Information Administration (EIA), Washington, DC, USA.
Ekholm, T., V. Krey, S. Pachauri, and K. Riahi (2010). Determinants of household
energy consumption in India. Energy Policy, 38(10), pp. 5696-5707.
Ekins, P., and S. Simon (1999). The sustainability gap: a practical indicator of sustainability in the framework of the national accounts. International Journal of
Sustainable Development, 2(1), pp. 32-58.
Ekins, P., S. Simon, L. Deutsch, C. Folke, and R. De Groot (2003). A framework
for the practical application of the concepts of critical natural capital and strong
sustainability. Ecological Economics, 44(2-3), pp. 165-185.
EMBRAPA (2009). Zoneamento Agroecolgico da Cana de Acar. Expandir a produo, preservar a vida, garantir o futuro. 110, Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa
Agropecuria Setembro, Centro Nacional de Pesquisa de Solos, Ministrio da
Agricultura, Pecuria e Abastecimento, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
Engfeldt, L.-G. (2009). From Stockholm to Johannesburg and Beyond. Press,
Information and Communication Department, Ministry for Foreign Affairs,
Stockholm, Sweden.
EPA (2010a). Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reporting from the Petroleum and Natural
Gas Industry. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Climate Change Division,
Washington, DC, USA.
EPA (2010b). Renewable Fuel Standard Program (RFS2) Regulatory Impact Analysis.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, USA.
EPRI (2003). Use of Degraded Water Sources as Cooling Water in Power Plants.
Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), Palo Alto, CA, USA.
ESMAP (2005). The Impacts of Higher Oil Prices on Low Income Countries and the
and B. Phalan (2008). How will oil palm expansion affect biodiversity? Trends
774
Chapter 9
Flanner, M.G., C.S. Zender, P.G. Hess, N.M. Mahowald, T.H. Painter,
V. Ramanathan, and P.J. Rasch (2009). Springtime warming and reduced snow
cover from carbonaceous particles. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 9(7), pp.
2481-2497.
Fleming, J.S., S. Habibi, and H.L. MacLean (2006). Investigating the sustainability
of lignocellulose-derived fuels for light-duty vehicles. Transportation Research
Part D-Transport and Environment, 11(2), pp. 146-159.
Fletcher, R.J., B.A. Robertson, J. Evans, P.J. Doran, J.R.R. Alavalapati, and
Gautam, R., N.C. Hsu, K.-M. Lau, S.-C. Tsay, and M. Kafatos (2009). Enhanced
and opportunities. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 9(3) pp. 161-168.
Fleurbaey, M. (2009). Beyond GDP: The quest for a measure of social welfare.
Journal of Economic Literature, 47(4), pp. 1029-1075.
Founex Committee (1971). The Founex Report on Development and Environment.
Founex Committee, Founex, Switzerland.
Fox, J., and J.E. Campbell (2010). Terrestrial carbon disturbance from mountaintop
mining increases lifecycle emissions for clean coal. Environmental Science and
pp. 10219-10223.
Franco, A., and M. Villani (2009). Optimal design of binary cycle power plants for
water-dominated, medium-temperature geothermal elds. Geothermics, 38(4),
pp. 379-391.
Fritsche, U., K. Hennenberg, and K. Hnecke (2010). The iLUC Factor as a
Means to Hedge Risks of GHG Emissions from Indirect Land Use Change. Oeko
Institute, Darmstadt, Germany, 64 pp.
Fritzsche, A.F. (1992). Editorial Severe accidents: can they occur only in the nuclear
production of electricity? Risk Analysis, 12, pp. 327-329.
Ghirga, G. (2010). Cancer in children residing near nuclear power plants: an open
question. Italian Journal of Pediatrics, 36(1), pp. 60.
Giampietro, M., S. Ulgiati, and D. Pimentel (1997). Feasibility of large-scale biofuel production. BioScience, 47, pp. 587-600.
Gibbs, H.K., M. Johnston, J.A. Foley, T. Holloway, C. Monfreda, N. Ramankutty,
and D. Zaks (2008). Carbon payback times for crop-based biofuel expansion
in the tropics: the effects of changing yield and technology. Environmental
Research Letters, 3, 034001.
culture and land use model. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global
Ginnebaugh, D.L., J. Liang, and M.Z. Jacobson (2010). Examining the tempera-
ture dependence of ethanol (E85) versus gasoline emissions on air pollution with
Germany.
Frondel, M., N. Ritter, C.M. Schmidt, and C. Vance (2010). Economic impacts
from the promotion of renewable energy technologies: The German experience.
Energy Policy, 38, pp. 4048-4056.
Fthenakis, V., and H.C. Kim (2009). Land use and electricity generation: A life-cycle
analysis. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 13(6-7), pp. 1465-1474.
Fthenakis, V., and H.C. Kim (2010). Life-cycle uses of water in U.S. electricity generation. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 14(7), pp. 2039-2048.
Fujino, J., G. Hibino, T. Ehara, Y. Matsuoka, T. Masui, and M. Kainuma (2008).
1192-1199.
Giroux, J. (2008). Turmoil in the Delta: trends and implications. Perspectives on
Terrorism, 2(8), pp. 11-22.
Giroux, J. (2010). A portrait of complexity: new actors and contemporary challenges
in the global energy system and the role of energy infrastructure security. Risk,
Hazards & Crisis in Public Policy, 1(1), pp. 34-56.
Gleick, P. (1993). Water in Crisis: A Guide to the Worlds Fresh Water Resources.
Oxford University Press, New York, NY, USA, 504 pp.
Gleick, P. (2008). The Worlds Water 2008-2009. Island Press, Washington, DC, USA.
GNESD (2004). Energy Access Making Power Sector Reform Work for the Poor.
G-20 (2009). Leaders Statement: The Pittsburgh Summit. The Pittsburgh G-20
Summit. U.S. Department of State, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
GNESD (2007a). Reaching the Millennium Development Goals and Beyond: Access
775
Chapter 9
and K. Tanaka (2008). An integrated model for the assessment of global water
ity generation: The inuence of low-carbon objectives. Energy Policy, 34(18), pp.
4050-4062.
Grbler, A. (2004). Transitions in energy use. In: Encyclopedia of Energy, 6, pp. 163177. Available at: www.eoearth.org/article/Energy_transitions.
Grbler, A., B. ONeill, K. Riahi, V. Chirkov, A. Goujon, P. Kolp, I. Prommer,
Harmon, R.R., and K.R. Cowan (2009). A multiple perspectives view of the market
case for green energy. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 76(1), pp.
204-213.
776
Chapter 9
Harto, C., R. Meyers, and E. Williams (2010). Life cycle water use of low-carbon
transport fuels. Energy Policy, 38(9), pp. 4933-4944.
Hartwick, J. (1977). Intergenerational equity and the investing of rents from exhaustible resources. The American Economic Review, 67(5), pp. 972-974.
Hastings, J.V. (2009). Geographies of state failure and sophistication in maritime
piracy hijackings. Political Geography, 28, pp. 213-223.
Heck, T. (2007). Wrmepumpen. Ecoinvent report No. 6-X, Paul Scherrer Institut and
Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories, Villigen and Duebendorf, Switzerland.
HEI (2010). Outdoor Air Pollution and Health in the Developing Countries of Asia: A
Comprehensive Review. Special Report 18, Health Effects Institute, Boston, MA,
USA.
Heijungs, R., M.J. Goedkoop, J. Struijs, S. Effting, M. Sevenster, and G. Huppes
Hoefnagels, R., E. Smeets, and A. Faaij (2010). Greenhouse gas footprints of dif-
agricultural land demand and estimation of CO2 and N2O emissions. EUR 24483
Hreinsson, E.B. (2007). Environmental, technical, economics and policy issues of the
economic, and energetic costs and benets of biodiesel and ethanol biofuels.
master plan for the renewable hydro and geothermal energy resources in Iceland.
In: 42nd Universities Power Engineering Conference, Vols 1-3, Brighton, UK, 4-6
H.C. Zheng, and D. Bonta (2009). Climate change and health costs of air
Hsu, D.D., D. Inman, G.A. Heath, E.J. Wolfrum, M.K. Mann, and A. Aden (2010).
Hilton, B., and B. Duddy (2009). The effect of E20 ethanol fuel on vehicle emis-
Hueting, R. (1980). New Scarcity and Economic Growth: More Welfare through Less
Huo, H., Y. Wu, and M. Wang (2009b). Total versus urban: Well-to-wheels assessment
777
Hvelplund, F. (2006). Renewable energy and the need for local energy markets.
Energy, 31(13), pp. 2293-2302.
IEA (2008a). Energy Policy Review of Indonesia. International Energy Agency, Paris,
France.
IEA (2008b). World Energy Outlook 2008. International Energy Agency, Paris, France,
578 pp.
IEA (2008c). Worldwide Trends in Energy Use and Efciency. Key Insights from IEA
Indicator Analysis. International Energy Agency, Paris, France.
IEA (2009). World Energy Outlook 2009. International Energy Agency, Paris, France,
696 pp.
IEA (2010a). Energy Poverty How to make modern energy access universal. Special
excerpt from WEO 2010 with UNIDO and UNDP. International Energy Agency,
Paris, France.
IEA (2010b). World Energy Outlook 2010. International Energy Agency, Paris, France,
736 pp.
IEA/ OECD/ World Bank (2010). The Scope of Fossil-Fuel Subsidies in 2009 and
a Roadmap for Phasing Out Fossil Fuel Subsidies. International Energy Agency
Chapter 9
Jacobson, M.Z. (2004). Climate response of fossil fuel and biofuel soot, account-
The World Bank,. Paris, France and Washington, DC, USA. Available at: www.iea.
ing for soots feedback to snow and sea ice albedo and emissivity. Journal of
org/weo/docs/second_joint_report.pdf.
IIED (2009). Land grabs in Africa: Can the Deals Work for Development? September
Brieng. International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED), London,
UK.
ILO (2010). Occupational Hazard Datasheets Field Crop Worker. International
Labour Organization (ILO), International Occupational Safety and Health
Information Centre (CIS), Geneva, Switzerland.
IMF (2008). Fiscal Implications of Climate Change. Fiscal Affairs Department,
International Monetary Fund, Washington, DC, USA.
IPCC (1996a). Climate Change 1995: Economic and Social Dimensions of Climate
Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Second Assessment Report of
the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. J. Bruce, H. Lee, and E.F. Haites
(eds.), Cambridge University Press, 448 pp.
IPCC (1996b). Climate Change 1995: Impacts, Adaptation, and Mitigation of Climate
Change - Scientic-Technical Analysis. Contribution of Working Group II to the
Jonker Klunne, W., and E.G. Michael (2010). Increasing sustainability of rural
R.T. Watson, M.C. Zinyowera, and R.H. Moss (eds.), Cambridge University Press,
879 pp.
IPCC (2000). Special Report on Emissions Scenarios. N. Nakicenovic and R. Swart
(eds.), Cambridge University Press, 570 pp.
IPCC (2001). Climate Change 2001: Mitigation. Contribution of Working Group III to
Jordaan, S.M., D.W. Keith, and B. Stelfox (2009). Quantifying land use of oil
700 pp.
IPCC (2005). Special Report on Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage. B. Metz, O.
Davidson, H. de Coninck, M. Loos, and L. Meyer (eds.), Cambridge University
Press, 431 pp.
IPCC (2007a). Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability.
Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007. M.L. Parry, O.F. Canziani, J.P.
Palutikof, P.J. van der Linden, and C.E. Hanson (eds.), Cambridge University Press,
979 pp.
778
024004.
Jorgenson, D.W. (1984). The role of energy in productivity growth. American
Economic Review, 74(2), pp. 26-30.
Jungbluth, N., C. Bauer, R. Dones, and R. Frischknecht (2005). Life cycle assessment for emerging technologies: Case studies for photovoltaic and wind power.
International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 10(1), pp. 24-34.
Jungbluth, N., M. Stucki, and R. Frischknecht (2009). Photovoltaics. Swiss Centre
for Life Cycle Inventories, Duebendorf, Switzerland.
Chapter 9
Kaiser, M.J., Y. Yu, and C.J. Jablonowski (2009). Modeling lost production from
Kim Oanh, N.T., and N.T. Dung (1999). Emission of polycyclic aromatic hydro-
Kaliyan, N., R.V. Morey, and D.G. Tiffany (2010). Reducing life cycle greenhouse
gas emissions of corn ethanol. In: American Society of Agricultural and Biological
Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Center for Bioenergy Sustainability, Vonore, TN,
USA.
June 2010.
Kangi, A., and N. Heidari (2008). Reservoir-induced seismicity in Karun III dam
(Southwestern Iran). Journal of Seismology, 12(4), pp. 519-527.
Karakosta, C., H. Doukas, and J. Psarras (2010). Technology transfer through climate change: Setting a sustainable energy pattern. Renewable and Sustainable
Energy Reviews, 14(6), pp. 1546-1557.
Klose, C. (2007). Mine water discharge and ooding: A cause of severe earthquakes.
Mine Water and the Environment, 26(3), pp. 172-180.
Klose, C.D. (2010a). Evidence for surface loading as trigger mechanism of the 2008
Wenchuan earthquake. arXiv:1007.2155v2 [physics.geo-ph].
Klose, C.D. (2010b). Human-triggered earthquakes and their impacts on human
security. In: Achieving Environmental Security: Ecosystem Services and Human
Karekezi, S., and W. Kithyoma (2003). Renewable Energy in Africa: Prospects and
Welfare. NATO Science for Peace and Security Series - E: Human and Societal
Limits. In: Republic of Senegal and United Nations Workshop for African Energy
Dynamics, Vol. 69. P.H. Liotta, W.G. Kepner, J.M. Lancaster, and D.A. Mouat (eds.),
Kassenga, G.R. (2008). The status and constraints of solar photovoltaic energy
Kaufmann, R.F., G.G. Eadie, and C.R. Russell (1976). Effects of uranium mining
and milling on ground water in the Grants mineral belt, New Mexico. Ground
Water, 14, pp. 296-308.
1063-1074.
Kramer, W.H. (1982). Ground-water pollution from gasoline. Ground Water
Monitoring & Remediation, 2, pp. 18-22.
transitions in Austria and the United Kingdom. Ecological Economics, 65(1), pp.
187-201.
Krewitt, W. (2002). External cost of energy do the answers match the questions?
Looking back at 10 years of ExternE. Energy Policy, 30, pp. 839-848.
Krey, V., and L. Clarke (2011). The role of renewable energy in climate change mitigation: a synthesis of recent scenarios. Climate Policy, in press.
Kristof, K., and P. Hennicke (2010). Materialefzienz und Ressourcenschonung.
Wuppertal Institute for Climate, Environment and Energy, Wuppertal, Germany.
Kruyt, B., D.P. van Vuuren, H.J.M. de Vries, and H. Groenenberg (2009). Indicators
for energy security. Energy Policy, 37(6), pp. 2166-2181.
Kubiszewski, I., C.J. Cleveland, and P.K. Endres (2010). Meta-analysis of net
energy return for wind power systems. Renewable Energy, 35(1), pp. 218-225.
779
Kuik, O.J. (2003). Climate change policies, energy security and carbon dependency.
Trade-offs for the European Union in the longer term. International Environmental
Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 3, pp. 221-242.
Chapter 9
Leach, G. (1992). The energy transition. Energy Policy, 20(2), pp. 116-123.
LeCornu, J. (ed.) (1998). Dams and Water Managment. Report of the Secretary
General, International Commission on Large Dams to the Conference
and barriers. Journal of Fuel Cell Science and Technology, 6(2), 021009,
Lee, C.C., and C.P. Chang (2008). Energy consumption and economic growth in
doi:10.1115/1.3005384.
Lacher, W., and D. Kumetat (2010). The security of energy infrastructure and supply
in North Africa: Hydrocarbons and renewable energies in comparative perspective. Energy Policy, doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2010.10.026.
Lack, D., B. Lerner, C. Granier, T. Baynard, E. Lovejoy, P. Massoli,
A.R. Ravishankara, and E. Williams (2008). Light absorbing carbon emissions
from commercial shipping. Geophysical Research Letters, 35(13), L13815.
Ladenburg, J. (2010). Attitudes towards offshore wind farms The role of beach
visits on attitude and demographic and attitude relations. Energy Policy, 38(3),
pp. 1297-1304.
Lall, S. (2002). Linking FDI and technology development for capacity building and
strategic competitiveness. Transnational Corporations, 11(3), pp. 39-88.
Langhamer, O., K. Haikonen, and J. Sundberg (2010). Wave power Sustainable
energy or environmentally costly? A review with special emphasis on linear
wave energy converters. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 14, pp.
1329-1335.
Larsen, H., and L. Snderberg Petersen (2009). Ris Energy Report 8. The intel-
ligent energy system infrastructure for the future. Ris-R-1695(EN), Ris National
Lenzen, M., and U. Wachsmann (2004). Wind energy converters in Brazil and
Denmark.
Larson, E.D., and H. Yang (2004). Dimethyl ether (DME) as a household cooking fuel
in China. Energy for Sustainable Development, 8(3), pp. 115-126.
Larson, E.D., G. Fiorese, G.J. Liu, R.H. Williams, T.G. Kreutz, and S. Consonni
pp. 119-130.
Lenzen, M., C. Dey, C. Hardy, and M. Bilek (2006). Life-Cycle Energy Balance
and Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Nuclear Energy in Australia. ISA, University of
Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
plus biomass with CO2 capture and storage: an Illinois case study. Energy &
strategies in the rural Thailand: The case of the improved cooking stove and the
small biogas digester. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 11(5), pp.
Larssen, T., E. Lydersen, D. Tang, Y. He, J. Gao, H. Liu, L. Duan, H.M. Seip,
R.D. Vogt, J. Mulder, M. Shao, Y. Wang, H. Shang, X. Zhang, S. Solberg, W. Aas,
T. Okland, O. Eilertsen, V. Angell, Q. Li, D. Zhao, R. Xiang, J. Xiao, and J. Luo
818-837.
Lindeijer, E. (2000). Review of land use impact methodologies. Journal of Cleaner
Production, 8(4), pp. 273-281.
(2006). Acid rain in China. Environmental Science & Technology, 40, pp. 418-425.
Litvine, D., and R. Wstenhagen (2011). Helping light green consumers walk the
Lau, W.K.M., M.-K. Kim, K.-M. Kim, and W.-S. Lee (2010). Enhanced surface warm-
ing and accelerated snow melt in the Himalayas and Tibetan Plateau induced by
absorbing aerosols. Environmental Research Letters, 5(2), pp. 025204.
Lawn, P.A. (2003). A theoretical foundation to support the Index of Sustainable
Economic Welfare (ISEW), Genuine Progress Indicator (GPI), and other related
indexes. Ecological Economics, 44(1), pp. 105-118.
Le Coq, C., and E. Paltseva (2009). Measuring the security of external energy supply
in the European Union. Energy Policy, 37, pp. 4474-4481.
J. Majkut, N. Metzl, J.P. Ometto, G.P. Peters, I.C. Prentice, J.T. Randerson,
W. Conner (2010). BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Budget: What Happened to the Oil?
G.R. van der Werf, and F.I. Woodward (2009). Trends in the sources and sinks
Oil%20Budget%20description%20FINAL.pdf.
780
Chapter 9
Luckow, P., M.A. Wise, J.J. Dooley, and S.H. Kim (2010). Large-scale utilization
Martinez, D.M., and B.W. Ebenhack (2008). Understanding the role of energy
of biomass energy and carbon dioxide capture and storage in the transport and
Lucon, O., S.T. Coelho, and J.O. Alvares (2005). Bioethanol: the way forward. In:
content/publications/detail/1423203.
McCarl, B.A., and U.A. Schneider (2003). Greenhouse gas mitigation in U.S. agriculture and forestry. Science, 294(5551), pp. 2481-2482.
McGowan, F., and R. Sauter (2005). Public Opinion on Energy Research: A Desk
Study for the Research Councils. Sussex Energy Group, Science and Technology
Policy Research, University of Sussex, Brighton, UK.
McLaughlin, S., and M.E. Walsh (1998). Evaluating environmental consequences
of producing herbaceous crops for bioenergy. Biomass and Bioenergy, 14, pp.
317-324.
McNally, A., D. Magee, and A.T. Wolf (2009). Hydropower and sustainability:
cfm?id=climate-benets-natural-gas-overstated.
Macedo, I.C., and J.E.A. Seabra (2008). Mitigation of GHG emissions using sug-
Mehta, S., and C. Shahpar (2004). The health benets of interventions to reduce
indoor air pollution from solid fuel use: A cost-effectiveness analysis. Energy for
Sustainable Development, 8(3), pp. 53-59.
Melillo, J., J.M. Reilly, D.W. Kicklighter, A.C. Gurgel, T.W. Cronin, S. Paltsev,
B.S. Felzer, X. Wang, A.P. Sokolov, and C.A. Schlosser (2009). Indirect emissions from biofuels: How important? Science, 326(5958), pp. 1397-1399.
Meshakti, N. (2007). The safety and reliability of complex energy processing systems.
Energy Sources Part B - Economics Planning and Policy, 2(2), pp. 141-154.
Michalena, E., J. Hills, and J.-P. Amat (2009). Developing sustainable tourism, using
a multicriteria analysis on renewable energy in Mediterranean Islands. Energy for
Sustainable Development, 13(2), pp. 129-136.
Miller, B.A., V. Alavian, M.D. Bender, D.J. Benton, J.P. Ostrowski, J.A. Parsly, and
M.C. Shiao (1992). Integrated assessment of temperature change impacts on
Marcotullio, P.J., and N.B. Schulz (2007). Comparison of energy transitions in the
the TVA reservoir and power supply systems. In: Hydraulic Engineering: Saving
Engineering sessions at Water Forum 92, Baltimore, MD, USA, 2-6 August 1992,
Marcu, A. (2009). Sectoral approaches in greenhouse gas markets: A viable proposition? In: NAMAs and the Carbon Market. Nationally Appropriate Mitigation
Actions of Developing Countries. UNEP Ris Centre, Roskilde, Denmark, pp.
97-111.
Markandya, A., S. Pedroso-Galinato, and D. Streimikiene (2006). Energy intensity in transition economies: Is there convergence towards the EU average?
Energy Economics, 28(1), pp. 121-145.
pp. 563-568.
Miller, S.A. (2010). Minimizing land use and nitrogen intensity of bioenergy.
Environmental Science & Technology, 44(10), pp. 3932-3939.
Mirza, U.K., N. Ahmad, K. Harijan, and T. Majeed (2009). Identifying and addressing barriers to renewable energy development in Pakistan. Renewable and
Sustainable Energy Reviews, 13(4), pp. 927-931.
Mishra, U.C. (2004). Environmental impact of coal industry and thermal power
plants in India. Journal of Environmental Radioactivity, 72(1-2), pp. 35-40.
781
Chapter 9
Modi, V., S. McDade, D. Lallement, and J. Saghir (2005). Energy Services for
Nieuwenhout, F.D.J., A. van Dijk, V.A.P. van Dijk, D. Hirsch, P.E. Lasschuit,
Mondal, M.A.H., L.M. Kamp, and N.I. Pachova (2010). Drivers, barriers, and strat-
Nikou, S.N. (2010). Irans Subsidies Conundrum. USIP PeaceBrief 49. United States
resources/pb49_0.pdf.
Niven, R.K. (2005). Ethanol in gasoline: Environmental impacts and sustainability
review article. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 9(6), pp. 535-555.
Norgaard, R. (1994). Development Betrayed: The End of Progress and a
Co-evolutionary Revisioning of the Future. Routledge, London, UK.
Notter, D., M. Gauch, R. Widmer, P. Wager, A. Stamp, R. Zah, and H.J. Althaus
(2010). Contribution of Li-ion batteries to the environmental impact of electric
vehicles. Environmental Science & Technology, 44(17), pp. 6550-6556.
Nouni, M.R., S.C. Mullick, and T.C. Kandpai (2008). Providing electricity access to
remote areas in India: Niche areas for decentralized electricity supply. Renewable
Energy, 34(2), pp. 430-434.
NRC (2000). Our Common Journey: A Transition toward Sustainability. National
Research Council (NRC), National Academies Press, Washington, DC, USA.
Murphy, D., A. Cosbey, and J. Drexhage (2008). Market mechanisms for sus-
Sustainable Development. K.H. Olsen and J. Fenhann (eds.), UNEP Ris Centre,
Perspectives/ReformedCDM.pdf .
Nandy, S., S.P.S. Kushwaha, and S. Mukhopadhyay (2007). Monitoring the Chilla-
Motichur wildlife corridor using geospatial tools. Journal for Nature Conservation,
Energy-in-Norway---a-brief-annual-presentation/.
Nannen, V., and J.C.J.M. van den Bergh (2010). Policy instruments for evolution
of bounded rationality: Application to climate-energy problems. Technological
Forecasting and Social Change, 77(1), pp. 76-93.
ONeill, B., and N. Nakicenovic (2008). Learning from global emissions scenarios.
Environmental Research Letters, 3(045014), pp. 1-9.
OECD (2002). Governance for Sustainable Development Five OECD Case Studies.
Nassar, A., L. Harfurch, M.M.R. Moreira, L.C. Bachion, L.B. Antoniazzi, and
G. Sparovek (2009). Impacts on Land Use and GHG Emissions from a Shock
OECD (2006). Environmental and Energy Products: The Benets of Liberalising Trade.
on Brazilian Sugarcane Ethanol Exports to the United States using the Brazilian
Land Use Model (BLUM). The Brazilian Institute for International Negotiations,
Sao Paulo, Brazil.
(ISBN-92-64-02481-6).
OECD/NEA (2002). Accelerator-driven Systems (ADS) and Fast Reactors (FR) in
Neely, J.G., A.E. Magit, J.T. Rich, C.C.J. Voelker, E.W. Wang, R.C. Paniello,
Co-operation and Development (OECD) and Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA), Paris,
France.
Offer, G., N. Meah, and A. Coke (2011). Enabling a Transition to Low Carbon
Economies in Developing Countries. Case Study: Bangladesh. Imperial College,
London, UK, 21 pp.
Oikonomou, E.K., V. Kilias, A. Goumas, A. Rigopoulos, E. Karakatsani,
Crude Oils and the Impact on Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions. DOE/NETL-
sources (RES) projects and their barriers on a regional scale: The case study
of wind parks in the Dodecanese islands, Greece. Energy Policy, 37(11), pp.
Neudoerffer, R.C., P. Malhotra, and P.V. Ramana (2001). Participatory rural energy
planning in India a policy context. Energy Policy, 29(5), pp. 371-381.
Neumayer, E. (2003). Weak versus Strong Sustainability: Exploring the Limits of Two
Opposing Paradigms. 2nd ed. Edward Elgar, Northampton MA.
782
4874-4883.
Olsen, K.H. (2007). The Clean Development Mechanisms contribution to sustainable
development: a review of the literature. Climatic Change, 84(1), pp. 59-73.
Chapter 9
Olsen, K.H., and J. Fenhann (2008a). A Reformed CDM Including New Mechanisms
for Sustainable Development. UNEP Ris Centre, Roskilde, Denmark, 184 pp.
Olsen, K.H., and J. Fenhann (2008b). Sustainable development benets of clean
development mechanism projects: A new methodology for sustainability assessment based on text analysis of the project design documents submitted for
validation. Energy Policy, 36(8), pp. 2819-2830.
lz, S., and M. Beerepoot (2010). Deploying Renewables in Southeast Asia. Trends
and potentials. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and
International Energy Agency, Paris, France.
Omer, A.M. (2003). Implications of renewable energy for women in Sudan:
Challenges and opportunities. International Journal of Sustainable Development,
6(2), pp. 246-259.
Onat, N., and H. Bayar (2010). The sustainability indicators of power production
systems. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 14(9), pp. 3108-3115.
Ostergaard, P.A., and H. Lund (2010). A renewable energy system in Frederikshavn
using low-temperature geothermal energy for district heating. Applied Energy,
88(2), pp. 479-487.
Ott, K. (2003). The case for strong sustainability. In: Greifswald s Environmental
Ethics. Steinbecker Verlag Ulrich Rose, Greifswald, Germany, pp. 59-64.
Owen, A.D. (2006). Renewable energy: Externality costs as market barriers. Energy
Policy, 34(5), pp. 632-642.
Paine, L. (1996). Some ecological and socio-economic considerations for biomass
energy crop production. Biomass and Bioenergy, 10, pp. 231-242.
Painuly, J.P. (2001). Barriers to renewable energy penetration; a framework for analysis. Renewable Energy, 24(1), pp. 73-89.
Palanivelraja, S., and K.I. Manirathinem (2010). Studies on indoor air quality
in a rural sustainable home. International Journal of Engineering and Applied
Sciences, 6(2), pp. 70-74.
Pehnt, M., M. Oeser, and D.J. Swider (2008). Consequential environmental system
analysis of expected offshore wind electricity production in Germany. Energy,
33(5), pp. 747-759.
Pelc, R., and R. Fujita (2002). Renewable energy from the ocean. Marine Policy, 26,
pp. 471-479.
Perkins, R. (2003). Environmental leapfrogging in developing countries: A critical
assessment and reconstruction. Natural Resources Forum, 27(3), pp. 177-188.
Peters, G.P., and E.G., Hertwich (2008). CO2 embodied in international trade with
implications for global climate policy. Environmental Science & Technology,
42(5), pp. 1401-1407.
Peters, J., M. Harsdorff, and F. Ziegler (2009). Rural electrication, Accelerating
impacts with complementary services. Energy for Sustainable Development,
13(1), pp. 38-42.
Petersen, L.K., and A.H. Andersen (2009). Socio-cultural Barriers to the
Development of a Sustainable Energy System The Case of Hydrogen. 248,
National Environmental Research Institute, Aarhus, Denmark.
Pezzey, J. (1992). Sustainability An interdisciplinary guide. Environmental Values,
1, pp. 321-362.
Pischinger, S., M. Mther, F. Fricke, and A. Kolbeck (2008). From fuel to wheel:
How modern fuels behave in combustion engines. Erdoel Erdgas Kohle, 124(2),
pp. 58-63.
Pohekar, S.D., and M. Ramachandran (2006). Multi-criteria evaluation of cooking
devices with special reference to utility of parabolic solar cooker (PSC) in India.
Energy, 31(8-9), pp. 1215-1227.
Pokhrel, A.K., K.R. Smith, A. Khalakdina, A. Deuja, and M.N. Bates (2005). Case
control study of indoor cooking smoke exposure and cataract in Nepal and India.
International Journal of Epidemiology, 34(3), pp. 702-708.
Pollin, R., H. Garrett-Peltier, J. Heintz, and H. Scharber (2008). Green Recovery
Pang, X., Y. Mu, J. Yuan, and H. He (2008). Carbonyls emission from ethanol-
Centre for American Progress and Political Economy Research Institute (PERI),
Develop Shale Gas. Munk School of Global Affairs, University of Toronto, Toronto,
Canada.
cal coastal power plant on phytoplankton. Journal of Thermal Biology, 30, pp.
Park, C., Y. Choi, C. Kim, S. Oh, G. Lim, and Y. Moriyoshi (2010). Performance and
exhaust emission characteristics of a spark ignition engine using ethanol and
ethanol-reformed gas. Fuel, 89(8), pp. 2118-2125.
Parson, E., V. Burkett, K. Fisher-Vanden, D. Keith, L. Mearns, H. Pitcher,
C. Rosenzweig, and M. Webster (2007). Global Change Scenarios: Their
Development and Use. Department of Energy, Ofce of Biological and
Environmental Research, Washington, DC, USA, 106 pp.
Paul, S., and R.N. Bhattacharya (2004). Causality between energy consumption
and economic growth in India: a note on conicting results. Energy Economics,
26(6), pp. 977-983.
Paul, W., R.S. Kirk, J. Michael, and H. Andrew (2007). A global perspective on
energy: health effects and injustices. Lancet, 370(9591), pp. 965-978.
Paulsson, E. (2009). A review of the CDM literature: from ne-tuning to critical scrutiny? International Environmental Agreements-Politics Law and Economics, 9(1),
pp. 63-80.
307-316.
Poumadre, M., C. Mays, S. Le Mer, and R. Blong (2005). The 2003 heat wave
in France: dangerous climate change here and now. Risk Analysis, 25(6), pp.
1483-94.
Rabl, A., and J.V. Spadaro (1999). Damages and costs of air pollution: an analysis of
uncertainties. Environment International, 25(1), pp. 29-46.
Rajagopal, D., G. Hochman, and D. Zilberman (2010). Indirect fuel use change
(IFUC) and the lifecycle environmental impact of biofuel policies. Energy Policy,
39(1), pp. 228-233
Ramanathan, V., and G. Carmichael (2008). Global and regional climate changes
due to black carbon. Nature Geoscience, 1, pp. 221-228.
Ramanathan, V., and Y. Feng (2008). On avoiding dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system: Formidable challenges ahead. Proceedings of
the National Academy of Sciences, 105(38), pp. 14245-14250.
Ramanathan, V., C. Chung, D. Kim, T. Bettge, L. Buja, J.T. Kiehl, W.M. Washington,
Q. Fu, D.R. Sikka, and M. Wild (2005). Atmospheric brown clouds: Impacts on
South Asian climate and hydrological cycle. Proceedings of the National Academy
85-101.
783
Chapter 9
Rao, K.U., and V.V.N. Kishore (2010). A review of technology diffusion models with
special reference to renewable energy technologies. Renewable and Sustainable
Energy Reviews, 14(3), pp. 1070-1078.
Roques, F., C. Hiroux, and M. Saguan (2010). Optimal wind power deployment in
Europe A portfolio approach. Energy Policy, 38(7), pp. 3245-3256.
Rosenberg, D.M., F. Berkes, R.A. Bodaly, R.E. Hecky, C.A. Kelly, and
Rovere, E.L.L., J.B. Soares, L.B. Oliveira, and T. Lauria (2010). Sustainable expan-
W.P. Schmidt, S. Suh, B.P. Weidema, and D.W. Pennington (2004). Review:
Life cycle assessment. Part 1: Framework, goal and scope denition, inventory
analysis and applications. Environment International, 30, pp. 701-720.
Reddy, A.K.N., W. Annecke, K. Blok, D. Bloom, B. Boardman, A. Eberhard,
J. Ramakrishna, Q. Wodon, and A.K.M. Zaidi (2000). Energy and social issues.
In: World Energy Assessment: Energy and the Challenge of Sustainability. United
Nations Development Programme, UN Department of Economic and Social
Affairs and the World Energy Council, New York, NY, USA and London, UK, pp
40-60. Available at: www.undp.org/energy/activities/wea/drafts-frame.html.
decision making. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 14, pp. 422-429.
Roy, J. (2000). The rebound effect: some empirical evidence from India. Energy Policy,
28(6-7), pp. 433-438.
Runge, C.F., and B. Senauer (2007). Biofuel: corn isnt the king of this growing
domain. Nature, 449(7163), pp. 637.
Rylands, A.B., and K. Brandon (2005). Brazilian protected area. Conservation
Biology, 19(3), pp. 612-618.
Sala, O.E., D. Sax, and H. Leslie (2009). Biodiversity consequences of biofuel
Reddy, S., and J.P. Painuly (2004). Diffusion of renewable energy technologies
Reiche, D. (2010). Renewable energy policies in the Gulf countries: A case study
of the carbon-neutral Masdar City in Abu Dhabi. Energy Policy, 38(1), pp.
378-382.
pp. 127-137.
REN21 (2009). Renewables Global Status Report: 2009 Update. Renewable Energy
Policy Network for the 21st Century Secretariat, Paris, France, 42 pp.
REN21 (2010). Renewables 2010: Global Status Report. Renewable Energy Policy
Network for the 21st Century Secretariat, Paris, France, 80 pp.
Zuknftige
Technologien.
Zuknftige
SARI (2010). Unlocking South Africas Green Growth Potential. The South African
Technologien
Reynolds, C.C.O., and M. Kandlikar (2008). Climate impacts of air quality policy:
Reynolds, J.Z. (1980). Power plant cooling systems: policy alternatives. Science, 207,
pp. 367-372.
Richter, B.D., S. Postel, C. Revenga, T. Scudder, B. Lehner, A. Churchill, and
M. Chow (2010). Lost in developments shadow: The downstream human consequences of dams. Water Alternatives, 3(2), pp. 14-42.
Riffell, S., J. Verschuyl, D. Miller, and T.B. Wigley (2011). Biofuel harvests,
coarse woody debris, and biodiversity A meta-analysis. Forest Ecology and
Management, 261(4), pp. 878-887.
Rijsberman, F. (2006). Water scarcity: Fact or ction? Agricultural Water
Management, 80(1-3), pp. 5-22.
Roayaei, E., and K. Taheri (2009). Test run evaluation of a blend of fuel-grade
ethanol and regular commercial gasoline: Its effect on engine efciency and
2065-2074.
pp. 385-389.
Rogers, J.C., E.A. Simmons, I. Convery, and A. Weatherall (2008). Public percep-
784
Schlamadinger, B. (1997). Forests for carbon sequestration or fossil fuel substitution? A sensitivity analysis. Biomass and Bioenergy, 13(6), pp. 389-397.
Chapter 9
Singh, R. (2007). Advancing a carrot and stick framework for effective CARICOM
environmental cooperation and governance. Penn State Environmental Law
Review, 16(1), pp. 199-256.
Singh, S., and A. Kumar (2011). Development of water requirement factors for biomass conversion pathway. Bioresource Technology, 102(2), pp. 1316-1328.
Sjberg, L. (2009). Precautionary attitudes and the acceptance of a local nuclear
waste repository. Safety Science, 47, pp. 542-546.
Scholz, R. (2007). Assessment of land use impacts on the natural environment. Part
Skjold, D.O. (2009). Power for Generations: The Development of Statkraft and the
1: An analytical framework for pure land occupation and land use change. The
Slaski, X., and M. Thurber (2009). Cookstoves and Obstacles to Technology Adoption
3, pp. 171-182.
Schurr, S.H. (1984). Energy use, technological change, and productive efciency
and consequences. Annual Review of Energy and the Environment, 25, pp. 21-51.
Scott, M.J., J.A. Edmonds, N. Mahasenan, J. Roop, A.L. Brunello, and E.F. Haites
Smith, K.R., and M. Ezzati (2005). How environmental health risks change with
(2004). International emission trading and the cost of greenhouse gas emissions
Smith, K.R., and S. Mehta (2003). The burden of disease from indoor air pollution in
S. Tokgoz, D. Hayes, and T.H. Yu (2008). Use of U.S. croplands for biofuels
Semere, T., and F.M. Slater (2007). Ground ora, small mammal and bird species
Smith, K.R., S. Mehta, and M. Maeusezahl-Feuz (2004). Indoor air pollution from
household use of solid fuels: comparative quantication of health risks. In: Global
Sen, S., and T. Babali (2007). Security concerns in the Middle East for oil supply:
Problems and solutions. Energy Policy, 35(3), pp. 1517-1524.
Shanthi, V., and N. Gajendran (2009). The impact of water pollution on the socio-
economic status of the stakeholders of Ennore Creek, Bay of Bengal (India): Part
improved biomass cookstove programs for indoor air quality and stove perfor-
mance: conclusions from the Household Energy and Health Project. Energy for
Shen, Y., T. Oki, N. Utsumi, S. Kanae, and N. Hanasaki (2008). Projection of future
generation in Finland Dealing with the uncertainties. Energy Policy, 37(1), pp.
Shields, M.A., D.K. Woolf, E.P.M. Grist, S.A. Kerr, A.C. Jackson, R.E. Harris,
M.C. Bell, R. Beharie, A. Want, E. Osalusi, S.W. Gibb, and J. Side (2011).
Marine renewable energy: The ecological implications of altering the hydrodynamics of the marine environment. Ocean & Coastal Management, 54, pp. 2-9.
Shiklomanov, I.A. (2000). Appraisal and assessment of world water resources.
Water International, 25(1), pp. 11-32.
Shrestha, R.M., and S. Pradhan (2010). Co-benets of CO2 emission reduction in a
developing country. Energy Policy 38, pp. 2586-2597.
Shukla, P.R. (1995). Greenhouse gas models and abatement costs for developing
nations : A critical assessment. Energy Policy, 23(8), pp. 677-687.
Shukla, P.R., S. Dhar, and D. Mahapatra (2008). Low-carbon society scenarios for
India. Climate Policy, 8, pp. S156-S176.
Singh, A. (2009). The sustainable development of Fijis energy infrastructure: A status
report. Pacic Economic Bulletin, 24(2), pp. 141-154.
90-90.
Solow, R.M. (1974). Intergenerational equity and exhaustible resources. The Review
of Economic Studies, 41, pp. 29-45.
Sorrell, S., J. Speirs, R. Bentley, A. Brandt, and R. Miller (2009). Global Oil
Depletion An Assessment of the Evidence for a Near-Term Peak in Global Oil
Production. UK Energy Research Centre, London, UK.
Sovacool, B.K. (2009). The cultural barriers to renewable energy and energy efciency in the United States. Technology in Society, 31(4), pp. 365-373.
Sovacool, B.K., and R.F. Hirsh (2009). Beyond batteries: An examination of the benets and barriers to plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs) and a vehicle-to-grid
(V2G) transition. Energy Policy, 37(3), pp. 1095-1103.
Steenblik, R. (2005). Liberalisation of Trade in Renewable-Energy Products and
Associated Goods: Charcoal, Solar Photovoltaic Systems and Wind Pumps and
Turbines. COM/ENV/TD(2005)23/FINAL, Organisation for Economic Co-operation
and Development, Paris, France.
785
Steinberg, L.J., H. Sengul, and A.M. Cruz (2008). Natech risk and management: an
assessment of the state of the art. Natural Hazards, 46, pp. 143-152.
Stern, D.I., 1993: Energy and economic-growth in the USA a multivariate approach.
Energy Economics, 15(2), pp. 137-150.
Stern, N. (2007). The Economics of Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, 712
pp. Available at: webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.hm-treasury.
gov.uk/sternreview_index.htm.
Sternberg, R. (2008). Hydropower: Dimensions of social and environmental coexistence. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 12, pp. 1588-1621.
Steurer, R., and A. Martinuzzi (2007). From environmental plans to sustainable
development strategies. European Environment, 17(3), pp. 147-151.
Stiglitz, J. E., Sen, A. and J.-P. Fitoussi (2009). Report by the Commission on the
Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress. No publisher specied. Available at: www.stiglitz-sen-toussi.fr.
Stone, K.C., P.G. Hunt, K.B. Cantrell, and K.S. Ro (2010). The potential impacts
of biomass feedstock production on water resource availability. Bioresource
Technology, 101, pp. 2014-2025.
Strand, J. (2009). Revenue Management Effects Related to Financial Flows Generated
by Climate Policy. Policy Research Working Paper, World Bank, Washington, DC,
USA, 37 pp.
Suckale, J. (2009). Induced seismicity in hydrocarbon elds. Advances in Geophysics,
51, pp. 55-106.
Suh, S., M. Lenzen, G.J. Treloar, H. Hondo, A. Horvath, G. Huppes, O. Jolliet,
U. Klann, W. Krewitt, Y. Moriguchi, J. Munksgaard, and G. Norris (2003).
Chapter 9
Thaulow, H., A. Tvede, T.S. Pedersen, and K. Seelos (2010). Managing catchments
for hydropower generation. In: Handbook of Catchment Management. R. Ferrier
and A. Jenkins (eds.), Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford, UK, pp. 253-287.
Thiam, D.R. (2010). Renewable decentralized in developing countries: Appraisal
from microgrids project in Senegal. Renewable Energy, 35(8), pp. 1615-1623.
Thompson, S., and B. Duggirala (2009). The feasibility of renewable energies at
an off-grid community in Canada. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews,
13(9), pp. 2740-2745.
Tilman, D., J. Hill, and C. Lehman (2006). Carbon-negative biofuels from low-input
high-diversity grassland biomass. Science, 314(5805), pp. 1598-1600
Tiwary, R.K. (2001). Environmental impact of coal mining on water regime and its
management. Water, Air & Soil Pollution, 132, pp. 185-199-199.
Toft, P., A. Duero, and A. Bieliauskas (2010). Terrorist targeting and energy security. Energy Policy, 38, pp. 4411-4421.
Torcellini, P., N. Long, and R. Judkoff (2003). Consumptive Water Use for U.S.
Power Production. National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, CO, USA.
Torfs, R., F. Hurley, B. Miller, and A. Rabl (2007). A Set of Concentration-Response
Functions. European Commission, Brussels, Belgium.
Torres-Duque, C., D. Maldonado, R. Perez-Padilla, M. Ezzati, and G. Viegi (2008).
Biomass fuels and respiratory diseases: A review of the evidence. Proceedings of
the American Thoracic Society, 5(5), pp. 577-590.
Toth, F.L., and H.-H. Rogner (2006). Oil and nuclear power: Past, present, and
future. Energy Economics, 28, pp. 1-25.
Trieb, F.S., C. Schillings, M. OSullivan, T. Pregger, and C. Hoyer-Klick (2009).
Resources/dokumente/institut/system/publications/Solar_Paces_Paper_Trieb_
Final_Colour_corrected.pdf.
Tsoutsos, T., N. Frantzeskaki, and V. Gekas (2005). Environmental impacts from
the solar energy technologies. Energy Policy, 33, pp. 289-296.
Turchi, C., M. Wagner, and C. Kutscher (2010). Water Use in Parabolic Trough
Power Plants: Summary Results from Worley Parsons Analyses. NREL/TP-550049468, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, CO, USA.
Turton, H., and F. Moura (2007). Vehicle-to-grid systems for sustainable devel-
seawater samples collected from the Japan Sea area using accelerator mass
Tyner, W., F. Taheripour, Q. Zhuang, D. Birur, and U. Baldos (2010). Land Use
Changes and Consequent CO2 Emissions due to U.S. Corn Ethanol Production:
786
Chapter 9
Uner, M., and F. Mller-Langer (2009). Biofuels today and tomorrow: effects of
fuel composition on exhaust gas emissions. Accreditation and Quality Assurance:
Journal for Quality, Comparability and Reliability in Chemical Measurement,
14(12), pp. 685-691.
van Alphen, K., W.G.J.H.M. van Sark, and M.P. Hekkert (2007). Renewable
energy technologies in the Maldives determining the potential. Renewable and
Sustainable Energy Reviews, 11(8), pp. 1650-1674.
van Dam, J., A.P.C. Faaij, J. Hilbert, H. Petruzzi, and W.C. Turkenburg (2009).
Large-scale bioenergy production from soybeans and switchgrass in Argentina.
Part B: Environmental and socio-economic impacts on a regional level. Renewable
and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 13(8), pp. 1679-1709.
van der Horst, D. (2007). NIMBY or not? Exploring the relevance of location and
van der Vleuten, F., N. Stam, and R. van der Plas (2007). Putting solar home
systems programmes into perspective: What lessons are relevant. Energy Policy,
Department of Economic and Social Affairs, and World Energy Council, New York,
NY, USA.
UNEP (2008a). Green Jobs: Towards Decent Work in a Sustainable, Low-Carbon
World. United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), Nairobi, Kenya (ISBN:
978-92-807-5).
UNEP (2008b). Reforming Energy Subsidies. Opportunities to Contribute to the
Climate Change Agenda. Division of Technology, Industry and Economics, United
Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), Paris, France.
Vries, and D.P. van Vuuren (2008). Modeling energy and development: An
Trends and Issues in the Financing of Renewable Energy and Energy Efciency.
van Vliet, O., A.S. Brouwer, T. Kuramochi, M. van den Broek, and A. Faaij (2011).
Energy use, costs and CO2 emissions of electric cars. Journal of Power Sources,
196(4), pp. 2298-2310.
van Vuuren, D.P., P.L. Lucas, and H. Hilderink (2007). Downscaling drivers of global
environmental change: Enabling use of global SRES scenarios at the national and
grid levels. Global Environmental Change, 17(1), pp. 114-130.
van Vuuren, D.P., S.J. Smith, and K. Riahi (2010a). Downscaling socioeconomic
and emissions scenarios for global environmental change research: a review.
Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 1(3), pp. 393-404.
van Vuuren, D.P., E. Bellevrat, A. Kitous, and M. Isaac (2010b). Bio-energy use
and low stabilization scenarios. Energy Journal 31(Special Issue 1), pp. 192-222.
Upreti, B.R. (2004). Conict over biomass energy development in the United
Varun, R. Prakash, and I.K. Bhat (2010). A gure of merit for evaluating sustaina-
Kingdom: some observations and lessons from England and Wales. Energy Policy,
787
Vinnem, J.E. (2010). Risk indicators for major hazards on offshore installations.
Safety Science, 48, pp. 770-787.
Viscusi, K.W. (2010). The heterogeneity of the value of statistical life: Introduction
and overview. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 40, pp. 1-13.
Voitsekhovitch, O., Y. Soroka, and T. Lavrova (2006). Uranium mining and ore processing in Ukraine radioecological effects on the Dnipro River water ecosystem
and human health. Radioactivity in the Environment, 8, pp. 206-214.
Chapter 9
West, J., I. Bailey, and M. Winter (2010). Renewable energy policy and public perceptions of renewable energy: A cultural theory approach. Energy Policy, 38(10),
pp. 5739-5748.
Westwood, A. (2007). Wave and tidal project review. Renewable Energy Focus
8(4), pp. 30-33.
Weyant, J.P. (1993). Costs of reducing global carbon emissions. The Journal of
Economic Perspectives, 7(4), pp. 27-46.
Whitaker, M., and G. Heath (2010). Life Cycle Assessment Comparing the Use of
von Blottnitz, H., and M.A. Curran (2007). A review of assessments conducted
on bio-ethanol as a transportation fuel from a net energy, greenhouse gas, and
environmental life cycle perspective. Journal of Cleaner Production, 15(7), pp.
607-619.
Voorspools, K.R., E.A. Brouwers, and W.D. Dhaeseleer (2000). Energy content
and indirect greenhouse gas emissions embedded in emission-free plants:
results from the Low Countries. Applied Energy, 67, pp. 307-330.
Walker, G., P. Devine-Wright, S. Hunter, H. High, and B. Evans (2010). Trust
and community: Exploring the meanings, contexts and dynamics of community
renewable energy. Energy Policy, 38(6), pp. 2655-2663.
WHO (2002). The World Health Report. Reducing Risks, Promoting Healthy Life.
World Health Organization (WHO), Geneva, Switzerland.
WHO (2006). Air Quality Guidelines. Global Update 2005. Particulate Matter, Ozone,
Nitrogen Dioxide and Sulfur Dioxide. World Health Organization (WHO) Regional
Ofce for Europe, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Wicke, B., V. Dornburg, M. Junginger, and A. Faaij (2008). Different palm oil
production systems for energy purposes and their greenhouse gas implications.
Biomass and Bioenergy, 32(12), pp. 1322-1337.
Wilbanks, T.J. (2002). Geographic scaling issues in integrated assessments of climate
change. Integrated Assessment, 3(2-3), pp. 100-114.
Wallquist, L., V.H.M. Visschers, and M. Siegrist (2009). Lay concepts on CCS
Wilkie, A.C., K.J. Riedesel, and J.M. Owens (2000). Stillage characterization and
Brazil considering land use change, GHG emissions and socio-economic aspects.
Williams, P.R.D., D. Inman, A. Aden, and G.A. Heath (2009). Environmental and
sustainability factors associated with next-generation biofuels in the US: What
do we really know? Environmental Science & Technology, 43(13), pp. 4763-4775.
Winkler, H., O. Davidson, and S. Mwakasonda (2005). Developing institutions for
the clean development mechanism (CDM): African perspectives. Climate Policy,
5, pp. 209-220.
Ward, M. (2008). Sector no-lose targets: A new scaling up mechanism for develop-
ing countries. In: A Reformed CDM Including New Mechanisms for Sustainable
Development. K.H. Olsen and J. Fenhann (eds.), UNEP Ris Centre, Roskilde,
Denmark, pp. 147-163.
concentrations for land use and energy. Science, 324(5931), pp. 1183-1186.
Wise, M., G. Kyle, J. Dooley, and S. Kim (2010). The impact of electric passenger
Warren, C.R., and M. McFadyen (2010). Does community ownership affect pub-
lic attitudes to wind energy? A case study from south-west Scotland. Land Use
Carbon dioxide emissions, coal use, and carbon dioxide capture and storage.
Werner, M., and A.I. Schaefer (2007). Social aspects of a solar-powered desalina-
tion unit for remote Australian communities. Desalination, 203(1-3), pp. 375-393.
ists attitudes, and the technocratic planning perspective. Land Use Policy, 27(2),
pp. 195-203.
788
Chapter 9
Wood, R.G. (2011). Carbon Finance and Pro-Poor Co-benets: The Gold Standard
Yanowitz, J., and R.L. McCormick (2009). Effect of E85 on tailpipe emissions from
light-duty vehicles. Journal of the Air and Waste Management Association, 59(2),
pp. 172-182.
Yeh, S., S. Jordaan, A. Brandt, M. Turetsky, S. Spatari, and D. Keith (2010). Land
Sustainability and Selectivity. Energy and Mining Sector Board, The World Bank,
use greenhouse gas emissions from conventional oil production and oil sands.
World Bank (2007a). African Development Indicators 2007. World Bank, Washington,
Yim, M.-S. (2006). Nuclear nonproliferation and the future expansion of nuclear
power. Progress in Nuclear Energy, 48, pp. 504-524.
Yoon, S.H., S.Y. Ha, H.G. Roh, and C.S. Lee (2009). Effect of bioethanol as an alternative fuel on the emissions reduction characteristics and combustion stability in
DC, USA.
World Bank (2008a). Global Economic Prospects. The International Bank for
Reconstruction and Development, The World Bank, Washington, DC, USA, 224 pp.
World Bank (2008b). The Welfare Impact of Rural Electrication: A Reassessment of
the Costs and Benets. The World Bank, Washington, DC, USA, 178 pp.
World Bank (2010). World Development Indicators 2010. World Bank, Washington,
Adaptation. A World Bank Study. The World Bank, Washington, DC, USA (ISBN:
978-0-8213-8697-2).
World Commission on Dams (2000). Dams and Development A New Framework
Zhai, H., H.C. Frey, N.M. Rouphail, G.A. Gonalves, and T.L. Farias (2009).
Comparison of exible fuel vehicle and life-cycle fuel consumption and emis-
USA.
sions of selected pollutants and greenhouse gases for ethanol 85 versus gasoline.
WTO (2010). Background Note: Trade and Environment in the WTO. World Trade
Journal of the Air and Waste Management Association, 59(8), pp. 912-924.
Zhang, J., and K.R. Smith (2007). Household air pollution from coal and biomass
Wu, M., M. Mintz, M. Wang, and S. Arora (2009). Water consumption in the pro-
renewable energies: Results from case studies in Germany. Energy Policy, 36(11),
pp. 4136-4141.
981-97.
Wustenhagen, R., M. Wolsink, and M.J. Burer (2007). Social acceptance of renew-
able energy innovation: An introduction to the concept. Energy Policy, 35(5), pp.
2683-2691.
energy sources in Crete. Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews, 14(3), pp.
240
239
surface seawaters from the western North Pacic Ocean and Japan Sea. Applied
Radiation and Isotopes, 66(1), pp. 103-107.
Yamamoto, H., J. Fujino, and K. Yamaji (2001). Evaluation of bioenergy potential
1088-1095.
Zuk, M., L. Rojas, S. Blanco, P. Serrano, J. Cruz, F. Angeles, G. Tzintzun,
C. Armendariz, R.D. Edwards, M. Johnson, H. Riojas-Rodriguez, and
O. Masera (2007). The impact of improved wood-burning stoves on ne particu-
789
790
10
Mitigation Potential
and Costs
Lead Authors:
Akintayo Adedoyin (Botswana), Makoto Akai (Japan), Thomas Bruckner (Germany),
Leon Clarke (USA), Volker Krey (Austria/Germany), Ilkka Savolainen (Finland),
Sven Teske (Germany), Diana rge-Vorsatz (Hungary), Raymond Wright (Jamaica)
Contributing Authors:
Gunnar Luderer (Germany)
Review Editors:
Erin Baker (USA) and Keywan Riahi (Austria)
791
Chapter 10
Table of Contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 798
10.2
10.2.1
10.2.1.1
10.2.1.2
10.2.2
10.2.2.1
10.2.2.2
10.2.2.3
10.2.2.4
10.2.2.5
10.2.2.6
10.2.3
The deployment of renewable energy sources in scenarios from the technology perspective
10.2.4
Knowledge gaps
10.3
10.3.1
10.3.1.1
10.3.1.2
10.3.1.3
10.3.1.4
10.3.2
10.3.2.1
10.3.2.2
10.3.3
Greenhouse gas mitigation potential of renewable energy in aggregate and as individual options
10.3.4
Comparison of the results of the in-depth scenario analysis and knowledge gaps
10.4
10.4.1
Introduction
792
...........................
799
................................
812
.......................................................................................................................................
812
.......................
826
...............................................
830
.............................................................................................................................................
832
Chapter 10
10.4.2
10.4.2.1
10.4.2.2
10.4.3
10.4.3.1
10.4.3.2
10.4.3.3
Review of regional energy and abatement cost curves from the literature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 834
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 834
Regional and global renewable energy supply curves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 834
Regional and global carbon abatement cost curves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 834
10.4.4
10.4.5
10.5
10.5.1
10.5.2
10.5.3
10.5.4
10.5.5
10.5.6
Knowledge gaps
10.6
10.6.1
10.6.2
10.6.2.1
10.6.2.2
10.6.2.3
10.6.3
Social and environmental costs and benets by energy sources and regional considerations
10.6.4
10.6.5
Knowledge gaps
.......................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.........................................................................................
836
846
849
.....................................................
851
.......................................................................................................................................
851
................................................................................
851
.........................................................................................................................
851
................................
.......................................................................................................................................
854
857
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 858
793
Chapter 10
Executive Summary
Renewable energy (RE) has the potential to play an important and increasing role in achieving ambitious
climate mitigation targets. Many RE technologies are increasingly becoming market competitive, although some
innovative RE technologies are not yet mature, economic alternatives to non-RE technologies. However, assessing the
future role of RE requires not only consideration of the cost and performance of RE technologies, but also an integrative
perspective that takes into account the interactions between various forces and the overall systems behaviours.
An increasing number of integrated scenario analyses are available in the published literature. They are
able to provide relevant insights into the potential contribution of RE to future energy supplies and climate
change mitigation. A review of 164 scenarios from 16 different large-scale integrated models was conducted through
an open call. Although a collection of scenarios from the literature does not represent a truly random sample suitable
for rigorous statistical analysis, a scenario overview can provide some critical and strategic insights about the role of RE
in climate mitigation, in spite of the uncertainties involved.
Although it is not possible to precisely link long-term climate goals and global RE deployment levels, RE
deployment signicantly increases in the scenarios with ambitious greenhouse gas (GHG) concentration
stabilization levels. Ambitious GHG concentration stabilization levels lead on average to higher RE deployment compared to the baseline. However, for any given long-term GHG concentration goal, the scenarios exhibit a wide range of
RE deployment levels. In scenarios that stabilize the atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration at a level of less
than 440 ppm, the median RE deployment levels are 139 EJ/yr in 2030 and 248 EJ/yr in 2050, with the highest levels
reaching 252 EJ/yr in 2030 and up to 428 EJ/yr in 2050. This range is a result of differences in assumptions about
factors such as: developments in RE technologies and their associated resource bases and costs; comparative attractiveness of competing mitigation options (i.e., end-use energy efciency, nuclear energy and fossil energy with carbon
capture and storage (CCS)); fundamental drivers of energy services demand (including population, economic growth);
the ability to integrate variable RE sources into power grids; fossil fuel resources; specic policy approaches to mitigation; and emissions pathways towards long-term goals (e.g., overshoot versus stabilization). However, despite the
observed variation, the scenarios indicate that, all else being equal, more ambitious mitigation generally leads to
greater deployment of RE.
The majority of the 164 recent scenarios indicate a substantial increase in the deployment of RE by 2030,
2050 and beyond. In 2008, total RE production stood at roughly 64 EJ/yr (12.9% of total primary energy supply) with
more than 30 EJ/yr of this being traditional biomass. More than 50% of the scenarios project levels of RE deployment
in 2050 of more than 173 EJ/yr reaching up to over 400 EJ/yr in some cases. Given that traditional biomass demand
decreases in most scenarios, an increase in the production level of RE (excluding traditional biomass) anywhere from
roughly three-fold to more than ten-fold is projected. The global primary energy supply share of RE differs substantially
among the scenarios. More than half of the scenarios show a contribution from RE in excess of a 17% share of primary
energy supply in 2030, rising to more than 27% in 2050. The scenarios with the highest RE shares reach approximately
43% in 2030 and 77% in 2050. In other words, it is likely that RE will have a signicantly larger role (in absolute and
relative numbers) in the global energy system in the future than today.
Even without efforts to address climate change RE can be expected to expand. Most baseline scenarios with
no assumed climate mitigation policy show RE deployments signicantly above the 2008 level of 64 EJ/yrup to 120
EJ/yr by 2030. By 2050 many baseline scenarios reach RE deployment levels of more than 100 EJ/yr, in some cases up
to about 250 EJ/yr. These substantial deployment levels result from a range of assumptions, including, for example, the
assumption that energy service demand will continue to grow substantially throughout the century and assumptions
about the ability of RE to contribute to increased energy access and the limited long-term availability of fossil resources.
Other assumptions (e.g., improved costs and performance of RE technologies) render RE technologies increasingly economically competitive in many applications even in the absence of climate policy.
794
Chapter 10
RE deployment signicantly increases in scenarios with low GHG stabilization concentrations. Low GHG stabilization scenarios lead on average to higher RE deployment compared to the baseline. However, for any given long-term
GHG concentration goal, the scenarios exhibit a wide range of RE deployment levels (Figure 10.2). In scenarios that
stabilize atmospheric CO2 concentrations at a level of less than 440 ppm, the median RE deployment level in 2050 is
248 EJ/yr (139 EJ/yr in 2030), with the highest levels reaching 428 EJ/yr by 2050.
Many combinations of low-carbon energy supply options and energy efciency improvements can contribute to given low GHG concentration levels, with RE becoming the dominant low- carbon energy supply
option by 2050 in the majority of scenarios. Ambitious GHG concentration stabilization levels lead, on average, to
higher RE deployment compared to the baseline, with above 400 EJ/yr by 2050 as the upper limit of RE deployment.
Many scenarios were constructed as sensitivities with explicit limits on the deployment of nuclear energy and CCS, and
RE played an increasingly important role in these scenarios. Yet even in scenarios with no explicit limits on these competing low-carbon options, RE often represents well over 50% of the global primary energy supply.
Scenarios generally indicate that growth in RE will be widespread around the world. Although the precise
distribution of RE deployment across regions substantially varies across scenarios, they are largely consistent in indicating widespread growth in RE deployment around the globe. In addition, scenarios suggest that RE deployment levels
will be higher over the long term in the group of non-Annex I countries than in the group of Annex I countries, in part
a reection of the fact that non-Annex I countries are expected to represent an increasing share of total global energy
demand over the coming decades.
Scenarios do not indicate an obvious single dominant RE technology at a global level. Besides the aspect
that all RE obtains a more important role in the scenarios over time, a general trend is that bioenergy (predominantly
modern biomass), wind energy and solar energy are commonly characterized by the largest contributions to the energy
system among RE technologies by 2050.
Individual studies indicate that if RE deployment is limited, mitigation costs increase and low GHG stabilization concentrations may not be achieved. A number of studies have pursued scenario sensitivities that assume
constraints on the deployment of individual mitigation options, including RE as well as nuclear and fossil energy with
CCS. These studies indicate that mitigation costs are higher when options, including RE, are not available, but there is
little agreement on the precise magnitude of the increase in costs. They also indicate that more ambitious GHG concentration goals may not be achievable when RE options are not available.
An in-depth analysis of four selected illustrative scenarios from the larger set of 164 scenarios allowed a
more detailed look at the possible contribution of specic RE technologies in different regions and sectors.
Even within this smaller set, the role of RE varies substantially, in part because the scenarios are aimed at different
long-term climate goals, and because they are based on different assumptions about technology costs and also on distinct scenario methodologies.
In the four representative scenarios, the RE-based electricity generation develops most quickly, at least
in the medium term, followed by RE for heating/cooling and transport. For RE-based electricity generation,
the highest market shares are expected in the analyzed time span. In contrast, currently the heating sector in many
regions of the world is one of the most dominant demand sectors. Its RE share is high, especially in non-Annex I countries, but it is mainly based on traditional bioenergy. The total share of RE-based electricity production for the four
illustrative scenarios varies for the year 2050 (2030) from 24% (20%) up to 95% (61%) (cf. 19% RE-based electricity
share in 2008). The corresponding range for the contribution of RE to the heating sector for these four scenarios lies
for the year 2050 (2030) between 21% (20%) and 91% (49%). In most of the scenarios the heating and, particularly,
the transport sector are less highlighted, showing that more importance should be given to thermal and transport RE
applications in future studies.
795
Chapter 10
Scenarios indicate that overall global technical potentials will not constrain the future contribution of RE.
Although deployment of the different RE technologies signicantly increases over time, the resulting contribution of
RE in the scenarios for most technologies is much lower than their corresponding technical potentials. In the four illustrative scenarios, for instance, despite signicant technological and regional differences less than 2.5% of the global
available technical RE potential is used. In this sense, scenario results conrm that technical potentials will not be the
limiting factors for the expansion of RE on a global scale.
Increasing sectoral shares of RE can substantially contribute to GHG mitigation. The four in-depth analyzed
illustrative scenarios span a range of global cumulative CO2 savings, from about 220 to 560 Gt CO2 between 2010
and 2050 compared to about 1,530 Gt CO2 cumulative fossil and industrial CO2 emissions in the IEA World Energy
Outlook 2009 Reference Scenario during the same period. The precise attribution of mitigation potentials to RE not only
depends on the role scenarios attribute to specic mitigation technologies, but also on complex systems behaviours
and, in particular, on the energy sources that RE displaces. Therefore, attribution of precise mitigation potentials to RE
should be viewed with appropriate caution.
Scenarios often do not directly associate mitigation potentials with different technological options.
Instead, abatement cost curves are often used to discuss and to compare different mitigation strategies.
Abatement cost curves and energy supply curves are an approach that is very often used for discussing mitigation
strategies and prioritizing abatement options. One of the most important strengths of this method is that the results
can be understood easily and that the outcomes of these methods give, at rst glance, a clear orientation as they
rank available options in order of cost-effectiveness. On the other hand, abatement cost curves have important limitations. In contrast to scenario analysis, they are not able to reect the complex system behaviour and corresponding
interdependencies. Thus they have to rely on simplied assumptions about the substituted non-RE supply and corresponding emission factors. In general, it is very difcult to compare data and ndings from RE abatement cost and
supply curves, as there have been very few studies using a comprehensive and consistent approach and detailing their
methodologies, and most studies use different assumptions. Many of the regional and country studies provide less
than 10% abatement of the baseline CO2 emissions over the medium term at abatement costs under around USD2005
100/t CO2. The resulting low-cost abatement potentials are quite low compared to the reported mitigation potentials
of many of the scenarios reviewed here.
Some RE technologies are broadly competitive with current market energy prices. Many of the other RE
technologies can provide competitive energy services in certain circumstances, for example, in regions with favourable
resource conditions or that lack the infrastructure for other low-cost energy supplies. In most regions of the world, however, policy measures are still required to ensure rapid deployment of many RE sources.
In the eld of RE, signicant opportunities exist to further improve the energy efciencies, and/or to
decrease the costs of producing and installing the respective technologies. Together, these effects are
expected to decrease the levelized cost of energy of many innovative RE-sourcing technologies in the
future. Over time, energy generation costs of many RE technologies have shown signicant declines. In general, historical cost decreases can be described by experience curves with global learning rates (the relationship between the
reduction in cost and a doubling of production).
To realize the learning effects and to allow an increase in the competitiveness of RE technologies, upfront
investments in deployment, as well as research and development, will be needed, which will result in new
market opportunities for RE suppliers. The four illustrative scenarios analyzed in detail in this Special Report estimate global cumulative RE investments (in the power generation sector only) ranging from USD2005 1,360 to 5,100
billion for the decade 2011 to 2020, and from USD2005 1,490 to 7,180 billion for the decade 2021 to 2030. The lower
796
Chapter 10
values refer to the IEA World Energy Outlook 2009 Reference Scenario and the higher ones to a scenario that seeks
to stabilize atmospheric CO2 (only) concentration at 450 ppm. The annual averages of these investment needs are all
smaller than 1% of the worlds gross domestic product (GDP). The average annual investments in the reference scenario
are slightly lower than the respective investments reported for 2009. Between 2011 and 2020, the higher end of the
range of the annual averages of the RE electricity sector investments approximately correspond to a three-fold increase
in the current global investments in this eld. For the next decade (2021 to 2030), a ve-fold increase is projected.
Increasing the installed capacity of RE power plants will reduce the amount of fossil and nuclear fuels that otherwise
would be needed in order to meet a given electricity demand. In addition to investment, operation and maintenance
(O&M) and (where applicable) feedstock costs related to RE power plants, any assessment of the overall economic
burden that is associated with their application will therefore have to consider avoided fuel and substituted investment costs as well.
Assessments of the costs of future paths of RE deployment and mitigation have to consider the whole
range of costs, including external costs and co-benets. Literature on long-term scenarios does not normally
take into consideration external costs (dominated typically by climate change and health impacts due to air pollution)
of different energy technologies. Although the uncertainty is relatively high, in most cases RE sources have rather low
external costs assessed on a lifecycle basis when compared to fossil fuel-based technologies. Particularly, the external
costs of RE-based power generation technologies have most frequently been reported as being lower than those of
fossil supply options.
In summary, scenarios strongly indicate that RE will become increasingly important over time, even without but particularly with GHG emissions constraints. However, the resulting contribution of RE in the various studies available in the
literature is much lower than their corresponding technical potentials. Moreover, even if substantial growth rates are
combined with future RE deployment paths, they are, in general, lower than what has been achieved by the RE industry
during the past 10 years.
797
10.1
Introduction
798
Chapter 10
What roles are RE sources likely to play in the future and particularly
in contributing to GHG-mitigation pathways?
Chapter 10
To what extent are the non-market costs and benets relevant for
social and environmental factors?
10.2.1
10.2.1.1
How uncertain are the possible answers to all these questions, and
what are the robust ndings despite all uncertainties involved?
10.2
799
capture the interactions, at least at an aggregate scale, between competing energy technologies; (2) they have a basis in economics in the
sense that decision making is largely based on economic criteria; (3)
they are long-term and global in scale, but with some regional detail;
(4) they include the policy levers necessary to meet emissions outcomes;
and (5) they have sufcient technology detail to explore RE deployment
levels at both regional and global scales. Many also have integrated
views beyond the energy system, for example, fully coupled models of
agriculture and land use.
10.2.1.2
Scenarios are a tool for understanding, but not predicting, the future.
They provide a plausible description of how the future may develop
based on a coherent and internally consistent set of assumptions
about key driving forces (e.g., rate of technological change, prices)
and relationships (IPCC, 2007). In the context of this report, scenarios
are thus a means to explore the potential contribution of RE to future
energy supplies and to identify the drivers of renewable deployment.
The benet of scenarios generated using large-scale, integrated models,
such as those reviewed in this section, is that they capture many of the
key interactions with other technologies (including competing mitigation technologies such as fossil energy with CCS, nuclear energy and
demand reduction options), other parts of the energy system, other relevant human systems (e.g., agriculture, the economy as a whole) and
important physical processes associated with climate change (e.g., the
carbon cycle), that serve as the environment in which RE technologies
will be deployed. This integration provides an important degree of internal consistency. In addition, they explore these interactions over at least
several decades to a full century into the future and at a global scale.
This degree of spatial and temporal coverage is crucial for establishing
the strategic context for RE.
The design, assumptions and focus of the scenarios covered in this
assessment vary greatly: some are based on a more detailed representation of individual renewable and other energy technologies and aspects
of systems integration of RE, while others focus on the implications of
RE deployment for the economy as a whole. This variation in methods,
assumptions and focus provides a window into the deep uncertainties
associated with future dynamics of the energy system and the role of RE
sources in climate change mitigation.
As discussed in Krey and Clarke (2011), two important caveats must be
kept in mind when interpreting the scenarios in this section. First, maintaining a global, long-term, integrated perspective involves tradeoffs in
terms of detail. For example, the models do not represent all the forces
that govern decision making at the national or even the company or individual scale, in particular in the short term. Further, these are not power
system models or engineering models, and they therefore employ stylized representations of many details that inuence the performance and
deployment of RE, for example, the challenges of incorporating variable
800
Chapter 10
10.2.2
10.2.2.1
Chapter 10
all of the scenarios in this study were published during or after 2006.
The scenarios therefore reect the most recent understanding of key
underlying parameters and the most up-to-date representations of the
dynamics of the underlying human and Earth systems. The scenarios are
also valuable in that they include a relatively large number of scenarios
that represent less optimistic views on international action to deal with
climate change (second-best policy) or address consequences of limited technology portfolios (constrained technology). The assumptions
regarding second-best policy vary considerably across the scenarios, but
are mostly taken from the EMF 22 study (Clarke et al., 2009) and the
RECIPE project (Edenhofer et al., 2009; Luderer et al., 2009) and capture
delayed action by developing countries. Technology availability is not
dened homogenously across all scenarios in the analyzed set, but the
limited technology portfolio studies that are highlighted here are those
with limitations on the deployment of fossil energy with CCS, nuclear
energy and RE. Finally, data regarding RE deployment were collected at
a level of detail beyond that found in most published papers or existing scenario databases, for example, those compiled for IPCC reports
10.2.2.2
Table 10.1 | Energy-economic and integrated assessment models considered in this analysis. The total number of scenarios per model varies signicantly. Scenarios are further classied by the inclusion of delayed participation in mitigation (second-best policy) and constraints on and/or variations in the deployment of fossil energy with CCS, nuclear energy and
RE (constrained technology). Adapted from Krey and Clarke (2011), modied to include IEA (2009) and Teske et al. (2010).
Policy Scenarios
Model
Number of
scenarios
Baseline
scenarios
First best
Constrained
technology1
Secondbest policy
Constrained
technology &
second-best policy
Comparison
project
AIM/CGE
DNE21
GRAPE
Kurosawa (2006)
GTEM
EMF 22
IEA-ETP
IEA (2008b)
IEA-WEM
IMACLIM
RECIPE
IMAGE
17
EMF 22 / ADAM
MERGE-ETL
19
12
ADAM
MESAP/PlaNet
MESSAGE
15
EMF 22
MiniCAM
15
EMF 22
POLES
15
ADAM
ReMIND
28
14
ADAM / RECIPE
TIAM
10
EMF 22
WITCH
12
EMF 22 / RECIPE
TOTAL
164
27
48
64
20
Citation
Note: 1. While in the vast majority of constrained technology scenarios, the deployment of individual technologies or technology clusters has actually been constrained, in a few cases
included under this category, the potential for bioenergy was expanded compared to the models default assumption.
801
Chapter 10
Table 10.2 | Categorization of the 164 scenarios reviewed in this section based on CO2 concentration levels in 2100, the inclusion of delayed participation in mitigation (second-best
policy), and constraints on and/or variations in the deployment of fossil energy with CCS, nuclear energy and RE. The CO2 concentration categories are dened consistently with those
in the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4), WGIII (Fisher et al., 2007). Note that Categories V and above are not included here and Category IV is extended to 600 ppm from 570
ppm, because all stabilization scenarios lie below 600 ppm CO2 in 2100 and because the lowest baseline scenarios reach concentration levels of slightly more than 600 ppm by 2100.1
Data adapted from Krey and Clarke (2011) modied to include two additional scenarios.
Policy Scenarios
CO2 concentration
by 2100 (ppm)
Number of
scenarios
First-best
Constrained
technology
Second-best
policy
Constrained technology
& second-best policy
Baselines
>600
27
Category IV
485600
32
11
13
Category III
440485
63
20
29
11
Category II
400440
14
Category I
<400
28
10
16
Note: 1. This denition of CO2 concentration stabilization categories is consistent with that used in the AR4. Section 3.3.5 in Fisher et al. (2007) explains that most scenarios assessed
in the AR4 stabilize concentrations between 2100 and 2150 while the denition used here is based on CO2 concentrations in 2100. Stabilization after 2100 is typically relevant for
scenarios with high CO2 concentration targets, that is, Categories V and higher, which have not been assessed here and for very low stabilization scenarios in Category I that show
a temporary overshoot in concentrations before reaching the nal target. The latter does not inuence the assignment to categories, since Category I is not bounded from below. In
addition, it should be noted that CO2 concentrations are affected by assumptions about the carbon cycle that may result in differences across models.
N=164
Category I (<400 ppm)
100
50
0
1900
1950
2000
2050
2100
Figure 10.1 | Historic global fossil and industrial CO2 emissions and projections from
164 long-term scenarios. Colour coding is based on categories of atmospheric CO2 concentration in 2100 as dened in the IPCC AR4, WGIII (Fisher et al., 2007), with historic
emission data from Nakicenovic et al. (2006). Figure and data adapted from Krey and
Clarke (2011), modied to include two additional scenarios.
802
Note that there is a small difference from the value of 65.6 EJ published by the IEA
(and shown in Figure 8.2) due to the different primary energy accounting methods
used. See Box 1.1 in Chapter 1, Section 1.2.1 and Appendix A.II.4 for additional
background on this topic.
Chapter 10
2050
N=164
75th
Median
25th
Baselines
Minimum
80
Baselines
60
Category III
40
Category IV
20
Category I
Category II
0
Baselines
60
Category III
40
Category IV
20
Category I
Category II
100
200
200
300
300
400
Maximum
400
N=161
100
2030
Figure 10.2 | Global RE primary energy supply (direct equivalent) from 164 long-term scenarios versus fossil and industrial CO2 emissions in 2030 and 2050. Colour coding is based on
categories of atmospheric CO2 concentration level in 2100 (Fisher et al., 2007). The panels to the right of the scatterplots show the deployment levels of RE in each of the atmospheric
CO2 concentration categories. The thick black line corresponds to the median, the coloured box corresponds to the inter-quartile range (25th to 75th percentile) and the ends of the
white surrounding bars correspond to the total range across all reviewed scenarios. The crossed-lines show the relationship in 2007. Pearsons correlation coefcients for the two data
sets are -0.40 (2030) and -0.55 (2050). For data reporting reasons only, 161 scenarios are included in the 2030 results shown here, as opposed to the full set of 164 scenarios. RE
deployment levels below those of today are a result both of model output as well as differences in the reporting of traditional biomass. Figure and data adapted from Krey and Clarke
(2011), modied to include two additional scenarios.
10.2.2.3
Note that this is not always true. Scenarios exist in which primary energy increases
because of large-scale electrication in response to climate policy (see, e.g., Loulou
et al., 2009).
803
Chapter 10
N=164
Category I (<400 ppm)
Category II (400440 ppm)
1,500
1,000
500
0
1900
1950
2000
2050
2100
Figure 10.3 | Historic global total primary energy supply (direct equivalent) and projections from 164 long-term scenarios. Colour coding is based on categories of atmospheric
CO2 concentration level in 2100 (Fisher et al., 2007), with historic data from Grubler
(2008). Figure and data adapted from Krey and Clarke (2011), modied to include two
additional scenarios.
the lack of consensus about these fundamental drivers; these are forces
that simply cannot be understood with any degree of certainty today.
In contrast to the variation in total primary energy, the production of
freely-emitting fossil energy (fossil sources without CCS) is tightly constrained by CO2 emissions at any point in time (Figure 10.4). Meeting
long-term climate goals requires a reduction in the CO2 emissions from
energy and other anthropogenic sources. Important Earth systems, most
notably the global carbon cycle, put bounds on the levels of CO2 emissions that are associated with meeting any particular long-term goal;
this, in turn, bounds the amount of energy that can be produced from
freely-emitting fossil energy sources. Factors leading to remaining variation in freely-emitting fossil energy associated with a given level of CO2
emissions include the ability to switch between fossil sources with different carbon contents (e.g., natural gas has a lower carbon content
than coal per unit of energy) and the potential to achieve negative
emissions by utilizing bioenergy with CCS (see Section 2.6.3.3) or forest
sink enhancements. The relationship between CO2 emissions and longterm goals is inuenced by differences in the time path of emissions
reductions over time as a result of differing underlying model structures,
assumptions about technology and emissions drivers, and representations of physical systems such as the carbon cycle.
RE is only one of three major low-carbon supply options. The other two
options are nuclear energy and fossil energy with CCS. The demand for
low-carbon energy (the total of all three) is, in the context of the discussion here, simply the difference between total primary energy demand
and the production of freely-emitting fossil energy (see Figure 10.5).
That is to say, whatever energy cannot be supplied from freely-emitting
fossil energy because of climate constraints must be supplied either by
low-carbon energy or by measures that reduce energy consumption.
Given, as discussed above, that the demand response from mitigation
is swamped by variability in demand more generally across a scenario
set such as the one explored here, the result is that although there is a
strong correlation between the CO2 concentration goal and low-carbon
energy (see also Clarke et al., 2009; ONeill et al., 2010), there is still
400
600
800
N=153
200
200
400
600
800
N=153
2050
2030
20
40
60
80
20
40
60
80
Figure 10.4 | Global freely-emitting fossil primary energy supply (direct equivalent) from 164 long-term scenarios by 2030 and 2050 as a function of fossil and industrial CO2 emissions. Colour coding is based on categories of atmospheric CO2 concentration level in 2100 (Fisher et al., 2007). The blue crossed lines show the relationship in 2007. Pearsons
correlation coefcients for the two data sets are 0.96 (2030) and 0.97 (2050). For data reporting reasons only 153 scenarios are included in the 2030 and 2050 results shown here,
as opposed to the full set of 164 scenarios. Figure and data adapted from Krey and Clarke (2011), modied to include two additional scenarios.
804
Chapter 10
2050
400
600
800
N=164
200
800
400
600
N=161
Category I (<400 ppm)
Category II (400440 ppm)
Category III (440485 ppm)
Category IV (485600 ppm)
Baselines
200
2030
20
40
60
80
20
40
60
80
Figure 10.5 | Global low-carbon primary energy supply (direct equivalent) in 164 long-term scenarios by 2030 and 2050 as a function of fossil and industrial CO2 emissions. Lowcarbon energy refers to energy from RE, fossil energy with CCS, and nuclear energy. Colour coding is based on categories of atmospheric CO2 concentration level in 2100 (Fisher et
al., 2007). The blue crossed lines show the relationship in 2007. Pearsons correlation coefcients for the two data sets are -0.60 (2030) and -0.68 (2050). For data reporting reasons,
only 161 scenarios are included in the 2030 results shown here, as opposed to the full set of 164 scenarios. Figure and data adapted from Krey and Clarke (2011), modied to include
two additional scenarios.
substantial variability in low-carbon energy for any given CO2 concentration goal. The competition between RE, nuclear energy and fossil
energy with CCS then adds another layer of variability in the relationship between RE deployment and CO2 concentration goal (Figure 10.2).
10.2.2.4
This section addresses the competition between RE and the two other
low-carbon supply options: nuclear energy and fossil energy with CCS.
Many of the 164 scenarios are characterized by explicit limits on the
deployment of one or both of these two options. The constrained CCS
scenarios simply excluded the option to install CCS either on new or
existing power plants or other energy conversion facilities with fossil
or bioenergy as an input (e.g., rening). The constrained nuclear energy
scenarios take on three forms. Two approaches maintain nuclear
deployments at or below todays levels, allowing existing power plants
to retire over time and not allowing any new installations, or maintain
the total deployment of nuclear at current levels, which might reect
either lifetime extensions or just enough new installations to counteract retirements. A third option applied in a number of scenarios
is to maintain nuclear deployment over time in mitigation scenarios
at baseline levels. The difculty in interpreting this third category of
scenarios is that nuclear energy expands to substantially different
degrees across baseline scenarios, limiting comparability (see caption
of Figure 10.6 for details).
All other things being equal, when competing options are not available
or are otherwise constrained, RE deployments are higher (Figure 10.6).
Two effects simultaneously contribute to the increase in the renewable primary energy share. First, with fewer competing options, RE will
constitute a larger share of low-carbon energy. Second, higher mitigation costs resulting from the lack of options put downward pressure on
total energy consumption, because end-use options become increasing
economically attractive. The relative inuence of these two forces varies across models.
At the same time, it is important to reemphasize that technology
competition is only one factor inuencing RE deployment levels; it
cannot by itself explain the variation in RE deployments associated
with different mitigation levels. The discussion to this point should
make clear that for any mitigation level, the fundamental drivers of
energy demandeconomic growth, population growth, energy intensity of economic growth and energy end-use improvementsalong
with the technology characteristics of RE technologies themselves are
equally critical drivers of RE deployments. Nonetheless, if environmental, social or national security barriers largely inhibit both fossil energy
with CCS and nuclear energy, then it is appropriate to assume that
RE will be required to provide the bulk of low-carbon energy (Figure
10.7). Independent of the availability of these non-renewable low-carbon energy supply options, the majority of scenarios relies to a greater
extent on RE sources than on nuclear energy and fossil energy with CCS
to provide low-carbon energy by 2050 (see upper left triangle of Figure
10.7). If only one of these options is limited, then the RE deployment
805
Chapter 10
50
Standard
No CCS
40
Limited Nuclear
No CCS & Limited Nuclear
30
Not Evaluated
Not Evaluated
Not Evaluated
Not Evaluated
Not Evaluated
Not Evaluated
10
Not Evaluated
20
Not Evaluated
550 ppmv
550 ppmv
450 ppmv
550 ppmv
400 ppmv
550 ppmv
400 ppmv
550 ppmv
400 ppmv
450 ppmv
450 ppmv
450 ppmv
CO2 eq (*)
CO2 eq
CO2 eq
CO2 eq
CO2 eq (*)
CO2 eq
CO2 eq (*)
CO2 eq
CO2 eq (*)
CO2
CO2
CO2
DNE21+
MESSAGE (EMF22)
ReMIND
(RECIPE)
IMACLIM
(RECIPE)
WITCH
(RECIPE)
MERGE-ETL (ADAM)
POLES (ADAM)
ReMIND (ADAM)
Figure 10.6 | Increase in global renewable primary energy share (direct equivalent) in 2050 in selected constrained technology scenarios compared to the respective baseline scenarios. The X indicates that the respective concentration level for the scenario was not achieved. The denition of Limited Nuclear and No CCS cases varies across models. The
DNE21+, MERGE-ETL and POLES scenarios represent nuclear phase-outs at different speeds; the MESSAGE scenarios limit the deployment to 2010; and the ReMIND, IMACLIM and
WITCH scenarios limit nuclear energy to the contribution in the respective baseline scenarios, which can still imply a signicant expansion compared to current deployment levels. The
REMIND (ADAM) 400 ppm no CCS scenario refers to a scenario in which cumulative CO2 storage is constrained to 120 Gt CO2, The MERGE-ETL 400 ppm no CCS case allows cumulative
CO2 storage of about 720 Gt CO2. The POLES 400 ppm CO2eq no CCS scenario was infeasible and therefore the respective concentration level of the scenario shown here was relaxed
by approximately 50 ppm CO2. The DNE21+ scenario is approximated at 550 ppm CO2eq based on emissions pathways through 2050. Figure adapted from Krey and Clarke (2011).
806
10.2.2.5
There is great variation in the deployment characteristics of individual technologies (Figures 10.8 and 10.9). Several dimensions of this
variation bear mention. First, the absolute scales of deployments vary
considerably among technologies. Bioenergy, wind and solar energy
generally show higher incremental deployment levels than hydropower
and geothermal energy, although the variation is large enough that
there are clearly scenarios with minimal penetration of wind and solar
relative to hydropower and geothermal energy. Ocean energy is currently only represented in very few scenarios and will therefore not
be discussed here (see also Section 10.2.4). Further, deployment magnitudes are characterized by greater variation for some technologies
relative to others. For example, variation in hydroelectric deployment
is far less than in geothermal deployment. The high deployment scenarios for geothermal energy probably assume competitive electricity
from enhanced geothermal systems and/or wide application of geothermal heat pumps (see Sections 4.2 and 4.8). It is important to use
some caution in interpreting the bioenergy numbers in Figures 10.8 and
10.9 relative to those associated with the other renewable energy technologies. This analysis is being conducted using the direct equivalent
Chapter 10
300
Figure 10.7 | Global RE primary energy supply (direct equivalent) plotted against nonrenewable low-carbon energy primary energy supply (direct equivalent) in 2030 and
2050. Colour coding is based on categories of atmospheric CO2 concentration level
in 2100 (Fisher et al., 2007). The shapes identify constraints on the availability of the
competing low-carbon energy supply options, fossil with CCS and nuclear. Note that
limited nuclear scenarios include nuclear phase-outs, constraints on the production of
new nuclear energy and scenarios in which nuclear production is constrained to baseline
levels. The blue crossed lines show the relationship in 2007. For data reporting reasons,
only 152 and 155 scenarios are included in the 2030 and 2050 results shown here, as
opposed to the full set of 164 scenarios. Figure and data adapted from Krey and Clarke
(2011), modied to include two additional scenarios.
150
200
250
N=152
100
50
2030
50
100
150
200
250
300
500
200
300
400
N=155
100
2050
100
200
300
400
500
Second, the time scale of deployment varies across different RE technologies (Figures 10.8 and 10.9), in large part representing differences
in deployment levels today and (often) associated assumptions about
relative technological maturity. For example, hydroelectric power experiences only modest growth across scenarios (a 1.7-fold increase in the
median case and a 3-fold increase in the highest scenario by 2050 compared to today); wind energy grows more rapidly, beginning from lower
deployment levels today; and solar energy grows most rapidly, beginning from only minimal deployment today, as well as in 2020 in most
scenarios. Indeed, much of the growth in solar energy occurs after 2030,
indicating a general consistency among scenarios that solar energy at
a large scale is a longer-term option than several other options. Global
bioenergy production includes both traditional uses of biomass (more
than 30 EJ/yr or roughly two-thirds of all bioenergy consumption in
2008, see Chapter 2) as well as more advanced methods, including
cellulosic approaches. Traditional biomass use is typically assumed to
decline as economic development progresses, implying that the growth
in bioenergy is largely in modern applications. It is also useful to note
that some technologies appear to be more clearly inuenced by the climate policy than others. For example, solar energy deployment levels
are noticeably higher in the most ambitious climate scenarios than in
the other scenarios. All of the technologies experience this effect but to
varying degrees.
Finally, scenarios generally indicate that RE deployment is larger in
non-Annex I countries over time than in the Annex I countries (Figure
10.8 and Krey and Clarke, 2011). Virtually all scenarios include the
assumption that economic and energy demand growth will be larger in
the non-Annex I countries than in the Annex I countries (Clarke et al.,
2007, 2009). The result is that the non-Annex I countries account for an
increasingly large proportion of CO2 emissions in baseline, or no-policy,
cases and must therefore make larger emissions reductions over time.
All other things being equal, larger reductions imply larger deployment
of low-carbon supply options, including RE. Hence, it is not surprising
that scenarios generally indicate larger RE deployment levels in nonAnnex I regions.
At the same time, it is important to note that the actual deployment levels, particularly in the nearer term, will depend not only on the long-term
807
Chapter 10
[EJ/yr]
2030
Figure 10.8 | Global RE primary energy supply (direct equivalent) by source in Annex
I (AI) and Non-Annex I (NAI) countries in 164 long-term scenarios by 2030 and 2050.
The thick black line corresponds to the median, the coloured box corresponds to the
inter-quartile range (25th to 75th percentile) and the ends of the white surrounding bars
correspond to the total range across all reviewed scenarios. Depending on the source,
the number of scenarios underlying these gures varies between 122 and 164. Note that
ocean energy is represented in very few scenarios, insufcient to generate a similar graph.
Although instructive for interpreting the information, it is important to note that the 164
scenarios are not explicitly a random sample meant for formal statistical analysis. (One
reason that bioenergy supply appears larger than supplies from other sources is that the
direct equivalent method is used to represent primary energy in this gure. Bioenergy is
accounted for prior to conversion to fuels such as ethanol or electricity. The other technologies produce primarily (but not entirely) electricity and they are accounted for based
on the electricity produced. If primary equivalents were used, based on the substitution
method, rather than direct equivalents, then energy production from non-biomass renewable sources would be of the order of three times larger than shown here.) Figure and
data adapted from Krey and Clarke (2011), modied to include two additional scenarios.
200
150
100
50
150
countries must eventually bring their emissions to this point, and those
with larger energy consumption will require more low-carbon energy
than others, regardless of which countries may have initiated action on
climate the soonest. It is also important to note that countries may take
different approaches to mitigation, some focusing on price-based policies where others use regulatory policies that could include mandates
for RE, and this could inuence the spatial character of RE deployments.
The scenarios described here mostly rely exclusively on price-based mitigation and therefore do not capture this sort of variation.
100
10.2.2.6
AI
NAI
AI
NAI
AI
NAI
AI
NAI
AI
NAI
[EJ/yr]
2050
200
50
0
AI
NAI
AI
NAI
AI
NAI
AI
NAI
Maximum
Bioenergy
75th Percentile
Hydropower
Median
AI
NAI
Wind Energy
25th Percentile
Minimum
goal, but also on the degree to which countries take action towards the
long-term goal. For example, in scenarios in which some countries delay
participation in global emissions reductions, RE deployment is necessarily lower than it is in scenarios with full global participation (Clarke
et al., 2009; Krey and Clarke, 2011). Nonetheless, because stabilization
of CO2 concentrations means bringing CO2 emissions to near zero, all
808
REs role in climate mitigation might be observed not only through the
lens of RE deployment levels, but also by an exploration of the manner in which RE availability and deployment inuences the economic
consequences, or costs, of mitigation. One way that researchers have
attempted to link particular technologies to mitigation costs is to build
mitigation cost curves; that is, relationships that indicate how much mitigation might be achieved by particular technologies at a given carbon
price. In the context of RE, these curves attempt to answer the question:
how much CO2 abatement and at what cost can be provided by RE technologies? Such mitigation cost curves are not provided here for reasons
discussed more thoroughly in Section 10.4. It is noted here only that
assigning mitigation to particular technologies is not a primary output
of integrated models. Integrated models provide information on prices,
emissions and deployments, but in general they do not assign emissions
to the presence or absence of specic technologies. Such assignments
are the result of post-processing, ofine accounting calculations that
rely on analyst judgment about key assumptions. Applying these postprocessing assumptions to the scenarios would constitute new analysis
rather than synthesis, and it would blur the signal from the scenarios
themselves. A sense of the variation of CO2 emission mitigation due to
the use of different methods is given in Section 10.3 on the basis of 4
selected scenarios from the whole set of 164 analyzed in this section.
In addition, these analyses do not account for the benets of climate
mitigation (e.g., less severe climate change impacts in the long term,
reduced need for adaptation), secure energy supply and air pollution
Chapter 10
350
Baselines
Cat. III + IV (440 - 600 ppm)
250
200
Bioenergy
N=156
150
100
150
50
100
50
0
2020
2030
2050
2020
150
N=122
Maximum
75th
Median
25th
100
Minimum
Deployment Level 2008
150
50
0
2030
2050
2020
2030
2050
150
N=152
100
Wind Energy
Primary Energy Supply [EJ/yr]
N=164
100
50
2020
2050
Hydropower
Primary Energy Supply [EJ/yr]
Geothermal Energy
2030
100
N=149
50
50
0
2020
2030
2050
2020
2030
2050
809
Chapter 10
Figure 10.9 | (Preceding page) Global primary energy supply (direct equivalent) of biomass, wind, solar, hydro, and geothermal energy and share of variable RE (wind and solar
photovoltaic) in global electricity generation in 164 long-term scenarios in 2020, 2030 and 2050, and grouped by different categories of atmospheric CO2 concentration level in 2100
(Fisher et al., 2007). Following the direct equivalent methodology, biomass primary energy supply is accounted for prior to conversion whereas the other RE options are accounted for
based on secondary energy produced. The thick black line corresponds to the median, the coloured box corresponds to the inter-quartile range (25th to 75th percentile) and the ends
of the white surrounding bars correspond to the total range across all reviewed scenarios. Although instructive for interpreting the information, it is important to note that the 164
scenarios are not explicitly a random sample meant for formal statistical analysis. For data reporting reasons, the number of scenarios included in each of the panels shown here varies
considerably. The number of scenarios (N) underlying the individual panels, as opposed to the full set of 164 scenarios, is indicated in the right upper corner of each panel. Figure and
data adapted from Krey and Clarke (2011), modied to include two additional scenarios.
1,500
500
1,000
N=141
2050
Carbon Price [USD/t CO2]
(e.g., reduced health expenditures) due to the deployment of RE technologies (see e.g., Nemet et al., 2010). A more detailed discussion of
co-benets can be found in Section 10.6.
100
200
300
400
500
CO2 prices are only a limited metric for cost because they represent the
marginal costs of abatement and not the total cost. A range of other
cost measures have been used in the literature to capture the economic
consequences of mitigation. These include changes in gross domestic
product (GDP) or consumption, or total mitigation costs, that is, the additional cost to deploy and operate an energy system with lower GHG
emissions, which can provide a broader sense of the cost implications
of RE. In general, mitigation tends to reduce GDP (Fisher et al., 2007).3
However, these measures do not necessarily lead to a stronger correlation with RE deployment than carbon prices. For example, the overall
variation of GDP in the baseline scenarios reviewed in this section (a
factor of 1.8 in 2050 between the lowest and the highest GDP) is much
larger than the changes in GDP as the result of climate mitigation (up to
a few percent of baseline GDP by 2050), which can be derived by comparing the GDP in mitigation scenarios to their respective baseline for
those models that include feedbacks to GDP. The dominance of, and variation in, baseline GDP would further obscure any relationship between
total GDP and RE deployment.
A different reection of the relationship between the economic consequences of mitigation and RE deployments can be ascertained
by exploring how mitigation costs would change under differing
3
Note that a minority of researchers have argued that climate mitigation could
lead to increased economic output (e.g., Barker et al., 2006). The basic argument
is that under specic assumptions, induced technological change due to a carbon
price increase leads to additional investments that trigger higher economic growth.
810
Figure 10.10 | Carbon prices (in USD2005) as a function of global RE primary energy supply (direct equivalent) in 2050. Colour coding is based on categories of atmospheric CO2
concentration level in 2100 (Fisher et al., 2007). Different symbols in the graph denote
the availability of CCS and nuclear energy. Note that limited nuclear scenarios include
nuclear phase-outs, constraints on the production of new nuclear and scenarios in which
nuclear production is constrained to baseline levels. For data reporting reasons, only 141
scenarios are included in the 2050 results shown here, as opposed to the full set of 164
scenarios. Figure and data adapted from Krey and Clarke (2011), modied to include two
additional scenarios.
Chapter 10
of RE availability, cost and performance may also vary with the degree
of ambition. For example, the availability of bioenergy with CCS has
been identied as a particularly valuable technology combination for
meeting tight stabilization constraints (Azar et al., 2006; van Vuuren
et al., 2007; Clarke et al., 2009; Edenhofer et al., 2010; Tavoni and Tol,
2010). To summarize, while there is an agreement in the literature that
mitigation costs will increase if the deployment of RE technologies is
constrained and that more ambitious stabilization levels may not be
reachable, there is little agreement on the precise magnitude of the
cost increase.
All Options
No Nuclear
Biomin
No CCS
No RE
6
Biomax
All Options
No Nuclear
Biomin
No CCS
No RE
MERGE
ReMIND
POLES
XX
MERGE
XX
ReMIND
Biomax
5
XXX
POLES
Figure 10.11 | Global mitigation costs from the ADAM project under varying assumptions regarding technology availability for long-term stabilization levels of 550 and 400 ppm
CO2eq (Edenhofer et al., 2010). Mitigation costs are given as aggregated GDP losses (MERGE, REMIND) or increase of abatement costs (POLES) up to 2100 relative to baseline in
% of GDP. All Options refers to the standard technology portfolio assumptions in the different models, while Biomax and Biomin assume double and half the standard technical
potential of biomass of 200 EJ, respectively. No CCS excludes CCS from the mitigation portfolio and No Nuclear and No RE constrain the deployment levels of nuclear and RE to
the baseline level, which still potentially means a considerable expansion compared to today. The x in the right panel indicates non-attainability of the 400 ppm CO2eq level in the
case of limited technology options.
4
450 ppm C&C
Fix Nuclear
3
Fix Biomass
No CCS
Fix RE
No CCS, Fix Nuclear
0
IMACLIM-R
ReMIND-R
WITCH
IMACLIM-R
ReMIND-R
WITCH
Figure 10.12 | Mitigation costs from the RECIPE project under varying assumptions regarding technology availability for a long-term stabilization level of 450 ppm CO2 (Luderer et al.,
2009). Option values of technologies in terms of consumption losses for scenarios in which the option indicated is foregone (CCS) or limited to baseline levels (all other technologies)
for the periods (a) 2005 to 2030 and (b) 2005 to 2100. Option values are calculated as differences in consumption losses for a scenario in which the use of certain technologies is
limited with respect to the baseline scenario. Note that for WITCH, the generic backstop technology was assumed to be unavailable in the Fix RE scenario.
811
10.2.3
812
Chapter 10
global (e.g., wind, solar photovoltaic (PV)) while others (e.g., passive
solar and low-temperature solar thermal) to date are largely local. As
markets expand, they are likely to become more global in scope. Past
rates of growth suggest that, assuming that policy and market signals
are clear, no absolute long-term constraints exist.
Technology and Economics: Because the maturity of the renewable
technologies is highly variable, so is the need for cost and technological
advances. On the one end of the spectrum, hydropower is competitive
with thermal power plants, while on the other end of the spectrum,
commercial-scale demonstration plants for most ocean energy technologies do not yet exist. For offshore wind energy, more remote offshore
locations will require further technology advances; further, cost reductions will impact deployment outcomes. Similarly, concentrating solar
power (CSP), solar PV, geothermal heat pumps, and enhanced geothermal systems (EGS) will require technological improvements, but in
particular further reductions in electricity generation costs. Technical
progress is similarly required for advanced biofuels and bio-reneries
with potential for commercialization around 2020 given R&D investment and near-market support.
Systems Integration and Infrastructure: Systems integration is challenging for the variable electricity generation technologies wind, solar
PV and wave energy (Section 8.2.1). Technical (e.g., balancing generation capacity, inter-connection and storage) and institutional (e.g.,
market design and operations, market access and tariff structure) solutions will need to be implemented to address operational integration
concerns. Additionally, substantial new transmission infrastructure may
be required under even modest expansion scenarios to connect remote
resources, for example, off- but also onshore wind power, central station
CSP and PV, hydrothermal geothermal power and hydropower. A greater
reliance on offshore wind power is likely for regions such as Europe,
which will require the development of offshore transmission infrastructure; certain forms of ocean energy face similar integration challenges
and synergies may therefore exist in the deployment of these technologies. To gain greater penetration into the energy supply systems, other
RE-based energy carriers such as heat, biogas, liquid bio-fuels, solid biomass and hydrogen all need appropriate integration into existing system
infrastructure as outlined in Section 8.2.
10.2.4
Knowledge gaps
Chapter 10
10.3
Assessment of representative
mitigation scenarios for different
renewable energy strategies
Section 10.2, coming from a more statistical perspective, gave a comprehensive overview of the possible role RE technologies could play
in different mitigation pathways. In contrast, this section goes beyond
the more aggregated data level and focuses on regional and sectoral
perspectives. For this in-depth analysis, four scenarios from the previous sections full set of the scenario assessments have been chosen to
represent different illustrative energy and emission pathways (see Table
10.3). The scenarios differ in assumptions, mitigation goals and in the
types of underlying models used. For a description of the scenarios and
models, see Box 10.2. Primary data for this analysis go beyond what
has been published to date, and were provided at special request by the
scenario authors and institutions.4
4
The International Energy Agency (IEA) and the German Aerospace Center for
IEA-WEO2009 Baseline; the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research for
ReMIND-RECIPE; the Pacic Northwest National Laboratory for MiniCAM-EMF22;
and the German Aerospace Center for ER-2010.
10.3.1
The amount of RE deployed in the scenarios depends on a large number of variables, assumptions and input data (see also Section 10.2.1,
especially Section 10.2.1.1). Often most inuential are the cost and
performance assumptions for the different RE technologies. They help
determine the comparative attractiveness of competing low-carbon
supply options (i.e., nuclear energy and fossil energy with CCS), but
also of end-use energy efciency measures. Underestimation of costs
leads to overestimation of RE deployment and vice versa. The share of
RE calculated is furthermore determined by the general availability of
competing options. Constraints on alternative mitigation options mean
that more RE deployment will occur for a given level of GHG mitigation.
Assumptions about infrastructure restrictions and system integration
options are further important determinants. In this context, a signicant factor relates to assumptions about how the power grid would
adapt to signicant amounts of variable renewable resources. In contrast, the overall technical potential for REthat is, the total amount of
energy that can be produced taking into account the primary resources,
the socio-geographical constraints and the technical losses in the conversion process (see denition in Annex I)is not considered to be a
limiting factor at the global level as the technical potential supersedes
the current and projected future demand by orders of magnitude (see
Section 1.2.2). Thus, to fully exploit the entire technical RE potential is
neither needed nor necessary.
In practice, deployment of RE resources should respect sustainability criteria in order to achieve an environmentally friendly future energy supply
(see Chapters 1 and 9). Public acceptance is crucial to the expansion of
RE sources as well. Some RE applications, such as rooftop PV and solar
thermal as well as bioenergy cogeneration plants and onshore wind,
are often decentralized energy production facilities and may be located
near or even at demand centres. Other RE applications are more likely
to involve industrial-scale energy production facilities located at some
distance from demand centres and requiring large-scale transmission,
for example, large onshore wind parks, offshore wind energy, concentrated solar power in deserts, hydrothermal geothermal plants, and
hydropower. In both cases, public acceptance concerns can constrain
development if not carefully managed. The use of biomass has been
especially controversial recently, as issues have arisen over competition
with other land uses, food production and ecosystem preservation, as
well as possible direct or indirect GHG emissions due to land use change
(see Sections 2.5, 9.3.4 and 10.6). On the other hand, RE deployment
is positively driven by sustainability criteria since it has the potential
to provide energy access in remote areas without some of the environmental and health impacts usually associated with fossil fuels (see
Sections 9.3.2, 9.3.4 and 10.6). Therefore, non-economic criteria have a
signicant inuence on the resulting RE deployment and corresponding
assumptions are crucial for scenario results.
813
Chapter 10
Table 10.3 | Overview of key parameters of the illustrative scenarios based on assumptions that are exogenous to the models respective endogenous model results. Dark grey
marks exogenous input; dark yellow marks endogenous model results. Note that the concentration categories are dened in terms of CO2 (only) concentrations, while other metrics,
predominantly CO2-equivalent concentrationsof Kyoto gases or of all forcing agentsare used in the literature. (Sources: IEA-WEO2009-Baseline (IEA, 2009; Teske et al., 2010),
ReMIND-RECIPE (Luderer et al., 2009), MiniCAM-EMF22 (Calvin et al., 2009), ER-2010 (Teske et al., 2010)).
Category
Scenario name
Units
Status Quo
Baseline
Category III+IV
(440 - 600ppm)
Category I+ II
(< 440ppm)
Category I+ II
(< 440ppm)
IEA-WEO2009-Baseline
ReMind-RECIPE
MiniCAM-EMF22
ER-2010
Model
yr
2007
2030
20501
2030
2050
2030
2050
2030
2050
Techology pathway2
Renewables
all3
all
all
all
CCS
Nuclear
Population
billion
6.67
8.31
9.15
8.32
9.19
8.07
8.82
8.31
9.15
GDP/capita4
thousand
USD2 0 0 5 /capita
10.9
17.4
24.3
12.4
18.2
9.7
13.9
17.4
24.3
EJ/y
469
645
749
590
674
608
690
474
407
MJ/USD2005
6.5
4.5
3.4
5.7
4.0
7.8
5.6
3.3
1.8
13
14
15
32
48
24
31
39
77
Gt CO2 /y
27.4
38.5
44.3
26.6
15.8
29.9
12.4
18.4
3.7
kg CO2 /GJ
58.4
57.1
56.6
45.0
23.5
49.2
18.0
36.7
7.1
Energy Demand
(direct equivalent)
Energy Intensity
Renewable Energy
Fossil & Industrial
CO2 Emissions
Carbon Intensity
ReMind
MiniCAM
MESAP/PlaNet
Notes: 1. IEA (2009) does not cover the years 2031 until 2050. As the IEAs projection only covers a time horizon up to 2030 for this scenario exercise, an extrapolation of the scenario
has been used that was provided by the German Aerospace Agency (DLR) by extrapolating the key macroeconomic and energy indicators of WEO 2009 forward to 2050 (Teske et al.,
2010). 2. (-): Technology not included; (+): Technology included. 3. This includes: Solar photovoltaics, CSP, solar water heating, wind (on- and offshore), geothermal power, heating and
cogeneration, bioenergy power, heating and cogeneration, hydropower, ocean energy. 4. The data are either input for the model or endogenous model results.
Last but not least, climate and energy policy frameworks are highly
relevant to RE deployment in scenario analysis. Market forces and constraints are relevant for the deployment of RE and determine the market
potential. As market potential also includes opportunities, it may in theory be larger than the economic potential due to support programs, but
usually the market potential is lower because of a variety of constraining
market failures for RE and other new technologies (Sections 1.4.2 and
11.4). Market potential analyses have to take into account the behaviour of private economic agents under their specic conditions, which
are partly shaped by public authorities (see Sections 11.5 and 11.6). In
this context, the energy policy framework has a profound impact on the
expansion of RE sources respective to corresponding assumptions for
the scenario results.
RE deployment is driven and hindered by a variety of factors and very
much depends on how the different determinants and their impacts are
being assessed; uncertainties about future development are generally
high and determined by specic assumptions. In this context, energy
scenarios bundling a consistent set of specic assumptions are an
approximation of what can be expected for the future under specic
conditions. As a comparison of different scenarios spans a range of
814
Chapter 10
Box 10.2 | Overview of the four illustrative scenarios and their underlying models.
IEA-WEO2009-Baseline: This scenario uses a typical baseline scenario approach. As such, it calculates the possible energy pathway
without any substantial change in government policy (IEA, 2009, p. 44) and under the assumption of a minimal to moderate fossil fuel
cost increase. The scenario does not include specic GHG emissions constraints. As the IEA (2009) projection only covers a time horizon
up to 2030 for this scenario exercise, an extrapolation of the scenario has been used that was provided by the German Aerospace Center
(DLR) that uses the key macroeconomic and energy indicators of IEA (2009) and brings them forward to 2050 (Teske et al., 2010). Regarding fossil and industrial CO2 emissions, the baseline scenario expects an increase from 27.4 Gt CO2/yr in 2007 to 44.3 Gt CO2/yr by 2050.
(Scenario IEA WEO 2009 Reference Scenario from IEA (2009) extended beyond 2030 by Teske et al. (2010).)
ReMIND-RECIPE: This scenario describes a mitigation path aiming to stabilize atmospheric CO2 (only) concentration at 450ppm (corresponding to fossil and industrial CO2 emissions of 15.8 Gt CO2/yr by 2050). It was generated with the energy-economy-climate model ReMIND-R, which computes welfare-optimized transformation trajectories under full where-exibility (emission reductions are performed
where it is cheapest), when-exibility (emission reductions are performed when they are cheapest) and what-exibility (emission
reductions are performed by choosing the least expensive combination of technologies) conditions. Another crucial assumption is perfect
foresight: investment decisions are made knowing in advance the future changes in prices and technology developments. The model is
characterized by a high level of integration: the macro-economy and the energy system are treated within an integrated optimization
framework, thus fully accounting for the macro-economic feedbacks of the climate mitigation effort. The complex integrated formulation
requires compromises in terms of the sectoral and technological resolution of the energy system. ReMIND-RECIPE accounts for a variety
of RE sources (wind, solar, biomass, hydro and geothermal) and conversion technologies. Wind power and solar PV are parameterized as
learning technologies. RE technologies can be deployed at the industrial scale at optimal sites and be transported within world regions
(up to continental scale) to demand centres, whereby the model implicitly assumes that bottlenecks (e.g., with respect to grid infrastructure) are avoided by early and anticipatory planning. (Scenario 450 ppm stabilization scenarios from Luderer et al. (2009).)
MiniCAM-EMF22: The MiniCAM-EMF22 scenario was developed as part of the Energy Modelling Forum study 22 (EMF 22), which looks
at possible approaches to long-term climate goals. The scenario was generated using the MiniCam integrated assessment model, the
precursor to the Global Change Assessment Model (GCAM) integrated assessment model. The scenario is an overshoot scenario that
reaches 450 ppm CO2eq (Kyoto gases)1 by 2100, after peaking at 525 ppm CO2eq in 2050, and assumes full international participation in
emissions reductions. The specic concentration levels correspond with fossil and industrial CO2 emissions of 12.4 Gt CO2/yr by 2050. The
underlying characteristics of the scenario include global population growth that peaks at approximately 9.0 billion people in 2070 and
then declines to 8.7 billion in 2100. The scenario considers the availability of a wide range of energy supply options, including major RE
options, nuclear power and both fossil energy and bioenergy equipped with CCS technology. The presence of bioenergy with CCS is particularly important in the scenario because it allows for the option to create negative emissions, primarily in electricity production (Calvin
et al., 2009; Clarke et al., 2009). (Scenario First-best 2.6 W/m2 Overshoot Scenario from Calvin et al. (2009).)
ER-2010: The ER-2010 scenario (Teske et al., 2010) is based on the socioeconomic assumptions of the IEA-WEO2009-Baseline scenario,
but assumes an increase in fossil fuel costs and a price for carbon from 2010 onwards. The scenario has a key constraint that limits
worldwide CO2 emissions to a level of 3.7 Gt CO2 per year by 2050. To achieve this, the scenario is characterized by signicant efforts to
fully exploit the large potential for energy efciency, using currently available best practice technology, and to foster the use of RE. In all
sectors, the latest market development projections and the resulting cost reductions for the RE industry have been taken into account,
and a stable development of the RE sector is pursued. To accelerate the market penetration of RE, various additional measures have been
assumed, such as a speedier introduction of electric vehicles combined with the implementation of effective communications systems and
technologies, smart meters and faster expansion of super grids to allow a higher share of variable RE power generation (PV and wind) to
be employed. The methodological background of the scenario is the simulation model PlaNet of the energy and environmental planning
package MESAP (see Krewitt et al. (2009), which was created for long-term strategic planning on a national, regional or local level. The
model is characterized by a very detailed technology breakdown for each sector. Following the simulation approach, activities and drivers
of demand (e.g., mobility demand), as well as relevant market shares of technologies, amongst other factors, are specied exogenously by
the user. (Scenario Advanced Energy [R]evolution 2010 from Teske et al. (2010).)
Note: 1. Note that atmospheric CO2 (only) concentrations reach about 385 ppm by 2100, that is, the scenario falls into concentration category 1 (<400 ppm); see also Table 10.2.
815
10.3.1.1
816
Chapter 10
However, cost projections for installed PV systems in 2050 had a signicant lower level of variability, ranging from USD2005 753/kW in the low
case to USD2005 1,125/kW in the high case. Nevertheless, the expected
deployment rates in the scenarios are quite different. With regard to
the PV-based electricity generation in 2050, there is a 25-fold difference between two of the mitigation oriented scenarios: 20,790 TWh/yr
(74,844 PJ/yr) in the ReMIND-RECIPE scenario versus 822 TWh/yr (2,959
PJ/yr) in MinCam-EMF22. This example illustrates the complexity of
the analysis, as the resulting deployment path for PV depends not only
on cost assumptions, but also on many other factors (e.g., availability
and characteristics of alternative mitigation technologies like CCS and
nuclear power in the case of MinCam-EMF 22).
Among all RE technologies for electricity generation, onshore wind
energy saw the least variation in cost projections among the models,
ranging around 10% over the entire time frame. Cost-optimization
energy models use cost assumptions for each technology as one of the
main determinants of market expansion or reduction, and the input
cost assumptions will therefore play a major role in determining the
scenario energy mix.
Annual market potential for the RE electricity sector
Based on the energy parameters of the analyzed scenarios, the required
annual production capacity (representing the annual market volume)
has been either calculated ex-post (IEA-WEO2009-Baseline, ReMINDRECIPE, MinCam-EMF 22) or has been provided by the scenario authors
(ER-2010). These calculated manufacturing capacities (Table 10.4) do
not include the additional needs for re-powering (i.e., replacement of
old wind turbines with new ones). Annual market growth rates in the
analyzed scenarios are very different, as are the expectations about how
the current dynamic of the market might change. In some cases, drastic
reductions in the current average market growth rates have been outlined, even in those scenarios aiming for an ambitious GHG stabilization
level. The global PV industry had an average annual growth rate of 35%
between 1998 and 2008 (EPIA, 2008). The wind industry experienced
a 30% annual growth rate over the same time period (Sawyer, 2009).
While the advanced technology roadmaps from the PV, CSP and wind
industry indicate these annual growth rates can be maintained over the
next decade (Sawyer, 2009; EPIA, 2010) and will decline later, most of
the analyzed integrated energy scenarios expect much slower annual
growth for all RE electricity supply technologies. The MiniCAM-EMF22
scenario, in particular did not project a stabilization of the growth rates
at the current level, but instead found alternative non-RE mitigation
technologies or other RE options (like biomass technologies) to be more
cost-competitive than solar PV. Furthermore, as MiniCAM-EMF22 is
representing an overshoot scenario in the medium term, the pressure
to further deploy RE is much lower than in scenarios with more ambitious GHG stabilization levels for 2030 (e.g., ER-2010). Additionally,
while MiniCAM-EMF22 and ReMIND-RECIPE are predominantly cost
driven, in the ER-2010 scenario the market development is simulated
and based on exogenous settings. With these settings, ER-2010 seeks to
avoid large uctuations in annual RE markets in order to achieve stable
development and employment in the RE sector.
167.6
2030
2050
1.0
2.3
0.1
0.4
0.9
PV 2030
PV 2050
CSP2020
CSP2030
CSP2050
5.5
9.1
on+offshore2030
on+offshore2050
1.0
2050
0.0
0.0
0.1
2020
2030
2050
0.4
0.6
2020
2030
Geothermal
3.6
on+offshore2020
Wind
0.4
PV 2020
Solar
98.1
123.5
2020
NSM
NSM
51.4
35.2
16.7
N/A
74.8
9.3
0.8
228.2
146.3
NSM
NSM
28.3
15.8
8.6
5.6
2.0
0.7
3.0
1.0
0.4
222.4
124.8
103.4
EMF22
RECIPE
117.9
MiniCAM-
ReMIND-
Baseline
WEO2009-
IEA-
Generation
[EJ/y]
4.5
0.9
0.2
10.7
4.6
1.3
39.0
21.1
10.3
32.4
9.8
2.5
24.6
7.0
2.1
158.1
111.2
92.9
2010
ER-
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.6
0.5
0.4
5.4
4.5
3.7
0.5
0.4
0.1
1.4
0.8
0.4
2009-Baseline
IEA-WEO
NSM
NSM
22.6
24.0
14.2
N/A
32.8
6.4
NSM
NSM
12.5
11.9
8.4
2.5
1.5
0.7
1.3
0.8
0.4
EMF22
RECIPE
0.7
MiniCAM-
ReMIND-
2.9
0.8
0.3
6.8
4.1
1.4
24.7
19.0
11.0
20.5
8.8
2.7
15.6
6.3
2.3
ER-2010
Energy Parameter
Baseline
WEO 2008
13
12
14
17
11
17
2009-
IEA-WEO
ppm IEA
> 600
NSM
NSM
33
N/A
12
32
NSM
NSM
23
13
40
10
18
EMF22
RECIPE
27
MiniCAM-
ReMIND-
16
47
15
20
26
17
62
14
42
2010
ER-
93
60
26
40
18
Baseline
2009-
IEA-WEO
NSM
NSM
262
381
175
N/A
651
163
12
RECIPE
ReMIND-
NSM
NSM
146
171
83
11
25
17
EMF22
MiniCAM-
Market Development
11
21
18
202
229
101
66
45
12
211
120
36
2010
ER-
Table 10.4 | Overview of scenario results for four illustrative scenarios: renewable electricity generation, resulting RE market shares, annual market growth rates and required annual manufacturing capacity. Both the IEA-WEO2009-Baseline
and ER-2010 have a separate category for bioenergy and geothermal combined heat and power (CHP) and power-generation-only power plantsheat generation is excluded and listed in Table 10.5. N/A: data not available, NSM: not
specically modelled. Sources: IEA-WEO2009-Baseline (IEA, 2009; Teske et al., 2010), ReMIND-RECIPE (Luderer et al., 2009), MiniCAM-EMF22 (Calvin et al., 2009), ER-2010 (Teske et al., 2010).
Chapter 10
Mitigation Potential and Costs
817
Chapter 10
10.3.1.2
The heating sector is one of the largest demand sectors and the RE
sharemainly traditional bioenergyis currently high, especially in
non-Annex I countries. RE for heating could also be used for cooling,
which offers new and additional market opportunities for countries
with Mediterranean, subtropical, or tropical climates. RE for coolingin
combination with solar architecturecan be applied for instance for
air-conditioning and would in that context reduce electricity demand for
electric air-conditioning signicantly. RE heating and cooling technologies
represent a variety of different technology pathways and require different infrastructure. Electricity-based geothermal heat pumps, small- and
large-scale solar collectors and district heating with a network of bioenergy cogeneration plants are to some extent competing technologies.
Low-energy buildings, for example, are a limiting factor for cogeneration
networks and could make electrical heating systems such as heat pumps
the preferred choice (see Section 8.2.2).
Factors for market development in the RE heating and cooling
sector
Besides cost aspects, policy choices in favour of specic RE technologies
and associated infrastructure (e.g., district heating networks) as well
as oil and gas price projections have a signicant impact on the projected deployment for each RE heating technology. Only the ER-2010
scenario indicates a signicant increase in the global RE share, from
24%6 in 2007 (IEA-WEO2009-Baseline) up to 90% by 2050, while the
other of the four illustrative scenarios expect only a slight increase of RE
heat to a maximum of 30% (MiniCAM-EMF22) by 2020 and a decrease
again to 2007 levels by 2050. All studies indicate that electricity demand
increases in the heating sector at the expense of fuel consumption.
6
818
Chapter 10
21,000
72
20,000
IEA-WEO2009-Baseline
19,000
ReMIND-RECIPE
18.000
MiniCAM-EMF22
17,000
ER-2010
16,000
15,000
14,000
54
13,000
12,000
11,000
36
10,000
9,000
8,000
7,000
6,000
18
5,000
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
PV
CSP
Wind Energy
(On + Offshore)
Geothermal
Energy
Bioenergy
Ocean Energy
2050
2030
2020
2050
2030
2020
2050
2030
2020
2050
2030
2020
2050
2030
2020
2050
2030
2020
2050
2030
2020
Hydropower
Figure 10.13 | Global RE electricity generation (development projections by technology and shares of global power generation for the four illustrative scenarios for comparison).
The total renewable power generation by 2050 is 11,159 TWh/yr (IEA-WEO2009-Baseline), 63,384 TWh/yr (ReMIND-RECIPE), 21,660 TWh/yr (MiniCAM-EMF22) and 41,500 TWh/yr
(ER-2010) respectively. Sources: IEA-WEO2009-Baseline (IEA, 2009; Teske et al., 2010), ReMIND-RECIPE (Luderer et al., 2009), MiniCAM-EMF22 (Calvin et al., 2009), ER-2010 (Teske
et al., 2010).
of bioenergy heating such as wood pellet ovens or biogas burners are assumed in all scenarios. The more efcient use of biomass
would increase the share of biomass heating without the necessity
to increase the overall demand for biomass. However, only one of the
analyzed scenarios provides information about the specic breakdown
of traditional versus modern biomass use. Therefore, it is not possible
to estimate the real annual market development of the different bioenergy heating systems.
The market potential at both domestic and industrial scales for RE heating technologies such as solar collectors, geothermal heat pumps or
pellet heating systems overlaps with the market potential analysis of the
RE power sector. While the solar collector market is independent from
the electricity sector, biomass cogeneration provides electricity as well
as heat. Geothermal heat pumps use electricity for their operation and
therefore increase the demand for electricity. RE heating and cooling
819
[EJ/yr]
[TWh/yr]
10.3.1.3
The use of RE in the transport sector in all analyzed studies was limited
to liquid biofuels, biomethane from biogas and RE-based electric vehicles for private use or public transport. Most of the scenario literature
does not take into account new technologies such as second-generation
sails for ships. Additionally, different reporting and categorization within
the underlying scenario models do not support a stringent comparison
of scenario results. However, even this comparison shows the substantial inuence of driving forces (e.g., GHG stabilization levels) on the
resulting RE share, which differs between scenarios by up to an order of
magnitude (see Table 10.6).
10.3.1.4
Figure 10.14 provides an overview of the projected primary energy production (using the direct equivalent methodology, see Section 1.1.8) by
source for the four selected scenarios for 2020, 2030 and 2050, and
compares the numbers with different projected global primary energy
demands. Bioenergy has the highest market share, on average, across
all of the scenarios, followed by solar energy, though scenario-specic
820
Chapter 10
results vary. This is largely driven by the fact that bioenergy (see Chapter
2) can be used across all sectors (electricity, heating and cooling as well
as transport) in combination with the selected primary energy accounting methodology. As the available land for bioenergy is limited and
competition with nature conservation issues as well as food and materials production is crucial, the sectoral use for the available bioenergy
signicantly depends on scenario assumptions and underlying priorities
(see Sections 2.2, 2.5 and 9.3.4). Solar energy can be used in direct
form for heating and cooling and electricity generation (and indirectly
via electricity for transport purposes), but solar technology starts from
a relatively low level. The relatively lower average primary energy share
for wind and hydropower may in part be due to their exclusive use in the
electricity sector, though some scenarios show substantial contributions
from wind in particular.
The total RE share in the primary energy mix by 2050 has a substantial variation across all four scenarios. With 15% by 2050compared
to 12.9% in 2008the IEA-WEO2009-Baseline projects the lowest
primary RE share, while ER-2010 reaches 77%, the MiniCAM-EMF22
achieves 31% and ReMIND-RECIPE 48% of the worlds primary energy
demand with RE. While it is not surprising that without constraining GHG concentration levels, RE deployment rates are rather low
(IEA-WEO2009-Baseline), it is worth mentioning that there is even a
signicant difference (more than a factor of two with regard to the
relative RE shares) between the mitigation-oriented scenarios. Once
more, this is a result of many aspects; that is, technology-specic
assumptions (e.g., costs) and model characteristics (e.g., inclusion
of endogenous learning), assumptions about the availability of other
mitigation technologies and the expected energy demand. The overall total global RE deployment by 2050 in all analyzed scenarios
represents less than 2% of the available technical RE potential (see
Section 10.3.2.2). The wide range of RE shares is a function of different assumptions about policy, technology costs, chosen mitigation
technologies (e.g., availability of CCS) and future energy demand
projections.
10.3.2
This section focuses on the regional perspective and provides an overview of the regional market penetration paths given in the four scenarios.
A comparison with the technical potential per region for each technology indicates to what level the regional technical potentials will be
exploited. Additionally, an in-depth cost curve analysis of three regions
(China, India and Europe) provides deeper insights into the assumed
cost development of renewable electricity generation.
10.3.2.1
174
205
2030
2050
1.6
3.1
0.9
1.6
2030
2050
43.6
37.7
40.7
48.4
2020
2030
2050
37.0
40.0
40.9
32.4
38.2
2050
39.8
36.2
2030
40.8
4.6
0.2
0.1
N/A
N/A
N/A
160
198
2020
Bioenergy heating
0.6
2020
Geothermal heating
0.8
Solar
158
2020
31.7
39.0
40.4
31.7
39.0
40.4
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
151
145
135
EMF22
RECIPE
190
MiniCAM-
ReMIND-
Baseline
2009-
IEA-WEO
Generation
[EJ/yr]
113.3
70.5
52.6
48.1
45.4
41.7
26.5
9.3
4.4
38.7
15.8
6.5
152
156
152
ER-2010
23.6
23.4
23.9
21.3
22.0
23.0
0.8
0.5
0.4
1.5
0.9
0.5
Baseline
2009-
IEA-WEO
23.1
20.2
21.6
20.2
20.1
21.5
2.8
0.1
0.1
N/A
N/A
21.0
27.0
20.0
21.0
27.0
30.0
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
EMF22
RECIPE
N/A
MiniCAM-
ReMIND-
90.8
48.7
35.0
31.7
29.7
27.6
26.4
7.0
3.0
33.7
12.2
4.5
ER-2010
Energy Parameter
14
10
Baseline
2009-
IEA-WEO
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
18
-6
N/A
N/A
N/A
EMF22
RECIPE
N/A
MiniCAM-
ReMIND-
10
41
12
39
ER-2010
479
791
66
270
678
28
22
12
187
100
32
Baseline
2009-
IEA-WEO
Market Development
N/A
N/A
N/A
191
698
112
66
-1
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
186
686
104
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
EMF22
RECIPE
N/A
MiniCAM-
ReMIND-
2146
2122
601
295
811
130
283
149
63
1568
1162
409
ER-2010
Table 10.5| Projected RE heat production, possible market shares, annual growth rates and annual market volumes for the four illustrative scenariosexcluding additional needs for re-powering. N/A: data not available. Sources: IEAWEO2009-Baseline (IEA, 2009; Teske et al., 2010), ReMIND-RECIPE (Luderer et al., 2009), MiniCAM-EMF22 (Calvin et al., 2009), ER- 2010 (Teske et al., 2010).
Chapter 10
Mitigation Potential and Costs
821
Chapter 10
Table 10.6 | Projected RE shares in the transportation sector for the four illustrative scenarios. (Note: The electricity share includes RE- and non-RE-based electricity as well as hydrogen
produced with electricity. For the IEA-WEO2009-Baseline, MiniCAM-EMF22 and ER-2010 the RE share in the electricity sector has been used to identify the RE share of the electricity
used for the transport sector. Therefore the total RE share within the transport sector is lower than the sum of the percentages.) Sources: IEA-WEO2009-Baseline (IEA, 2009; Teske et
al., 2010), ReMIND-RECIPE (Luderer et al., 2009), MiniCAM-EMF22 (Calvin et al., 2009), ER-2010 (Teske et al., 2010).
RE share in Transport Sector
IEA-WEO2009-baseline (%)
ReMIND-RECIPE (%)
MiniCAM-EMF22 (%)
ER-2010 (%)
Biofuels
2020
2030
2050
4.3
4.6
5.0
2.2
12.9
26.8
6.8
9.5
10,2
5.4
9.3
14.0
2020
2030
2050
1.4
1,5
1,6
0.1
1.0
6.7
2.5
4.1
11.2
4.4
14.7
57.4
Total RE share
2020
2030
2050
4.6
4.9
5.4
2.3
13.9
33.6
7.5
10.8
15.6
7.3
19.1
68.9
[EJ/yr]
140
MiniCAM-EMF22
ER-2010
120
10 % of Global Energy
Supply under IEA-WEO2009Demand Projection by 2050
100
80
60
40
20
X X
0
2020
2030
2050
Solar Energy
2020
2030
2050
Wind Energy
2020
2030
2050
Geothermal Energy
2020
2030
2050
Bioenergy
2020
X X
2030
2050
Ocean Energy
2020
2030
2050
Hydropower
Figure 10.14 | Global RE development projections by source and global renewable primary energy shares (direct equivalent) by source for a set of four illustrative scenarios. The total
renewable energy deployment projected for 2050 is 117 EJ/yr (IEA-WEO2009-Baseline), 214 EJ /yr (ReMIND-RECIPE), 323 EJ/yr (MiniCAM-EMF22) and 314 EJ/yr (ER-2010) respectively. Sources: IEA-WEO2009-Baseline (IEA, 2009; Teske et al., 2010), ReMIND-RECIPE (Luderer et al., 2009), MiniCAM-EMF22 (Calvin et al., 2009), ER-2010 (Teske et al., 2010).
results. The following curves (see Figures 10.15, 10.16 and 10.17) are
illustrative examples and represent a cross-section of three of the four
scenarios (specic data for MiniCAM-EMF22 are not available for this
exercise).7 The regional energy supply cost curves focus on a specic target year and relate the deployment of certain RE electricity technologies
in the different regions (as a result of the specic scenarios) to their cost
levels in discrete steps. Thus, the curves report scenario results (potential
deployment) and are not a reection of RE technical potentials.
7
Unlike other parts of this section, IEA-WEO2008-Baseline and not IEA-WEO2009Baseline is used to represent a baseline scenario here due to data constraints.
822
Chapter 10
[USD2005 /MWh]
PV
180
PV
PV
160
PV
140
Ocean
Geo
Hydro
Hydro
120
Onshore Offshore
Geo
PV
Hydro
100
CSP
Wind
Biomass
Wind Wind
80
60
Biomass
PV
Wind
Wind
CSP
40
Wind
Wind
Wind
20
Wind
Hydro
Hydro
PV
Hydro
Hydro
Ocean
Wind
0
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
When comparing the three models, the IEA-WEO2008-Baseline projects the highest costs and lowest RE deployment in all three regions,
while typically the ReMIND-RECIPE scenario envisions the lowest cost
levels and highest RE deployment.8 While in some regions the curves
from different models are close to each other and project similar
deployment levels at similar cost levels, the technologies they consider
the most promising are often different. For instance, the ReMINDRECIPE scenarios see the largest promise in PV and in 2050 the lions
share of its cost-effective RE deployment comes from this technology
in all three regions. Projected RE deployment in the ER-2010 scenario
consists of a balance of wind (on- and offshore), PV, concentrating
solar power (CSP), hydropower and geothermal energy. The IEAWEO2008-Baseline projects mainly wind and hydropower through
2030, and considers PV as too expensive in all regions. This is the technology for which the scenarios differ the most both in terms of costs
and deployment level. For instance, the ReMIND-RECIPEs highest PV
cost band for 2050 in OECD Europe is approximately one-fourth of
the average PV cost projected by the IEA-WEO2008-Baseline by 2030,
8
823
Chapter 10
[USD2005 /MWh]
PV
160
140
120
PV
Geo
Offshore
CSP
Hydro
Wind
100
Biomass Ocean
Wind
PV
Geo
Hydro
Onshore
80
Hydro
Wind
PV
Wind
CSP
PV
Hydro
PV
Wind
PV
WEO 2008 (for 2030)
60
Wind
Wind
40
20
Biomass
Hydro
PV
Wind
PV
Wind
Ocean
PV
0
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
[USD2005 /MWh]
Supply Curves of Renewable Electricity Potential - OECD Europe 2030 and 2050
300
WEO 2008 (for 2030)
PV
250
Geo
200
CSP
CSP
CSP
Geo
Hydro
Ocean
Hydro
150
Geo
Hydro
PV
Offshore Onshore
100
Hydro Wind
Biomass
Ocean
Wind
PV
Wind
Ocean
PV
Biomass
50
PV
Wind
PV
PV
0
0
PV
Wind
Wind
500
Wind
Wind
Hydro
PV
Wind
Hydro
Hydro
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
4,000
824
Chapter 10
and even the highest cost band in 2030 is half the average PV cost
projected by that same study.
The different scenarios see different roles and costs for CSP. ReMINDRECIPE considers a generic solar technology parameterized based on PV,
and thus this technology was not specically modelled in this scenario.
The ER-2010 scenarios see a larger role for CSP than for PV in both China
and India in the longer term, albeit at a higher cost. Neither of the models
attributes a major deployment of geothermal energy, but they see its
costs very differently. The costs of this electricity generation source in
the IEA-WEO2008-Baseline is approximately half of that in the ER-2010
scenarios for the same target year (2030), and even in 2050 the ER-2010
cost projections are signicantly higher for this technology than in the
IEA-WEO2008-Baseline scenario in 2030although the deployment
levels at this cost are several times higher than projected by the other
scenarios, making a noticeable contribution to the total deployment in
2050 in India and OECD Europe from among the examined regions. The
ReMIND-RECIPE scenarios do not consider geothermal power.
With regard to the quality of electricity supply, it is also important
to keep in mind that the presented supply curves do not distinguish
between highly variable, and sometimes unpredictable, energy sources
and dispatchable energy sources. In this context, a cost premium due to
10.3.2.2
[EJ/yr]
300
ReMIND-RECIPE
280
MiniCAM-EMF22
ER-2010
260
240
220
200
No Numbers Aggregated
for this Region
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
OECD
Europe
OECD
North America
OECD
Pacic
X
Latin
America
X
Trans.
Economies
X
Developing
Asia
Africa
X
Middle East
Figure 10.18 | Regional breakdown of possible energy demand and RE potential deployment for the selected set of four scenarios in 2050 (direct equivalent). Sources: IEA-WEO2009Baseline (IEA, 2009; Teske et al., 2010), ReMIND-RECIPE (Luderer et al., 2009), MiniCAM-EMF22 (Calvin et al., 2009), ER-2010 (Teske et al., 2010). For comparison, total primary
energy demand in 2007 is given (IEA, 2009).
825
Chapter 10
available technical potential for RE. Wind energy has been exploited
to a much larger extent in all regions than solar energy. Geothermal
energy does not reach the technical potential limit in any of the scenarios analyzed, with the deployment rate remaining below 5% at both
the regional and global level. Apart from some specic regions (e.g.,
China, India and Europe), the same is the case for ocean energy as
a very young technology form. The established hydropower potential
deployment at a global level covers roughly one-third of the technical potential, while in some specic regions the estimated capacity for
2050 is already very close to the maximum possible capacity.
While the overall technical potential for RE exceeds current global primary energy by an order of magnitude (see Chapter1), even the two
most ambitious scenarios in terms of RE deployment with comparable
high growth rates for RE did not exceed 2.5% (ER 2010: 2.3%; MiniCAMEMF22: 1.8%) of the given technical RE potential for 2050 at a global
level.
10.3.3
technologies. The numbers given in this section are derived from the
results of the four illustrative scenarios (e.g., the underlying deployment
paths of different RE technologies). As the amount of GHGs mitigated
by renewable technologies greatly depends on the GHG intensity of the
energy mix and on whether it is assumed that RE substitutes for fossil
fuels only or also possibly other energy generation technologies (e.g.,
nuclear, other REs), the GHG mitigation potentials are provided over a
range in this section to reect the given uncertainties. Note that besides
the fact that numbers are shown only for a limited number of scenarios,
the following calculation is necessarily based on simplied assumptions
and can only be seen as indicative.
For the power sector, the range is dened by the following three cases:
For the electricity sector, Table 10.7 shows the underlying assumptions
for the calculation of the CO2 mitigation potential. The specic carbon
Table 10.7 | Assumptions for the CO2 mitigation potential calculation: average specic CO2 emissions from electricity generation or heat supply being substituted in the different
scenarios. Sources for the underlying RE deployment: IEA-WEO2009-Baseline (IEA, 2009; Teske et al., 2010), ReMIND-RECIPE (Luderer et al., 2009), MiniCAM-EMF22 (Calvin et al.,
2009), ER-2010 (Teske et al., 2010).
Average specic CO2 Emissions
IEA-WEO2009-Baseline
ReMIND-RECIPE
MiniCAM-EMF22
ER-2010
487
374
147
544
345
123
Power Sector
Upper Case
2020 [g CO2/kWh]
2030 [g CO2/kWh]
2050 [g CO2/kWh]
812
768
716
Medium Case
2020 [g CO2/kWh]
2030 [g CO2/kWh]
2050 [g CO2/kWh]
625
580
531
Lower case
2020 [g CO2/kWh]
2030 [g CO2/kWh]
2050 [g CO2/kWh]
599
564
500
543
370
190
78.1(1)
78.1(1)
78.1(1)
Medium Case
72(2)
72(2)
72(2)
63.9(3)
63.9(3)
63.9(3)
Notes: The medium case for the power sector was dened by taking the average of the baseline scenarios of the studies IEA-WEO2009, ReMIND-RECIPE and MiniCAM-EMF22 (ER2010, being based on IEA-WEO2009, has no baseline of its own). The upper case is dened by only taking the fossil fuel component of the above baseline scenarios. The lower case
assumes the substitution of the specic average CO2 emissions of the generation mix of the particular analyzed scenario. As a pragmatic assumption for direct heat bioenergy 50% of
the emission factor for heating and cooling have been applied to consider that relevant GHG emission occur in the process chain.(1) 39 kt CO2/PJ (2) 36 kt CO2/PJ (3) 32 kt CO2/PJ.
826
X EJ/yr
761 EJ/yr
2.6-5.0
5.1-7.5
7.6-10
10-12.5
5,360 EJ/yr
12.6-15
Scenario data: IEA WEO 2009 Reference Scenario (International Energy Agency (IEA), 2009; Teske et al., 2010), ReMIND-RECIPE 450ppm
Stabilization Scenario (Luderer et al., 2009), MiniCAM EMF22 1st-best 2.6 W/2 Overshoot Scenario (Calvin et al., 2009), Advanced
Energy
[R]evolution 2010 (Teske et al., 2010)
RE potential analysis: Technical RE potentials reported here represent total worldwide and regional potentials based on a review of
studies published before 2009 by Krewitt et al. (2009). They do not deduct any potential that is already being utilized for energy
production. Due to methodological differences and accounting methods among studies, strict comparability of these estimates across
technologies and regions, as well as to primary energy demand, is not possible. Technical RE potential analyses published after 2009
show higher results in some cases but are not included in this gure. However, some RE technologies may compete for land which
could lower the overall RE potential.
0-2.5
Technical RE Potential Can Supply the 2007 Primary Energy Demand by a Factor of:
Bio energy
Ocean
Hydro
Geothermal
Wind
Solar
15.1-17.5
1,335 EJ/yr
20.1-22.5
1,911 EJ/yr
464 EJ/yr
Range
ER-2010
MiniCAM-EMF22
ReMIND-RECIPE
IEA-WEO2009-Baseline
17.6-20
193 EJ/yr
22.6-25
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
25-50
11,941 EJ/yr
World - EJ/yr
Direct Solar
306 EJ/yr
Wind
Geothermal
193 EJ/yr
Over 50
Bioenergy
864 EJ/yr
Total
Hydropower
571 EJ/yr
Chapter 10
Mitigation Potential and Costs
827
Ocean
10
15
20
25
30
35
10
15
Wind
20
Direct Solarr
Geothermall
Hydropower
828
Direct Solarr
Windd
Geothermal
al
Hydropower
er
an
Ocean
Oceann
Total
Total
Bioenergyy
Bioenergy
30
60
90
120
150
10
15
20
25
Africa - EJ/yr
Ocean
an
30
Direct Solarr
Windd
Geothermal
al
Hydropowerr
Direct Solarr
Windd
Geothermal
al
Hydropower
Ocean
an
Total
Total
Bioenergy
Bioenergy
10
15
20
25
10
15
20
Direct Solar
ar
Windd
Geothermal
al
Hydropower
Oceann
Bioenergy
Direct Solarr
Wind
Geothermall
Hydropower
Oceann
Bioenergy
Total
Total
10
20
30
40
50
60
10
15
20
Wind
an
Ocean
25
Direct Solarr
Geothermall
Hydropower
Bioenergy
Total
Direct Solarr
Windd
al
Geothermal
Hydropower
an
Ocean
Bioenergy
Total
Chapter 10
Chapter 10
Figure 10.19 | (Preceding pages) Overview of the relation between the primary energy contribution of RE (direct equivalent) and the corresponding technical potential for different
technologies and regions for 2050 for the selected set of four scenarios. Due to differences in regional aggregation not all models provide data for all regions.
Note: Data for technical potential presented in Chapters 2 through 7 may disagree with the gures in Krewitt et al. (2009) due to differences in assessed studies and the underlying
methodologies (see also Chapter 1, in which Krewitt et al. (2009) worldwide RE technical potential estimates are compared to a range of values in the literature presented in Chapters
2 through 7).
emissions factor for the year 2050 ranges from 716 g CO2/kWh (199 g CO2
/kJ) (upper case) to between 123 and 190 g CO2 /kWh (34 to 53 g CO2 /kJ)
(lower case) for the selected mitigation scenarios. As noted in the table, a
range of emission factors was also assumed for RE used in heating and
cooling applications. In contrast to electricity generation, no specic information for these applications was available from the different scenarios.
Against that background for the calculation, a pragmatic approach was
selected for the underlying emission factors starting with a substitution of
oil for the medium case and considering an uncertainty range.
Biofuels and other RE options for transport are excluded in the calculation due to limited data availability. To reect the embedded GHG
emissions saved due to bioenergy used for direct heating, only half of
the theoretical CO2 savings have been considered in the calculation.
Given the high uncertainties and variability of embedded GHG emissions (see Chapter 2 for the discussion of indirect GHG emissions from
the whole biomass process chain and Chapter 9 for a more general
discussion on lifecycle assessment of different RE sources) this is necessarily once more a simplifying assumption.
Annual Global CO2 Savings from RE by Technology in Four Deployment Scenarios for 2030 and 2050
16
2030: IEA-WEO2009-Baseline
14
2050: IEA-WEO2009-Baseline
2030: ReMIND-RECIPE
2050: ReMIND-RECIPE
12
2030: MiniCAM-EMF22
2050: MiniCAM-EMF22
10
2030: ER-2010
2050: ER-2010
8
33% of Global CO2 Emission
(Base 2008)
10% Global CO2 Emission
(Base 2008)
X
Solar Energy
Wind Energy
Geothermal Energy
Bioenergy
Ocean Energy
Hydropower
Figure 10.20 | Expected range of annual global CO2 savings from RE for the four illustrative scenarios for 2030 and 2050. Biofuels for transport are excluded, and biomass used for
direct heating only accounts for half the CO2 savings due to imbedded GHG emissions from bioenergy. The presented range marks the high uncertainties regarding the substituted
energy source: While the upper limit assumes full substitution of high-carbon fossil fuels, the lower limit considers specic CO2 emissions of the analyzed scenario itself. Sources: IEAWEO2009-Baseline (IEA, 2009; Teske et al., 2010), ReMIND-RECIPE (Luderer et al., 2009), MiniCAM-EMF22 (Calvin et al., 2009), ER-2010 (Teske et al., 2010).For comparison, global
CO2 emissions in 2008 are given (IEA 2010d).
829
Chapter 10
Again, these numbers exclude CO2 savings from RE use in the transport
sector (including biofuels and electric vehicles). The overall CO2 mitigation potential can therefore be higher.
10.3.4
Annual Global CO2 Savings from RE for Different Scenario-Based Deployment Paths for 2030 and 2050
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
2030
2050
IEA-WEO2009-Baseline
2030
2050
ReMind-Recipe
2030
2050
MiniCAM-EMF22
2030
2050
ER-2010
Figure 10.21 | Range of annual global CO2 savings from RE in total for a set of four illustrative scenarios for 2030 and 2050 (Note: biofuels for transport are excluded, and biomass
used for direct heating only accounts for half the CO2 savings due to embedded GHG emissions from bioenergy). (The presented range marks the high uncertainties regarding the
substituted energy source: while the upper limit assumes a full substitution of high-carbon fossil fuels, the lower limit considers specic CO2 emissions of the analyzed scenario itself.)
Sources: IEA-WEO2009-Baseline (IEA, 2009; Teske et al., 2010), ReMIND-RECIPE (Luderer et al., 2009), MiniCAM-EMF22 (Calvin et al., 2009), ER-2010 (Teske et al., 2010).
9
For the integration, the time periods 2020 to 2030 and 2030 to 2050 were linearly
interpolated.
830
Chapter 10
[Gt CO2]
Global Cumulative CO2 Savings for Different Scenario-Based RE Deployment Paths 2010 up to 2020, 2030 and 2050
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
2020
2030
2050
IEA-WEO2009-Baseline
2020
2030
2050
ReMind-RECIPE
2020
2030
MiniCam-EMF22
2050
2020
2030
2050
ER-2010
Figure 10.22 | Expected range of global cumulative CO2 savings up to 2020, 2030 and 2050. The presented range marks the high uncertainties regarding the substituted conventional
energy source: while the upper limit assumes a full substitution of high-carbon fossil fuels, the lower limit considers specic CO2 emissions of the analyzed scenario itself. Sources:
IEA-WEO2009-Baseline (IEA, 2009; Teske et al., 2010), ReMIND-RECIPE (Luderer et al., 2009), MiniCAM-EMF22 (Calvin et al., 2009), ER-2010 (Teske et al., 2010).
well below 5% of the global electricity supply. The scenario results for
the heating and cooling sector include signicant uncertainties as the
models use different accounting methods, for example, for geothermal
heat pumps. In terms of primary energy share, bioenergy has the greatest
shareespecially in the heating sector. Wind and solar energy are projected
to become important players by and after 2030.
As already stressed in the comprehensive scenario survey (see Section
10.2), there are many reasons why the investigated scenarios reach
different results. Each of the in-depth scenarios follows a different strategy. Signicant differences in the demand projections and whether or
not a shift towards more electricity within the transport and/or heating sector are projected to have a signicant impact on the selected
technologies and their deployment rates. Moreover, other mitigation
technologies, such as CCS and/or nuclear, have a signicant impact on
the resulting role of RE sources in a future energy mix. In practice, a high
RE deployment can only be achieved if system-relevant policy decisions
are made many years ahead of the intended market penetration. The
assumptions of expanded energy infrastructure such as transmission grids
(see Chapter 8) or district heating networks can change the RE deployment of the scenario entirely. Even if the analyzed models do not include
grid modelling via system integration aspects, these issues are at least
covered implicitly in the scenarios (integration restrictions).
Due to comparably long lifetime expectations, the energy system is
relatively inexible and investment decisions have long-lasting impacts.
A high share of relatively inexible base load power plantssuch as coal,
lignite and nuclear power plants, for instancewill reduce the technical
and economic space of variable renewable electricity generation like
solar photovoltaic and wind. Technology choices and preferences predetermine the future RE deployment as well as the assumed RE cost
developments and corresponding fossil fuel price projections. The overall share of RE in primary energy demand within the three in-depth
mitigation scenario ranges from 24% (MiniCAM-EMF22) to 39% (ER-2010)
by 2030 and 31% (MiniCAM-EMF22) to 77% (ER-2010) by 2050. Lower
RE shares are due to the availability of competing low-carbon technologies such as CCS and nuclear, while scenarios not allowing access
to these technologies expect higher RE shares, but not necessarily
higher absolute numbers.
In addition to the comprehensive scenario survey in the previous section
(see Section 10.2), the in-depth analyses of the four illustrative scenarios
831
Chapter 10
while abatement curves are very practical and can provide important
strategic overviews, it is pertinent to understand that their use for decision
making has many limitations.
Modelling of the heating and transport sectors in most of the existing models is less detailed than modelling of the electricity sector,
although both sectors are substantially contribute to GHG emissions. More generally, there is a severe lack of data for the heating
and transport sector especially on a sectoral or regional basis.
The aims of this section are to: (a) review the concept of abatement cost
curves briey and appraise their strengths and shortcomings (Section
10.4.2); (b) review the existing literature on regional abatement cost curves
as they pertain to mitigation using RE (Section 10.4.3); and (c) review the
literature on (regional) RE technology resource supply cost curves (Section
10.4.4). The section thus covers supply curves of RE on the one hand, which
evaluate the unit costs of energy generation and the possibilities of utilizing
the technical potential depending on the technology deployed, and on the
other hand carbon abatement cost curves, which describe the mitigation
potentials and marginal costs of emission mitigation (usually per tonne of
CO2eq.) through the deployment of renewable energy sources.
10.4.2
10.4.2.1
The concept
10.4
10.4.1
Introduction
Governments and decision makers face limited nancial and institutional resources and capacities for mitigation, and therefore tools
that assist them in strategizing how these limited resources are
prioritized have become very popular. Among these tools are abatement cost curvesa tool that relates the mitigation potential of
a mitigation option to its marginal cost. Recent years have seen a
major interest among decision- and policymakers in abatement cost
curves, witnessed by the proliferation in the number of such studies and institutions/companies engaged in preparing such reports
(e.g., Next Energy, 2004; Creyts et al., 2007; Dornburg et al., 2007;
McKinsey&Company, 2007, 2008a, 2009b,c; IEA, 2008b). However,
832
The concepts of supply curves of carbon abatement, energy, or conserved energy all rest on the same foundation. They are curves consisting
typically of discrete steps, each step relating the marginal cost of the
abatement measure/energy generation technology or measure to conserve energy to its potential; these steps are ranked according to their
cost. Graphically, the steps start at the lowest cost on the left with the
next highest cost added to the right and so on, making an upward sloping left-to-right marginal cost curve. As a result, a curve is obtained that
can be interpreted similarly to the concept of supply curves in traditional
economics.
Supply curves of conserved energy were rst introduced by Arthur
Rosenfeld (see Meier et al., 1983) and became a popular concept in
the 1980s (Stoft, 1995). The methodology has since been revised and
upgraded, and the eld of its application extended to energy generation
supply curves including RE cost curves; as well as carbon abatement
from the 1990s (Rufo, 2003). One of the benets of the method was that
it provided a framework for comparing otherwise different options, such
as the cost-effectiveness of different energy supply options compared
to energy conservation options, and therefore was a practical tool for
some decision-making approaches, such as integrated resource planning. Although Stoft (1995) explains why the supply curves used in the
studies by Meier et al. (1983) cannot be regarded as true supply curves,
including the fact that markets associated with the different types of
options depicted in them, such as energy efciency and energy supply
markets, differ in many aspects, he maintains that they are useful for
their purpose.
Despite the widespread use of supply curves and their advantages
discussed above, there are some inherent limitations to the method
Chapter 10
that have attracted criticism from various authors that are important
to review before reviewing the literature on them or presenting the
regional cost curves.
piecemeal approach. Conversely, some measures may be more expensive or even become unviable when other measures are implemented.
Any measures that compete against each other are substitutable, in
some part or entirely (Sweeney and Weyant, 2008).
10.4.2.2
For GHG abatement cost curves, a key input that largely inuences the
results is the carbon intensity, or emission factor, of the country or area
to which it is applied, and the uncertainty in projecting this into the
future. This may lead to a situation where the option in one locality is
shown to be a much more attractive mitigation measure as compared
to an alternative than in another locality simply as a result of the differences in emission factors (Fleiter et al., 2009). As a result, a carbon
abatement curve for a future date may say more about expected policies
for fossil fuels than about the actual measures analyzed by the curves,
and the ranking of the individual measures is also very sensitive to the
developments in carbon intensity of energy supply.
833
Chapter 10
Box 10.3 | Overview of selected key limitations of the cost/supply curve method:
Controversy among scientists about opportunities at negative costs;
Strong focus on costs as selection criteria, while in reality actors base their decisions also on other criteria than those reected in the
curves;
Economic and technological uncertainty inherent to predicting the future, including energy price developments and discount rates;
Further uncertainty due to strong level of aggregation of the databases used (e.g., site- and technology-specic differences);
High sensitivity relative to baseline assumptions and the whole future generation and transmission portfolio;
Consideration of individual measures separately, ignoring interdependencies between measures applied together or in different order
(including path dependency issues and treatment of transmission and integration aspects); and
For carbon abatement curves, high sensitivity to (uncertain) emission factor assumptions.
10.4.3
10.4.3.1
Introduction
This section reviews key studies that have produced national or regional
cost curves for RE and its application for mitigation. First, the section
reviews work that looks at RE supply curves, followed by a review of
the role of RE in overall abatement cost curvessince designated cost
curves for RE alone are rare.
10.4.3.3
10.4.3.2
834
Chapter 10
Table 10.8 | Summary of RE supply curves for world, regions and countries, with the data grouped into cost categories. Baseline refers to the expected projection of the energy type,
the details of which are described in the notes by the target year; most typically the projected total primary energy supply for the particular country, unless otherwise noted in the notes.
Currency values are given as in the respective sources as base years are often not specied and conversion to USD2005 is not possible.
Country/region
Cost
(USD/MWh)
Total RE
(TWh/yr) [EJ/yr]
Percent of
baseline (%)
Discount
rate (%)
<100
200,000300,000
[7201,080]
>100
10
Notes
Global
Global (Biomass)
Wind
Biomass
<100
97,200 [350]
N/A
<40
<60
<80
<100
2,000 [7.2]
23,000 [83]
39,000 [140]
42,000 [151]
6
72
123
133
<60
59,000 [212]
187
10
10
Global
<80
<100
400,000 [1,440]
1,850,000 [6,660]
<70
<100
21,000 [76]
53,000 [191]
<70
<100
2,000 [7.2]
7,000 [25]
160
550
USA
<70
<100
3,000 [11]
13,000 [47]
80
350
East Asia
<70
<100
0 [0]
50 [.2]
0
3
<70
<100
1,000 [3.6]
2,000 [7.2]
40
80
PV
Global
Former USSR
Western
Europe
Global
600700
10
121,805 [438]
Former USSR
23,538 [85]
USA
9,444 [34]
East Asia
<50
17,666 [64]
1,268
5,868
N/A
10
OECD Europe
3,194 [12]
Central and
Eastern Europe
<100
3,233 [12]
74
N/A
Czech Republic
<100
101 [.4]
Source
20
835
Country/region
Cost
(USD/MWh)
Chapter 10
Total RE
(TWh/yr) [EJ/yr]
Percent of
baseline (%)
Discount
rate (%)
Notes
<100
56 [.2]
3.4
India
10
<200
90 [.3]
5.6
<100
22 [.08]
2.1
<200
23 [.08]
2.2
Netherlands
N/A
<300
24 [.09]
2.3
<100
81 [.3]
22
UK
USA
7.9
<200
119 [.4]
33
<100
3,421 12]
15
<100
177 [.6]
0.77
<200
1,959 [7]
8.5
USA (WGA)
8.6
<100
0.28 [.001]
N/A
<200
10.5 [.04]
N/A
<300
20 [.07]
N/A
Biomass
and PV: 7.5
Rest: 8
836
1,971 [7]
N/A
<300
Wind
Grid availability not expected to be a
serious concern
Baseline refers to 2005 electricity
consumption
N/A
Small hydro
Grid availability not expected to be a
serious concern
Baseline refers to 2005 electricity
consumption
Source
10.4.4
The energy and abatement cost curves discussed above provide a more
aggregated picture (see Sections 10.4.2 and 10.4.3). For selected technologies, this section ends with the discussion of illustrative examples
of resource cost curves. In this context, some studies are highlighted
that were already part of the general overview in Section 10.4.3.
Chapter 10
Table 10.9 | Summary of carbon abatement cost curves for world, regions and countries (cells including grey literature are coloured in grey).
Country/region
Year
Cost
(USD/tCO2eq)
Mitigation potential
(Mt CO2)
Percent of
baseline (%)
Discount
rate (%)
Notes
Global
Global
2050
<200
46,195
85
<100
6,390
9.1
<100
4,070
5.8
2030
N/A
Annex I
2020
<100
2,818
20
N/A
Australia
2020
<100
74
9.5
Australia
2030
<100
105
13
<100
8.1
1.0
Australia (NSW
Region)
China
2014
2030
<300
8.5
1.1
<100
1,560
11
2030
<50
3,484
27
Czech Republic
Germany
Poland
2030
2020
2015
<100
2,323
18
<100
9.3
6.2
<200
11.9
8.0
<300
16.6
11
<100
20
1.9
<200
31
3.0
<300
34
3.2
<100
50
11
<200
55.9
12
McKinsey&Company (2009b)
Different abatement
allocations analyzed
depending (equal marginal
cost, per capita emission
right convergence,
equal percentage
reduction)
CO2 equivalent emissions
six Kyoto GHGs, but
exclude LULUCF
Costs in 2005 USD
N/A
Chen, 2005
Baseline Scenario: ERI (2009)
McKinsey&Company (2008b)
Societal costs
(governmental
compensation not
included)
McKinsey&Company (2007)
Only biomass
Best case scenario
(McKinsey&Company, 2009a)
N/A
N/A
2030
Scenario A (maximum
growth of RE and
nuclear)
Scenario B (50% growth of
RE and nuclear)
China
(McKinsey&Company, 2008a)
China
N/A
N/A
Source
837
Chapter 10
Year
Cost
(USD/tCO2eq)
Mitigation potential
(Mt CO2)
Percent of
baseline (%)
Discount
rate (%)
Switzerland
2030
<100
0.9
1.6
2.5
South Africa
2050
<100
83
5.2
10
Sweden
2020
<100
1.26
1.9
N/A
USA
2030
<100
380
3.7
<100
4.38
0.46
<200
8.76
0.93
<100
4.0
<200
33
18.8
Country/region
UK
2020
UK
2020
Notes
Source
McKinsey&Company (2007)
Renewable electricity to
50% scenario
N/A
Confederation of British
Industry (CBI, 2007)
3.5
Committee on Climate
Change (2008)
to 270 EJ/yr) by 2050 at costs below USD 2/GJ/yr, which is the present
lower limit of the cost of coal (see Figure 10.23).
Regions of low production cost and relatively high technical potential
are the former USSR, Oceania, eastern and western Africa and East Asia.
Cost reductions are due to land productivity improvements over time,
learning and capital-labour substitution. Biomass-derived electricity
costs are at present slightly higher than electricity base-load costs. The
present world electricity consumption of around 20 PWh/yr (72 EJ/yr)
may be generated in 2050 at costs below USD 12.5/GJ in two scenarios,
0
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
838
while below USD 15.3/GJ in two others. At costs of USD 16.7/GJ, about
18 to 53 PWh/yr (65 to 191 EJ/yr) of electricity can be produced in 2050.
The global curve that sums all regional curves is found to be relatively
at up to 300 EJ/yr; land rental costs and the substitution of capital for
labour represent the highest sensitivity.
Potential [PWh/yr]
Chapter 10
40
20
0
B-2000
A1-B
A2-B
B1-B
B2-B
Figure 10.24 | The global technical potential for electricity from biomass in 2000 and in
four IPCC SRES (IPCC, 2000) scenarios for 2050 for four production categories (de Vries
et al., 2007).
Potential for PV
Potential [PWh/yr]
In this particular study, solar PV economic potential is sensitive to competition for land. If the technological breakthroughs do not take place,
a large part of the major technical potential is unlikely to become economic. Its capital-intensive nature also makes it sensitive to changes
in discount rates. High or low exclusion factors also affect the solar PV
technical potential. For the technical potential, land is not a constraint as
even with a high exclusion factor, the technical potential is over 20 times
the 2000 world electricity demand (de Vries et al., 2007).
60
For a cost range of electricity from biomass of USD 13.9 to 27.8/GJ, there
were 7 PWh (25 EJ) of technical potential in the year 2000, while for a
projected cost range between USD 8.3 and 27.8/GJ, there is an estimated technical potential of 59 PWh (212 EJ) by 2050 (with a sensitivity
of 30 to 85 PWh/yr (108 to 310 EJ/yr), depending upon discount rates,
land use patterns, technology assumptions and land use implementation fractions).
Summary of PV resource cost curves. De Vries et al. (2007) estimate
PV electricity generation technical potential at 4,105 PWh/yr (4,778 EJ/
yr) in 2050 at the cost of USD 16.7 to 69.4/GJ. Since the technical potential for the year 2050 depends primarily on cost-reducing innovations,
for a cut-off cost level of USD 27.8/GJ, a non-zero technical potential
emerges only under specic scenario conditions (e.g., high economic
growth vs. low population growth, or medium economic and population
growth), as in the IPCC (2000) A1 and B1 scenarios (see Figure 10.25).
100
5,000
<USD 0.1 / kWh
B1
4,000
A1
3,000
B2
2,000
A2
1,000
2000
0
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
839
Chapter 10
0.20
0.18
Canada
0.16
USA
Former USSR
0.14
Oceania
OECD Europe
0.12
Global
0.10
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0
0
10
15
20
25
840
10.4.5
Gaps in knowledge
There is a major gap in knowledge for RE heat and transport fuel technical potentials on a regional basis, especially as a function of cost.
Additionally, the real benet of the cost curve method (to identify the
really cost-effective opportunities) in practice cannot be fully utilized
with the given data sets. Average costs for a technology for a whole
region mask the really cost-effective technical potentials and sites
into an average, compromised by the inclusion of less attractive sites
or sub-technologies. Therefore, signicant, globally coordinated further
research is needed for rening these curves into sub-steps by sites and
sub-technologies in order to identify the most attractive opportunities
Chapter 10
2,500
4050 Metres
2,000
3040 Metres
2030 Metres
020 Metres
1,500
1,000
500
0
0.00
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.07
0.08
0.09
0.10
0.11
0.12
0.13
0.14
0.15
Costs [EUR/kWh]
Figure 10.27 | Technical potential for offshore wind energy generation at different water depths in 2030 for Europe (EEA, 2009).
10.5
projects (>30 MWe (IEA, 2007b)) and (if the cost of carbon is reected
in the markets) wind onshore power plants (IEA, 2010a) are already
competitive. Provided that sufcient policy support is available, grid
parity of PV (i.e., competitiveness with grid retail prices) is envisioned
in many countries by 2020 (IEA, 2010c). Other technologies, such as
CSP and offshore wind power, will require further support in order to
compete with wholesale prices in the long term.
Currently and in the mid-term, the application of RE technologies
can result in additional private costs compared to energy supply from
other sources.11 Starting with a review of present technology costs
(i.e., current costs observed and published in the last few years), the
remainder of this section will focus on expectations about how these
costs might decline in the future, for instance, due to extended R&D
efforts, technological learning associated with increased deployment, or spill-over effects (see IPCC, 2007). In addition, historic R&D
expenditures and future investment needs will be discussed. It must
be emphasized that Section 10.5 focuses on technology costs only.
Integration aspects are discussed in Chapter 8; externalities and the
associated social costs in Chapter 9 and Section 10.6.
10.5.1
In the eld of RE, energy supply costs are mainly determined by investment costs. Nevertheless, operation and maintenance costs (O&M
costs), andif applicablefuel costs (in the case of biomass), may play
an important role as well. The respective cost components are discussed
11 Within this section, the external costs of other technologies are not considered. Although the term private will be omitted in the remainder of this section, the reader
should be aware that all costs discussed here are private costs in the sense of Section
10.6. Externalities therefore are not taken into account.
841
in detail in the technology chapters (Sections 2.7, 3.8, 4.7, 5.8, 6.7 and
7.8) and recent values are summarized in Annex III (Tables 1 through 3),
where, inter alia, technology-specic values for typical device sizes (in
MW), recent specic investment costs (in USD/kW), annual O&M costs
(in USD/kW or US cents/kWh), capacity factors (in %) and economic lifetimes (in years) can be found. At a global scale, the respective values are
highly uncertain for the various RE technologies. As recent years have
shown, investment costs, for instance, might be considerably inuenced
by changes in material (e.g., steel) and engineering costs as well as by
technological learning and mass market effects (IEA, 2010a,b).
Levelized costs of energy (LCOE, also called levelized unit costs or
levelized generation costs; see Annex II for more information and illustrative calculations) are dened as the ratio of total lifetime expenses
versus total expected outputs, expressed in terms of the present value
equivalent (IEA, 2005, p.174). LCOE therefore capture the full costs (i.e.,
investment costs, O&M costs, fuel costs and decommissioning costs)
of an energy conversion installation and allocate these costs over the
energy output during its lifetime. In general, LCOE do not take into
account subsidies, policy incentives or integration costs.
The LCOE that can be derived from the values given in Annex III (Tables 1
to 3) are shown in Figures 10.28 through 10.31. Though these represent
LCOE estimates for recent renewable energy plants, LCOE are different
at different locations as discount rates, investment cost, O&M costs,
capacity factors (especially due to the local RE resource availability) and
fuel prices are site dependent (Heptonstall, 2007; IEA, 2010b).
The cost ranges in the background of Figure 10.28 display the global
ranges of indicative values for the cost of energy supply options using
fossil fuels. For electricity, the range is based on a recent assessment of
LCOE for new coal and gas-red power plants (IEA, 2010b). The values
refer to centralized power plants. In contrast to IEA (2010b), a carbon
price mark-up has not been included.
Following IEA (2007a), the (levelized) cost of oil and gas based heat supply options are estimated by taking into account retail fuel prices and
conversion losses only. The investment costs for conventional boilers
were neglected, because their contribution to overall LCOH is small (and
because conventional heating facilities are often needed as a back-up for
RE conversion technologies). Retail prices are used as most RE heating
technologies have to compete at the nal consumer level. For conversion
efciencies the values proposed by IEA (2007a) are applied. The indicative
cost range depicted in Figure 10.28 is based on differing national retail
prices (including taxes) for light fuel oil and natural gas as reported in the
recently published IEA Key World Energy Statistics (IEA, 2010f). The lower
bound of the range refers to natural gas-red industrial heating applications; the higher bound to light fuel oil use in households.
According to the IEA (2010d), the cost of conventional transport fuels is
strongly correlated with the underlying (historical) Brent crude oil spot
price. In order to facilitate an investigation of the competitiveness of biofuels in times of highly uctuating crude oil prices, the indicative transport
842
Chapter 10
fossil fuel cost range depicted in Figure 10.28 refers to a variation in the
underlying crude oil spot price between USD 40 and 130/barrel.
As RE technologies are often characterized by high shares of investment
costs relative to O&M costs and fuel costs, the applied discount rate has
a prominent inuence on the LCOE (see Figures 10.29, 10.30 and 10.31).
The discount rate itself refers to a risk-free rate of return (assessed to
be broadly of the order of 3%/yr) adjusted by a project-dependent
risk premium (IEA, 2005, Appendix 6). According to IEA (2010b) (see
Chapter 8 in this report), a discount rate of 5% is typically adopted by
US investors facing a low risk in a fairly stable environment. Prominent
examples are a public monopolist acting in a regulated market or a private investor investing in a low-risk technology in a favourable market
environment. In the case where the investor is facing substantially
greater nancial, technological and price risks, a real discount rate
of 10% can be justied (IEA, 2010b, p.154). As discussed in Appendix
II, this report uses three values of real discount rates (3, 7 and 10%)
in order to allow for an easy comparison between different projects
and/or technologies. Note that in liberalized markets, private investors
might ask for a higher real rate of returns than those characterized by
a discount rate of 10% (IEA, 2005).
The LCOE ranges depicted in Figures 10.28 through 10.31 can be traced
back to variations in the underlying parameters, which, in turn, can be
grouped into:
a) The considered range of the performance parameter (characterized
by the capacity factor) that heavily depends on the local resource
base (e.g., wind velocities or solar radiation).
b) The global spread of the technology-dependent parameters (i.e., lifetime as well as investment and O&M costs) that are inuenced by
local technology maturity, market conditions and wages.
c) The range of the different real discount rate selected for this
study (3 to 10%).
The lowest LCOE values depicted in Figures 10.28 through 10.31 correspond to best-case conditions (highest achievable capacity factor and
highest lifetime, lowest investment and O&M costs, and lowest bound on
the discount rate). The upper range of the LCOE is characterized by high,
but still reasonable values for costs; low, but still realistic values for the
lifetime; low, but still observed capacity factors; and a discount rate of
10% (if not indicated otherwise). Less favourable conditions can yield substantially higher costs compared to those shown in the gures.
The results presented in Figures 10.28 through 10.31 warrant some discussion in comparison to the cost data presented in other chapters. Most of
the technology chapters show the levelized cost as a function of a) the
capacity factor, b) the investment costs and c) the discount rate (Sections
2.7, 3.8, 4.6, 5.8, 6.7 and 7.8). In order to facilitate a comparison between
different technologies, Figures 10.28 through 10.31 do not repeat showing the respective sensitivities in an explicit way. As discussed above, the
Chapter 10
[UScent2005 /kWh]
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Biomass Electricity
Solar Electricity
Geothermal Electricity
Hydropower
Lower Bound
Non-Renewables
Medium Values
Electricity
Heat
Ocean Electricity
Transport Fuels
Upper Bound
Wind Electricity
Range of Non-Renewable
Electricity Cost
Biomass Heat
Solar Thermal Heat
Geothermal Heat
Range of Oil and Gas
Based Heating Cost
Biofuels
Range of Gasoline
and Diesel Cost
25
50
75
100
125
150
175
200
225
250
275
[USD2005 /GJ]
Notes: Medium values are shown for the following subcategories, sorted in the order as they appear in the respective ranges (from left to right):
Electricity
Heat
Transport Fuels
Biomass:
Biomass Heat:
Biofuels:
1. Coring
2. Small scale combined heat and power, CHP
(Gasication internal combustion engine)
3. Direct dedicated stoker & CHP
4. Small scale CHP (steam turbine)
5. Small scale CHP (organic Rankine cycle)
1. Corn ethanol
2. Soy biodiesel
3. Wheat ethanol
4. Sugarcane ethanol
5. Palm oil biodiesel
Solar Electricity:
1. Concentrating solar power
2. Utility-scale PV (1-axis and xed tilt)
3. Commercial rooftop PV
4. Residential rooftop PV
Geothermal Electricity:
1. Condensing ash plant
2. Binary cycle plant
Geothermal Heat:
1. Greenhouses
2. Uncovered aquaculture ponds
3. District heating
4. Geothermal heat pumps
5. Geothermal building heating
Hydropower:
1. All types
Ocean Electricity:
1. Tidal barrage
Wind Electricity:
1. Onshore
2. Offshore
The lower range of the levelized cost of energy for each RE technology is based on a combination of the most favourable input-values, whereas the upper range is based on a
combination of the least favourable input values. Reference ranges in the gure background for non-renewable electricity options are indicative of the levelized cost of centralized
non-renewable electricity generation. Reference ranges for heat are indicative of recent costs for oil and gas based heat supply options. Reference ranges for transport fuels are
based on recent crude oil spot prices of USD 40 to 130/barrel and corresponding diesel and gasoline costs, excluding taxes.
Figure 10.28 | Range in recent levelized cost of energy for selected commercially available RE technologies in comparison to recent non-renewable energy costs. Technology
subcategories and discount rates were aggregated for this gure. For related gures with less or no such aggregation, see Annex III. Additional information concerning the cost of
non-renewable energy supply options is given below.
843
Chapter 10
Bioenergy (Co-Firing)
3%
Discount Rate
7%
Discount Rate
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
[UScent2005 /kWh]
Figure 10.29 | Levelized cost of electricity for commercially available RE technologies at 3, 7 and 10% discount rates. The levelized cost estimates for all technologies are based
on input data summarized in Annex III and the methodology outlined in Annex II. The lower bound of the levelized cost range is based on the low ends of the ranges of investment,
operations and maintenance (O&M), and (if applicable) feedstock cost and the high ends of the ranges of capacity factors and lifetimes as well as (if applicable) the high ends of the
ranges of conversion efciencies and by-product revenue. The higher bound of the levelized cost range is accordingly based on the high end of the ranges of investment, O&M and (if
applicable) feedstock costs and the low end of the ranges of capacity factors and lifetimes as well as (if applicable) the low ends of the ranges of conversion efciencies and by-product
revenue. Note that conversion efciencies, by-product revenue and lifetimes were in some cases set to standard or average values. For data and supplementary information see Annex
III. (CHP: combined heat and power; ORC: organic Rankine cycle, ICE: internal combustion engine).
gures nevertheless show the range of LCOE that originates from varying
the capacity factors and investment costs within reasonable bounds.
In contrast to the aforementioned LCOE sensitivity diagrams that are
contained in the technology chapters, the supply cost curves presented
in Section 10.4.4 (Figures 10.23, 10.25, 10.26 and 10.27) provide additional information about the available resource base. Instead of showing
the sensitivity with respect to the capacity factor, they allow an insight
into the amount of RE that can be harnessed up to a prescribed level of the
844
LCOE. This additional information comes from studies that made their own
assumptions about other factors (beyond site-dependent capacity factors)
that have an inuence on the LCOE (e.g., discount rates, investment and
O&M costs, and lifetimes). As a result, these results might not be fully compatible with the LCOE calculations summarized in Annex III.
The supply cost curves discussed in Section 10.3.2.1 (Figures 10.15
through 10.17) exhibit the amount of RE that is harnessed (once again
as a function of the associated LCOE) in different regions once specic
Chapter 10
3%
Discount Rate
7%
Discount Rate
50
100
150
200
[USD2005 /GJ]
Figure 10.30 | Levelized cost of heat (LCOH) for commercially available RE technologies at 3, 7 and 10% discount rates. The LCOH estimates for all technologies are based on input
data summarized in Annex III and the methodology outlined in Annex II. The lower bound of the levelized cost range is based on the low ends of the ranges of investment, operations
and maintenance (O&M), and (if applicable) feedstock cost and the high ends of the ranges of capacity factors and lifetimes as well as (if applicable) the high ends of the ranges of
conversion efciencies and by-product revenue. The higher bound of the levelized cost range is accordingly based on the high end of the ranges of investment, O&M and (if applicable)
feedstock costs and the low end of the ranges of capacity factors and lifetimes as well as (if applicable) the low ends of the ranges of conversion efciencies and by-product revenue.
Note that capacity factors and lifetimes were in some cases set to standard or average values. For data and supplementary information see Annex III. (MSW: municipal solid waste;
DHW: domestic hot water).
Similar to LCOE, wholesale and retail prices of electricity that might be used
in order to assess the competitiveness of centralized and decentralized
RE power plants are country specic as well. The same holds true for
the cost of fuels used for heating and transport purposes. A comparison
of RE LCOE with those of other technologies or market prices should
therefore be project-based as well.
The LCOE of a technology is not the sole determinant of its value or
economic competitiveness. In addition to integration and transmission
costs, relative environmental impacts must be considered, as well as
the contribution of a technology to meeting specic energy services, for
example, peak electricity demands.
Nevertheless, and despite the existing uncertainties, summarizing the
information contained in Figures 10.28 through 10.31, Sections 2.7,
3.8, 4.6, 5.8, 6.7 and 7.8 as well as in recent benchmark studies (IEA,
2010a,b,c,d), the following conclusions can be drawn:
A comparison of LCOE of RE technologies with those of other technologies (nuclear, gas and coal power plants) shows thatat least as long as
845
Chapter 10
Ethanol - Sugarcane
Ethanol - Corn
3%
Discount Rate
7%
Discount Rate
Ethanol - Wheat
10
20
30
40
50
60
[USD/GJHHV]
Figure 10.31 | Levelized cost of fuels (LCOF) for commercially available biomass conversion technologies at 3, 7 and 10% discount rates. LCOF estimates for all technologies are based
on input data summarized in Annex III and the methodology outlined in Annex II. The lower bound of the levelized cost range is based on the low ends of the ranges of investment,
operations and maintenance (O&M) and feedstock costs. The higher bound of the levelized cost range is accordingly based on the high end of the ranges of investment, O&M and
feedstock costs. Note that conversion efciencies, by-product revenue, capacity factors and lifetimes were set to average values. For data and supplementary information see Annex
III. (HHV: higher heating value).
externalities are not taken into accountRE sources are often not yet competitive with other sources, especially if they both feed into the electricity
grid. If the respective technologies are used in a decentralized mode, private
investors would compare their production cost with the retail consumer
power price, which is much higher. In this case, niche markets might exist
that facilitate the market introduction of new technologies. The same holds
true for applications in remote areas, where often no grid-based electricity
is available (IEA, 2010c). Similar trends exist outside of the power sector
for the use of RE in heating and transportation applications (IEA, 2007a).
Given suitable conditions, the lower end of the LCOE ranges indicate (see
Figure 10.28) that some RE technologies already can compete with traditional forms at current energy market prices in many regions of the world.
That said, the graphs provide no indication of the resource potential that
can be utilized at low cost. Sections 10.3 and 10.4 provide more information in this regard.
10.5.2
846
Chapter 10
For a doubling of the (cumulatively) installed capacity, many technologies showed a more or less constant percentage decrease in the specic
investment costs (or in the levelized costs or unit price, depending on the
selected cost indicator). The corresponding learning rate (LR) is dened
as the percentage cost reduction for each doubling of the cumulative
capacity. A summary of observed learning rates is provided in Table
10.10. Occasionally, the progress ratio (PR) is used as a substitute for
the learning rate. It is dened as PR = 1 - LR (e.g., a learning rate of 20%
would imply a progress ratio of 80%). Frequently, energy supply costs
(e.g., electricity generation costs) and the cumulative energy supplied
10
1981
1990
2000
1
10
100
1000
2006
10,000
100,000
Cumulative Capacity [MW]
Figure 10.32 | Illustrative experience curve for wind turbines. Source: Nemet (2009).
by the respective technology (e.g., the cumulative electricity production) are used as substitutes for investment costs and the cumulative
installed capacity, respectively. If the learning rate is time-independent,
the empirical experience curve can be tted by a power law. In this case,
representing costs against cumulative installed capacity in a graph with
double logarithmic scales shows the experience curve as a straight line
(Junginger et al., 2010) (see Figure 10.32).
As there is no natural law that costs have to follow a power law
(Junginger et al., 2010), care must be taken if historic experience
curves are extrapolated in order to predict future costs (Nemet, 2009).
Obviously, the cost reduction cannot go ad innitum and there might
be some unexpected steps in the curve in practice (e.g., caused by technology breakthroughs). As technologies mature, learning rates may fall
(Ferioli et al., 2009; Nemet, 2009). In order to avoid implausible results,
projections that extrapolate experience cost curves in order to assess
future costs should therefore constrain the cost reduction by appropriate
oor costs (see Edenhofer et al., 2006).
847
Chapter 10
Table 10.10 | Observed learning rates for various electricity supply technologies. Source: IEA, 2008b, p. 205, extended and updated with a select list of additional literature (this
report). (Note that values cited by older publications are less reliable as these refer to shorter time periods. In addition, only values for single-factor learning curves are shown. As a
consequence there is some, albeit restricted, overlap with the learning rate information offered by Chapters 2 through 7.)
Technology
Source
Country / region
Period
Performance measure
Onshore wind
Neij, 1997
Denmark
1982-1995
USA
1981-1996
14
Neij, 1999
Denmark
1982-1997
Durstewitz, 1999
Germany
1990-1998
IEA, 2000
USA
1985-1994
32
IEA, 2000
EU
1980-1995
18
OECD
1981-1995
17
Neij, 2003
Denmark
1982-1997
Spain
1990-2001
15
UK
1992-2001
19
Germany, UK,
Denmark
1986-2000
Neij, 2008
Denmark
1981-2000
17
Kahouli-Brahmi, 2009
Global
1979-1997
17
Nemet, 2009
Global
1981-2004
11
Global
1982-2009
Isles, 2006
8 EU countries
1991-2006
Harmon, 2000
Global
1968-1998
20
IEA, 2000
EU
1976-1996
21
Williams, 2002
Global
1976-2002
20
ECN, 2004
EU
1976-2001
20-23
ECN, 2004
Germany
1992-2001
22
Offshore wind
Photovoltaics (PV)
Global
1976-2006
21
Germany
1977-2005
13
Germany
1999-2005
26
Nemet, 2009
Global
1976-2006
15-21
Enermodal, 1999
USA
1984-1998
8-15
IEA, 2000
EU
1980-1995
15
Brazil
1985-2002
29
Sweden, Finland
1975-2003
15
Denmark
1984-1991
15
Sweden
1990-2002
8-9
Denmark
1984-2001
0-15
Denmark
1984-1998
12
Brazil
1975-2003
19
Brazil
1980-1985
Brazil
1985-2002
29
Brazil
1975-2003
20
USA
1983-2005
18
USA
1975-2005
45
Brazil
1975-2003
32
Biomass
848
10.5.3
According to the denition used by the IEA (2008b, p. 208), deployment costs represent the total costs of cumulative production needed
for a new technology to become competitive with the current, incumbent technology. As the innovative technologies replace O&M costs,
investment needs and fuel costs of other technologies, the learning
investments are considerably lower. The learning investments are
dened as the additional investment needs of the new technology. They
are therefore equal to the deployment costs minus (replaced) cumulative costs of the incumbent technology.
Although not directly discussed in IEA (2008b)to give the full picturethe cost difference could be extended to take into account
variable costs as well (Figure 10.33). Because of fuel costs, the latter
is evident for fossil fuel and biomass technologies. Once variable costs
are taken into account, avoided carbon costs contribute to a further
reduction of the additional investment needs (IEA, 2008b). Figure 10.33
shows a schematic presentation of experience curves, deployment costs
and learning investments. The deployment costs are equal to the integral below the experience curve, calculated up to the break-even point.
In the beginning of the deployment phase, additional costs are expected
to be positive (expenditures). Due to technological learning (in the
broadest sense) and the possibility of increasing fossil fuel prices, additional costs could become negative after some decades (IEA, 2008b,
2010a). A least-cost approach towards a decarbonized economy therefore should not focus solely on the additional costs that are incurred
until the break-even point with other technologies has been achieved
(learning investments). After the break-even point, the innovative
technologies considered are able to supply energy with costs lower
than the traditional supply. As these costs savings occur then (after the
break-even point) and indenitely thereafter, their present value might
be able to compensate the upfront investments (additional investment
needs). Whether this is the case depends on various factors: the discount rate, the stringency of the selected climate stabilization goal
andmost importantthe future cost development of all its potentially competitive alternatives (see Section 10.2; Edenhofer et al., 2006;
Clarke et al., 2009).
An answer to the question of whether or not upfront investments
in a specic innovative technology are justied therefore cannot be
given as long as this technology is treated in isolation (Kverndokk and
Deployment Costs
4.7); multiple emerging ocean technologies (see Section 6.6); and foundation and turbine designs for offshore wind energy (see Section 7.7).
Further cost reductions for hydropower are likely to be less signicant
than some of the other RE technologies, but R&D opportunities exist
to make hydropower projects technically feasible in a wider range of
natural conditions and improve the technical performance of new and
existing projects (see Sections 5.3, 5.7 and 5.8).
Chapter 10
Break-Even Without
Considering CO2
Emission Costs
Learning
Investments
Cumulative Cost of
Incumbent Technology
10.5.4
Time-dependent expenditures
849
Decadal Investments
[Billion USD2005 ]
(a)
Decadal Investments
[Billion USD2005 ]
Figure 10.34 | Illustrative global decadal investments (in billion USD2005) needed in
order to achieve ambitious climate protection goals: (b) MiniCAM-EMF22 (rst-best 2.6
W/m2 overshoot scenario, nuclear and carbon capture technologies are permitted); (c)
ER-2010 (450 ppm CO2eq, nuclear and carbon capture technologies are not permitted);
and (d) ReMIND-RECIPE (450 ppm CO2, nuclear power plants and carbon capture technologies are permitted). Compared to the other scenarios, the PV share is high in (d)
as concentrating solar power has not been considered. For comparison, (a) shows the
IEA-WEO2009-Baseline (baseline scenario without climate protection). Sources: (a) IEA
(2009); (b) Calvin et al. (2009); (c) Teske et al. (2010); and (d) Luderer et al. (2009).
500
400
300
200
100
0
(b)
Chapter 10
2011-2020
2021-2030
2031-2040
2041-2050
2011-2020
2021-2030
2031-2040
2041-2050
1,200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
Decadal Investments
[Billion USD2005 ]
(c)
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
Decadal Investments
[Billion USD2005 ]
(d)
2011-2020
2021-2030
2031-2040
2041-2050
2011-2020
2021-2030
2031-2040
2041-2050
8,000
7,000
6,000
5,000
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
0
Wind Turbine
Hydro
Solar Thermal
Power Plant
Geothermal
Power Plant
PV Power Plant
Ocean Energy
Power Plant
850
to 7,180 billion for the decade 2021 to 2030. The lower values refer to
the IEA World Energy Outlook 2009 Reference Scenario and the higher
ones to a scenario that seeks to stabilize atmospheric CO2 (only) concentration at 450 ppm. The average annual investments in the reference
scenario are slightly lower than the respective investments reported for
2009 (see Section 11.2.2). Between 2011 and 2020, the higher values of
the annual averages of the RE power sector investment approximately
correspond to a three-fold increase in the current global investments
in this eld. For the next decade (2021 to 2030), a ve-fold increase is
projected. Even the upper level is smaller than 1% of the world GDP
(IEA, 2009). Additionally, increasing the installed capacity of RE power
plants will reduce the amount of fossil and nuclear fuels (and the related
fuel costs) that otherwise would be needed in order to meet a given
electricity demand. These numbers indicate how much money will be
spent in the sector of RE sources if these scenarios materialize. The
given numbers are useful to inform investors who are interested in the
expected market volume. Data on energy delivered by the corresponding
scenarios can be found in Sections 10.3 and 10.4.
Specic investment costs of RE sources are still often higher than those
of other energy supply technologies. In order to assess the additional
costs arising from using RE sources, two effects must be taken into
account. Due to their capacity credit, investments in RE sources reduce
investment needs for other technologies (see Sections 7.5.2.4 and
8.2.1.1). In addition, fossil fuel costs (and O&M costs) will be reduced
as well. As a consequence, investment needs do not indicate the overall
mitigation costs societies face if these scenarios materialize. In calculating the net total cost, replaced other investments and avoided variable
costs must be considered as well (see IEA, 2008b, 2010a). As the latter
are dependent on the development of fossil fuel prices, the overall net
cost balance could be positive from a mid- or long-term perspective (for
a national study, see Winkler et al., 2009).
Many integrated assessment models used to derive the scenarios
considered in Section 10.2 consider avoided costs and take them into
account during the respective calculation runs. However, the results for
total avoided investments in other plants, and the overall avoided fuel
costs are seldom published. In addition, there is a lack of global scenario
exercises that attribute avoided costs to distinguished technologies
although this information would be extremely useful in order to carry
out a fair assessment of learning investments or (net) deployment costs.
In the absence of technology-specic results, aggregated avoided costs
will be discussed for an illustrative climate protection scenario (the BLUE
Chapter 10
Map scenario) that has been designed by the International Energy Agency
(IEA, 2010a). In order to deliver a 50% cut in CO2 emissions by 2050
(compared to 2005), different technologies are applied. Their respective shares in delivering the requested emission reduction are: end-use
fuel and electricity efciency 38%, end-use fuel switching 15%, power
generation efciency and fuel switching 5%, CCS 19%, nuclear 6%
wand RE 17%. Between 2010 and 2050, the additional investment of the
BLUE Map scenario (compared to the Baseline scenario) is USD200541.72
trillion. In the same time period, the undiscounted fuel cost savings of
this scenario are estimated to be USD2005 101.59 trillion. Taken together,
the total undiscounted net savings approach USD2005 59.87 trillion. Even
at a 10% discount rate, the fuel savings outweigh the additional incremental investment needs of the BLUE Map scenario.
Note that the results do not only take into account investments into
RE sources. Other low-carbon technologies (energy efciency improvements, nuclear energy, carbon capture and storage) are considered as
well. Nevertheless, the results highlight the importance of comparing
investment needs on the one hand and associated avoided (investment,
O&M and fuel) costs of the substituted technologies on the other.
10.5.5
10.5.6
Knowledge gaps
10.6
10.6.1
Energy production typically causes direct and indirect costs and benets
for the energy producer and for society. Energy producers, for instance,
incur private costs, such as plant investment and operating costs, and
receive private benets, such as income from the energy market. Private
costs and benets are dened as costs or benets accounted for by the
851
25,000
Chapter 10
Other
Fossil Fuels
Energy Efciency
Nuclear
Nuclear
100%
Fossil Fuels
90%
Energy Efciency
80%
15,000
70%
60%
50%
10,000
40%
30%
5,000
20%
10%
0%
0
1974
1978
1982
1986
1990
1994
1998
2002
2006
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
Figure 10.35 | Government budgets on energy RD&D of IEA countries (left panel) and technology shares of government energy RD&D expenditures in IEA countries (right panel) (IEA,
2008b, pp. 172-173, updated with data from IEA, 2010g).
but also from other parts of the fuel chain. As shown in Chapter 9, the
emissions can, among other things, consist of GHGs, acidifying emissions and particulate matter. These types of emissions can often but
not always be lowered if RE is used to replace fossil fuels (Weisser,
2007).12 Increasing the share of RE often contributes positively to access
to energy,13 energy security and the trade balance and it limits the
negative effects from uctuating prices of fossil-based energy (Section
9.3; Berry and Jaccard, 2001; Bolinger et al., 2006; Chen et al., 2007).
However, various types of RE have their own private and external costs
and benets, depending on the energy source and the technology utilized. Chapter 9 addresses these issues comprehensively, based on the
available literature.
Costs and benets can be addressed in cost-benet analyses to support decision making. However, the value of RE is not strictly intrinsic to
renewable technologies themselves, but rather to the character of the
energy system in which they are applied (Kennedy, 2005). The benets
of an increased use of RE are to a large part attributable to the reduced
use of non-RE in the energy system.
The coverage and monetary valuation of the external impacts in general
are difcult. The assessment of external costs is often tentative, may
be inaccurate and might be seen impossible in many cases. As a result,
12 Note that in particular biomass applications can also cause particulate emissions.
852
13 About 1.4 billion people are still without access to electricity (Table 9.3.2); the RE
sources due to their distributed character can at least to some extent help to alleviate
this problem.
Chapter 10
This section considers studies in a cost and benet category and presents a summary regarding energy sources as well. Some of the studies
are global in nature, and to some extent regional studies, mostly for
Europe and North America, will also be quoted. The number of studies
for other regions is still limited. Many studies consider only one energy
source or technology, but some studies cover a wider list of energy
sources and technologies.
10.6.2.1
This section has links to the other chapters of this report, such as
Chapters 1 and 9. Parts of this section consider the same topics, but from
the viewpoints of external costs and benets. The external costs and
benets considered in this section complement the cost considerations
in the other parts of the chapter, forming a more holistic picture of costs
from the social viewpoint.
Climate change
The monetary evaluation of the impacts of the changing climate is difcult, however. To a large extent, the impacts manifest themselves slowly
over a long period of time. In addition, the impacts can arise very far
from a polluter in ecosystems and societies that are very different from
the ecosystems and the society found at the polluters location. It is for
this reason that, for example, the methods used by the Stern (2007)
review for damage cost accounting on a global scale are criticized, but
they can also be seen as a choice for producing reasonable qualitative
estimates. Apart from the question about discount rate, which is quite
relevant considering the long term impacts of GHG emissions, considerable uncertainty exists in areas such as climate sensitivity, damages due
to climate change, valuation of damages and equity weighting (Watkiss
and Downing, 2008).
10.6.2
853
10.6.2.2
854
Chapter 10
10.6.2.3
Other impacts
RE can have impacts on waters, land use, soil, ecosystems and biodiversity (Section 9.3.4). It can also have a positive inuence on energy
security and trade balance and rural employment or have impacts on
other socioeconomic aspects. Some of these impacts are not in a strict
sense external as they are covered by price mechanisms, although they
can be of importance from the viewpoints of the society. Most of these
impacts have been considered in the technology Chapters 2 to 7 or in
Chapter 9 in detail. The external costs due to these impacts are usually lower than the external costs due to GHG emissions or due to
health effects caused by pollutant emissions (Krewitt and Schlomann,
2006; Preiss, 2009; Committee on Health, 2010; Ricci, 2010). However,
in some cases specic impacts may cause considerable external costs
that should be evaluated on the project by project basis. Some information on the magnitudes of the impacts can be found in Section 10.6.3.
10.6.3
Chapter 10
and Europe (Groscurth et al., 2000; Bergmann et al., 2006; Krewitt and
Schlomann, 2006; Ricci, 2009b), whilst some are more general without
a specic geographical area.
Some studies consider developing countries. Da Costa et al. (2007) discuss social features of energy production and use in Brazil. Fearnside
(1999, 2005) and Oliveira and Rosa (2003) studied large hydropower
projects and the technical potential of wastes in Brazil, respectively.
Sparovek et al. (2009) investigated the impacts of the extension of sugarcane production in Brazil. Bailis et al. (2005) considered biomass- and
petroleum-based domestic energy scenarios in Africa and their impacts
on mortality on the basis of particulate emissions. Spalding-Fecher and
Matibe (2003) studied total external costs of coal-red power generation in South Africa. Amann (2008) studied cost-effective reduction of
emissions of air pollutants and GHGs in China.
the direct impacts of that technology are taken into account (Pingoud
et al., 1999; Roth and Ambs, 2004; Krewitt and Schlomann, 2006; Ricci,
2009b). The other thing (b) is to consider the RE technologies as parts
of the total energy system and society, when the impacts of a possible
increase in the use of the RE technologies can be assessed as causing
decreases in the use and external costs of other energy sources. These
decreases in external costs can be seen as external benets of the RE
technologies for society (Kennedy, 2005; Loulou et al., 2005; Koljonen
et al., 2009).
Studies concerning different areas of the globe are still sparse. More
investigations, articles and reports are needed to provide information
on external costs and their possible variation in the ecosystems and
societies of different geographical areas.
Table 10.11 | External costs (US cents/kWh (3,600 kJ)) due to electricity production based on RE sources and fossil energy in Central European conditions. Valuation of climate change
is based on an SCC value of 90 USD/t CO2 (Krewitt and Schlomann, 2006). Uncertainty ranges are not reported in the table. For uncertainty estimates, see Figure 10.36.
PV
(2000)
PV
(2030)
Hydro
300 kW
Wind
1.5 MW
Onshore
Wind
2.5 MW
Offshore
Geothermal
Solar
Thermal
Lignite
=40%
Lignite
Comb.C
=48%
Coal
=43%
Coal
Comp.C
=46%
Natural
Gas
=58%
Climate change
0.86
0.48
0.11
0.09
0.08
0.33
0.11
9.3
8.0
7.4
6.9
3.4
Health
0.43
0.25
0.075
0.09
0.04
0.15
0.11
0.63
0.35
0.46
0.33
0.21
Material
damages
0.011
0.008
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.004
0.002
0.019
0.010
0.016
0.01
0.006
Agricultural
losses
0.006
0.004
0.001
0.002
0.0005
0.002
0.001
0.013
0.005
0.011
0.006
0.005
Large accidents
Proliferation
Energy security
Geo-political
effects
~1.3
~0.74
~0.19
~0.18
~0.12
~0.49
~0.22
>9.9
>8.4
>7.9
>7.2
>3.6
Ecosystems
Sum
Notes: green light: no signicant impacts or external costs worth mentioning (Krewitt and Schlomann, 2006). yellow: impacts will arise that cannot be neglected and that will
cause external costs. Comb.C: combined gas turbine and steam cycles; : efciency factor.
855
Chapter 10
Health
Climate Change
Renewable Energy
(B) Solar Thermal
(B) Geothermal
(B) Wind 2.5 MW Offshore
(B) Wind 1.5 MW Onshore
(C) Wind Offshore
(B) Hydro 300 kW
(B) PV (2030)
(B) PV (2000)
(C) PV Southern Europe
(C) Biomass CHP 6 MWel
(D) Biomass Grate Boiler ESP 5
and 10 MW Fuel
0.01
0.1
10
results to those of Krewitt and Schlomann (2006) and Preiss (2009) for
natural gas-based electricity production but clearly higher external cost
levels for coal-based production due to higher non-climate impacts.
As shown in Figure 10.36, within the portfolio of RE technologies,
offshore wind energy seems to cause the smallest external costs. In contrast, small-scale biomass-red CHP plants cause relatively high external
costs due to health effects via particulate emissions (Figure 10.36) based
on the specic technology considered in the New Energy Externalities
Development for Sustainability (NEEDS) study (Grtner, 2008; Preiss,
2009). It should be noted that inexpensive technical solutions like
electrostatic precipitators or fabric lters can lower particulate emissions considerably in plants of moderate size classes as measured and
reported, for example, by Sippula et al. (2009).
External cost estimates for nuclear power are not reported here because
the character of external costs and risk from release of radionuclides due
856
Chapter 10
10.6.4
Many environmental impacts and external costs follow from the use of
energy sources and energy technologies that cause GHG emissions, particulate emissions and acidifying emissionsfossil fuel combustion being a
prime example. Therefore, it might be benecial to consider the reduction of
emission-related impacts using integrated strategies (Amann, 2008; Bollen
et al., 2009).
Bollen et al. (2009) have made global cost-benet studies using the MERGE
model (Manne and Richels, 2005). In their studies, the external costs of health
effects due to particulate emissions and impacts of climate change were
internalized. According to the study (Figure 10.37), the external benets were
greatest when both external cost types were internalized, although the mitigation costs were high as they work in a shorter time frame. The discounted
benets from the control of particulate emissions are clearly larger than the
discounted benets from the mitigation of climate change. The difference is,
according to a sensitivity study, mostly greater by at least a factor of two, but
of course depends on the specic assumptions. The countries would therefore
benet from combined strategies quite rapidly due to decreased external
costs stemming from the reduced air pollution health impacts.
Amann (2008) reached quite similar conclusions in a case study for China.
According to the study, the reduction of GHG emissions in China caused
considerable benets when there is a desire to reduce local air pollution.
Also a study (Syri et al., 2002) considering the impacts of the reduction of
GHG emissions in Finland stated that particulate emissions are also likely to
decrease.
A study by Spalding-Fecher and Matibe (2003) is one of the few for developing countries. They found that, in South Africa, the total external costs of
coal-red power generation are 40 and 20% of industrial and residential
charges for electricity. They concluded also that a reduction in GHG emissions lessens air-borne particulates that led to respiratory disorders and other
diseases.
1,000
Mitigation of
Climate
Change Only
Reduction of
Local Air
Pollutants Only
Combined Strategy
of Mitigation of
Climate Change
and Reduction of
Air Pollutants
1,080
4,8C
850
5C
4,7C
3,3C
3,0C
63
2%
66
Temperature Rise
Base Line
[Discounted Consumption %
of Baseline]
1,7
1,5
Costs of Measures
Figure 10.37 | Illustration of changes in costs, benets and global welfare for three
scenarios (reduction of local air pollutants, mitigation of climate change, and combined
strategy of mitigation of climate change and reduction of local air pollutants), expressed
as percentage consumption change (welfare increase) in comparison to the baseline
(lower panel). The global temperature rise (degrees Celsius compared to the pre-industrial
level) and number of deaths due to air pollution (millions) are given in the upper panel
for each scenario. In the scenario mitigation of climate change only, the external costs
of climate change have been internalized; in the scenario reduction of local air pollutants
only, the external costs of local air pollutants have been internalized; and in the scenario
of combined strategy, both external cost components have been internalized. The combined strategy is most benecial for society according to the results. In the baseline, the
number of particulate matter (PM) deaths due to air pollutants would be around 1,000
million and the temperature rise 4.8C (Bollen et al., 2009).
10.6.5
Knowledge gaps
857
References
Chapter 10
Calvin, K., J. Edmonds, B. Bond-Lamberty, L. Clarke, S.H. Kim, P. Kyle, S.J. Smith,
International Solar Energy Society, Freiburg, Germany, 55 pp. Available at: www.
A. Thomson, and M. Wise (2009). 2.6: Limiting climate change to 450 ppm
ises.org/shortcut.nsf/to/wp.
CO2 equivalent in the 21st century. Energy Economics, 31(Supplement 2), pp.
Akimoto, K., F. Sano, J. Oda, T. Homma, U.K. Rout, and T. Tomoda (2008). Global
emission reductions through a sectoral intensity target scheme. Climate Policy,
8(Supplement), pp. S46-S59.
Amann, M. (2008). GAINS ASIA Scenarios for Cost-Effective Control of Air Pollution
and Greenhouse Gases in China. International Institute for Applied Systems
Analysis, Laxenburg, Austria
Anthoff, D. (2007). Marginal external damage costs inventory of greenhouse gas
emissions. Delivery No. 5.4 - RS 1b, New Energy Externalities Developments for
Sustainability, Rome, Italy.
S107-S120.
Carlsmith, R.S., W.U. Chandler, J.E. McMahon, and D.J. Santini (1990). Energy
Efciency: How Far can We Go? ORNL/TM-11441, Oak Ridge National Laboratory,
Oak Ridge, TN, USA, 83 pp.
Carpenter, S.R., P.L. Pingali, E.M. Bennet, and M.B. Zurek (eds.) (2005).
Ecosystems and Human Wellbeing: Scenarios. Island Press, Chicago, IL, USA,
561 pp.
CBI (2007). Climate Change: Everyones Business. Confederation of British Industry
Climate Change Task Force, London, UK.
Changliang, X., and S. Zhanfeng (2009). Wind energy in China: Current scenario
tions for renewables and energy security. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies
and future perspectives. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 13(8), pp.
1966-1974.
Azar, C., K. Lindgren, E. Larson, and K. Mllersten (2006). Carbon capture and
storage from fossil fuels and biomass Costs and potential role in stabilizing the
atmosphere. Climatic Change, 74(1), pp. 47-79.
Chen, W. (2005). The Costs of Mitigating Carbon Emissions in China: Findings from
China MARKALMACRO modeling. Energy Policy, 33, pp. 885-896.
Chen, C., R. Wiser, and M. Bolinger (2007). Weighing the Costs and Benets of
Bailis, R., M. Ezzati, and D.M. Kammen (2005). Mortality and greenhouse gas
pp. 98-103.
Baker, E., L. Clarke, and E. Shittu (2008). Technical change and the marginal cost
of abatement. Energy Economics, 30(6), pp. 2799-2816.
Barker, T., I. Bashmakov, A. Alharthi, M. Amann, L. Cifuentes, J. Drexhage,
Ofce of Biological and Environmental Research, Washington, DC, USA, 154 pp.
C.J. Jepma, W.A. Pizer, and K. Yamaji (2007). Mitigation from a cross-sectoral
Clarke, L., J.P. Weyant, and J. Edmonds (2008). On the sources of technological
change: what do the models assume. Energy Economics, 30(2), pp. 409-424.
Panel on Climate Change. B. Metz, O.R. Davidson, P.R. Bosch, R. Dave, and L.A.
Barker, T., H. Pun, J. Khler, R. Warren, and S. Winne (2006). Decarbonizing the
858
Chapter 10
de Vries, B.J.M., D.P. van Vuuren, and M.M. Hoogwijk (2007). Renewable energy
sources: Their global potential for the rst-half of the 21st century at a global
level: An integrated approach. Energy Policy, 35, pp. 2590-2610.
den Elzen, M., N. Hhne, and J. van Vliet (2009). Analysing comparable greenhouse
gas mitigation efforts for Annex I countries. Energy Policy, 37, pp. 4114-4131.
Dietz, S., and N. Stern (2008). Why economic analysis supports strong action on
Institute, Beijing: Science Press. In Chinese. As cited in: Chinas Energy and Carbon
National Laboratory.
EWEA (2009). Wind Energy, the Facts. European Wind Energy Association (EWEA),
Brussels, Belgium.
Fearnside, P.M. (1999). Social impacts of Brazils Tucurui Dam. Environmental
Management, 24(4), pp. 483-495.
Fearnside, P.M. (2005). Brazils Samuel Dam: Lessons for hydroelectric development
pp. 1-19.
Fellows, A. (2000). The Potential of Wind Energy to Reduce Carbon Dioxide
Emissions. Garrad Hassan, Glasgow, Scotland.
Experience Curves for Policy Making - The Case of Energy Technologies. Stuttgart,
Ferioli, F., K. Schoots, and B.C.C. Van der Zwaan (2009). Use and limitations of
cation/99-05-10_exp_curves_iea.pdf.
ECN (2004). Learning from the Sun: Final Report of the Photes Project. Energy
Research Center of the Netherlands (ECN), Petten, The Netherlands.
related to mitigation in the long term context. In: Climate Change 2007:
O.R. Davidson, P.R. Bosch, R. Dave, and L.A. Meyer (eds.), Cambridge University
Press, pp.169-250.
2009 Summer Study, European Council for an Energy Efcient Economy (ed.), La
Colle sur Loup, France, 1-6 June 2009, Panel 5, pp. 1261-1272. Available at: www.
. Scrieciu, H. Turton, and D.P. Van Vuuren (2010). The economics of low sta-
eceee.org/conference_proceedings/eceee/2009/Panel_5/5.376/.
859
Chapter 10
R. Lofstedt, J.D. Mariano, P.M.G. Mariano, N.I. Meyer, P.S. Nielsen, C. Nunes,
crops at abandoned croplands and rest land under four IPCC SRES land-use sce-
els and gasoline. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106(6), pp.
10.1787/data-00488-en. Available
2077-2082.
iea-energy-technology-r-d-statistics/rd-d-budget_data-00488-en.
Hohmeyer, O. (1992). Renewables and the full costs of energy. Energy Policy, 20(4),
pp. 365-375.
Hoogwijk, M., A. Faaij, R. van den Broek, G. Berndes, D. Gielen, and W. Turkenburg
(2003). Exploration of the ranges of the global potential of biomass for energy.
Biomass and Bioenergy, 25, pp. 119-133.
at:
www.oecd-ilibrary.org/energy/data/
IMF (2009). World Economic Outlook Update: Contractionary Forces Receding but
Weak Recovery Ahead, International Monetary Fund (IMF), Washington D.C., USA
IPCC (2000). Special Report on Emissions Scenarios. N. Nakicenovic and R. Swart
(eds.), Cambridge University Press, 570 pp.
IPCC (2007). Climate Change 2007: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of
Panel on Climate Change. B. Metz, O.R. Davidson, P.R. Bosch, R. Dave, and L.A.
Hoogwijk, M., and W. Graus (2008). Global Potential of Renewable Energy Sources:
A Literature Assessment. Ecofys, Utrecht, The Netherlands, 45 pp.
860
Isles, L. (2006). Offshore Wind Farm Development: Cost Reduction Potential. PhD
Thesis, Lund University, Lund, Sweden.
Chapter 10
Jaffe, A.B., R.G. Newell, and R.N. Stavins (2005). A tale of two market failures:
164-174.
Jamasb, T. (2007). Technical change theory and learning curves: Patterns of progress
in electricity generation technologies. Energy Journal, 28(3), pp. 133-150.
Junginger, M., S. Agterbosch, A. Faaij and W.C. Turkenburg (2004). Renewable
electricity in the Netherlands. Energy Policy, 32, pp. 1053-1073.
Junginger, M., A. Faaij, R. Bjrheden, and W.C. Turkenburg (2005a). Technological
learning and cost reductions in wood fuel supply chains in Sweden. Biomass and
Bioenergy, 29, pp. 399-418.
Junginger, M., A. Faaij, and W.C. Turkenburg (2005b). Global experience curves
for wind farms. Energy Policy, 33, pp. 133-150.
ogy failure for the feasibility, costs, and likelihood of staying below temperature
targets Greenhouse gas mitigation scenarios for the 21st century. Energy
impact due to the use of combustible fuels: Life cycle viewpoint and relative
Kusiima, J.M., and S.E. Powers (2010). Monetary value of the environmental and
Kitous, A., P. Criqui, E. Bellevrat, and B. Chateau (2010). Transformation patterns of the worldwide energy system Scenarios for the century with the POLES
model. Energy Journal, 31(Special Issue), pp. 49-82.
Knopf, B., O. Edenhofer, T. Barker, N. Bauer, L. Baumstark, B. Chateau, P. Criqui,
and policy. In: Making Climate Change Work for Us: European Perspectives
A. Faaij (2006). The potential biomass for energy production in the Czech
Greenhouse gas emission mitigation and energy security, a scenario results and
Documentation for the TIMES Model. IEA Energy Technology Systems Analysis
practical programmes in some Asian countries. In: 2nd IAEE Asian Conference,
International Association for Energy Economics, Perth, Australia, 5-7 November
2008.
Koljonen, T., M. Flyktman, A. Lehtil, K. Pahkala, E. Peltola, and I. Savolainen
(2009). The role of CCS and renewables in tackling climate change. Energy
Procedia, 1(1), pp. 4323-4330.
Koomey, J.G., Richey, R.C., Laitner, J.A., Markel, R.J., and Marnay, C. (1998).
from the RECIPE model Intercomparison. Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact
Insights from the RECIPE Model Intercomparison. Climatic Change, doi: 10.1007/
and learning by searching. International Journal of Global Issues, 14, pp. 1-4.
s10584-011-0105-x).
Krewitt, W. (2002). External costs of energy do the answers match the questions?
Looking back at 10 years of ExternE. Energy Policy, 30(10), pp. 839-848.
861
Chapter 10
Magne, B., S. Kypreos, and H. Turton (2010). Technology options for low stabiliza-
Neij, L. (1997). Use of experience curves to analyse the prospects for diffusion and
tion pathways with MERGE. Energy Journal, 31(Special Issue), pp. 83-108.
Manne, A., and R. Richels (2005). Merge: An Integrated Assessment Model for
Global Climate Change. In: Energy and Environment. R. Loulou, J.-P. Waaub, and
G. Zaccour (eds.), Springer, pp. 175-189.
Neij, L. (1999). Cost dynamics of wind power. Energy Policy, 24, pp. 375-389.
Neij, L. (2003). Final Report of EXTOOL - Experience Curves: A Tool for Energy Policiy
Programme Assessment. KFS AB, Lund, Sweden. Available at: www.iset.uni-kas-
Masui, T., S. Ashina, and J. Fujino (2010). Analysis of 4.5 W/m2 Stabilization
sel.de/extool/Extool_nal_report.pdf.
Tsukuba, Japan.
McElroy, M.B., X. Lu, C.P. Nielsen, and Y. Wang (2009). Potential for wind-generated electricity in China. Science, 325, pp. 1380.
Nemet, G.F. (2009). Interim monitoring of cost dynamics for publicly supported
energy technologies. Energy Policy, 37, pp. 825-835.
Nemet, G.F., T. Holloway, and P. Meier (2010). Implications of incorporating airquality co-benets into climate change policymaking. Environmental Research
Nichols, L.A. (1994). Demand-side management. Energy Policy, 22, pp. 840-847.
McKinsey&Company
(2009b).
Pathway
to
Low-Carbon
Economy.
McKinsey&Company.
McKinsey&Company (2009c). Swiss Greenhouse Gas Abatement Cost Curve.
McKinsey&Company.
Mehos, M.S., and D.W. Kearney (2007). Potential carbon emissions reductions
from concentrating solar power by 2030. In: Tackling Climate Change in the U.S.:
Potential Carbon Emissions Reductions from Energy Efciency and Renewable
Energy by 2030. C.F. Kutscher (ed.), American Solar Energy Society, Boulder, CO,
USA, pp. 79-90. Available at: http://ases.org/images/stories/le/ASES/climate_
change.pdf.
Meier, A., J. Wright, and A.H. Rosenfeld (1983). Supplying Energy through Greater
C.F. Kutscher (ed.), American Solar Energy Society, Boulder, CO, USA, pp. 113-130.
Preiss, P. (2009). Report on the Application of the Tools for Innovative Energy
Chesnaye, J.M. Reilly, T. Wilson, and C. Kolstad (eds.), Cambridge University Press,
pp. 328-342.
Morita, T., J. Robinson, A. Adegbulugbe, J. Alcamo, D. Herbert, E. Lebre la Rovere,
B.d. Vries, and D. Zhou (2001). Greenhouse gas emission mitigation scenar-
ios and implications. In: Climate Change 2001: Mitigation of Climate Change;
Contribution of Working Group III to the Third Assessment Report of the IPCC.
Cambridge University Press, pp. 115-166.
Mukora, A., M. Winskel, H.F. Jeffrey, and M. Mller (2009). Learning curves for
emerging energy technologies. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers
- Energy, 162, pp. 151-159.
Nakicenovic, N., P. Kolp, K. Riahi, M. Kainuma, and T. Hanaoka (2006).
Assessment of emissions scenarios revisited. Environmental Economics and
Policy Studies, 7(3), pp. 137-173.
862
Ricci, A. (2009a). NEEDS : A Summary Account of the Final Debate. New Energy
Externalities Development for Sustainability (NEEDS), Rome, Italy.
Ricci, A. (2009b). NEEDS : Policy Use of NEEDS Results. New Energy Externalities
Development for Sustainability (NEEDS), Rome, Italy.
Ricci, A. (2010). Policy Use of the NEEDS report. Final integrated report, Deliverable
No. 5.3 - RS In, New Energy Externalities Developments for Sustainability
(NEEDS), Rome, Italy.
Roth, I.F., and L.L. Ambs (2004). Incorporating externalities into a full cost approach
to electric power generation life-cycle costing. Energy, 29(12-15), pp. 2125-2144.
Chapter 10
Rufo, M. (2003). Developing Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Supply Curves for In-State
Sweeney, J., and J. Weyant (2008). Analysis of Measures to Meet the Requirements
USA.
Sagar, A.D., and B. van der Zwaan (2005). Technological innovation in the
energy sector: R&D, deployment, and learning-by-doing. Energy Policy, 34, pp.
(2002). Modeling the impacts of the Finnish Climate Strategy on air pollution.
2601-2608.
Sawyer, S. (2009). The Global status of wind power. In: Global Wind Report 2009.
Syri, S., A. Lehtil, T. Ekholm, and I. Savolainen (2008). Global energy and
Global Wind Energy Council, Brussels, Belgium, pp. 8-13. Available at: www.
gwec.net/index.php?id=167.
expansion 1996 - 2006. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change,
14(3), pp. 285-298.
Stern, N. (2007). The Economics of Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, 712
gov.uk/sternreview_index.htm.
5125-5139.
van Vuuren, D.P., M. Isaac, M.G.J. Den Elzen, E. Stehfest, and J. Van Vliet
(2010). Low stabilization scenarios and implications for major world regions
from an integrated assessment perspective. Energy Journal, 31(Special Issue),
pp. 165-192.
863
Vorum, M., and J. Tester (2007). Potential carbon emissions reductions from geothermal power by 2030. In: Tackling Climate Change in the U.S.: Potential Carbon
Chapter 10
Weitzman, M.L. (2007). Review: A Review of The Stern Review on the Economics of
Climate Change. Journal of Economic Literature, 45(3), pp. 703-724.
C.F. Kutscher (ed.), American Solar Energy Society, Boulder, CO, USA, pp. 145-162.
technologies. In: 2001 Annual Report. The Energy Foundation, San Francisco, CA,
864
Chapter 11
11
Lead Authors:
Solomone Fita (Fiji/Tonga), Mark Jaccard (Canada), Ole Langniss (Germany),
Hugo Lucas (United Arab Emirates/Spain), Alain Nadai (France),
Ramiro Trujillo Blanco (Bolivia), Eric Usher (Sweden/Canada), Aviel Verbruggen (Belgium),
Rolf Wstenhagen (Switzerland/Germany), Kaoru Yamaguchi (Japan)
Contributing Authors:
Douglas Arent (USA), Greg Arrowsmith (Belguim/United Kingdom),
Morgan Bazilian (Austria/USA), Lori Bird (USA), Thomas Boermans (Germany),
Alex Bowen (United Kingdom), Sylvia Breukers (The Netherlands), Thomas Bruckner (Germany),
Sebastian Busch (Austria/Germany), Elisabeth Clemens (Norway), Peter Connor (United Kingdom),
Felix Creutzig (Germany), Peter Droege (Liechtenstein/Germany), Karin Ericsson (Sweden),
Chris Greacen (USA), Renata Grisoli (Brazil), Erik Haites (Canada),
Kirsty Hamilton (United Kingdom), Jochen Harnisch (Germany),
Cameron Hepburn (United Kingdom), Suzanne Hunt (USA), Matthias Kalkuhl (Germany),
Heleen de Koninck (Netherlands), Patrick Lamers (Germany), Birger Madsen (Denmark),
Gregory Nemet (USA), Lars J. Nilsson (Sweden), Supachai Panitchpakdi (Switzerland/Thailand),
David Popp (USA), Anis Radzi (Liechtenstein/Australia), Gustav Resch (Austria),
Sven Schimschar (Germany), Kristin Seyboth (Germany/USA),
Sergio Trindade (USA/Brazil and USA), Bernhard Truffer (Switzerland), Sarah Truitt (USA),
Dan van der Horst (United Kingdom/The Netherlands), Saskia Vermeylen (United Kingdom),
Charles Wilson (United Kingdom), Ryan Wiser (USA)
Review Editors:
David de Jager (The Netherlands), Antonina Ivanova Boncheva (Mexico/Bulgaria)
This chapter should be cited as:
Mitchell, C., J. L. Sawin, G. R. Pokharel, D. Kammen, Z. Wang, S. Fita, M. Jaccard, O. Langniss, H. Lucas,
A.Nadai, R. Trujillo Blanco, E. Usher, A. Verbruggen, R. Wstenhagen, K. Yamaguchi, 2011: Policy, Financing
and Implementation. In IPCC Special Report on Renewable Energy Sources and Climate Change Mitigation
[O. Edenhofer, R. Pichs-Madruga, Y. Sokona, K. Seyboth, P. Matschoss, S. Kadner, T.Zwickel, P. Eickemeier,
G. Hansen, S. Schlmer, C. von Stechow (eds)], Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom
and New York, NY, USA.
865
Chapter 11
Table of Contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 871
11.1.1
11.1.2
11.1.3
11.2
11.2.1
11.2.2
11.2.2.1
11.2.2.2
11.2.2.3
11.2.2.4
11.2.2.5
11.2.2.6
11.2.3
11.3
11.3.1
Climate change mitigation and reduction of environmental and health impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 879
11.3.2
Energy access
11.3.3
Energy security
11.3.4
11.4
11.4.1
11.4.2
11.4.3
866
...................................................................................................
...........................................................................................................................
......................................................................................................................
..........................................................................................
...........................................................................................................................................
.........................................................................................................................................
..............................................................................................................
............................
871
873
878
878
879
880
880
880
................................................................................
881
........................................................................................................
882
Chapter 11
11.5
11.5.1
11.5.2
11.5.2.1
11.5.2.2
11.5.2.3
11.5.2.4
11.5.3
11.5.3.1
11.5.3.2
11.5.3.3
11.5.4
11.5.4.1
11.5.4.2
11.5.4.3
11.5.5
11.5.5.1
11.5.5.2
11.5.5.3
11.5.5.4
11.5.6
11.5.6.1
11.5.6.2
11.5.6.3
11.5.7
11.5.7.1
11.5.7.2
11.5.7.3
Synthesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 913
Assessment of RE policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 913
Macroeconomic impacts and cost-benet analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 916
Interactions and potential unintended consequences of renewable energy and climate policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 916
11.6
11.6.1
11.6.2
11.6.3
......................................................................
.....................................................................................
..................................................
882
917
920
867
Chapter 11
11.6.4
11.6.4.1
11.6.4.2
11.6.4.3
11.6.4.4
11.6.4.5
11.6.4.6
11.6.5
11.6.5.1
11.6.5.2
11.6.5.3
11.6.5.4
11.6.6
11.6.6.1
11.6.6.2
11.6.6.3
11.6.7
Institutional learning
11.6.8
11.6.8.1
11.6.8.2
11.7
11.7.1
11.7.2
11.7.3
11.7.4
11.7.5
Specic policy options for an accelerated transition to a high renewable energy world
.................................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................
927
930
................................................
930
...............................................................
930
.......................................
931
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 933
868
Chapter 11
Executive Summary
Renewable energy can provide a host of benets to society. In addition to the reduction of carbon dioxide (CO2)
emissions, governments have enacted renewable energy (RE) policies to meet a number of objectives including the
creation of local environmental and health benets; facilitation of energy access, particularly for rural areas; advancement of energy security goals by diversifying the portfolio of energy technologies and resources; and improving social
and economic development through potential employment opportunities. Energy access and social and economic
development have been the primary drivers in developing countries whereas ensuring a secure energy supply and environmental concerns have been most important in developed countries.
An increasing number and variety of RE policiesmotivated by a variety of factorshave driven substantial growth of RE technologies in recent years. Government policies have played a crucial role in accelerating the
deployment of RE technologies. At the same time, not all RE policies have proven effective and efcient in rapidly or
substantially increasing RE deployment. The focus of policies is broadening from a concentration almost entirely on RE
electricity to include RE heating and cooling and transportation.
RE policies have promoted an increase in RE capacity installations by helping to overcome various barriers.
Barriers specic to RE policymaking (e.g., a lack of information and awareness), to implementation (e.g., a lack of an
educated and trained workforce to match developing RE technologies) and to nancing (e.g., market failures) may further impede deployment of RE. A broad application of RE would require policies to address these barriers, and to help
overcome challenges such as the lack of infrastructure necessary for integrating RE into the existing system.
Policy mechanisms enacted specically to promote RE are varied and can apply to all energy sectors. They
include scal incentives such as tax credits and rebates; public nancing policies such as low-interest loans; regulations
such as quantity-driven policies like quotas and price-driven policies including feed-in tariffs for electricity, heat obligations, and biofuels blending requirements. Policies can be sector specic and can be implemented at the local, state/
provincial, national and in some cases regional level and can be complemented by bilateral, regional and international
cooperation.
Public research and development (R&D) investments are most effective when complemented by other policy
instruments, particularly RE deployment policies that simultaneously enhance demand for new RE technologies. Together, R&D and deployment policies create a positive feedback cycle, inducing private sector investment in
R&D. Enacting deployment policies early in the development of a given technology can accelerate learning by inducing
private R&D, which in turn further reduces costs and provides additional incentives for using the technology.
Some policy elements have been shown to be more effective and efcient in rapidly increasing RE deployment, but there is no one-size-ts-all policy, and the mix of policies and their design and implementation
are also important. Key policy elements for ensuring effectiveness and efciency can include adequate value to cover
costs and account for social benets, guaranteed access to networks and markets, long-term contracts to reduce risk,
inclusiveness and ease of administration.
Several studies have concluded that some feed-in tariffs have been effective and efcient at promoting RE electricity, mainly due to the combination of long-term xed price or premium payments, network connections, and
guaranteed purchase of all RE electricity generated. Quota policies can be effective and efcient if designed to
reduce risk; for example, with long-term contracts.
An increasing number of governments are adopting scal incentives for RE heating and cooling. Obligations to use
RE heat are gaining attention for their potential to encourage growth independent of public nancial support.
In the transportation sector, RE fuel mandates or blending requirements are key drivers in the development of most
modern biofuel industries. Other policies include direct government payments or tax reductions. Policies have inuenced the development of an international biofuel trade.
869
Chapter 11
The exibility to adjust as technologies, markets and other factors evolve is important. The details of design and implementation are critical in determining the effectiveness and efciency of a policy. Policy frameworks that are transparent
and sustained can reduce investment risks and facilitate deployment of RE and the evolution of low-cost applications.
A mix of policies is generally needed to address the various barriers to RE. Further, experience shows that different
policies or combinations of policies can be more effective and efcient depending on factors such as the level of technological maturity, availability of affordable capital and the local and national RE resource base.
If the goal is to transform the energy sector over the next several decades to one based on low-carbon
fuels and technologies, it is important to minimize costs over this entire period, not only in the near term.
It is also important to include all costs and benets to society in that calculation. Conducting an integrated analysis of
costs and benets associated with RE is extremely demanding because so many elements are involved in determining
net impacts; thus, such efforts face substantial limitations and uncertainties. Few studies have examined such impacts
on national or regional economies; however, those that have been carried out have generally found net positive economic impacts.
Two separate market failures create the rationale for the additional support of innovative RE technologies
that have high potential for technological development, even if an emission market (or GHG pricing policy
in general) exists. The rst market failure refers to the external cost of GHG emissions. The second market failure is in
the eld of innovation: if rms underestimate the future benets of investments into learning RE technologies or if they
cannot appropriate these benets, they will invest less than is optimal from a macroeconomic perspective. In addition
to GHG pricing policies, RE-specic policies may be appropriate from an economic point of view if the related opportunities for technological development are to be addressed (or if other goals beyond climate mitigation are pursued).
Potentially adverse consequences such as lock-in, carbon leakage and rebound effects must be taken into account in
the design of a portfolio of policies.
RE technologies can play a greater role in climate change mitigation if they are implemented in conjunction
with enabling policies. A favourable, or enabling, environment for RE can be created by encouraging innovation in
the energy system; addressing the possible interactions of a given policy with other RE policies as well as with other
energy and non-energy policies (e.g., those targeting agriculture, transportation, water management and urban planning); by understanding the ability of RE developers to obtain nance and planning permission to build and site a
project; by removing barriers for access to networks and markets for RE installations and output; by enabling technology transfer; and by increasing education and awareness. In turn, existence of an enabling environment can increase
the efciency and effectiveness of policies to promote RE.
The literature indicates that long-term objectives for RE and exibility to learn from experience would be
critical to achieve cost-effective and high penetrations of RE. The energy scenarios analyzed in Chapter 10 show
RE penetrations of up to 77% of primary energy by 2050, depending on the rate of installation. To achieve GHG concentration stabilization levels with high shares of RE, a structural shift in todays energy systems will be required over the
next few decades. Such a transition to low-carbon energy differs from previous ones (e.g., from wood to coal, or coal
to oil) because the available time span is restricted to a few decades, and because RE must develop and integrate into
a system constructed in the context of an existing energy structure that is very different from what might be required
under higher-penetration RE futures.
A structural shift would require systematic development of policy frameworks that reduce risks and enable attractive
returns that provide stability over a timeframe relevant to RE and related infrastructure investments. An appropriate and
reliable mix of instruments is even more important where energy infrastructure is still developing and energy demand is
expected to increase in the future.
870
Chapter 11
11.1
Introduction
and other attributes that are in some way measurable (Jacobsson and
Lauber, 2006; Mendona, 2007; Verbruggen and Lauber, 2009). RE
may be measured by additional qualiers such as time and reliability
of delivery (availability) and other metrics related to REs integration
into networks (Klessmann et al., 2008; Langni et al., 2009). There
is also much that governments and other actors can do to create an
environment conducive for RE deployment. This chapter examines the
options available for policymakers and the role of policies in advancing RE. Policies can advance technologies and stimulate markets, but
complementary non-RE policies provide comfort for investors, thereby
further enabling deployment. Thus, this chapter addresses the role of
policies and an enabling environment in making nancing available and
affordable. It assesses policies based on a number of criteria, including
effectiveness, efciency, equity and institutional feasibility. It provides
policymakers with a range of options for achieving the desired level of
RE deployment and penetration, and aims to answer the following questions in each of the identied sections:
Why, and under what conditions, is RE-specic policy support
needed (Section 11.1)?
What are the current trends globally in RE policies, nance and
investment (Section 11.2)?
What are the factors, in addition to climate change mitigation, driving policymakers to enact policies to advance RE? How do these
drivers differ between developing and developed countries (Section
11.3)?
What are the barriers to RE policy making, implementation and
nance (Section 11.4), and how can policies help to overcome the
various barriers to RE (Sections 11.5, 11.6 and 11.7)?
What policy options are available to advance RE in different end-use
sectors (Section 11.5)?
What have been the experiences with these policy options to date,
and which are most successful and under what conditions (Sections
11.5 and 11.6)?
How do RE policies interact with climate policies (Section 11.5) and
other types of policies (Section 11.6)?
What combinations of policy packages can overcome the barriers
necessary to achieve varying levels of RE penetration desired for
mitigating climate change (Section 11.7)?
The remainder of this section begins to address some of the above questions, starting with a summary of the literature on the conditions that
may make RE-specic policies necessary alongside climate policies (carbon pricing) in order to mitigate climate change.
11.1.1
871
Both market failures must be taken into account simultaneously for those RE
technologies that are prone to cost reductions via R&D and technological learning.
872
Chapter 11
Jaccard, 2006; Stern, 2007, Ch. 16; Fischer, 2008; Fischer and Newell,
2008; Otto et al., 2008).
There are further barriers that impede RE technologies, including oligopoly and imperfect competition, existing subsidies, network economies,
information failures, labour market failures and non-internalized environmental and health effects beyond the impact of climate change
(Sorell and Sijm, 2003; Sjgren, 2009; see also Sections 1.4.2, 9.5.1,
and 9.5.2.1) Energy utilities whose incumbent technologies may have
beneted from economies of scale might resist the entry of low-carbon
competitors. Past investments into carbon-intensive infrastructure and
engineering knowledge based upon that infrastructure may have created
a lock-in into related technologies, impeding innovation and integration
of RE (Unruh 2000; Acemoglu et al., 2009).
Transforming the energy system would require substantial investment,
potentially binding capital for multiple decades. Hence, for such a
target, investors would need clear and stable framing regulatory conditions as well as well-developed capital, insurance and futures markets
to diversify investment risks. Information asymmetries (regarding, e.g.,
the innovation, learning and potential deployment of technologies)
on capital markets increase the perceived risks and thus also the cost
of investments. This is particularly relevant for some RE technologies,
which as capital-intensive technologies suffer from high capital costs
(Section 11.4.3).
Since, in practice, governments have not yet implemented ideal carbon
pricing or ideal support for low-carbon R&D, there may be a role for
additional second-best government intervention, including stronger RE
deployment policies to tackle more effectively the climate externality.
Carbon prices are often nonexistent or lower than estimated associated
social costs (Stern, 2007; Tol, 2009), and have not provided a sufciently
credible basis for a large-scale shift towards low-carbon investment
(see, for example, Committee on Climate Change 2010 (CCC, 2010) for
the UK). Further, because governments are unable to pre-commit for
the long term, there is a general lack of belief in government policies
on long-term carbon pricing (Ulph and Ulph, 2009). Uncertainty over
future regulation and, thus, over the future role of RE in the energy mix,
discourages capital-intensive long-term investments. That is a salutary
reminder that policymakers in the real world are subject to lobbying
and rent-seeking as well as uncertainty about the costs and benets of
policies, including the costs of public administration of those policies.
The uncertainty of costs and the complex linkage of RE-specic market
failures and barriers make it difcult to determine the optimal level of
RE deployment for each of the drivers and co-benets of RE. The remainder of this chapter presumes that decision makers aim to increase RE
deployment as a means to achieve any number of social objectives
mitigating climate change is considered as one objective among many.
Nonetheless, the complex interplay of RE policies with climate policies
is revisited later in the chapter (see Section 11.5.7.3) as an important
component for consideration, as the two policies might inuence each
other and lead to unintended consequences.
Chapter 11
11.1.2
The timing, strength and level of coordination of R&D versus deployment policies have implications for the efciency and effectiveness of
the policies, and for the total cost to society, in three main ways:
1. Whether a country promotes RE immediately or waits until costs
have declined further. Although many RE technologies currently are
not yet competitive with the energy market prices, the levelized cost
of energy generated by RE has declined substantially in the past. As
many of these technologies are still in early phases of their respective development chains, further cost reductions are expected in
the future, especially if these technologies are appropriately supported by research, development, demonstration and deployment
programs (RDD&D) (IEA, 2008b, 2010a). Chapter 10 concludes
that in order to achieve full competitiveness with fossil fuel technologies, signicant up-front investments will be required until the
break-even point is achieved. When those investments should be
made depends on the goal. If the international community aims
to stabilize the average global temperature increase at 2C, then
investments in low-carbon technologies must start almost immediately. If a less stringent level were chosen there would be more
time;
2. Once a country has decided to support RE, the timing, strength and
coordination of when R&D policies give way to deployment policies
(Nemet, 2006; Junginger et al., 2010), discussed in Section 11.5.2;
and
11.1.3
873
11.2
The number of RE-specic policies enacted and implemented by governments, and the number of countries with RE policies, is increasing
rapidly around the globe (Figure 11.1). The focus of RE policies is shifting from a concentration almost entirely on electricity to include the
heating/cooling and transportation sectors. These trends are matched
by increasing success in the development of a range of RE technologies
and their manufacture and implementation (see Chapters 2 through 7),
as well as by a rapid increase in annual investment in RE and a diversication of nancing institutions. This section describes recent trends
in RE policies and in public and private nance and investment, from
research and development (R&D) through to renancing and the sale
of RE companies.
11.2.1
While several factors are driving rapid growth in RE markets, government policies have played a crucial role in accelerating the deployment
of RE technologies to date (Sawin, 2001, 2004; Meyer, 2003; Renewables
2004, 2004; Rickerson et al., 2007; REN21, 2009b; IEA, 2010d).
Until the early 1990s, few countries had enacted policies to promote RE.
Since then, and particularly since the early- to mid-2000s, policies have
begun to emerge in a growing number of countries at the municipal,
state/provincial, national and international levels (REN21, 2005, 2009b).
Initially, most policies adopted were in developed countries, but an
increasing number of developing countries have enacted policy frameworks at various levels of government to promote RE since the late
1990s and early 2000s (Wiser and Pickle, 2000; Martinot et al., 2002;
REN21, 2010).
According to the Renewable Energy Policy Network for the 21st Century
(REN21), which is believed to be the only source that tracks RE policies
annually on a global and comprehensive basis,2 the number of countries
with some kind of RE target and/or deployment policy related to RE
almost doubled from an estimated 55 in early 2005 to more than 100 in
early 2010 (REN21, 2010). By early 2010, at least 85 countries, including all 27 EU member states, had adopted RE targets at the national
levelfor specic shares of electricity, or shares of primary or nal
energy from RE; sub-national targets exist in a number of additional
countries (REN21, 2010). This is up from 43 countries with national targets in mid-2005 (plus 2 countries with state/provincial level targets)
(REN21, 2006). An estimated 83 countries were known to have RE policies in place by early 2010.
2
Note that the International Energy Agency database focuses on the Organisation
for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India,
China and South Africa) and other countries that supply information, but is not as
comprehensive as REN21 (which relies on the IEA database and other sources).
874
Chapter 11
Chapter 11
2005
Early 2011
Countries with at least one RE-specific Policy and at least one RE Target
Figure 11.1 | Countries with at least one RE-specic deployment target and/or at least one RE-specic deployment policy in mid-2005 and in early 2011. This gure includes only
national-level targets and policies (not municipal or state/provincial) and is not necessarily all-inclusive (RECIPES, 2005; REN21, 2005, 2010, 2011; CIPORE, 2011; Austrian Energy
Agency, 2011; IEA, 2011; REEGLE, 2011; DSIRE, 2011).
875
Chapter 11
BNEF, 2010), although down from USD2005 110.7 billion in 2008 due to
the nancial downturn (Figure 11.2). Using a different methodology,3
REN21 (2010) identied a total investment gure for 2009 that was
signicantly higher than the ndings of UNEP and BNEF (2010).
Meanwhile, global investment in hydropower facilities increased from
approximately USD2005 6.2 billion in 2004 to USD2005 58.5 billion in 2009
(IJHD, 2009) (Figure 11.3).
140
Ocean Energy
120
Geothermal Energy
Biomass Electricity
Biofuels
100
80
60
40
20
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Several hundred city and local governments around the world have
also established goals or enacted renewable deployment policies and
other mechanisms to spur local RE development (Droege, 2009; REN21,
2009b). Innovative policies such as Property-Assessed Clean Energy
(PACE) have begun to emerge on this level (Fuller et al., 2009a) (see
Box 11.3). Indeed, some of the most rapid transformations from fossil
fuels to RE-based systems have taken place at the local level, with entire
communities and citiesincluding Sams in Denmark and Gssing in
Austria (see Box 11.14)devising innovative means to nance RE and
making the transition towards 100% RE systems (Droege, 2009; Sawin
and Moomaw, 2009).
90
Hydropower
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
11.2.2
0
2004
876
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Figure 11.3 | Global investment in hydropower plants, 2004 to 2009 (IJHD, 2009).
3
The REN21 estimates were higher than BNEF/UNEP estimates for two reasons:
REN21 data for small-scale projects included (1) global investment in solar hot water (estimated at USD2005 12 billion); and (2) balance-of-plant costs for distributed
grid-connected solar photovoltaics (PV) (<200 kW), while BNEF/UNEP included only
PV module costs (REN21, 2010).
Chapter 11
11.2.2.1
Financing occurs over what is known as the continuum or stages of technology development. The ve segments of the continuum are: i) R&D; ii)
technology development and commercialization; iii) equipment manufacture and sales; iv) project construction; and v) the renancing and sale of
companies, largely through mergers and acquisitions. Literature is available
that examines nancing along this continuum for biofuels and all RE electricity technologies except hydropower. For these technologies, nancing has
been increasing all along the continuum. These trends represent successive
steps in the innovation process and provide indicators of the RE sectors current and expected growth, as follows:
Trends in (i) R&D funding and (ii) technology development and commercialization (Sections 11.2.2.2 and 11.2.2.3) are indicators of the long- to
mid-term expectations for the sectorinvestments are being made that
will usually only begin to pay off in several years time, once the technology is fully commercialized.
Trends in (iv) construction investment (Section 11.2.2.5) are an indicator of current sector activity, including the extent to which internalizing
costs associated with GHGs can result in new nancial ows to RE
projects.
11.2.2.2
11.2.2.3
Venture capital is a type of private equity capital typically provided for high-potential technology companies in the early market
deployment phase in the interest of generating a return on investment through a trade sale of the company or an eventual listing
on a public stock exchange. Venture capitalists begin to play a role
once technologies are ready to move from the lab bench to the
early market deployment phase, often working with and through
government public-private demonstration and commercialization
programmes.
According to Moore and Wstenhagen, venture capitalists were
initially slow to pick up on the emerging opportunities in the
energy technology sector (Moore and Wstenhagen, 2004), with
RE accounting for only 1 to 3% of venture capital investment in
most countries in the early 2000s. However, between 2002 and
2009, venture capital investment in RE technology rms increased
markedly. Venture capital into RE electricity (excluding hydro)
and biofuels companies grew from USD2005 392 million in 2004 to
USD2005 1.41 billion in 2009 (UNEP and BNEF, 2010), representing a
compound annual growth rate of 29%. This growth trend in technology investment now appears to be a leading indicator that the
nance community expects continued signicant growth in the RE
sector. Downturns such as that experienced in 2008/2009 may slow
or reverse the trend in the short term (as seen in Figure 11.2), but
in the longer term, increased engagement of nancial investors is
foreseen in RE technology development (UNEP and NEF, 2009).
11.2.2.4
877
often for setting up a manufacturing operation or other business activity, whereas public equity investment is capital provided by investors
into publicly listed companies. These forms of capital are also used to
nance some of the working capital requirements of companies, with
the rest coming from bank loans.
Private and public equity investment in RE electricity (excluding hydro)
and biofuels grew from USD2005 691 million in 2004 to USD2005 13.5
billion in 2009, representing a compound annual growth rate of 81%
(UNEP and NEF, 2009). Even with this very fast growth in manufacturing
investments, several technologies had supply bottlenecks through early
2008 that delayed sector growth and pushed up prices. In 2008, stock
markets in general dropped sharply, but RE shares fared worse due to
the energy price collapse and the fact that investors shunned stocks with
any sort of technology or execution risk, particularly those with high
capital requirements (UNEP and NEF, 2009). Financing for manufacturing facilities has also been negatively affected by some policy-induced
boom and bust cycles that have made long-term production planning
difcult (see for instance Box 11.5).
11.2.2.5
Financing construction
878
Chapter 11
11.2.2.6
11.2.3
The recent trends in RE policies and nance have been generally positive
for the RE sector. Even despite the nancial downturn, total investment
in 2009 in new RE capacity was greater than investment in new fossil
fuel capacity in the electricity sector, for the second year running (UNEP
and BNEF, 2010). This trend was driven in large part by that fact that
more than half the worlds countries had some type of policy target or
promotion policy in place for RE (REN21, 2010). These inter-linked trends
underline that RE was not a by-product of the ill-fated credit boom,
but part of a global investment transition that is likely to strengthen
over time (UNEP and BNEF, 2010). The next section examines the drivers,
opportunities and benets associated with this transition.
11.3
Chapter 11
11.3.1
11.3.2
Energy access
879
11.3.3
Energy security
RE can improve security of energy supply in a variety of ways, including reducing dependence on imported fuels, helping to diversify supply,
enhancing the national balance of trade and reducing vulnerability to
price uctuations (Section 9.3.3). These various benets are driving a
number of governments around the world to adopt policies to promote
RE.
Since the early 1970s, Brazil has promoted ethanol from sugarcane as
an alternative to fossil transport fuels in order to decrease dependency
on imported fuels (Pousa et al., 2007; see Box 11.10). China established
its 2005 Renewable Energy Law in part to diversify energy supplies and
safeguard a secure energy supply (Standing Committee of the National
Peoples Congress, 2005; see Box 11.11), and the Jamaican government aims to diversify its energy portfolio by incorporating RE into the
mix, reducing reliance on imported oil (Government of Jamaica, 2006).
A number of municipalities and communities from across Canada (St.
Denis and Parker, 2009) to Gssing in Austria (see Box 11.14) and elsewhere are adopting RE plans to become more energy self-sufcient.
Many governments have regarded RE (particularly biofuels) as a means
to enhance their national balance of trade by substituting domestic RE fuels for imported fuels (National Greenhouse Strategy, 1998;
Department of Minerals and Energy, 2003; DTI, 2007; Smitherman,
2009).
The relationship between public RE R&D funding and movements in the
price of oil illustrate the signicant role that the security of supply consideration has on government decisions to fund research into alternative
sources of energy such as RE. Figures collected by the IEA (2008c) show
that spending on RE peaked in 1981, and as oil prices dropped in the
1980s, RE R&D spending declined by more than two thirds, hitting a low
in 1989. RE R&D funding has gradually increased since then, but not
to earlier levels, as discussed in Section 11.2.2.2. The IEA (2008a) has
argued that governments choose to focus their attention on technologies that can tap into their most abundant domestic natural resources.
Non-IEA countries also justify focusing on a particular energy resource
by pointing to its relative local abundance, like solar energy in India
(JNNSM, 2009) and Singapore (SERIS, 2009). But there are important
exceptions. Germany, for instance, spends more on PV R&D than any
other country in Europe (European Commission, 2009a), but with a view
to growing a competitive export industry (IEA, 2008c).
Chapter 11
Section 9.3.1 for a full discussion of RE in relation to social and economic development.) For example, the EU has highlighted the potential
of RE to create new jobs, especially in rural and isolated areas (European
Parliament and of the Council, 2009). Creating employment opportunities
was an important driver in creation of the German Renewable Energy Act
in 2000 (Jacobsson and Lauber, 2006), and Germanys fast-growing RE
industries have motivated policymakers there to maintain strong promotion policies. A main target of the Greek governments RE promotion
policies is to strengthen employment (Tsoutsos et al., 2008).
The development of domestic markets for RE is also seen as a means
to attract new industries that may in turn supply international markets,
thereby gaining competitive advantages (Lewis, 2007; Lund, 2008). One
example is the case of Japan (see Box 11.2) and its PV industry. However,
if combined with policies that promote domestic/local content and provide subsidies to protect domestic industries, conicts can arise over
international trade rules (International Center for Trade and Sustainable
Development, 2010).
Rural development is often tied to the deployment of RE, whether in
developed or developing countries. The biogas program operated by
the Nepalese Alternative Energy Promotion Center together with the
Netherlands Development Organization (SNV) has linked the deployment of RE with its socioeconomic development program (Mendis and
van Nes, 1999). Bangladesh has been exploring the potential for RE to
aid in rural development, with public and nongovernmental organizations working together to develop rural RE projects (Mondal et al., 2010).
Rural development is also a key driver for RE policies in India, such as the
countrys support for biofuels (Bansal, 2009).
11.4
While there are a number of drivers, opportunities and benets associated with RE, there are also a number of barriers to the development and
deployment of RE. If RE is to play a signicant role in mitigating climate
change, it is important to address these barriers. Chapter 1 of this report
offers an overview of barriers to RE development and deployment, while
Chapters 2 through 7 cover technology-specic challenges, Chapter 8
addresses barriers to integration of RE at high shares, and Chapter 9
discusses barriers to RE in the context of sustainable development. This
section summarizes some of the numerous barriers to successful policymaking, implementation and nancing, which can also hamper the
development and deployment of RE.
11.4.1
11.3.4
Policymakers in many countries are enacting RE policies with the purpose of advancing economic development and/or creating jobs. (See
880
Chapter 11
Any or all of these factors can make policy design difcult; they can also
make it difcult to reach a consensus and to enact specic policies (C.
Mitchell, 2010). In addition, regulatory authorities and policymakers face
an asymmetry of information between established and newer technologies, and they may also be captured by incumbent technology interest
groups, leading to decisions on energy policy that do not optimize social
welfare (Laffont and Tirole, 1998; Helm, 2010).
There are also economic barriers related to RE costs and externalities associated with energy production and use. Policymakers may not recognize
the value of RE due to the higher costs of many RE technologies relative
to current energy market prices. Further, although there is growing acceptance that the social costs and risks of energy use should be incorporated
into the price of energy (Stern, 2007), it is difcult to quantify and internalize these costs (Stirling, 1994). If societies could reach a policy consensus
on how much RE is socially desirable, in terms of how much extra society is
prepared to pay, and/or in terms of a specic share of energy to be derived
from RE sources, public policies could be implemented to reect this social
consensus. However, it is difcult for societies to make a rational choice
about technology without full information.
Further, the existing energy system exerts a strong momentum for its
own continuation (Hughes, 1987), which locks existing technologies and
policies (mostly fossil fuel-based (IEA, 2009d)) in place and locks out new
technologies and ways of doing things (Unruh, 2000). This dampens the
drive for new policies while also making it harder for them to be put into
practice because implementation occurs within the existing energy system. In addition, incumbents of the existing energy system enjoy greater
organizational strength, more inuential networks and increased lobbying
power over newer RE technologies (Hughes, 1986), and thus have greater
potential to inuence policy design and enactment.
11.4.2
Once policies have been enacted, challenges can arise related to implementation. These include conicts with existing regulations; lack of skilled
workers; and/or lack of institutional capacity to implement RE policies.
Regulation of markets and networks, including existing standards
and licensing practices that were established to aid and maintain the
existing energy system, can erect barriers to RE (Beck and Martinot,
2004; P. Baker et al., 2009; M. Baker, 2010). Existing administrative
procedures often make it a lengthy and difcult process to change
the scope or applicability of economic regulation to accommodate RE
technologies (P. Baker et al., 2009; C. Mitchell, 2010).
In addition, workforce education and training generally reinforce incumbent technologies and lag behind the emergence of new technologies,
constraining the rate of RE installation and maintenance. Even when
programmes are in place, ramping up skills takes time. This lack of
educational and skills base in turn constrains the knowledge about
881
11.4.3
As discussed in Section 11.2.2, nancing is critical in every stage of technology development. Yet there are also many barriers that affect the
availability of nancing.
First, and most importantly, many RE technologies are not economically
competitive with current energy market prices, making them nancially
unprotable for investors absent various forms of policy support, and
thereby restricting investment capital.
Second is a lack of information. To operate effectively, markets rely on
timely, appropriate and truthful information. But energy markets are
far from perfect; this is particularly true of markets in technological
and structural transition, such as the RE market. As a result of insufcient information, underlying project risk tends to be overrated and
transaction costs can increase as compared to conventional fossil fuel
technologies (Sonntag-OBrien and Usher, 2004).
Compounding this lack of information is the issue of nancial structure.
RE projects typically have higher investment costs and lower operating
costs than fossil fuel technologies do. Their nancial structure therefore requires a higher level of nancing that must be amortized over
the life of the project. This makes an RE investments risk exposure
a longer-term challenge than that faced with fossil fuel generating
plants, which often have lower investment costs (Sonntag-OBrien and
Usher, 2004).
In addition to higher investment costs, nanciers face other issues of
concern that are related to RE projects. Besides having more assets
at risk and over a longer time period, other aspects of risk also come
into play. According to de Jager et al. (2010), private investors lack
experience on the technology side (upstream) with new types of
sponsors, business models, the markets and/or technologies involved.
On the project side (downstream), their concerns often relate to the
882
Chapter 11
11.5
This section explains the policies currently available and in use around
the world to support RE technologiesfrom their infant stages, to demonstration and pre-commercialization, and through to maturity and
wide-scale deploymentin order to address existing barriers outlined
in Section 1.4 and many of the barriers in Section 11.4, and to enable
RE to play a signicant role in mitigating climate change. These include
government R&D policies (supply-push) for advancing RE technologies,
and deployment policies (demand-pull), which aim to create a market
for RE technologies. This section focuses on policies directly supporting
RE, based on the assumption that policymakers are aiming to increase
Chapter 11
RE levels based on drivers of their choosing. For those policymakers targeting climate change mitigation goals, the interplay between RE and
climate policies is discussed in Section 11.5.7.3.
Policies could be categorized in a variety of ways and there exists no
globally agreed list of RE policy options or groupings. For the purpose
of simplication, this chapter organizes R&D and deployment policies
within the following categories:
Fiscal incentive: actors (individuals, households, companies) are
allowed a reduction of their contribution to the public treasury via
income or other taxes or are provided payments from the public
treasury in the form of rebates or grants.
Public nance: public support for which a nancial return is
expected (loans, equity) or nancial liability is incurred (guarantee);
and
Regulation: rule to guide or control conduct of those to whom it
applies.
RE policies are often linked to national or regional targets, such as the
EU RE Directive, which calls for RE to provide 20% of energy used in
the EU by 2020. Literature is lacking that provides evidence of whether
targets, absent obligatory mandates or implementing policies, make RE
policies more efcient or effective within the energy system. Although
targets are a central component of policies, policies in place may not
need specic targets to be successful. Further, targets without policies
to deliver them are unlikely to be met, as seen in the Pacic Island States
where RE targets and nancing without appropriate RE policies have
been insufcient to achieve signicant progress with RE (See Box 11.1).
After a discussion on policy evaluation criteria (Section 11.5.1), this
section rst summarizes the policy options for R&D and the important
interactions of R&D policies with deployment policies (Section 11.5.2).
Most of the section then focuses on policies for RE deployment, with
a general overview of policy options (Section 11.5.3) and then sectorspecic (electricity, Section 11.5.4; heating and cooling, Section 11.5.5;
transportation, Section 11.5.6) assessments and lessons learned based
on experiences to date. The section concludes with some general ndings, a discussion of the macroeconomic impacts of RE policies, and a
review of the possible positive or negative interactions between RE and
carbon policies. Only those policies specically targeting RE advancement are covered in this section; a full discussion of policies required to
create an enabling environment for RE is provided in Section 11.6.
11.5.1
1985; Hanley et al., 1997; Aldy et al., 2003; Hanley et al., 2004; Huber et
al., 2004; Sawin, 2004; Gupta et al., 2007; Bergek and Jacobsson, 2010;
European Commission, 2010; Verbruggen, 2010; among others). These
criteria include the following:
Effectiveness: the extent to which intended objectives are met,
for instance the actual increase in the amount of RE electricity
generated or share of RE in total energy supply within a specied time period. Beyond quantitative targets, factors may include
achieved degrees of technological diversity (promotion of different
RE technologies), which is considered a crucial factor for dynamic
effectiveness (long-term sustained growth that enables innovation
and the development of a manufacturing base), or of spatial diversity (geographical distribution of RE supplies).
Efciency: the ratio of outcomes to inputs, or RE targets realized
on economic resources spent, mostly measured at one point in time
(static efciency); also called cost-effectiveness. Dynamic efciency
adds a future time dimension by including how much technology
development and innovation is triggered by the policy instrument.
Reducing the risks to investors is crucial for minimizing costs of
nancing, which in turn reduces project costs.
Equity: the incidence and distributional consequences of a policy,
including dimensions such as fairness, justice and respect for the
rights of indigenous peoples. Equity can be assessed, in part, by
looking at the distribution of costs and benets of a policy (e.g., a
policy that follows the polluter pays principle is generally considered to be fair (Heyward, 2007)), and/or by evaluating the extent to
which it allows the participation of a wide range of different stakeholders (e.g., equal rights to independent power producers and to
incumbent utilities). Excess prots, created by suboptimal policy
designs, transfer money from rate- or taxpayers to mostly incumbent
power producers, undermining equity (Verbruggen, 2009; Bergek
and Jacobsson, 2010).
Institutional feasibility: the extent to which a policy instrument is
likely to be viewed as legitimate, gain acceptance, and be adopted
and implemented. Institutional feasibility is high when policies are
well adapted to existing institutional constraints. Economists traditionally evaluate instruments for environmental policy under ideal
theoretical conditions; however, those conditions are rarely met
in practice, and instrument design and implementation must take
political realities into account. In reality, policy choices must be
both acceptable to a wide range of stakeholders and supported by
institutions. In market economies, instruments need to be compatible with markets. An important dimension of institutional feasibility
addresses the ability to implement policies once they have been
designed and adopted.
Other criteria are also examined in the literature, including subcategories
of the four set out above. But most literature focuses on effectiveness
and efciency of policies, which are therefore the main criteria that
883
Chapter 11
Box 11.1 | Lessons from the Pacic Island States: Renewable energy target setting.
The Pacic Islands, home to more than 1.5 million people, are among the most vulnerable places in the world to the impacts of climate
change. Although their contribution to global GHG emissions is negligible, the islands are blessed with signicant RE resources and are
receiving signicant donor assistance that is specic to RE: the Global Environment Facility (GEF) contributed approximately USD 30
million during 2000 through 2009 (SIS, 2009), and development partners have allocated a further estimated USD 300 million in funding
for 2010 to 2015 (SPC, 2010).1 RE is increasingly viewed as a means for achieving energy securitysupporting accessibility, affordability,
productivity and clean energy (SPC, 2010).
In response to these factors, the Pacic Island countries have adopted national RE targets and made commitments to pursue a RE development path. For example, Fiji targets at least 90% of its energy needs to be met with RE by 2011, Nauru targets 50% of its energy to be
derived from RE by 2015 and Vanuatus power utility will generate 25% of its electricity from RE by 2012 (PEMM, 2009). Both Tonga and
Tuvalu have incorporated RE targets into their national energy strategies (PIFS, 2009a). Tonga originally set itself a 50% RE target in three
years, but has since redirected its approach by adopting a Tonga Energy Roadmap (TERM) with the objective of nding a least-cost implementation plan that involves energy efciency improvements and a shift from fossil-based electricity generation to RE (Government of the
Kingdom of Tonga, 2010). At their annual meeting in 2010, the Pacic Island Leaders adopted a regional framework for Energy Security in
the Pacic which is based on the premise of Many Partners One Team One Plan (PEMM, 2009; PIFS, 2010).
However, the RE target commitments made are ambitious and require a full understanding of RE resource potential, RE investment costs,
and their technical and economic viabilities. Thus far the general progress towards the RE target is slow. Experiences imply that setting
RE targets and having signicant amounts of nancing available are both important factors in advancing RE, but they are not sufcient
they need to be backed by appropriate policies and they must be realistic and practical (PIFS, 2009b, 2010).
Note: 1. Conversion to 2005 dollars is not possible given the range of study-specic assumptions.
policy decisions, which can change and thus make markets volatile and
risky (Yang et al., 2008; Blyth et al., 2009; Nemet, 2010b). It is for these
reasons that the R&D and innovation market failure was described earlier as a key factor motivating the need for policy intervention beyond
carbon pricing to most efciently address climate mitigation.
11.5.2
11.5.2.1
Not all countries can afford to support R&D with public funds, but in the
majority of countries where some level of support is possible, public R&D
for RE enhances the performance of nascent technologies so that they
can meet the demands of initial adopters and it improves existing technologies that already function in commercial environments. Investments
falling under the rubric of R&D span a wide variety of activities along
the technology development lifecycle, from RE resource mapping to
improvements in commercial RE technologies. The magnitudes of
investments required in each stage vary substantially; importantly, the
costs of progressing from one stage to the next generally increase (NSB,
2010). Several studies claim that current levels of public (and private)
investment in RE R&D are too low to address energy-related concerns
including climate change (Schock et al., 1999; Holdren and Baldwin,
2001; Davis and Owens, 2003; Nemet and Kammen, 2007; Weiss and
Bonvillian, 2009).
884
Chapter 11
11.5.2.2
Table 11.1 presents a list of RE policies for R&D and their denitions.
One general trend is that policy measures in the RD&D sphere are
becoming more collaborative and innovative as governments seek new
means of tapping into potential nanciers, investors and innovators.
Collaboration encourages buy-in from partners as early as possible
in the technology development spectrum, and intends to use public
money as efciently and effectively as possible.
Fiscal incentives available to policy makers include the following, and
more, as outlined in Table 11.1:
Contingent grants can serve to cover some of the costs during the
highest-risk development stages and in some cases increase investor
condence, thereby leveraging highly needed risk capital.
Technology incubators can assist developers in covering operating
costs, provide advice on business development and raising capital,
help to create and mentor management teams, and provide energyrelated market research. An example is the UK Carbon Trust Incubator
Programme, which furnishes an important stepping stone to commercialization for new sustainable energy and low carbon technologies
(UNEP, 2005).
Public Research Centres can provide a means for open innovation, a
way for companies to acquire intellectual property by jointly contracting with one or more public R&D centres, while endorsing both the
costs and benets associated with the innovation. It is currently developed for silicon PV cells in Belgium and the Indian government wants
to explore a similar scheme (IMEC, 2009a,b; JNNSM, 2009).
885
Chapter 11
Policy
Denition
Investment monies provided to academics for undertaking creative work to increase stock of knowledge in a particular eld and use it to
devise new applications.
Grant
Funding for R&D and demonstration with no repayment requirements. Challenge grants are provided alongside industry commitments, often
targeting product innovations or early manufacturing facilities. Contingent grants are loans that do not require repayment unless and until
technologies and intellectual property have been successfully exploited.
Incubation support
Research facility funded by local, national or international government bodies or publicly funded organizations.
Public-private partnership
Arrangement typied by collaboration between the public and private sectors. Can cover delivery of policies, services, technologies and
infrastructure.
Prize
Awarded to winning competitors to help nance costs of private R&D; generally used in innovation stage.
Tax credit
Allows investments in RE R&D to be fully or partially deducted from tax obligations or income.
Voucher scheme
Provides companies access to R&D centres for the purpose of doing research.
PUBLIC FINANCE
Venture capital
Financing aimed at turning promising research into new products and services; invested independently or with matching private investors.
Soft/convertible loan
Financing instrument available at pre-commercial stage to promote and commercialize RE technologies; often loans are repayable only once
technology reaches commercialization.
886
promising research into new products and services (SEF Alliance, 2008).
More than one mechanism can be used at a timefor example, the
US state of Connecticut combines grant support for demonstration
projects with a soft loan that is repayable if the technology reaches
commercialization.
11.5.2.3
Lessons learned
Successful subsidies lead technology innovators towards commercialization and help attract early and later risk capital investment that
otherwise would not be available because investors see high risk and
protracted investment horizons. Further, experience has shown that it is
important that subsidies for R&D (and beyond) are designed to havean
exit strategy whereby the subsidies are progressively phased out as
the technology commercializes, leaving a functioning and sustainable
sector in place (ICCEPT, 2003). Subsidy policies can be designed to avoid
dependence (i.e., a tendency to keep technologies at the R&D and rst
demonstration stages rather than moving them on to deployment) and
instead to grow a new technology area while minimizing market distortions. Grant-support models that are linked to performance, for example,
can allow developers to build a track record, which is not possible if only
traditional up-front grants are used.
Successful outcomes from R&D programmes are not solely related to the
total amount of funding allocated, but are also related to the consistency
of funding from year to year. On-off operations in R&D are detrimental
to technical learning, and learning and cost reductions depend on continuity, commitment and organization of effort, and where and how funds
are directed, as much as they rely on the scale of effort (Grubler, 1998;
Sawin, 2001). Karnoe (1990) compared the early US and Danish wind
Chapter 11
Box 11.2 | Lessons from Japan: Coupling supply-push with demand-pull for PV.
Japan turned to RE in search of energy security and stable supply after the rst oil shock seriously weakened the nations economy (Sugiyama, 2008). Starting in 1974, MITI (Japans Ministry of International Trade and Industry) launched the Sunshine Project, which aimed
to achieve technological progress with new energy technologies, and signicant funds were directed to PV R&D. The principal long-term
target has been the development of highly efcient low-cost solar cells (Takahashi, 1989).
MITI worked to link its PV project to Japans industrial development. Although the primary goal was development of solar energy technologies, MITI expected that technological advances could provide benets that went well beyond the energy eld. It was hoped that the
national investment in PV R&D would lead not only to provision of electric power on a large scale and realization of a domestic supply of
energy, but also to new international markets for solar calculators and other appliances (Watanabe et al., 2000).
The investment paid off with the global increase in demand for electronic appliances and the expansion of a semiconductor market for
computer chips. By 1990, when MITI established an R&D consortium for PV development (Photovoltaic Power Generation Technology
Research Association), electronic machinery companies like Sanyo and Sharp were the major players. The result was a dramatic decrease
in solar cell prices between 1974 and 1994, from 26,120 yen/W (38,580 yen2005/W (USD2005 350)) to 650 yen/W (USD2005 5.4) (Watanabe et
al., 2000). Based on this achievement, in 1992 Japans electric utility companies voluntarily started to purchase surplus PV power, helping
to expand the market for grid-connected PV systems and to demonstrate PVs potential to meet domestic power needs.
20
80,000
60,000
15
[USD2005 /kW]
In 1993, the purpose of RE advancement expanded to encompass sustainable development objectives, including CO2 reductions, and
Japan made the transition to the New Sunshine Project. Parallel to its R&D efforts, Japan established targets for PV deployment and initiated a gradually-declining subsidy for residential rooftop PV systems, in exchange for operational data, with the goal of driving down PV
costs through economies of scale and commercial competition among manufacturers. To create market awareness, the government began
promoting PV through a variety of avenues, including television and newspapers (IEA, 2003a).
50,000
40,000
10
30,000
20,000
10,000
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
0
1994
Figure 11.4 | Japans rooftop PV: annual costs, subsidies and number of systems installed annually,
1994 through 2008 (Ito, 2003; Kobayashi, 2003; NEPC, 2009).
Note: 1. Levelized cost estimates based on the following assumptions: duration 20 years; capacity
factor 12%; and discount/interest 4%. Assumptions are based on thepractice of the Government of
Japan.
887
Chapter 11
electricity use in order to sell as much as possible to their utility (METI, 2009). In April 2010, a revised subsidy system started again,
further boosting the domestic PV market.
For most of the past three decades, Japan has enacted effective and consistent policies to promote PV and has retained them even
through major budget crises. Its experience suggests the importance of long-term targets and planning, the potential to link RE development to other applications and industries, as well as the positive feedback of declining costs, technology advances and increasing deployment that result from coupling supply push (R&D) with policies to create a market.
energy R&D programmes and found that, while the USA had invested a
great deal more in funding, they were less successful in turbine development due to their focus on scale and other factors rather than reliability
(Karnoe, 1990; Sawin, 2001). Garud and Karne (2003) argue that bricolage not breakthroughor progress via research aiming at incremental
improvements versus radical technological advancesis the more successful approach to R&D policy. Nemet (2009) also analyzed the value of
incremental versus non-incremental approaches (see Section 11.7.4 for
a longer discussion). Successful technology development occurring via
the incremental approach is supported by detailed studies of RE technology development in Europe (Jacobsson and Johnson, 2000) as well as
experiences in Japan and Thailand (see Boxes 11.2 and 11.7). However,
others argue that both approaches are required simultaneously (OReilly
and Tushman, 2004; Hockerts and Wstenhagen, 2010).
Additionally, several key considerations exist for improving the effectiveness of future RE R&D investments. Improved measurement and
documentation of R&D investment outcomes continues to be needed
and can inform future decisions. Promising approaches to optimize public R&D investments include those informed by option value, portfolio
analysis, and aggregation of expert opinion (NRC, 2007). Evaluation of
programs based on the results of the overall portfolio, rather than individual investments, may lead to different incentives than exist today. The
results of past investments have the potential to substantially improve
the management of and budget allocations for government RE R&D
programs. Still, several types of decisions remain crucial, for example:
how much diversication is optimal, given that there may be increasing returns to the scale of R&D investment; consideration of whether
public managers have incentives to take on more early stage technical risk than the private sector is willing to accept; when to patiently
continue support and when to terminate programs with low likelihoods
of success; and when to switch from emphasizing R&D to emphasizing
demand-side support (Nemet, 2010a).
11.5.2.4
The timing of R&D policies, and their balance with deployment policies,
is also important (Langni and Neij, 2004; Neij, 2008). One of the most
robust ndings, from both the theoretical literature and technology
888
case studies, is that R&D investments are most effective when complemented by other policy instrumentsparticularly, but not limited to,
policies that simultaneously enhance demand for new RE technologies.
Relatively early deployment policies in a technologys development
accelerate learning, whether learning through R&D or learning through
utilization (as a result of manufacture) (Neij, 2008), as seen in Japan
and Denmark, for example (see Boxes 11.2 and 11.12). Disentangling
the contributions of public R&D spending and economies of scale to
cost reduction is difcult, especially since the commercialization of the
technology stimulates private sector investment in R&D (Schaeffer et al.,
2004). Nonetheless, existing literature suggests that R&D and deployment policies used simultaneously can best induce innovation (Mowery
and Rosenberg, 1979; Johnstone et al., 2010). Successful innovations
show the ability to connect, or couple a technical opportunity with a
market opportunity (Freeman, 1974; Grubb, 2004), while studies of the
effectiveness of technology policy for RE support this general consensus that both are needed (Grubler et al., 1999b; Norberg-Bohm, 1999;
Requate, 2005; Horbach, 2007).
It is not simply that both factors contribute; they also interact because
a positive feedback exists between R&D and deployment (Watanabe
et al., 2000) (see Figure 11.5). This cycle of positive feedback, and its
resulting benets, can also cause a positive feedback to the policy
cycles (from agenda and target setting to policy implementation and
evaluation), increasing acceptance for (more) ambitious policies. This
dynamic mechanism in countries like China and Germany (see Boxes
11.11 and 11.6) has encouraged policymakers to introduce stricter
RE targets (Jacobsson and Lauber, 2006; Jnicke, 2010). Real-world
deployment experience can also reveal new challenges that require
investments in R&D to overcome them; it can facilitate the incorporation of market feedback about what customers actually want into
subsequent R&D decisions; and commercialization generally increases
the ability of rms to prot from their inventions, heightening the
incentives for private sector investment in R&D (Nordhaus, 2010).
An important result to consider in allocating between the two is that
R&D typically dominates investment in the early stages of the innovation process, while deployment mechanisms are more important in the
later stages (Dosi, 1988; Freeman and Perez, 1988). Moreover, not only
are both types of policies needed, many different parties are likely to
be needed in the commercialization of R&D programs (Mowery et al.,
2010).
Chapter 11
Technology
Cycle
Higher performance,
cost reductions,
enhanced applications
result in more and
higher quality RE
technologies and
deployment
Technology
Development
Market
Cycle
Industry
Development
Market
Development
Figure 11.5 | The mutually reinforcing cycles of technology development and market deployment drive down technology costs (Based on IEA, 2003b).
11.5.3
11.5.3.1
Fiscal incentives
Financial incentives of various formsbased on investment or production, and including tax credits, reductions and exemptions; accelerated
or variable depreciation of investment expenditure; and rebates and
grants (all set out in Table 11.2)can reduce the costs and risks of
889
Chapter 11
Table 11.2 | Denitions of existing RE-specic deployment policies and their use by sector.
Electricity (E), Heating (H) and Transport (T)
Policy
Denition
Grant
Monetary assistance that does not have to be repaid and that is bestowed by a government for specied
purposes to an eligible recipient. Usually conditional upon certain qualications as to the use, maintenance
of specied standards, or a proportional contribution by the grantee or other grantor(s). Grants (and rebates)
help reduce system investment costs associated with preparation, purchase or construction of RE equipment or
related infrastructure. In some cases grants are used to create concessional nancing instruments (e.g., allowing banks to offer low-interest loans for RE systems).
Direct payment from the government per unit of renewable energy produced.
Rebate
One-time direct payment from the government to a private party to cover a percentage or specied amount of
the investment cost of a RE system or service. Typically offered automatically to eligible projects after completion, not requiring detailed application procedures.
Provides the investor or owner of qualifying property with an annual income tax credit based on the amount
of money invested in that facility or the amount of energy that it generates during the relevant year. Allows
investments in RE to be fully or partially deducted from tax obligations or income.
Tax reduction/exemption
Reduction in taxincluding but not limited to sales, value-added, energy or carbon taxapplicable to the
purchase (or production) of renewable energy or RE technologies.
Allows for reduction in income tax burden in rst years of operation of RE equipment. Generally applies to
commercial entities.
Investment
Financing provided in return for an equity ownership interest in a RE company or project. Usually delivered as
a government-managed fund that directly invests equity in projects and companies, or as a funder of privately
managed funds (fund of funds).
Guarantee
Risk-sharing mechanism aimed at mobilizing domestic lending from commercial banks for RE companies and
projects that have high perceived credit (i.e., repayment) risk. Typically a guarantee is partial, that is, it covers a
portion of the outstanding loan principal with 50 to 80% being common.
Loan
Financing provided to a RE company or project in return for a debt (i.e., repayment) obligation. Provided by
government, development bank or investment authority usually on concessional terms(e.g., lower interest
rates or with lower security requirements).
Public procurement
Obligates designated parties (generators, suppliers, consumers) to meet minimum (often gradually increasing)
RE targets, generally expressed as percentages of total supplies or as an amount of RE capacity, with costs
borne by consumers. Building codes or obligations requiring installation of RE heat or power technologies,
often combined with efciency investments. RE heating purchase mandates. Mandates for blending biofuels
into total transportation fuel in percent or specic quantity.
Tendering/ Bidding
Public authorities organize tenders for given quota of RE supplies or supply capacities, and remunerate winning bids at prices mostly above standard market levels.
Guarantees RE supplies with priority access and dispatch, and sets a xed price varying by technology per unit
delivered during a specied number of years.
Guarantees RE supplies an additional payment on top of their energy market price or end-use value.
Green labelling
Government-sponsored labelling (there are also some private sector labels) that guarantees that energy
products meet certain sustainability criteria to facilitate voluntary green energy purchasing. Some governments
require labelling on consumer bills, with full disclosure of the energy mix (or share of RE).
Allows a two-way ow of electricity between the electricity distribution grid and customers with their own
generation. The meter ows backwards when power is fed into the grid, with power compensated at the retail
rate during the netting cycle regardless of whether instantaneous customer generation exceeds customer
demand.
DEPLOYMENT POLICIES
FISCAL INCENTIVES
PUBLIC FINANCE
REGULATIONS
Quantity-Driven
Price-Driven
Quality-Driven
Access
890
Chapter 11
Policy
Denition
Priority dispatch
Mandates that RE supplies are integrated into energy systems before supplies from other sources.
Notes: Assumes that transport is only liquid fuel-based and heat is only non-electric; electric-based transport or heat are covered under the electricity category.
Grants and rebates do not require a long-term policy and nancial commitment to each specic project, and they can play a signicant role in
increasing deployment of small, customer-sited projects particularly for
emerging renewable technologies (Wiser and Pickle, 1997). However,
they have often failed to provide the stable conditions required to promote market growth and thus may not be effective at driving broad
adoption of RE (Lantz and Doris, 2009). This is in part because they
can be vulnerable to uctuations in budgets to the detriment of stable
demand growth, as with the German Market Incentive Program (Nast et
al., 2007) and the UKs Low Carbon Building Programme (BERR, 2008).
Tax Policies
Tax credits, reductions or exemptions amount to tax-deductible sums
that involve foregone government revenue and that are calculated as
predened xed amounts or a percentage of total investment in an
installation or on the basis of energy delivered. In theory at least, tax
incentives are exible tools that can be gradually increased or decreased
as technologies and supply chains develop and as markets evolve. They
can be targeted to specic technologies and/or selected markets, or
applied more broadly (de Jager et al., 2010).
Tax policies can inuence supply and demand sides. For example, production tax credits encourage an increase in production, whereas tax
credits or exemptions for the use of RE electricity, heat or fuels affect the
demand side. Investment tax credits focus on initial investment costs,
whereas production tax credits address operating production costs.
Tax reductions and exemptions may also cover property, sales, energy,
carbon and value-added tax and act directly on the total payable tax,
thereby reducing its magnitude and thus the total cost associated with
development (Connor et al., 2009).
A study for the IEA Renewable Energy Technology Deployment implementing agreement determined that the effectiveness of scal
incentives such as tax reductions or exemptions (e.g., from energy, carbon or other taxes) depends on the applicable tax rate (de Jager and
Rathmann, 2008). In the Nordic countries, which apply relatively high
energy tax rates, such tax exemptions can be sufcient to stimulate the
use of renewable electricity; however, in countries with relatively low
energy tax rates, they must be combined with other measures (European
Commission, 2005). The current US federal investment and production
tax credits (which provide a credit against income tax for each kWh or
MJ of electricity produced) have created strong growth in the nations
wind and solar markets, but only when the credits have been in place
891
for multiple years, allowing enough time from project planning through
to completion (Sawin, 2004; Wiser et al., 2007).
Accelerated or variable depreciation that can be used as a means of
reducing taxable income in the early years of an investment and therefore improving the economics of that investment, has been successful in
encouraging small-scale wind development in Sweden and Denmark, in
particular. In Denmark, this policy contributed to a signicant increase
in farmer-owned wind turbines during the mid-1990s (Buen, 2005;
Barry and Chapman, 2009). Accelerated depreciation has also been
extensively used in the USA for most RE technologies and in India for
wind energy. Policies such as the Netherlands Willekeurige Afschrijving
Milieu-Investeringen (VAMIL) programme, Canadas Accelerated Capital
Cost Allowance and the UKs Enhanced Capital Allowance Scheme are
examples of programmes that have been successful in the RE heating
sector (Worrell and Graus, 2005; IEA, 2007b).
Assessment of scal incentives
The impacts of production and investment support instruments like
investment grants, rebates and tax policies are difcult to measure
as they are generally used as supplementary policy tools (European
Commission, 2005; Klein et al., 2008a). In the EU, for example, only
Finland and Malta used tax incentives and investment grants as their
main support schemes as of 2008 (Klein et al., 2008a). Fiscal incentives
have also been used as the primary means of support at the national
level in the USA, although most US states have additional RE incentives
or mandates in place (DSIRE, 2011).
Despite the difculties in measuring their impact, some studies have
found that nancial incentives tend to be most effective when combined with other policy mechanisms (IEA, 2008a). Japans solar roofs
program of the 1990s and early 2000s combined rebates that declined
over time with net metering, low interest loans and public education.
This expanded capacity, which helped to drive down system costs, made
Japan the worlds leading manufacturer of solar PV, at least temporarily
(Watanabe et al., 2000) (see Box 11.2).
In general, those countries that have relied heavily on tax-based incentives have often struggled with unstable or insufcient markets for wind
power or biogas, for example (Lewis and Wiser, 2005). In the USA, this
is due in part to the frequent expiration of the available tax credits, as
seen in Box 11.5. It could also result from the fact that only a small
number of players have enough tax liability to take direct advantage
of the tax credits, meaning the value of the credit varies according to
legal standing, income level or tax rate (Metcalf, 2008). This challenge
can be addressed by making tax policies more inclusive or nding other
policies that encourage broader participation (Mendona et al., 2009).
Generally, tax credits work best in countries where there are numerous
protable, tax-paying private sector rms that are in a position to take
advantage of them.
Experience with wind energy policies suggests that cash payments
may be preferable to tax credits because the benets of payments and
892
Chapter 11
rebates are equal for people of all income levels and thus promote
broader investment and use. Also, because they are generally provided
at or near the time of purchase or production, they result in more even
growth over time (rather than the tendency to invest in most capacity
toward the end of a tax period) (Sawin, 2001). According to a 2009
UN Environment Programme report, the global economic slow-down of
2008-2009 made clear that markets driven by tax credits are generally
not effective in a downturn (UNEP and NEF, 2009). Responding to the
inability of investors to take advantage of federal tax credits during the
economic crisis, the US government temporarily offered cash grants in
their stead (Wiser and Bolinger, 2010) (see Box 11.5).
Incentives that subsidize production are generally preferable to investment subsidies because they promote the desired outcomeenergy
generation (Sawin, 2001); they encourage market deployment while
also promoting increases in efciency (Neuhoff, 2004). However, policies
must be tailored to particular technologies and stages of maturation,
and investment subsidies can be helpful when a technology is still relatively expensive or when the technology is applied on a small scale
(e.g., small rooftop solar systems), particularly if they are paired with
technology standards and certication to ensure a minimum quality of
systems and installation (Sawin, 2001). Many have argued, for example,
that wind power never would have taken off in California in the 1980s
without investment credits because the risks and investment costs were
high. Alternatively, production incentives can be paired with other policies that help to reduce the cost of nancing (Sawin, 2001).
11.5.3.2
Public nance
The provision of public nance can also be of great importance for supporting RE uptake. RE projects generally operate with the same nancing
structures that apply to conventional fossil-fuelled energy projects. The
main forms of capital involved include equity investment from the owners of the project, loans from banks, insurance to cover some of the risks,
and possibly other forms of nancing, depending on the specic project
needs.
For many RE projects the availability of commercial nancing is still limited, particularly in developing countries, where the elevated risks and
weaker institutional capacities frequently inhibit private sector engagement. Often the gaps can be lled only with nancial products created
through the help of public nance mechanisms, which help commercial
nanciers act within a national policy framework, lling gaps and sharing risks where the private sector is initially unwilling or unable to act on
its own (UNEP, 2008).
Public nance mechanisms have a twofold objective: to directly mobilize or leverage commercial investment into RE projects, and to indirectly
create scaled up and commercially sustainable markets for these technologies. It is important to design policies such that their direct short-term
benets do not create market distortions that indirectly hinder the
growth of sustainable, long-term markets (UNEP and BNEF, 2010).
Chapter 11
Investments
Public nance mechanisms can take the form of government funds set
up to invest equity in private transactions, termed private equity. A public institutions role in the operation of private equity funds can be either
as the fund manager, directly investing in projects or companies, or as a
fund of funds, whereby they pool their monies alongside other investors
in a private sector managed fund. Either way, the funds can be structured to provide a range of nancial products, from venture capital for
new technology developments, to early stage equity for project development activities, to late stage equity for projects that are already fully
permitted and ready for construction (UNEP, 2008).
Guarantees
Guarantees can mobilize domestic lending by sharing credit risk,
thereby reducing what local banks might perceive as a high credit risk
(i.e., repayment risk) associated with some RE projects. Guarantees help
banks to gain experience managing portfolios of RE loans, putting them
in a better position to evaluate true project risks and thus addressing
perceptions of elevated risk associated with RE projects (UNEP, 2008),
as discussed in Section 11.4.3.
Loans
Loans (debt nancing) account for the bulk of the nancing needed
for RE projects (London School of Economics, 2009). The challenges for
mobilizing this debt relate to access and risk. As mentioned in Section
11.4.3, the nancial sectors in many countries are not developed
sufciently to provide long-term debt required for RE and related infrastructure projects. Public nance mechanisms can be used to provide
nancing directly to projects or as credit lines that deliver nancing
through locally based commercial nancial institutions.
Credit lines are generally preferable because they help build local capacity for RE nancing (UNEP, 2008). For example, credit lines from the
World Bank, Kreditanstalt fr Wiederaufbau (KfW, Reconstruction Credit
Institute) and the Asian Development Bank (ADB) helped the Indian
Renewable Energy Development Agency (IREDA) become an important
lender to Indias RE sector, and key to its success. Incorporated in 1987,
IREDA invests mainly as a senior lender and provides debt nancing that
covers up to 80% of project investment costs for terms up to 10 years.
About one-third of its capital is now raised domestically, through bank
borrowing and the issuance of tax-free bonds. IREDA is now working
with state governments in India to replicate its capability through state
energy conservation funds (UNEP, 2008).
Public loans are usually offered at concessional rates, or softened,
and are relatively easy to administer (IEA, 2007b). Soft loans have
long been a feature of German efforts in support of RE technologies;
Norway and Spain also have loan programs relating to RE heat, and
Japan and Sweden have employed soft loans for RE in the past (IEA,
2007b). Alternatively, approaches such as subordinated loans, which
take a higher risk position in the nancial structure (i.e., they get paid
out only after the senior lenders are paid), can leverage higher levels of
commercial nancing (London School of Economics, 2009).
Public funds can also be used to buy down the interest rate, while a
commercial nance institution provides the bulk of the nancing. This
reduces the interest rate seen by borrowers, effectively reducing the
cost of nancing. This approach has been applied successfully in India
for domestic solar thermal and solar PV systems, in Tunisia for solar
thermal and in Germany for a range of RE technologies (UNEP, 2008).
Other innovative lending mechanisms are arising at various levels
of government, including the municipal level. For example, Property
Assessed Clean Energy (PACE), which rst emerged in the USA, has the
potential to provide access to affordable nancing while also helping
to overcome the market failure of split incentives (see Section 1.4.2 and
Box 11.3) With such mechanisms even small investors, such as home
owners, are able to repay loans over the lifetime of their systems, with
repayment essentially matched by energy savings (Fuller et al., 2009a).
Public procurement
Public procurement of RE technologies and energy supplies is a frequently cited but not often utilized mechanism to stimulate the market
for RE. Governments can support RE development by making commitments to purchase RE for their own facilities or encouraging clean
energy options for consumers. The potential of this mechanism is signicant: in many nations, state and national energy purchases are the
largest components of public expenditures, and also in many nations
the state is the largest consumer of energy (IEA, 2009c).
Assessment of public nance
Public nance is most commonly employed today in developing countries where the commercial nancial sector is usually less mature and
therefore unable to provide RE companies and projects with the many
types of nancing they require (UNEP, 2008). In the developing world,
development agencies and nancing institutions partner with governments and the private sector to develop frameworks conducive for
RE investments; they demonstrate innovative technologies, provide
soft loans for sector investment plans and pave the road for market
introduction. And they promote technology deployment by means of
international carbon nance, in part by stimulating the use of the Kyoto
Protocols Clean Development Mechanism (CDM). Their work builds
institutional capacities and is important for reducing nancial and
investment risk.
Development agencies and nancing institutions include multilateral
development banks, such as the World Bank and international development banks, and bilateral development banks that are supervised
by individual developed countries. These two groups have been major
drivers of RE deployment in some developing countries (SEI, 2009).
International development nance institutions frequently work closely
with national development banks in developing countries. Government
development agencies and international environment programmes
have also played an important role in disseminating best practices,
supporting strategy and policy development, setting up training programmes for decision makers and strengthening institutions like
Designated National Authorities under the CDM (UNEP, 2008).
893
Chapter 11
11.5.3.3
Regulations
As set out in Table 11.2, regulatory policies include quantity- and pricedriven policies including quotas and feed-in tariffs, quality aspects and
incentives, and access instruments such as net metering. Below are short
descriptions of each policy type. Details are provided here only for quality incentives, which are not discussed in Sections 11.5.4 through 11.5.6.
894
Chapter 11
11.5.4.1
Loans and other public nance policies have been used to advance
deployment of RE electricity technologies, for PV in Spain, for example (see Box 11.8), and innovative nancing in many municipalities, as
described in Section 11.5.3. Concessionary loans, guarantees and even
equity investments have been used frequently in other contexts as well,
including in developing countries. Government procurement is also an
option that is of increasing signicance in some countries, including
the USA. For example, the US Energy Policy Act of 2005 requires federal agencies to obtain 7.5% of their electricity needs from renewable
sources by 2013 and thereafter (US DOE, 2008b). In addition, many US
state and local governments have made voluntary commitments to purchase renewable electricity for government facilities (USEPA, 2010a).
Access policies
RE projects need to connect to networks in order to sell their electricity, heat, or fuels for heating, cooking and transportation. The ease and
cost of doing this is also central to the ability of project developers to
raise nance. Once connected, the generation has to be sold or taken
by the network. Connection and then sale of generation are two different requirements and it is important to overcome barriers to both.
Access to marketsboth physical connection and sale of energy or fuels
producedis provided via different policy mechanisms in each of the
end-use sectors (i.e., access rules for electricity (Section 11.5.4), third
party access (TPA) for heating (Section 11.5.5), blending mandates for
biofuels (Section 11.5.6)).
11.5.4
To date, far more policies have been enacted to promote RE for electricity generation than for heating and cooling or for transport, and this is
reected in the vast literature available regarding RE electricity policies.
It is important to note, however, that much of the literature describing
and comparing these instruments, including their costs, is European, and
grey, stimulated largely by the need of EU countries to full their RE
Directive requirements by 2020 (e.g., Haas et al., 2011).
After a short discussion of scal incentives and public nance, this section describes quantity-driven regulatory instruments, including quota
obligations and tendering/bidding regulations, as well as price-driven
regulatory policies. It then assesses these regulatory options relative to
the criteria set out at the beginning of Section 11.5, particularly effectiveness and efciency. The section concludes with a brief discussion of
access policies.
Fiscal incentives
The range of scal incentives set out in Table 11.2 has been used to
promote RE in the electricity sector. Assessment of policy options and
impacts is found in Section 11.5.3.1.
11.5.4.2
11.5.4.3
Public nance
Regulations
Quantity-based policy
Quota obligations. Quota obligations are also known as Renewable
Portfolio Standards (RPS) (among others) in the USA, Renewable
Electricity Standards (RES) in India, Renewables Obligations (RO) in the
UK, and Renewable Energy Targets in Australia (Lewis and Wiser, 2005).
By early 2010, quotas were in place in 56 states, provinces or countries,
including more than half of the US states (REN21, 2009b).
Under quota systems, governments typically mandate a minimum
amount or share of capacity, generation or sales to come from renewable sources. Quotas tend to be placed on a purchasing authority, with
any additional costs of RE generally borne by electricity consumers.
There are signicant variations of design from one scheme to the next
(e.g., Verbruggen, 2009; Bergek and Jacobsson, 2010), even among various state-level policies in the USA (Wiser et al., 2007) and India (MNRE,
2010).
Quotas can be linked to certicate trading, for example tradable green
certicates (TGCs) in Europe, or renewable energy credits/certicates
(RECs) in the USA (Sawin, 2004; C. Mitchell et al., 2006; Ford et al., 2007;
Fouquet and Johansson, 2008). Generally, certicates are awarded to
producers for the renewable electricity they generate, and add exibility
by enabling actors with quota obligations to trade, sell or buy credits
to meet their obligationsprovided there is sufcient liquidity in the
marketplace (Sawin, 2004). Electricity suppliers, or other agents in the
power sector, prove they have met their obligations by showing the
895
896
Chapter 11
Chapter 11
Box 11.4 | Lessons from Sweden: Success with tradable renewable electricity certicates and bioenergy.
The Swedish quota obligation scheme with tradable renewable electricity certicates (TRECs) went into force in May 2003. Its aim was
to increase RE electricity generation 10 TWh (36 PJ) above 2002 levels by 2010. The scheme has subsequently been revised and extended
several times, with the growth target raised in 2009 to 25 TWh (90 PJ) above 2002 levels by 2020. Electricity production eligible for TRECs
includes all RE except hydropower greater than 1.5 MW and, since 2004, peat used in CHP production. Plants that were commissioned
before introduction of the policy are entitled to certicates through 2012, while others can receive TRECs for 15 years, or until the end of
2035, whichever is earlier.
RE electricity is sold at the market electricity price. However, in addition to income from the sale of electricity, RE producers receive
income from the sale of TRECs, which are traded separately. Electricity suppliers are obliged to purchase TRECs corresponding to a certain
proportion (legislated quota) of the electricity they sell. Only electricity used in manufacturing processes in electricity-intensive industries
is excluded from the required quota. Suppliers annually submit the required amount of TRECs to the Swedish Energy Agency, one of the
two authorities responsible for the scheme. The other authority, Svenska Kraftnt, is the state-owned company that administers and runs
the national electrical grid. In case of non-compliance, a supplier must pay a penalty fee of 150% of the average annual price of TRECs.
The TREC scheme more than doubled eligible RE electricity production over a seven-year period, from 6.5 TWh (24.3 PJ) in 2002 to 14.7
TWh (52.9 PJ) in 2009or 15.6 TWh (56.2 PJ) in 2009 including peat (Swedish Energy Agency, 2010a). Biomass-based electricity production in CHP plants has experienced steady growth under the scheme, accounting for 63% of the TRECs in 2009. About half of the biomass
CHP electricity is produced in district heating systems (see Box 11.9) and the other half in the pulp and paper industry.
Investments in wind power were initially restricted by the short time frame of the scheme, but conditions improved in 2006 after the
scheme was extended and a 15-year support period was established. Wind power investments took off after that but have been slowed
down by permitting and planning procedures. The permitting procedure for wind power was simplied in 2009, when two parallel processes were replaced by one. At the same time, however, local governments were given the legal right to veto wind power investments in
their municipality, something that has become an important obstacle to wind power investments. In 2009, wind power producers received
16% of the TRECs (Swedish Energy Agency, 2010a).
The annual average price of TRECs has varied between USD2005 22 and 41/MWh (approximately USD2005 6.1-11.4/GJ). In 2009, the scheme
generated USD2005 573 million in income for RE electricity producers, while it increased the average cost of electricity to consumers by
USD2005 6.6/MWh (approximately USD2005 1.83/GJ) (Swedish Energy Agency, 2010a).
Since 2006, the TREC scheme has fullled RE electricity targets by providing stable investment conditions. However, the scheme has been
criticized for overcompensating biomass CHP, a fairly mature technology, and not driving technology development, requiring additional
support for nascent technologies (Bergek and Jacobsson, 2010). So far the price of TRECs has been too low to generate investments in
more expensive RE technologies; for example, solar electricity has received a negligible amount of TRECs.
Swedens experiences with the TREC scheme show that this instrument, if appropriately designed (i.e., long time frame), can provide
stable investment conditions and full RE electricity targets. The scheme stimulates investments in the least expensive RE technology, and
thus does not drive technology development unless specically designed to do so. The experience with wind power shows that additional
policies addressing non-economic barriers, such as the adoption of clearer permitting procedures, are also important for the diffusion of
RE technologies.
897
Chapter 11
Box 11.5 | Lessons from the USA: Mix of stable and consistent policies for wind power development.
In the USA, installed wind energy capacity grew from 2.6 GW in 2000 to more than 40 GW in 2010 (Wiser and Bolinger, 2010; AWEA,
2011). Federal tax incentives, state RPS, other RE incentives and the improving economics of wind drove this development, most of which
occurred towards the end of the decade (Menz and Vachon, 2006; Wiser et al., 2007; Adelaja et al., 2010).
10,000
45,000
40,000
35,000
30,000
6,000
25,000
From 1999 to 2004, failure to consistently renew the federal production tax credit (PTC), which provides approximately two cents per
kilowatt-hour for the production from wind facilities for the rst 10 years of operation, created a boom and bust cycle for wind development (Bird et al., 2005). Figure 11.6 shows the impact of allowing the PTC to expire at the end of 1999, 2001, and 2003, as installations
peaked before the expiration and fell in subsequent years.
20,000
4,000
15,000
10,000
2,000
5,000
0
0
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Figure 11.6 | US wind power annual installations and cumulative capacity, 1999 to 2010 (Wiser and Bolinger, 2010; AWEA, 2011).
However, between 2005 and 2009, the rate of annual installations climbed steadily, as federal tax credits were re-authorized before expiring, more states adopted RPS laws and many states strengthened pre-existing RPS targets. As of June 2010, 29 states had adopted an
RPS and another 7 had established nonbinding renewable energy goals. Many states require electricity providers to obtain 20% or more
of the power needed to serve their loads from RE sources by 2020. Collectively, these state RPS policies call for more than 65 GW of new
RE by 2020 (Wiser and Barbose, 2008).
Some states have seen rapid RE growth through these policies, and Texas achieved its 2015 RPS target of 5 GW of installed renewable
capacity six years early (ERCOT, 2010). However, the socio-political context and siting barriers have impeded development in other states
(Fischlein et al., 2010), demonstrating the need to address barriers, such as siting and transmission, in addition to establishing targets and
nancial incentives.
Collectively, the combination of policies establishing binding, long-term state RE mandates and federal and state nancial incentives,
and efforts to address siting and nancing barriers, have created greater market certainty and reduced regulatory risk, which in turn have
contributed to investments in manufacturing capacity. Companies have also sought local manufacturing to reduce transportation costs
and currency risks (Wiser and Bolinger, 2009, 2010). Between 2004 and 2009, US domestic manufacturing of wind turbines and their
components increased 12-fold and, as of 2009, 16 turbine manufacturers had opened or announced plans for factories in the USA, up
from only 1 turbine manufacturer in 2004 (AWEA, 2010).
898
Chapter 11
Starting in 2008, the federal government provided RE support as part of its effort to help fuel economic recovery. In response to the inability of investors to utilize tax incentives during the recession, the government provided project developers with the short-term option
to receive cash grants in lieu of the federal tax credits and extended the tax credits for wind through 2012. This policy, which provided an
important response to nancial barriers to wind development, contributed to a record number of new wind power installations in 2009
(Wiser and Bolinger, 2010). However, installations slowed considerably in 2010 (AWEA, 2011). The slowdown resulted from a drop in
wholesale power market prices driven by lower natural gas prices, and by reduced demand for RE because of a slowing in electricity consumption and the large amount of wind that came online the previous year, putting some states temporarily ahead of their RPS targets
(Wiser and Bolinger, 2010).
Overall, the US wind industry experience over the last decade indicates the importance of a mix of stable, consistent and responsive
long-term policies that address economic and other barriers to create investor and developer condence and lead to a robust market and
steady growth in manufacturing for renewable energy. State RPS requirements have provided greater market certainty and have inuenced the location of development, while federal tax incentives have helped improve the cost-effectiveness of wind and other renewable
technologies.
Price-driven policies
Price-driven policies set a price for RE electricity and let the market
determine the quantity supplied (except for those systems with capacity
caps, such as Spain with PV). They have been called feed-in tariffs (FITs),
premium payments, standard offer contracts, minimum price payments,
renewable energy payments, and advanced renewable tariffs (Couture
and Gagnon, 2009; Couture et al., 2010). Price-driven instruments generally guarantee connection and access to the network, but not always.
They have different impacts on investor certainty and payment, ratepayer
payments, the speed of deployment, and transparency and complexity of
the system, depending on details of their design (Couture, 2009).
The most important distinction is between FITs that set a xed price
that is independent of electricity market prices (e.g., used in Germany
(see Box 11.6) and Greece), and those with premium payments (e.g.,
Denmark, the Netherlands and Thailand (see Box 11.7)), which provide
xed premiums on top of market prices for electricity. The four main
approaches used to set FIT payments are levelized costs of RE generation, value of RE generation, simple xed-price incentives based on
neither generation costs nor notion of value, and auction-based mechanisms (Couture et al., 2010).
The xed-price FIT typically also ensures connection to the network
at a pre-agreed price and guarantees the purchase of all generation,
sometimes with limited exceptions. These three factors (a set price independent of the electricity price, network connection, and guaranteed
purchase) lead to an almost risk-free contract from the point of view of
generators (Couture et al., 2010). European FIT policies generally extend
eligibility to anyone who is able to invest (Couture et al., 2010). Rules
concerning the costs of connection differ amongst different FIT schemes
(for example, in Denmark, Germany and Spain these costs are capped)
as does whether the generation has guaranteed purchase.
Premium payment systems have gained some ground in recent years. In
some countries they are the primary form of support, whereas in others
(e.g., Spain and the Czech Republic) they operate in parallel with xedprice FITs. Premiums can be linked to electricity price developments (e.g.,
limited by a oor price or cap), or set adders; the former provides higher
certainty and less risk of overcompensation. These systems provide a
secure additional return for producers but, compared to xed-price FITs,
they provide less certainty for investors because producers are exposed
to electricity price risk. This, in turn, implies higher risk premiums and a
higher cost of capital. The advantage of premiums is that they encourage
producers to adjust generation in response to market price signals (de
Jager et al., 2010).
FITs can be very simple and available for one technology only, such as
wind power, or they can be quite complex. For example, xed payments
can vary by technology according to state of development and/or generating costs. FITs are suited to incremental adjustments and payments
can be increased or decreased as necessary to meet policy goals or to
account for technology advances or changes in the marketplace. The
costs of FITs can be covered by energy taxes, supplementary means such
as auction of carbon allowances or, more frequently, by an additional
per-kilowatt hour charge spread across electricity consumers, sometimes with exemptions, for example major electricity users in Germany
(BMU, 2010).
To limit FIT-related expenditures and/or provide support where the benet is greatest, tariffs can be stepped so that payment levels are linked
to available resource, location or time of day generated (Mendona,
2007; Couture and Gagnon, 2009; BMU, 2010; Couture et al., 2010).
Most price-driven policies include a regularly scheduled tariff degression
(i.e., reduction in the tariff as applied to new eligible RE plants).
It is important to set the right price to avoid overpayment and overstimulation of the market, as well as high costs that might result from
supporting signicant installation of more expensive RE technologies. To
this end, some countries (e.g., Spain) have established caps on annual
payments or set limits on capacity that can qualify for payment. The
899
Chapter 11
Box 11.6 | Lessons from Germany: From a single policy to a comprehensive approach.
Germany has devoted signicant resources to RE technology development and market deployment since the 1970s, driven by the oil crises and the anti-nuclear movement (Jacobsson and Lauber, 2006). As a result of public R&D efforts, by the mid-1980s many technologies
were ready for deployment even though they were not yet cost-competitive (IEA, 2004a). But in the 1980s and beyond, RE faced a largely
hostile political-economic structure in Germany. Declining oil prices and surplus electric capacity in the late 1980s made it difcult for RE
to compete in the market, while the electricity supply system was dominated by large utilities that opposed all small and decentralized
forms of generation as uneconomic and foreign to the system (Jacobsson and Lauber, 2006).
In 1989, the government established a subsidy (0.031/kWh, USD2005 0.053/kWh or approximately 8.6/GJ, USD2005 14.7/GJ) for the rst
100 MW of wind power installed in Germany. Beneciaries were obliged to report on performance so that a common knowledge base
was established. In 1990, Germanys rst FIT law was enacted, requiring utilities to connect RE power plants to the grid, purchase the
generated power and buy the electricity at a specied percentage of the retail rate: for wind and solar energy, this amounted to 90% of
the average tariff for nal customers (Lauber and Mez, 2004).
The FIT was revised and broadened into the Renewable Energy Sources Act (Erneuerbare Energien Gesetz EEG) in 2000, adding geothermal and large biomass power plants and introducing cost-based tariffs that are guaranteed to all RE generators for at least 20 years
(Lipp, 2007). The remuneration decreases for new plants at a predetermined annual rate (Langni et al., 2009). It obligates grid operators
and electricity suppliers to purchase RE electricity (Langni et al., 2009).
The EEG sets a target for 30% of Germanys power to come from RE by 2020 (Bsgen and Drrschmidt, 2009). It has been amended
twice, reecting progress in technology development and stringent requirements for RE integration (Bsgen and Drrschmidt, 2009).
As installations increase, particularly for more expensive PV, the extra burden to consumers of nancing the EEG has been discussed more
widely. The total additional cost from PV support alone, granted through the EEG during 2000 through 2008, was an estimated 2007 35
billion (USD2005 41.6 billion) (Frondel et al., 2010); in 2007, the additional annual cost amounted to 4.3 billion (USD2005 5.12 billion) (Bsgen and Drrschmidt, 2009). Benets include avoided CO2 emissions, saved fossil fuels, employment (Lehr et al., 2008) and merit-order
effects (Sensfu et al., 2008).
Several other policies have been used to promote deployment of RE electricity, to support further R&D and to level the playing eld (Laird
and Stefes, 2009). Federal banks offered low-interest loans with favourable payment conditions, easing access to capital. Changes to
German building codes granted RE the same legal status as other power generation technologies, and municipalities were required to
allocate potential sites to wind power facilities in their land development plans (IEA, 2004b).
As a result, Germany has seen rapid growth of electricity generation from RE. Germanys share of electricity from RE rose from 3.1% in
1991 to 7.8% in 2002, and more than doubled again by the end of 2009 to 16.9% (Wstenhagen and Bilharz, 2006; BMU, 2009). Wind
energy has experienced the greatest increase, but bioenergy and solar PV have grown substantially under this policy as well. (Note that
wind-generated electricity declined towards the end of this period due to below average annual winds, but installed capacity continued to
increase (BWE, 2011).) (See Figure 11.7.) .
Since 2000, the focus of Germanys RE promotion policies has broadened to include heat and transport fuel markets. A comprehensive
market acceleration programme introduced to award investment grants and soft loans for RE heat systems was supplemented in 2009
with a mandate requiring a minimum share of RE heating/cooling in new buildings. Initially promoted through tax exemptions (Bomb et
al., 2007), RE transport fuels are now mandated through a blending quota for fuel suppliers.
The governments overarching frame for RE development has been creation of ambitious targets for the use of RE in individual sectors
and for the economy as a whole. The share of RE in total primary energy supply increased steadily from 1.3% in 1990 to 8.9% in 20091
(BMU, 2010; BWE, 2011).
Note: 1. Note that the BMU reports data based on statistics that rely on the physical content method for primary energy conversion, whereas this report uses the direct
equivalent method.
900
Chapter 11
[GWh]
The German example shows how rapidly RE can advance when supported by ambitious policies that convey clear and consistent signals
and that adapt to technical and market changes. RE deployment policies can start with simple incentives, evolving towards stable and
predictable policies and frameworks to address the long-term nature of developing and integrating RE into existing energy systems.
However, integration of RE remains a constant challenge as indicated by recent limitations of the German electricity network to absorb
rising shares of RE, and the cost implications of Germanys program have also begun to attract concern.
100,000
Geothermal Electricity
Organic Waste
80,000
Landll Gas
Biogas
Liquid Biomass
60,000
Solid Biomass
Photovoltaic
Wind Energy
Hydropower
40,000
20,000
0
1990
1991
1992
1993 1994
1995
1996 1997
1998
Figure 11.7 | Germanys electricity generation from RE, 1990 to 2009 (BMU, 2010).
downside of caps is that they reduce investment stability and cause frequent stop-and-go in the market. Thus, some countries (e.g., Germany
for PV) have established growth corridors with continuous automatic
adjustments of tariffs (BMU, 2010). Market growth above the corridor
results in a stepped-up tariff degression; if growth is lower than desired,
the rate of tariff degression is decreased. The higher the frequency of
adjustments (e.g., quarterly instead of annually) and the higher the
degression rate in case of overshoot, the greater the control of support
cost but the lower the stability for investors. Although this option preserves investment stability to a higher degree than a cap does, it may be
less effective in limiting the increase in support expenditures (de Jager
et al., 2010).
Although they have not succeeded in every country that has enacted
them, price-driven policies have resulted in rapid renewable electric
capacity growth and strong domestic industries in several countries
most notably Germany (See Box 11.6) and Spain (See Box 11.8) but
more recently in China and other countries as welland have spread
rapidly across Europe and around the world (REN21, 2006, 2009b;
Mendona, 2007; Rickerson et al., 2007; Girardet and Mendonca, 2009).
(See Boxes 11.7, 11.11 and 11.12.)
The success of FIT policies depends on the details. The most effective
and efcient policies have included most or all of the following elements
(Sawin, 2004; Mendona, 2007; Klein et al., 2008a; Couture, 2009):
901
Chapter 11
902
Chapter 11
FITs effectively reduce risk, venture capital and private equity investors
perceive FITs to be the most effective policy to stimulate investment in
RE technologies (Brer and Wstenhagen, 2009).
With regard to technological diversity, quantity-based systems have
been found to benet the most mature, least-cost technologies (Espey,
2001; Sawin, 2004; Jacobsson et al., 2009), although quantity-based
mechanisms can address this if they distinguish among RE options or
are paired with other incentives (de Jager et al., 2010). In Sweden (as
seen in Box 11.4), the UK and Flanders, TGC systems have advanced
mainly biomass generation and some wind power, but have done little
to advance other RE (Jacobsson et al., 2009). In the USA, between 1998
and 2007, 93% of non-hydropower additions under state RPS laws came
from wind power, 4% from biomass, with only 2% from solar and 1%
from geothermal (Wiser and Barbose, 2008). As a result, a large number
of states have created set-asides of various forms to encourage diversity
(DSIRE, 2011. FITs have encouraged both technological (Huber et al.,
2004) and geographic diversity (Sawin, 2004), and have been found to
be more suitable for promoting projects of varying sizes (Mitchell and
Connor, 2004; van Alphen et al., 2008).
Efciency
As noted early in Section 11.5, static efciency can be measured as
cost-effectiveness or a comparison of total support received relative to
generation costs, and dynamic efciency accounts for future technology
development that is triggered by a policy.
A number of studies have concluded that FITs have consistently delivered new supply, from a variety of technologies, more effectively and at
lower cost than alternative mechanisms, including quotas, although they
have not succeeded in every country that has enacted them (Ragwitz et
al., 2005; Stern, 2007; de Jager and Rathmann, 2008).
Recent studies (Resch et al., 2009; de Jager et al., 2010) of quota
systems in Europe found that Italy, the UK, Poland and Belgium had
experienced high producer prots resulting from high investment risks
and low growth rates. Other studies have reached similar conclusions (D.
Fouquet et al., 2005; New Energy Finance Limited, 2007; Jacobsson et
al., 2009; Verbruggen and Lauber, 2009). Such prots primarily benet
incumbent actors and relatively mature, low-cost technologies, and can
be costly for consumers (Jacobsson et al., 2009). The exception among
European countries using a quota obligation is Sweden, which has experienced a high rate of RE growth coupled with relatively low producer
prots. This was because quota systems tend to favour least-cost RE and
Sweden has an abundance of biomass (see Box 11.4).
The higher risk under quota systems includes price risk (uctuating
power and certicate prices), volume risk (no purchase guarantee), and
balancing risk; all three risks increase the cost of capital (C. Mitchell et
al., 2006). While quota and tendering systems theoretically make optimum use of market forces, government tendering systems in particular
have often had a stop-and-go nature that has not been conducive to
903
Chapter 11
7,000
3,000
2,500
6,000
5,000
2,000
4,000
1,500
3,000
1,000
2,000
500
1,000
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Figure 11.8 | Spanish PV annual installations and cumulative capacity, actual (2004 to 2009) and projected (2010 to 2014) (IDAE, 2010).
904
2014
At the same time, uncertainty about the design of the new framework scheduled for adoption in late 2008, the reduction in market size
due to the cap on ground-mounted systems, and lack of experience with the new administrative procedures led to a signicant reduction
in new capacity installations (MITyC, 2008) (see Figure 11.8).
Chapter 11
Spains story highlights the importance of learning from experience and of building forward-looking exibility into policy to avoid the
need for frequent regulatory changes. Overall, lessons from Spains experience include: a combination of support schemes can be important for advancing RE technologies, particularly when the market is immature; ambitious long-term targets are critical as are stable,
predictable policies; and transitional incentives that decrease over time internalizing technology development and therefore keeping
constant a reasonable internal rate of return for each new project, can foster technological innovation and control total costs.
competition from electricity price to equipment price, which some analysts have argued is more appropriate competition for capital-intensive
RE technologies (Wagner, 1999; Hvelplund, 2001).
Verbruggen and Lauber (2009) demonstrate that well-designed FITs provide dynamic incentives to reduce long-run marginal costs of a variety
of RE technologies because investment money is assigned to investors
accordingly; more efcient producers obtain greater rents by lowering
costs, and the FIT payment rates are regularly adjusted to avoid excessive rents.
Equity
Concerns about distributional impacts of RE policies on poorer consumers (see Section 11.5.7.2) arise most frequently in countries where FITs
have led to signicant increases in RE capacity, particularly for relatively high-cost technologies such as PVs, because of resulting increases
in total electricity costs. This becomes a greater problem as the total
costs of the RE policy increase (Frondel et al., 2010). There are ways to
address such impacts, as seen in Thailand where small electricity consumers receive subsidized electricity and are unaffected by the national
Premium Payment FIT (see Box 11.7).
Concerns have been raised about electric rate impacts of quota systems
as well, especially among sensitive industrial customers in US states with
RPS requirements, despite the fact that RPS requirements are typically
predicted to have a modest impact on average retail electricity rates. As
a result, several state RPS programs have specically exempted certain
industrial loads from the RPS, or have established low caps on the extra
costs that may be imposed on these customers (van der Linden et al.,
2005). Such exemptions in the USA and Sweden, for example, might also
be cause for equity concerns, but have generally been required to gain
acceptance of quota regulations (van der Linden et al., 2005).
Another equity-related concern is related to participation. In the USA,
for example, publicly owned utilities are sometimes exempt from RPS
requirements, leading to equity concerns among other providers (van
der Linden et al., 2005). At the same time, detailed analysis of which
companies gain from quota systems suggest that it is primarily incumbent actors that continue to benet from the new market (Girardet and
Mendonca, 2009; Jacobsson et al., 2009; Verbruggen and Lauber, 2009).
The transaction and administrative costs of a TGC system are higher
than with FIT, making participation of small-scale new entrants cumbersome, and therefore limited (C. Mitchell et al., 2006).
905
In contrast, FITs tend to favour ease of entry, local ownership and control of RE systems (Sawin, 2004; Lipp, 2007; Farrell, 2009), and thus can
result in wider public support for RE (Damborg and Krohn, 1998; Sawin,
2001, 2004; Hvelplund, 2006; Mendona et al., 2009). Such ease of entry
has also proved a powerful means for unleashing capital towards the
deployment of RE projects (Couture et al., 2010). Mendona et al. (2009)
found that steady, sustainable growth of RE would require policies that
ensure diverse ownership structures and broad support for RE, and they
propose that local acceptance will become increasingly important as RE
technologies continue to grow in both size and number (Mendona et al.,
2009). This is supported by studies in New Zealand and elsewhere (Barry
and Chapman, 2009).
Institutional feasibility
FITs generally have lower administrative costs than quota policies (Haas
et al., 2011) and are considered easier to implement (van der Linden et
al., 2005), though tariff setting can be challenging, particularly if there
are very dynamic cost developments (as with PV in recent years). Quotas,
particularly those operating with tradable certicates, appear to be more
complex because of the need to set both penalty prices and quantities. Transaction costs are also generally higher for such quota systems.
Complexities also arise from the need for trading platforms under quotas
with tradable certicates, and tendering schemes require administrative
capacity to deal with the bidding process (Sawin, 2004; de Jager et al.,
2010).
With regard to market compatibility, the policies are quite different.
Under a FIT with xed payment or tariff, a single buyer sells all generated electricity into the power market; with all other systems (including
premium payments under FITs), generators must sell into the power markets. Because electricity market prices do not inuence the remuneration
of generators in xed-payment FIT systems, there is generally no incentive to produce power according to market demand and/or to react to
price signals (de Jager et al., 2010).
In summary, a number of historical studies, including those carried out for
the European Commission, have concluded that well-designed and well
implemented FITs are the most efcient (dened as comparison of total
support received and generation cost) and effective (ability to deliver
increase in the share of RE electricity consumed) support policies for promoting RE electricity (Ragwitz et al, 2005; de Jager et al, 2010; Sawin,
2004; European Commission, 2005; Stern, 2007; Mendona, 2007; Ernst
& Young, 2008; Klein et al., 2008b; Couture and Gagnon, 2009; Held et al,
2010; Ragwitz et al, 2011). It is important to note that there are FITs that
have been very effective and efcient and FITs that have not; quotas that
have been effective and efcient, and some that have not (Sawin, 2004).
Policy design and implementation play an important role in determining
how well these policy options measure up against the various criteria,
and governments are continuing to adjust details and to learn how these
policy options might meet changing needs.
906
Chapter 11
Access instruments
Net Metering. Net metering, or net billing, enables small producers to
sell into the grid, at the retail rate, any renewable electricity that they
generate in excess of their total demand in real time as long as that
excess generation is compensated for by excess customer load at other
times during the designated netting period. It is essentially a means for
customers to use their own generation to offset consumption (through
inter-temporal shifting) over a netting period by allowing their electric
meter to spin backwards at times when generation exceeds demand.
In general, customers have either two unidirectional meters spinning
in opposite directions, or one bi-directional meter that can spin in both
directions so that net metering customers pay only for their net electricity draw from the grid over the entire netting period (Klein et al., 2008a).
Any net export over a specied period (typically a month or a year) is
typically compensated at below the retail rate, if at all (DSIRE, 2011).
Net metering is most commonly used as a policy in the USA, where it has
been enacted in most states (DSIRE, 2011), but the mechanism is also
used in some countries in Europe and elsewhere around the world (Klein
et al., 2008b; REN21, 2010).
Net metering is considered an easily administered tool for motivating
customers to invest in small-scale, distributed power and to feed it into
the grid, while also beneting providers by improving load factor if RE
electricity is produced during peak demand periods (US DOE, 2008a).
It has been introduced in some countries (e.g., Italy) with the aim to
decrease the grid load and to limit support expenditures (Ragwitz et
al., 2010). According to Rose et al. (2008), the best results are achieved
when net metering laws do not limit system size or overall capacity,
allow credit for excess electricity (meaning that if generation is greater
than use in any particular month, the excess generation is credited to
the next month), allow customers to keep their RE credits, permit all
renewable technologies and customer classes to participate, and protect
customers from unnecessary red tape (Rose et al., 2008). In addition, it
is important that net metering policies evolve as markets expand and
change (IREC, 2010).
However, Klein et al. (2010) found that, at least in the USA, the remuneration is generally insufcient to stimulate substantial growth of less
competitive technologies like PV, since generation costs are signicantly
higher than retail prices (Klein et al., 2010). Instead, distributed PV has
been encouraged in the USA by a combination of federal tax policy,
state rebates and performance incentives, state RPS programs and net
metering (Sherwood, 2010). Based on impacts seen on small wind systems in the USA, Forsyth et al. (2002) concluded that net metering alone
provides only minimal incentives for consumers to invest in RE systems,
particularly where people must deal with cumbersome zoning and interconnection issues. However, when combined with public education and/
or other nancial incentives, net metering might encourage greater participation (Forsyth et al., 2002).
Chapter 11
11.5.5
In 2008, traditional biomass, modern biomass, solar thermal and geothermal together met 27% of the total global demand for heat (the
majority from traditional biomass) (IEA, 2010d), while RE cooling technologies provided a much smaller share of global cooling demand. For
modern RE to meet a growing share of total demand, political support
will be needed to overcome barriers (e.g., the initial capital barrier to
system purchase) to RE heating and cooling (RE H/C).
Support for RE H/C presents policymakers with a unique challenge due
to the often distributed nature of heating and cooling technologies.
Heating and cooling services can be provided via small- to mediumscale installations that service a single dwelling, or can be used in
large-scale applications to provide district heating4 (DH)/cooling (IEA
RETD, 2010). Policy instruments for both RE heating (RE-H) and cooling
(RE-C) need to specically address the more heterogeneous characteristics of resources, including their wide range in scale, varying ability
to deliver different levels of temperature, widely distributed demand,
relationship to heat load, variability of use and the absence of a central
delivery or trading mechanism (IEA, 2007b; Seyboth et al., 2008; Connor
et al., 2009).
4
Similar to RE electricity and RE transport, RE H/C policies will be better suited to particular circumstances/locations if, in their design, the
state of maturity of the particular technology, of the existing markets
and of the existing supply chains are taken into consideration (Haas
et al., 2004). RE-H/C technologies vary in maturity (see Table 1.2), and
the maturity of the markets and infrastructure for a given technology may vary by region (e.g., some solar water heating systems are
closer to being competitive in China or Israel than in Europe (Xiao et
al., 2004)) and in terms of supply chains (manufacturing, integration,
infrastructure, maintenance). Though in some regions the infrastructure
to support development and installation of RE H/C technologies may
not yet exist at all, in others it is well developed. Examples of welldeveloped RE-H infrastructure include solar water heating in China and
geothermal energy in Iceland, where geothermal energy for space heating on a commercial scale began in 1930, and in 2005 supplied 89% of
space heat (Lund and Freeston, 2001; IEA, 2007b).
The number of policies to support RE sources of heating and cooling has
increased in recent years, resulting in increasing generation of RE H/C
(IEA, 2007b). However, a majority of support mechanisms have been
focused on RE-H. Policies in place to promote RE-H include scal incentives such as rebates and grants, tax reductions and tax credits (Section
11.5.5.1); public nance policies like loans (Section 11.5.5.2); regulations such as use obligations (Section 11.5.5.3); and educational efforts
(Section 11.6). To date, scal incentives have been the prevalent policy
in use (DEFRA/BERR, 2007; Brger et al., 2008; Seyboth et al., 2008;
Connor et al., 2009), though there is increasing interest in regulatory
mechanisms.
This section describes the aforementioned policies strictly as they relate
to RE H/C. A more general description of the mechanisms themselves
can be found in Section 11.5.3. The section concludes with a brief discussion of issues relevant only to RE-C.
11.5.5.1
Fiscal incentives
907
11.5.5.2
Regulations
Though most support policies for RE H/C technologies to date have been
scal incentives, regulatory policies like use obligations and quotas have
908
Public nance
11.5.5.3
Chapter 11
Chapter 11
Box 11.9 | Further lessons from Sweden: Biomass district heat and value of infrastructure
Swedens experience with DH illustrates how scal incentives for RE-H and the existence of an enabling infrastructure can support a shift
to RE sources for heating. Between 1980 and 2007, the biomass share in DH production increased from zero to 44% (90 PJ) (IEA, 2009b).
Swedens shift to a large share of biomass-based heat was facilitated by the existence of two infrastructure systems (IEA, 2007b). First is
Swedens rich biomass resource (about 52% of the total land area is productive forest) and its forestry industry, which has a long history
and a well-established infrastructure (IEA, 2007b). Second is the countrys DH system, which as of 2008 accounted for 56% of heating in
the residential and service sectors (Swedish Energy Agency, 2009a).
The main expansion of the system occurred during the period 1965 to 1985, when municipal administrations and companies built, owned
and operated Swedens DH system. The shift was driven in the 1980s by high oil prices and taxes on oil products; opportunities for combined heat and power (CHP) production, fuel exibility, economic efciency, and better pollution control compared to individual boilers
also motivated development of DH infrastructure. Expansion was also facilitated by strong local planning powers and high acceptance for
solutions driven by the public sector (Ericsson and Svenningsson, 2009).
Production of DH [PJ/yr]
In 1991, the Swedish government implemented a carbon tax at USD2005 41 per tonne of CO2 (this tax gradually increased and reached
USD2005 130 per tonne in 2007). Biomass was exempt from the tax, making it the least expensive fuel for DH systems. As a result, the use
of biomass expanded rapidly as seen in Figure 11.9, from 14 PJ in 1990 to 60 PJ in 1996 (Ericsson and Svenningsson, 2009). Swedens
carbon tax also accelerated the phase-out of oil for heating of individual buildings, to the benet of DH, ground-source heat pumps and
wood pellets (Ericsson and Svenningsson, 2009).
250
Oil
200
150
Heat Pumps
(Heat Produced)
Industrial Waste Heat
MSW
Peat
100
Biomass
50
Figure 11.9 | Swedens district heat production, by fuels and energy sources, 1960 to 2009.
Note: Curves are not corrected for outdoor temperature variations (Swedish District Heating Association, 2001; Ericsson and Svenningsson, 2009; Swedish Energy Agency,
2009b, 2010b).
In addition to the tax exemptions for biomass, investment subsidies were made available for biomass-based CHP from 1991 to 2002, further helping to fuel growth. In 2003, largely driven by the desire to replace nuclear power, the government introduced an electricity quota
obligation combined with a green certicates scheme. This led to a further signicant increase in heat (and electricity) generation from
biomass-based CHP. In response to these policies, district heat from CHP increased from 22 PJ in 1990 to 71 PJ in 2007 (SCB, 2009), and
electricity from CHP increased from about 2 TWh (7.2 PJ) in 1990 to 7.5 TWh (27 PJ) in 2007; of this, 41% was from biomass (IEA, 2009b;
Bergek and Jacobsson, 2010) (see Box 11.4).
909
Bonus mechanisms
The bonus mechanism legislates a xed payment for each unit of heat
generated, with potential for setting different levels of payment according to technology (Brger et al., 2008). Payments can be given as a
result of either metered output or some form of estimation of output.
They can be capped for a xed period or for a xed output, and they can
be designed to vary with technology and/or building size to complement energy conservation efforts. Degression can be applied annually
to reduce impacts on government budgets.
Bonus mechanisms are similar to price-driven instruments for electricity such as FITs (see Section 11.5.4.3), and differ primarily in two ways:
potential scope (many more RE heat than electricity generators might
be expected to result), and the likelihood that heat will be used where
it is generated. These factors have the potential to make a bonus programme relatively complex and costly, due to the scale of metering
and administration required. Consolidation offers a potential solution;
for example, a third party organization could aggregate and distribute
the benets of the bonus payments to a large number of its members,
reducing the burden of utility or government administration. Further,
bonus funds could be paid on a limited number of occasions, perhaps
two to three over the lifetime of an installed technology (Brger et al.,
2008), thereby minimizing administrative costs.
There has been little experience with bonus mechanisms to date.
However, because of the limited impact on the public budget if payments are made by utilities suppliers (rather than government), it has
received increased interest. For example, the UK adopted legislation
for a RE-H bonus mechanism with a projected April 2011 adoption,
selected largely on the grounds that it would have lower impact on
the public budget than other policy options (BERR/NERA, 2008; DECC,
2009).
Quota obligations
Quota obligations, also known as RPS, have largely been deployed in
support of RE electricity (see Section 11.5.4.3). In some such cases (e.g.,
in Australias Mandatory RE Target (Buckman and Diesendorf, 2010),
in Japans Law on Special Measure for the Utilization of New Energy
(IEA, 2007b) and in some US states (DSIRE, 2011), the eligibility of RE
technologies has included RE-H technologies such as solar hot water
heaters.
Although they have been discussed in Germany and the UK, for example, there is very little experience with quota obligations specically
targeting RE-H (IEA, 2007b). Quota obligations for electricity often
include a system of tradable certicates, awarded to producers for the
renewable energy they generate. Because of the distributed nature of
heat generation and use (except in the case of DH/C systems), such
certicate systems for RE-H introduce additional challenges, though
in theory RE-H users, their designated agents, or companies in the RE
heat supply chain would be eligible to receive tradable certicates if
they produced evidence of RE heat use. Market participants could sell
910
Chapter 11
11.5.5.4
RE-C can include passive cooling measures, solar-assisted, CSP or shallow geothermal technologies driving active cooling systems (e.g., via
absorption cooling), biomass adsorption or absorption cooling (though
still at early stages of development), or active compression cooling and
refrigeration powered by RE electricity (DG TREN, 2007; IEA, 2007b).
Though there are some examples of policies supporting RE-C technologies, in general policy aiming to drive deployment of RE-C solely
is considerably less well-developed than that for RE-H. Many of the
mechanisms described in the sections above could also be applied to
RE-C, generally with similar advantages and disadvantages. Most policy
support for RE-C to date has been integrated into programs supporting
other RE technologies, including RE-H (IEA, 2007b). Such examples have
almost exclusively been scal incentives. Spain offered grants directly
Chapter 11
for solar cooling installations as part of its Renewable Energy Plan for
2005-2010 (IDAE, 2006). Similarly, in Germany, the Solarthermie 2000
Plus program provides grants for solar air-conditioning installations as
well as for solar thermal and solar-assisted DH installations (IEA, 2007b).
The lack of experience with deployment policies for RE-C is likely linked
to the early levels of technological development of many RE-C technologies. R&D support as well as policy support to develop the early market
and supply chains may be of particular importance for increasing the
deployment of RE-C technologies in the near future.
11.5.6
11.5.6.1
Fiscal incentives
Tax policies
Tax incentives are commonly used to support biofuels and act to change
the cost-competitiveness of biofuels relative to fossil fuels. They can be
instituted along the whole biofuel value chain, but are most commonly
provided to either biofuel producers (e.g., excise tax exemptions/credits)
and/or to end consumers (e.g., tax reductions for biofuels at the pump).
For example, in the USA, Volumetric Excise Tax Credits for the blending
of fuel ethanol and biodiesel have been provided to biofuel producers
under the American Jobs Creation Act (US Congress, 2004) since 2004. In
911
Chapter 11
Box 11.10 | Lessons from Brazil: Gradual expansion of policies to deliver a competitive RE fuel
source.
Brazil was hit hard by the rst world oil crisis in the mid-1970s. In 1975, taking advantage of its position as a leading sugar producer, the
government established the Brazilian Alcohol Program (PROALCOOL) to promote sugarcane ethanol as a gasoline alternative through
production targets and producer subsidies (Goldemberg, 2009).
As part of this policy, Brazils government mandated that ethanol be blended with gasoline in proportions from 20-25%. Production was
supported by subsidies, low-interest loans and guaranteed purchase by the state-owned petroleum company (Petrobras), with parallel
research to develop engines that could run on pure ethanol (Dias de Moraes and Rodrigues, 2006).
Responding to government pressure due to concerns about uctuating ethanol supply and prices that began in the mid-1980s, auto manufacturers introduced ex-fuel motors in 2003 (Goldemberg, 2009). Other early challenges included the need for a network for production
and use, which was initially addressed through government activities and eventually turned over to the private sector (Goldemberg, 2006;
Walter, 2006). (See Section 8.2.4.6 for more on integration.)
To address social and environmental sustainability concerns that have arisen with an increase in ethanol production, several measures
have been enacted at the federal and state levels. These include ecological (AgroEcological Zoning for sugarcane or seed oil plants; see
Section 2.2.3) and economic zoning laws that dictate where sugarcane and ethanol production can occur and regulations governing
water usage (Goldemberg et al., 2008).
Bagasse (brous residue from sugarcane) is used for heat and power generation in the sugarcane rening process to ethanol and sugar,
lowering associated carbon emissions, and improving the economics of production (Cerri et al., 2007). The mills meet their own energy
needs and sell excess electricity to the grid, which provides another source of income (Section 2.2.3). Early production was stimulated
through incentives; today, mill owners sell directly into the grid through contracts or auctions, although lack of access to grid connections
is still a barrier for some (Azevedo and Galiana, 2009).
Although ethanol production was initiated as a highly subsidized program, improvements in sugarcane and ethanol production technologies and economies of scale drove down production costs (Section 2.7.2). Ethanol subsidies were removed in the 1990s, and by 2004
ethanol in Brazil was economically competitive with gasoline without subsidies (Goldemberg et al., 2004). The only related incentives by
2010 were reduced taxes for ex-fuel cars. Studies have found that the economic costs of Brazils ethanol policies over the years were
more than outweighed by avoided expenditures associated with imported oil (Moreira and Goldemberg, 1999; Goldemberg et al., 2004).
By 2010, Brazil was the worlds second largest producer of ethanol, after the USA (Section 2.4.4; REN21, 2010; UNICA, 2010).
Brazils experience suggests the importance of blending mandates for biofuels in combination with other policies to address economic
and other barriers.
absolute mandate (de Gorter and Just, 2010). Partial solutions could
be tax structures that self-adjust depending on market developments
in the price of oil and in biofuel production. So-called price collars
establish lower and upper limits on the price of an RE fuel to address
the impacts of market price volatility of competing petroleum fuels
and give some assurance to both suppliers and consumers.
11.5.6.2
These supports are generally paid for directly out of government budgets (FAO/GBEP, 2007).
As in the electricity sector, public procurement is an option for driving
market growth. The government of Thailand, for example, requires all of
its eets to be fuelled with gasohol (gasoline blended with up to 20%
ethanol) (Milbrandt and Overend, 2008).
Public nance
11.5.6.3
912
Regulations
Chapter 11
11.5.7
Synthesis
11.5.7.1
Assessment of RE policies
913
Chapter 11
Public support for RE R&D; deployment policies that support private investment, including scal incentives, public
nance, and regulatory mechanisms (e.g., FITs, quotas, use standards)
Resource assessments; energy standards; green labelling; public procurement; information campaigns; education, training and capacity building
Enabling environment for innovation; economic regulation to enable access to networks and markets and investment
in infrastructure; revised technical regulations; international support for technology transfer (e.g., under UNFCCC);
micronance; technical training
Information campaigns; community projects; public procurement; governmental (national and local) policy cooperation;
improved processes for land use planning
Some policy elements have been shown to be more effective and efcient than others for rapidly increasing RE deployment and enabling
government/society to achieve specic targets. Institutional feasibility
and equity are also important, but these criteria have not been analyzed
as fully. Synthesizing the previous sections, key elements of policies that
make them most likely to meet these criteria include:
Adequate value derived from subsidies, FITs etc. to cover costs such
that investors are able to recover their investment at a rate of return
that matches their risk;
Guaranteed access to networks and markets or at a minimum clearly
dened exceptions to that guaranteed access; and
Long-term contracts to reduce risk and thereby reduce nancing
costs.
Note: the three preceding bullets are all important for reducing key risks
and encouraging greater levels of private investment. Reducing risk
helps to improve access to and lower the cost of nancing (because
protability expected is lower (Haas et al., 2011)), which can reduce
project costs as well as end costs of delivered energy paid by consumers.
Provisions that account for diversity of technologies and applications. RE technologies are at varying levels of maturity and with
different characteristics, often facing very different barriers. Multiple
RE sources and technologies may be needed to mitigate climate
change, and some that are currently less mature and/or more costly
than others could play a signicant role in the future in meeting
energy needs and reducing GHG emissions.
Incentives that decline predictably over time as technologies and/or
markets advance, such as the declining grant for wind in Denmark
(see Box 11.12), or degressive tariffs in Germany (see Box 11.6).
914
Chapter 11
Box 11.11 | Lessons from China: Mixed policy approach to energy access and large-scale RE.
China has relied increasingly on RE to help meet its rising energy demand, improve its energy structure, reduce environmental pollution,
stimulate economic growth and create jobs (Zhang et al., 2009). China installed more wind power capacity during 2009 than any other
country and, by the end of the year, ranked rst globally for total RE electricity generation capacity and third for non-hydro RE capacity
(REN21, 2010). China is, by far, the leading global market for solar hot water systems and, in 2009, was the third largest producer of ethanol (REN21, 2010). In addition, a strong domestic manufacturing industry for wind power, PV and solar thermal collectors has emerged,
triggered in part by policies that have encouraged industry development along with technology deployment (Han et al., 2010; Liu et al.,
2010; Q. Wang, 2010).
The Chinese government has devoted signicant attention to RE development in recent decades, both for rural energy access and largescale grid-connected projects. China began developing wind power in the early 1970s for the primary purpose of supplying power to
remote areas (Changliang and Zhanfeng, 2009). Grid-connected wind power started in the 1980s with small-scale demonstration projects
and evolved to a main source of power supply by 2003, when the Wind Farm Concession Program was established through which bidding
procedures were used to develop larger wind power plants (Q. Wang, 2010). Solar water heaters have been applied since the 1970s (Han
et al., 2010), and biogas digesters have been promoted since the 1980s (Peidong et al., 2009).
Under the Township Electrication Programme, more than 1,000 townships in nine western provinces were electried in just 20 months,
bringing power to almost one million rural Chinese (NREL, 2004). Important to the success of Chinas rural electrication efforts have
been education of local and national decision makers, training and capacity building, technical and implementation standards and community access to revolving credit (Wallace et al., 1998; NREL, 2004; Ku et al., 2005).
For grid-connected RE, Chinas national Renewable Energy Law took effect in 2006, creating a national framework to support RE and to
institutionalize several support policies, including mandatory grid connection standards, RE planning, and promotion funding (Zhang et al.,
2009). The law has been followed by a large number of specic regulations and measures to support the development of wind, solar and
biomass sources. For example, the Medium and Long-term Renewable Energy Development Plan, released in 2007, set a national target
for RE to meet 10% of total energy consumption by 2010 and 15% by 2020 (the latter 15% target was later revised to refer to all nonfossil energy sources) (Q. Wang, 2010), while also establishing RE technology-specic targets. The 30 GW wind power target for 2020, as
specied by The 11th Five Year Plan for Renewable Energy in 2008, was achieved a decade ahead of schedule (B. Wang, 2010).
Under the Renewable Energy Law and its implementing regulations, a wide variety of promotional policies have been employed to support the continued growth of renewable electricity (e.g., Yu et al., 2009; Liao et al., 2010; Wang et al., 2010; Zhao et al., 2011). Feed-in tariffs have been established for wind and biomass power plants, while bidding procedures have been used for offshore wind power plants,
for wind turbine purchases to serve Chinas seven planned large-scale wind bases, and increasingly for solar power plants. Grid-connected
(and off-grid) PV systems have also beneted from grants. Funding for many of these programs has come from a national electricity
surcharge and resulting RE fund, while the Kyoto Protocols Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) has also played a role in improving
project protability (Lewis, 2010).
In addition to these policies and the national RE targets, the countrys largest generating companies have been called upon to expand
their renewable power capacity to 3% of their total capacity by 2010, and at least 8% by 2020. China provides a clear example of a country that has relied upon a diversity of mechanisms to achieve policy goals.
China continues to address challenges as they arise by developing and revising RE policies and measures, including enhancing technical
skills; establishing institutions to support R&D development and a national RE research institute; extending electricity transmission to
ensure that new RE capacity can be effectively brought online; creating a domestic market to stimulate demand and avoid over-reliance
on overseas markets; and establishing a national RE industry association to coordinate development and formally bridge the industry and
policymaking processes (Martinot and Junfeng, 2007; REN21, 2009a). By addressing the wide variety of RE technologies and applications
in a coherent long-term manner and with a sizable mix of policies, China has been able to establish RE as a signicant bulk energy carrier.
This creates good prospects for further growth in deployment and manufacturing of RE technologies.
915
Chapter 11
areas and that ndings could differ for other regions and varying conditions. Most such studies focus on analysing the net effects of RE policy on
one economic sector. For example, Lehr et al. (2008) focused on Germany
and net employment, and also found positive economic impacts.
11.5.7.2
Payment for supply-push, or R&D, type support tends to come from public
budgets (multinational, national, local) and therefore taxpayers, whereas
the cost of demand-pull, or deployment, policies often lands on the end
users of energy. For example, if a scal incentive is added to electricity, the additional cost of this incentive is borne by consumers, although
exemptions or re-allocations can reduce costs for industrial or vulnerable
customers where necessary, or for equity or other reasons (Jacobsson et
al., 2009).
If the goal is to transform the energy sector over the next several decades,
then it is important to minimize costs over this entire period, not only in
the near term; it is also important to include all costs and benets to society in that calculation. Moreover, as mentioned above, the timing, strength
and level of coordination of R&D versus deployment policies will affect this
calculation.
Conducting an integrated analysis of costs and benets associated with
RE is extremely demanding because so many elements are involved in
determining net impacts. Concepts that try, at least partly, to balance
costs and benets (as the concept of external costs tries to do in terms
of environmental aspects) face substantial limitations and are confronted
with signicant uncertainties (see Section 10.6). Breitschopf et al. (2010,
in German only with translation from the German Environmental Ministry
(BMU (2010)) conclude that effects fall under three categories, including
direct and indirect costs of the system as well as benets of RE expansion; distributional effects (which economic actors or groups enjoy benets
of, or suffer burdens from, RE support); and macroeconomic aspects such
as impacts on the gross domestic product or employment. For example,
potential economic growth and job creation are key drivers for RE policies
(see Section 11.3.4), but measuring net effects is complex and uncertain
because the additional costs of RE support create distribution and budget
effects on the economy.
Because of this complexity, there are few studies that examine the economic impacts in this way on a countrys or regions economy. Ragwitz et al.
(2009) analyzed these effects for the EU, accounting for positive and negative impacts for two possible scenarios: business-as-usual, leading to a 14%
RE share in nal energy consumption by 2020; and an accelerated deployment policies scenario, achieving the EU 20% target by 2020. They found
that RE support policies have a slight positive impact on gross domestic
product (GDP) and employment, and that benets are greater for the higher
RE share. Houser et al. (2010) analyzed the potential impacts of Proposed
American Power Act on the USA from the perspective of energy security,
environmental impact and employment effects, all of which were net positive while the macroeconomic perspective of GDP was broadly neutral.
It is important to note that these studies focus on specic geographical
916
11.5.7.3
Chapter 11
11.6
917
Chapter 11
Institutions
11.6.2
Integrating
policies
(national/
supranational
policies)
Integrating RE policies
with other policies
at the design level
reduces potential for
conict among government policies
11.6.3
Reducing nancial
and investment
risk
Development of
nancing institutions
and agencies can aid
cooperation between
countries, provide soft
loans or international
carbon nance (CDM).
11.6.4
Planning and
permitting at the
local level
Long-term commitment
can reduce the perception of risk
11.6.5
Providing
infrastructures,
networks and
markets for RE
technology
11.6.6
Technology
transfer and
capacity building
Reliability of RE
technologies can
be ensured through
certication
Institutional agreements enable technology transfer
Community investment
can share and reduce
investment risk
Civil society
(individuals,
households,
nongovernment
organizations,
Municipalities or cities
can play a decisive role
in integrating state
policies at the local
level
Participation of civil
society in local planning
and permitting processes
might allow for selection
of the most socially
relevant RE projects
unions etc.)
Appropriate international institutions can
enable an equitable
distribution of funds
RE project developers
can offer know-how and
professional networks in :
i) aligning project development with planning and
permitting requirements ;
and ii) adapting planning
and permitting processes
to local needs and conditions
Infrastructures
Financing institutions
and agencies can
partner with national
governments, provide
soft loans or international carbon nance
(CDM).
11.6.7-8
Learning from actors
beyond government
Multi-national companies
can involve local NGOs or
SMEs as partners in new
technology development
(new business models)
Development of corporations and international
institutions reduces risk of
investment
918
Chapter 11
Dimensions of
an Enabling
Environment
>>
Factors and actors
contributing to the
success of RE policy
V
V
11.6.2
Integrating
policies
(national/
supranational
policies)
11.6.3
Reducing nancial
and investment
risk
11.6.4
Planning and
permitting at the
local level
11.6.5
Providing
infrastructures,
networks and
markets for RE
technology
11.6.6
Technology
transfer and
capacity building
Politics
(international
agreements /
cooperation, climate
change strategy,
technology transfer
Supra-national
guidelines (e.g., EU on
streamlining, ocean
planning, impact study)
may contribute to
integrating RE policy
with other policies
Long-term political
commitment to RE
policy reduces investors
risk in RE projects
Supra-national guidelines
may contribute to evolving
planning and permitting
processes
etc.)
infrastructures (e.g., networks) and political outcomes (e.g., international agreements/cooperation, climate change strategy) and
different actors or participants (e.g., the nance community, business
community, civil society, government), each of which inuences the
success of RE-specic policies while interacting in different congurations. For example, these factors can inuence how change may occur
within a country; how risky investment in RE may be; how economic
regulation encourages (or not) RE deployment; and how communities
react to RE. These various congurations present different challenges
to RE deployment, depending on the countries and their states of
development, and local needs and conditions. This section highlights
the potential contribution of these individual factors and participants
to a governance of RE that can strengthen, and goes beyond, government action.
11.6.1
11.6.7-8
Learning from actors
beyond government
If RE is to play a major role in climate change mitigation, then an overarching and parallel step is to implement policies that enable change
to occur in the energy system. A number of studies have reconstructed
the historical emergence and formation of socio-technical systems
that are taken for granted today (e.g., transition from horses to the
internal combustion engine (Geels, 2005); transition from cesspool to
sewer systems in urban hygiene (Geels, 2004)). A widely accepted conclusion is that established socio-technical systems tend to narrow the
diversity of innovations because the prevailing technologies develop a
tting institutional environment (David, 1985). This environment supports these technologies by making it easier and cheaper to develop
and deploy them, or to develop technologies that do not require a
Development cooperation
helps sustain infrastructure development and
allows easier access to
low-carbon technologies
CDM, Intellectual
property rights and
patent agreements
can contribute to
technology transfer
919
Chapter 11
11.6.3
11.6.2
920
Chapter 11
11.6.4
11.6.4.1
Spatial planning (land/sea space, landscape) processes are social processes (Ellis et al., 2009). It is often in the process of preparing, designing,
planning, deciding and implementing a specic project, whether RE or
otherwise, that differences in perspectives, expectations and interests
become manifest. The system of spatial planning provides for a frameworka set of legal, formal rules and proceduresto address and
mediate conicting interests and values (Owens and Drifll, 2008; Ellis
et al., 2009). An appropriate planning framework can reduce hurdles
at the project level, making it easier for RE developers, communities or
households to access the RE resource and succeed with their projects.
It can also provide protection against developments that may not be
benecial to the local community or local environment.
11.6.4.2
11.6.4.3
921
Chapter 11
Box 11.12 | Lessons from Denmark: The value of a comprehensive approach and individual and
community ownership.
Since the 1970s, wind power has developed into a mainstream technology in the Danish energy system, generating 20% of Denmarks
electricity by 2009. In 2009, the Danish wind industry was the countrys largest manufacturing industry, employing some 24,000 people
(Danish Wind Industry Association, 2010) and accounting for 20% of the global market (BTM Consult ApS, 2010).
The rst oil crisis brought concern about energy security, and energy efciency and RE became top political priorities. In the 1980s and
beyond, energy security, creation of domestic jobs and export markets were the major drivers for transformation of the Danish energy
sector (Danish Ministry of Energy, 1981).
A combination of policy mechanisms, guided by national energy plans with long-term targets, has facilitated RE development. A publicly
funded R&D programme began in 1976 with the goal of designing and testing megawatt-scale turbines. A small turbine test station was
established at Ris National Laboratory; interaction between the test station and small enterprises in the industry helped feed experience
back into the eld to improve basic knowledge about turbine design (Sawin, 2001; Madsen, 2009).
In 1979, the government introduced its rst and most important policy to stimulate the market, based on a 30% investment grant to
purchasers of system-approved wind turbines. This 10-year programme saw regular reductions in the grant level as technology improvements and economies of scale reduced costs. The investment grants to end users (private investors) created a small but strong industry by
the early 1980s (Madsen, 2009). In 1985, the government enacted a per-kilowatt hour subsidy for all wind power fed into the grid, funded
in part through a tax on CO2. A voluntary feed-in tariff (equivalent to 85% of the retail rate) paid by utilities to wind producers was xed
by law in 1992 (Sawin, 2001; Madsen, 2009).
Private investors, often organized in small cooperatives, owned more than 80% of total installed capacity through the 1990s. This was
largely due to a number of government policies, from special tax breaks to ownership limitations, to encourage local individual and cooperative ownership (Madsen, 2009). During the pioneering period, incentives for individuals and cooperatives encouraged municipalities to
set aside specic areas for turbines. In 1992, the Danish Planning Agency launched guidelines that accelerated the permitting process and
established capacity targets for all Danish counties, thereby eliminating uncertainty about siting while giving communities control over
where projects were located (Danish Ministry of the Environment, 1993; Sawin, 2001).
Also important were Ministry of Energy contract policies, which required utilities to participate in wind power development. Under the
rst such contract, initiated in 1985, utilities were required to construct 100 MW of wind capacity over ve years. The utility mandate was
extended twice, and the rst requirement for offshore capacity was issued in 1990 (Sawin, 2001).
Nearly three decades of consistent policy were interrupted in the early 2000s when leadership changed, the per-kilowatt hour subsidy
was signicantly reduced, and deregulation of the electricity sector created uncertainty (see Figure 11.10). Little new capacity was added
until 2008 because most projects were not economically feasible, and changes in planning structure delayed siting and installation of
larger turbines (Madsen, 2009).
The government has since changed its position, announcing a political target of a 100% fossil-free energy system by 2050. As of 2009,
Denmark aimed to get nearly 20% of total energy from RE sources by 2012 and 30% by 2020, with wind power playing a major role
(European Union, 2009). As a result, development has picked up again.
Consistent support for public R&D in Denmark played a critical role in the advancement of wind power technology, education of technical
experts and development of a manufacturing base. Market stimulation in the form of direct grants and later xed feed-in tariffs, which reduced risk to investors, was essential for increasing deployment, reducing costs and creating broad-based support and a strong domestic
industry, but signicant policy changes and uncertainty stalled development for several years. Finally, Denmarks experience demonstrates
that local ownership of wind power plants can facilitate market development.
922
4,000
700
630
3,600
Installed [MW]
Forecast [MW]
560
3,200
Cumulative [MW]
490
2,800
420
2,400
350
2,000
280
1,600
210
1,200
140
800
70
400
Chapter 11
0
1981
1984
1987
1990
1993
1996
1999
2002
2005
2008
Figure 11.10 | Denmarks annual and cumulative installed wind capacity, 1995 to 2010 (BTM Consult ApS, 2010).
11.6.4.4
11.6.4.5
11.6.4.6
923
11.6.5
11.6.5.1
924
Chapter 11
will occur within this broader framework and may, due to the unique
characteristics of RE, exacerbate some of the challenges. RE resources, for
example, are often concentrated in areas where existing electricity networks have limited extra capacity for transporting additional electricity.
These areas also may be a long way from centres of energy demand (see
Section 8.2.1.2). With regard to RE, proponents of a beneciary pays type
of mechanism argue that socialized network expansion costs may lead
to inefcient siting of RE projects if individual projects do not bear any
of the costs of network expansion. RE projects may locate in areas with
the highest quality resources but, due to the additional network costs,
these areas may not always be as economically efcient as RE resources
in lower-quality regions that are closer to demand centres or existing network capacity (e.g., Hoppcock and Patio-Echeverri, 2010).
Proponents of socialized cost-type mechanisms point out that network
investments are long-term infrastructure investments and that they benet
a broad range of network users that may change as the system evolves.
Furthermore, the large economies of scale involved with network expansion and the large size of RE resources relative to individual RE projects
often leads to the most cost-effective network expansion, far exceeding
the size required by an individual RE project. Policies that require individual RE projects to nance network expansion may therefore stie efcient
development of properly sized transmission investment (Puga and Lesser,
2009). Moreover, if the individual RE project must bear all of the costs of
the larger, more efciently sized network expansion, a project that otherwise may be economically efcient may become economically infeasible
(Access Reform Options Development Group, 2006).
A further challenge is that the time it takes to plan, site and build transmission infrastructure sometimes well exceeds the time it takes to plan,
site and build certain RE facilities. This difculty can be exacerbated
because most economic regulation of networks is based on the principle
of ex-ante cost regulation (Baldwin and Black, 2010). This means that
network operators often must have regulatory approval in advance
of undertaking the strengthening of the network. Before approving
individual network reinforcements, however, regulators may require a
clear nancial commitment from generators or customers of their intention to connect to the network and utilize network assets. However,
potential RE generators are unlikely to be able to commit nancially
to network reinforcement without planning consent; and they may be
loathe to spend money on achieving planning consent without knowing the costs of connection. This presents a catch-22 situation, which
is often further complicated by the disparity between RE project and
network reinforcement commissioning time scales (Locke Lord Bissell &
Liddell, 2007).
In order to ensure the timely expansion and reinforcement of infrastructure and connection of RE projects, economic regulators may need to
allow anticipatory or proactive network investment and/or allow projects to connect in advance of full infrastructure reinforcement (Araneda
et al., 2010) (see Section 8.2.1.3 for examples of these policies being
applied in practice). Traditionally within economic regulation, allowing anticipatory investment is thought to increase the risk of stranded
Chapter 11
11.6.5.2
The rules and costs of how energy is injected into the network, whether a
system operator has the right to refuse the RE, and whether the RE project
is paid if it is refused access to the network all have major implications
for the economics of electricity power plants and their ability to obtain
investment (Strbac, 2007).
RE-specic policies can sometimes bypass these complex negotiations. In
the EU, the Directive 2001/77/EC on the promotion of electricity produced
from RE sources states that EU member states must ensure that transmission and distribution system operators guarantee network access for
electricity generated by RE (European Commission, 2009a). This is both
connection and off-take (i.e., injection into the grid). In general, but not
always, a fundamental design feature of a FIT is a projects connection
to the network, and the off-take of the electricity, according to a dened
process and remuneration. As a result of the EU Directive, some European
countries, particularly those which have FITs, have implemented interconnecting regulations that guarantee access to the network.
In other regions, access may be granted to new RE generation, but electricity generated by RE can be curtailed for economic or reliability reasons.
Recent experience with curtailment of wind demonstrates that there are
many different policies in place that restrict the injection of wind into
networks under constrained conditions and many different policies to
compensate wind generation during times where curtailment occurs (Fink
et al., 2009).
11.6.5.3
11.6.5.4
One of the signicant challenges for integrating RE into the electricity sector in particular is dealing with the variability and uncertainty
of some RE resources. As the percentage of RE increases there is an
increasing requirement for resilience within the energy system (P. Baker
et al., 2009), which is determined by a systems capacity to integrate
variable energy output while matching energy demand. Policies can be
put in place to facilitate such integration.
Policies might rst recognize the variability smoothing effects of
diversity for RE production (i.e., aggregation reduces forecasting and
integration challenges (IEA, 2008a)). Similarly, policies might ensure
the incorporation of aggregate RE production data (actual and forecasted) into electricity market operations by creating new mechanisms
or altering rules. Spain, for example, has chosen to encourage RE by
requiring the mandatory aggregation of all wind power plant data in
Delegated Control Centres, which involves online communication with
the National Renewable Energy Control Centre (Morales et al., 2008;
Rodriguez, et al., 2008).
Similarly, since variable output RE such as wind cannot be forecast
as accurately as far in advance as other energy resources, RE can be
accommodated by balancing the electricity as near to real time as
possible, such as an hour ahead rather than three hours ahead or a
day ahead. Flexible electricity trading rules can reduce the impact of
forecast errors on electricity market operations (IEA, 2008a). There are
also several changes to the power system that can increase the ability
of the system to manage variable and uncertain RE generation. These
changes will often require revisions to existing policies. In addition to
the already-mentioned examples, increasing interconnection capacity
within systems, adopting demand-side management measures that
include real-time pricing (e.g., Sioshansi and Short, 2010), increasing
storage capacity, using more exible thermal generation, and improving planning methods are all examples of the measures that would also
help to integrate variable RE (Alonso et al., 2008) (see Section 8.2.1.3
for further details).
Network standards
Historically, network design standards identify the reinforcement requirements triggered by an energy plant connecting to them to reach a
particular level of network security. Alteration of network standards,
ahead of time, that take account of RE technical characteristics and
that maintain system security can avoid connection and system operation concerns. The UK, for example, has had a series of Work Groups
since 2001 whose role is to highlight and recommend how to overcome potential concerns ahead of time (see DTI/Ofgem Embedded
Generation Working Group, 2001; National Grid, 2008). In addition
to standards for network reinforcements, network operators may also
impose minimum performance or equipment requirements on generators in order to allow the plant to be connected. These requirements are
often called grid codes or interconnection standards (see Sections
7.5.2.2 and 8.2.1.1).
11.6.6
Barriers to technology transfer in RE and other low-carbon technologies have been identied as being institutional, economic, informational,
technological and social (UNFCCC, 1998; IPCC, 2000; Wilkins, 2002;
Kline et al., 2004). It has been argued that many developing nations are
unlikely to leapfrog pollution-intensive stages of industrial development without access to clean technologies that have been developed in
more advanced economies (Gallagher, 2006; Sauter and Watson, 2008).
The reality is that most low-carbon technologies, including RE technologies, are developed and concentrated in a few countries. A recent study
(UNEP et al., 2010) of patenting in selected RE technologies nds that six
countriesJapan, the USA, Germany, the Republic of Korea, the UK and
Franceaccount for almost 80% of all patent applications. Accessing,
925
11.6.6.1
926
Chapter 11
Technology
Suppliers
Supplier Firms
Engineering
Managerial
and Other
Technological
Capabilities
Technology
Transferred
Flow A
Capital Goods,
Services & Designs
Flow B
Flow C
Knowledge &
Expertise Behind
Technology
Technology
Importers
New Production
Capacity
Accumulation of
Technological
Capacity
11.6.6.2
Chapter 11
11.6.6.3
11.6.8
Looking at the sub-national level, the rural poor in developing countries who lack access to modern energy services are increasingly left out
of the technology transfer debate. The type of innovative capabilities
required tend to involve the adoption and adaptation of technologies
to suit local conditions and needs, or supply chain management, rather
than innovating at the technological frontier as technology producers. In order to have the capacity to adapt, install, maintain, repair and
improve on RE technologies in remote and rural communities, investment in technology transfer must be complemented by investment in
community-based extension services that provide expertise, advice and
training regarding installation, technology adaptation, repair and maintenance (Ockwell et al., 2009; UNCTAD, 2010a) (see Box 11.13).
Cities, towns, local authorities and communities, which often incorporate RE into their policies, have the potential to play an important role in
climate change mitigation (Droege, 2009; IEA, 2009a) (see Box 11.14).
Droege (2009) argues that whether and how cities and communities are
able to implement climate change and RE policies both depend on their
spatial, environmental, social and economic capacities to implement RE.
Nearly 20% of city and local governments surveyed for a REN21 study
have some sort of building code or permitting policy that incorporates
RE. Mandates for solar water heating in new construction are in place
in many countries, states and cities worldwide. Other mandates include
designing buildings to include features that ease future installations of
renewable energy technologies (REN21, 2010).
Both Droege (2009) and the IEA (2009a) conclude that local initiatives
occur in places where there are people who understand the technical
aspects of RE (i.e., technically literate) and that positive local experiences reinforce other local experiences. Local policymakers have support
groups (for example, Local Governments for Sustainability (ICLEI), an
association of 1,200 local government members).
11.6.7
Institutional learning
11.6.8.1
11.6.8.2
The inuence of supportive social norms may also be limited. In a household context, RE technologies have been described as limited by ritual
and lifestyle (Sovacool, 2009a). Past experiences and habits are a key
927
Chapter 11
Box 11.13 | Lessons from Nepal: Importance of upfront public investments in capacity building.
The National Micro-Hydropower Programme in Nepal aims to enhance rural livelihoods and human development by accelerating the
achievement of the Millennium Development Goals, primarily through the delivery of community-managed micro-hydropower systems
(MHS). The Programme is coordinated by the Alternative Energy Promotion Centre (AEPC), a centre established under the Ministry of
Environment to serve as a national agency for coordinating and monitoring alternative energy development programmes in Nepal (UNDP
and AEPC, 2010).
Field experiences from the programme between 1996 and 2006 revealed that capacity development is central to successfully scaling up
decentralized energy access programmes and attracting private nancing. Capacity development efforts went far beyond training and
management to include: planning, oversight, and monitoring; situational analysis; facilitation of stakeholder dialogue, communications
and community mobilization; training; setting up and/or strengthening institutions, implementation capacities and management support;
and the provision of policy advice (UNDP and AEPC, 2010).
Given the considerable planning, situational analysis and institution set-up efforts, especially at the national level, more than 90% of the
early programme costs went to capacity development. As such, the upfront, publicly-funded investment (from government and donors)
was essential to developing the functional capacities needed to scale up the rural energy programme (UNDP and AEPC, 2010).
However, when capacity development is created by systematic interventions, programme successes and maturation over time, it can enable market transformation to occur. Indeed, the study found that the share of public nancing for the micro-hydro programme gradually
declined to about 50%, attracting substantial private sector funding in later stages of the programme. This indicates the important role of
public investment in capacity development for attracting private nancing sources, particularly decentralized sources among a projects
many users/beneciaries. Communities provided cash, acquired bank loans and supplied in-kind labour contributionsby digging channels for the MHS, for examplemaking up a signicant portion of the overall nancing needs (UNDP and AEPC, 2010).
Productive uses of the resulting energy services fuelled rural economies and increased the possibility for attracting further private investments, including through micro-nance. Fostering ownership also proved to be a necessary sustainability component, providing an incentive for users to use and maintain the technology properly (UNDP and AEPC, 2010).
Local action on the ground, which resulted from training and community mobilization, informed local and district institutions, which were
created as a result of capacity development in the form of institutional set-up and strengthening. That, in turn, informed institutions at
the national level, which used the knowledge gained to provide the functional capacity of policy development and advice. Although this
functional capacity makes up only a small proportion of the total capacity development cost, policy development and advice plays a major
role in informing policy and regulation development, supporting overall programme success and sustainability, such as the enactment of
a Rural Energy Policy in 2006 (UNDP and AEPC, 2010).
Knowledge gained through the positive experiences of alternative energy development programmes was used to develop Nepals Rural
Energy Policy, which aims to motivate and mobilize local institutions, rural energy users groups, nongovernmental organizations, cooperatives and private sector organizations for the development and expansion of rural energy resources for the purposes of providing energy
access and furthering rural economic development and job creation (Government of Nepal, 2006).
In summary, the Nepal programme found that capacity building, broadly dened, was critical for successful scale-up. Further, involving
stakeholders in the local community and promoting a sense of ownership was important for sustainability of the projects. It concluded
that considerable upfront public investment is needed to develop local and national capacities through systematic interventions and to
inform policy development to scale-up rural energy service delivery; however, once these upfront investments are made, they can attract
substantial nancing from private sources at later stages of the programme, and subsequently reap signicant economic, social and
environmental benets (UNDP and AEPC, 2010).
928
Chapter 11
Box 11.14 | Lessons from Gssing, Austria: Potential for rapid transition in a communitys energy
production and use.
Gssing in Austria was the rst town in the EU to reduce its carbon emissions by 90% (below 1992 levels) and today is a model for
environmentally friendly energy production based on energy saving, self-sufciency and environmental protection. Thirty RE plantssolid
biomass, biodiesel, biogas and PV facilitiesoperate within 10 km of Gssing and meet the towns fuel demands for transportation,
residential heating and electricity. Electricity produced locally and sold into the grid has increased local revenue, with prots reinvested
into the community and its RE projects. By 2009, Gssings renewable prole had attracted 60 companies wanting to run on clean energy,
creating at least 1,000 new jobs (Droege, 2009).
The towns transformation began in the late 1980s when a massive fuel debt prompted the local mayor to enforce energy-saving measures and begin phasing out fossil fuel use in all sectors, replacing it with locally supplied RE (Droege, 2009). The municipal government
initiated and supported nancially the construction of local RE plants, which were locally managed and provided the town and greater
region with energy services (BMVIT, 2007). It also implemented policies to manage and sustain local farms and forests to produce raw
material for generating bioenergy (Droege, 2009). Several local and regional public and private research institutions provided technological assistance, while grants from regional authorities, the Austrian government and the European Commission helped with construction of
new infrastructure, such as the district heating system (Droege, 2009).
A municipal marketing program promoted RE through the internet, brochures, exhibitions and conferences as a means to attract companies to the area. But the municipality is also working to export its model, and Gssings specialized centre on RE has helped to raise
public awareness about clean energy and climate protection goals (Droege, 2009).
Within two years of embarking on this path, Gssings energy expenditures were reduced drastically. By 2001, Gssing was 100% selfsufcient and meeting all power and heat needs with RE (Droege, 2009).
11.7
Information and education are often emphasized as key policy tools
for inuencing energy-related behaviours. They are relatively low-cost,
uncontroversial and potentially empowering instruments of autonomous
choice, favoured over coercion from an individual standpoint (Attari et al.,
2009). However, impacts on behaviour are diffuse, long-term and hard
to measure because values concerning the environment do not have a
strong correlation with behaviour (Gatersleben et al., 2002; Poortinga
et al., 2004). This cautions against an over-reliance on information- and
education-based policies alone.
Individuals as part of civil society can play an important part in moving
to a low-carbon economy, as seen in the Austrian town of Gssing (Box
11.14), as well as in many of the scenarios reviewed in Chapter 10. There
is no universal model or understanding of what motivates such behaviours. Rather, a host of factors and constraints inuences energy-related
A structural shift
929
11.7.1
11.7.2
930
Chapter 11
11.7.3
Given that many RE technologies still have to reap considerable learning economies, there is the potential that short term-oriented policy
assessment will undervalue the longer-term benets that could accrue
from supporting technology development today. If we are to achieve a
structural shift towards high shares of RE, however, what sort of policy
framework might that require?
Long-term policymaking was popular between the mid-1940s and
into the 1970s. At that time, it was mostly implemented in the form of
government-centred, hierarchical planning processes (Hiller and Healey,
2008). The demise of this approach was due to its low ability to predict
major societal transformations (e.g., the oil crisis) and its incapability
to provide solutions for the ever-increasing societal and environmental
problems.
However, this concept of policymaking has experienced a revival in
political sciences (Vo et al., 2009; for an example, see Box 11.15). In
an effort to overcome the limitations of the earlier approach, today it is
framed as long-term policy design, an interactive process of constructing and shaping socioeconomic transformation processes (Schneider
and Ingram, 1997) that look two to three decades into the future,
extending well beyond the attention spans that are generally prevalent
in political processes (electoral cycles, standard government programs,
hiring spans of civil servants etc.). In order to support long-term structural shifts, policies have to interact with many transformative changes
as they unfold. Long-term policy design thus needs to be exible, adaptive and reexive (Vo et al., 2009).
This new generation of approaches to governance aims at navigating and spurring the complex processes of socio-technical change by
means of deliberation, probing and learning. Emphasis is put on the
Chapter 11
11.7.4
11.7.5
Facilitating disruptive change that enables a structural shift to a lowcarbon energy future, particularly one that relies heavily on RE, will
require more active policy approaches for the following reasons:
Substantial new investment is needed. In the absence of stable and
predictable policy frameworks and clearly communicated long-term
targets (SRU, 2010; Teske et al., 2010), investors will shy away from
such investment due to perceived policy risk (IEA, 2007a; Brer and
Wstenhagen, 2009).
The necessary infrastructure investment may require some level
of public funding or public-private partnerships (for example grid
connection for offshore wind power, intercontinental trading of concentrating solar power, new storage facilities) (IEA, 2010a).
While low levels of RE penetration can be achieved with a relatively
limited number of technologies, a high-RE world is likely to rely on
a broader portfolio of RE sources with differing levels of maturity.
Sustained efforts of research, development and deployment at signicantly higher levels than today will be required to bring these
different technologies to market over time (Sanden and Azar, 2005;
Neuhoff et al., 2009; IEA, 2010a).
931
Technology R&D alone is not likely sufcient to ensure commercialization of new energy technologies, and there is a general consensus
that both R&D and RE deployment policies are needed (Grubler et al.,
1999b; Norberg-Bohm, 1999; Requate, 2005; Horbach, 2007). RE R&D
investments are most effective at advancing technology and reducing
costs when complemented by policies that simultaneously enhance
demand for new RE technologies, thereby stimulating private sector
investment in R&D.
Strategic frameworks and long-term commitments and planning, along
with exibility to learn from experience will be critical for bringing
about a structural shift. Countries like the Netherlands have implemented specic deployment policies to create protected spaces for
experimentation with new energy technologies, and subsequent scaleup of promising concepts (Sanden and Azar, 2005; Vo et al., 2009).
Two of the currently fastest growing renewable technologies, wind and
solar, differ in their generation prole from current power generation
technologies. A further sustained growth of these variable resources
will require adaptation of electricity market rules if inefciencies are to
be avoided (Teske et al., 2010).
Most high-RE scenarios simultaneously assume a substantial increase
in energy efciency. While some scenarios assume high shares of
renewable sources at relatively high levels of energy consumption,
and technical potential is high for many renewable sources, a high
RE and high energy consumption scenario (quadrant 2) tends to face
tighter constraints when it comes to capital requirements and social
acceptance issues than does a high RE scenario that simultaneously
increases energy efciency (see Section 11.7.2). Such energy efciency
increases may be driven by market forces (e.g., fuel price shocks) or by
932
Chapter 11
Both the level of energy consumption and the share of fossil and/or
nuclear energy in the mix depend on strategic choices made today that
are heavily interconnected to other policy areas, notably urban planning
and transportation policies (Dowall, 1980; Hankey and Marshall, 2010).
Achieving a high-RE world will depend on early policy integration.
The magnitude of changes needed will require public consent to a variety of policies, which in turn implies increased efforts to raise public
awareness of renewable energy (IEA, 2010a; SRU, 2010; West et al.,
2010).
Synthesis
Signicant investments will be required to make the transition to a low carbon future, whatever technologies are pursued (Section 10.5). Such a shift
will require additional policies to attract large increases in private investment
into technologies and infrastructure. From an investors perspective, further
deployment of RE technologies will result in new market opportunities.
The literature indicates that long-term objectives for RE and exibility to
learn from experience would be critical to achieve cost-effective and high
penetrations of RE. To achieve GHG concentration stabilization levels
with high shares of RE, a structural shift in todays energy systems will be
required over the next few decades. This would require systematic development of policy frameworks that reduce risks and enable attractive returns
that provide stability over a timeframe relevant to the RE and related infrastructure investments (Sections 11.6 and 11.7). The appropriate and reliable
mix of instruments is even more important where energy infrastructure is
still developing and energy demand is expected to increase in the future.
Chapter 11
References
ADB (2007). Investing in Clean Energy and Low Carbon Alternatives in Asia. Asian
Development Bank (ADB), Manila, the Philippines. Available at: aequero.com/
docs/Publications_Presentations/Investing_in_Clean_Energy_and_Low_
Carbon_Alternatives_in_Asia_-_November_2007.pdf.
ASIF (2009). Informe anual 2009. Hacia la consolidacin de la energa Fotovoltaica
en Espaa. Asociacin de la industria Fotovoltaica (ASIF), Madrid, Spain.
and Directed Technical Change. NBER Working Paper 15451, National Bureau of
Adelaja, A., Y.Jailu, C. Mckeown, and A. Tekle (2010). Effects of renewable energy
policies on wind industry development in the U.S. Journal of Natural Resources
Policy Research, 2(3), pp. 245-262.
Agnolucci, P. (2007). The effect of nancial constraints, technological progress
and long-term contracts on tradable green certicates. Energy Policy, 35(6), pp.
3347-3359.
Agterbosch, S., and S. Breukers (2008). Socio-political embedding of onshore wind
power in the Netherlands and North Rhine-Westphalia. Technology Analysis &
Strategic Management, 20(5), pp. 633-648.
Agterbosch, S., R.M. Meertens, and W.J.V. Vermeulen (2009). The relative
importance of social and institutional conditions in the planning of wind power
projects. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 13(2), pp. 393-405.
Aitken, M. (2010). Wind power and community benets: Challenges and opportunities. Energy Policy, 38(10), pp. 6066-6075.
Aldy, J.E., S. Barrett, and R.N. Stavins (2003). 13+1: A Comparison of Global
Climate Change Policy Architectures. Climate Policy, 3(2003), pp. 373-397.
Alonso, O., J. Revuelta, M. de la Torre, and L. Coronado (2008). Spanish experience in wind energy integration. In: Power-Gen Conference and Exhibition, Milan,
Italy, 3-5 June 2008.
Altenburg, T., H. Schmitz, and A. Stamm (2008). Breakthrough? Chinas and
Indias transition from production to innovation. World Development, 36(2), pp.
325-344.
Amranand, P. (2008). Alternative Energy, Cogeneration and Distributed Generation:
Crucial Strategy for Sustainability of Thailands Energy Sector. Energy Policy and
Planning Ofce (EPPO), Ministry of Energy, Bangkok, Thailand.
Amranand, P. (2009). Keynote Address: The role of renewable energy, cogeneration
World Renewable Energy Congress 2009 Asia, BITEC, Bangkok, Thailand, 19-22
May 2009.
Beck, F., and E. Martinot (2004). Renewable energy barriers and policies. In:
Amundsen, E.S. and J.B. Mortensen. (2001). The Danish Green Certicate Scheme:
Some simple analytical results. Energy Economics, 23(5), pp. 489509.
ANL (2010). Solar Energy Development Programmatic Environmental Impact
Statement Web site. Argonne National Laboratory (ANL), U.S. Department of
Energy, Argonne, IL, USA. Available at: solareis.anl.gov/.
Araneda, J.C., S. Mocarquer, R. Moreno, and H. Rudnick (2010). Challenges on
integrating renewables into the Chilean grid. In: International Conference on
Power System Technology, 2010, Hangzhou, China, 24-28 October 2010.
Archer, D., T. Pettigrew, M. Constanzo, B. Iritani, I. Walker, and L. White (1987).
Energy conservation and public policy: The mediation of individual behavior.
In: Energy Efciency: Perspectives on Individual Behavior. W. Kempton and M.
Neiman (eds.). American Council for an Energy Efcient Economy, Washington,
DC, USA, pp. 69-92.
Argote, L., S.L. Beckman, and D. Epple (1990). The Persistence and Transfer of
Learning in Industrial Settings. Management Science, 36(2), pp. 140-154.
933
Chapter 11
BERR (2008). Low Carbon Buildings Programme. Department for Business, Enterprise
Heat. Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (BERR) and
Interim report of a study led by Fraunhofer ISI done on behalf of the German
Breukers, S., and M. Wolsink (2007a). Wind energy policies in the Netherlands:
Policies and market factors driving wind power development in the United States.
Bird, L., and E. Lokey (2007). Interaction of Compliance and Voluntary Renewable
2737-2750.
Bird, L., and J. Sumner (2010). Green Power Marketing in the United States: A
Status Report (2009 Data). NREL/TP-6A20-49403, National Renewable Energy
Laboratory, Golden, CO, USA.
Blanford, G.J. (2009). R&D investment strategy for climate change. Energy
Economics, 31(Supplement 1), pp. S27-S36.
Blyth, W., D. Bunn, J. Kettunen, and T. Wilson (2009). Policy interactions, risk and
price formation in carbon markets. Energy Policy, 37(12), pp. 5192-5207.
BMU (2006). Renewable Energy Sources Act (EEG), Development of electric-
BTM Consult ApS (2010). World Market Update 2009. BTM Consult ApS, Ringkbing,
Denmark.
Buckman, G., and M. Diesendorf (2010). Design limitations in Australian renewable electricity policies. Energy Policy, 38(7), pp. 3365-3376.
Buen, J. (2005). Danish and Norwegian wind industry: the relationship between policy instruments, innovation and diffusion. Energy Policy, 34(18), pp. 3887-3897.
Buijs, P., D. Bekaert, and R. Belmans (2010). Seams issues in European transmission investments. The Electricity Journal 23(10), pp. 18-26.
Brer, M.J., and R. Wstenhagen (2009). Which renewable energy policy is a ven-
Berlin, Germany.
BMU (2009). Renewable Energy Sources in Figures: States, National and International
Policies to support renewable energies in the heat market. Energy Policy, 36(8),
pp. 3150-3159.
Sources Act Progress Report 2007 and the new German feed-in legislation.
BMVIT (2007). Model Region Gssing: Self-sufcient energy supply based on region-
Butler, L., and K. Neuhoff (2008). Comparison of feed-in tariff, quota and auction
1854-1867.
Boardman, B. (2009). Fixing Fuel Poverty: Challenges and Solutions. Earthscan Ltd.,
Oxford, UK, 270 pp.
Bohm, P., and C.S. Russell (1985). Comparative analysis of alternative policy instruments. In: Handbook of Natural Resource and Energy Economics. A.V. Kneese and
J. Sweeney (eds.), Elsevier Science Publishers, pp. 395-460.
Bohringer, C. and K. E. Rosendahl (2010). Green promotes the dirtiest: On the
interaction between black and green quotas in energy markets. Journal of
Regulatory Economics, 37(3), pp. 316-325.
Bomb, C., K. McCormick, E. Deurwaarder, and T. Kaberger (2007). Biofuels for
transport in Europe: lessons from Germany and the UK. Energy Policy, 35(2007),
pp. 2256-2267.
Bouille, A. (2010). Financing Renewable Energy in the European Energy Market.
CCC (2009). Reducing Emissions in Buildings and Industry. Chapter 5 in: Meeting
Carbon Budgets The Need for a Step Change. Progress Report to Parliament,
renewables/studies/doc/renewables/2011_nancing_renewable.pdf.
London, October 2009. Committee on Climate Change (CCC), London, UK, pp.
151-188. Available at: downloads.theccc.org.uk/21667%20CCC%20Report%20
AW%20WEB.pdf.
934
Chapter 11
Creutzig, F., E. McGlynn, J. Minx, and O. Edenhofer (2010). Climate Policies for
Road Transport Revisited: Evaluation of the Current Framework, Working Papers
1. Department of Climate Change Economics, TU Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Cropper, M.L. and W.E. Oates (1992). Environmental economics: A survey. Journal
of Economic Literature, 30, pp. 675-740.
CTED (2009). Washington States Green Economy: A Strategic Framework. Discussion
Draft. Washington State Department of Community, Trade and Economic
Development (CTED), Olympia, WA, USA, 100 pp.
Cuppen, E., S. Breukersb, M. Hisschemllera, and E. Bergsmaa (2010). Q methodology to select participants for a stakeholder dialogue on energy options from
biomass in the Netherlands. Ecological Economics, 69(3), pp. 579-591.
Damborg, S., and S. Krohn (1998). Public Attitudes towards Wind Power. Danish
Wind Turbine Manufacturers Association, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Danish Ministry of Energy (1981). Energiplan 81. Energiministeriet, Copenhagen,
Denmark.
Danish Ministry of the Environment (1993). Cirkulre om primrkommuners
planlgning for vindmller (til alle kommunalbestyrelser). Miljiministeriet,
Copenhagen, Denmark.
Cohen, G.E., D.W. Kearney, and G.J. Kolb (1999). Final Report on the Operation
Danish Wind Industry Association (2010). Danish Wind Industry Maintains High
Export Figures In 2009 Despite Financial Crisis. Danish Wind Industry Association
struction of acceptable locations in Wales. Land Use Policy, 27(2), pp. 222-232.
Creutzig, F., and D. He (2009). Climate change mitigation and co-benets of fea-
Energy Market. Project No. PECPNL084659, A study led by Ecofys funded by the
N. Stern, V. Huber and S. Kadner (eds), Cambridge University Press, pp. 307-318.
935
de Miera, G.S., P. del Ro Gonzlez, and I. Vizcano (2008). Analysing the impact
of renewable electricity support schemes on power prices: the case of wind electricity in Spain. Energy Policy, 36(9), pp. 3345-3359.
de Saravia, C.F., and A. Diego Rosell (2011). Coup de Grce: A New Royal Decree
Slashes Tariffs and Opens the Door to Retroactive Changes for Spanish PV.
Photon International, pp. 66-68.
DECC (2009). The UK Renewable Energy Strategy. Department of Energy and Climate
Change (DECC). HM Government, London, UK.
Chapter 11
DTI (2007). Meeting the Energy Challenge: A White Paper on Energy. Department of
Trade and Industry (DTI), The Stationery Ofce, London, UK.
DTI/Ofgem Embedded Generation Working Group (2001). Report into Network
Access Issues, Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) and Ofgem, London, UK.
DUKES (2009). Digest of United Kingdom Energy Statistics (DUKES). Department of
Energy and Climate Change, London, UK. Available at: www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/statistics/publications/dukes/dukes.aspx.
ECLAC (2009). Contribution of Energy Services to the Millennium Development Goals
Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC), Club de
Madrid, GTZ and UNDP, United Nations, Santiago, Chile. Available at: www.eclac.
Deepchand, K. (2002). Promoting equity in large-scale renewable energy development: the case of Mauritius. Energy Policy, 30(11-12), pp. 1129-1142.
DEFRA/BERR (2007). Renewable Heat Support Mechanisms. Department for
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) and Department for Business,
Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (BERR), London, UK.
del Ro Gonzlez, P., F. Hernndez, and M. Gual (2005). The implications of the
Kyoto project mechanisms for the deployment of renewable electricity in Europe.
Energy Policy, 33(15), pp. 2010-2022.
Department of Minerals and Energy (2003). White Paper on Renewable Energy.
Department of Minerals and Energy, Pretoria, Republic of South Africa.
Derrick, A. (1998). Financing mechanism for renewable energy. Renewable Energy,
15(1998), pp. 211-214.
Devine-Wright, P. (2005). Beyond Nimbyism: Towards an integrated framework
for understanding public perceptions of wind energy. Wind Energy, 8(2), pp.
125-139.
DG TREN (2007). Heating and Cooling from Renewable Energies: Costs of National
Policies and Administrative Barriers. Contract TREN/D1/2006-7/S07.67170, MVV
Consulting. Brussels, Belgium.
Dias de Moraes, M. A. F., and L. Rodrigues (2006). Brazil Alcohol National
Program. Relatrio de pesquisa. Piracicaba, Brazil: 54.
Dillon, H. S., T. Laan, and H.S. Dillon (2008). Biofuels At What cost? Government
org/publicaciones/xml/0/38790/lcw281i.pdf.
Edenhofer, O. and M. Kalkuhl (2011). When do increasing carbon taxes accelerate global warming? A note on the green paradox. Energy Policy, 39(4), pp.
2208-2212.
Edenhofer, O., N. Bauer, and E. Kriegler (2005). The impact of technological change on climate protection and welfare: insights from the model MIND.
Ecological Economics, 54(2-3), pp. 277-292.
EGWG (2001). The Embedded Generation Working Group Report into Network
Access Issues. Embedded Generation Working Group (EGWG), UK. Available at:
www.dti.gov.uk/energy/domestic_markets/network_access_elec/egwp_report/.
Ellis, G., J. Barry, and C. Robinson (2007). Many ways to say no, different ways to
say yes: applying Q-methodology to understanding public acceptance of wind
farm proposals. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 50(4), pp.
517-555.
Ellis, G., R. Cowell, C. Warren, P. Strachan, and J. Szarka (2009). Wind Power
and the Planning Problem. Journal of Planning Theory and Practice, 10(4), pp.
521-547.
Energy Skills Queensland (2009). Research report: Sustainable Energy Skills
Formation Strategy. Energy Skills Queensland. Rocklea, Queensland, Australia.
EPPO (2007a). VSPP (As of April 2007). Energy Policy and Planning Ofce (EPPO),
Ministry of Energy, Thailand. Bangkok, Thailand.
Summary of electricity purchased from SPPs (as of February 2007). Energy Policy
Indonesia_biofuels.pdf.
Dinica, V. (2008). Initiating a sustained diffusion of wind power: The role of publicprivate partnerships in Spain. Energy Policy, 36(9), pp. 3562-3571.
Domac, J., K. Richards, and S. Risovic (2005). Socio-economic drivers in implementing bioenergy projects. Biomass and Bioenergy, 28(2), pp. 97-106.
Dosi, G. (1982). Technological paradigms and technological trajectories: A suggested
interpretation of the determinants and directions of technical change. Research
Policy, 11, pp. 147-162.
Dosi, G. (1988). Sources, procedures, and microeconomic effects of innovation.
Journal of Economic Literature, 26(3), pp. 1120-1171.
Dowall, D.E. (1980). US land use and energy policy assessing potential conicts.
Energy Policy, 8(1), pp. 50-60.
Droege, P. (2009). 100% Renewable: Energy Autonomy in Action. Earthscan, London,
UK.
DSIRE (2011). US Database of State Incentives for Renewables and Efciency. Online
EPPO (2010a). Thailand Power Development Plan. Energy Policy and Planning Ofce
(EPPO), Ministry of Energy, Thailand. Bangkok, Thailand.
EPPO (2010b). SPP ( 24
2553. (Electricity purchased from SPPs by fuel type - as of 24 March 2010).
Energy Policy and Planning Ofce (EPPO), Ministry of Energy, Thailand. Bangkok,
Thailand.
EPPO (2010c). VSPP ( 24
2553. (Electricity purchased from VSPP by fuel type as of 24 March, 2010).
Energy Policy and Planning Ofce (EPPO), Ministry of Energy, Thailand. Bangkok,
Thailand.
ERCOT (2010). Texas Posts Record Increase in Voluntary Renewable Energy Credits:
State Exceeds Legislatures 2025 Goal 15 Years Early. Press release, Electric
Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT), Austin, TX, USA. Available at: www.ercot.
com/news/press_releases/2010/nr-05-14-10.
North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA. Available at: www.dsireusa.
Swedish District Heating Systems: Critical Factors and Lessons Learned. Lund
org/.
936
Chapter 11
Ernst & Young (2008). Renewable Energy Country Attractiveness Indices: Global
Highlights. Ernst & Young, London, UK, 24 pp.
Espey, S. (2001). Renewables portfolio standard: a means for trade with electricity
from renewable energy sources? Energy Policy, 29(7), pp. 557-566.
Fink, S., C. Mudd, K. Porter, and B. Morgenstern (2009). Wind Energy Curtailment
Case Studies. National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, CO, USA.
Fischer, C. (2008). Emissions pricing, spillovers, and public investment in environmentally friendly technologies. Energy Economics, 30(2), pp. 487-502.
Fischer, C. and R.G. Newell (2008). Environmental and technology policies for cli-
142-162.
Fischer, C., and L. Preonas (2010). Combining policies for renewable energy: Is the
whole less than the sum of its parts? International Review of Environmental and
Resource Economics, 4(1), pp. 51-92.
and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the promotion of the use of energy
sub-national context: A comparison of four U.S. states. Energy Policy, 38(8), pp.
2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC (2009). Ofcial Journal of the European Union, pp.
16-61.
European Commission (2009b). Investing in the Development of Low Carbon
Technologies: A Technology Roadmap. Commission to the European Parliament,
the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of
the Regions, Brussels, Belgium.
4429-4439.
Flach, B., S. Lieberz, K. Bendz, B. Dahlbacka and D. Achilles (2009). EU-27
Biofuels Annual Report 2009. United States Department of Agriculture Foreign
Agricultural Service, Washington, DC, USA.
Fodella, G. (1989) Orgware: the key of Japanese success. Rivista Internazionale di
Scienze Economiche Ecommerciali, 36(12), pp. 1057-1062.
European Commission (2010). Covenant of Mayors: Cities take the Lead to Tackle
Ford, A., K. Vogstad, and H. Flynn (2007). Simulating price patterns for tradable
Climate Change. News release, EP President Press Service, Available at: www.
eumayors.eu/IMG/pdf/EP_PR.pdf.
Forsyth, T.L., M. Pedden, and T. Gagliano (2002). The Effects of Net Metering on
the use of biofuels and other renewable fuels in transport in accordance with
Fouquet, D., and T.B. Johansson (2008). European renewable energy policy at
4079-4092.
Fouquet, D., C. Grotz, J.L. Sawin, and N. Vassilakos (2005). Reections on a
European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the promotion of the
use of energy from renewable sources and amending and subsequently repealing
Foxon, T., and P. Pearson (2008). Overcoming barriers to innovation and diffusion
appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?dataset=nrg_1073a&lang=en.
Fankhauser, S., C. Hepburn, and J. Park (2010). Combining multiple climate policy
instruments: How not to do it. Climate Change Economics, 1, pp. 209-225
Freeman, C., and C. Perez (1988). Structural crises of adjustment, business cycles,
and investment behavior. In: Technical Change and Economic Theory. G. Dosi, C.
Freeman, R. Nelson, G. Silverberg and L. Soete (eds.), Pinter, London, UK and New
Farrell, J. (2009). Feed-in tariffs in America: Driving the Economy with Renewable
Energy Policy that Works. The New Rules Project, Minneapolis, MN, USA, 30 pp.
Faulin, J., F. Lera, J.M. Pintor, and J. Garcia (2006). The outlook for renewable
energy in Navarre: An economic prole. Energy Policy, 34, pp. 2201-2216.
Felix-Saul, R. (2008). Assessing the impact of Mexicos Biofuels Law. Baker &
McKenzie Biomass Magazine. Available at: biomassmagazine.com/articles/1678/
assessing-the-impact-of-mexicos-biofuels-law/.
937
Friedrichs, J. (2010). Global energy crunch: how different parts of the world would
react to a peak oil scenario. Energy Policy, 38(8), pp. 4562-4569.
Frondel, M., N. Ritter, C.M. Schmidt, and C. Vance (2010). Economic impacts from
the promotion of renewable energy technologies: The German experience. Energy
Policy, 38(2010), pp. 4048-4056.
Fuller, M.C., C. Kunkel, and D.M. Kammen (2009a). Guide to Energy Efciency
and Renewable Energy Financing Districts for Local Governments, prepared for
the city of Berkeley, California. Renewable and Appropriate Energy Laboratory,
University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA.
Chapter 11
Government of Jamaica (2006). Green Paper: The Jamaica Energy Policy 20062020. Government of Jamaica, Kingston, Jamaica.
Government of Nepal (2006). Rural Energy Policy. Government of Nepal, Ministry
of Environment, Kathmandu, Nepal.
Government of Pakistan (2006). Policy for Development of Renewable Energy
for Power Generation: Employing Small Hydro, Wind, and Solar Technologies.
Government of Pakistan, Islamabad, Pakistan.
Government of the Kingdom of Tonga (2010). Tonga Energy Roadmap (TERM)
2010-2020: A Ten Year Road Map to Reduce Tongas Vulnerability to Oil Price
Fuller, M.C., S. Portis, and D.M. Kammen (2009b). Towards a low-carbon econ-
omy: municipal nancing for energy efciency and solar power. Environment
NukuaLofa, Tonga.
Grafton, R.Q., T. Kompas, and N. Van Long (2010). Biofuels Subsidies and the
Green Paradox. CESifo Working Paper Series 2960, CESifo Group, Munich,
Germany.
Greacen, C. (2007). An emerging light: Thailand gives the go-ahead to distributed
energy. Cogeneration & On-Site Power Production Magazine, pp. 65-73.
Greacen, C., and C. Greacen (2004). Thailands electricity reforms: privatization of
benets and socialization of costs and risks. Pacic Affairs, 77(4), 517-541.
Greacen, C., C. Greacen, and R. Plevin (2003). Thai power: Net metering comes
938
NetMeteringRefocusNov2003.pdf.
Griliches, Z. (1992). The search for R&D spillovers. Scandinavian Journal of
Economics, 94, pp. S29-S47.
Grimaud, A., and G. Lafforgue (2008). Climate change mitigation policies: are R&D
subsidies preferable to a carbon tax? University of Toulouse, Toulouse, France.
Gross, C. (2007). Community perspectives of wind energy in Australia: The application of a justice and community fairness framework to increase social acceptance.
Energy Policy, 35, pp. 2727-2736.
Grubb, M. (2004). Technology innovation and climate change policy: An overview of
issues and options. Keio Economic Studies, 41(2), pp. 103-132.
Grubler, A. (1998). Technology and Global Change. Cambridge University Press.
Grubler, A., N. Nakicenovic, and D.G. Victor (1999a). Dynamics of energy technologies and global change. Energy Policy, 27(5), pp. 247-280.
Grubler, A., N. Nakicenovic, and D.G. Victor (1999b). Modeling technological
change: Implications for the global environment. Annual Review of Energy and
the Environment, 24, pp. 545-569.
Gupta, S., D.A. Tirpak, N. Burger, J. Gupta, N. Hhne, A.I. Boncheva, G.M. Kanoan,
C. Kolstad, J.A. Kruger, A. Michaelowa, S. Murase, J. Pershing, T. Saijo, and
A. Sari (2007). Policies, Instruments and Co-operative Arrangements. Cambridge
University Press.
GWEC (2008). Global Wind 2007 Report. Global Wind Energy Council (GWEC),
Brussels, Belgium.
GWEC (2010). Global Wind 2009 Report. Global Wind Energy Council (GWEC),
Brussels, Belgium.
Haanyika, C.M. (2008). Rural electrication in Zambia: A policy and institutional
analysis. Energy Policy, 36(3), pp. 1044-1058.
Haas, R., W. Eichhammer, C. Huber, O. Langniss, A. Lorenzoni, R. Madlener,
P. Menanteau, P.-E. Morthorst, A. Martins, A. Oniiszk, J. Schleich, A. Smith,
Z. Vass, and A. Verbruggen (2004). How to promote renewable energy systems
successfully and effectively. Energy Policy, 32(6), pp. 833-839.
Chapter 11
Haas, R., C. Panzer, G. Resch, M. Ragwitz, G. Reece, and A. Held (2011). A histori-
Hertel, T.W., A.A. Golub, A.D. Jones, M. OHare, R.J. Plevin, and D.M. Kammen
cal review of promotion strategies for electricity from renewable energy sources
(2010). Effects of US maize ethanol on global land use and greenhouse gas
Haites, E., M. Duan, and S. Seres (2006). Technology transfer by CDM projects.
Hekkert, M., R.A.A. Suurs, S. Negro, S. Kuhlmann, and R. Smits (2007). Functions
Briefs from Peterson Institute for International Economics, Washington, DC, USA.
Huber, C., T. Faber, R. Haas, G. Resch, J. Green, S. Olz, S. White, H. Cleijne,
Held, A., M. Ragwitz, C. Huber, G. Resch, T. Faber, and K. Vertin (2007). Feed-in
(2004). Green-X: Deriving Optimal Promotion Strategies for Increasing the Share
the Intelligent Energy for Europe Program (Grant agreement no. EIE/08/517/
SI2.529243). Fraunhofer ISI and Ecofys, Karlsruhe, Germany and Utrecht, The
Netherlands.
Helm, D. (2010). Government failure, rent-seeking, and capture: the design of cli-
mate change policy. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 26(2), pp. 182-196.
939
Hughes, T.P. (1987). The Evolution of large technological systems. In: The Social
Construction of Technological Systems. W.E. Bijker, T.P. Hughes, and T. Pinch (eds.),
MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, USA, pp. 51-82.
Hvelplund, F. (2001). Political prices or political quantities? A comparison of renewable support systems. New Energy, 5, pp. 18-23.
Hvelplund, F. (2006). Renewable energy and the need for local energy markets.
Energy, 31(13), pp. 2293-2302.
ICCEPT (2003). Innovation in Long Term Renewables Options in the UK Overcoming
Barriers and Systems Failures. ICCEPT report for the DTI Renewable Innovation
Review, Centre for Energy Policy and Technology (ICCEPT), Imperial College,
London, UK. Available at: webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.
berr.gov.uk/les/le22072.pdf.
Chapter 11
IEA (2009d). World Energy Outlook 2009. International Energy Agency, Paris, France,
696 pp.
IEA (2010a). Energy Technology Perspectives 2010. Scenarios and Strategies to 2050.
International Energy Agency, Paris, France, 708 pp.
IEA (2010b). Energy Technology R&D Statistics. International Energy Agency, Paris,
France.
IEA (2010c). Global Renewable Energy Policies and Measures Database. International
Energy Agency, Paris, France
IEA (2010d). World Energy Outlook 2010. International Energy Agency, Paris, France,
736 pp.
IEA (2011). Global Renewable Energy Policies and Measures Database, March 2011.
International Energy Agency, Paris, France.
IEA, OECD, and World Bank (2010). The Scope of Fossil Fuel Subsidies in 2009 and
ciones y requisitos. Institute for the Saving and Diversication of Energy (IDEA),
Madrid, Spain.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, and the World Bank,
IDAE (2008). Seguimiento del Plan de Energas Renovables en Espaa (PER) 20052010. Memoria 2008. Institute for the Saving and Diversication of Energy
(IDAE), Ministerio de Industria, Turismo y Comercio Madrid, Spain.
IDAE (2009). La biomasa en el marco de los Planes de las Energas Renovables de
IEEE PES (2009). Preparing the US Foundation for Future Electric Energy Systems:
A Strong Power and Energy Engineering Workforce. IEEE US Power and Energy
ieee-pes.org/images/pdf/US_Power_&_Energy_Collaborative_Action_Plan_
April_2009_Adobe72.pdf.
IISD (2008). Biofuels At what Cost? Government Support for Ethanol and Biodiesel
in China, Global Subsidies Initiative, International Institute for Sustainable
Development (IISD), Geneva, Switzerland. Available at: www.iisd.org/pdf/2008/
biofuels_subsidies_aus.pdf.
IJHD (2009). Annual Directory, Years 2004 to 2009. International Journal of
Hydropower and Dams, Surrey, UK.
IMEC (2009a). SCHOTT Solar joins IMEC research program on silicon photovoltaics.
Available at: www2.imec.be/be_en/press/imec-news/archive-2009/schott-solarjoins-imec-research-program-on-silicon-photovoltaics.html.
IMEC (2009b). Total, GDF SUEZ, and Photovoltech join IMECs silicon solar cell
research program. Press release, IMEC, Leuven, Belgium. Available at: www2.
imec.be/be_en/press/imec-news/archive-2009/total-gdf-suez-and-photovoltechjoin-imec-08217-s-silicon-solar-cell-research.html.
Inhaber, H. (2004). Water use in renewable and conventional electricity production.
Energy Sources, 26, pp. 309-322.
International Center for Trade and Sustainable Development (2010). US, EU
Join Japan in Row over Canadian Green Energy Incentives. International Center
for Trade and Sustainable Development, Geneva, Switzerland. Available at: ictsd.
org/i/news/bridgesweekly/86146/.
IPCC (2000). Methodological and Technological Issues in Technology Transfer. B.
Metz, O.R. Davidson, J.-W. Martens, S.N.M. van Rooijen, and L. Van Wie McGrory
(eds.). Cambridge University Press, 432 pp.
IPCC (2002). Climate Change and Biodiversity. H. Gitay, A. Surez, RT. Watson, and
D.J. Dokken (eds.), IPCC Technical Paper V, IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland, 85 pp.
for Today and Tomorrow. International Energy Agency and Organisation for
Panel on Climate Change. B. Metz, O.R. Davidson, P.R. Bosch, R. Dave, and L.A.
IEA (2009c). Statistics & Balances. International Energy Agency, Paris, France, 2009.
940
Chapter 11
IREC (2010). 2010 Updates and Trends. Interstate Renewable Energy Council (IREC),
Latham, NY, USA, 38 pp.
Johansson, T.B., U.R. Fritsche, C. Flavin, J. Sawin, D. Amann, and T.C. Herberg
(2004). Policy recommendations for renewable energies. Prepared for the
Ito, H. (2003). Japans New and Renewable Energy Policies. Ministry of Economy,
Conveners of the Conference. Bonn, Germany, 1-4 June 2004. Available at: www.
pdf/REDGTF/1st_meeting/Japan1-country_report.pdf.
Jaccard, M., N. Melton, and J. Nyboer (2011). Institutions and processes for scaling up renewables: Run-of-river hydropower in British Columbia. Energy Policy,
doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2011.02.035.
oei.es/salactsi/recommendations_nal.pdf.
Johnstone, N., I. Hai, and D. Popp (2010). Renewable energy policies and
technological innovation: Evidence based on patent counts. Environmental and
Resource Economics, 45(1), pp. 133-155.
Jacobsson, S., and A. Johnson (2000). The diffusion of renewable energy technol-
Jordan, A.J., and A. Lenschow (2000). Greening the European Union: What can be
ogy: an analytical framework and key issues for research. Energy Policy, 28(9),
pp. 625-640.
Jacobsson, S., and A. Bergek (2004). Transforming the energy sector: the evolution of technological systems in renewable energy technology. Industrial and
Corporate Change, 13(5), pp. 815-849.
Joskow, P.L. (2005). Transmission policy in the United States. Utilities Policy 13(2),
pp. 95-115.
Junginger, M., W. van Sark, and A. Faaij (eds.) (2010). Technological Learning
Jacobsson, S., and V. Lauber (2006). The politics and policy of energy system transformation - explaining the German diffusion of renewable energy technology.
Energy Policy, 34(3), pp. 256-276.
in the Energy Sector: Lessons from Policy, Industry and Science. Edward Elgar,
Cheltenham, UK, 352 pp.
Junginger, M., J. van Dam, S. Zarrilli, F. Ali Mohamed, D. Marchal, and A. Faaij
(2011). Opportunities and barriers for global bioenergy trade. Energy Policy,
39(4), pp. 2028-2042.
Kahn, J. (2003). Wind Power planning in three Swedish municipalities. Journal of
Jaffe, A.B. (1986). Technological opportunity and spillover of R&D: evidence from
rms patents, prots, and market value. American Economic Review, 76, pp.
984-1001.
Jaffe, A.B., R.G. Newell, and R.N. Stavins (2003). Technological change and the
Kaplan, A.W. (1999). From passive to active about solar electricity: innovation
Vincent (eds.), Elsevier Science, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, pp. 461- 516.
467-481.
Jaffe, A.B., R.G. Newell, and R.N. Stavins (2005). A tale of two market failures:
Technology and environmental policy. Ecological Economics, 54(2-3), pp.
164-174.
Available
at:
Jayanthi, S., E.C. Witt, and V. Singh (2009). Evaluation of potential of innova-
November
http://www.biomass-asia-workshop.jp/
biomassws/06workshop/presentation/18_Peesamai.pdf.
Jha, V. (2009). Trade Flows, Barriers and Market Drivers in Renewable Energy Supply
Goods: The Need to Level the Playing Field. International Centre for Trade and
Sustainable Development, Geneva, Switzerland.
JNNSM (2009). Towards Building SOLAR INDIA. Jawaharlal Nehru National Solar
Different Feed-in Tariff Design Options Best Practice Paper for the International
Jobert, A., P. Laborgne, and S. Mimler (2007). Local acceptance of wind energy:
Factors of success identied in French and German case studies. Energy Policy,
35, pp. 2751-2760.
941
Chapter 11
Evaluation of Different Feed-in Tariff Design Options Best Practice Paper for
Lewis, J., and R. Wiser (2005). Fostering a Renewable Energy Technology Industry:
Paper for the International Feed-In Cooperation, 3rd edition. Energy Economics
Group and Fraunhofer Institute Systems and Innovation Research, Vienna, Austria
and Karlsruhe, Germany.
Klessmann, C., C. Nabe, and K. Burges (2008). Pros and cons of exposing
renewables to electricity market risks A comparison of the market integration
approaches in Germany, Spain, and the UK. Energy Policy, 36, pp. 3646-3661.
Kline, D.M., L. Vimmerstedt, and R. Benioff (2004). Clean energy technology
transfer: A review of programs under the UNFCCC. Mitigation and Adaptation
Strategies for Global Change, 9, pp. 1-35.
Kobayashi, T. (2003). Vision of the future of the photovoltaic industry in Japan. In:
Proceedings of 3rd World Conference on Photovoltaic Energy Conversion, Osaka,
Japan, 18-18 May 2003, pp. 25382543.
Krapels, E.N. (2010). The terrible trio impeding transmission development: Siting,
cost allocation, and interconnection animus. The Electricity Journal, 23(1), pp.
34-38.
Ku, J., E.I. Baring-Gould, and K. Stroup (2005). Renewable Energy Applications for
Rural Development in China. NREL/CP-710-37605, National Renewable Energy
Laboratory, Golden, CO, USA, 5 pp.
Laffont, J.J. and Tirole, J. (1988). The dynamics of incentive contracts. Econometrica,
56, pp. 1153-1176.
Laird, F.M., and C. Stefes (2009). The diverging paths of German and United States
policies for renewable energy: Sources of difference. Energy Policy, 37(2009), pp.
2619-2629.
Lamers, P., C. Hamelinck, M. Junginger, and A. Faaij (2011). International bioenergy trade a review of past developments in the liquid biofuels market.
Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews,15(6), pp. 2655-2676.
Langni, O., and L. Neij (2004). National and international learning with wind
power. Energy & Environment, 15(2), pp. 175-185.
Langni, O., J. Diekmann, and U. Lehr (2009). Advanced mechanisms for the
promotion of renewable energy. Models for the future evolution of the German
Renewable Energy Act. Energy Policy, 37(2009), pp. 1289-1297.
Lantz, E., and E. Doris (2009). State Clean Energy Practices: Renewable Energy
Rebates. NREL/TP-6A2-45039, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden,
CO, USA, 38 pp.
Lapola, D.M. R. Schaldach, J. Alcamo, A. Bondeau, J. Koch, C. Koelking, and J.A.
Priess (2010). Indirect land use changes can overcome carbon savings from
case of wood-fuelled district heating systems in Austria. Energy Policy, 35, pp.
1992-2008.
3388-3393.
Lauber, V. (2004). REFIT and RPS: options for a harmonised Community framework.
Energy Policy, 32(12), pp. 1405-1414.
Lauber, V., and L. Mez (2004). Three decades of renewable electricity policies in
Germany. Energy and Environment, 15(4), pp. 599-623.
Lehr, U., J. Nitsch, M. Kratzat, C. Lutz, and D. Edler (2008). Renewable energy and
employment in Germany. Energy Policy, 36(1), pp. 108-117.
Lenschow, A. (2002). Environmental Policy Integration: Greening Sectoral Policies in
Europe. Earthscan, London, UK.
942
Madsen, B.T. (2009). Public initiatives and industrial development after 1979. In:
The Danish Way: From Poul La Cour to Modern Wind Turbines. Poul La Cour
Foundation, Askov, Denmark.
Mahapatra, S., H.N. Chanakya, and S. Dasappa (2009). Evaluation of various
energy devices for domestic lighting in India: Technology, economics and CO2
emissions. Energy for Sustainable Development, 13(4), pp. 271-279.
Mallett, A. (2007). Social acceptance of renewable energy innovations: The role of
technology cooperation in urban Mexico. Energy Policy, 35(5), pp. 2790-2798.
Chapter 11
Markard, J., and B. Truffer (2008). Technological innovation systems and the multilevel perspective: towards an integrated framework. Research Policy, 37(4), pp.
596-615.
Martinot, E., and L. Junfeng (2007). Powering Chinas Development The Role of
Renewable Energy. Worldwatch Institute, Washington, DC, USA.
Martinot, E., A. Chaurey, D. Lew, J.R. Moreira, and N. Wamukonya (2002).
Renewable energy markets in developing countries. Annual Review of Energy
and Environment, 27, pp. 309-48.
Maruyama, Y., M. Nishikido, and T. Iido (2007). The rise of community wind power
in Japan: Enhanced acceptance through social innovation. Energy Policy, 35, pp.
2761-2769.
Meadowcroft, J. (2007). National sustainable development strategies: Features,
challenges, and reexivity. European Environment, 17(3), pp. 152-163.
Meijer, I.S.M., M.P. Hekkert, and J.F.M. Koppenjan (2007a). How perceived
uncertainties inuence transitions; the case of micro-CHP in the Netherlands.
Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 74(4), pp. 519-537.
Mitchell, C. (1995). The Renewable NFFO A review. Energy Policy, 23(12), pp.
1077-1091.
Mitchell, C. (2000). The Non-Fossil Fuel Obligation and its future. Annual Review of
Energy and Environment, 25, pp. 285-312.
Mitchell, C. (2008). The Political Economy of Sustainable Energy. Palgrave MacMillan,
Hampshire, UK.
Mitchell, C. (2010). Forging European responses to the challenge of climate change
and energy resource supply. In: International Science and Technology Cooperation
in a Globalised World: the External Dimension of the European Research Area. H.
Prange-Gstohl (ed.), Edward Elgar Publishers, Cheltenham, UK.
Mitchell, C., and P. Connor (2004). Renewable energy policy in the UK 1990-2003.
Energy Policy, 32(17), pp. 1935-1947.
Mitchell, C., D. Bauknecht, and P.M. Connor (2006). Effectiveness through risk
reduction: a comparison of the renewable obligation in England and Wales and
the feed-in system in Germany. Energy Policy, 34(3), pp. 297-305.
Mitchell, R.L., C.E. Witt, R. King, and D. Ruby (2002). PVMaT advances in the pho-
Meijer, I.S.M., M.P. Hekkert, and J.F.M. Koppenjan (2007b). The inuence of
tovoltaic industry and the focus of future PV manufacturing R&D. In: Conference
Record of the 29th IEEE Photovoltaic Specialists Conference, New Orleans, LA,
transparency in renewable energy policy: Lessons from Denmark and the United
Boletn Ocial del Estado, Madrid, Spain (in Spanish). Available at: www.boe.es/
aeboe/consultas/bases_datos/doc.php?id=BOE-A-2008-15595.
Menz, F.C., and S. Vachon (2006). The effectiveness of different policy regimes for
promoting wind power: experiences from the States. Energy Policy, 34(14), pp.
1786-1796.
MERC Partners (2009). Stafng the Energy Industry: A survey on current and future
skills needs. MERC Partners, Dublin, Ireland
LibrosEnergia/ENERGIA_2008.pdf.
MIyE (1998). Real Decreto 2818/1998, de 23 de diciembre, sobre produccin de
energa elctrica por instalaciones de abastecidas por recursos o fuentes de
Metcalf, G.E. (2008). Tax Policy for Financing Alternative Energy Equipment.
Spain.
MNRE (2010). Annual Report 2009-10. Ministry of New and Renewable Energy,
Government of India, New Delhi, India.
Mondal, M.A.H., L.M. Kamp, and N.I. Pachova (2010). Drivers, barriers, and strategies for implementation of renewable energy technologies in rural areas in
Bangladesh An innovation system analysis. Energy Policy, 38(8), pp. 4626-4634.
Moore, B., and R. Wstenhagen (2004). Innovative and sustainable energy technologies: The role of venture capital. Business Strategy and the Environment, 13,
pp. 235-245.
Moore, M.C., D.J. Arent, and D. Norland (2007). R&D advancement, technology
diffusion, and impact on evaluation of public R&D. Energy Policy, 35(3), pp.
Energy Laboratory, Singapore and Golden, CO, USA, 155 pp. Available at: www.
nrel.gov/docs/fy09osti/43710.pdf.
Ministerio de Economa (2004). Real Decreto 436/2004, de 12 de marzo, por el que
se establece la metodologa para la sistematizacin y actualizacin del rgimen
jurdico y econmico de la actividad de produccin de energa elctrica en rgimen especial. Boletn Ocial del Estado, Madrid, Spain.
1464-1473.
Morales, A., X. Robe, M. Sala, P. Prats, C. Aguerri, and E. Torres (2008). Advanced
grid requirements for the integration of wind farms into the Spanish transmission
system. Iet Renewable Power Generation, 2(1), pp. 47-59.
Moreira, J.R., and J. Goldemberg (1999). The alcohol program. Energy Policy,
27(4), pp. 229-245.
943
Chapter 11
Mowery, D., and N. Rosenberg (1979). The inuence of market demand upon inno-
Nemet, G. (2010a). Benet cost analysis of R&D as a solution to climate change. In:
vation: a critical review of some recent empirical studies. Research Policy, 8(2),
pp. 102-153.
Mowery, D.C., R.R. Nelson, and B.R. Martin (2010). Technology policy and global
warming: Why new policy models are needed (or why putting new wine in old
bottles wont work). Research Policy, 39(8), pp. 1011-1023.
Mller, B. (2010). The Reformed Financial Mechanism of the UNFCCC Part II: The
Question of Oversight Post Copenhagen Synthesis. Report EV52, Oxford Institute
for Energy Studies, Oxford, UK.
Murphy, L.M., and P.L. Edwards (2003). Bridging the Valley of Death: Transitioning
from Public to Private Sector Financing. National Renewable Energy Laboratory,
Golden, CO, USA.
Mytelka, L. (2007). Technology Transfer Issues in Environmental Goods and Services:
An Illustrative Analysis of Sectors Relevant to Air-pollution and Renewable
Energy. International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development, Geneva,
Switzerland
Nada, A. (2007). Planning, siting and the local acceptance of wind power: some
lessons from the French case. Energy Policy, 35(5), pp. 2715-2726.
Nada, A., and O. Labussire (2009). Wind power planning in France (Aveyron),
from state regulation to local planning. Land Use Policy, 26(3), pp. 744-754.
Nada, A., and O. Labussire (2010). Birds, wind, and the making of wind power
landscapes in Aude, Southern France. Landscape Research, 35(2), pp. 209-233.
Nast, M. (2010). Renewable energies heat act and government grants in Germany.
Renewable Energy, 35(8), pp. 1852-1856.
(Nendobetu
todofukenbetu
jutakuyou
taiyouko-hatsuden-sisutemu
Nilkuha, K. (2009). National Biofuels Policy, Deployment and Plans Thailand. In:
energy in the German heat market Renewable Heat Sources Act. Renewable
Nolan, J.M., P.W. Schultz, R.B. Cialdini, V. Griskevicius, and N.J. Goldstein (2008).
bahamas-national-energy-policy/.
uk/Electricity/Codes/gbsqsscode/reviews/.
NEDO (2009). The Roadmap PV 2030+. New Energy and Industrial Technology
Development Organization (NEDO), Kawasaki, Japan.
Negro, S.O., M.P. Hekkert, and R.E.H.M. Smits (2007). Explaining the failure of the
Dutch innovation system for biomass digestion A functional analysis. Energy
Policy, 35(2), pp. 925-938.
Neij, L. (2008). Cost development of future technologies for power generation A
study based on experience curves and complementary bottom-up assessments.
Energy Policy, 36(6), 2200-2211.
Nelson, R.R. (1959). The simple economics of basic scientic research. Journal of
Political Economy, 67(3), pp. 297-306.
Nelson, R.R., and S.G. Winter (1982). An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change.
Belknap Press, Cambridge, MA, USA and London, UK.
Nemet, G. (2006). Beyond the learning curve: factors inuencing cost reductions in
photovoltaics. Energy Policy, 34(2006), pp. 3218-3232.
Nemet, G.F. (2009). Demand-pull, technology-push, and government-led incentives
for non-incremental technical change. Research Policy, 38(5), pp. 700-709.
944
Chapter 11
Parzen, J. (2009). Lessons Learned: Creating the Chicago Climate Action Plan.
Puga, J.N., and J.A. Lesser (2009). Public policy and private interests: Why transmis-
Prepared for the City of Chicago Department of the Environment, Chicago, IL,
USA, 38 pp.
Puig, J. (2008). Barcelona and the power of solar ordinances: Political will, capacity
building and peoples participation. In: Urban Energy Transition: From Fossil Fuels
PEMM (2009). Proceedings of the Pacic Energy Ministers Meeting (PEMM): A CROP
Energy Working Group Report, 20-24 April 2009, Nukualofa, Tonga. Available at:
dev.sopac.org.fj/VirLib/JC0200.pdf.
London, UK.
Peretz, N., and Z. Acs (2011). Driving energy innovation through ex ante incentive
Ragwitz, M., A. Held, G. Resch, T. Faber, C. Huber, and R. Haas (2005). Final
Research and Energy Economics Group, Karlsruhe, Germany and Vienna, Austria.
Ragwitz, M. A. Held, F. Sensfuss, C. Huber, G. Resch, T. Faber, R. Haas, R.
Coenraads, A. Morotz, S.G. Jensen, P.E. Morthorst, I. Konstantinaviciute,
and B. Heyder (2006). OPTRES Assessment and Optimisation of Renewable
Support Schemes in the European Electricity Market. Intelligent Energy Europe.
Available at: www.optres.fhg.de/OPTRES_FINAL_REPORT.pdf.
Meeting. In: Pacic Islands Forum Secretariat, Cairns, Australia, 4 August 2009,
pp. 7.
PIFS (2010). Pacic Islands Forum Secretariat. In: Forum Communiqu, Forty-rst
Pacic Islands Forum, Port Vila, Vanuatu, 4-5 August 2010, pp. 15.
Pigou, A.C. (1920). The Economics of Welfare. Macmillan, London, UK.
Pimentel, D., A. Marklein, M.A. Toth, M.N. Karpoff, G.S. Paul, R. McCormack,
J. Kyriazis and T. Krueger (2009). Food versus Biofuels: Environmental and
Economic Costs. Human Ecology, 37, pp. 1-12.
Plevin, R.J., M. OHare, A.D. Jones, M.S. Torn, and H.K. Gibbs (2010). Greenhouse
gas emissions from biofuels indirect land use change are uncertain but may be
for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety (BMU), Bonn,
Germany.
Ragwitz, M., A. Held, B. Breitschopf, M. Rathman, C. Klessmann, G. Reche,
Poortinga, W., L. Steg, and C. Vlek (2004). Values, environmental concern, and
945
Chapter 11
Richels, R.G., and G.J. Blanford (2008). The value of technological advance in
Rickerson, W.H., J.L. Sawin, and R.C. Grace (2007). If the shoe FITs: Using feed-in
tariffs to meet U.S. renewable electricity targets. The Electricity Journal, 20(4),
pp. 73-86.
Renewable Energy in the USA a Policy Update. North Carolina Solar Center,
Heinrich Boll Foundation, and World Future Council, Raleigh, NC, USA, Berlin,
heating and cooling policy in the United States. Policy and Society, 27(4), pp.
365-377.
etwork.org/resource-database/Options%20Paper%20Final%20May%2028.pdf.
REEGLE (2011). Clean Energy Information Portal (REEGLE). Online database.
Available at: www.reegle.info/.
REN21 (2005). Renewables 2005 Global Status Report: Notes and References
Companion Document. Worldwatch Institute and Renewable Energy Policy
Network for the 21st Century (REN21) Secretariat, Washington, DC, USA and
Paris, France.
Centre (CECRE) in Spain. In: Power and Energy Society General Meeting
Constrained World. Renewable Energy Policy Network for the 21st Century
Conversion and Delivery of Electrical Energy in the 21st Century, IEEE, Pittsburgh,
REN21 (2007). Renewables 2007: Global Status Report. Renewable Energy Policy
Network for the 21st Century (REN21), Paris, France.
REN21 (2009a). Recommendations for Improving Effectiveness of Renewable
Roffe, P., and T. Tesfachew (2002). Revisiting the technology transfer debate: lessons for the new WTO Working Group. Bridges, 6(2), February 2002, International
Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development.
Energy Policies in China. Renewable Energy Policy Network for the 21st Century
Rogers, E.M. (2003). Diffusion of Innovations. Free Press, New York, NY, USA.
REN21 (2009b). Renewables Global Status Report: 2009 Update. Renewable Energy
Policy Network for the 21st Century Secretariat, Paris, France, 42 pp.
REN21 (2010). Renewables 2010: Global Status Report. Renewable Energy Policy
Network for the 21st Century Secretariat, Paris, France, 80 pp.
REN21 (2011). Renewables Interactive Map. Renewable Energy Policy Network
for the 21st Century (REN21). Paris, France. Available at: www.ren21.net/
REN21Activities/InteractiveTools/RenewablesMap/tabid/5444/Default.aspx.
Renewables (2004). Conference Report: Outcomes & Documentation Political
Requate, T. (2005). Dynamic incentives by environmental policy instruments a survey. Ecological Economics, 54(2-3), pp. 175-195.
Resch, G., C. Panzer, M. Ragwitz, T. Faber, C. Huber, M. Rathmann,
Rotmans, J., R. Kemp, and M. Van Asselt (2001). More evolution than revolution:
Transition management in public policy. Foresight, 3(1), pp.1531.
Roulleau, T., and C.R. Lloyd (2008). International policy issues regarding solar water
heating, with a focus on New Zealand. Energy Policy, 36(6), pp. 1843-1857.
Sanden, B.A., and C. Azar (2005). Near-term technology policies for long-term
a future European policy for renewable electricity. Final Report of the Research
Project futures-e, with support from the European Commission. Contract No.
EIE/06/143/S12.444285, DG TREN, EACI under the Intelligent Energy for Europe
Programme, Vienna, Austria.
Resources and Logistics (2010). Identication Mission for the Mediterranean Solar
Plan, Final Report. Funded by the European Union, Resources and Logistics.
available
at:
ec.europa.eu/energy/international/international_cooperation/
doc/2010_01_solar_plan_report.pdf.
Rhodes, R.A.W. (1996). The new governance: Governing without government.
Political Studies, 44(4), pp. 652-667.
946
Chapter 11
Sawin, J.L. (2004). National Policy Instruments: Policy Lessons for the Advancement
Siddiqui, A.S., C. Marnay, and R.H. Wiser (2007). Real options valuation of US fed-
Sawin, J.L., and W.R. Moomaw (2009). An enduring energy future. In: State of the
World 2009: Into a Warming World. W.W. Norton & Company, Inc., Washington,
U. Y., S.J.V. Vuori, N. Wamukonya, and X. Zhang (2007). Energy Supply. In:
DC, USA.
SCB (2009). Electricity Supply, District Heating and Supply of Natural and Gasworks
Gas 2008. EN 11 SM 1002 (and older reports in that publishing series), Statistics
Climate Change. B. Metz, O.R. Davidson, P.R. Bosch, R. Dave, L.A. Meyer (eds.),
Sinn, H.-W. (2008). Public policies against global warming: a supply-side approach.
International Tax and Public Finance, 15, pp. 360-394.
Learning from the Sun: Analysis of the Use of Experience Curves for Energy Policy
the usage of wind generation. IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, 24(2), pp.
516-524.
SIS (2009). Renewable energy and energy efciency in the SIS. In: SIS Leaders
Summit, Cairns, Australia, 4 August 2009, Pacic Islands Forum Smaller Island
States (SIS).
Sjgren, T. (2009). Optimal Taxation and Environmental Policy in a Decentralized
Economic Federation with Environmental and Labor Market Externalities.
Department of Economics, Ume University, Ume, Sweden.
Smith, A., A. Stirling, and F. Berkhout (2005). The governance of sustainable sociotechnical transitions. Research Policy, 34(10), pp. 1491-1510.
Smitherman, G. (2009). An Act to enact the Green Energy Act, 2009 and to build
a green economy, to repeal the Energy Conservation Leadership Act, 2006 and
the knowledge-decit model of behavior change. In: New Tools for Environmental
the Energy Efciency Act and to amend other statutes. Ministry of Energy and
SEF Alliance (2008). Public Venture Capital Study. Bloomberg New Energy Finance.
research/NEF_Public_VC_Study_Final.pdf.
SEI (2009). Bilateral Finance Institutions and Climate Change A Mapping of Climate
Portfolios, Working Paper. Stockholm Environment Institute, Stockholm, Sweden.
Sensfu, F., M. Ragwitz, and M. Genoese (2008). The merit-order effect: A detailed
analysis of the price effect of renewable electricity generation on spot market
prices in Germany. Energy Policy, 36, pp. 3086-3094.
Seres, S., E. Haites, and K. Murphy (2009). Analysis of technology transfer in CDM
projects: An update. Energy Policy, 37, pp. 4919-4926.
SERIS (2009). Annual Report. National University of Singapore and Singapore
Economic Development Board, Singapore.
Sorrell, S. and J. Sijm (2003). Carbon trading in the policy mix. Oxford Review of
Economic Policy, 19(3), pp. 420-437.
Sovacool, B.K. (2009a). The importance of comprehensiveness in renewable electricity and energy-efciency policy. Energy Policy, 37(4), pp. 1529-1541.
Sovacool, B.K. (2009b). Resolving the impasse in American energy policy: The case
for a transformational R&D strategy at the U.S. Department of Energy. Renewable
and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 13(2), pp. 346-361.
SOU (2005). Fjrrvrme och kraftvrme i framtiden. Statens offentliga utredningar
(SOU), Betnkande av Fjrrvrmeutredningen, Stockholm, Sweden.
Seyboth, K., L. Beurskens, O. Langniss, and R.E.H. Sims (2008). Recognising the
SPC (2010). Towards an Energy Secure Pacic: A Framework for Action on Energy
potential for renewable energy heating and cooling. Energy Policy, 36(7), pp.
Security in the Pacic. Secretariat of the Pacic Community (SPC), Noumea, New
2460-2463.
Sperling, D., and S. Yeh (2009). Low carbon fuel standards. Issues in Science and
Technology, 2, pp. 57-66.
SRU (2010). Climate-Friendly, Reliable, Affordable: 100% Renewable Electricity
Supply by 2050. German Advisory Council on the Environment (SRU), Berlin,
Germany.
947
St. Denis, G., and P. Parker (2009). Community energy planning in Canada: The
role of renewable energy. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 13(8),
pp. 2088-2095.
Standing Committee of the National Peoples Congress (2005). The Renewable
Chapter 11
Toke, D., S. Breukers, and M. Wolsink (2008). Wind power deployment outcomes:
National Peoples Congress (NPC) of the Peoples Republic of China in the 14th
How can we count for the differences? Renewable and Sustainable Energy
Session.
Stern, N. (2007). The Economics of Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, 712
pp. Available at: webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.hm-treasury.
gov.uk/sternreview_index.htm.
Stirling, A. (1994). Diversity and ignorance in electricity supply investment:
Addressing the solution rather than the problem. Energy Policy, 22(3), pp.
195-216.
Scrase, I., A. Stirling, F.W. Geels, A. Smith, and P. Van Zwanenberg (2009).
Supporting schemes for renewable energy sources and their impact on reducing
and Rural Affairs, SPRU Science and Technology Policy Research, University of
Sussex, Brighton, UK.
Stokes, D.E. (1997). Pasteurs Quadrant: Basic Science and Technological Innovation.
Brookings Institution Press, Washington, DC, USA, 180 pp.
Strbac, P.C. (2007). Transmission Investment, Access and Pricing in Systems with
nomics/papers/dp0909.pdf.
Electrical Energy Draft Summary Report. Centre for Sustainable Electricity &
Sugiyama, K. (2008). Recall of the rst oil shock (Daiitiji oil-shock wo kaiko suru).
UNCTAD (2010b). Report of the Secretary general on New and emerging tech-
to toshi), No. 71. Institute for International Trade and Investment (in Japanese).
Available at: www.iti.or.jp/kikan71/71echo.pdf.
Sussman, E. (2008). Reshaping municipal and county laws to foster green building, energy efciency, and renewable energy, N.Y.U. Environmental Law Journal,
15(1) pp. 1-44.
Suurs, R.A.A., and M.P. Hekkert (2009). Cumulative causation in the formation
of a technological innovation system: The case of biofuels in the Netherlands.
Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 76(8), pp. 1003-1020.
Swedish District Heating Association (2001). Fjrrvrme 2000; fakta och statistik.
Swedish District Heating Association, Stockholm, Sweden.
Swedish Energy Agency (2009a). Energy statistics for dwellings and non-residen-
Swedish Energy Agency (2009b). Facts and gures - Energy in Sweden 2009.
climate mitigation markets, with a particular focus on the clean energy sector.
948
Chapter 11
UNEP and NEF (2008). Global Trends in Sustainable Energy Investment 2008:
Analysis of Trends and Issues in the Financing of Renewable Energy and Energy
pathway_partnerships.html.
USDA/FAS (2009a). Guatemala Biofuels Annual. U.S. Department of Agriculture
Foreign Agricultural Service, Washington, DC, USA. Available at: gain.fas.
usda.gov/Recent%20GAIN%20Publications/General%20Report_Guatemala_
Guatemala_5-26-2009.pdf.
USDA/FAS (2009b). Peru Biofuels Annual. Lima, Peru. U.S. Department of Agriculture
gov/Recent%20GAIN%20Publications/Biofuels%20Annual_Lima_Peru_8-31-
2010.pdf.
USEPA (2010a). Green Power Partnership. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Washington, DC
National Renewable Fuel Standard Program for 2010 and Beyond. EPA-
eration in the Maldives. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 12(7), pp.
1959-1973.
van den Bergh, J.C.J.M., and F.R. Bruinsma (2008). Managing the Transition
to Renewable Energy: Theory and Practice from Local, Regional and Macro
van der Linden, N.H., M.A. Uyterlinde, C. Vrolijk, L.J. Nilsson, J. Khan, K.
Sambeek and M.A. Uyterlinde (2003). Renewable Energy Policies and Market
dadosCotacao/estatistica/.
Unruh, G.C. (2000). Understanding carbon lock-in. Energy Policy, 28(12), pp.
817-830.
Upreti, B.R., and D. Van Der Horst (2004). National renewable energy policy and
local opposition in the UK: The failed development of a biomass electricity plant.
Biomass and Bioenergy, 26(1), pp. 61-69.
Urmee, T., D. Harries, and A. Schlapfer (2009). Issues related to rural electrication
using renewable energy in developing countries of Asia and Pacic. Renewable
Energy, 34(2), pp. 354-357.
US Congress (2004). American Jobs Creation Act of 2004. Congress, (2004).
In:GovTrack.us (database of federal legislation). Available at: www.govtrack.us/
congress/bill.xpd?bill=h108-4520.
US Department of the Interior (2008). Energy Corridors Designated in Eleven
Western States. Press Release, U.S. Department of the Interior. Washington, DC,
USA.
US DOE (2008a). Green Power Markets: Net Metering Policies. Ofce of Energy
Efciency and Renewable Energy, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, DC,
USA.
US DOE (2008b). Renewable Energy Requirement Guidance for EPACT 2005 and
Verbong, G., and F. Geels (2007). The ongoing energy transition: Lessons from a
socio-technical, multi-level analysis of the Dutch electricity system (19602004).
Energy Policy, 35 (2), 1025-1037
Verbruggen, A. (2009). Performance evaluation of renewable energy support policies, applied on Flanders tradable certicates system. Energy Policy, 37(4), pp.
1385-1394.
Verbruggen, A. (2010). Preparing the design of robust policy architectures.
International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics,
doi:10.1007/s10784-010-9130-x.
Verbruggen, A., and V. Lauber (2009). Basic concepts for designing renewable
electricity support aiming at a full-scale transition by 2050. Energy Policy, 37(12),
pp. 5732-5743.
Vitousek, P.M. H.A. Mooney, J. Lubchenco, and J.M. Melillo (1997). Human domination of Earths ecosystems. Science, 277(5325), pp. 494-499.
Von Weizscker, E., A.B. Lovins, and L.H. Lovins (1998). Factor Four: Doubling
Wealth, Halving Resource Use. Earthscan, London, UK.
Vo, J.-P., A. Smith, and J. Grin (2009). Designing long-term policy: rethinking transition management. Policy Sciences, 42, pp. 275-302.
Executive Order 13423. Ofce of Energy Efciency and Renewable Energy Federal
Energy Management Program, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, DC, USA.
949
Chapter 11
Vrolijk, C., J. Green, V. Brger, C. Timpe, N. van der Linden, J. Jansen, M. Uyterlinde,
Wiser, R., and G. Barbose (2008). Renewables Portfolio Standards in the United
States: A Status Report with Data Through 2007. LBNL-154E, Lawrence Berkeley
Wiser, R. and M. Bolinger (2010). 2009 Wind Technologies Market Report. LBNL-
Wind/OWWG/docs/FGWWagnerWindpoweronLiberalisedMarkets1999.
3716E. U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, DC, USA. Available at: eetd.lbl.
pdf?ga=t.
Walker, G. (2008). What are the barriers and incentives for community-owned means
of energy production and use? Energy Policy, 36(12), pp. 4401-4405.
Wallace, W.L., L. Jingming, and G. Shangbin (1998). The Use of Photovoltaics
gov/ea/emp/reports/lbnl-3716e.pdf.
Wiser, R., and S. Pickle (1997). Financing Investments in Renewable Energy:
The Role of Policy Design and Restructuring. LBNL-39826, Lawrence Berkeley
National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, USA.
Wiser, R., and S. Pickle (2000). Renewable Energy Policy Options for China: Feed
of technology transfer in Chinas CDM projects. Energy Policy, 38, pp. 2572-2585.
Wiser, R., M. Bolinger and G. Barbose (2007). Using the Federal Production
Tax Credit to build a durable market for wind power in the United States, The
Wang, Q. (2010). Effective policies for renewable energy the example of Chinas
Wiser, R., G. Barbose, and E. Holt (2010). Supporting Solar Power in Renewables
Warren, C.R., and M. McFadyen (2010). Does community ownership affect pub-
Worrell, E., and W. Graus (2005). Tax and Fiscal Policies for Promotion of Industrial
lic attitudes to wind energy? A case study from south-west Scotland. Land Use
and the creation of a Virtuous cycle between R&D, market growth and price
Germany: effective public policy and emerging customer demand. Energy Policy,
Zhang, X., W. Ruoshui, H. Molin, and E. Martinot (2010). A study of the role
for the long way ahead. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 13(4), pp.
789-800.
Zhao, Z., J. Zuo, L.-L. Fan, and G. Zillante (2011). Impacts of renewable energy
London, UK.
Wilson, C. (2008). Social norms and policies to promote energy efciency in the
home. Environmental Law Reporter, 38, pp. 10882-10888.
950
IV
Annexes I to VI
ANNEX
Annex I
Glossary
For a discussion of the term forest and related terms such as afforestation, reforestation and deforestation, see IPCC 2000: Land Use, Land-Use Change, and Forestry, A
Special Report of the IPCC [R.T. Watson, I.A. Noble, B. Bolin, N.H. Ravindranath, D.J.
Verardo, D.J. Dokken (eds.)], Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.
954
Annex I
Black carbon: Operationally dened aerosol species based on measurement of light absorption and chemical reactivity and/or thermal
stability; consists of soot, charcoal and/or light-absorbing refractory
organic matter.
Business as usual (BAU): The future is projected or predicted on the
assumption that operating conditions and applied policies remain what
they are at present. See also baseline, models, scenario.
Capacity: In general, the facility to produce, perform, deploy or contain.
Generation capacity of a renewable energy installation is the
maximum power, that is, the maximum quantity of energy delivered
per unit of time.
Capacity credit is the share of the capacity of a renewable energy
unit counted as guaranteed available during particular time periods and accepted as a rm contribution to total system generation
capacity.
Capacity factor is the ratio of the actual output of a generating
unit over a period of time (typically a year) to the theoretical output
that would be produced if the unit were operating uninterruptedly
at its nameplate capacity during the same period of time. Also
known as rated capacity or nominal capacity, nameplate capacity
is the facilitys intended output level for a sustained period under
normal circumstances.
Capacity building: In the context of climate change policies, the development of technical skills and institutional capability (the art of doing)
and capacity (sufcient means) of countries to enable their participation
in all aspects of adaptation to, mitigation of and research on climate
change. See also mitigation capacity.
Carbon cycle: Describes the ow of carbon (in various forms, e.g., carbon dioxide, methane, etc) through the atmosphere, oceans, terrestrial
biosphere and lithosphere.
Carbon dioxide (CO2): CO2 is a naturally occurring gas and a by-product
of burning fossil fuels or biomass, of land use changes and of industrial
processes. It is the principal anthropogenic greenhouse gas that affects
Earths radiative balance. It is the reference gas against which other
greenhouse gases are measured and therefore it has a global warming
potential of 1.
Carbon dioxide capture and storage (CCS): CO2 from industrial and
energy-related sources is separated, compressed and transported to a
storage location for long-term isolation from the atmosphere.
Cellulose: The principal chemical constituent of the cell walls of plants
and the source of brous materials for the manufacturing of various
955
Annex I
goods like paper, rayon, cellophane, etc. It is the main input for manufacturing second-generation biofuels.
956
Conversion: Energy shows itself in numerous ways, with transformations from one type to another called energy conversions. For example,
kinetic energy in wind ows is captured as rotating shaft work further
converted to electricity; solar light is converted into electricity by photovoltaic cells. Also, electric currents of given characteristics (e.g., direct/
alternating, voltage level) are converted to currents with other characteristics. A converter is the equipment used to realize the conversion.
Cost: The consumption of resources such as labour time, capital, materials, fuels, etc. as the consequence of an action. In economics, all
resources are valued at their opportunity cost, which is the value of
the most valuable alternative use of the resources. Costs are dened in
a variety of ways and under a variety of assumptions that affect their
value. The negative of costs are benets and often both are considered
together, for example, net cost is the difference between gross costs and
benets.
Private costs are carried by individuals, companies or other entities
that undertake the action.
Social costs include additionally the external costs for the environment and for society as a whole, for example, damage costs
of impacts on ecosystems, economies and people due to climate
change.
Total cost includes all costs due to a specic activity; average
(unit, specic) cost is total costs divided by the number of units
generated; marginal or incremental cost is the cost of the last
additional unit.
Project costs of a renewable energy project include investment
cost (costs, discounted to the starting year of the project, of making the renewable energy device ready to commence production);
operation and maintenance (O&M) costs (which occur during
operation of the renewable energy facility); and decommissioning
costs (which occur once the device has ceased production to restore
the state of the site of production).
Lifecycle costs include all of the above discounted to the starting
year of a project.
Levelized cost of energy (see Annex II) is the unique cost price of
the outputs (US cent/kWh or USD/GJ) of a project that makes the
Annex I
957
organic materials in hydropower reservoirs, or the release of CO2 dissolved in hot water from geothermal plants, or CO2 from biomass
combustion. Indirect emissions are due to activities outside the considered renewable energy chain but which are required to realize the
renewable energy deployment. For example, emissions from increased
production of fertilizers used in the cultivation of biofuel crops or emissions from displaced crop production or deforestation as the result of
biofuel crops. Avoided emissions are emission reductions arising from
mitigation measures like renewable energy deployment.
Emission factor: An emission factor is the rate of emission per unit of
activity, output or input.
Emissions trading: A market-based instrument to reduce greenhouse
gas or other emissions. The environmental objective or sum of total
allowed emissions is expressed as an emissions cap. The cap is divided
in tradable emission permits that are allocatedeither by auctioning or
handing out for free (grandfathering)to entities within the jurisdiction
of the trading scheme. Entities need to surrender emission permits equal
to the amount of their emissions (e.g., tonnes of CO2 ). An entity may
sell excess permits. Trading schemes may occur at the intra-company,
domestic or international level and may apply to CO2 , other greenhouse
gases or other substances. Emissions trading is also one of the mechanisms under the Kyoto Protocol.
Energy: The amount of work or heat delivered. Energy is classied in
a variety of types and becomes available to human ends when it ows
from one place to another or is converted from one type into another.
Daily, the sun supplies large ows of radiation energy. Part of that
energy is used directly, while part undergoes several conversions creating water evaporation, winds, etc. Some share is stored in biomass
or rivers that can be harvested. Some share is directly usable such as
daylight, ventilation or ambient heat.
Primary energy (also referred to as energy sources) is the energy
embodied in natural resources (e.g., coal, crude oil, natural gas, uranium, and renewable sources). It is dened in several alternative
ways. The International Energy Agency utilizes the physical energy
content method, which denes primary energy as energy that has
not undergone any anthropogenic conversion. The method used
in this report is the direct equivalent method (see Annex II), which
counts one unit of secondary energy provided from non-combustible
sources as one unit of primary energy, but treats combustion energy
as the energy potential contained in fuels prior to treatment or
combustion. Primary energy is transformed into secondary energy
by cleaning (natural gas), rening (crude oil to oil products) or by
conversion into electricity or heat. When the secondary energy is
delivered at the end-use facilities it is called nal energy (e.g.,
electricity at the wall outlet), where it becomes usable energy in
supplying services (e.g., light).
958
Annex I
Embodied energy is the energy used to produce a material substance (such as processed metals or building materials), taking
into account energy used at the manufacturing facility (zero order),
energy used in producing the materials that are used in the manufacturing facility (rst order), and so on.
Renewable energy (RE) is any form of energy from solar, geophysical or biological sources that is replenished by natural processes at
a rate that equals or exceeds its rate of use. Renewable energy is
obtained from the continuing or repetitive ows of energy occurring
in the natural environment and includes low-carbon technologies
such as solar energy, hydropower, wind, tide and waves and ocean
thermal energy, as well as renewable fuels such as biomass. For a
more detailed description see specic renewable energy types in
this glossary, for example, biomass, solar, hydropower, ocean, geothermal and wind.
Energy access: People are provided the ability to benet from affordable, clean and reliable energy services for basic human needs (cooking
and heating, lighting, communication, mobility) and productive uses.
Energy carrier: A substance for delivering mechanical work or transfer
of heat. Examples of energy carriers include: solid, liquid or gaseous
fuels (e.g., biomass, coal, oil, natural gas, hydrogen); pressurized/heated/
cooled uids (air, water, steam); and electric current.
Energy efciency: The ratio of useful energy or other useful physical
outputs obtained from a system, conversion process, transmission or
storage activity to the input of energy (measured as kWh/kWh, tonnes/
kWh or any other physical measure of useful output like tonne-km transported, etc.). Energy efciency is a component of energy intensity.
Energy intensity: The ratio of energy inputs (in Joules) to the economic
output (in dollars) that absorbed the energy input. Energy intensity
is the reciprocal of energy productivity. At the national level, energy
intensity is the ratio of total domestic primary (or nal) energy use to
gross domestic product (GDP). The energy intensity of an economy is
the weighted sum of the energy intensities of particular activities with
the activities shares in GDP as weights. Energy intensities are obtained
from available statistics (International Energy Agency, International
Monetary Fund) and published annually for most countries in the world.
Energy intensity is also used as a name for the ratio of energy inputs to
output or performance in physical terms (e.g., tonnes of steel output,
tonne-km transported, etc.) and in such cases, is the reciprocal of energy
efciency.
Energy productivity: The reciprocal of energy intensity.
Energy savings: Decreasing energy intensity by changing the activities
that demand energy inputs. Energy savings can be realized by technical,
Annex I
Corporate nancing by banks via debt obligations uses onbalance sheet assets as collateral and is therefore limited by the
debt ratio of companies that must rationalize each additional loan
with other capital needs.
Fiscal incentive: Actors (individuals, households, companies) are
granted a reduction of their contribution to the public treasury via
income or other taxes.
Fuel cell: A fuel cell generates electricity in a direct and continuous way
from the controlled electrochemical reaction of hydrogen or another fuel
and oxygen. With hydrogen as fuel it emits only water and heat (no CO2)
and the heat can be utilized (see cogeneration).
General equilibrium models: General equilibrium models consider
simultaneously all the markets and feedback effects among them in an
economy leading to market clearance.
Generation control: Generation of electricity at a renewable energy
plant may be subject to various controls.
Active control is a deliberate intervention in the functioning of
a system (for example, wind turbine pitch control: changing the
orientation of the blades for varying a wind turbines output).
Passive control is when natural forces adjust the functioning of a
system (for example, wind turbine stall control: the design of the
blade shape such that at a desired speed the blade spills the wind in
order to automatically control the wind turbines output).
Geothermal energy: Accessible thermal energy stored in the Earths
interior, in both rock and trapped steam or liquid water (hydrothermal
resources), which may be used to generate electric energy in a thermal
power plant, or to supply heat to any process requiring it. The main
sources of geothermal energy are the residual energy available from
planet formation and the energy continuously generated from radionuclide decay.
Geothermal gradient: Rate at which the Earths temperature increases
with depth, indicating heat owing from the Earths warm interior to its
colder parts.
Global warming potential (GWP): GWP is an index, based upon
radiative properties of well-mixed greenhouse gases, measuring the
radiative forcing of a unit mass of a given well-mixed greenhouse gas
in todays atmosphere integrated over a chosen time horizon, relative
959
Annex I
to that of CO2. The GWP represents the combined effect of the differing
lengths of time that these gases remain in the atmosphere and their relative
effectiveness in absorbing outgoing infrared radiation. The Kyoto Protocol
ranks greenhouse gases on the basis of GWPs from single pulse emissions
over subsequent 100-year time frames. See also climate change and CO2equivalent emission.
Gross Domestic Product (GDP): The sum of gross value added, at purchasers prices, by all resident and non-resident producers in the economy,
plus any taxes and minus any subsidies not included in the value of the
products in a country or a geographic region for a given period, normally
one year. It is calculated without deducting for depreciation of fabricated
assets or depletion and degradation of natural resources.
Heat exchanger: Devices for efcient heat transfer from one medium
to another without mixing the hot and cold ows, for example, radiators,
boilers, steam generators, condensers.
Greenhouse gases (GHGs): Greenhouse gases are those gaseous constituents of the atmosphere, both natural and anthropogenic, that absorb and
emit radiation at specic wavelengths within the spectrum of thermal infrared radiation emitted by the Earths surface, the atmosphere and clouds.
This property causes the greenhouse effect. Water vapour (H2O), carbon
dioxide (CO2 ), nitrous oxide (N2O), methane (CH4 ) and ozone (O3) are the
primary greenhouse gases in the Earths atmosphere. Moreover, there are a
number of entirely human-made greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such
as the halocarbons and other chlorine- and bromine-containing substances,
dealt with under the Montreal Protocol. Besides CO2 , N2O and CH4 , the
Kyoto Protocol deals with the greenhouse gases sulphur hexauoride (SF6 ),
hydrouorocarbons (HFCs) and peruorocarbons (PFCs).
Grid (electric grid, electricity grid, power grid): A network consisting of
wires, switches and transformers to transmit electricity from power sources
to power users. A large network is layered from low-voltage (110-240 V)
distribution, over intermediate voltage (1-50 kV) to high-voltage (above 50
kV to MV) transport subsystems. Interconnected grids cover large areas up
to continents. The grid is a power exchange platform enhancing supply reliability and economies of scale.
Grid connection for a power producer is mostly crucial for economical
operation.
Grid codes are technical conditions for equipment and operation that
a power producer must obey for getting supply access to the grid; also
consumer connections must respect technical rules.
Grid access refers to the acceptance of power producers to deliver to
the grid.
Grid integration accommodates power production from a portfolio
of diverse and some variable generation sources in a balanced power
system. See also transmission and distribution.
960
Annex I
improves technologies and processes over time due to experience, as production increases and/or with increasing research and development. The
learning rate is the percent decrease of the cost-price for every doubling
of the cumulative supplies (also called progress ratio).
Lifecycle analysis (LCA): LCA aims to compare the full range of environmental damages of any given product, technology, or service (see Annex II).
LCA usually includes raw material input, energy requirements, and waste
and emissions production. This includes operation of the technology/facility/
product as well as all upstream processes (i.e., those occurring prior to when
the technology/facility/product commences operation) and downstream
processes (i.e., those occurring after the useful lifetime of the technology/
facility/product), as in the cradle to grave approach.
Load (electrical): The demand for electricity by (thousands to millions)
power users at the same moment aggregated and raised by the losses in
transport and delivery, and to be supplied by the integrated power supply
system.
Load levelling reduces the amplitude of the load uctuations over
time.
Load shedding occurs when available generation or transmission
capacity is insufcient to meet the aggregated loads.
Peak load is the maximum load observed over a given period of time
(day, week, year) and of short duration.
Base load is power continuously demanded over the period.
Loans: Loans are money that public or private lenders provide to borrowers mandated to pay back the nominal sum increased with interest
payments.
Soft loans (also called soft nancing or concessional funding) offer
exible or lenient terms for repayment, usually at lower than market
interest rates or no interest. Soft loans are provided customarily by
government agencies and not by nancial institutions.
Convertible loans entitle the lender to convert the loan to common
or preferred stock (ordinary or preference shares) at a specied conversion rate and within a specied time frame.
Leapfrogging: The ability of developing countries to bypass intermediate technologies and jump straight to advanced clean technologies.
Leapfrogging can enable developing countries to move to a low-emissions
development trajectory.
Learning curve / rate: Decreasing cost-prices of renewable energy supplies shown as a function of increasing (total or yearly) supplies. Learning
Carbon lock-in means that the established technologies and practices are carbon intensive.
961
Annex I
962
Annex I
Polluter pays principle: In 1972 the OECD agreed that polluters should
pay the costs of abating the own environmental pollution, for example
by installation of lters, sanitation plants and other add-on techniques.
This is the narrow denition. The extended denition is when polluters
would additionally pay for the damage caused by their residual pollution
(eventually also historical pollution). Another extension is the precautionary polluter pays principle where potential polluters are mandated
to take insurance or preventive measures for pollution that may occur in
the future. The acronym PPP has also other meanings, such as Preventing
Pollution Pays-off, Public Private Partnership, or Purchasing Power Parity.
Portfolio analysis: Examination of a collection of assets or policies that
are characterized by different risks and payoffs. The objective function is
built up around the variability of returns and their risks, leading up to the
decision rule to choose the portfolio with highest expected return.
Potential: Several levels of renewable energy supply potentials can be
identied, although every level may span a broad range. In this report,
resource potential encompasses all levels for a specic renewable
energy resource.
Market potential is the amount of renewable energy output
expected to occur under forecast market conditions, shaped by private economic agents and regulated by public authorities. Private
economic agents realize private objectives within given, perceived
and expected conditions. Market potentials are based on expected
private revenues and expenditures, calculated at private prices
(incorporating subsidies, levies and rents) and with private discount
rates. The private context is partly shaped by public authority policies.
Economic potential is the amount of renewable energy output
projected when all social costs and benets related to that output
are included, there is full transparency of information, and assuming
exchanges in the economy install a general equilibrium characterized by spatial and temporal efciency. Negative externalities and
co-benets of all energy uses and of other economic activities are
priced. Social discount rates balance the interests of consecutive
human generations.
Sustainable development potential is the amount of renewable
energy output that would be obtained in an ideal setting of perfect economic markets, optimal social (institutional and governance)
systems and achievement of the sustainable ow of environmental
goods and services. This is distinct from economic potential because
it explicitly addresses inter- and intra-generational equity (distribution) and governance issues.
Technical potential is the amount of renewable energy output
obtainable by full implementation of demonstrated technologies or
practices. No explicit reference to costs, barriers or policies is made.
963
Annex I
964
Regulation: A rule or order issued by governmental executive authorities or regulatory agencies and having the force of law. Regulations
implement policies and are mostly specic for particular groups of
people, legal entities or targeted activities. Regulation is also the act
of designing and imposing rules or orders. Informational, transactional,
administrative and political constraints in practice limit the regulators
capability for implementing preferred policies.
Reliability: In general: reliability is the degree of performance according to imposed standards or expectations.
Electrical reliability is the absence of unplanned interruptions of
the current by, for example, shortage of supply capacity or by failures in parts of the grid. Reliability differs from security and from
uctuations in power quality due to impulses or harmonics.
Renewable energy see Energy
Scenario: A plausible description of how the future may develop based
on a coherent and internally consistent set of assumptions about key
relationships and driving forces (e.g., rate of technological change,
prices) on social and economic development, energy use, etc. Note that
scenarios are neither predictions nor forecasts, but are useful to provide
a view of the implications of alternative developments and actions. See
also baseline, business as usual, models.
Annex I
Seismicity: The distribution and frequency of earthquakes in time, magnitude and space, for example, the yearly number of earthquakes of
magnitude between 5 and 6 per 100 km2 or in some region.
Sink: Any process, activity or mechanism that removes a greenhouse
gas or aerosol, or a precursor of a greenhouse gas or aerosol, from the
atmosphere.
Solar collector: A device for converting solar energy to thermal energy
(heat) of a owing uid.
Solar energy: Energy from the Sun that is captured either as heat, as
light that is converted into chemical energy by natural or articial photosynthesis, or by photovoltaic panels and converted directly into electricity.
Concentrating solar power (CSP) systems use either lenses or
mirrors to capture large amounts of solar energy and focus it down
to a smaller region of space. The higher temperatures produced can
operate a thermal steam turbine or be used in high-temperature
industrial processes.
Direct solar energy refers to the use of solar energy as it arrives at
the Earths surface before it is stored in water or soils.
Solar thermal is the use of direct solar energy for heat end-uses,
excluding CSP.
Active solar needs equipment like panels, pumps and fans to collect
and distribute the energy.
Passive solar is based on structural design and construction techniques that enable buildings to utilize solar energy for heating,
cooling and lighting by non-mechanical means.
Solar irradiance: The rate of solar power incidence on a surface (W/
m2). Irradiance depends on the orientation of the surface, with as special
orientations: (a) surfaces perpendicular to the beam solar radiation; (b)
surfaces horizontal with or on the ground. Full sun is solar irradiance
that is approximately 1,000 W/m2.
Solar radiation: The sun radiates light and heat energy in wavelengths
from ultraviolet to infrared. Radiation arriving at surfaces may be
absorbed, reected or transmitted.
Global solar radiation consists of beam (arriving on Earth in a
straight line) and diffuse radiation (arriving on Earth after being
scattered by the atmosphere and by clouds).
Standards: Set of rules or codes mandating or dening product performance (e.g., grades, dimensions, characteristics, test methods and rules
for use).
Product, technology or performance standards establish minimum requirements for affected products or technologies.
Subsidy: Direct payment from the government or a tax reduction to
a private party for implementing a practice the government wishes to
encourage. The reduction of greenhouse gas emissions is stimulated
by lowering existing subsidies that have the effect of raising emissions
(such as subsidies for fossil fuel use) or by providing subsidies for practices that reduce emissions or enhance sinks (e.g., renewable energy
projects, insulation of buildings or planting trees).
Sustainable development (SD): The concept of sustainable development was introduced in the World Conservation Strategy of the
International Union for Conservation of Nature in 1980 and had its
roots in the concept of a sustainable society and in the management of
renewable resources. Adopted by the World Council for Environment and
Development in 1987 and by the Rio Conference in 1992 as a process
of change in which the exploitation of resources, the direction of investments, the orientation of technological development and institutional
change are all in harmony and enhance both current and future potential to meet human needs and aspirations. SD integrates the political,
social, economic and environmental dimensions, and respects resource
and sink constraints.
Tax: A carbon tax is a levy on the carbon content of fossil fuels. Because
virtually all of the carbon in fossil fuels is ultimately emitted as CO2,
a carbon tax is equivalent to an emission tax on CO2 emissions. An
energy taxa levy on the energy content of fuelsreduces demand
for energy and so reduces CO2 emissions from fossil fuel use. An ecotax is a carbon, emissions or energy tax designed to inuence human
behaviour (specically economic behaviour) to follow an ecologically
benign path. A tax credit is a reduction of tax in order to stimulate
purchasing of or investment in a certain product, like greenhouse gas
emission-reducing technologies. A levy or charge is used as synonymous for tax.
Technological change: Mostly considered as technological improvement, that is, more or better goods and services can be provided from a
given amount of resources (production factors). Economic models distinguish autonomous (exogenous), endogenous and induced technological
change.
Autonomous (exogenous) technological change is imposed
from outside the model (i.e., as a parameter), usually in the form of a
time trend affecting factor or/and energy productivity and therefore
energy demand or output growth.
Endogenous technological change is the outcome of economic
activity within the model (i.e., as a variable) so that factor productivity or the choice of technologies is included within the model and
affects energy demand and/or economic growth.
965
966
Annex I
Annex I
its support structure for converting the kinetic energy to mechanical shaft
energy to generate electricity. A windmill has oblique vanes or sails and
the mechanical power obtained is mostly used directly, for example, for
water pumping. A wind farm, wind project or wind power plant is a
group of wind turbines interconnected to a common utility system through
a system of transformers, distribution lines, and (usually) one substation.
967
Annex I
Acronyms
AA-CAES
AC
AEM
AEPC
AFEX
APU
AR4
AR5
BC
BCCS
Bio-CCS
BIPV
BMU
BNEF
BOS
BSI
CAES
CBP
CC
CCIY
CCS
CDM
CEM
CER
CF
CFB
CFD
CFL
CHP
CIGSS
CIS
CMA
CNG
CoC
COP
CPP
CPV
CREZ
CRF
CSIRO
CSP
CPV
CSTD
DALY
dBA
DC
968
DDG
DDGS
DH
DHC
DHW
DLR
DLUC
DME
DNI
DPH
DSSC
EGS
EGTT
EIA
EIT
EMEC
EMF
EMI
ENSAD
EPRI
EPT
E[R]
ER
ERCOT
EREC
EROEI
ESMAP
ETBE
ETP
EU
EV
FACTS
FASOM
FAO
FFV
FQD
FIT
FOGIME
FRT
FSU
FTD
GBD
GBEP
GCAM
GCM
GDP
GEF
GHG
GHP
Annex I
GIS
GM
GMO
GO
GPI
GPS
GSHP
HANPP
HCE
HDI
HDR
HDV
HFCV
HFR
HHV
HPP
HRV
HEV
HVAC
HVDC
HWR
IA
IAP
IBC
ICE
ICEV
ICLEI
ICOLD
ICS
ICTSD
IEA
IEC
IEEE
IHA
ILUC
IGCC
IPCC
IPR
IQR
IREDA
IRENA
IRM
ISCC
ISES
ISEW
ISO
J
JI
LCA
LCOE
LCOF
LCOH
LDV
LED
LHV
LNG
LPG
LR
LUC
M&A
MDG
MEH
MHS
MITI
MSW
NASA
NDRC
NFFO
NG
NGO
Nm3
NMVOC
NPP
NPV
NRC
NREL
NSDS
O&M
OB
OC
OECD
OM
OPV
ORC
OTEC
OWC
PACE
PBR
PCM
PDI
PEC
PHEV
PM
POME
PPA
PRO
PROALCOOL
PSA
PSI
PSP
PTC
PV
969
PV/T
PWR
R&D
RBMK
RCM
RD&D
R/P
RD
RE
RE-C
RE-H
RE-H/C
REC
RED
REN21
RES
RM&U
RMS
RNA
RO
RoR
RPS
RSB
SCADA
SCC
SD
SEGS
SHC
SHP
SI
SME
SNG
SNV
SPF
SPM
SPP
SPS
SR
SRES
SRREN
970
Photovoltaic/thermal
Pressurized water reactor
Research and development
Reaktor bolshoy moshchnosty kanalny
Regional climate model
Research, development and demonstration
Reserves to current production (ratio)
Renewable diesel
Renewable energy
Renewable energy cooling
Renewable energy heating
Renewable energy heating/cooling
Renewable energy certicate
Reversed electro dialysis
Renewable Energy Policy Network for the 21st
Century
Renewable electricity standard
Renovation, modernization and upgrading
Root mean square
Rotor nacelle assembly
Renewables obligation
Run of river
Renewable portfolio standard
Roundtable for Sustainable Biofuels
Supervisory control and data acquisition
Stress corrosion cracking
Sustainable development
Solar Electric Generating Station (California)
Solar heating and cooling
Small-scale hydropower plant
Suitability index
Small and medium sized enterprises
Synthesis gas
Netherlands Development Organization
Seasonal performance factor
Summary for Policymakers
Small power producer
Sanitary and phytosanitary
Short rotation
Special Report on Emission Scenarios (of the IPCC)
Special Report on Renewable Energy Sources and
Climate Change Mitigation (of the IPCC)
Annex I
SSCF
SSF
SSP
STP
SWH
TBM
TERM
TGC
TPA
TPES
TPWind
TS
US
USA
UN
UNCED
UNCTAD
UNDP
UNEP
UNFCCC
USD
USDOE
V
VKT
VRB
W
We
Wp
WBG
WCD
WCED
WEA
WEO
WindPACT
WTO
WTW
Annex I
Chemical Symbols
a-Si
C
CdS
CdTe
CH4
CH3CH2OH
CH3OCH3
CH3OH
CIGS(S)
Cl
CO
CO2
CO2eq
c-Si
Cu
CuInSe2
DME
Fe
GaAs
H2
H2O
Amorphous silicon
Carbon
Cadmium sulphide
Cadmium telluride
Methane
Ethanol
Dimethyl ether (DME)
Methanol
Copper indium gallium diselenide (disulde)
Chlorine
Carbon monoxide
Carbon dioxide
Carbon dioxide equivalent
Crystalline silicon
Copper
Copper indium diselenide
Dimethyl ether
Iron
Gallium arsenide
Hydrogen gas
Water
H2S
HFC
K
Mg
N
N2
N2O
Na
NaS
NH3
Ni
NiCd
NOX
O3
P
PFC
SF6
Si
SiC
SO2
ZnO
Hydrogen sulphide
Hydrouorocarbons
Potassium
Magnesium
Nitrogen
Nitrogen gas
Nitrous oxide
Sodium
Sodium-sulfur
Ammonia
Nickel
Nickel-cadmium
Nitrous oxides
Ozone
Phosphorus
Peruorocarbon
Sulfur hexauoride
Silicon
Silicon carbide
Sulfur dioxide
Zinc oxide
Symbol
d
c
m
n
p
f
a
Multiplier
10 -1
10 -2
10 -3
10 -6
10 -9
10 -12
10 -15
10 -18
Multiplier
10 21
1018
1015
1012
10 9
10 6
10 3
10 2
10
Prex
zetta
exa
peta
tera
giga
mega
kilo
hecto
deca
Prex
deci
centi
milli
micro
nano
pico
femto
atto
971
972
Annex I
II
ANNEX
Methodology
Lead Authors:
William Moomaw (USA), Peter Burgherr (Switzerland), Garvin Heath (USA),
Manfred Lenzen (Australia, Germany), John Nyboer (Canada), Aviel Verbruggen (Belgium)
Methodology
Annex II
Table of Contents
A.II.1
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 975
A.II.2
A.II.3
A.II.3.1
A.II.3.2
A.II.3.3
A.II.3.4
A.II.4
A.II.5
A.II.5.1
A.II.5.2
A.II.5.2.1
A.II.5.2.2
A.II.5.3
A.II.5.3.1
A.II.5.3.2
A.II.5.4
A.II.6
A.II.7
....................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................
975
975
................................................................................................
976
...............................................................................................................
976
............................................................................................
............................................................................................
978
997
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 998
974
Annex II
A.II.1
Methodology
Introduction
Parties need to agree upon common data, standards, supporting theories and methodologies. This annex summarizes a set of agreed upon
conventions and methodologies. These include the establishment of
metrics, determination of a base year, denitions of methodologies and
consistency of protocols that permit a legitimate comparison between
alternative types of energy in the context of climate change phenomena. This section denes or describes these fundamental denitions and
concepts as used throughout this report, recognizing that the literature
often uses inconsistent denitions and assumptions.
This report communicates uncertainty where relevant, for example, by
showing the results of sensitivity analyses and by quantitatively presenting ranges in cost numbers as well as ranges in the scenario results. This
report does not apply formal IPCC uncertainty terminology because at
the time of approval of this report, IPCC uncertainty guidance was in the
process of being revised.
A.II.2
A.II.3.1
The analyses of costs are in constant or real1 dollars (i.e., excluding the
impacts of ination) based in a particular year, the base year 2005,
in USD. Specic studies on which the report depends may use market
exchange rates as a default option or use purchasing power parities,
but where these are part of the analysis, they will be stated clearly and,
where possible, converted to USD2005.
When the monetary series in the analyses are in real dollars, consistency
requires that the discount rate should also be real (free of inationary components). This consistency is often not obeyed; studies refer to observed
market interest rates or observed discount rates, which include ination
or expectations about ination. Real/constant interest rates are never
directly observed, but derived from the ex-post identity:
(1+ m) = (1+ i ) (1+ f )
(1)
where
m = nominal rate (%)
i = real or constant rate (%)
f = ination rate (%)
The reference year for discounting and the base year for anchoring
constant prices may differ in studies used in the various chapters;
where possible, an attempt was made to harmonize the data to reect
discount rates applied here.
A.II.3.2
Private agents assign less value to things further in the future than to
things in the present because of a time preference for consumption
or to reect a return on investment. Discounting reduces future cash
ows by a value less than 1. Applying this rule on a series of net cash
ows in real USD, the net present value (NPV) of the project can be
ascertained and, thus, compared to other projects using:
n
NPV =
j =0
(2)
where
A.II.3
The metrics dened here provides the basis from which one renewable
resource type (or project) can be compared to another. To make projects
The economists term real may be confusing because what they call real does not
correspond to observed nancial ows (nominal, includes ination); real reects
the actual purchasing power of the ows in constant dollars.
975
Methodology
Annex II
A.II.3.3
(CRF) but may be known as the Annuity Factor . Like NPV, the annuity
factor depends on the two parameters i and n:
(1+ i )
C Lev
(1+ i )
(5)
B + O&M
Q
(6)
where
CLev = levelized cost
B = investment cost
Q = production
O&M = annual operating and maintenance costs
n = life time of the project
i = discount rate
(3)
Quantitiesj
j =0
or where one can assume that operation and maintenance (O&M) costs
do not change from year to year:
Expensesj
j =0
(1+ i ) 1
C Lev Q = B , or : C Lev = (B ) / Q
Levelized costs are used in the appraisal of power generation investments, where the outputs are quantiable (MWh generated during the
lifetime of the investment). The levelized cost is the unique break-even
cost price where discounted revenues (price x quantities)2 are equal to
the discounted net expenses:
CLev =
The CRF (or ) can be used to quickly calculate levelized costs for very
simple projects where investment costs during one given year are the
only expenditures and where production remains constant over the lifetime (n):
Levelized cost
i (1+ i )
where
CLev = levelized cost
n = lifetime of the project
i = discount rate
A.II.3.4
A.II.4
j=1
A
( 1+ i )
= B, or : A
j=1
1
( 1+ i )
=B
(4)
This is also referred to as Levelized Price. Note that, in this case, MWh would be
discounted.
976
Annex II
As the amount of heat produced in nuclear reactors is not always known, the IEA
estimates the primary energy equivalent from the electricity generation by assuming
an efciency of 33%, which is the average for nuclear power plants in Europe (IEA,
2010b).
Methodology
In this report, IEA data are utilized, but energy supply is reported using
the direct equivalent method. The major difference between this and the
physical energy content method will appear in the amount of primary
energy reported for electricity production by geothermal heat, concentrating solar thermal, ocean temperature gradients or nuclear energy.
Table A.II.1 compares the amounts of global primary energy by source
and percentages using the physical energy content, the direct equivalent
and a variant of the substitution method for the year 2008 based on IEA
data (IEA, 2010a). In current statistical energy data, the main differences
in absolute terms appear when comparing nuclear and hydropower.
Since they both produced a comparable amount of electricity globally
in 2008, under both direct equivalent and substitution methods, their
share of meeting total nal consumption is similar, whereas under the
physical energy content method, nuclear is reported at about three
times the primary energy of hydropower.
The alternative methods outlined above emphasize different aspects of primary energy supply. Therefore, depending on the application, one method
may be more appropriate than another. However, none of them is superior
to the others in all facets. In addition, it is important to realize that total
primary energy supply does not fully describe an energy system, but is
merely one indicator amongst many. Energy balances as published by
the IEA (2010a) offer a much wider set of indicators, which allows
tracing the ow of energy from the resource to nal energy use. For
instance, complementing total primary energy consumption with other
indicators, such as total nal energy consumption and secondary energy
production (e.g., electricity, heat), using different sources helps link the
conversion processes with the nal use of energy. See Figure 1.16 and
the associated discussion for a summary of this approach.
For the purpose of this report, the direct equivalent method is chosen for
the following reasons.
It emphasizes the secondary energy perspective for non-combustible
sources, which is the main focus of the analyses in the technology
chapters (Chapters 2 through 7).
All non-combustible sources are treated in an identical way by
using the amount of secondary energy they provide. This allows
the comparison of all non-CO2-emitting renewable and nuclear
energy sources on a common basis. Primary energy of fossil fuels
and biomass combines both the secondary energy and the thermal energy losses from the conversion process. When fossil fuels
or biofuels are replaced by nuclear systems or other renewable
technologies than biomass, the total of reported primary energy
decreases substantially (Jacobson, 2009).
Energy and CO2 emissions scenario literature that deals with fundamental transitions of the energy system to avoid dangerous
anthropogenic interference with the climate system over the long
term (50 to 100 years) has used the direct equivalent method most
frequently (Nakicenovic and Swart, 2000; Fisher et al., 2007).
977
Methodology
Annex II
Table A.II.1 | Comparison of global total primary energy supply in 2008 using different primary energy accounting methods (data from IEA, 2010a).
Physical content method
Substitution method1
EJ
EJ
EJ
Fossil fuels
418.15
81.41
418.15
85.06
418.15
79.14
Nuclear
29.82
5.81
9.85
2.00
25.90
4.90
Renewable:
65.61
12.78
63.58
12.93
84.27
15.95
Bioenergy2
50.33
9.80
50.33
10.24
50.33
9.53
Solar
0.51
0.10
0.50
0.10
0.66
0.12
Geothermal
2.44
0.48
0.41
0.08
0.82
0.16
Hydro
11.55
2.25
11.55
2.35
30.40
5.75
Ocean
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.00
Wind
0.79
0.15
0.79
0.16
2.07
0.39
Other
0.03
0.01
0.03
0.01
0.03
0.01
Total
513.61
100.00
491.61
100.00
528.35
100.00
Notes:
1
For the substitution method, conversion efciencies of 38% for electricity and 85% for heat from non-combustible sources were used. BP uses the conversion value of 38% for
electricity generated from hydro and nuclear sources. BP does not report solar, wind and geothermal in its statistics; here, 38% for electricity and 85% for heat is used.
Note that IEA reports rst-generation biofuels in secondary energy terms (the primary biomass used to produce the biofuel would be higher due to conversion losses, see Sections
2.3 and 2.4).
A.II.5
This section describes methods and underlying literature and assumptions of analyses of energy payback times and energy ratios (A.II.5.1),
Table A.II.2 | Comparison of global total primary energy supply in 2050 using different primary energy accounting methods based on a 550 ppm CO2eq stabilization scenario
(Loulou et al., 2009).
Physical content method
Substitution method
EJ
EJ
EJ
Fossil fuels
581.6
55.2
581.56
72.47
581.6
61.7
Nuclear
81.1
7.7
26.76
3.34
70.4
7.8
Renewable:
390.1
37.1
194.15
24.19
290.4
30.8
120.0
11.4
120.0
15.0
120.0
12.7
Bioenergy
Solar
23.5
2.2
22.0
2.8
35.3
3.8
Geothermal
217.3
20.6
22.9
2.9
58.1
6.2
Hydro
23.8
2.3
23.8
3.0
62.6
6.6
Ocean
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Wind
5.5
0.5
5.5
0.7
14.3
1.5
1,052.8
100
802.5
100
942.4
100
Total
978
Methodology
[EJ]
Annex II
1,800
1,500
1,200
900
600
PB
300
Rconv
2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100
Figure A.II.1 | Comparison of global total primary energy supply between 2010 and
2100 using different primary energy accounting methods based on a 550 ppm CO2eq
stabilization scenario (Loulou et al., 2009).
A.II.5.1
The Energy Ratio, ER (also referred to as the energy payback ratio, or the
Energy Return on Energy Investment, EROEI; see Gagnon, 2008), of an
energy supply system of power rating P and load factor , is dened as
the ratio
1
E
P 8760 hy T
ER = life =
E
E
of the lifetime electricity output Elife of the plant over its lifetime T, and
the total (gross) energy requirement E for construction, operation and
decommissioning (Gagnon, 2008). In calculating E, it is a convention to
a) exclude the energy from human labour, energy in the ground (fossil
and minerals), energy in the sun, and hydrostatic potential, and b) not
to discount future against present energy requirements (Perry et al., 1977;
Herendeen, 1988). Further, in computing the total energy requirement E,
all its constituents must be of the same energy quality (for example only
electricity, or only thermal energy, see the valuation problem discussed
in Leach (1975), Huettner (1976), Herendeen (1988), and especially
Rotty et al. (1975, pp. 5-9 for the case of nuclear energy)). Whilst E may
include derived and primary energy forms (for example electricity and
thermal energy), it is usually expressed in terms of primary energy, with
the electricity component converted to primary energy equivalents using
the thermal efciency Rconv 0.3 of a typical subcritical black-coal-red
power station as the conversion factor. This report follows these conventions. E is sometimes reported in units of kWhe/MJprim, and sometimes in
units of kWhe/kWhprim. Whilst the rst option chooses the most common
units for either energy form, the second option allows the reader to
over the payback time. Voorspools et al. (2000, p. 326) note that were
the system to pay back its embodied primary energy in equal amounts
of electricity, energy payback times would be more than three times as
long.
Mathematically, the above condition reads
EPB
Rconv
E=
tPB =
P 8760 h y 1 tPB
R conv
E
1
P 8760 hy
Rconv
, and leads to
E
Eout annual
Rconv
(which, for example, coincides with the standard German VDI 4600 denition). Here, Eout annual is the systems annual net energy output
Rconv
R
ET
ET
=
= conv T .
Eout annual T
Elife
ER
Rconv
Rconv
Note that the energy payback time is not dependent on the lifetime T,
because
E R conv
.
tPB =
P 8760 h y 1
Energy payback times have been partly converted from energy ratios
found in the literature (Lenzen, 1999, 2008; Lenzen and Munksgaard,
2002; Lenzen et al., 2006; Gagnon, 2008; Kubiszewski et al., 2010) based
on the assumed average lifetimes given in Table 9.8 (Chapter 9). Note
that energy payback as dened in the glossary (Annex I) and used in
some technology chapters refers to what is dened here as energy payback time.
A.II.5.2
979
Methodology
A.II.5.2.1
Review methodology
Broadly, the review followed guidelines for systematic reviews as commonly performed, for instance, in the medical sciences (Neely et al.,
2010). The methods of reviews in the medical sciences differ somewhat
from those in the physical sciences, in that there is an emphasis on multiple, independent reviews of each candidate reference using predened
screening criteria; the formation of a review team composed of, in this
case, LCA experts, technology experts and literature search experts that
meets regularly to ensure consistent application of the screening criteria; and an exhaustive search of published literature to ensure no bias
by, for instance, publication type (journal, report, etc.).
It is critical to note at the outset that this review did not alter (except
for unit conversion) or audit for accuracy the estimates of lifecycle GHG
emissions published in studies that pass the screening criteria. Additionally, no attempt was made to identify or screen for outliers, or pass
judgment on the validity of input parameter assumptions. Because
estimates are plotted as published, considerable methodological inconsistency is inherent, which limits comparability of the estimates both
within particular power generation technology categories and across
the technology categories. This limitation is partially counteracted by
the comprehensiveness of the literature search and the breadth and
depth of literature revealed. Few attempts have been made to broadly
review the LCA literature on electricity generation technologies. Those
that do exist tend to focus on individual technologies and are more limited in comprehensiveness compared to the present review (e.g., Lenzen
and Munksgaard, 2002; Fthenakis and Kim, 2007; Lenzen, 2008; Sovacool, 2008b; Beerten et al., 2009; Kubiszewski et al., 2010).
The review procedure included the following steps: literature collection,
screening and analysis.
Literature collection
Starting in May of 2009, potentially relevant literature was identied
through multiple mechanisms, including searches in major bibliographic
databases (e.g., Web of Science, WorldCat) using a variety of search algorithms and combinations of key words, review of reference lists of relevant
980
Annex II
Reported inputs, scenario/technology characteristics, important assumptions and results in enough detail to trace and trust the results; and
Annex II
Methodology
Table A.II.3 reports the counts of references at each stage in the screening process for the broad classes of electricity generation technologies
considered in this report.
Analysis of estimates
Estimates of lifecycle GHG emissions from studies passing both
screens were then analyzed and plotted. First, estimates were categorized by technology within the broad classes considered in this
report, listed in Table A.II.3. Second, estimates were converted to
the common functional unit of g CO2eq per kWh generated. This
conversion was performed using no exogenous assumptions; if
any were required, that estimate was not included. Third, estimates of total lifecycle GHG emissions that included contributions
from either land use change (LUC) or heat production (in cases
of cogeneration) were removed. This step required that studies
that considered LUC- or heat-related GHG emissions had to report
those contributions separately such that estimates included here
pertain to the generation of electricity alone. Finally, distributional
information required for display in box and whisker plots were
calculated: minimum, 25th percentile value, 50th percentile value,
75th percentile value and maximum. Technologies with data sets
composed of less than ve estimates (e.g., geothermal) have been
plotted as discrete points rather than superimposing synthetic distributional information.
The resulting values underlying Figure 9.8 are shown in Table A.II.4. Figures displayed in technology chapters are based on the same data set,
yet displayed with a higher level of resolution regarding technology subcategories (e.g., on- and offshore wind energy).
A.II.5.2.2
List of references
Table A.II.3 | Counts of LCAs of electricity generation technologies (references) at each stage in the literature collection and screening process and numbers of scenarios
(estimates) of lifecycle GHG emissions evaluated herein.
References passing
the second screen
References providing
lifecycle GHG
emissions estimates
Estimates of lifecycle
GHG emissions
passing screens
162
84
52
226
192
110
52
181
45
19
13
42
References reviewed
References passing
the rst screen
Biopower
369
Coal
273
125
Technology category
Geothermal Energy
46
24
Hydropower
89
45
11
11
28
Natural gas
251
157
77
40
90
Nuclear Energy
249
196
64
32
125
Ocean energy
64
30
10
Oil
68
45
19
10
24
Photovoltaics
400
239
75
26
124
Wind Energy
231
174
72
49
126
2165
1309
546
296
984
60%
25%
14%
42%
23%
TOTALS
% of total reviewed
% of those passing rst screen
% of those passing second screen
54%
Note: Some double counting is inherent in the totals given that some references investigated more than one technology.
981
Methodology
Annex II
Table A.II.4 | Aggregated results of literature review of LCAs of GHG emissions from electricity generation technologies as displayed in Figure 9.8 (g CO2eq/kWh).
Solar
Values
Biopower
PV
CSP
Geothermal
Energy
Hydropower
Ocean
Energy
Wind
Energy
Nuclear
Energy
Natural
Gas
Oil
Coal
Minimum
-633
290
510
675
25th percentile
360
29
14
20
422
722
877
50th
percentile
18
46
22
45
12
16
469
840
1001
75th
percentile
37
80
32
57
20
45
548
907
1130
75
217
89
79
43
23
81
220
930
1170
1689
Maximum
CCS min
-1368
65
98
CCS max
-594
245
396
Note: CCS = Carbon capture and storage, PV = Photovoltaic, CSP = Concentrating solar power.
Cuperus, M.A.T. (2003). Biomass Systems: Final Report. Environmental and Eco-
logical Life Cycle Inventories for Present and Future Power Systems in Europe
pp. 193-202.
Forsberg, G. (2000). Biomass energy transport Analysis of bioenergy transport
chains using life cycle inventory method. Biomass & Bioenergy, 19(1), pp. 17-30.
Froese, R.E., D.R. Shonnard, C.A. Miller, K.P. Koers, and D.M. Johnson (2010). An
tories of Energy Systems: Results for Current Systems in Switzerland and Other
UCTE Countries. Ecoinvent Report No. 5, Paul Scherrer Institute, Swiss Centre for
Life Cycle Inventories, Villigen, Switzerland, 185 pp. Available at: www.ecolo.org/
documents/documents_in_english/Life-cycle-analysis-PSI-05.pdf.
Dowaki, K., H. Ishitani, R. Matsuhashi, and N. Sam (2002). A comprehensive life
cycle analysis of a biomass energy system. Technology, 8(4-6), pp. 193-204.
Dowaki, K., S. Mori, H. Abe, P.F. Grierson, M.A. Adams, N. Sam, P. Nimiago,
J. Gale, and Y. Kaya (2003). A life cycle analysis of biomass energy system
Hanaoka, T., and S.-Y. Yokoyama (2003). CO2 mitigation by biomass-red power
generation in Japan. International Energy Journal, 4(2), pp. 99-103.
Hartmann, D., and M. Kaltschmitt (1999). Electricity generation from solid biomass
via co-combustion with coal - Energy and emission balances from a German case
study. Biomass & Bioenergy, 16(6), pp. 397-406.
Heller, M.C., G.A. Keoleian, M.K. Mann, and T.A. Volk (2004). Life cycle energy
Dubuisson, X., and I. Sintzoff (1998). Energy and CO2 balances in different power
Herrera, I., C. Lago, Y. Lechon, R. Saez, M. Munarriz, and J. Gil (2008). Life cycle
generation routes using wood fuel from short rotation coppice. Biomass & Bioen-
assessment of two biomass power generation plants. In: 16th European Biomass
Conference & Exhibition, Valencia, Spain, 2-6 June 2008, pp. 2606-2613.
Elsayed, M.A., R. Matthews, and N.D. Mortimer (2003). Carbon and Energy Bal-
Hong, S.W. (2007). The Usability of Switchgrass, Rice Straw, and Logging Residue as
ances for a Range of Biofuel Options. Resources Research Institute, Shefeld Hallam
Feedstocks for Power Generation in East Texas. M.S. Thesis, Texas A&M University,
Jungmeier, G., and J. Spitzer (2001). Greenhouse gas emissions of bioenergy from
compared with power generation from coal in the Netherlands. Biomass and
agriculture compared to fossil energy for heat and electricity supply. Nutrient
982
Annex II
Methodology
Jungmeier, G., J. Spitzer, and G. Resch (1998). Environmental burdens over the
Sikkema, R., M. Junginger, W. Pichler, S. Hayes, and A.P.C. Faaij (2010). The
entire life cycle of a biomass CHP plant. Biomass and Bioenergy, 15(4-5), pp.
311-323.
in Italy, Sweden and the Netherlands. Biofuels, Bioproducts and Biorening, 4(2),
pp. 132-153.
Spath, P.L., and M.K. Mann (2004). Biomass Power and Conventional Fossil Systems
Ma, X., F. Li, Z. Zhao, C. Wu, and Y. Chen (2003). Life cycle assessment on bio-
with and without CO2 Sequestration Comparing the Energy Balance, Green-
mass gasication combined cycle and coal red power plant. In: Energy and the
electricity production from poplar energy crops compared with conventional fossil
System analysis based on the method of a life cycle inventory (LCI) analysis.
Akai, M., N. Nomura, H. Waku, and M. Inoue (1997). Life-cycle analysis of a fossil-
fuel power plant with CO2 recovery and a sequestering system. Energy, 22(2-3),
report.pdf.
pp. 249-256.
Bates, J.L. (1995). Full Fuel Cycle Atmospheric Emissions and Global Warming
Cost and Full Fuel Cycle Environmental Impacts of Saskatchewans Electric Supply
Options. SECDA Publication No. T800-94-004, Saskatoon, SK, Canada, 205 pp.
Technical Support Unit (ETSU), London, UK, 51 pp. (ISBN 011 515 4027).
Impacts of Hydropower with Those of Other Generation Technologies. International Energy Agency (IEA), Paris, France, 221 pp. Available at: www.ieahydro.
org/reports/ST3-020613b.pdf.
Searcy, E., and P. Flynn (2008). Processing of straw/corn stover: Comparison of life
cycle emissions. International Journal of Green Energy, 5(6), pp. 423-437.
Combined Heat and Power Systems. Environmental and Ecological Life Cycle
Inventories for Present and Future Power Systems in Europe (ECLIPSE). N.V. tot
Dolan, S.L. (2007). Life Cycle Assessment and Emergy Synthesis of a Theoretical Offshore Wind Farm for Jacksonville, Florida. M.S. Thesis, University of Florida, 125
pp.
983
Methodology
Annex II
Koornneef, J., T. van Keulen, A. Faaij, and W. Turkenburg (2008). Life cycle assess-
and storage of CO2. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 2(4), pp.
448-467.
Kreith, F., P. Norton, and D. Brown (1990). CO2 Emissions from Coal-red and
Solar Electric Power Plants. Solar Energy Research Institute (SERI), Golden, CO,
USA, 44 pp.
tories of Energy Systems: Results for Current Systems in Switzerland and Other
UCTE Countries. Ecoinvent Report No. 5, Paul Scherrer Institute, Swiss Centre for
Life Cycle Inventories, Villigen, Switzerland, 185 pp. Available at: www.ecolo.org/
documents/documents_in_english/Life-cycle-analysis-PSI-05.pdf.
Dones, R., C. Bauer, T. Heck, O. Mayer-Spohn, and M. Blesl (2008). Life cycle
assessment of future fossil technologies with and without carbon capture and
Lee, R. (1994). Estimating externalities of coal fuel cycles. In: External Costs and
storage. Life-Cycle Analysis for New Energy Conversion and Storage Sys-
Benets of Fuel Cycles, Vol. 3. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN,
integrated CO2 - H2S removal: Performance analysis, life cycle assessment and
Martin, J.A. (1997). A total fuel cycle approach to reducing greenhouse gas emissions:
Solar generation technologies as greenhouse gas offsets in U.S. utility systems. In:
Solar Energy (Selected Proceeding of ISES 1995: Solar World Congress. Part IV),
Friedrich, R., and T. Marheineke (1996). Life cycle analysis of electric systems:
Methods and results. In: IAEA Advisory Group Meeting on Analysis of Net Energy
May, J.R. and D.J. Brennan (2003). Life cycle assessment of Australian fossil energy
Balance and Full-energy-chain Greenhouse Gas Emissions for Nuclear and Other
984
Annex II
Methodology
Cavallaro, F., and L. Ciraolo (2006). Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of Paraboloidal-
dish Solar Thermal Power Generation System. In: 1st International Symposium
pp. 547-559.
SENES Consultants Limited (2005). Methods to Assess the Impacts on the Natural
Shukla, P.R. and D. Mahapatra (2007). Full Fuel Cycle for India. In: CASES: Cost
Assessment of Sustainable Energy Systems. Document No. 7.1, Indian Institute of
Management Ahmedabad (IIMA), Vestrapur, Ahemdabad, India, 10 pp.
Spath, P.L., and M.K. Mann (2004). Biomass Power and Conventional Fossil Systems
Kreith, F., P. Norton, and D. Brown (1990). CO2 Emissions from Coal-red and Solar
with and without CO2 Sequestration Comparing the Energy Balance, Green-
Piemonte, V., M.D. Falco, P. Tarquini, and A. Giaconia (2010). Life cycle assess-
ment of a high temperature molten salt concentrated solar power plant. In: 20th
tors of greenhouse gases. In: IAEA Advisory Group Meeting on Analysis of Net
Energy Balance and Full-energy-chain Greenhouse Gas Emissions for Nuclear and
Other Energy Systems, Beijing, China, 4-7 Oct 1994, International Atomic Energy
Agency (IAEA), pp. 85-94. Available at: www.iaea.org/inis/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/28/013/28013414.pdf.
Pierucci, S., and G.B. Ferraris (eds.), Elsevier, Naples, Italy, 6-9 June 2010, 6 pp.
Vant-Hull, L. (1992). Solar thermal electricity: An environmentally benign and viable
alternative. Perspectives in Energy, 2, pp. 157-166.
Viebahn, P., S. Kronshage, and F. Trieb (2008). Final Report on Technical Data, Costs,
White, S.W. (1998). Net Energy Payback and CO2 Emissions from Helium-3 Fusion
and Life Cycle Inventories of Solar Thermal Power Plants. Project no: 502687. New
and Wind Electrical Power Plants. PhD Thesis, University of Wisconsin, Madison,
%20report%20concentrating%20solar%20thermal%20power%20plants.pdf.
Weinrebe, G., M. Bohnke, and F. Trieb (1998). Life cycle assessment of an 80 MW
Wibberley, L., J. Nunn, A. Cottrell, M. Searles, A. Urfer, and P. Scaife (2000). Life
SEGS plant and a 30 MW PHOEBUS power tower. In: International Solar Energy
Cycle Analysis for Steel and Electricity Production in Australia. Australian Coal
Conference. Solar Engineering. ASME, Albuquerque, NM, USA, 14-17 June 1998,
pp. 417-424.
Wibberley, L. (2001). Coal in a Sustainable Society. Australian Coal Association
Research Program, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
Frick, S., M. Kaltschmitt, and G. Schroder (2010). Life cycle assessment of geo-
MacLean (2010). Life cycle emissions and cost of producing electricity from
coal, natural gas, and wood pellets in Ontario, Canada. Environmental Science &
Technology, 44(1), pp. 538-544.
Efciency and CO2 Emission of Geothermal Power Production. In: World Geothermal Congress 2010, International Geothermal Association, Bali, Indonesia,
Burkhardt, J., G. Heath, and C. Turchi (2010). Life cycle assessment of a model
parabolic trough concentrating solar power plant with thermal energy storage.
Rogge, S., and M. Kaltschmitt (2003). Electricity and heat production from geo-
ety of Mechanical Engineers (ASME), Phoenix, AZ, USA, 17-22 May 2010.
pp. 35-40.
985
Methodology
Rule, B.M., Z.J. Worth, and C.A. Boyle (2009). Comparison of life cycle carbon
Annex II
Audus, H., and L. Saroff (1995). Full Fuel Cycle Evaluation of CO2 Mitigation Options
for Fossil Fuel Fired Power Plant. Energy Conversion and Management, 36(6-9),
pp. 831-834.
ing technology; Chinetsu hatsuden gijutsu no kankyo life cycle bunseki. Denki
Badea, A.A., I. Voda, and C.F. Dinca (2010). Comparative Analysis of Coal, Natural
Gas and Nuclear Fuel Life Cycles by Chains of Electrical Energy Production. UPB
752-755.
Hydropower (11)
Bernier, E., F. Marchal, and R. Samson (2010). Multi-Objective Design Optimization of a Natural Gas-combined Cycle with Carbon Dioxide Capture in a Life Cycle
Barnthouse, L.W., G.F. Cada, M.-D. Cheng, C.E. Easterly, R.L. Kroodsma, R. Lee,
D.S. Shriner, V.R. Tolbert, and R.S. Turner (1994). Estimating Externalities of
Berry, J.E., M.R. Holland, P.R. Watkiss, R. Boyd, and W. Stephenson (1998).
the Hydro Fuel Cycles. Report 6. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN,
Denholm, P., and G.L. Kulcinski (2004). Life cycle energy requirements and green-
Dolan, S.L. (2007). Life Cycle Assessment and Emergy Synthesis of a Theoretical Off-
house gas emissions from large scale energy storage systems. Energy Conversion
shore Wind Farm for Jacksonville, Florida. M.S. Thesis, University of Florida, 125
Dones, R., T. Heck, C. Bauer, S. Hirschberg, P. Bickel, P. Preiss, L.I. Panis, and I.
Dones, R., S. Hirschberg, and I. Knoepfel (1996). Greenhouse gas emission inven-
tory based on full energy chain analysis. In: IAEA Advisory Group Meeting on
sions for Nuclear and Other Energy Systems. Beijing, China, 4-7 October 1994,
tories of Energy Systems: Results for Current Systems in Switzerland and Other
UCTE Countries. Ecoinvent Report No. 5, Paul Scherrer Institute, Swiss Centre for
Life Cycle Inventories, Villigen, Switzerland, 185 pp. Available at: www.ecolo.org/
documents/documents_in_english/Life-cycle-analysis-PSI-05.pdf.
Horvath, A. (2005). Decision-making in Electricity Generation Based on Global
Warming Potential and Life-cycle Assessment for Climate Change. University of
California Energy Institute, Berkeley, CA, USA, 16 pp. Available at: repositories.
cdlib.org/ucei/devtech/EDT-006.
IEA (1998). Benign Energy? The Environmental Implications of Renewables. International Energy Agency, Paris, France, 128 pp.
Pacca, S. (2007). Impacts from decommissioning of hydroelectric dams: A life cycle
perspective. Climatic Change, 84(3-4), pp. 281-294.
Rhodes, S., J. Wazlaw, C. Chaffee, F. Kommonen, S. Apfelbaum, and L. Brown
(2000). A Study of the Lake Chelan Hydroelectric Project Based on Life-cycle
tories of Energy Systems: Results for Current Systems in Switzerland and Other
Ribeiro, F.d.M., and G.A. da Silva (2009). Life-cycle inventory for hydroelectric generation: a Brazilian case study. Journal of Cleaner Production, 18(1), pp. 44-54.
Vattenfall (2008). Vattenfall AB Generation Nordic Certied Environmental Product
Declaration EPD of Electricity from Vattenfalls Nordic Hydropower. Report No.
S-P-00088, Vattenfall, Stockholm, Sweden, 50 pp.
UCTE Countries. Ecoinvent Report No. 5, Paul Scherrer Institute, Swiss Centre for
Life Cycle Inventories, Villigen, Switzerland, 185 pp. Available at: www.ecolo.org/
documents/documents_in_english/Life-cycle-analysis-PSI-05.pdf.
European Commission (1995). Oil & Gas. ExternE: Externalities of Energy. European
Commission, Directorate-General XII, Luxembourg, 4, 470 pp.
Zhang, Q., B. Karney, H.L. MacLean, and J. Feng (2007). Life-Cycle Inventory of
Energy Use and Greenhouse Gas Emissions for Two Hydropower Projects in
986
Annex II
Gantner, U., M. Jakob, and S. Hirschberg (2001). Total greenhouse gas emissions
and costs of alternative Swiss energy supply strategies. In: Fifth International
Conference on Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies (GHGT-5). CSIRO Publishing, Cairns, Australia, 13-16 August 2000, pp. 991-996.
Herrick, C.N., A. Sikri, L. Greene, and J. Finnell (1995). Assessment of the Envi-
Methodology
Pacca, S.A. (2003). Global Warming Effect Applied to Electricity Generation Technologies. PhD Thesis, University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA, 191 pp.
Phumpradab, K., S.H. Gheewala, and M. Sagisaka (2009). Life cycle assessment of natural gas power plants in Thailand. International Journal of Life
Cycle Assessment, 14(4), pp. 354-363.
Raugei, M., S. Bargigli, and S. Ulgiati (2005). A multi-criteria life cycle assessment
ized Cost and Full Fuel Cycle Environmental Impacts of Saskatchewans Electric
Technologies. International Energy Agency (IEA), Paris, France, 239 pp. Available
at: www.ieahydro.org/reports/ST3-020613b.pdf.
205 pp.
Kannan, R., K.C. Leong, R. Osman, and H.K. Ho (2007). Life cycle energy, emissions
SENES Consultants Limited (2005). Methods to Assess the Impacts on the Natural
Kato, S., and A. Widiyanto (1999). A life cycle assessment scheme for environmental
Spath, P.L., and M.K. Mann (2000). Life Cycle Assessment of a Natural Gas Com-
load estimation of power generation systems with NETS evaluation method. In:
Lee, R. (1998). Estimating Externalities of Natural Gas Fuel Cycles. External Costs
tors of greenhouse gases. In: IAEA Advisory Group Meeting on Analysis of Net
and Benets of Fuel Cycles: A Study by the U.S. Department of Energy and the
Energy Balance and Full-energy-chain Greenhouse Gas Emissions for Nuclear and
Other Energy Systems, Beijing, China, 4-7 Oct 1994, International Atomic Energy
Laboratory and Resources for the Future, Oak Ridge, TN, USA, 440 pp.
tionStore/_Public/28/013/28013414.pdf.
World Energy Council (2004). Comparison of Energy Systems Using Life Cycle
Assessment. World Energy Council, London, UK, 67 pp.
Badea, A.A., I. Voda, and C.F. Dinca (2010). Comparative analysis of coal, natural
greenhouse gas emissions for solar thermal electric power generation systems.
gas and nuclear fuel life cycles by chains of electrical energy production. UPB
Odeh, N.A., and T.T. Cockerill (2008). Life cycle GHG assessment of fossil fuel
power plants with carbon capture and storage. Energy Policy, 36(1), pp. 367-380.
emissions in the nuclear life cycle: A balanced appraisal. Energy Policy, 37(12),
pp. 5056-5058.
987
Methodology
Dones, R., S. Hirschberg, and I. Knoepfel (1996). Greenhouse gas emission inven-
Annex II
San Martin, R.L. (1989). Environmental Emissions from Energy Technology Systems:
tory based on full energy chain analysis. In: IAEA Advisory Group Meeting on
The Total Fuel Cycle. U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, DC, USA, 21 pp.
sions for Nuclear and Other Energy Systems. Beijing, China, 4-7 October 1994,
ized Cost and Full Fuel Cycle Environmental Impacts of Saskatchewans Electric
Supply Options. SECDA Publication No. T800-94-004, Saskatoon, SK, Canada, 205
Public/28/013/28013414.pdf.
pp.
Dones, R., X. Zhou, and C. Tian (2004). Life cycle assessment (LCA) of Chinese
of lifecycle CO2 emissions from the Japanese electric power sector in the 21st
century under various nuclear scenarios. Energy Policy, 34(7), pp. 833-852.
Dones, R., T. Heck, C. Bauer, S. Hirschberg, P. Bickel, P. Preiss, L.I. Panis, and
tors of greenhouse gases. In: IAEA Advisory Group Meeting on Analysis of Net
Energy Balance and Full-energy-chain Greenhouse Gas Emissions for Nuclear and
Other Energy Systems, Beijing, China, 4-7 Oct 1994, International Atomic Energy
tories of Energy Systems: Results for Current Systems in Switzerland and Other
tionStore/_Public/28/013/28013414.pdf.
UCTE Countries. Ecoinvent Report No. 5, Paul Scherrer Institute, Swiss Centre for
Uchiyama, Y. (1996). Life cycle analysis of electricity generation and supply systems:
Life Cycle Inventories, Villigen, Switzerland, 185 pp. Available at: www.ecolo.org/
Net energy analysis and greenhouse gas emissions. In: Electricity, Health and the
documents/documents_in_english/Life-cycle-analysis-PSI-05.pdf.
Dones, R., C. Bauer, and T. Heck (2007). LCA of Current Coal, Gas and Nuclear
Electricity Systems and Electricity Mix in the USA. Paul Scherrer Institute, Villigen,
Switzerland, 4 pp.
Frischknecht, R. (1998). Life Cycle Inventory Analysis for Decision-Making: ScopeDependent Inventory System Models and Context-Specic Joint Product Allocation.
Dissertation, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland, 256
pp.
Fthenakis, V.M., and H.C. Kim (2007). Greenhouse-gas emissions from solar electric- and nuclear power: A life-cycle study. Energy Policy, 35(4), pp. 2549-2557.
Hondo, H. (2005). Life cycle GHG emission analysis of power generation systems:
Japanese case. Energy, 30(11-12), pp. 2042-2056.
tional Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Vienna, Austria, 16-19 October 1995, pp.
279-291.
Vattenfall (2007). Summary of Vattenfall AB Generation Nordic Certied Environmental Product Declaration, EPD of Electricity from Ringhals Nuclear Power
Plant. S-P-00026 2007-11-01, Vattenfall, Stockholm, Sweden, 4 pp.
Vattenfall (2007). Vattenfall AB Generation Nordic Certied Environmental Product
Declaration, EPD, of Electricity from Forsmark Nuclear Power Plant. Report No.
S-P-00088, Vattenfall, Stockholm, Sweden, 59 pp.
Voorspools, K.R., E.A. Brouwers, and W.D. DHaeseleer (2000). Energy content
and indirect greenhouse gas emissions embedded in emission-free power
plants: Results for the low countries. Applied Energy, 67(3), pp. 307-330.
Kivisto, A. (1995). Energy payback period and carbon dioxide emissions in differ-
White, S.W., and G.L. Kulcinski (1999). Birth to Death Analysis of the Energy Pay-
back Ratio and CO2 Gas Emission Rates from Coal, Fission, Wind, and DT Fusion
International Association for Energy Economics, Washington, D.C., 5-8 July 1995,
pp. 191-198.
Krewitt, W., P. Mayerhofer, R. Friedrich, A. Truckenmller, T. Heck, A. Gressmann,
Yasukawa, S., Y. Tadokoro, and T. Kajiyama (1992). Life cycle CO2 emission from
nuclear power reactor and fuel cycle system. In: Expert Workshop on Life-cycle
Analysis of Energy Systems, Methods and Experience. Paris, France, 21-22 May
Final Report on Technical Data, Costs and Life Cycle Inventories of Nuclear Power
rect CO2 emissions from the full energy chain. In: IAEA Advisory Group Meeting on
RS1a%20D14.2%20Final%20report%20on%20nuclear.pdf.
for Nuclear and Other Energy Systems. Beijing, China, pp. 139-150. Available at:
Lenzen, M., C. Dey, C. Hardy, and M. Bilek (2006). Life-cycle Energy Balance
www.iaea.org/inis/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/28/ 013/28013414.pdf.
Parker, R.P.M., G.P. Harrison, and J.P. Chick (2008). Energy and carbon audit of
988
Annex II
Rule, B.M., Z.J. Worth, and C.A. Boyle (2009). Comparison of life cycle carbon
Methodology
Alsema, E.A. (2000). Energy pay-back time and CO2 emissions of PV systems.
Progress in Photovoltaics, 8(1), pp. 17-25.
Technologies (Wave and Tidal Power Plant). New Energy Externalities Develop-
ments for Sustainability (NEEDS), Rome, Italy and SPOK Consult, Kopenhagen,
Denmark, 59 pp.
Wibberley, L. (2001). Coal in a Sustainable Society. Australian Coal Association
Research Program, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
power project: Implications for carbon emissions. Water and Environment Journal,
Final Report on Technical Data, Costs and Life Cycle Inventories of PV Applica-
Bates, J.L. (1995). Full Fuel Cycle Atmospheric Emissions and Global Warming
Impacts from UK Electricity Generation. ETSU, London, UK, 51 pp.
Berry, J.E., M.R. Holland, P.R. Watkiss, R. Boyd, and W. Stephenson (1998).
Power Generation and the Environment: a UK Perspective. AEA Technology,
Oxfordshire, UK, 275 pp.
Dones, R., S. Hirschberg, and I. Knoepfel (1996). Greenhouse gas emission
the life cycle of CdTe photovoltaics. In: Life-Cycle Analysis Tools for Green
Materials and Process Selection, Materials Research Society Symposium 2006.
S. Papasavva and V.M.P.O. Fthenakis (eds.), Materials Research Society, Boston,
MA, 28-30 November 2005, 895, pp. 83-88.
Fthenakis, V.M., and H.C. Kim (2007). Greenhouse-gas emissions from solar electric- and nuclear power: A life-cycle study. Energy Policy, 35(4), pp. 2549-2557.
inventory based on full energy chain analysis. In: IAEA Advisory Group Meeting
sions for Nuclear and Other Energy Systems. Beijing, China, 4-7 October 1994,
Graebig, M., S. Bringezu, and R. Fenner (2010). Comparative analysis of environmental impacts of maize-biogas and photovoltaics on a land use basis. Solar
Energy, 84(7), pp. 1255-1263.
Greijer, H., L. Karlson, S.E. Lindquist, and A. Hagfeldt (2001). Environmental
aspects of electricity generation from a nanocrystalline dye sensitized solar cell
system. Renewable Energy, 23(1), pp. 27-39.
Hayami, H., M. Nakamura, and K. Yoshioka (2005). The life cycle CO2 emission
Man, and Cybernetics, Part C: Applications and Reviews, 35(3), pp. 391-400.
Hondo, H. (2005). Life cycle GHG emission analysis of power generation systems:
Japanese case. Energy, 30(11-12), pp. 2042-2056.
UCTE Countries. Ecoinvent Report No. 5, Paul Scherrer Institute, Swiss Centre for
Life Cycle Inventories, Villigen, Switzerland, 185 pp. Available at: www.ecolo.org/
documents/documents_in_english/Life-cycle-analysis-PSI-05.pdf.
European Commission (1995). Oil & Gas. ExternE: Externalities of Energy. European
Commission, Directorate-General XII, Luxembourg, 4, 470 pp.
Gagnon, L., C. Belanger, and Y. Uchiyama (2002). Life-cycle assessment of electricity generation options: The status of research in year 2001. Energy Policy, 30,
pp. 1267-1279.
Hondo, H. (2005). Life cycle GHG emission analysis of power generation systems:
Japanese case. Energy, 30(11-12), pp. 2042-2056.
Kannan, R., C.P. Tso, R. Osman, and H.K. Ho (2004). LCA-LCCA of oil red steam
Muneer, T., S. Younes, P. Clarke, and J. Kubie (2006). Napier Universitys School of
turbine power plant in Singapore. Energy Conversion and Management, 45, pp.
3091-3107.
989
Methodology
Pacca, S.A. (2003). Global Warming Effect Applied to Electricity Generation Technologies. PhD Thesis, University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA, 191 pp.
Pehnt, M. (2006). Dynamic life cycle assessment (LCA) of renewable energy technologies. Renewable Energy, 31(1), pp. 55-71.
Pehnt, M., A. Bubenzer, and A. Rauber (2002). Life cycle assessment of photovoltaic systemsTrying to ght deep-seated prejudices. In: Photovoltaics Guidebook
for Decision Makers. A. Bubenzer and J. Luther (eds.), Springer, Berlin, Germany,
pp. 179-213.
Reich-Weiser, C. (2010). Decision-Making to Reduce Manufacturing Greenhouse
Gas Emissions. PhD Thesis, University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA, 101 pp.
Annex II
Enels Wind Plant in Sclafani Bagni (Palermo, Italy). Enel SpA, Rome, Italy, 25 pp.
the Supply Chain Optimization and Planning for the Environment (SCOPE) tool
sions from solar and wind power in Germany. In: IAEA Advisory Group Meeting
Performance, cost and life-cycle assessment study of hybrid PVT/AIR solar systems.
on Assessment of Greenhouse Gas Emissions from the Full Energy Chain of Solar
and Wind Power. IAEA, Vienna, Austria, 21-24 October 1996, pp. 77-87.
Hondo, H. (2005). Life cycle GHG emission analysis of power generation systems:
Japanese case. Energy, 30(11-12), pp. 2042-2056.
Jacobson, M.Z. (2009). Review of solutions to global warming, air pollution, and
energy security. Energy & Environmental Science, 2, pp. 148-173.
Voorspools, K.R., E.A. Brouwers, and W.D. DHaeseleer (2000). Energy content
Jungbluth, N., C. Bauer, R. Dones, and R. Frischknecht (2005). Life cycle assess-
ment for emerging technologies: Case studies for photovoltaic and wind power.
plants: Results for the low countries. Applied Energy, 67(3), pp. 307-330.
990
Annex II
Pacca, S.A. (2003). Global Warming Effect Applied to Electricity Generation Technologies. PhD Thesis, University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA, 191 pp.
Pacca, S.A., and A. Horvath (2002). Greenhouse gas emissions from building and
operating electric power plants in the upper Colorado River Basin. Environmental
Science & Technology, 36(14), pp. 3194-3200.
Pehnt, M. (2006). Dynamic life cycle assessment (LCA) of renewable energy technologies. Renewable Energy, 31(1), pp. 55-71.
Pehnt, M., M. Oeser, and D.J. Swider (2008). Consequential environmental system
analysis of expected offshore wind electricity production in Germany. Energy,
33(5), pp. 747-759.
Proops, J.L.R., P.W. Gay, S. Speck, and T. Schrder (1996). The lifetime pollution
implications of various types of electricity generation. An input-output analysis.
Energy Policy, 24(3), pp. 229-237.
Rule, B.M., Z.J. Worth, and C.A. Boyle (2009). Comparison of life cycle carbon
dioxide emissions and embodied energy in four renewable electricity generation
technologies in New Zealand. Environmental Science & Technology, 43(16), pp.
6406-6413.
Rydh, J., M. Jonsson, and P. Lindahl (2004). Replacement of Old Wind Turbines
Assessed from Energy, Environmental and Economic Perspectives. University of
Kalmar, Department of Technology, Kalmar, Sweden, 33 pp.
Saskatchewan Energy Conservation and Development Authority (1994).
Levelized Cost and Full Fuel Cycle Environmental Impacts of Saskatchewans
Methodology
Voorspools, K.R., E.A. Brouwers, and W.D. DHaeseleer (2000). Energy content
and indirect greenhouse gas emissions embedded in emission-free power
plants: Results for the low countries. Applied Energy, 67(3), pp. 307-330.
Waters, T.M., R. Forrest, and D.C. McConnell (1997). Life-cycle assessment of
wind energy: A case study based on Baix Ebre Windfarm, Spain. In: Wind Energy
Conversion 1997: Proceedings of the Nineteenth BWEA Wind Energy Conference, R. Hunter (ed.), Mechanical Engineering Publications Limited, Heriot-Watt
University, Edinburgh, UK, 16-18 July 1997, pp. 231-238.
Weinzettel, J., M. Reenaas, C. Solli, and E.G. Hertwich (2009). Life cycle assessment of a oating offshore wind turbine. Renewable Energy, 34(3), pp. 742-747.
White, S. (2006). Net energy payback and CO2 emissions from three Midwestern
wind farms: An update. Natural Resources Research, 15(4), pp. 271-281.
White, S.W., and G.L. Kulcinski (1998). Net Energy Payback and CO2 Emissions
from Wind-Generated Electricity in the Midwest. UWFDM-1092, University of
Wisconsin, Madison, WI, USA, 72 pp.
White, S.W., and G.L. Kulcinski (1999). Birth to Death Analysis of the Energy Payback Ratio and CO2 Gas Emission Rates from Coal, Fission, Wind, and DT Fusion
Power Plants. University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, USA, 17 pp.
Wibberley, L. (2001). Coal in a Sustainable Society. Australian Coal Association
Research Program, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
World Energy Council (2004). Comparison of Energy Systems Using Life Cycle
Assessment. World Energy Council, London, UK, 67 pp.
A.II.5.3
Spitzley, D.V., and G.A. Keoleian (2005). Life Cycle Environmental and Economic
Assessment of Willow Biomass Electricity: A Comparison with Other Renewable
and Non-renewable Sources. Report No. CSS04-05R, University of Michigan,
Center for Sustainable Systems, Ann Arbor, MI, USA, 69 pp.
Tremeac, B., and F. Meunier (2009). Life cycle analysis of 4.5 MW and 250 W wind
This overview describes the methods of a comprehensive review of published estimates of operational water withdrawal and consumption
intensity of electricity generation technologies. Results are discussed in
Section 9.3.4.4 and shown in Figure 9.14.
A.II.5.3.1
Review methodology
sions from the Full Energy Chain of Solar and Wind Power, International Atomic
Energy Agency, Vienna, Austria, 21-24 October 1996, pp. 111-122.
van de Vate, J.F. (1996). Comparison of the greenhouse gas emissions from the
full energy chains of solar and wind power generation. In: IAEA Advisory Group
Meeting organized by the IAEA Headquarters. IAEA, Vienna, Austria, 21-24
October 1996, pp. 13.
Vattenfall AB (2003). Certied Environmental Product Declaration of Electricity from
Vattenfall ABs Swedish Windpower Plants. Vattenfall, Stockholm, Sweden, 31 pp.
Lifecycle water consumption and withdrawal literature for electricity generating technologies was reviewed, but due to lack of quality and breadth of
data, the review focused exclusively on operational water use. Lifecycle literature considered here are studies that passed the screening process used
in this reports review of lifecycle GHG emissions from electricity generation
technologies (see A II.5.2). Upstream water use for biofuel energy crops is
not subject of this section.
Vattenfall AB (2010). Vattenfall Wind Power Certied Environmental Product Declaration EPD of Electricity from Vattenfalls Wind Farms. Vattenfall Wind Power,
Stockholm, Sweden, 51 pp.
Vestas Wind Systems A/S (2006). Life Cycle Assessment of Electricity Produced
from Onshore Sited Wind Power Plants Based on Vestas V82-1.65 MW turbines.
Vestas, Randers, Denmark, 77 pp.
Vestas Wind Systems A/S (2006). Life Cycle Assessment of Offshore and Onshore
Sited Wind Power Plants Based on Vestas V90-3.0 MW Turbines. Vestas, Randers,
Denmark, 60 pp.
This review did not alter (except for unit conversion) or audit for accuracy
the estimates of water use published in studies that passed the screening criteria. Also, because estimates are used as published, considerable
methodological inconsistency is inherent, which limits comparability. A few
attempts have been made to review the operational water use literature
for electricity generation technologies, though all of these were limited in
their comprehensiveness of either technologies or of primary literature considered (Gleick, 1993; Inhaber, 2004; NETL, 2007a,b; WRA, 2008; Fthenakis
991
Methodology
Annex II
and Kim, 2010). The present review therefore informs the discourse of this
report in a unique way.
Dziegielewski, B., and T. Bik (2006). Water Use Benchmarks for Thermoelec-
Literature collection
The identication of relevant literature started with a core library of references held previously by the researchers, followed by searching in major
bibliographic databases using a variety of search algorithms and combinations of key words, and then reviewing reference lists of every collected
reference. All collected literature was added to a bibliographic database.
The literature collection methods described here apply to all classes of electricity generation technologies reviewed in this report.
EPRI (2002). Water and sustainability (Volume 2): an assessment of water demand,
Literature screening
Collected references were independently subjected to screening to select
references that met criteria for quality and relevance. Operational water use
studies must have been written in English, addressed operational water use
for facilities located in North America, provided sufcient information to
calculate a water use intensity factor (in cubic metres per megawatt-hour
generated), made estimates of water consumption that did not duplicate
others previously published, and have been in one of the following formats:
journal article, conference proceedings, or report (authored by government
agencies, nongovernmental organizations, international institutions, or corporations). Estimates of national average water use intensity for particular
technologies, estimates of existing plant operational water use, and estimates derived from laboratory experiments were considered equally. Given
the paucity of available estimates of water consumption for electricity generation technologies and that the estimates that have been published are
being used in the policy context already, no additional screens based on
quality or completeness of reporting were applied.
/coalpower/ewr/pubs/Estimating%20Freshwater%20Needs%20to%20
2025.pdf.
Inhaber, H. (2004). Water use in renewable and conventional electricity production.
Energy Sources, Part A: Recovery, Utilization, and Environmental Effects, 26, pp.
Analysis of estimates
Estimates were categorized by fuel technology and cooling systems. Certain aggregations of fuel technology types and cooling system types were
made to facilitate analysis. Concentrating solar power includes both parabolic trough and power tower systems. Nuclear includes pressurized water
reactors and boiling water reactors. Coal includes subcritical and supercritical technologies. For recirculating cooling technologies, no distinction is
made between natural draft and mechanical draft cooling tower systems.
Similarly, all pond-cooled systems are treated identically. Estimates were
converted to the common functional unit of cubic meters per MWh generated. This conversion was performed using no exogenous assumptions; if
any were required, that estimate was not analyzed.
309-322, doi:10.1080/00908310490266698.
Kelly, B. (2006). Nexant Parabolic Trough Solar Power Plant Systems Analysis-Task 2:
Comparison of Wet and Dry Rankine Cycle Heat Rejection. Subcontractor ReportNREL/SR-550-40163, National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), Golden, CO,
USA. Available at: www.nrel.gov/csp/troughnet/pdfs/40163.pdf.
Leitner, A. (2002). Fuel from the Sky: Solar Powers Potential for Western Energy
Supply. Subcontractor Report-NREL/SR 550-32160, National Renewable Energy
Laboratory (NREL), Golden, CO, USA. Available at: www.nrel.gov/csp/pdfs/32160.
pdf.
Mann, M., and P. Spath (1997). Life Cycle Assessment of a Biomass Gasication
Combined-Cycle System. Technical Report-TP-430-23076, National Renewable
Energy Laboratory (NREL), Golden, CO, USA. Available at: www.nrel.gov/docs/
legosti/fy98/23076.pdf.
Meridian (1989). Energy System Emissions and Material Requirements. Meridian
A.II.5.3.2
List of references
eration System. California Energy Commission (CEC) Final Staff Report, CA, USA.
Cohen, G., D.W. Kearney, C. Drive, D. Mar, and G.J. Kolb (1999). Final Report
Available at www.netl.doe.gov/energy-analyses/pubs/BitBase_FinRep_2007.pdf.
NETL (2007). Power Plant Water Usage and Loss Study. 2007 Update. National Energy
gov/technologies/coalpower/gasification/pubs/pdf/WaterReport_Revised%20
May2007.pdf.
992
Annex II
Methodology
A.II.5.4
Risk analysis
This section introduces the methods applied for the assessment of hazards
and risks of energy technologies presented in Section 9.3.4.7, and provides
references and central assumptions (Table A.II.5).
NETL (2009). Existing Plants, Emissions and Capture Setting Water-Energy R&D Program Goals. DOE/NETL-2009/1372, National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL),
Pittsburgh, PA, USA. Available at: www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/coalpower/ewr/
water/pdfs/EPEC%20water-energy%20R%26D%20goal%20update%20v.1%20
may09.pdf.
Sargent & Lundy (2003). Assessment of Parabolic Trough and Power Tower Solar
Technology Cost and Performance Forecasts. NREL/SR-550-34440, National
Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), Golden, CO, USA. Available at: www.nrel.
gov/docs/fy04osti/34440.pdf.
Stoddard, L., J. Abiecunas, and R.O. Connell (2006). Economic, Energy, and
Environmental Benets of Concentrating Solar Power in California. NREL/
SR-550-39291, National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), Golden, CO,
USA. Available at: www.nrel.gov/docs/fy06osti/39291.pdf.
Torcellini, P., N. Long, and R. Judkoff (2003). Consumptive Water Use for U.S.
Power Production. Technical Report-TP-550-33905, National Renewable Energy
Laboratory (NREL), Golden, CO, USA. Available at: www.nrel.gov/docs/fy04osti/33905.pdf.
Turchi, C., M. Wagner, and C. Kutscher (2010). Water Use in Parabolic Trough Power
Plants: Summary Results from WorleyParsons Analyses. NREL/TP-5500-49468,
National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), Golden, CO, USA. Available at:
www.nrel.gov/docs/fy11osti/49468.pdf.
US DOE (2009). Concentrating Solar Power Commercial Application Study: Reducing
Water Consumption of Concentrating Solar Power Electricity Generation. Report
to Congress. U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), Washington, DC, USA.
Viebahn, P., S. Kronshage, F. Trieb, and Y. Lechon (2008). Final Report on Technical Data, Costs, and Life Cycle Inventories of Solar Thermal Power Plants. Project
502687, New Energy Externalities Developments for Sustainability (NEEDS),
Brussels, Belgium, 95 pp. Available at: www.needs-project.org/RS1a/RS1a%20
D12.2%20Final%20report%20concentrating%20solar%20thermal%20
power%20plants.pdf.
WorleyParsons (2009). Analysis of Wet and Dry Condensing 125 MW Parabolic
Trough Power Plants. WorleyParsons Report No. NREL-2-ME-REP-0002-R0,
WorleyParsons Group, North Sydney, Australia.
WorleyParsons (2009). Beacon Solar Energy Project Dry Cooling Evaluation.
WorleyParsons Report No. FPLS-0-LI-450-0001, WorleyParsons Group, North
Sydney, Australia.
WorleyParsons (2010). Material Input for Life Cycle Assessment Task 5 Subtask 2:
O&M Schedules. WorleyParsons Report No. NREL-0-LS-019-0005, WorleyParsons
Group, North Sydney, Australia.
WorleyParsons (2010). Parabolic Trough Reference Plant for Cost Modeling with the
In a recent study, Felder (2009) compared the ENSAD database with another energy
accident compilation (Sovacool, 2008a). Despite numerous and partially substantial
differences between the two data sets, several interesting ndings with regard to
methodological and policy aspects were addressed. However, the study was based
on the rst ofcial release of ENSAD (Hirschberg et al., 1998), and thus disregarded
all subsequent updates and extensions. Another study by Colli et al. (2009) took a
slightly different approach using a rather broad set of so-called Risk Characterization
Indicators, however the actual testing with illustrative examples was based on
ENSAD data.
993
Methodology
Annex II
probabilistic modelling of hypothetical accidents. This may have bearing particularly on results for solar PV.
No consensus denition of the term severe accident exists in the literature. Within the framework of PSIs database ENSAD, an accident is
considered to be severe if it is characterized by one or several of the
following consequences:
Africa
At least 5 fatalities or
At least 10 injured or
At least 200 evacuees or
An extensive ban on consumption of food or
Releases of hydrocarbons exceeding 10,000 metric tons or
Enforced clean-up of land and water over an area of at least 25 km2
or
Economic loss of at least 5 million USD2000
For large centralized energy technologies, results are given for three
major country aggregates, namely for OECD and non-OECD countries
as well as EU 27. Such a distinction is meaningful because of the substantial differences in management, regulatory frameworks and general
safety culture between highly developed countries (i.e., OECD and EU
27) and the mostly less-developed non-OECD countries (Burgherr and
Hirschberg, 2008). In the case of China, coal chain data were only analyzed for the years 1994 to 1999 when data on individual accidents from
the China Coal Industry Yearbook (CCIY) were available, indicating that
previous years were subject to substantial underreporting (Hirschberg
et al., 2003a,b). For the period 2000 to 2009, only annual totals of coal
chain fatalities from CCIY were available, which is why they were not
combined with the data from the previous period. For renewable energy
technologies except hydropower, estimates can be considered representative for developed countries (e.g., OECD and EU 27).
Comparisons of the various energy chains were based on data normalized to the unit of electricity production. For fossil energy chains the
thermal energy was converted to an equivalent electrical output using
a generic efciency factor of 0.35. For nuclear, hydropower and new
renewable technologies the normalization is straightforward since the
generated product is electrical energy. The Gigawatt-electric-year
(GWe yr) was chosen because large individual plants have capacities
in the neighbourhood of 1 GW of electrical output (GWe ). This makes
the GWe yr a natural unit to use when presenting normalized indicators generated within technology assessments.
A.II.6
The IPCC SRREN uses the following regional denitions and country
groupings, largely based on the denitions of the World Energy Outlook
2009 (IEA, 2009). Grouping names and denitions vary in the published
literature, and in the SRREN in some instances there may be slight
994
Annex II
Methodology
Table A.II.5 | Overview of data sources and assumptions for the calculation of fatality rates and maximum consequences.
Coal
ENSAD database at PSI; severe (5 fatalities) accidents.1
OECD: 1970-2008; 86 accidents; 2,239 fatalities. EU 27: 1970-2008; 45 accidents; 989 fatalities. Non-OECD without China: 1970-2008; 163 accidents; 5.808 fatalities
(Burgherr et al., 2011).
Previous studies: Hirschberg et al. (1998); Burgherr et al. (2004, 2008).
China (1994-1999): 818 accidents; 11,302 fatalities (Hirschberg et al., 2003a; Burgherr and Hirschberg, 2007).
China (2000-2009): for comparison, the fatality rate in the period 2000 to 2009 was calculated based on data reported by the State Administration of Work Safety
(SATW) of China.2 Annual values given by SATW correspond to total fatalities (i.e., severe and minor accidents). Thus for the fatality rate calculation it was assumed
that fatalities from severe accidents comprise 30% of total fatalities, as has been found in the China Energy Technology Program (Hirschberg et al., 2003a; Burgherr
and Hirschberg, 2007). Chinese fatality rate (2000-2009) = 3.14 fatalities/GWeyr.
Oil
Natural Gas
Nuclear
Generation II (Gen. II) - Pressurized Water Reactor, Switzerland; simplied Probabilistic Safety Assessment (PSA) (Roth et al., 2009).
Generation III (Gen. III) - European Pressurized Reactor (EPR) 2030, Switzerland; simplied PSA (Roth et al., 2009).
Available results for the above described EPR point towards signicantly lower fatality rates (early fatalities (EF): 3.83E-07 fatalities/GWeyr; latent fatalities (LF):
1.03E-05 fatalities/GWeyr; total fatalities (TF): 1.07E-05 fatalities/GWeyr) due to a range of advanced features, especially with respect to Severe Accident Management
(SAM) active and passive systems. However, maximum consequences of hypothetical accidents may increase (ca. 48,800 fatalities) due to the larger plant size
(1,600 MW) and the larger associated radioactive inventory.
In the case of a severe accident in the nuclear chain, immediate or early (acute) fatalities are of minor importance and denote those fatalities that occur in a short time
period after exposure, whereas latent (chronic) fatalities due to cancer dominate total fatalities (Hirschberg et al., 1998). Therefore, the above estimates for Gen. II and
III include immediate and latent fatalities.
Three Mile Island 2, TMI-2: The TMI-2 accident occurred as a result of equipment failures combined with human errors. Due to the small amount of radioactivity
released, the estimated collective effective dose to the public was about 40 person-sievert (Sv). The individual doses to members of the public were extremely low:
<1 mSv in the worst case. On the basis of the collective dose one extra cancer fatality was estimated. However, 144,000 people were evacuated from the area around
the plant. For more information, see Hirschberg et al. (1998).
Chernobyl: 31 immediate fatalities; PSA-based estimate of 9,000 to 33,000 latent fatalities (Hirschberg et al., 1998).
PSIs Chernobyl estimates for latent fatalities range from about 9,000 for Ukraine, Russia and Belarus to about 33,000 for the entire northern hemisphere in the next
70 years (Hirschberg et al., 1998). According to a recent study by numerous United Nations organizations, up to 4,000 persons could die due to radiation exposure in
the most contaminated areas (Chernobyl Forum, 2005). This estimate is substantially lower than the upper limit of the PSI interval, which, however, was not restricted
to the most contaminated areas.
Hydro
ENSAD Database at PSI; severe (5 fatalities) accidents.1
OECD: 1970-2008; 1 accident; 14 fatalities (Teton dam failure, USA, 1976). EU 27: 1970-2008; 1 accident; 116 fatalities (Belci dam failure, Romania, 1991) (Burgherr et
al., 2011).
Based on a theoretical model, maximum consequences for the total failure of a large Swiss dam range between 7,125 and 11,050 fatalities without pre-warning, but
can be reduced to 2 to 27 fatalities with 2 hours pre-warning time (Burgherr and Hirschberg, 2005, and references therein).
Non-OECD: 1970-2008; 12 accidents; 30,007 fatalities. Non-OECD without Banqiao/Shimantan 1970-2008; 11 accidents; 4,007 fatalities; largest accident in China
(Banqiao/Shimantan dam failure, China, 1975) excluded (Burgherr et al., 2011).
Previous studies: Hirschberg et al. (1998); Burgherr et al. (2004, 2008).
Photovoltaic (PV)
Current estimates include only silicon (Si) technologies, weighted by their 2008 market shares, i.e., 86% for c-Si and 5.1% for a-Si/u-Si.
The analysis covers risks of selected hazardous substances (chlorine, hydrochloric acid, silane and trichlorosilane) relevant in the Si PV life cycle.
Accident data were collected for the USA (for which a good coverage exists), and for the years 2000 to 2008 to ensure that estimates are representative of currently
operating technologies.
Database sources: Emergency Response Notication System, Risk Management Plan, Major Hazard Incident Data Service, Major Accidents Reporting System, Analysis
Research and Information on Accidents, Occupational Safety and Health Update.
Since collected accidents were not only from the PV sector, the actual PV fatality share was estimated, based on the above substance amounts in the PV sector as a
share of the total USA production, as well as data from the ecoinvent database.
Cumulated fatalities for the four above substances were then normalized to the unit of energy production using a generic load factor of 10% (Burgherr et al., 2008).
Assumption that 1 out of 100 accidents is severe.3
Current estimate for fatality rate: Burgherr et al. (2011).
Maximum consequences represent an expert judgment due to limited historical experience (Burgherr et al., 2008).
Previous studies: Hirschberg et al. (2004b); Burgherr et al. (2008); Roth et al. (2009).
Other studies: Ungers et al. (1982); Fthenakis et al. (2006); Fthenakis and Kim (2010).
Continued next Page
995
Methodology
Annex II
Wind Onshore
Data sources: Windpower Death Database (Gipe, 2010) and Wind Turbine Accident Compilation (Caithness Windfarm Information Forum, 2010).
Fatal accidents in Germany in the period 1975-2010; 10 accidents; 10 fatalities. 3 car accidents, where driver distraction from wind farm is given as reason, were
excluded from the analysis.
Assumption that 1 out of 100 accidents is severe.3
Current estimate for fatality rate: Burgherr et al. (2011).
Maximum consequences represent an expert judgment due to limited historical experience (Roth et al., 2009).
Previous study: Hirschberg et al. (2004b).
Wind Offshore
For the fatality rate calculations, only well drilling accidents were considered. Due to limited historical experience, exploration accidents in the oil chain were used as a
rough approximation because of similar drilling equipment.
ENSAD Database at PSI; severe (5 fatalities) accidents.1
OECD: 1970-2008; oil exploration, 7 accidents; 63 fatalities (Burgherr, et al. 2011).
For maximum consequences an induced seismic event was considered to be potentially most severe. Due to limited historical experience, the upper fatality boundary
from the seismic risk assessment of the EGS project in Basel (Switzerland) was taken as an approximation (Dannwolf and Ulmer, 2009).
Previous studies: Roth et al. (2009).
Notes: 1. Fatality rates are normalized to the unit of energy production in the corresponding country aggregate. Maximum consequences correspond to the most deadly accident that
occurred in the observation period. 2. Data from SATW for the years 2000 to 2005 were reported in the China Labour News Flash No. 60 (2006-01-06) available at www.china-labour.
org.hk/en/node/19312 (accessed December 2010). SATW data for the years 2006 to 2009 were published by Reuters, available at www.reuters.com/article/idUSPEK206148 (2006),
uk.reuters.com/article/idUKPEK32921920080112 (2007), uk.reuters.com/article/idUKTOE61D00V20100214 (2008 and 2009), (all accessed December 2010). 3. For example, the rate
for natural gas in Germany is about 1 out of 10 (Burgherr and Hirschberg, 2005), and for coal in China about 1 out of 3 (Hirschberg et al., 2003b).
996
Annex II
Methodology
Sub-Saharan Africa
Africa regional grouping excluding the North African regional grouping
and South Africa.
A.II.7
Gcal
Mtoe
MBtu
GWh
238.8
2.388 x 10-5
947.8
0.2778
Gcal
4.1868 x 10-3
10-7
3.968
1.163 x 10-3
Mtoe
4.1868 x 104
107
3.968 x 107
11,630
MBtu
1.0551 x 10-3
0.252
2.52 x 10-8
2.931 x 10-4
GWh
3.6
860
8.6 x 10-5
3,412
From:
TJ
TJ
multiply by:
Notes: MBtu: million British thermal unit; GWh: gigawatt hour; Gcal: gigacalorie;
TJ: terajoule; Mtoe: megatonne of oil equivalent.
997
Methodology
References
Annex II
Aven, T., and E. Zio (2011). Some considerations on the treatment of uncertainties in
related to mitigation in the long term context. In: Climate Change 2007: Miti-
risk assessment for practical decision making. Reliability Engineering and System
P.R. Bosch, R. Dave, and L.A. Meyer (eds.), Cambridge University Press, pp.
169-250.
Frankl, P., E. Menichetti and M. Raugei (2005). Final Report on Technical Data,
Costs and Life Cycle Inventories of PV Applications. NEEDS: New Energy Externalities Developments for Sustainability. Ambiente Italia, Milan, Italy, 81 pp.
Fthenakis, V.M., and H.C. Kim (2007). Greenhouse-gas emissions from solar electric- and nuclear power: A life-cycle study. Energy Policy, 35(4), pp. 2549-2557.
Fthenakis, V.M., and H.C. Kim (2010). Life-cycle uses of water in U.S. electricity
generation. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 14(7), pp. 2039-2048.
Fthenakis, V.M., H.C. Kim, A. Colli, and C. Kirchsteiger (2006). Evaluation of risks
fossil, hydro and nuclear energy chains. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment,
Gagnon, L. (2008). Civilisation and energy payback. Energy Policy, 36, pp. 3317-3322.
Gipe, P. (2010). Wind Energy Deaths Database - Summary of Deaths in Wind Energy.
NEEDS Deliverable no D7.1 - Research Stream 2b. NEEDS project. New Energy
html.
Burgherr, P., S. Hirschberg, A. Hunt, and R.A. Ortiz (2004). Severe accidents in the
energy sector. Final Report to the European Commission of the EU 5th Framework
Programme New Elements for the Assessment of External Costs from Energy
Technologies (NewExt). DG Research, Technological Development and Demonstration (RTD), Brussels, Belgium.
Burgherr, P., P. Eckle, S. Hirschberg, and E. Cazzoli (2011). Final Report on Severe
Gleick, P. (1993). Water in Crisis: A Guide to the Worlds Fresh Water Resources.
Oxford University Press, New York, NY, USA.
Gregory, R., and S. Lichtenstein (1994). A hint of risk: tradeoffs between quantitative and qualitative risk factors. Risk Analysis, 14(2), pp. 199-206.
Haimes, Y.Y. (2009). On the complex denition of risk: A systems-based approach.
Risk Analysis, 29(12), pp. 1647-1654.
Accident Risks including Key Indicators. SECURE Deliverable No. D5.7.2a. Secu-
Herendeen, R.A. (1988). Net energy considerations. In: Economic Analysis of Solar
Thermal Energy Systems. R.E. West and F. Kreith (eds.), The MIT Press, Cambridge,
Colli, A., D. Serbanescu, and B.J.M. Ale (2009). Indicators to compare risk expres-
sions, grouping, and relative ranking of risk for energy systems: Application with
framework for decision support in the electric sector of Shandong province. Alli-
some accidental events from fossil fuels. Safety Science, 47(5), pp. 591-607.
ance for Global Sustainability Series Vol. 4. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Amsterdam,
Dannwolf, U.S., and F. Ulmer (2009). AP6000 Report - Technology risk comparison
social aspects. SERIANEX Group - Trinational Seismis Risk Analysis Expert Group,
Sector. PSI Report No. 03-04. Paul Scherrer Institut, Villigen PSI, Switzerland.
998
Annex II
Methodology
IEA (2010b). Key World Energy Statistics. International Energy Agency, Paris France.
III to the Third Assessment Report of the IPCC. Metz, B., Davidson, O., Swart, R., and
IPCC (1996). Climate Change 1995: Impacts, Adaptation, and Mitigation of Climate
Neely, J.G., A.E. Magit, J.T. Rich, C.C.J. Voelker, E.W. Wang, R.C. Paniello,
R.T. Watson, M.C. Zinyowera, and R.H. Moss (eds.), Cambridge University Press,
879 pp.
IPCC (2000). Special Report on Emissions Scenarios. N. Nakicenovic and R. Swart
(eds.), Cambridge University Press, 570 pp.
Jacobson, M.Z. (2009). Review of solutions to global warming, air pollution, and
energy security. Energy and Environmental Science, 2(2), pp. 148-173.
Jelen, F.C., and J.H. Black (1983). Cost and Optimitization Engineering. McGrawHill, New York, NY, USA, 538 pp.
Jungbluth, N., C. Bauer, R. Dones and R. Frischknecht (2005). Life cycle assess-
Perry, A.M., W.D. Devine, and D.B. Reister (1977). The Energy Cost of Energy
ment for emerging technologies: Case studies for photovoltaic and wind power.
14, Institute for Energy Analysis, Oak Ridge Associated Universities, Oak Ridge,
Kristensen, V., T. Aven, and D. Ford (2006). A new perspective on Renn and Klinkes
approach to risk evaluation and management. Reliability Engineering and System
Safety, 91, pp. 421-432.
Kubiszewski, I., C.J. Cleveland, and P.K. Endres (2010). Meta-analysis of net energy
return for wind power systems. Renewable Energy, 35(1), pp. 218-225.
Leach, G. (1975). Net energy analysis - is it any use? Energy Policy, 3(4), pp. 332-344.
Lenzen, M. (1999). Greenhouse gas analysis of solar-thermal electricity generation.
Solar Energy, 65(6), pp. 353-368.
Lenzen, M. (2008). Life cycle energy and greenhouse gas emissions of nuclear energy:
A review. Energy Conversion and Management, 49(8), pp. 2178-2199.
Lenzen, M., and J. Munksgaard (2002). Energy and CO2 analyses of wind turbines
review and applications. Renewable Energy, 26(3), pp. 339-362.
Lenzen, M., C. Dey, C. Hardy, and M. Bilek (2006). Life-Cycle Energy Balance and
Samson, S., J. Reneke, and M.M. Wiecek (2009). A review of different perspec-
Macknick, J. (2009). Energy and Carbon Dioxide Emission Data Uncertainties. Inter-
UN Statistics (2010). Energy Balances and Electricity Proles Concepts and deni-
national Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) Interim Report, IR-09-032,
balance/concepts.htm.
999
Ungers, L.J., P.D. Moskowitz, T.W. Owens, A.D. Harmon, and T.M. Briggs (1982).
Risks. Flagship Report 1998. German Advisory Council on Global Change (WBGU).
1000
ANNEX
III
Contributing Authors:
Dan Arvizu (USA), Richard Bain (USA), Jean-Michel Devernay (France), Don Gwinner (USA),
Gerardo Hiriart (Mexico), John Huckerby (New Zealand), Arun Kumar (India),
Jos Moreira (Brazil), Steffen Schlmer (Germany)
Annex III
No individual responses can be guaranteed, but all emails as well as relevant material attached to those emails will be archived and made available in appropriate form
to the authors involved in the AR5 process.
No standardized uncertainty language has been used in this report. Nonetheless, the
authors of this Annex have carefully assessed available data and highlighted data
limitations and uncertainties in the footnotes. A fair impression of the breadth of the
reference base can be deduced from the list of references in this Annex.
1002
Annex III
The levelized cost represents the cost of an energy generating system over its lifetime. It is calculated as the per unit price at which energy must be generated from
a specic source over its lifetime to break even. The levelized costs usually include
all private costs that accrue upstream in the value chain, but they do not include the
downstream cost of delivery to the nal customer, the cost of integration, or external
environmental or other costs. Subsidies for RE generation and tax credits are not
included. However, indirect taxes and subsidies on inputs or commodities affecting
the prices of inputs and, hence, private cost, cannot be fully excluded.
Annex III
Technology A
Levelized Cost
of Electricity,
Heat or Fuels
Figure A.III.1a | Tornado graph. Starting from the medium levelized cost value at a 7% interest rate, a broader range of levelized cost values becomes possible if individual parameters
are varied over the full of range of values that these parameters may take on under different conditions. If the LCOE/LCOH/LCOF of a technology is very sensitive to variation of a
particular parameter, then the corresponding bar will be broad. This means that a variation of that particular parameter may lead to LCOE/LCOH/LCOF values that can deviate strongly
from the medium LCOE/LCOH/LCOF value. If the LCOE/LCOH/LCOF of a technology is robust for variations of the respective parameter, the bars will be narrow and only slight deviations from the medium LCOE/LCOH/LCOF value may result from variation of that parameter. Note, however, that no or narrow bars may also be the result of no or limited variation of
the input parameters.
Technology A
Levelized Cost
of Electricity,
Heat or Fuels
Figure A.III.1b | Negative of tornado graph. Starting from the low and high bounds of the full range of levelized cost values at a 3% and 10% interest rate, respectively, a narrower
range of levelized cost values remains possible if individual parameters are xed at their respective medium values. If the LCOE/LCOH/LCOF of a technology is very sensitive to variations of a particular parameter, then the corresponding bar that remains will be narrowed to a large degree. Such parameters are of particular importance in determining the LCOE/
LCOH/LCOF under more specic conditions. If the LCOE/LCOH/LCOF of a technology is robust for variations of the respective parameter, the remaining range will remain close to the
full range of possible LCOE/LCOH/LCOF values. Such parameters are of less importance in determining the LCOE/LCOH/LCOF more precisely. Note, however, that no or small deviations
from the full range may also be the result of no or limited variation of the input parameters.
1003
1004
Tidal Rangexxxviii
<1 >250xxxix
<0.1
>20,000xxxiii
Ocean Energy
1,0003,000xxxiv
220
Geothermal Energy
(Binary-Cycle Plants)
All
2,1005,200xxix
10100
Geothermal Energy
(Condensing-Flash
Plants)
viii
4,5005,000xxx-
1,8003,600xxix
50250
CSP
6,0007,300
xxvi
xxv
2,7005,200xxi
3,5006,600xxi
3,7006,800xxi
3,1006,200xxi
0.020.5
PV (Commercial
Rooftop)
1.04.5xv, xx
100 USD/kWxxxviii
2575 USD/kWxxxv
See above
150190 USD/kWxxx
6082 USD/kW
xxvii
1675 USD/kWxxii
1469 USD/kWxxii
18100 USD/kWxxii
N/Aviii
N/Aviii
N/Aviii
N/Aviii
N/A
viii
N/Aviii
N/Aviii
N/Aviii
N/Aviii
5.4xv, xviii
54 USD/kW and
3.5 US/kWh
4,1006,200xvii
19110 USD/kWxxii
7.7xv, xvi
6,5009,800
1,8002,100
N/Aviii
18 USD/kW
760900xiii
0.5100xxiv
0.0040.01
PV (Residential
Rooftop)
N/Aviii
12 USD/kW and
0.18 US/kWh
430500xiii
PV (Utility Scale,
One-Axis)
2.213
CHP (Gasication
ICE)xix
1.0xii
86 USD/kW and
0.35 US/kWh
2,8004,200vii
0.5100xxiv
2.510
N/Aviii
2,6004,000vii
84 USD/kW and
0.34 US/kWh
By-product
revenue
(US/kWh)iii
N/Aviii
2,7004,100vii
Investment
cost
(USD/kW)
PV (Utility Scale,
Fixed Tilt)
0.651.6
20100
Co-ring: Co-feed
CHP (ORCxiv)
See above
Dedicated Biopower
(Stoker CHPxi)
See above
See above
Dedicated Biopower
Stokerx
Co-ring: Separate
Feed
25100
Dedicated Biopower
CFBvi
Technology
Hydropower
Geothermal
Energy
Direct Solar
Energy
Bioenergy
Resource
Typical
size of the
device
(MW)ii
N/Aviii
N/Aviii
N/Aviii
N/Aviii
N/A
viii
N/Aviii
N/Aviii
N/Aviii
N/Aviii
See above
See above
See above
See above
See above
See above
See above
1.255.0ix
(USD/GJfeed, HHViv)
Feedstock
cost
Input data
N/Aviii
N/Aviii
N/Aviii
N/Aviii
N/A
viii
N/Aviii
N/Aviii
N/Aviii
N/Aviii
2830
18
14
36
36
24
27
28
Feedstock
conversion
efciencyel
(%)
22.528.5xl
3060xxxvi
See above
6090xxxi
3542
xxviii
1527xxiii
1521xxiii
See above
1220xxiii
See above
See above
5568
See above
See above
See above
See above
7080
Capacity
factor
(%)
40xli, xxxviii
4080xxxvii
See above
2530xxxii
See above
See above
See above
See above
2030
See above
See above
See above
See above
See above
See above
See above
20
Economic
design
lifetime
(years)
see Chapter 5
and footnotes
Obernberger et
al. (2008)
Bain (2011)
McGowin (2008)
McGowin (2008)
References
1824
1.811
4.114
3.811
1625
1152
1343
1769
1871
3.013
8.322
1232
2.66.7
2.26.2
6.315
6.715
6.915
7%
2332
2.415
4.917
4.513
2031
1562
1652
2283
2386
3.814
1026
1537
2.97.1
2.36.4
7.317
7.716
7.916
10%
1216
1.17.8
3.311
3.18.4
1119
7.439
8.433
1152
1253
2.111
6.218
8.626
2.36.3
2.05.9
5.113
5.613
6.113
3%
Discount rate
LCOEv
(US/kWh)
Output data
9.719
4.414
1223
5.217
A circulating uid bed (CFB) is a turbulent (high gas ow) uid bed where solid particles are captured and returned to the bed. A uid bed itself is a collection of small solid particles suspended and kept in motion by an upward ow
of uid, typically a gas.
The reference data are for a 50 MW plant. Investment costs for larger and smaller plants have been rescaled according to the power law: Specic investment costsize 2 = Investment costsize 1 x (Size 2/Size 1)n-1, where the scaling factor
n = 0.7. Capital cost estimates include facilities for fuel handling and preparation, boiler and air quality control, steam turbine and auxiliaries, balance of plant, general facilities and engineering fee, project and process contingency,
allowance for funds used during construction, owner costs, and taxes and fees.
The calculation of the by-product revenue for the large-scale CHP plant assumes: heat output used for industrial applications is 5.38 GJ of heat per MWh electricity; steam is valued at USD2005 4.85/GJ (75% of US pulp and paper
purchased steam price) (EIA, 2009, Table 7.2); and 75% of heat output is sold.
The reference data are for a 50 MW plant. Investment costs for larger and smaller plants have been rescaled according to the power law: Specic investment costsize 2 = Investment costsize 1 x (Size 2/Size 1)n-1, where the scaling factor
n = 0.9 (Peters et al., 2003). The coring investment costs estimates were developed for retrots of existing coal-red power plants in the USA and include facilities for fuel handling and preparation, additional expenditures for
boiler modications, balance of plant, general facilities and engineering, project and process contingency, allowance for funds used during construction, owner costs, and taxes and fees. Coring cost estimate protocols in the USA
do not include prorated boiler costs.
For the calculation of the by-product revenue for small-scale CHP plants, hot water is valued at USD2005 12.51/GJ (average of Rauch (2010) and Skjoldborg (2010)), 33% of gross value is taken into account, because the operator can
only recover a portion of the value and because use of hot water is seasonal.
Heat output used for hot water is 18.51 GJ of heat per MWh electricity.
The reference data are for a 5 MW CHP plant. Investment costs for larger and smaller plants have been rescaled according to the power law: Specic investment costsize 2 = Investment costsize 1 x (Size 2/Size 1)n-1, where the scaling
factor n =0.7 (Peters et al., 2003).
Continued next page
vi
vii
viii
ix
xi
xii
xiii
xiv
xv
xvi
xvii
Bioenergy:
7.515
3.510
LCOE: Levelized cost of electricity. The levelized cost usually includes all private costs that accrue upstream in the value chain of electricity production, but they do not include the cost of transmission and distribution to the nal
customer. Output subsidies for RE generation and tax credits are not included. However, indirect taxes and subsidies on inputs or commodities affecting the prices of inputs and, hence, private cost, cannot be fully excluded.
Depending on the context of discussion, LCOE may also stand for levelized cost of energy.
see Chapter 7
10%
See above
20xlv
7%
For combined heat and power (CHP) plants, heat production is considered as a by-product in the calculation of the levelized cost of electricity providing full capital cost information as a stand-alone plant.
3545xlii
2040xliv
3%
Discount rate
iv
N/Aviii
N/Aviii
References
iii
N/Aviii
N/Aviii
Capacity
factor
(%)
LCOEv
(US/kWh)
Device sizes are intended to be representative of current/recent sizes. If future sizes are expected to differ from these values, this is included in the footnotes to the relevant technologies.
N/Aviii
N/Aviii
(USD/GJfeed, HHViv)
Feedstock
cost
Economic
design
lifetime
(years)
ii
2.04.0 US/kWh
1.22.3 US/kWh
By-product
revenue
(US/kWh)iii
Feedstock
conversion
efciencyel
(%)
All data are rounded to 2 signicant digits. Most technology chapters (Chapters 2 through 7) provide additional and/or more detailed cost and performance information in the respective chapters sections on cost trends. Direct
comparison between levelized cost estimates taken directly from the literature should take the underlying assumptions into due consideration.
3,2005,000xlvi
1,2002,100xliii
Investment
cost
(USD/kW)
Output data
20120xlii
Wind Energy
(Onshore,Large
Turbines)
5300xlii
Technology
General remarks/notes:
Wind Energy
Resource
Typical
size of the
device
(MW)ii
Input data
Annex III
Recent Renewable Energy Cost and Performance Parameters
1005
xviii
Heat output used for hot water is 12.95 GJ of heat per MWh electricity.
xix
xx
Heat output used for hot water is in the range of 2.373 to 10.86 GJ/MWh.
Annex III
In 2009, wholesale factory PV module prices decreased by more than 50%. As a result, the market prices for installed PV systems in Germany, the most competitive market,
decreased by over 30% in 2009 compared to about 10% in 2008 (see Section 3.8.3). 2009 market price data from Germany is used as the lower bound for investment
costs of residential rooftop systems (Bundesverband Solarwirtschaft e.V., 2010) and for utility-scale xed tilt systems (Bloomberg, 2010). Based on US market data for
2008 and 2009, larger, commercial rooftop systems are assumed to have a 5% lower investment cost than the smaller, residential rooftop systems (NREL, 2011b; see also
section 3.8.3). Tracking systems are assumed to have a 15-20% higher investment cost than the one-axis, non-tracking systems considered here (NREL, 2011a; see also
Section 3.8.3). Capacity-weighted averages of investment costs in the USA in 2009 (NREL, 2011b) are used as upper bound to capture the investment cost ranges typical of
roughly 80% of global installations in 2009 (see Section 3.4.1 and Section 3.8.3).
xxii
O&M costs of PV systems are low and are given in a range between 0.5 and 1.5% annually of the initial investment costs (Breyer et al., 2009; IEA, 2010c).
xxiii
The main parameter that inuences the capacity factor of a PV system is the actual annual solar irradiation in kWh/m/yr at a given location and the type of system.
Capacity factors of some recently installed systems are provided in Sharma (2011).
xxiv
The upper limit of utility-scale PV systems represents current status. Much larger systems (up to 1 GW) are in the proposal and development phase and might be realized
within the next decade.
Project sizes of CSP plants can minimally match the size of a single power generating system (e.g., a 25 kW dish/engine system). However, the range provided is typical for
projects being built or proposed today. Power Parks consisting of multiple CSP plants in a single location are also being proposed at sizes of up to or exceeding 1 GW (4 x
250 MW).
xxvi
Cost ranges are for parabolic trough plants with six hours of thermal energy storage in 2009. Investment cost includes direct plus indirect costs where indirect costs include
engineering, procurement and construction mark-up, owner costs, land, and taxes. Investment costs are lower for plants without storage and higher for plants with larger
storage capacity. The IEA (2010a) estimates investment costs as low as USD2005 3,800/kW for plants without storage and as high as USD2005 7,600/kW for plants with large
storage (assumed currency base year: 2009). Capacity factors vary as well, if thermal storage is installed (see note xxviii).
xxvii
The IEA (2010a) states O&M costs relative to energy output as US 1.2 to 2.7/kWh (assumed currency base year: 2009). Depending on actual energy output this may result
in lower or higher annual O&M cost compared to the range stated here.
xxviii
Capacity factor for a parabolic trough plant with six hours of thermal energy storage for solar resource classes typical of the southwest USA. Depending on the size of the
thermal storage capacity, capacity factors as well as investment costs vary substantially. Apart from the Solar Electric Generating Station plants in California, new CSP plants
only became operational from 2007 onwards, thus few actual performance data are available and most of the literature just gives estimated or predicted capacity factors.
Sharma (2011) reports multi-year (1998-2002) average capacity factors of 12.4 to 27.7% for plants without thermal storage, but with natural gas backup. The IEA (2010a)
states that plants in Spain with 15 hours of storage may produce up to 6,600 hours per year. This is equivalent to a 75% capacity factor, if production occurs at full capacity
during the 6,600 hours. Larger storage also increases investment costs (see note xxvi).
Geothermal energy:
xxix
Investment cost includes: exploration and resource conrmation; drilling of production and injection wells; surface facilities and infrastructure; and the power plant. For
expansion projects (i.e., new plants in the same geothermal eld) investment costs can be 10 to 15% lower (see Section 4.7.1). Investment cost ranges are based on
Bromley et al. (2010) (see also Figure 4.7).
xxx
O&M costs are based on Hance (2005). In New Zealand, O&M costs range from US 1 to 1.4/kWh for 20 to 50 MWe plant capacity (Barnett and Quinlivan, 2009), which
are equivalent to USD 83 to 117/kW/yr, i.e. considerably lower than those given by Hance (2005). For further information see Section 4.7.2.
xxxi
The current (data for 2008-2009) worldwide capacity factor (CF) for condensing (ash) and binary-cycle plants in operation is 74.5%. Excluding some outliers, the lower
and upper bounds can be estimated as 60 and 90%. Typical CFs for new geothermal power plants are over 90% (Hance, 2005; DiPippo, 2008; Bertani, 2010). The
worldwide average CF for 2020 is projected to be 80%, and could be 85% in 2030 and as high as 90% in 2050 (see Sections 4.7.3 and 4.7.5).
xxxii
25 to 30 years is the common lifetime of geothermal power plants worldwide. This payback period allows for refurbishment or replacement of the aging surface plant at
the end of its lifetime, but is not equivalent to the economic resource lifetime of the geothermal reservoir, which is typically much longer (e.g., Larderello, Wairakei, The
Geysers: Section 4.7.3). In some reservoirs, however, the possibility of resource degradation over time is one of several factors that affect the economics of continuing plant
operation.
Hydropower:
xxxiii
The mid-80% of project sizes is not well documented for hydropower. The range stated here is indicative of the full range of project sizes. Hydropower projects are always
site-specic as they are designed to use the ow and head at each site. Therefore, projects can be very small, down to a few kW in a small stream, and up to several
thousand MW, for example 18,000 MW for the Three Gorges project in China (which will be 22,400 MW when completed) (see Section 5.1.2). 90% of the installed
hydropower capacity and 94% of hydropower energy production today is in hydropower plants >10 MW in size (IJHD, 2010).
xxxiv
The investment cost for hydropower projects can be as low as USD 400 to 500/kW but most realistic projects today lie in the range of USD 1,000 to 3,000/kW (Section
5.8.1).
xxxv
O&M costs are usually given as a percentage of investment cost for hydropower projects. Typical values range from 1 to 4%, while the table relies on an average value of
2.5% applied to the range of investment costs. This will usually be sufcient to cover refurbishment of mechanical and electrical equipment like turbine overhaul, generator
rewinding and reinvestments in communication and control systems (Section 5.8.1).
Continued next page
1006
Annex III
xxxvi
Capacity factors (CF) will be determined by hydrological conditions, installed capacity and plant design, and the way the plant is operated (i.e., the degree of plant output
regulation). For power plant designs intended for maximum energy production (base-load) and with some regulation, CFs will often be from 30 to 60%. Figure 5.20 shows
average CFs for different world regions. For peaking-type power plants the CF will be much lower, down to 20%, as these stations are designed with much higher capacity
in order to meet peaking needs. CFs for run-of-river systems vary across a wide range (20 to 95%) depending on the geographical and climatological conditions, technology
and operational characteristics (see Section 5.8.3).
xxxvii Hydropower plants in general have very long physical lifetimes. There are many examples of hydropower plants that have been in operation for more than 100 years, with
regular upgrading of electrical and mechanical systems but no major upgrades of the most expensive civil structures (dams, tunnels, etc.). The IEA (2010d) reports that many
plants built 50 to 100 years ago are still operating today. For large hydropower plants, the lifetime can, hence, safely be set to at least 40 years, and an 80-year lifetime is
used as upper bound. For small-scale hydropower plants the typical lifetime can be set to 40 years, in some cases even less. The economic design lifetime may differ from
actual physical plant lifetimes, and will depend strongly on how hydropower plants are owned and nanced (see Section 5.8.1).
Ocean Energy:
xxxviii The data supplied for tidal range power plants are based on a very small number of installations (see subsequent footnotes). Therefore, all data should be considered with
appropriate caution.
xxxix
The only utility-scale tidal power station in the world is the 240 MW La Rance power station, which has been in successful operation since 1966. Other smaller projects have
been commissioned since then in China, Canada and Russia with 3.9 MW, 20 MW and 0.4 MW, respectively. The 254 MW Sihwa barrage is expected to be commissioned
in 2011 and will then become the largest tidal power station in the world. Numerous projects have been identied, some of them with very large capacities, including in the
UK (Severn Estuary, 9.3 GW), India (1.8 GW), Korea (740 MW) and Russia (the White Sea and Sea of Okhotsk, 28 GW). None have been considered to be economic yet and
many of them face environmental objections (Kerr, 2007). The projects at the Severn Estuary have been evaluated by the UK government and recently been deferred.
xl
An earlier assessment suggests capacity factors in the range of 25 to 35% (Charlier, 2003).
xli
Tidal barrages resemble hydropower plants, which in general have very long design lives. Many hydropower plants have been in operation for more than 100 years, with
regular upgrading of electro-mechanical systems but no major upgrades of the most expensive civil structures (dams, tunnels etc). Tidal barrages are therefore assumed to
have a similar economic design lifetime as large hydropower plants, which can safely be set to at least 40 years (see Chapter 5).
Wind energy:
xlii
Typical size of the device is taken as the power plant (not turbine) size. For onshore wind energy, 5 to 300 MW plants were common from 2007 to 2009, though both
smaller and larger plants are prevalent. For offshore wind energy, 20 to 120 MW plants were common from 2007 to 2009, though much larger plant sizes are expected in
the future. As a modular technology, a wide range of plant sizes is common, driven by market and geographic conditions.
xliii
The lowest cost onshore wind power plants have been installed in China, with higher costs experienced in the USA and Europe. The range reects the majority of onshore
wind power plants installed worldwide in 2009 (the most recent year for which solid data exist as of writing), but plants installed in China have average costs that can be
even below this range (USD 1,000 to 1,350/kW is common in China). In most cases, the investment cost includes the cost of the turbines (turbines, transportation to site,
and installation), grid connection (cables, sub-station, interconnection, but not more general transmission expansion costs), civil works (foundations, roads, buildings), and
other costs (engineering, licensing, permitting, environmental assessments, and monitoring equipment).
xliv
Capacity factors depend in part on the strength of the underlying wind resource, which varies by region and site, as well as by turbine design.
xlv
Modern wind turbines that meet International Electrotechnical Commission standards are designed for a 20-year life, and turbine lifetimes may even exceed 20 years if O&M
costs remain at an acceptable level. Wind power plants are typically nanced over a 20-year time period.
xlvi
For offshore wind power plants, the range in investment costs includes the majority of offshore wind power plants installed in the most recent years (through 2009) as
well as those plants planned for completion in the early 2010s. Because costs have risen in recent years, using the cost of recent and planned projects reasonably reects
the current cost of offshore wind power plants. In most cases, the investment cost includes the cost of the turbines (turbines, transportation to site, and installation),
grid connection (cables, sub-station, interconnection, but not more general transmission expansion costs), civil works (foundations, roads, buildings), and other costs
(engineering, licensing, permitting, environmental assessments, and monitoring equipment).
1007
Annex III
Varied Parameter
Investment Cost
Non-Fuel O&M Cost
Bioenergy (Co-Firing)
Fuel Cost
Capacity Factor
Discount Rate
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
[UScent2005 /kWh]
Figure A.III.2a | Tornado graph for renewable power technologies. For further explanation see Figure A.III.1a.
1008
Annex III
Fixed Parameter
Investment Cost
Non-Fuel O&M Cost
Bioenergy (Co-Firing)
Fuel Cost
Capacity Factor
Discount Rate
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
[UScent2005 /kWh]
Figure A.III.2b | Negative of tornado graph for renewable power technologies. For further explanation see Figure A.III.1b.
Note: The upper bounds of both geothermal energy technologies are calculated based on an assumed construction time of 4 years. In the simplied approach used for the sensitivity
analysis shown here, this assumption was not taken into account, resulting in upper bounds that were below those based on the more accurate methodology. The ranges were rescaled,
however, to yield the same results as the more accurate approach.
1009
1010
514
Geothermal
(Aquaculture Ponds,
Uncovered)
2530
60
50
2530
2530
4.113xxiv
4.113xxiv
6891
6374
8091
1329
20
20
20
25
20
1525
1015xxv
1525
1020
1020
1020
IEA (2007b)
IEA (2007b)
1442
8.511
7.713
1224
2050
8.8134
2.856
1029
1069
1.434
1470
3%
1756
8.612
8.614
1431
2465
12170
3.667
1030
1170
1.838
1577
7%
Discount rate
1968
8.612
9.316
1538
2877
16200
4.275
1032
1172
2.141
1684
10%
LCOH: Levelized cost of heat supply. The levelized cost does not include the cost of transmission and distribution in the case of district heating systems. Output subsidies for RE generation and tax credits are also excluded. However,
indirect taxes and subsidies on inputs or commodities affecting the prices of inputs and, hence, private cost, cannot be fully excluded.
N/Aviii
N/Aviii
N/Aviii
N/Aviii
N/Aviii
2080xxiii
2080xxiii
2030xviii
1040
2040xiv
8695
References
iii
N/Aviii
N/Aviii
N/Aviii
N/Aviii
N/Aviii
N/Aviii
N/Aviii
2.53.7xvii
3.76.2
03
1020
Capacity
factor
(%)
LCOHiii
(USD/GJ)
CHP plants produce both, heat and electricity. Calculating the levelized cost of one product only, that is, either heat or electricity, can be done in different ways. One way is to assign a (discounted) market value to the by-product and
subtract this additional income from the remaining expenses. This has been done in the calculation of the LCOE of bioenergy CHP plants. The calculation of LCOH has been done in a different way according to the methodology used
in IEA (2007) which served as main reference for the input data: Instead of considering electricity as a by-product and subtracting its value from the remaining expenses for the supply of heat, the total expenses over the lifetime of
the investment project were split according to the average heat/electricity output ratio and only the heat shares of investment and O&M costs were taken into account. For this reason no by-product revenue is stated in the heat table.
Both methodologies come with different advantages/disadvantages.
N/Aviii
N/Aviii
N/Aviii
N/Aviii
N/Aviii
N/Aviii
N/Aviii
N/Aviii
N/Aviii
N/Aviii
N/A
viii
Feedstock
cost
(USD/GJfeed)
Economic
design
lifetime
(years)
ii
7.88.9 USD/GJxxvii
8.311 USD/GJxxvii
5.68.3 USD/GJxxvii
8.311 USD/GJxxvii
8.311 USD/GJxxvii
5.622 USD/kWxxii
1.510 USD/kWxxii
37140 USD/kWvii
1.22.5 USD/kWvii
15130 USD/kWvii
1343 USD/kW
vii
By-product
revenue
(USD/GJfeed)ii
(Feedstock )
conversion
efciency
(%)
Output data
All data are rounded to 2 signicant digits. Most technology chapters (Chapters 2 through 4) provide additional and/or more detailed cost and performance information in the respective chapters sections on cost trends. The
assumptions underlying some of the production cost estimates quoted directly from the literature may, however, not be as transparent as the data sets in this Annex and should therefore be considered with caution.
9003,800xxvi
50100xxvi
5001,000xxvi
6001,600xxvi
1,6003,900xxvi
5301,800
120540xxi
1701,000xii,xvi
3701,000xii
3703,000xii, xiii
3101,200
vi
Investment
cost
(USD/kWth)
Input data
0.010.35
25.5
Geothermal (Greenhouses)
Geothermal Heat
Pumps (GHP)
3.835
0.00170.07xx
Solar Thermal
Heating (DHW,
Thermo-siphon,
Combi-systems)
Geothermal (District
Heating)
0.00170.01xx
0.11
0.55xi
Biomass (Anaerobic
Digestion, CHP)
1214
110xi
Biomass (Steam
Turbine, CHP)xv
0.0050.1
Biomass (MSWix,
CHPx)
Biomass (DPH )
iv
Technology
General remarks/notes:
Geothermal
Energy
Solar Energy
Bioenergy
Resource
Typical
size of
the device
(MWth)
Annex III
Bioenergy:
iv
This range is typical of a low-energy single family dwelling (5 kW) or an apartment building (100 kW).
vi
Investment costs of a biomass pellet heating system for the combustion plant only (including controls) range from USD2005 100 to 640/kW. The higher range stated above
includes civil works and fuel and heat storage (IEA, 2007).
vii
Fixed annual O&M costs include costs of auxiliary energy. Auxiliary energy needs are 10 to 20 kWh/kWth/yr. Electricity prices are assumed to be USD2005 0.1 to 0.3/kWh. O&M
costs for CHP options include heat share only.
viii
ix
xi
Typical size based on expert judgment and cost data from IEA (2007).
xii
Investment costs for CHP options include heat share only. The electricity data in Table A.III.1 provides examples of total investment cost (see Section 2.4.4).
xiii
Investment costs of MSW installations are mainly determined by the cost of ue gas cleaning, which can be allocated to waste treatment rather than to heat production (IEA,
2007).
xiv
Heat-only MSW incinerators (as used in Denmark and Sweden) could have a thermal efciency of 70 to 80%, but are not considered (IEA, 2007).
xv
The ranges provided in this category are mainly based on two plants in Denmark and Austria and have been taken from IEA (2007).
xvi
Investment costs for anaerobic digestion are based on literature values provided relative to electric capacity. For conversion to thermal capacity an electric efciency of 37%
and a thermal efciency of 55% were used (IEA, 2007).
xvii For anaerobic digestion, fuel prices are based on a mix of green crop maize and manure feedstock. Other biogas feedstocks include source-separated wastes and landll gas,
but are not considered here (IEA, 2007).
xviii Conversion efciencies include auxiliary heat input (8 to 20% for process heat) as well as use of any co-substrate that might increase process efciency. For source-separated
wastes, the efciency would be lower (IEA, 2007).
Solar Energy:
xix
xx
1 m of collector area is converted into 0.7 kWth of installed capacity (see Section 3.4.1).
xxi
70% of the 13.5 million m sales volume in 2004 was sold below Yuan 1,500/m (USD2005 ~190/kW) (Zhang et al., 2010). The lower bound is based on data collected during
standardized interviews in the Zhejiang Province, China, in 2008 (Han et al., 2010). The higher bound is based on Chang et al. (2011).
xxii Fixed annual operating cost is assumed to be 1 to 3% of investment cost (IEA, 2007) plus annual cost of auxiliary energy. Annual auxiliary energy needs are 2 to 10 kWh/m.
Electricity prices are assumed to be USD2005 0.1 to 0.3/kWh.
xxiii The conversion efciency of a solar thermal system tends to be larger in regions with lower solar irradiance. This partly offsets the negative effect of lower solar irradiance on
cost as energy yields per m of collector area will be similar (Harvey, 2006, p. 461). Conversion efciencies, which affect the resulting capacity factor, have not been used in
LCOH calculations directly.
xxiv Capacity factors are based on an assumed annual energy yield of 250 to 800 kWh/m (IEA, 2007).
xxv Expected design lifetimes for Chinese solar water heaters are in the range of 10 to 15 years (Han et al., 2010).
Geothermal energy:
xxvi For geothermal heat pumps (GHP) the bounds of investment costs include residential and commercial or institutional installations. For commercial and institutional
installations, costs are assumed to include drilling costs, but for residential installations drilling costs are not included.
xxvii Average O&M costs expressed in USD2005/kWhth are: 0.03 to 0.04 for building and district heating and for aquaculture uncovered ponds, 0.02 to 0.03 for greenhouses, and
0.028 to 0.032 for GHP.
1011
Annex III
Varied Parameter
Investment Cost
Non-Fuel O&M Cost
Fuel Cost
Conversion Efciency
Capacity Factor
Discount Rate
Geothermal (Greenhouses)
50
100
150
200
[USD2005 /GJ]
Figure A.III.3a | Tornado graph for renewable heat technologies. For further explanation see Figure A.III.1a.
Note: It may be somewhat misleading that solar thermal and geothermal heat applications do not show any sensitivity to variations in conversion efciencies. This is due to the fact
that the energy input for solar and geothermal has zero cost and that the effect of higher conversion efciencies of the energy input on LCOH works solely via an increase in annual
output. Variations in annual output, in turn, are fully captured by varying the capacity factor.
1012
Annex III
Fixed Parameter
Investment Cost
Non-Fuel O&M Cost
Fuel Cost
Conversion Efciency
Capacity Factor
Discount Rate
Geothermal (Greenhouses)
50
100
150
200
[USD2005 /GJ]
Figure A.III.3b | Negative of tornado graph for renewable heat technologies. For further explanation see Figure A.III.1b.
1013
1014
Sugarcane
Feedstock
See above
See above
See above
Mexico
USA
See above
Caribbean
Basinx, xi
India
See above
Argentina
See above
See above
Colombia
1701,000
Typical
size of the
device
(MWth)
Overall
Ethanol
Fuel, Region
100320
83260
110340
100320
110360
110340
100330
83360
Investment
cost
(USD/kWth)ii
See above
See above
See above
See above
See above
See above
See above
4.3
Co-product:
sugarvi
By-product
Revenue
(USD/GJfeed)
6.2
5.27.1
2.66.2
5.6
2.66.2
6.5ix
2.16.5viii
2.17.1
Feedstock
cost
(USD/GJfeed)
Input data
See above
See above
See above
See above
See above
See above
See above
17 (39)
Feedstock
conversion
efciencyiii
(%)
Product only
(product +
by-product)
See above
See above
See above
See above
See above
See above
See above
50%
Capacity
factor
(%)
See above
See above
See above
See above
See above
See above
See above
20
Economic
design
lifetime
(years)
2839
6.438
2840
1940
7.141
2436
7.742
3042
3.541
3.542
7%
2943
2042
8.244
2539
8.846
3146
4.544
4.546
10%
2736
1937
5.937
2332
2.438
McDonald and
Schrattenholzer (2001),
Goldemberg (1996), see
also row Overall above
2.439
3%
Discount rate
References
LCOF iv
USD/GJHHVv
Output data
Wheat
Corn
Feedstock
See above
See above
Argentina
Canada
150610
See above
See above
See above
Overall
USA
Argentina
Canada
Ethanol
160240
140550xiv
USA
190280
150230
140220
140280xvi
200310
170260
160310
Investment
cost
(USD/kWth)ii
N/A
Overall
Ethanol
Fuel, Region
Typical
size of the
device
(MWth)
See above
See above
See above
1.74
See above
See above
See above
By-product:
DDGSxii
1.56
By-product:
DDGSxii
By-product
Revenue
(USD/GJfeed)
5.16.9
6.57
6.313
5.113
4.85.7
7.5
4.210xv
4.210xiii
Feedstock
cost
(USD/GJfeed)
Input data
See above
See above
See above
49 (91)
See above
See above
See above
54 (91)
Feedstock
conversion
efciencyiii
(%)
Product only
(product +
by-product)
See above
See above
See above
95%
See above
See above
See above
95%
Capacity
factor
(%)
See above
See above
See above
20
See above
See above
See above
20
Economic
design
lifetime
(years)
1617
1217
1416
1428
1228
1215
1617
9.522
9.522
7%
1217
1417
1428
12-28
1216
1718
1023
1023
10%
1216
1416
1328
1228
1115
9.322
Delta-T Corporation
(1997), Ibsen et al.
(2005), Jechura (2005),
see also row Overall
above
9.322
3%
Discount rate
References
LCOF iv
USD/GJHHVv
Output data
Annex III
Recent Renewable Energy Cost and Performance Parameters
1015
1016
Wood,
Bagasse,
other
Palm Oil
Soy Oil
Feedstock
See above
USA
See above
Caribbean
Basinx
110440
See above
See above
Overall
USA
Brazil
See above
Colombia
Overall
44440
See above
Brazil
Biodiesel
See above
44440
Argentina
Overall
Biodiesel
xvii
Fuel, Region
Typical
size of the
device
(MWth)
160240
160230
160240
180- 340
160300
160340
160300
160310
170320
160320
Investment
cost
(USD/kWth)ii
See above
0.07
See above
See above
By-product:
Electricityxxi
See above
See above
0.58
1244 USD/kWth
and 0.42 USD/GJfeed
1046 USD/kWth
and 2.58 USD/GJfeed
See above
By-product:
Glycerinxviii
See above
0.58
By-product:
Glycerinxviii
By-product
Revenue
(USD/GJfeed)
0.445.5
1.45.5
0.445.5xxii
1145
6.145
6.145
9.724
7.018xx
1416xx
7.024
Feedstock
cost
(USD/GJfeed)
Input data
See above
See above
67 (69)
See above
See above
103 (107)
See above
See above
See above
103 (107)19
Feedstock
conversion
efciencyiii
(%)
Product only
(product +
by-product)
See above
See above
95%
See above
See above
95%
See above
See above
See above
95%
Capacity
factor
(%)
See above
See above
20
See above
See above
20
See above
See above
See above
20
Economic
design
lifetime
(years)
2.511
4.312
2.612
1448
8.848
8.948
1228
1021
1619
1028
7%
2.811
4.512
2.812
1448
9.049
9.049
1228
1021
1720
1028
10%
2.311
4.012
2.312
1448
8.748
8.748
1228
9.421
1619
9.428
3%
Discount rate
References
LCOF iv
USD/GJHHVv
Output data
Annex III
General remarks/notes:
i
All data are rounded to two signicant digits. Chapter 2 provides additional cost and performance information in the section on cost trends. The assumptions underlying some
of the production cost estimates quoted directly from the literature may, however, not be as transparent as the data sets in this Annex and should therefore be considered
with caution.
ii
Investment cost is based on plant capacity factor and not at 100% stream factor, which is the normal convention.
iii
The feedstock conversion efciency measured in energy units of input relative to energy units of output is stated for biomass only. Conversion factors for a mixture of biomass
and fossil inputs are generally lower.
iv
LCOF: Levelized Cost of Transport Fuels. The levelized costs of transport fuels include all private costs that accrue upstream in the bioenergy system, but do not include the cost
of transportation and distribution to the nal customers. Output subsidies for RE generation and tax credits are also excluded. However, indirect taxes and subsidies on inputs
or commodities affecting the prices of inputs and, hence, private cost, cannot be fully excluded.
vi
Price of / revenue from sugar assumed to be USD2005 22/GJsugar based on average 2005 to 2008 world rened sugar price.
vii
A cane sucrose content of 14% is used in the calculations of case A with the additional assumption that 50% of the total sucrose is used for sugar production (97%
extraction efciency) and the other 50% of the total sucrose is used for ethanol production (90% conversion efciency). The bagasse content of cane used is 16%. The HHVs
used are bagasse: 18.6 GJ/t; sucrose: 17.0 GJ/t; and as received cane: 5.3 GJ/t.
viii
Brazilian feedstock costs have declined by 60% in the time period of 1975 to 2005 (Hettinga et al, 2009). For a more detailed discussion of historical and future cost trends
see also Sections 2.7.2, 2.7.3 and 2.7.4.
ix
55.2% of feed used is bagasse. More detailed information on feedstock characteristics can, for instance, be found in Section 2.3.1.
Caribbean Basin Initiative Countries: Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, Dominican Republic, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guyana, and others.
xi
Mixed ethanol/sugar mill: 50/50. More detailed information on sugar mills can be found in Section 2.3.4.
xii
xiii
For international feed range, supply curves from Kline et al. (2007) were used. For more information on feedstock supply curves and other economic considerations in biomass
resource assessments see Chapter section 2.2.3.
xiv
Plant size range (140-550 MW is the equivalent of 25-100 million gallons per year (mmgpy) of anhydrous ethanol) is representative of the US corn ethanol industry (RFA, 2011).
xv
Corn prices in the USA have declined by 63% in the period from 1975 to 2005 (Hettinga et al., 2009). For a more detailed discussion of historical and future cost trends see
also Sections 2.7.2, 2.7.3 and 2.7.4.
xvi
Based on corn mill costs, corrected for HHV, and distillers dried grain (DDG) yields for wheat. More detailed information on milling can be found in Section 2.3.4.
xvii Installation basis is soy oil, not soybeans. Crush spread is used to convert from soybean prices to soy oil price. HHV soy oil = 39.6 GJ/t.
xviii Glycerine is also referred to as glycerol and is a simple polyol compound (1,2,3-propanetriol), and is central to all lipids known as triglycerides. Glycerine is a by-product of
biodiesel production.
xix
The yield is higher than 100% because methanol (or other alcohol) is incorporated into the product.
xx
Soy oil prices are estimated from soybean prices (Kline et al., 2007) and crush spread (Chicago Board of Trade, 2006).
xxi
Process-derived gas and residual solids (char) are used for process heat and power. Excess electricity is exported as a by-product.
xxii Feedstock cost range is based on bagasse residue and wood residue prices (Kline et al. 2007). High range is for wood-based pyrolysis, low range is typical of pyrolysis of
bagasse. For more information on pyrolysis see Section 2.3.3.2. For a discussion of historical and future cost trends see also Sections 2.7.2, 2.7.3 and 2.7.4.
1017
Annex III
Sugarcane Ethanol
Varied Parameter
Investment Cost
Non-Fuel O&M Cost
Corn Ethanol
Fuel Cost
Discount Rate
Wheat Ethanol
Soy Biodiesel
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
[USD2005 /GJ]
Figure A.III.4a | Tornado graph for biofuels. For further explanation see Figure A.III.1a.
Sugarcane Ethanol
Fixed Parameter
Corn Ethanol
Investment Cost
Non-Fuel O&M Cost
Fuel Cost
Wheat Ethanol
Discount Rate
Soy Biodiesel
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
[USD2005 /GJ]
Figure A.III.4b | Negative of tornado graph for biofuels. For further explanation see Figure A.III.1b.
Note: Aggregation of input data over various regions and subsequent LCOF calculations leads to slightly larger LCOF ranges than those obtained if region-specic LCOF values are
calculated rst and these regional LCOF values are subsequently aggregated. In order to allow for a broad sensitivity analysis the rst approach was followed here. The broader ranges
were, however, rescaled to yield the same results as the latter approach, which is more accurate and is used in the remainder of the report.
1018
Annex III
References
Skjoldborg, B. (2010). Optimization of I/S Skive District Heating Plant. In: IEA Joint
Task 32 & 33 Workshop, Copenhagen, Denmark, 7 October 2010. Available at:
www.ieabcc.nl/meetings/task32_Copenhagen/11%20Skive.pdf.
The references in this list have been used in the assessment of the cost
and performance data of the individual technologies summarized in the
tables. Only some of them are quoted in the text of this Annex to support
specic information included in the explanatory text. All references are
sorted by energy type/carrier and by technology.
Electricity
Bioenergy
Remark 1: Further references on cost have been assessed in the body of Chapter 2.
These have served to cross-check the reliability of the results from the meta-analysis
Bain, R.L., W.P. Amos, M. Downing, and R.L. Perlack (2003). Biopower Technical
DeMeo, E.A., and J.F. Galdo (1997). Renewable Energy Technology Characterizations.
NREL (2011a). Solar PV Manufacturing Cost Model Group: Installed Solar PV System
ment, cost development and life cycle inventories until 2050. Energy Policy, doi:
10.1016/j.enpol.2010.09.026.
Geothermal Energy
Power Generation in New Zealand (2007 basis). Report by SKM for New Zealand
Chemical engineers, Fifth Edition, McGraw Hill Companies, NY, USA, 242 pp.
(ISBN 0-07-239266-5).
nz\industry_papers.html.
Rauch, R. (2010). Indirect Gasication. In: IEA Joint Task 32 &33 Workshop,
update report. In: Proceedings of the World Geothermal Congress 2010, Bali,
task32_Copenhagen /09%20TU%20Vienna.pdf.
1019
Annex III
Hydropower
Potential of Renewable Energy and Energy Efciency for Global Energy Supply.
Geothermal Energy Association, Washington, DC, USA, 64 pp. Available at: www.
geo-energy.org/reports/Factors%20Affecting%20Cost%20of%20Geothermal%20
Power%20Development%20-%20August%202005.pdf.
Hjastarson, A., and J.G. Einarsson (2010). Geothermal resources and properties
with a Focus on Asia and Western Europe: Overview in the Framework of VLEEM
by Mannvit Engineering for Magma Energy Corporation, 151 pp. Available upon
request at: www.mannvit.com.
Kutscher, C. (2000). The Status and Future of Geothermal Electric Power. Publication
Teske, S., T. Pregger, S. Simon, T. Naegler, W. Graus, and C. Lins (2010). Energy
sti/28204.pdf.
doi:10.1007/s12053-010-9098-y.
pdf/IGAstandard/WGC/2000/R0123.PDF.
Lund, J.W., K. Gawell, T.L. Boyd, and D. Jennejohn (2010). The United States of
America country update 2010. In: Proceedings World Geothermal Congress 2010,
Ocean Energy
Charlier, R.H. (2003). Sustainable co-generation from the tides: A review. Renewable
and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 7(3), pp. 187-213.
ETSAP (2010b). Marine Energy Technology Brief E13 - November, 2010. Energy
docs/fy02osti/31969.pdf.
GSgct_Ana_LCPL_rev30Nov2010.pdf.
Kerr, D. (2007). Marine energy. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society
London, Series A (Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences), 365(1853),
pp. 971-92.
1020
Annex III
Wind Energy
Heat
Blanco, M.I. (2009). The economics of wind energy. Renewable and Sustainable
Bioenergy
Remark: Further references on cost have been assessed in the body of Chapter 2. These
have served to cross-check the reliability of the results from the meta-analysis based on
the data sources listed here.
EWEA (2009). Wind Energy, the Facts. European Wind Energy Association, Brussels,
Belgium, 488 pp.
Goyal, M. (2010). Repowering Next big thing in India. Renewable and Sustainable
Chang, K.-C., W.-M. Lin, T.-S. Lee, and K.-M. Chung (2011). Subsidy programs
on diffusion of solar water heaters: Taiwans experience. Energy Policy, 39, pp.
563-567.
Han, J., A.P.J. Mol, and Y. Lu (2010). Solar water heaters in China: A new day dawning. Energy Policy, 38(1), pp. 383-391.
Harvey, L.D.D. (2006). A Handbook on Low-Energy Buildings and District-Energy
Systems: Fundamentals, Techniques and Examples. Earthscan, Sterling, Virginia,
USA, 701 pp.
IEA (2007). Renewables for Heating and Cooling Untapped Potential, International
Energy Agency, Paris, France, 209 pp.
Zhang, X., W. Ruoshui, H. Molin, and E. Martinot (2010). A study of the role
played by renewable energies in Chinas sustainable energy supply. Energy,
35(11), pp. 4392-4399.
Milborrow, D. (2010). Annual power costs comparison: What a difference a year can
make. Windpower Monthly, 26, pp. 41-47.
Musial, W., and B. Ram (2010). Large-Scale Offshore Wind Power in the United
Geothermal Energy
(in Polish). In: Symposium on the Role of Geothermal Energy in the Sustainable
N.E. Clausen, S. Strm, J. Larsen, N.C. Bang, and H.H. Lindboe (2010).
Snyder, B., and M.J. Kaiser (2009). A comparison of offshore wind power develop-
ment in Europe and the US: Patterns and drivers of development. Applied Energy,
86, pp. 1845-1856.
UKERC (2010). Great Expectations: The Cost of Offshore Wind in UK Waters
Understanding the Past and Projecting the Future. United Kingdom Energy
Research Centre, London, England, 112 pp.
Wiser, R., and M. Bolinger (2010). 2009 Wind Technologies Market Report. US
Department of Energy, Washington, DC, USA, 88 pp.
1021
Annex III
Wheat Ethanol
Geo-Heat Center Quarterly Bulletin, 28(4), pp. 1-4. Available at: geoheat.oit.edu/
bulletin/bull28-4/bull28-4-all.pdf.
Biofuels
Shapouri, H., and M. Salassi (2006). The Economic Feasibility of Ethanol Production
Remark: Further references on cost have been assessed in the body of Chapter 2. These
Sugarcane
General References
Bohlmann, G.M., and M.A. Cesar (2006). The Brazilian opportunity for biorenerAlfstad, T. (2008). World Biofuels Study: Scenario Analysis of Global Biofuels Markets.
BNL-80238-2008, Brookhaven National Laboratory, New York, NY, USA, 67 pp.
Bain, R.L. (2007). World Biofuels Assessment, Worldwide Biomass Potential:
Technology Characterizations. NREL/MP-510-42467, National Renewable Energy
Laboratory, Golden, CO, USA, 140 pp.
Goldemberg, J. (1996). The evolution of ethanol costs in Brazil. Energy Policy,
24(12), pp. 1127-1128.
Hettinga, W.G., H.M. Junginger, S.C. Dekker, M. Hoogwijk, A.J. McAloon, and
K.B. Hicks (2009). Understanding the reductions in US corn ethanol production
costs: An experience curve approach. Energy Policy, 37(1), pp. 190-203.
Kline, K.L., G. Oladosu, A. Wolfe, R.D. Perlack, and M. McMahon (2007). Biofuel
van den Wall Bake, J.D., M. Junginger, A. Faaij, T. Poot, and A. Walter (2009).
Explaining the experience curve: Cost reductions of Brazilian ethanol from sugar-
Corn Ethanol
Biodiesel
Chicago Board of Trade (2006). CBOT Soybean Crush Reference Guide. Board of
Pyrolysis Oil
1022
Ringer, M., V. Putsche, and J. Scahill (2006). Large-Scale Pyrolysis Oil Production:
A Technology Assessment and Economic Analysis. TP-510-37779, National
Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, CO, USA, 93 pp.
ANNEX
IV
Annex IV
BAIN, Richard
BIRD, Lori
Republic of Maldives
(NREL)
(NREL)
BAKER, Erin
BLACKWELL, David P.
Singapore / Germany
University of Massachusetts
University of Botswana
BALAYA, Palani
BOERMANS, Thomas
Botswana
Ecofys
Singapore / India
Germany
Energy Commission
BAUER, Christian
BOWEN, Alex
Ghana
Switzerland / Austria
ABERLE, Armin
ADEDOYIN, Akintayo
AKAI, Makoto
United Kingdom
BAZILIAN, Morgan
BRANCHE, Emmanuel
Japan
Organization (UNIDO)
France
BEEREPOOT, Milou
BRECHA, Robert
Germany
France
Research (PIK)
ARENT, Douglas J.
BERNDES, Gran
BREUKERS, Sylvia
(NREL)
Sweden
ANGERER, Gerhard
(ECN)
BERTANI, Ruggero
ARROWSMITH, Greg
Italy
(EUREC) Agency
Belgium / United Kingdom
The Netherlands
BROMLEY, Christopher J.
GNS Science
BHARATHAN, Desikan
New Zealand
(NREL)
BRUCKNER, Thomas
University of Leipzig
(NREL)
United States of America
ATHIENITIS, Andreas
Concordia University
Canada
1024
Germany
BHUYAN, Gouri S.
Powertech Labs Inc.
BURGHERR, Peter
Canada
Annex IV
BURKHARDT, John
COWLIN, Shannon
(NREL)
(NREL)
Environment
Cuba
BUSCH, Sebastian
CREUTZIG, Felix
DONG, Hongmin
Austria / Germany
Germany
CABEZA , Luisa F.
DARGHOUTH, Nam R.
DROEGE, Peter
University of Lleida
University of California
University of Liechtenstein
Spain
Liechtenstein, Germany
DAWE, David
EDENHOFER, Ottmar
Lempa
Research (PIK)
El Salvador
Germany
CALVO, Eduardo
DE JAGER, David
EDMONDS, James A.
Ecofys
Peru
The Netherlands
CHIANG, Ranyee
DEMAYO, Trevor N.
ELGIZOULI, Ismail A. R.
Resources
CHRISTENSEN, John M.
DEMKINE, Volodymyr
ELLIOTT, Dennis
Energy
(UNEP)
Denmark
Kenya / Ukraine
(NREL)
Sudan
DENNY, Eleanor
ERICSSON, Karin
(NREL)
Ireland
Lund University
Sweden
ESTEFEN, Segen F.
(IDRC)
Senegal / Gambia
(UFRJ)
CLEMENS, Elisabeth
DEVERNAY, Jean-Michel E.
FAAIJ, Andr P. C.
(UNDP)
France
Utrecht University
Brazil
The Netherlands
Norway
DHAMIJA, Parveen
CONNOR, Peter
FIFITA, Solomone
University of Exeter
India
United Kingdom
1025
Annex IV
FISCHEDICK, Manfred
GWINNER, Don
HOEN, Ben
(NREL)
Germany
FLYNN, Damian
HAGELKEN, Christian
University of Flensburg
Germany
Ireland
Germany
FREITAS, Marcos A. V.
HALL, Douglas G.
University of Waterloo
Canada
(UFRJ)
HOHMEYER, Olav
HOLLANDS, Terry K. G.
HOLTTINEN, Hannele K.
Brazil
HAMILTON, Kirsty S.
FUJINO, Junichi
Chatham House
Finland
United Kingdom
HUCKERBY, John
Japan
HAND, M. Maureen
GABRIELLE, Benot X.
New Zealand
AgroParisTech
(NREL)
France
GIRARDIN, L. Osvaldo
HANSEN, Gerrit
Bariloche Foundation
Argentina
Germany
GOLDSTEIN, Barry A.
HANSON, Howard
(JRC)
Italy / Denmark
Australia
HARNISCH, Jochen
University of Maryland
KfW Entwicklungsbank
Germany
GREACEN, Chris
HEATH, Garvin
HuntGreen LLC
Consultant
(NREL)
HUENGES, Ernst
Deutsches GeoForschungsZentrum
Germany
HULD, Thomas
European Commission Joint Research Center
HULTMAN, Nathan
HUNT, Suzanne
HEPBURN, Cameron
Brazil
New College
United Kingdom
United Kingdom
IVANOVA BONCHEVA, Antonina
Universidad Autnoma de Baja California
GUTIRREZ-NEGRIN, Luis
Asociacin Geotrmica Mexicana
HIRIART, Gerardo L.
Sur (UABCS)
Mexico
Mexico
1026
INFIELD, David
University of Strathclyde
GRISOLI, Renata
Annex IV
JACCARD, Marc
KALKUHL, Matthias
KREWITT, Wolfram
Canada
Research (PIK)
Germany
Germany
KREY, Volker
JGER-WALDAU, Arnulf A.
European Commission Joint Research Centre
KAMIMOTO, Masayuki
(JRC)
Analysis (IIASA)
Italy / Germany
Austria / Germany
Japan
KRUG, Thelma
JAKOB, Michael
Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact
KAMMEN, Daniel
Research (PIK)
University of California
(INPE)
Germany
Brazil
JAMES, Ted
KAZMERSKI, Lawrence
KUMAR, Arun
(NREL)
(NREL)
India
KEANE, Andrew
Ecofys
Germany
(UNICAMP)
Ireland
LANGNISS, Ole
Brazil
KHENNAS, Smail
Germany
(UNDP)
Energy
Senegal / Algeria
LEE, Arthur
Chevron Corporation
Denmark
KILLINGTVEIT, nund
JONKMAN, Jason
Technology (NTNU)
(NREL)
Norway
Utrecht University
Belgium / Denmark
Republic of Korea
LENZEN, Manfred
University of Sydney
The Netherlands
KONDO, Michio
Australia / Germany
KADNER, Susanne
LEWIS, Anthony
Germany
Japan
KONSEIBO, Charles D.
LIU, Yongqian
(UFRJ)
Burkina Faso
Brazil
Burkina Faso
Ireland
1027
Annex IV
LIU, Zhiyu
MAPAKO, Maxwell
MINOWA, Tomoaki
(CSIR)
Japan
MASANET, Eric
MIRZA, Monirul
(NREL)
Environment Canada
Canada / Bangladesh
LOUIS, Frederic
MITCHELL, Catherine H. C.
University of Exeter
France
(UNAM)
United Kingdom
LOGAN, Jeffrey
Mexico
MONGILLO, Michael A.
LUCAS, Hugo
International Renewable Energy Agency
MATSCHOSS, Patrick
(IRENA)
Implementing Agreement
Germany
New Zealand
LUCHT, Wolfgang
MATSUBARA, Koji
MOOMAW, William R.
Osaka University
Research (PIK)
Japan
MAURICE, Lourdes Q.
MOREIRA, Jos R.
LUCON, Oswaldo
Germany
Brazil
MCINTYRE, Terry C.
LUDERER, Gunnar
Environment Canada
Canada
MORENO, Jos M.
University of Castilla-La Mancha
Research (PIK)
Germany
Brazil
MEIER, Anton
Spain
Switzerland
MORIARTY, Patrick
National Renewable Energy Laboratory
(NREL)
Russia
MUJUMDAR, Arun
MERCADO, Pedro E.
Singapore
Argentina
MURAOKA, Hirofumi
MADSEN, Birger
BTM Consult ApS
MILLIGAN, Michael
Hirosaki University
Denmark
Japan
(NREL)
MANN, Margaret
(NREL)
MILLS, Andrew
(NREL)
1028
MUSIAL, Walter
National Renewable Energy Laboratory
Annex IV
NADAI, Alain
POPP, David
Centre Cired
Syracuse University
France
Energy
Denmark
NAGAI, Yu
POWER, Michael
OOZEKI, Takashi
Analysis (IIASA)
Ireland
Austria / Japan
Technology
Japan
NEMET, Gregory
PRYOR, Sara
Indiana University
OUTHRED, Hugh
NEWELL, David
PAHLE, Michael
NIKOLAEV, Vladimir G.
France
PICHS-MADRUGA, Ramn
Centro de Investigaciones de la Economa
PAN, Jiahua
Mundial (CIEM)
ATMOGRAPH
Cuba
Russia
NILSSON, Lars J.
PANITCHPAKDI, Supachai
University of Liechtenstein
Lund University
Liechtenstein / Australia
Sweden
Development (UNCTAD)
RADZI, Anis
Switzerland / Thailand
NYBOER, John G.
RAGNARSSON, Arni
ISOR Iceland GeoSurvey
PAR, David
Canada
OMALLEY, Mark J.
Iceland
RAHIMZADEH, Fatemeh
Atmospheric Science and Meteorological
PATEL, Martin
Ireland
Utrecht University
The Netherlands
OGDEN, Joan
RAHMAN, Atiq
University of California
PINGOUD, Kim
Bangladesh
Finland
OGIMOTO, Kazuhiko
RESCH, Gustav
POKHAREL, Govind R.
Japan
Austria
Nepal
OLHOFF, Anne
RIAHI, Keywan
PONTES, Teresa
Energy
Analysis (IIASA)
Austria
Portugal
1029
Annex IV
RICHELS, Richard
SCHEI, Tormod A.
SINDEN, Graham
Statkraft AS
Norway
ROMANI, Mattia
SCHIMSCHAR, Sven
SKEA, Jim
Ecofys
Germany
United Kingdom
SMITH, Charles
ROY, Joyashree
University of Flensburg
Jadavpur University
Germany / Australia
India
SCHLMER, Steffen
SMITH, Paul
RUDNICK, Hugh
Germany
Ireland
Chile
SCHMID, Jrgen
SDER, Lennart
SANOGO, Oumar
Sweden
Germany
Burkina Faso
SOKONA, Youba
SCHRECK, Scott
SANTAMOURIS, Matheos
Africa (UNECA)
(NREL)
Ethiopia / Mali
Athens
USA
Greece
STECKEL, Jan
SCRMEST, Sandvik .
SANYAL, Subir K.
Statkraft AS
Research (PIK)
GeothermEx, Inc.
Norway
Germany
STEIN, Wesley H.
SATHAYE, Jayant
Statkraft AS
Norway
Australia
SEYBOTH, Kristin
SAVOLAINEN, Ilkka
STERNER, Michael
Finland
SAWIN, Janet L.
Institute of Geography
Worldwatch Institute
Russia
STRATTON, Russell
Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)
SIMS, Ralph E. H.
1030
Germany
SCHAEFFER, Roberto
Massey University
New Zealand
(UFRJ)
Brazil
Germany
Annex IV
TAMAURA, Yutaka
ULLEBERG, ystein
WARNER, Ethan
Japan
Norway
(NREL)
URAMA, Kevin
Consultant
WEIR, Tony A. D.
Ethiopia
Network
Kenya / Nigeria
Greenpeace
RGE-VORSATZ, Diana
WEYERS, Paul
Germany
Hungary
(ECN)
TESKE, Sven
TESTER, Jefferson W.
The Netherlands
USHER, Eric
WILBANKS, Thomas
(UNEP)
Sweden
WILLIAMSON, Kenneth H.
University of Birmingham
Consultant
WILSON, Charlie
XP Wind
Belgium
United Kingdom
WISER, Ryan
Switzerland
Belgium
VERBRUGGEN, Aviel
WRATT, David
(NREL)
University of Antwerp
Belgium
Research (NIWA)
VERMEYLEN, Saskia
Lancaster University
WRIGHT, Raymond M.
(UNDP)
TORRES-MARTINEZ, Julio
Cubasolar
Cuba
TRINDADE, Sergio C.
SE2T International, Ltd.
United States of America / Brazil, USA
TRUFFER, Bernhard
Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science
TRUITT, Sarah
New Zealand
Bolivia
Jamaica
VON STECHOW, Christoph
TUOHY, Aidan
WSTENHAGEN, Rolf
Germany
Switzerland / Germany
WANG, Zhongying
UECKERDT, Falko
WYBORN, Doone
Geodynamics Limited
Research (PIK)
Australia
Germany
1031
Annex IV
XU, Honghua
YANG, Zhenbin
ZHANG, Yimin
Sciences
(NREL)
YOU, Yage
ZILLES, Roberto
Japan
University of So Paulo
Brazil
ZERVOS, Arthouros
ZUI, Vladimir I.
Engineering
Zambia
Greece
YANG, Joyce
ZHANG, Jingjing
Lund University
ZWICKEL, Timm
Sweden
YAMAGUCHI, Kaoru
YAMBA, Francis
Republic of Belarus
Germany
1032
ANNEX
Annex V
CLARKE, Drew
LAUBER, Volkmar
University of Salzburg
and Tourism
IHFR
ORGIS, Manfred
COLDREY, Olivia
Ministry of Environment
ARGENTINA
RADUNSKY, Klaus
GLEESON, Trish
BLANCO, Gabriel
Resource Economics
Umweltbundesamt
ROGNER, Hans-Holger
International Atomic Energy Agency
HITCHENS, Michael
BOUILLE, Daniel
BAHRAIN
Fundacin Bariloche
HOUSTON, Anne
CARACCIA, Maria Eugenia
ABDEL-GELIL, Ibrahim
Secretary of Energy
and Engineering
JENNINGS, Philip
Murdoch University
BANGLADESH
OUTHRED, Hugh
GORISSEN, Leen
PAGE, Brad
GUISSON, Ruben
Sustentable
GIRARDIN, Leonidas
Fundacin Bariloche
NADAL, Gustavo
Fundacion Bariloche
SMITHAM, Jim
ISLAM, Sirajul
Secretary of Energy
Research Organisation
STEIN, Wes
y Gestioniencia y Tenologia
Research Organisation
BELARUS
ZUI, Vladimir
Republican Unitary Enterprise
QUILES, Ernesto
Ministerio de Agricultura, Ganaderia y Pesca
AUSTRIA
BELGIUM
SERVANT, Monica
BAZILIAN, Morgan
Secretary of Energy
DAUWE, Tom
Organisation
HABERL, Helmut
DE PAEPE, Michel
University of Klagenfurt
Ghent University
KREY, Volker
DRIESEN, Johan
K.U. Leuven
AUSTRALIA
BUDD, Anthony
Geoscience Australia
Analysis (IIASA)
1034
Annex V
EGGERMONT, Gilbert
SCHMALL, Vicente
MRE
Petrobras
Petrobras
Universidade Salvador
Petrobras
TOLMASQUIM, Mauricio
Petrobras
GAINO, Bruna
Universit Catholique de Louvain
MARBAIX, Philippe
Universit Catholique de Louvain
RODRIGUES, Glria
European Wind Energy Association (EWEA)
SAWYER, Steve
Global Wind Energy Council
BURKINA FASO
GUTIERRES, Ricardo
COULIBALY, Yezouma
Petrobras
SCOWCROFT, John
EURELECTRIC
Environmental Engineering
STRUYF, Igor
Public Planning Service Science Policy
PHILIPPE, Girard
International Institute for Water and
SUL, Jung-ui
JANNUZZI, Gilberto
Environmental Engineering
University of Campinas
TURBELIN, Elise
Universit Catholique de Louvain
CANADA
Petrobras
AMANDEEP, Garcha
MARQUES, Fabio
VANDERSTRAETEN, Martine
Public Planning Service Science Policy
Environment Canada
VERBRUGGEN, Aviel
University of Antwerp
VERHOEST, Chrystelle
LABORELEC
PACCA, Sergio
WOYTE, Achim
3E s.a.
PINHO, Joo
Powertech Labs
Institute of Technology
BLAIS, Caroline
BRAZIL
Environment Canada
Petrobras
AMARAL, Luiz Fernando
BLAIS, Darcy
Association
Petrobras
1035
Annex V
BRANDON, Robert
GILSENAN, Rory
MARTIN, Laura
BURKE, David
GOUR, Christian
MCKENNEY, Dan
Environment Canada
Canada
BUSH, Elizabeth
Environment Canada
NADEAU, Melanie
GRAY, Brian
Environment Canada
CAMPBELL, Chris
Ocean Renewable Energy Group
ODHIAMBO, Joseph
JENSEN, Jack
Environment Canada
PAUNESCU, Michael
JUTZI, Dan
Environment Canada
COATES, Laura
Environment Canada
RADOVAN, Rock
KAPOOR, Anoop
Environment Canada
ROYER, Jimmy
KOSTELZ, Tony
Environment Canada
CUNNINGHAM, Don
Natural Resources Canada
SAMSON, Rachel
KRAMER, Amanda
Environment Canada
Environment Canada
DALLAIRE, Lynne
Indian and Northern Affairs Canada
SCHUBERT, Philip
LABIB, Herzel
SMITH, Donald L.
LACROIX, Antoine
McGill University
STRAUSS, Jessica
LEI, Cecilia
Environment Canada
Environment Canada
DUNCAN, Tracy
Natural Resources Canada
TITUS, Brian
LEMMEN, Don
TUDVIER, Simon
LITTLE, Brad
Environment Canada
Environment Canada
FERGUSON, Grant
St. Francis Xavier University
TUTHILL, Jennifer
LOW, Heather
Canada
Hydro-Quebec
VANDELIGT, Kelly
Environment Canada
LUNDY, Katie
GILLETT, Nathan
Environment Canada
1036
Environment Canada
VELJKOVIC, Maja
National Research Council of Canada
Annex V
WALSH, Elizabeth
CHEN, Mozi
LI, Jingmin
Ministry of Agriculture
WELSH, Leslie
CHEN, Zhenghong
LI, Junfeng
Environment Canada
YU, Wei
Environment Canada
DING, Yi
Hydropower Research
DING, Yongyao
LIU, Fuyou
DONG, Hongmin
LIU, Mingliang
GAO, Hu
LIU, Yongqian
GAO, Lin
MA, Weibin
GAO, Yun
PAN, Jiahua
GUO, Shiyi
PANG, Zhonghe
Tsinghua University
HAO, Aibin
REN, Dongming
HE, Dexin
REN, Xiangkun
HONG, Hao
RUAN, Honghua
Peking University
HU, Xiulian
SHEN, Yanbo
ZWIERS, Francis
Pacic Climate Impacts Consortium
CHILE
FARAS, Fernando
CONAMA
GALETIVIC, Alexander
Chilean Ministry of Economy
GARCIA, Javier
Renewable Energy Center
JADRIJEVIC, Maritza
Chilean National Environmental Commission
JARA TIRAPEGUI, Wilfredo
Endesa Eco S.A.
WOISCHNIK, Alwine
Chilean National Environmental Commission
Commission
Tsinghua University
SHI, Jingli
JIA, Jinsheng
CHEN, Dayong
ICOLD
JIANG, Jianchun
Group Co.
JIN, Hongguang
SHI, Zuomin
1037
Annex V
SICHENG, Wang
XU, Ruina
ZHENG, Guoguang
Tsinghua University
XU, Honghua
ZHONG, Deyu
Tsinghua University
Development Co.
SUN, Pengsen
Ministry of Environment and Protection
YANG, Xiaosheng
ZHOU, Dadi
TANG, Feiwen
COFCO
Ltd.
Commission
TENG, Fei
YOU, Yage
ZHU, Rong
Tsinghua University
TIAN, Zhongxing
YU, Zhouwen
ZHU, Xiaoqing
Center
WANG, Bingzhen
National Ocean Technology Center
ZHUANG, Huiyong
ZHANG, Chengyi
ZHANG, Guobin
WANG, Weisheng
ZHANG, Liang
COSTA RICA
BALLESTERO, Johnny Montenegro
National Meteorological Institute
HEINRICH, Kristel
WANG, Zhifeng
ZHANG, Xiliang
Tsinghua University
WANG, Zhongying
ZHANG, Xuejin
IN-SHP
WEI, Dongyuan
ZHANG, Yanru
CUBA
ACOSTA MORENO, Roberto
ALFREDO, Curbelo
for Development
ZHAO, Lixin
WU, Shurirong
GUTIREZ-PREZ, Toms
ZHAO, Ping
Instituto de Meteorologa
Cubaenergia
CITMA
ZHAO, Zongci
Environment
ZHENBIN, Yang
HERNNDEZ, Gladys
Mundial
1038
Annex V
SCHOU, Annette
de Cuba
AHMED, Rauddin
STIESDAL, Henrik
LLANES-REQUEIRO, Juan F.
FIJI
University of Havana
GONELEVU, Arieta
International Union for Conservation of
PICHS-MADRUGA, Ramn
ECUADOR
Nature
JOHNSTON, Peter
RATURI, Atul
Ministry of Environment
WEIR, Tony
Ministry of Environment
EGYPT
FINLAND
ANTIKAINEN, Riina
Zagazig University
ABED, Kamal
ASIKAINEN, Antti
EL-HINNAWI, Essam
HAKALA, Kaija
DENMARK
ANDERSEN, Katrine Krogh
Danish Meteorological Institute
BARBU, Anca-Diana
European Environment Agency
CLUBB, David
European Environment Agency
HALME, Janne
EL SALVADOR
Aalto University
SAUERBREY, Mauricio
HANNINEN, Seppo
Energie Renovable
HEIKINHEIMO, Pirkko
ETHIOPIA
SOKONA, Youba
HELYNEN, Satu
JUUL-KRISTENSEN, Bjarne
Danish Energy Agency
KARLSSON, Kenneth
University of Denmark
(UNECA)
University of Denmark
HOLTTINEN, Hannele
VTT Technical Research Center of Finland
JRVENP, Markku
MTT Agrifood Research Finland
1039
Annex V
KAHILUOTO, Helena
SEPPL, Jyri
COZZI, Laura
KANGAS, Markku
SOIMAKALLIO, Sampo
DARRAS, Marc
GDF SUEZ
KATI, Koponen
TAALAS, Petteri
DEVERNAY, Jean-Michel
Electricit de France
KIRKINEN, Johanna
TUOMAS, Helin
GABRIELLE, Benot
AgroParisTech
KIVILUOMA, Juha
UUSIVUORI, Jussi
LOUIS, Frederic
KOPONEN, Kati
VAPAAVUORI, Elina
MARCHAL, Julien
MEEDDM
MENICHETTI, Emanuela
LEHTINEN, Kari
Finnish Meteorological Institute
FRANCE
LUND, Peter
AELBRECHT, Denis
NADAI, Alain
lectricit de France
CIRED
OJALA, Jaakko
AGBEMABIESE, Lawrence
PETIT, Michel
CGIET
(UNEP)
PHILIBERT, Cdric
PERL, Hanna
Prime Ministers ofce
ALLAL, Houda
(OME)
ARGIRI, Maria
International Energy Agency (IEA)
SONNTAG-OBRIEN, Virginia
REN21
PINGOUD, Kim
VTT Technical Research Centre
POUFFARY, Stephanie
Energies 2050
BERIOT, Nicolas
Ministry of Ecology, Energy, Sustainable
PIRIL, Pekka
GAMBIA
BONDUELLE, Antoine
MANNEH, Pa Abdoulie
EE Consultant
Aalto University
RIINA, Antikainen
Finnish Environment Institute
BRANCHE, Emmanuel
SAMPO, Soimakallio
GERMANY
CANEILL, Jean-Yves
AVENHAUS, Wibke
Electricit de France
1040
Research (PIK)
Annex V
BAUER, Nico
GRASSL, Hartmut
KLEIN, David
Research (PIK)
Research (PIK)
GUENTHER, Edeltraud
BEHRENDT, Frank
TU Dresden
KLESSMAN, Corinna
Ecofys Germany
HALLER, Markus
BONHOFF, Klaus
KNOPF, Brigitte
Research (PIK)
Research (PIK)
HANSEN, Gerrit
BRECHA, Robert
Ecofys Germany
HAUM, Rdiger
German Advisory Council on Global Change
BRUCKNER, Thomas
University of Leipzig
LAMERS, Patrick
LEHMANN, Harry
German Federal Environment Agency
HERBENER, Reinhard
German Federal Environment Agency
BRUNNER, Steffen
LIPSIUS, Kai
German Federal Environment Agency
Research (PIK)
TU Berlin
LOHSE, Christiane
German Federal Environment Agency
CREUTZIG, Felix
HOHMEYER, Olav
TU Berlin
University of Flensburg
DEUTSCH, Matthias
HBLER, Michael
Prognos
LOTZE-CAMPEN, Hermann
Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact
(ZEW)
EDENHOFER, Ottmar
LUDERER, Gunnar
Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact
JAKOB, Michael
Research (PIK)
EICKEMEIER, Patrick
IPCC WGIII TSU
Research (PIK)
Research (PIK)
LUDIG, Sylvie
Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact
KADNER, Susanne
Research (PIK)
MASTIAUX, Frank
KAUP, Felix
Environment, Energy
KLASEN, Stephan
Research (PIK)
Ibero-American Institute
GOERNER, Marlen
KLEIDON, Axel
MEINSHAUSEN, Malte
Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact
Research (PIK)
1041
Annex V
MUELLER, Richard
SCHULZ, Astrid
WEIMANN, Joachim
Facility, DWD
(WBGU)
NEUHOFF, Karsten
SCHWEIZERHOF, Henriette
(DIW Berlin)
OETZEL, Nicolas
SEVEN, Jan
WEISSBACH, Sven
German Federal Environment Agency
WEINHOLD, Michael
Siemens AG
PEHNT, Martin
WILKE, Nicole
ZWICKEL, Timm
VON STECHOW, Christoph
STECKEL, Jan
Research (PIK)
GREECE
BALARAS, Constantinos
National Observatory of Athens
POPP, Alexander
Potsdam Institute of Climate Impact
STENGLER, Ella
Research (PIK)
CEWEP
PRAESSLER, Thomas
TEXTOR, Christiane
CHAVIAROPOULOS, Panagiotis
Centre for Renewable Energy Sources and
DIAKOULAKI, Danae
Research (PIK)
THRN, Daniela
RAUCH, Ernst
GEORGOPOLOU, Elena
TREBER, Manfred
Germanwatch e.V.
GLINOU, Georgia
DBFZ / UFZ
Saving
UECKERDT, Falko
Research (PIK)
KANELOPOULOS, Dimitrios
Public Power Corporation-Renewables S.A.
Deutscher Wetterdienst
VAHRENHOLT, Fritz
RUFIN, Julia
LINGOS, Elias
Public Power Corporation-Renewables S.A.
MIRASGEDIS, Sebastian
Research (PIK)
WALZ, Rainer
SARAFIDIS, Yiannis
University of Hamburg
SCHLMER, Steffen
IPCC WGIII TSU
TSILINGIRIDIS, George
Aristotle University of Thessaloniki
1042
Annex V
HUNGARY
OSULLIVAN, Dara
KAMIMOTO, Masayuki
PLVLGYI, Tams
Budapest University of Technology and
POWER, Michael
Economics
KANO, Takehiro
The Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs
SOMOGYI, Zoltn
SMITH, Paul
KAWASATO, Taro
Ministry of the Environment, Japan
ICELAND
ITALY
FRIDLEIFSSON, Ingvar
CASTELLARI, Sergio
Training Programme
Vulcanologia
KIMURA, Osamu
Central Research Institute of Electric Power
Industry
KOBAYASHI, Shigeki
Toyota R&D Labs Inc.
CONTALDI, Mario
INDIA
MAEDA, Ichiro
Research (ISPRA)
HEDGE, Ishwar
Suzlon Energy Ltd.
MURTY, Maddipati Narasimha
Companies of Japan
GAUDIOSO, Domenico
Institute for Environmental Protection and
NAKAO, Shinsuke
Research (ISPRA)
PATWARDHAN, Anand
OGIMOTO, Kazuhiko
JGER-WALDAU, Arnulf
European Commission
Industry (CRIEPI)
TAVONI, Massimo
TAGASHIRA, Naoto
Research Center
FEEM/CMCC
Industry (CRIEPI)
RAHIMI, Mohammad
IRIMO
JAPAN
TAKEUCHI, Hiromi
Advanced Industrial Science and Technology
AKIMOTO, Keigo
IRELAND
TANI, Saeko
DODD, David
Environmental Protection Agency of Ireland
FUKUI, Kiroyuki
Toyota
KENYA
HONGO, Takashi
DE OLIVEIRA, Thierry
LEAHY, Paul
University College Cork
OMALLEY, Mark
(UNEP)
1043
REPUBLIC OF KOREA
BOO, Kyung-Jin
Annex V
SINKE, Wim
CHRISTOPHERSEN, yvind
(ECN)
KIM, Hyun-Kyung
NEW ZEALAND
GSSLING, Stefan
HAWKE, Richard
SHIM, Sung-Hee
GRIMSRUD, Ole
HUCKERBY, John
Scatec AS
MEXICO
GRNSTAD, Christoffer
JACK, Michael
Institute Ltd.
(UNAM)
KRIEBLE, Todd
GARCIA-GUTIERREZ, Alfonso
HAUGLAND, Hege
Climate and Pollution Agency
SIMS, Ralph
GUTIERREZ-NEGRIN, Luis C. A.
MUCER
HAUGLAND, Svein
Agder Energi AS
NORWAY
NEPAL
HARBY, Atle
SINTEF Energy Research
ALFSEN, Knut
POKHAREL, Govind
Cicero
HERTWICH, Edgar
Norwegian University of Science and
ANKER-NIELSEN, Per
Technology (NTNU)
THE NETHERLANDS
BEURSKENS, Jos
University of Bergen
Statnett
Uni Research AS
Technology (NTNU)
KOLSTAD, Anne-Grethe
BEVANGER, Kjetil
(NINA)
TNO
1044
LEFFERTSTRA, Harold
Annex V
MOE, Geir
AGUIAR, Ricardo
Technology (NTNU)
Geology (LNEG)
SOUTH AFRICA
KRUGER, Andries
South African Weather Service
MOSTAD, Helle
Statoil
POLAND
FILIPIAK, Janusz
Statoil
WINKLER, Harald
University of Cape Town
Management
SPAIN
KAMINSKI, Jacek
AAGESEN-MUOZ, Sara
Ekoprognoza
RANDERS, Jorgen
Norwegian School of Management (BI)
STRUZEWSKA, Joanna
Cambio Climtico
CHANES-VICENTE, Rodrigo
Statkraft AS
ROMANIA
TORVANGER, Asbjrn
Cicero
DAZ-RUIZ, Prado
BADESCU, Viorel
FERNNDEZ-LOPEZ, Carlos
BOJARIU, Roxana
Meteo Romania
Saving.
GLUCK, Peter
GONZALEZ-FERNANDEZ, Eduardo
Info Kappa
ULLEBERG, ystein
Institute for Energy Technology
ULSETH, Oluf
Statkraft AS
RUSSIA
VESTRENG, Vigdis
Climate and Pollution Agency
LOPEZMONLLOR, Carlos
Spanish Bureau for Climate Change. Ministry
GOGOLEV, George
Sciences
MARBN, Gregorio
Instituto Nacional del Carbn (CSIC)
REUTOV, Boris
Federal Agency for Science and Innovation
PAKISTAN
CHAUDHRY, Qamar-uz-Zaman
SENEGAL
SARR, Babacar
ENERTEC-SARL
Affairs
MARTNEZ-LOPE, Concepcion
(GCISC)
1045
Annex V
PIERNAVIEJA, Gonzalo
NILSSON, Lars J.
NAUELS, Alex
Lund University
RBBELKE, Dirk
NILSSON, Mns
PANITCHPAKDI, Supachai
IKERBASQUE
OLSSON, Larsolov
RUBIERA, Fernando
PITTEL, Karen
ETH Zurich
Affairs
PLATTNER, Gian-Kasper
IPCC WGI TSU
ROMERO, Jose
Swiss Federal Ofce for the Environment
SABIDO-MARTIN, Alberto
Spanish Bureau for Climate Change.
SDER, Lennart
RYBACH, Ladislaus
Geowatt AG Zurich
Affairs
SDERHOLM, Patrik
SANCHEZ, Juan Jose
TRUFFER, Bernhard
Eawag
SWITZERLAND
THAILAND
VELASCO, Teresa M.
Ministry of Industry, Tourism and Trade
ALLEN, Simon
IPCC WGI TSU
LIMMEECHOKCHAI, Bundit
Thammasat University
SWEDEN
BAUER, Christian
Paul Scherrer Institute
WADE, Herbert
HMAN, Max
Swedish Environmental Protection Agency
DE HAAN, Peter
Ernst Basler/Partner AG
UNITED KINGDOM
FISCHLIN, Andreas
CAREY, Liz
ETH Zurich
BJRCK, Anders
Elforsk AB
Mitigation Research
DI LUCA, Lorenzo
Lund University
ERIKSSON, Karin
IVAR, Baste
United Nations Environmental Programme
CHARLES, Amanda
(UNEP)
BIS
KRYSIAK, Frank
CONBOY, Alison
University of Basel
Lund University
GULDBRAND, Lars
Swedish Energy Agency
1046
McCORMICK, Nadine
CRAWFORD-BROWN, Doug
LILLIESKLD, Marianne
Nature (IUCN)
Mitigation Research
MLLERSTEN, Kenneth
MICHAELOWA, Axel
DAVEY, James
University of Zurich
Annex V
EVANS, Geraint
KYTE, William
TAYLOR, Richard
NNFCC
E.ON AG
FELGENHAUER, Tyler
LAIL, Davinder
THORNLEY, Patricia
Defra
Mitigation Research
Engineering
LA PORTA, Filomena
GAMBHIR, Ajay
TWIDELL, John
AMSET Centre
MILBORROW, David
GRIFITHS, Rhodri
Consultant
UPHAM, Paul
Manchester Business School
OFFER, Greg
HAMILTON, Kirsty
Chatham House
WARRILOW, David
Department of Energy and Climate Change
RAI, Kavita
HASLETT, Andrew
WICKINS, Chris
Manchester University
International
HAYES, Lucy
RATCLIFFE, Simon
WYATT, Stephen
Carbon Trust
HOSKYNS, John
SCHARLEMANN, Jrn
(UNEP-WCMC)
ADAMANTIADES, Misha
White House Council on Environmental
University of Strathclyde
SEWELL, Martin
JONES, Leanne
Mitigation Research
JOSLIN, Tim
SINDEN, Graham
Carbon Trust
Quality
ADEN, Andy
National Renewable Energy Laboratory
(NREL)
ARENT, Doug
Mitigation Research
SIVETER, Robert
IPIECA
(NREL)
SKEA, Jim
ASHWILL, Thomas
KHENNAS, Smail
KNIGHT, Oliver
STAUNTON, Garry
BALDWIN, Sam
Carbon Trust
KNOX, Catriona
TANG, Lily
BEDARD, Roger
KESSELS, John
International Energy Agency (IEA)
1047
Annex V
BENIOFF, Ron
CLARK, Charlton
DUNN, Seth
GE Energy
CLOUSE, Matt
EBI, Kristie
CONKLIN, Russell
ELLIOTT, Dennis
(NREL)
BHATT, Vatsal
Brookhaven National Laboratory
BILELLO, Dan
National Renewable Energy Laboratory
(NREL)
(NREL)
CONZELMANN, Guenter
Argonne National Laboratory
BIRD, Lori
EMERY, Keith
National Renewable Energy Laboaratory
COOPER, Craig
(NREL)
BLANKENSHIP, Doug
COSTA, Stephen
(NREL)
FLANK, Shalom
Pareto Energy
FORSGREN, Christopher
BODNER, Paul
CRITCHFIELD, James
BOTTERUD, Audun
DALE, Bruce
BRAITSCH, Jay
DARIN, Thomas
BRANDT, Adam
DARMSTADTER, Joel
Stanford University
BROWN, Austin
DEMAYO, Trevor
BROWN, Nathan
DENHOLM, Paul
(NREL)
CALLOWAY, Thomas
Savannah River National Laboratory
University of Minnesota
U.S. Department of Energy
CHIPMAN, Peter
HAMILTON, Bruce
National Science Foundation
DIEHL, Timothy
U.S. Geological Survey
CHUM, Helena
HAND, Maureen
National Renewable Energy Laboratory
DRURY, Easan
(NREL)
1048
GUTTROMSON, Ross
DIAMOND, David
U.S. Department of Energy
GULLIVER, John
DHAM, Rajesh
CAMERON, Christopher
Sandia National Laboratories
(NREL)
Annex V
HAQ, Zia
KOZLOFF, Keith
MILLS, Andrew
HEAL, Geoffrey
KUTSCHER, Charles
MINES, Greg
Columbia University
(NREL)
HORNE, Roland
Stanford University
MUOZ, Miquel
LEE, Arthur
Boston University
Chevron Corporation
JARAMILLO, Paulina
Carnegie Mellon University
MUSIAL, Walt
LEE, Audrey
(NREL)
LESTER, Lave
NAGELHOUT, Peter
LOGAN, Jeffrey
NATHWANI, Jay
JOHANSSON, Bob
U.S. Department of Agriculture
JOHNSON, Sarah
Ofce of Science and Technology Policy
KAMMEN, Daniel
(NREL)
KEMPTON, Willett
MAINZER, Elliott
University of Delaware
(NREL)
KENNEDY, Mack B.
MALTZER, Eric
NIHOUS, Gerard
KEOLEIAN, Gregory
MARGOLIS, Robert
NEWMARK, Robin
(NREL)
KHESHGI, Haroon
PETRI, Mark
MARLAY, Robert
Company
KING, Carey
MARRIOTT, Joe
University of Texas
Pittsburg
KING, Eric
Bonneville Power Administration
UC Berkeley
KORITAROV, Vladimir
KOSKE, Burton
Idaho National Laboratory
PLEVIN, Richard
MEYER, David
U.S. Department of Energy
PIWKO, Richard
MAURICE, Lourdes
KLEMICK, Heather
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
PRENTICE, Geoffrey
National Science Foundation
MILLIGAN, Michael
National Renewable Energy Laboratory
PUGH, Graham
(NREL)
1049
Annex V
RABL, Veronika
SHORT, Walter
VEERS, Paul
(NREL)
RAM, Bonnie
Energetics Inc.
VERDUZCO, Laura
SILVERMAN, Linda
Chevron Corporation
VISCONTI, Gloria
SMITH, Steven
PNNL
REGALBUTO, John
University of Illinois at Chicago
VISSER, Charlie
SMITH, Charlie
(NREL)
SMITH, Kirk
WANG, Jianhui
(NREL)
University of California
RENNER, Joel
STENHOUSE, Jeb
WANG, Michael
ROBINSON, Michael
STRASSER, Alan
WASHBURN, Morning
SURLES, Terrence
WILBANKS, Thomas
ORNL
TALLEY, Trigg
WILLAMSON, Kenneth
Chevron Corporation
TAYLOR, Cody
WISER, Ryan
RENNE, Dave
(NREL)
ROEGIERS, Jean-Claude
University of Oklahoma
ROSINSKI, Stan
Electric Power Research Institute
RYPINSKI, Arthur
U.S. Department of Transportation
TAYLOR, Roger
WOLVERTON, Ann
SALE, Mike
(NREL)
SARGENT, Keith
THEIS, Joel
(NREL)
SAWIN, Janet
THOMSON, Allison
ZAMUDA, Craig
SCHWABE, Paul
THOMPSON, Grifn
VIETNAM
WRIGHT, Alan
(NREL)
1050
THRESHER, Robert
TRAN, Thuc
SEDJO, Roger
(NREL)
and Environment
ANNEX
VI
Permissions to Publish
Permissions to Publish
Annex VI
Permissions to Publish
Permissions to publish have been granted by the following copyright holders:
Fig. 2.2: From Bauen, A. and Co-authors, 2009. Bioenergy; A Sustainable and Reliable Energy Source: A Review of Status and Prospects. IEA Bioenergy:
ExCo:2009:06 108pp. Reprinted with permission from IEA Bioenergy Implementing Agreement.
Fig. 2.3: From Dornburg, V. and Co-authors, 2010. Bioenergy Revisited: Key Factors in Global Potentials of Bioenergy. Energy & Environmental Science, 3,
pp. 258-267. Reprinted with permission from the Royal Society of Chemistry.
Fig. 2.4: From Fischer, G., E. Hizsnyik, S. Prieler, M. Shah, and H. van Velthuizen, 2009. Biofuels and Food Security. The OPEC Fund for International
Development (OFID) and International Institute of Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), Vienna, Austria, 228 pp. Reprinted with permission from International
Institute for Applied Systems Analysis.
Fig. 2.5(b): From de Wit, M., and A. Faaij, 2010. European biomass resource potential and costs. Biomass and Bioenergy, 34(2), pp. 188-202. Reprinted
with permission from Elsevier Ltd.
Fig. 2.6: From Bauen, A. and Co-authors, 2009. Bioenergy; A Sustainable and Reliable Energy Source: A Review of Status and Prospects. IEA Bioenergy:
ExCo:2009:06 108 pp. Reprinted with permission from IEA Bioenergy Implementing Agreement.
Fig. 2.8: From Sikkema, R., and Co-authors, 2011: The European wood pellet markets: current status and prospects for 2020. Biofuels, Bioproducts and
Biorening, 5(3), pp. 250-278, DOI: 10.1002/bbb.277. Reprinted with permission of John Wiley and Sons.
Fig. 2.12 (a,b): From Gibbs, H.K., and Co-authors, 2008. Carbon payback times for crop-based biofuel expansion in the tropics: the effects of changing
yield and technology. Environmental Research Letters, 3(3), 034001 (10 pp). Reprinted with permission from IOP Publishing Ltd.
Fig. 2.14: From Bailis, R. and Co-Authors, 2009. Arresting the Killer in the Kitchen: The Promises and Pitfalls of Commercializing Improved Cookstoves.
World Development, 37(10), pp. 1694-1705. Reprinted with permission from Elsevier Ltd.
Fig. 2.16: From Hamelinck, C.N., and A.P.C. Faaij, 2006. Outlook for advanced biofuels. Energy Policy, 34(17), pp. 3268-3283. Reprinted with permission
from Elsevier Ltd.
Fig. 2.17: From Hoogwijk, M. and Co-authors, 2009. Exploration of regional and global cost-supply curves of biomass energy from short-rotation crops
at abandoned cropland and rest land under four IPCC SRES land-use scenarios. Biomass and Bioenergy, 33(1), pp. 26-43. Reprinted with permission from
Elsevier Ltd.
Fig. 2.21: From van den Wall Bake, J.D. and Co-authors, 2009. Explaining the experience curve: Cost reductions of Brazilian ethanol from sugarcane.
Biomass and Bioenergy, 33(4), pp. 644-658. Reprinted with permission from Elsevier Ltd.
Fig. 2.23: From Krey, V., and L. Clarke, 2011. Role of renewable energy in climate mitigation: A synthesis of recent scenarios. Climate Policy, in press.
Reprinted with permission from the Taylor & Francis Group.
Fig. 2.24(a): From World Energy Outlook 2010. Reprinted with permission from the International Energy Agency.
Fig. 2.25: From Dornburg, V. and Co-authors, 2010. Bioenergy Revisited: Key Factors in Global Potentials of Bioenergy. Energy & Environmental Science,
3, pp. 258-267. Reprinted with permission of the Royal Society of Chemistry.
Fig. 2.26: From Hoogwijk, M. and Co-authors, 2005. Potential of biomass energy out to 2100, for four IPCC SRES land-use scenarios. Biomass Bioenergy,
29(4), pp. 225-257. Reprinted with permission from Elsevier Ltd.
1052
Annex VI
Permissions to Publish
Table 2.3: From Fischer, G. and Co-authors, 2009. Biofuels and Food Security. The OPEC Fund for International Development (OFID) and International
Institute of Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), Vienna, Austria, 228 pp. Reprinted with permission from International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis.
Table 2.11: From GBEP, 2008. A Review of the Current State of Bioenergy Development in G8+5 Countries. Food and Agriculture Organization of the
United Nations, Rome, Italy, 278 pp. Reprinted with permission from the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
Table 2.16: From Hoogwijk, M. and Co-authors, 2009. Exploration of regional and global cost-supply curves of biomass energy from short-rotation crops
at abandoned cropland and rest land under four IPCC SRES land-use scenarios. Biomass and Bioenergy, 33(1), pp. 26-43. Reprinted with permission from
Elsevier Ltd.
Fig. 3.6: From IEA, 2009c. Trends in Photovoltaic Applications: Survey Report of Selected IEA Countries between 1992 and 2008. IEA Photovoltaic Power
Systems Program (PVPS), International Energy Agency, Paris, France, 44 pp. Reprinted with permission from Net Nowak Energy & Technology Ltd.
Fig. 3.7: From Richter, C., S. Teske, and R. Short, 2009. Concentrating Solar Power: Global Outlook 2009 Why Renewable Energy is Hot. Greenpeace
International, SolarPACES and ESTELA, 88 pp. Reprinted with permission from Greenpeace International.
Fig. 3.8: From Steinfeld, A., and A. Meier, 2004. Solar Fuels and Materials. In: Encyclopedia of Energy. Vol. 5. Elsevier, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, pp.
623-637. Reprinted with permission from Elsevier Ltd. And from Steinfeld, A., 2005. Solar thermochemical production of hydrogen - a review. Solar
Energy, 78(5), pp. 603-615. Reprinted with permission from Elsevier Ltd.
Fig. 3.20: From A.T. Kearney, 2010. Solar Thermal Electricity 2025--Clean Electricity On Demand: Attractive STE Cost Stabilize Energy Production. A.T.
Kearney GmbH, Duesseldorf, Germany, 52 pp. Reprinted with permission from A.T. Kearney GmbH.
Fig. 3.22: From Krey, V. and L. Clarke, 2011. Role of renewable energy in climate change mitigation: a synthesis of recent scenarios. Climate Policy, in
press. Adapted and printed with permission from the Taylor & Francis Group.
Table 3.3: From NEEDS, 2009. New Energy Externalities Development for Sustainability (NEEDS). Final Report and Database. New Energy Externalities
Development for Sustainability, Rome, Italy. Reprinted with permission from the Instituto di Studi per lIntegrazione dei Sistemi.
Table 3.4: From NEEDS, 2009. New Energy Externalities Development for Sustainability (NEEDS). Final Report and Database. New Energy Externalities
Development for Sustainability, Rome, Italy. Reprinted with permission from the Instituto di Studi per lIntegrazione dei Sistemi.
Table 3.6: From Graf, D. and Co-authors, 2008. Economic comparison of solar hydrogen generation by means of thermochemical cycles and electrolysis.
International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 33(17), pp. 4511-4519. Reprinted with permission from International Journal of Hydrogen Energy.
Fig. 4.5: From Hamza, V.M. and Co-Authors, 2008. Spherical harmonic analysis of Earths conductive heat ow. International Journal of Earth Sciences,
97(2), pp. 205-226. Reprinted with permission from Springer GmbH.
Fig. 4.9(a): From Krey, V., and L. Clarke, 2011. Role of renewable energy in climate change mitigation: a synthesis of recent scenarios. Climate Policy, in
press. Reprinted with permission from the Taylor & Francis Group.
Fig. 5.9: From Vinogg, L., and I. Elstad, 2003. Mechanical Equipment. Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway, 130 pp.
Reprinted with permission from the Norwegian University of Science and Technology.
Fig. 5.10: From Zare, S., and A. Bruland, 2007. Progress of drill and blast tunnelling efciency with relation to excavation time and cost. In: 33rd ITA
World Tunnel Congress, Prague, Czech Republic, 5-10 May 2007, pp. 805-809. Reprinted with permission from CRC Press.
Fig. 5.13: From Vennemann, P., L. Thiel, and H.C. Funke, 2010. Pumped storage plants in the future power supply system. Journal VGB Power Tech,
90(1/2), pp. 44-49. Reprinted with permission from the authors.
1053
Permissions to Publish
Annex VI
Fig. 5.16: From Guerin, F., 2006. Emissions de Gaz a Effet de Serre (CO2 CH4) par une Retenue de Barrage Hydroelectrique en Zone Tropicale (Petit-Saut,
Guyane Francaise): Experimentation et Modelization. Thse de doctorat de lUniversit Paul Sabatier (Toulouse III). Reprinted with permission from the
author.
Fig. 5.17: From Alvarado-Ancieta, C.A., 2009. Estimating E&M powerhouse costs. International Water Power and Dam Construction, 17 February 2009,
pp 21-25. Reprinted with permission from the International Journal for Water power and Dam Construction.
Fig. 5.21: From Krey, V., and L. Clarke, 2011. Role of renewable energy in climate change mitigation: a synthesis of recent scenarios. Climate Policy, in
press. Reprinted with permission from the Taylor & Francis Group.
Fig. 5.22: From Krey, V., and L. Clarke, 2011. Role of renewable energy in climate change mitigation: a synthesis of recent scenarios. Climate Policy, in
press. Reprinted with permission from the Taylor & Francis Group.
Fig. 6.1: From Cornett, A.M., 2008. A global wave energy resource assessment. In: Proceedings of the Eighteenth (2008) International Society of Offshore
and Polar Engineers, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 6-11 July 2008, pp. 318-326. Reprinted with permission from International Society of Offshore and Polar
Engineers.
Fig. 6.4: From Nihous, G.C., 2010. Mapping available Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion resources around the main Hawaiian Islands with state-of-theart tools. Journal of Renewable and Sustainable Energy, 2, 043104. Reprinted with permission from Journal of Renewable Sustainable Energy.
Fig. 6.5: From Falco, 2009. The Development of Wave Energy Utilization. In: 2008 Annual Report. International Energy Agency Implementing Agreement
on Ocean Energy Systems (IEA-OES). Reprinted with permission from the author.
Table 6.1: From Mrk, G., S. Barstow, M.T. Pontes, and A. Kabuth, 2010. Assessing the global wave energy potential. In: OMAE, Shanghai, China.
Reprinted with permission from ASME.
Table 6.2: From Huckerby, J.A., and P. McComb, 2008. Development of marine energy in New Zealand. Published consultants report for Energy Efciency
and Conservation Authority, Electricity Commission and Greater Wellington Regional Council, Wellington. Reprinted with permission from Power Projects
Ltd.
Fig. 7.1: From 3TIER, 2009. The First Look Global Wind Dataset: Annual Mean Validation. 3TIER, Seattle, WA, USA, 10 pp. Reprinted with permission from
3TIER, Inc.
Fig. 7.2(a): From Xiao, Z. and Co-authors, 2010. China Wind Energy Resource Assessment 2009. China Meteorological Press, Beijing, China, 150 pp.
Reprinted with permission from China Meteorological Press.
Fig. 7.2(b): From Nikolaev VG, Ganaga SV, Kudriashov KI, Walter R, Willems P, Sankovsky A., 2010. Prospects of Development of Renewable Power
Sources in Russian Federation. The results of TACIS project. Europe Aid/116951/C/SV/RU. Moscow, Russia: ATMOGTRAPH. Reprinted with permission from
ATMOGRAPH.
Fig. 7.7: From IEC, 2010. Wind Turbines - Part 22: Conformity Testing and Certication, IEC 61400-22. International Electrotechnical Commission, Delft,
The Netherlands. Reprinted with permission from International Electrotechnical Commission.
Fig. 7.13: From Durstewitz, M. and Co-authors, 2008. Windenergie Report Deutschland 2007. Institut fr Solare Energieversorgungstechnik (ISET), Kassel,
Germany. Reprinted with permission from the Institut fr Solare Energieversorgungstechnik.
Fig. 7.14: From Holttinen, H. and Co-authors, 2009. Design and Operation of Power Systems with Large Amounts of Wind Power: Phase One 2006-2008.
VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland, Espoo, Finland, 200 pp. Reprinted with permission from the authors.
1054
Annex VI
Permissions to Publish
Fig. 7.17: From Holttinen, H. and Co-authors, 2009. Design and Operation of Power Systems with Large Amounts of Wind Power: Phase One 2006-2008.
VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland, Espoo, Finland, 200 pp. Reprinted with permission from the authors.
Fig. 7.24: From Krey, V., and L. Clarke, 2011. Role of renewable energy in climate change mitigation: a synthesis of recent scenarios. Climate Policy, in
press. Reprinted with permission from the Taylor & Francis Group.
Fig. 7.25: From Krey, V., and L. Clarke, 2011. Role of renewable energy in climate change mitigation: a synthesis of recent scenarios. Climate Policy, in
press. Reprinted with permission from the Taylor & Francis Group.
Fig. 8.3: From Akershus Energi, 2010. Akershus Energi Varme AS. Lillestrm, Norway. Reprinted with permission from Akershus Energi Varme AS.
Fig. 8.4: From Euroheat & Power, 2007. District Heating and Cooling Country by Country 2007 survey. Report, Euroheat & Power, Brussels, Belgium.
Reprinted with permission from Euroheat and Power.
Fig. 8.5: From Bodmann, M. and Co-authors, 2005. Solar untersttzte Nahwrme und Langzeit-Wrmespeicher (Februar 2003 bis Mai 2005). Report
0329607F, Forschungsbericht zum BMWA/BMU-Vorhaben, Stuttgart, Germany, 159 pp. Reprinted with permission from Solar- und Wrmetechnik
Stuttgart.
Fig. 8.8: From Pehnt, M., A. Paar, F. Merten, W. Irrek, and D. Schwer, 2009. Intertwining renewable energy and energy efciency: from distinctive policies
to combined strategies. In: ECEEE 2009 Summer Study, ECEEE, La Colle sur Loup, Cte dAzur, France, pp. 389-400. Reprinted with permission from the
Institut fr Energie- und Umweltforschung.
Fig. 8.9: From hman, M., 2010. Biomethane in the transport sector - An appraisal of the forgotten option. Energy Policy, 38(1), pp. 208-217. Reprinted
with permission from Elsevier Ltd.
Fig. 8.10: Mller-Langer, F., 2007. BIOMETHANE FOR TRANSPORT - A worldwide overview; Presentation at IEA Bioenergy Task 39 Subtask Policy and
Implementation Workshop: From todays to tomorrows biofuels From the Biofuels Directive to bio based transport systems in 2020; June 3-5, 2009;
Dresden, Germany; adapted from the Study: Possible European biogas supply strategies; Institute for Energy and Environment; Leipzig; 2007. Reprinted
with permission from the German Biomass Research Centre.
Fig. 8.16: From Samaras, C. and K. Meisterling, 2008. Life cycle assessment of greenhouse gas emissions from plug-in hybrid vehicles: implications for
policy. Environmental Science & Technology, 42(9), pp. 3170-3176. Reprinted with permission from American Chemical Society.
Fig. 8.18: From METI, 2005. Energy vision 2100, Strategic technology roadmap (energy sector). Ministry of Economy, Trade, and Industry, Tokyo, 42 pp.
Reprinted with permission from the Ministry of Economy, Trade, and Industry, Japan.
Fig. 8.19: From EREC, 2008. The Renewable Energy House. European Renewable Energy Council, Brussels, Belgium. Reprinted with permission from
EREC.
Fig. 8.22: From VTT, 2009. Energy Visions 2050 summary. VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland, Helsinki. Reprinted with permission from VTT
Technical Research Center of Finland.
Fig. 8.23: From Werner, S., 2006. ECOHEATCOOL Work package 4 The European Heat Market.Final report prepared for the EU Intelligent Energy Europe
Programme, Euroheat & Power, Brussels, Belgium, 73 pp. Reprinted with permission from Euroheat and Power.
Table 8.3: From Persson, M., O. Jnsson, and A. Wellinger, 2006. Biogas Upgrading to Vehicle Fuel Standards and Grid Injection. IEA Report, Swedish Gas
Center (SGC), Malm, Sweden, 34pp. Reprinted with permission from the IEA Bioenergy Implementing Agreement.
Fig. 9.2: From 2008 Worldwide Trends in Energy Use and Efciency. Reprinted with permission from the International Energy Agency.
1055
Permissions to Publish
Annex VI
Fig. 9.5: From World Energy Outlook 2010. Reprinted with permission from the International Energy Agency.
Fig. 9.13: From World Energy Outlook 2010. Reprinted with permission from the International Energy Agency.
Fig. 9.16: From Krey, V., and L. Clarke, 2011. Role of renewable energy in climate change mitigation: a synthesis of recent scenarios. Climate Policy, in
press. Reprinted with permission from the Taylor & Francis Group.
Fig. 9.17: From Luckow, P. and Co-authors, 2010. Large-scale utilization of biomass energy and carbon dioxide capture and storage in the transport and
electricity sectors under stringent CO2 concentration limit scenarios. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 4(5), pp. 865-877. Reprinted with
permission from Elsevier Ltd.
Table 9.1: From World Energy Outlook 2010. Reprinted with permission from the International Energy Agency.
Table 9.2: From World Energy Outlook 2010. Reprinted with permission from the International Energy Agency.
Table 9.3: From REN21, 2010. Renewables 2010 Global Status Report. REN21 Renewable Energy Policy Network for the 21st Century, Paris, France.
Reprinted with permission from REN21.
Table 9.4: From ESMAP, 2005. The Impacts of higher oil prices on low income countries and the poor: Impacts and policies. Energy Sector Management
Assistance Program, World Bank, Washington, DC, US. Reprinted with permission from the World Bank.
Table 9.5: From Angerer, G. and Co-authors, 2009. Rohstoffe fr Zukunftstechnologien. Fraunhofer Verlag, Stuttgart, Germany. Reprinted with permission
from the Frauenhofer Institute.
Fig. 10.1: From Krey, V., and L. Clarke, 2011. Role of renewable energy in climate change mitigation: a synthesis of recent scenarios. Climate Policy, in
press. Reprinted with permission from the Taylor & Francis Group.
Fig. 10.2: From Krey, V., and L. Clarke, 2011. Role of renewable energy in climate change mitigation: a synthesis of recent scenarios. Climate Policy, in
press. Reprinted with permission from the Taylor and Francis Group.
Fig. 10.3: From Krey, V., and L. Clarke, 2011. Role of renewable energy in climate change mitigation: a synthesis of recent scenarios. Climate Policy, in
press. Reprinted with permission from the Taylor & Francis Group.
Fig. 10.4: From Krey, V., and L. Clarke, 2011. Role of renewable energy in climate change mitigation: a synthesis of recent scenarios. Climate Policy, in
press. Reprinted with permission from the Taylor & Francis Group.
Fig. 10.5: From Krey, V., and L. Clarke, 2011. Role of renewable energy in climate change mitigation: a synthesis of recent scenarios. Climate Policy, in
press. Reprinted with permission from the Taylor & Francis Group.
Fig. 10.6: From Krey, V., and L. Clarke, 2011. Role of renewable energy in climate change mitigation: a synthesis of recent scenarios. Climate Policy, in
press. Reprinted with permission from the Taylor & Francis Group.
Fig. 10.7: From Krey, V., and L. Clarke, 2011. Role of renewable energy in climate change mitigation: a synthesis of recent scenarios. Climate Policy, in
press. Reprinted with permission from the Taylor & Francis Group.
Fig. 10.8: From Krey, V., and L. Clarke, 2011. Role of renewable energy in climate change mitigation: a synthesis of recent scenarios. Climate Policy, in
press. Reprinted with permission from the Taylor & Francis Group.
1056
Annex VI
Permissions to Publish
Fig. 10.9: From Krey, V., and L. Clarke, 2011. Role of renewable energy in climate change mitigation: a synthesis of recent scenarios. Climate Policy, in
press. Reprinted with permission from the Taylor & Francis Group.
Fig. 10.10: From Krey, V., and L. Clarke, 2011. Role of renewable energy in climate change mitigation: a synthesis of recent scenarios. Climate Policy, in
press. Reprinted with permission from the Taylor & Francis Group.
Fig. 10.11: From Edenhofer, O. and Co-authors, 2010. The economics of low stabilization: Model comparison of mitigation strategies and costs. Energy
Journal, 31(Special Issue), pp. 11-48. Reprinted with permission from the International Association for Energy Economics.
Fig. 10.12: From Luderer, G. and Co-authors, 2009. The Economics of Decarbonization Results from the RECIPE model Intercomparison. Potsdam
Institute for Climate Impact Research, Potsdam, Germany. Reprinted with permission from the authors.
Fig. 10.23: From Hoogwijk, M. and Co-authors, 2009. Exploration of regional and global cost-supply curves of biomass energy from short-rotation crops
at abandoned croplands and rest land under four IPCC SRES land-use scenarios. Biomass and Bioenergy, 33(1), pp. 26-43. Reprinted with permission
from Elsevier Ltd.
Fig. 10.24: From de Vries, B.J.M. and Co-authors, 2007. Renewable energy sources: Their global potential for the rst-half of the 21st century at a global
level: An integrated approach. Energy Policy, 35(4), pp. 2590-2610. Reprinted with permission from Elsevier Ltd.
Fig. 10.25: From de Vries, B.J.M. and Co-authors, 2007. Renewable energy sources: Their global potential for the rst-half of the 21st century at a global
level: An integrated approach. Energy Policy, 35(4), pp. 2590-2610. Reprinted with permission from Elsevier Ltd.
Fig. 10.26: From Hoogwijk, M. and Co-authors, 2004. Assessment of the global and regional geographical, technical and economic potential of onshore
wind energy. Energy Economics, 26(5), pp. 889-919. Reprinted with permission from Elsevier Ltd.
Fig. 10.32: From Nemet, G.F., 2009. Interim monitoring of cost dynamics for publicly supported energy technologies. Energy Policy, 37(3), pp. 825-835.
Reprinted with permission from Elsevier Ltd.
Fig. 10.33: From Energy Technology Perspectives 2008. Reprinted with permission from the International Energy Agency.
Fig. 10.34(d): From Luderer, G. and Co-authors, 2009. The Economics of Decarbonization Results from the RECIPE model Intercomparison. Potsdam
Institute for Climate Impact Research, Potsdam, Germany. Reprinted with permission from the authors.
Fig. 10.35: From Energy Technology Perspectives 2008. Reprinted with permission from the International Energy Agency.
Table 10.1: From Krey, V., and L. Clarke, 2011. Role of renewable energy in climate change mitigation: a synthesis of recent scenarios. Climate Policy, in
press. Reprinted with permission from the Taylor & Francis Group.
Table 10.10: From Energy Technology Perspectives 2008. Reprinted with permission from the International Energy Agency.
Fig. 11.5: From IEA, 2003b. Renewables for Power Generation: Status & Prospects. Reprinted with permission from NET Nowak Energy & Technology Ltd.
Fig. 11.10: From BTM Consult ApS, 2010. World Market Update 2009. BTM Consult ApS, Ringkbing, Denmark. Reprinted with permission from BTM
Consult ApS A part of Navigant Consulting.
Fig. 11.11: From Ockwell, D.G. and Co-authors, 2010. Intellectual property rights and low carbon technology transfer: Conicting discourses of diffusion
and development. Global Environmental Change, 20(4), pp. 729-738. Reprinted with permission from Elsevier Ltd.
1057
Permissions to Publish
1058
Annex VI
IV
Index
Indexer:
Marilyn Anderson (United States)
1059
Index
Note: Glossary terms are indicated by an asterisk (*). Bold page numbers indicate page spans for entire chapters. Italicized page
numbers denote tables, gures and boxed material.
Aviation, 670-671
835-838
acceptance
914
247, 248
Afforestation[*], 227
Air quality:
663-664, 665
Annex I countries[*]:
367
676
167, 168
Benet-sharing, 921-923
Aquifers:
300-302, 301
276-287
658-661
1060
Index
certication, 256
experience curves, 56
Capacity[*], 35-36
advanced, 613
302-304
654-658, 654
558, 563
735
623, 625
mandates, 874
scenarios, 822
tariffs, 255-256
CO2-equivalent emission, 74
728-747
costs, 652-653
experience curves, 56
Brazil:
aquatic, 277-278
Biomass[*], 214
Bricolage, 931
combustion, 238
Building sector:
616, 814
672-681
1061
Index
843-846
855-857
scenarios, 817
concept, 832-833
China:
regional, 135-137
RE policies, 915
Chokepoints, 725
129-130, 761-762
811
CO2-equivalent emission[*], 74
584-585, 587
798, 841-851
RE integration, 15-16
1062
Index
624-625, 628-629