Accepted Manuscript

Title: TECHNOLOGY FORECAST OF SUSTAINABLE

ENERGY DEVELOPMENT PROSPECTS

Author: Matevž Obrecht Matjaž Denac

PII: S0016-3287(16)30053-2
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.1016/j.futures.2016.09.002
Reference: JFTR 2161

To appear in:

Received date: 8-3-2016

Revised date: 30-6-2016
Accepted date: 19-9-2016

Please cite this article as: Matevž Obrecht, Matjaž Denac, TECHNOLOGY
FORECAST OF SUSTAINABLE ENERGY DEVELOPMENT PROSPECTS, Futures
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2016.09.002

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication.
As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript.
The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof
before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process
errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that
apply to the journal pertain.
TECHNOLOGY FORECAST OF SUSTAINABLE ENERGY
DEVELOPMENT PROSPECTS

Matevž Obrecht
University of Maribor, Faculty of Logistics, Department for Supply Chain and Sustainable Transport
Mariborska cesta 7, Celje, Slovenia
E: matevz.obrecht@um.si

Matjaž Denac
University of Maribor, Faculty of Economics and Business, Department of Technology and Entrepreneurial
Environment Protection
Razlagova 14, Maribor, Slovenia
E: matjaz.denac@um.si

Study highlights

 Increase of energy efficiency is much more important that maintaining low prices

 In average experts believe that the EU will transit to sustainable energy industry
in 2046

 The strongest support was detected for micro hydro and cogeneration of heat and
power

 75% of experts believe that we will witness breakthrough of new technologies

ABSTRACT
Energy policy and energy industry development are strongly correlated with technology
forecasting and must adhere to the global development paradigm in accordance with: global
trends, environmental restrictions, energy demand, population growth, natural determinations of
particular geographical areas and socio-economic development. The core of an effective energy
policy consists of reliable data on future trends; technology forecasts are therefore crucial. This
paper presents the most important findings gathered in the Slovenian Delphi survey regarding
future energy development in Slovenia, the European Union and the world. Results have shown
that increasing energy efficiency and decreasing final energy consumption is much more
important than maintaining low energy prices. The study has also provided further indication that
the prices of all energy sources, including wood biomass, could increase by 2020 and again by
2030 and that achieving a 20 % share of renewables in the EU by 2020 is questionable.

Key words: Delphi survey, technology forecasting, energy policy, sustainable development,
renewable energy
1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 TECHNOLOGY FORECASTING

Thinking about the future and future events is part of human nature; people have always been
curious about what lies ahead. This was the basis for the ‘success’ of the Greek oracles in ancient
times when forecasting the future was less about predictions than about shaping politics and
present-day decisions. While it is true that the future is unpredictable, some developments can be
forecasted to prepare for the future (with limitations) and attempt to shape it (Cuhls, 2003).
Energy policy goals are now to minimize the use of resources, make the transition to renewable
energy sources (RES), raise energy efficiency (EE) and ensure a secure energy supply. Therefore
strategic documents and energy policy proposals such as National energy programs or concepts
and National renewable energy action plans prepared by the EU Member states were supported
by severe energy modeling and scenarios (Ministry of Economy, 2010 and Author, 2013).

With technological forecasts, high-quality data on future energy development can be obtained
that can illuminate energy policy planning. If forecasts are carried out systematically,
professionally and periodically, the shaping of energy policy measures is more effective, can
achieve greater positive effects and be more consistent with the overall development paradigm
(Author and Coauthor, 2013). When energy modeling includes scenario analysis, measures for
the future contingency can be identified already today and consequences can be avoided more
effectively.

The need for formal techniques was not felt until the mid-20th century. While we can pinpoint
the origins of systematic technological forecasting to around 1950, and its forerunners to 1945,
the existence of a more widespread interest in special techniques take place in 1960 (Czaplicka-
Kolarz et al, 2009 and Jantsch, 1967). Next milestones were oil shock in 1973 followed by the
first oil crisis in 1979 when the Western world in particular was faced with an insufficient and
insecure oil supply therefore; energy policy demanded the development of new energy models
and energy related forecasts in order to foresee the possible future and to prepare energy policy
measures for it according to a variety of scenarios.

Europe has a long tradition in energy modelling. For Denmark as one of the leaders in transition
to sustainable energy Lund (2010) modelled a 100 % renewable energy solution for Denmark
with special emphasis on choice awareness of multiple stakeholders. Germany models energy
development to boost renewable energy first by developing reference scenario by 2030. After the
reference case was prepared, the potential for accelerated renewable deployment was explored
(IRENA, 2015). Because Germany already included huge amounts of RES in German energy
mix, Lunz et al. (2015) evaluated future energy grid prospects with special emphasis on defining
a corridor for possible shares of fluctuating RES. UK is also well covered by energy scenarios.
Spatru et al. (2015) examined two descriptive scenarios for the development of
the UK energy system to 2050, modelled with the use of the DECC 2050 Pathways Calculator.
Both seek to achieve the UK's legally binding target of an 80% reduction in GHG emissions.
First one with the use of fossil fuels with carbon capture and storage (CCS) and the second one
with the development of renewables combined with energy storage and nuclear power.
Trutnevyte et al. (2016) even made a retrospective analysis of twelve UK energy scenarios
developed between 1978 and 2002 to investigate how specific scenarios were chosen and whether
these choices captured the actual UK energy system transition.

Forecasting future energy development has recently become even more crucial, since the price of
energy is increasing (Author and Coauthor, 2012). The effective planning of future energy
development, long-term strategies and measures rests entirely on the basis of sound knowledge of
the studied topics and forecasting of development trends and to consider different scenarios and
energy modelling and are a core competency for policy decision makers. IEA (2014) energy
models and scenarios e.g. focus on what needs to be done to provide sustainable generation,
distribution and end-use consumption. WEM (World Energy Model) also developed by IEA,
included different scenarios - among them well known »450 scenario« (IEA, 2011). In addition to
modelling the global outlook up to 2050 according to different scenarios
for several technologies, it explores the possibility of “pushing the limits” in six key areas, which
are: decarbonising the energy supply, enabling the role of natural gas, introducing electrified
transport, solving the issue of energy storage, and financing the transition to low-carbon
electricity and high efficiency power generation in Asia (IEA, 2014). However Friedrichs (2011)
noted that accredited experts at the IEA and elsewhere have left "peak energy". Long term energy
modelling with scenarios by 2050 was also performed by WEC (2007) to predict future energy
demand and to give to directions to energy policies. Providing much more insight into the
cognitive and normative structure of energy futures is required for a transparent debate about
future energy systems (Grunwald, 2011). Bringing institutions and politics together on energy
future studies can be tricky and complex (Nilsson, 2011).

1.2 LITERATURE REVIEW OF DELPHI SURVEYS IN THE ENERGY SECTOR

The Delphi method is nowadays applied as a valuable future-oriented intuitive foresight tool for
the qualitative and quantitative assessment of probable future development (Czaplicka-Kolarz et
al, 2009). Pregrad and Musil (2001) noted that the intuitive1 Delphi method is based on trust in
the knowledge, expertise and ability of the participating experts to make projections for the
future. These experts are all extremely well-informed about particular research issues and have
extended knowledge and information pertaining to their area of expertise. However, imprecisions
may occur within a group of experts if only one of them makes a forecast that can be excluded.
Delphi includes a small number of experts as the research topic is highly specialized and the
number of leading experts is therefore severely limited. Typically, a small number of participants
ranging from 10 to 15 experts on the specific discipline are included (Pregrad and Musil, 2001).
This is backed also with the study of Rowe and Wright where among 27 reviewed Delphi studies
those with up to 20 participants are much more common (22 out of 27) and more than half of
them had even less than 10 participating experts. This is argued with high level ob professionality
of chosen experts. The experts communicate with each other exclusively through the control
center (researcher). The identification of appropriate and credible experts is crucial (Cuhls, 2003)
and can be an extremely challenging and therefore Delphi survey is rather complicated and very
time consuming (Grupp and Linstone 1999). Due to problematic identification and willingness of
relevant verified experts Lin and Bier (2008) even proposed different weighting in case of
significant differences in expert calibration.

1 Delphi method can also be classified as a feedback method since the feedback can obtained especially
in the second, third etc. cycle of the survey
With the Delphi method we can research and process obtained data provided by the participating
experts on data convergence and synthesis of forecasts. A survey based on Delphi methodology
has already been performed to study future energy industry planning in Spain (Terrados et al.
2009), to design and model future energy development in India (Iniyan and Sumathy, 2003) and
to forecast maritime oil freight flows (Dinwoodie, 2013), etc. A study by Di Zio and Maretti
(2013) also uses the Delphi method to determine the energy sources that are most acceptable to
or preferred by political systems, public opinion and the market, and the weight that these
dynamics of acceptability have on global energy shifts. Wehnert et al. (2007) made survey on the
energy future of the EU, where researchers performed a) a Delphi survey to analyze the opinions
of the involved experts, and b) developed three developmental scenarios with different
aspirations for sustainable development. Delphi survey is appropriate methodology for predicting
future energy sector development; however, it can be used in a range of approaches, as can be
seen in a) the study by Makkonen et al. (2012), where the study focused on the effects of
different measures for European electricity markets or b) in the study by Hussler et al (2011)
where the study focused on whether diversity of opinions might lead to greater robustness and
whether different groups of people (experts vs laypersons) rely on divergent rationalities in
composing reliable panels of technological forecasting in the nuclear sector. Nontheless Delphi
survey can not completely avoid possible disruptions based on experts’ overconfidence or market
surprises such as significant oil price decrease in 2015 and beginning of 2016.

In energy policy decisions have to be made about the technologies and infrastructures that may be
used to provide and distribute energy in future times, some of which are very distant. Frequently,
energy predictions or energy scenarios are used for decision-support in this field. The diversity of
energy futures, however, threatens any possibility for orientation and could according to
Grunwald (2011) also lead to disorientation instead of helping more rational decision-making and
could be used for ideological purpose. Experts can sometimes be overconfident in their responses
and evaluations therefore errors can occur (Winebrake and Sakva, 2006). Experts elicitation can
be used but also abused, especially because expert’s overconfidence can be argued as a crucial
issue of forecasting (Morgan, 2014). Expert’s overconfidence actually seems to be the most
common and most severe problem of expert judgements (Lin and Bier, 2008). To minimize this
risk verification of experts invited to take part in such forecasts must be carefully chosen. Craig et
al. (2002) also exposed crucial specific of forecasting - that it is almost impossible to forecast
different uncertainties such as oil crisis or energy related wars. His basic observation was that
forecasters underestimate the importance of unmodeled surprises. A key example is the failure to
foresee the ability of the United States economy to respond to the oil embargos of the 1970s by
increasing efficiency. Contrary Craig et al. (2002) believes that perhaps the most interesting
reason why a model might fail is that predicting problems can lead to changes that avoid them. In
this sense failure would in fact indicate the success of the model. However, the validity of the
findings of numerous forecasts contradicts this statement and technology forecasting remains an
essential element of short and long term policy development.

The purpose of the research is to carry out a technological forecast for detailed future energy
development in the EU and the world by 2030 with guidelines and directives for its development
by 2050. The aim of the research is to integrate and interview top energy experts, to make a
technology forecast for different energy related sectors, to assess the transition time to sustainable
energy industry, to assess the fulfillment of set renewable energy objectives, to forecast energy
prices trends, to predict energy demand in the EU and globally, and to set the scale of priority
measures for the development of more sustainable energetics and to enable creation of different
energy scenarios.

2. METHODOLOGY

Delphi is a well-established methodology in futures research (Gary and Gracht, 2015). According
to Gupta and Clarke (1996) one of the most popular forecasting techniques for technological and
industry-wide forecasting and it is estimated that 90 % of technological forecasts and studies are
based on Delphi. This Delphi study was conducted in separate content distributed sections. Due
to the large amounts of collected data, this paper only presents the core results of future
sustainable energy development trends.

The survey was carried out in several stages. First top energy experts evaluated as eligible to
participate in the study were identified. The selection key included their professional experience;
job title; description and field of employment (e.g. government, private company, etc.);
education; participation in energy projects and publications in the field of energy in professional
and scientific journals. We managed to identify and draw up a credible base of 56 top energy
experts such as two ex-ministers of energy, directors of governmental energy agencies or energy
directorates, CEOs of large electrical distributors and oil industry, distinguished professors and
researchers specialized in energy sector and non-governmental organizations. Combination of
different energy stakeholders constituted the core for a Delphi study. These experts were
personally contacted, informed about the topic and procedure of the Delphi survey and invited to
participate in it. Due to their authority, professionalism, knowledge and awareness of energy
issues and their position of decision makers in top energy organization and energy policy their
views can shed light on future technological development of the energy sector and its influence
on the transition to a sustainable energy industry. 34 of them were willing to cooperate. Out of
them, 60 % of questionnaires were obtained, representing relatively small but highly professional
survey sample. Experts’ judgements were equally weighted.

The Delphi survey was conducted in a period of 8 months. Men prevailed among the
participating experts, probably because leading positions that were essential for selecting experts
for participation are not yet equally distributed by gender. Most of experts were aged over 40
(Figure 1).

The employment period of the experts in the energy sector was above 10 years in 75 % of the
respondents and more than 15 years in 50 % of them, which means that the participating experts
are longtime contributors to the energy sector and very familiar with the studied topics.
Approximately 25 % of the surveyed experts are academics, 40 % come from industry, 15 %
from government departments, 10 % from non-governmental organizations and the remaining
10i% of the experts defined their activity as a combination of two or more of the above-
mentioned spheres. A similar classification of different stakeholders was practiced also in
forecasts made by Celiktas and Kocar (2010), Czaplicka-Kolarz et al (2009) and Makkonen et al.
(2012), etc.
The extent and duration of the first round of the Delphi survey was limited to approximately 30-
45 minutes and further limited in the second round otherwise extremely busy energy experts on
leading positions would be discouraged to cooperate and risk for research fatigue would be
higher. The data from the first round of Delphi and its interpretation were then made available to
the participating experts, who could further shape their opinion on it in the second stage of the
survey to improve the validity of results. When communicating with participants after gathered
results of the first round interviews (focused conversations) were partially included especially for
the coordination, unification and assessment of the validity of the results. Experts also evaluated
the procedure and methodological soundness as well as content validity of the study. The
acquired quantitative data were analysed using descriptive statistics and a comparative analysis of
the various demographic groups of experts (stakeholders). The acquired qualitative data were
analysed using qualitative methods such as data sampling and then statistically processed.

In the Delphi survey a predominantly partially structured questionnaire was used to examine four
lots of energy related content. Due to the large amounts of obtained data, data analysis and
discussion is performed in separate lots according to table 1.

3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION.

3.1 THE OUTLINE OF RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

In this paper the core results of the Delphi survey are presented and discussed in partly separated
lots. In the first lot (I) the time frame for the transition of conventional energy in sustainable
energy was forecast and scenarios towards it were studied. It was also forecast which of the
20/20/20 objectives will most likely be meet and which not. Furthermore, in the second lot (II),
the direction of energy development and energy policy in the world and the EU was forecast and
high priority energy policy measures were identified and assessed. Energy policy priorities were
also studied in a survey about public opinion on energy policy (Author, 2013) and these results
were presented to the participating energy experts. However, the differences between public
opinion and the energy experts within priorities ranking were substantial. Furthermore, in the
third lot (III), future trends in the prices of various energy sources were forecast and future
energy demand for the EU and the world were explored. In the last presented section (lot IV)
energy experts have also forecast which crucial changes can be expected in the 21st Century.

3.2 ASSESSMENT OF TRANSITION TO SUSTAINABLE ENERGY INDUSTRY

Experts were asked to evaluate the anticipated transition to a sustainable energy industry (lot I).
Sustainable energy industry was defined as the end of increasing energy demand, a continually
decreasing share of fossil fuels and at least a 30 % share of renewables in the (EU or global)
energy mix. Denmark was presented as the best practice case since it has more than halved fossil
fuel consumption (from base year 1972), kept the same level of final energy use (despite an
increase in population and heated areas) and plans to have a 30 % RES share by 2020 (at the end
of 2014 approximately 29 %)2. Separate evaluations were made for the EU and the world in
general. The results are presented in Figure 2.

Experts that forecast time frame of EU’s transition to sustainable energetics were divided in two
groups – the most optimistic believe the EU is going to transit to sustainable energy in the period
from 2025 to 2030 (group 1) and the 2nd group evaluates that transition will be between 2040
and 2050. Both groups support their assessments with expected energy policy implementations.
Pessimists also forecasted it for 2100.

However distribution of forecasts was much more dispersed for the global evaluation. On one
hand optimistic experts judgements shows that this transition should happen by 2030 or 2035 and
on the other some of them believe that global energy industry will never become sustainable.
Consensus was not achieved for the world and distribution of forecasts reveals that most likely
global transition is going to happen from 2050 to 2070. Experts agree however that the transition
to a sustainable energy sector in the EU will be achieved sooner and transition will be much
faster than the global one, since the EU is already investing a great deal to achieve this goal, does
not have its own oil reserves, have a common energy policy promoting the use of RES and EE
and want to transform their energy industry into a more fossil fuel independent and
environmentally sound industry. Consensus was achieved that the EU will transit to a sustainable
energy industry in 4th decade of 21st Century. Average value of all forecasts was 2046 for the EU
and 2061 for the world. This indicates that global transition should happen approximately 15
years later. In the Delphi survey by Czaplicka-Kolarz et al (2009), the results were even more
optimistic, as Poland’s experts forecast that Poland will produce at least 30 % of its energy from
local renewables as early as 2023. This is however arguable, since the share of renewables in
Poland’s primary energy production at the end of 2014 was approximately 12 % (Eurostat, 2014);
in other words, this is a highly optimistic forecast.

Path towards energy sustainability was studied and their forecasts were combined to form three
segments or three scenarios (partly adapted from Wehnert et al., 2007) where consensus was not
achieved. Most optimistic experts believe that scenario 1 (change of paradigm) is the most
probable and that global development paradigm is going to change and climate changes will
become the most relevant issue. Energy efficiency will be significantly improved, especially in
the EU, energy intensity of global economy will decrease and energy end users will take part in
energy policy decision making. Although likable some experts oppose this scenario and evaluate
it as not realistic due to strong global lobbies, passive society and lack of education and finances
intended for investments in sustainable energy.

Half of experts forecasted that 2nd scenario (Gas bridge) with natural gas as a bridge to future
energy sustainability will enable softer transition especially in the EU. Connections between the
EU and Russia and new even intercontinental pipelines will be crucial for this scenario.
Dependency of the EU on Russian gas could significantly increase in this case.

4 experts believe that the most pessimistic scenario 3 will prevail and that wars for fossil fuels
will become more and more frequent due to huge energy dependence and international conflicts

2 However, one expert noted that Denmark's relatively sustainable energy situation was extremely
expensive and causes high electricity prices for end consumers
between exporting and importing countries and that is the reason some of them do not believe
that global energy sustainability will ever be achieved. They forecast fossil fuel wars that will
result in sufficient long term fossil fuel supply for certain even oil importing countries and will
enable them to easily reach their own wellbeing. Probability of this scenario to happen should be
lower if RES become cheaper. Current low oil prices are causing tensions in oil exporting
countries. Because of (record) low interest rates policy countries are not interested for financial
investments reaching zero or even negative yield and financial means are provided by selling
large quantities of oil. This leads to increasing oil supply and keeping oil prices extremely low.
Risk for energy war that would cause significant increase of oil prices is therefore not negligible.

Within the context of sustainable energy development energy experts have also assessed which
target integrated in the 20/20/20 goals is the most difficult to achieve for the EU in general. It
seems that the most difficult goal to achieve is increasing EE and lowering energy consumption
(8 out of 20 experts), followed by increasing the RES share to 20 % by 2020 (6 out of 20
experts). Lowering GHG emissions was evaluated as the goal that the EU is most probably going
to achieve. This is a realistic expectation, since the EU GHG emissions trend has been declining
significantly in recent years, partially due to the economic crisis and the consequently lower level
of economic activity and because of uncertain forecast about economy recovery.

3.3 FORCAST OF ENERGY POLICY PRIORITIES RANKING

(II) At this point, the energy policy priorities were addressed. These priorities were also studied
in a previous survey about public opinion on energy policy (Author, 2013) and results were also
presented to the participating energy experts. However we identified substantial differences in
priorities ranking between the public opinion and forecasted priority rankings made by energy
experts. Forecasted priorities of future EU energy policy (ranged by energy experts) and
assessment of public opinion on energy policy priorities are presented in Figure 3.

The highest priorities from the perspective of the participating energy experts were »increasing
EE« (average 4.59 out of 5) and »decreasing energy use« (average 4.55). These two measures are
also crucial for the transition to a sustainable energy sector. These results indicate that the EU
energy policy should actively increase EE and lower final energy consumption instead of
focusing in managing energy prices, which are currently inherently low because of the lower
energy demand due to the economic crisis and low global oil prices. These priorities are the only
two that lead to long term stability and sustainability of energy sector in oil dependent
economies. It was specially exposed that these priorities must be communicated and agreed by
multiple decision makers.

The least important future energy policy priority according to the forecast was »maintaining low
energy prices« (average grade only 3.35). Public opinion on the other hand can not be seen as
equally relevant to experts’ judgement and gave some different results. However maintaining low
energy prices was also surprisingly assessed as the least important issue. Two most important
were planning environmentally friendly energy industry and increasing EE that is also not the
same but similar to the experts opinion.

Here we can relate to a survey by Hussler (2011) where the variety of judgments within and
between experts and laypeople revealed an apparently paradoxical conclusion: that non-expert
judgment is less stable, but not necessarily less accurate, than that of the experts. One of the
reasons for such a conclusion could also be the research itself, since it was focused exclusively on
the currently highly disputable nuclear energy sector. The social dynamics that may influence the
choices of cluster expansion of technologies related to renewable energy have been the subject of
many studies in the early twenty-first century. These studies mainly analyse the growing
environmental conflicts and the social acceptance that, at a local level, may prevent the
realisation of industrial plants for the production of energy from the sun, wind and waste.
Nonetheless non-experts judgement was less stable also in this case since minimal and maximal
values were identified on 4 out of 5 priorities.

Therefore, one of the goals of our Delphi survey was also to obtain the participating experts’
opinion on future investments in different energy related projects (sources or technologies) and to
evaluate which technologies are the most sustainable from different perspectives. The research
questions as well as the results here, specifically which energy sources are most acceptable for
experts, were similar to those in the study by Di Zio and Maretti (2013), who also used the
Delphi method.

As presented in Figure 4, coal as an energy source has the lowest support of energy experts since
most of them see coal as unsustainable energy source with high environmental impacts. Supports
were however relatively dispersed. More experts opposed coal use than support it however some
of them are convinced that coal should still be seen as an important energy source for the sake of
energy security. A negative result was also achieved by nuclear fission, which is not yet fully
developed and is therefore very unpredictable. Experts evaluated that fission can lead to
sustainable energy industry and can replace gas as a bridge towards sustainable energy but must
first be sufficiently developed, reliable, commercialized and especially safe. They are also aware
that public opinion on nuclear energy is low and therefore this technology is not the priority for
the future energy supply any more. Mixed responses were identified also for carbon capture and
storage where there is also no consensus. On the other hand, the strongest support was indicated
for micro hydro-electric power plants, the cogeneration of heat and power and large hydro. All
experts support investments in these technologies. Energy storage, smart grids and district
heating on biomass and geothermal energy followed and are seen as equally important since they
can be implemented locally and of course in the appropriate mixture. Wind energy and solar
energy were evaluated surprisingly low, since wind and solar energy are very frequently
presented as an EU priority. Results revealed that experts do not believe these two technologies
are the most promising from sustainability perspectives.

Even when assessing appropriateness of different technologies from sustainability perspectives

(economic, environmental and social perspective) results were similar.

Figure 5 illustrates that experts evaluated oil and coal as the least appropriate for future
investments since none of them specified oil as a sustainable energy source. 60 % and 63 %
respectively assessed oil and coal to be appropriate at least from one perspective (mainly from
economic). Surprisingly one expert seems to be very interested in coal exploitation since it
forecasted coal to be sustainable energy source for the future. Most of the experts opposed this
statement. Solar was evaluated as appropriate energy source from one perspective by all experts.
Most of them believe that it is appropriate from environmental perspective but only 20 % of them
believe it is sustainable energy source. Even natural gas surprisingly seems to be more
sustainable than solar energy. Support to solar energy is in general higher in lay public than in
segment of energy experts that are aware of solar power plant energy balances, problems related
to solar instability and peak energy consumption that is extremely problematic for covering it by
solar power plants. The most appropriate energy source was assessed to be hydro energy since 85
% of all experts believe it is sustainable and appropriate from economic, environmental and
social perspective. Special emphasis was focused on small and micro hydro that seems to be
undervalued. When large rivers are mainly dammed and exploited, small rivers and streams could
significantly contribute to sustainable energy supply in the EU and globally. Hydro as well as
biomass are both seen as especially appropriate for covering peak energy demand since unlike
wind and solar they can be regulated and managed which is sometimes even more important that
the production itself.

3.4 FORECAST OF ENERGY PRICES AND DEMAND

(III) Since global energy demand has been increasing in recent decades, experts were asked to
forecast future energy demand in the EU and the world, along with future prices of different
energy sources and electricity, as well as emission allowances, which price is highly volatile
according to Daskalakis et al (2015). Forecasts were made separately for the time frame until
2020 and from 2020 to 20303. The results of the forecasted change in prices of different energy
sources (oil, natural gas, wood biomass), electricity and emission allowances are presented in
Figure 6 as well as forecasted the EU and global energy demand.

As presented, energy experts have forecast increasing prices of energy sources and emission
allowances in all the studied time periods. Higher probability for growth is forecast in the period
until 2020. Oil and natural gas prices along with electricity prices will most probably increase
most rapidly by 2020. It is actually expected that all the studied sources will increase from 2020
to 2030 but less intensively than by 2020. However, due to different energy prices especially in
the EU experts did not forecast the extent of price increases but only probability of changes. That
means that even if projected price increase is most probable it does not necessary means the
highest price increase.

Future emission allowances prices also expect to be higher since the emission allowances market
in the EU has not developed as projected. The extend of price increase could not be forecast since
emission allowances price is a fast changing issue strongly related on energy policy. Some energy
experts have also forecast the increasing price of wood biomass. However, only the average
probabilities are graphically presented. A more detailed data analysis has shown that these
assumptions differ starkly from each other, since some experts have forecast strong growth and
others a decrease in wood biomass prices. The wood biomass price is probably more difficult to
forecast since studies dealing with future biomass prices are rare; however, we have already
witnessed an increase in prices of some kinds of wood biomass such as wooden pellets, the price
of which has increased in the last five years (in Slovenia by approximately 25 %) due to the high
number of households that have switched to this method of heating. However, natural disasters

3 In accordance with the time frame of 20/20/20 objectives and their discussed upgrade which is planned
to be set by 2030.
such as severe freezing rain in Slovenia in 2014 which damaged 42 % (3.5 million cubic meters)
of local woods, an amount equal to the annual timber removal changed the trend of increasing
prices of wooden biomass, seen from 2009, and prices (especially wooden biomass for heating
and energy use) were in 2014 significantly lower because the wooden biomass supply has rapidly
increased (Bavčar, 2014).

As presented in Figure 6, experts believe that energy demand will increase mostly on the global
level by 2020 (95 % of all experts believe that global energy demand will rise by 2020) as well as
from 2020 to 2030. Some experts believe that global energy demand will slow down and will
remain constant from 2020 to 2030. Reasons for this can be identified in increasing population
and standard of living especially in developing countries. Oil and energy exporting countries can
in 10 or 20 years become energy importers, similar as Denmark in the last decade. The slowest
increase is forecast for the EU from 2020 to 2030 however specific evaluations differ. Some
experts believe that the EU energy consumption will decrease after 2020 due to implementation
of various measures for increasing EE. A slower energy demand increase in the EU after 2020
was projected also in other studies.

Economic recovery will probably have the most significant impact on future energy demand in
the EU since energy demand is directly dependent on economic activity. Therefore, the economic
situation will probably also impact on future prices of energy sources and emission allowances,
as they are usually highly dependent on energy demand. On global level the highest influence is
expected by developing 3rd world economies, restructuring of Chinese economy, international
relations as well as possible local or regional wars.

This finding can be explained by the significant energy related development that has already
taken place in the EU and which is definitely affecting expert opinion on the development of a
more sustainable energy future.

3.5 FORECAST OF CRUCIAL CHANGES IN ENERGY SECTOR

The private sector has successfully deployed energy experts for strategic planning, examining key
parameters such as markets, competition and consumer trends. However in public policy, most
energy future studies remain disconnected from policy making. One reason is that they often
ignore the key political and institutional factors that underpin much of the anticipated, wished-for
or otherwise explored energy systems developments. Still, we know that institutions and politics
are critical enablers or constraints to technical and policy change (Nilsson et al., 2011).
Therefore, to prepare energy policy on big changes in energy sector energy experts have also
forecast the crucial changes expected in the energy industry in 21st century (IV). The results of
the crucial changes forecast are presented in Figure 7.

As presented, none of the experts believe that there will be no crucial changes, meaning that the
energy industry will face a rapidly changing environment. Most of them forecast the
breakthrough of new technologies (15 out of 20 experts), followed by greater emphasis on
environmental protection and external costs (11 experts) and anticipated strong pressure on
energy prices (10 experts). Due to fast technological development we are witnessing in recent
years and with a breakthrough of more and more innovative technological start-ups and
commercialized technologies for increasing rational and efficient energy use this is evaluated as a
highly realistic possibility. Strong pressure on energy prices is at the moment when the oil price
is just above 30 USD per barrel not that obvious but low oil prices are not expected to last on the
long run. 8 experts also forecast the decentralisation of the energy industry (according to the
development of a decentralised RES) and 5 of them believe that we will change our lifestyle and
energy policies. Decentralisation and changing lifestyle due to energy policy and energy industry
related changes can already be seen in our society. Dispersed energy production is promoted
especially in the EU and establishment of net-metering is probably going to boost it on the higher
level. Integration of smart grids and remote management of even household appliances is without
doubt going to change our lifestyle even more and energy policy is fast developing especially in
the EU as well as in China, USA and Japan. The EU e.g. plans to form the Energy Union and has
launched two comprehensive in-depth surveys and consultations to prepare new directives related
on environmental issues regarding energy sector. The Energy Union needs a reliable and
transparent governance process anchored in legislation, to make sure that energy-related actions
at European, regional, national and local level all contribute to the Energy Union's objectives
therefore data must be gathered compliant with all relevant energy-related stakeholders (EU
survey, 2016 and EC, 2015).

It is alarming on the other hand that only 5 experts believe that countries will be able to reach the
legally binding international energy and climate agreement, similar to the well-known 20/20/20
objectives accepted in the EU, and achieve changes in energy policies, despite the many
conferences and meetings of leading statesmen in recent years (Copenhagen in 2009, Durban in
2011, Doha in 2012, Warsaw in 2013 Lima in 2014 and Paris in 2015), and the substantial public
support for such an agreement. If nothing else topic gained extreme importance from the time
when modern concept of sustainable development was mentioned in Brundtland’s Our common
future. Another alarming result is that the same number of experts also believes that due to
international conflicts, increasing population, rising standard of living etc., we will face an energy
crisis in the near future. As commented previously war for fossil fuels could also lead to energy
crisis especially for defeated countries.

4. CONCLUSION

The most important application of energy forecast is to expand the thinking of policy makers.
The forecast revealed critical issues relating to the probability of achieving the 20/20/20 goals,
especially energy efficiency related one, problematic increase of future EU energy demand
especially by 2020 and global by 2030. Therefore policy makers should accept appropriate
measures to adapt national and transnational energy policy. Experts also forecasted long-term
increase in natural gas prices, wooden biomass prices as well as emission allowances prices. High
possibility for increase was assessed also for oil prices despite the fact that we witnessed a
significant decrease in oil prices in 2015 and in the beginning of 2016.

Experts believe that future energy policy must be radically transformed and focus must be
especially on reduced energy use and increased EE and development of an environmentally
friendly energy industry and not oriented towards low prices of energy since energy self-
sufficiency (especially in the EU) and rational use of local energy sources are evaluated as
crucial. Since leading energy experts have forecast that the EU will enter to a sustainable energy
industry by 2046, the top priorities will have to be realized at least to some extent since there are
no large oil reserves in Europe, the EU is already heavily dependent on imported oil and new
technologies for oil extraction such as fracturing are environmentally disputable. As this lead to
economic and socio-political risk, energy policy based on prudent and efficient energy use and
energy production from local renewables is crucial for the stability of long-term EU
development.

In long-range forecasting "success" is actually very subjective and it varies on intended use of the
forecast. Long-term forecasts are primarily useful for the perspectives they give to current users
at the time the forecasts are freshly generated, not to future users therefore we hope results will
be useful for nowadays energy policy decision makers instead of future controversy concerning
non-compliance of predictions. This study is evaluated to give good insight in sustainable energy
future since its findings were similar to other energy forecasts and verified with projections from
strategic documents. Results of this energy forecast were transmitted also to selected national and
EU energy policy related authorities to integrate these findings in their projections and national
and transnational strategic energy policy documents. As commented the EU especially is aware
of the added value of forecasts and is continually gathering data on future development to base
Energy Union on solid foundations.

Acknowledgments
This work was financially supported by the Ministry of Higher Education, Science and
Technology within the framework of Innovative scheme for co-financing doctoral studies. We are
grateful to Adonis Yatchew for extensive technical and editorial suggestions.

REFERENCES
1. Bavčar, J. (2014). »The worst icerain in Slovenia.« Delo in dom. [online]. Available
on: http://www.deloindom.si/sadovnjaki/najhujsi-zledolom-v-sloveniji (11.1.2015). (in
Slovenian language).
2. Cuhls, K. (2003). “From forecasting to foresight processes – new participative foresight
activities in Germany”. Journal of Forecasting.22 (2-3): 93-111.
3. Craig, P. P., A. Gadgil and J. Koomey (2002). "What Can History Teach Us: A Retrospective
Examination of Long-Term Energy Forecasts for the United States." Annual Review of Energy and
Environment 27: 83-118.
4. Czaplicka-Kolarz, K., Stanczyk, K. and Kapusta, K. (2009). „Technology foresight for a
vision of energy sector development in Poland till 2030. Delphi survey as an element of
technology foresighting”. Technological Forecasting and Social Change. 76 (3): 327-338.
5. Daskalakis, G., Symeonidis, L. and Markellos, RN. (2015). “Electricity futures prices in an
emissions constrained economy: Evidence from European power markets.”
The Energy Journal. 36 (3).
6. Dinwoodie, J., Tuck, S. and Rigot-Müller, P. (2013). “Maritime oil freight flows to 2050:
Delphi perceptions of maritime specialists”. Energy Policy. 63: 553-561.
7. Di Zio, S. and Maretti, M. (2013). “Acceptability of energy sources using an integration
of the Delphi method and the analytic hierarchy process”. Quality and Quantity.
Published online in September 2013.
8. European Commission (EC). 2015. Redesigning European electricity market – give your
feedback. Available on: https://ec.europa.eu/energy/en/news/redesigning-europes-electricity-
market-%E2%80%93-give-your-feedback (17.2.2016).
9. Eurostat. (2014). Energy statistics – quantities. [online]. Available on:
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/energy/data/main_tables (15.1.2015).
10. EU survey. 2016. Consultation on streamlining of planning and reporting obligations as
part of the Energy Union Governance. Available on:
https://ec.europa.eu/eusurvey/runner/STREAMLININGPublicConsultation2016
(17.2.2016).
11. Friedrichs, J. 2011. Peak energy and climate change: The double bind of post-normal science.
Futures, 43: 469-477.
12. Gary, J.E. and von der Gracht, H.A. (2015). The future of foresight professionals: Results
from a global Delphi study. Futures. 71: 132-145.
13. Grunwald, A. 2011. Energy futures: Diversity and the need for assessment. Futures: 43: 820-
830
14. Grupp, H. and Linstone, H. (1999). “National technology foresight around the globe,
resurrection and new paradigms”. Technological Forecasting and Social Change. 60: 85–94.
15. Hussler, C., Muller, P. and Rondé, P. (2011). “Is diversity in Delphi panelist groups useful?
Evidence from a French forecasting exercise on the future of nuclear energy.” Technological
Forecasting and Social Change. 78 (9): 1642-1653.
16. International Energy Agency (IEA). (2011). World energy model (WEM). Paris: IEA.
17. International Energy Agency. (IEA). (2014). Energy Technology Perspectives 2014 -
Harnessing Electricity's Potential. Paris: IEA.
18. Iniyan, S. and Sumathy, K. (2003). “The application of a Delphi technique in the linear
programming optimization of future renewable energy options for India”. Biomass and
Bioenergy. 24: 39-50.
19. IRENA. (2015). Energy prospects. Germany.
20. Jantsch, E. (1967). Technological forecasting in perspective. Paris: OECD.
21. Lin, S. W. and V. M. Bier (2008). "A study of expert overconfidence." Reliability Engineering &
System Safety 93(5): 711-721.
22. Lund, H. (2010). Renewable energy systems The Choice and Modeling of 100% Renewable
Solutions. Burlington: Academic Press.
23. Lunz, B. Stöcker, P., Eckstein, S., Nebel, A., Samadi, S., Erlach, B., Fischedick, M., Elsner,
P. and Uwe Sauer, D. (2016) Scenario-based comparative assessment of potential future
electricity systems – A new methodological approach using Germany in 2050 as an example.
Applied Energy. 171: 555-580.
24. Makkonen, M., Pätäri, S., Jantunen, A. and Viljainen, S. (2012). „Competition in the
European electricity markets – outcomes of a Delphi study.” Energy Policy. 44: 431-440.
25. Ministry of the Economy. National renewable energy action plan (NREAP), Ljubjana:
Ministry of the Economy. 2010.
26. Morgan, M. G. (2014). "Use (and abuse) of expert elicitation in support of decision making
for public policy." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences: 201319946.
27. Nilsson, M., Nilsson, L.J., Hildingsson, R., Stripple, J., Eikeland, P.O. 2011. The missing
link: Bringing institutions and politics into energy future studies. Futures 43, 1117-1128
28. Author. (2013). Study of factors for sustainable energy development modelling. Doctoral
dissertation. Maribor: Faculty of Economics and Business.
29. Author and Coauthor. (2013). „A sustainable energy policy for Slovenia: considering the
potential of renewables and investment costs.” Journal of renewable and sustainable energy. 5
(3).
30. Author and Coauthor. (2012). „A study of key factors for energy policy modelling.” Our
economy. 58 (3/4): 28-37.
31. Pregrad, B. and Musil, V. (2001). Technological systems and integrated environmental
protection. Maribor: Faculty of Economics and Business.
32. Rowe, G. and Wright, G. (1999). “The Delphi technique as a forecasting tool: issues and
analysis”. International Journal of Forecasting. 15 (4): 353-375.
33. Soner Celiktas, M. and Kocar, G. (2010). “From potential forecast to foresight of Turkey's
renewable energy with Delphi approach.” Energy. 35 (5): 1973-1980.
34. Spatru, C., Drummond, P., Zafeiratou, E. and Barrett, M. (2015). Long-term scenarios for
reaching climate targets and energy security in UK. Sustainable cities and Society. 17: 95-
109.
35. Terrados, J., Almonacid, G. and Pérez-Higueras, P. (2009). “Proposal for a combined
methodology for renewable energy planning. Application to a Spanish region.” Renewable
and Sustainable Energy Reviews. 13 (8): 2022-2030.
36. Trutnevyte, E., McDowall, W., Tomei, J. and Keppo, I. (2016). Energy scenario choices:
Insights from a retrospective review of UK energy futures. Renewable and sustainable energy
reviews. 55: 326–337.
37. Wehnert, T., López Araguás, J.P., Bernardini, O., Jaworski, L., Holst Jørgensen, B., Jörß, W.,
Nielsen, O., Ninni, A., Oniszk-Poplawska, A. and Velte, D. (2007). European energy futures
2030. Berlin Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.
38. Winebrake, J. J. and D. Sakva (2006). "An evaluation of errors in US energy forecasts: 1982-2003."
Energy Policy 34(18): 3475-3483.
 60+ years
50-60
years
40-50
years
30-40
years Men (n=16)
20-30 Women (n=4)
years
0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Figure 1: Demographics of energy experts (sex and age distribution) included in Delphi survey
Figure 2: Evaluated time period of forecast transition to sustainable energy in the EU and the
world – with presented distribution of individual judgements
 5 5

4 4
Avg - experts
Max
3 3 Min
Median

2 2

1 1

environmentaly
Planning socially

Decrease energy
Maintaining low

production and

Increase energy
friendly energy
decreasing…
friendly energy
energy prices

Increasing
domestic

efficiency
Planning

industry
industry

use
Figure 3: Forecasted priorities of future EU energy policy (ranged by energy experts in blue
columns) and assessment of public opinion on energy policy priorities (in green pattern columns)
(1 means least important and 5 means most important)
 Coal -0.30

Nuclear fission -0.05

Carbon capture & storage 0.05

Nuclear fusion 0.15

Solar energy 0.50

Wind energy 0.70

Geotermal energy 0.80

District heating on biomass 0.80

Smart grids 0.80

Energy storage 0.85

Large hydro 0.90

Cogeneration 1.00

Micro hydro 1.00

-1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

Figure 4: Ranked average supports to investments in different energy technologies (interval from -
1 meaning opposition to proposed technology to 1 meaning strong support to proposed
technology)
100%
Appropriate from
80% one perspective

60% Appropriate from

two perspectives
40%
Appropriate from
20% economic, social
and environmental
0% perspective
Oil Coal Nuclear Solar Natural Wind Biomass Hydro
gas

Figure 5: Evaluation of different energy sources from sustainability perspectives (economic, social
and environmental perspective)
 Emission allowances

Wood biomass

Natural gas
by 2020
Oil

Electricity from 2020 by 2030

__________

Global energy…

EU energy demand

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

Figure 6: Forecast of probability of future changes in energy prices and energy demand (interval
from 0 to 1, where 0 means growth is not expected and 1 means growth is highly possible)
 I do not anticipate any crucial changes

Energy crisis

Changes of energy policies

Reach legally binding international

energy and climate agreement
Changing lifestyles of our society

Decentralisation of energy industry

Strong preassure on energy prices

Greater emphasis on environmental

protection and external costs
Breakthrough of new technologies

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Figure 7: Forecast of crucial changes in energy sector
Table 1: List of projections and evaluations
No. Study stage
1 Transition time to sustainable
energy
2 20/20/20 objectives
3 Energy policy priorities
4 Energy price projections
5 Energy demand projections
6 Expected crucial changes
7 Validity of the results
Projection
Long-term (definition of sust. energy was given) to
evaluate the timeframe for energy policy measures
Evaluation and compliance with energy policy
Evaluation to 2020 and long-term, to see which should be
the key directions
Separately for 2020 and 2030 – to evaluate future price
trends and scenarios
Separately for 2020 and 2030 – to evaluate needed
energy production and investments predictions
Subjective long-term evaluation, to discover the key
directions of the future and compliance with the current
energy policy
In the time of study procedure, to evaluate results
(second round only)