Transcript Niklas Höhne

The innovation challenge
STAKEHOLDER CONFERENCE
"Post-2012 climate policy for the EU"
22 NOVEMBER 2004
Niklas Höhne
[email protected]
ECOFYS Cologne, Germany
The innovation challenge
Stabilization paths
Reference
Corresponding
temperature levels at
equilibrium:
550ppm: around 3.2°C
450ppm: above 2.5°C
350ppm: around 1.5°C
(Source: IPCC TAR 2001,
average climate sensitivity)
(Source: Ecofys, adapted from post SRES stabilization paths Morita et al. 2001, CO2 only)
The innovation challenge
Content
What needs to be done today to reach stabilization of CO2
concentrations and the 2°C target?
–
–
Stabilization of CO2 concentrations at any level level requires
global emissions to decline to a very low level.
For 450ppmv CO2 globally below 1990 levels in 2050 and
in industrialized countries below 1990 levels by factor 3 to 5
1. Technological change
2. Choice of technologies
3. Costs
The innovation challenge
Emissions = activity  energy/activity  GHG/energy
Share of zero emission
sources
Share of zero-emission sources
100%
Emission
reduction in
the EU until
2050
50%
60%
80%
70%
80%
60%
At 2% annual
increase in
energy
consuming
services
40%
20%
0%
0%
1%
2%
3%
4%
5%
Annual energy efficiency improvement (reduction SEC)
Annual energy efficiency improvement
(Source: K. Blok, “Technology choices: how to set innovation targets for energy-efficiency
improvement and low-carbon energy sources?”)
The innovation challenge
Two options for action on technology
development
Option A: Develop new technologies to be applied later
- Danger that technologies will not emerge as planned (e.g.
fusion)
- Danger of “lock-in”: Old technologies and infrastructure
prescribe future path
Option B: Support new technologies now
- Technological learning: Performance improvements, cost
reduction and diffusion
The innovation challenge
Development of wind technology
E
share in total gross electricity output (%)
6,0%
D
DK: 16.6% (2003)
17.1% (2004)
17.5% (2005)
5,0%
4,0%
3,0%
EU15 IRL
NL P
2,0%
1,0%
Wind power
production in the EU15
: Share in overall
gross electricity
production
GR A
I UK S
Austria
Belgium
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Irland
Italy
Netherlands
Portugal
Spain
Sweden
UK
EU
F FIN B
0,0%
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2004 calculated from wind capacities installed to July 2004 and estimated installed wind capacities for second half of 2004. 2005: short-term projections
Source:
Wolfgang Eichhammer, Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and
Innovation Research, Karlsruhe, Germany
The innovation challenge
Development of wind technology
Learning curve for wind energy in Germany
Development of wind turbines
1800
1990
1600
1400
Cost [€/kW]
1200
1000
800
2003
600
400
200
0
10
100
1000
10000
Installed capacity [MW]
100000
The innovation challenge
Long-term impact of today’s decisions
Existing stock
is constantly
replaced
The innovation challenge
Conclusions technological learning
• Use low emission technologies now to reduce the
costs in the long term
• Use today’s huge investments in the energy
system
• Avoid “lock-in” effect
The innovation challenge
Case I:
Carbon capture and storage (Edmonds)
Without capture and storage
technology
Source: Kim & Edmonds
2000, Potential for
advanced carbon capture
and sequestration
technologies in a climate
constrained world
With capture and storage
technology
Edmond’s conclusions:
Cost to move from reference to path with CO2 storage technology is
significantly lower than to path without CO2 storage technology
-> storage technology lowers cost of stabilization
The innovation challenge
Case II:
German Advisory Council on Global Change
1.
Major reduction in fossil fuels
2.
Phase-out of nuclear
3.
Expansion of solar
4.
Substantial improvement in
energy efficiency
Exemplary path that meets 450 ppmv CO2 concentration
Source: WBGU www.wbgu.de
Council’ conclusions:
• A fossil / nuclear
path: substantially
larger risks and
significantly more
expensive mainly due
to CO2 sequestration
• Time lag: the period
of next 10–20 years
is decisive window of
opportunity for
transforming energy
systems. If missed:
higher costs
The innovation challenge
Conclusions choice of technology
• Ambitious energy efficiency improvements and
development of zero emission technologies are
needed
• No single technology alone can be the solution –
many should be supported
• Technological development is uncertain
• Cost and effect of R&D is difficult to model
• Opinions diverge on the optimal path
The innovation challenge
Costs to introduce technologies
15%
0.1
10%
0.05
5%
USc/kWh
Model result:
• PV in OECD countries
< 0.1 Cent/kWh for all
electricity used
0.15
0
2000
0%
2010
2020
Source: Sandén & Azar (2003), Assumption: growth rate 30%/year, progress ratio 0.8.
Share of OECD electricity generation
Empirical example:
• Wind in Germany (feed-in tariff):
~+0.4 Cent/kWh for all electricity used
The innovation challenge
Case III: IIASA
Source: Roehrl & Riahi 2000, Technology
Dynamics and Greenhouse Gas Emission
Mitigation
All scenarios: high economic growth
(3%/a), global cooperation, but with
different technological developments
A1C - Coal: R&D per turnover: 0.3%,
today’s rate
A1T - Technology: Large scale targeted
R&D:4-13%, cheap nuclear and renewables
Costs include non-discounted cumulative
cost of operation and maintenance of
energy production, conversion,
transformation and distribution, but not
end-use technologies and R&D investments
(assumed to be smaller than differences
shown here)
IIASA’s conclusions:
Total energy system costs and emissions are lower, if fast
technological development is assumed
The innovation challenge
Cost for stabilization: IPCC
Presented as difference between GDP in 2050 in reference case
and GDP in 2050 in stabilization case:
4% GDP loss over 50 years = 0.08% per year
Source: IPCC TAR
The innovation challenge
Cost for stabilization is only
postponement of GDP growth
Source: Azar & Schneider 2002
The innovation challenge
Conclusions
•
Be ambitious in
•
No single technology alone can be the solution
Opinions diverge on the optimal path
•
A portfolio of policies is necessary to stimulate long-term
technological development
–
–
–
•
- energy efficiency improvements
- development of zero-emission technologies
Act now: Avoid the ‘lock-in’ into an emission intensive path,
next 10 to 20 years are crucial
Use new technology: Application of still expensive technologies today
can accelerate the cumulative learning and be cost effective in the long
term
Intensify development of new technologies: huge joint long-term
research and development efforts needed
Possibly higher cost in the short term but lower absolute cost in the
long term. Total global cost may be large in absolute terms, but
small compared to the expected growth in GDP