Environmental Implications of Technological Transitions

Environmental Implications of Technological Transitions

Bloustein School for Planning and Public Policy

Rutgers University, November 29, 2007

Arnulf Grubler – Yale FES and IIASA

Technology Transitions

• Change in one state of a system to another one, in terms of:

-- Quantity-- Structure of end-use and supply-- Quality

• With due regard to differences in-- space: “where”-- time: “when”

Example today: Energy

Main Energy Transitions: History

• Non-commercial → commercial• Renewable → fossil• Rural → urban• South → North → South• Low exergy → higher exergy (H:C ratio↑)• Improved efficiency/productivity• Conversion deepening (e.g. electrification)• Increasing supply/demand density• Desulfurization, Decarbonization

North – South Orders of Magnitude

80% -90%

80%66%75%South as %

7 -15

61.61World Population, 109

66% -75%

40%30%60%South as %

500 -2200

4404010World Primary Energy, EJ

2100*200019001800

* Range of 4 IPCC SRES marker scenarios (no tails)

World Primary Energy Demand1800-2000 in 25 yr intervals

0

50

100

150

200

0 2 4 6 8Population (Billion)

Per C

apita

Ene

rgy

Use

(GJ)

Industrialized

Developing

World Average

Area equals 2000World energy use:~430 EJ

Area equals 1800 world energy use:~20 EJ

IND:“take-off” ~1850“plateau” ~1975

DEV:“take-off” ~1975“plateau” ??

Transition 1: From scarcity to abundance

Final Energy Use

Spatial heterogeneity of energy use: Transition 1 not yet completed

c1

c1 chirkov 1/24/2007Energy scale:0-18; 18-30; 30-60; 60-160; 160-520 GJ/cap/year blue green yellow red pink chirkov, 1/24/2007

Geography of Global Energy Use:Middle Course IIASA-WEC “B” Scenario

Microchip

Television

Steamengine

Electricmotor

Gasolineengine

Vacuumtube

Commercialaviation

Nuclearenergy

1850 1900 1950 2000

NuclearHydroGasOil (incl. feedstocks)CoalTrad. renewables

Gto

e10

8

6

4

2

0

World primary energy use (Gtoe)

World Primary Energy Supply

Transition 2: Structure of Supply (driven by end-use)

SHARES INPRIMARYENERGY

historical

1990

1850

40%

1900

1950

1920

60%

20%

Renewables/Nuclear100%80%60%40%20%

1970

60%40%

Coal

80%

100%

20% 80%

Oil/Gas

0%0%

100%0%

2 “Grand”Technology& InfrastructureTransitions

Measuring supply,but driven by TC inend-use (steam engines, cars, aircraft..)

Past: No influence of resource depletion or policy on energy transitions

Emissions vs. Energy Use & Technologyin IPCC SRES Scenarios

Uncertainty 1: Population and GDP growth, prices, policies

Uncertainty 2: R

esource availability, technology

historical1850

40%

1900

1950

1920

60%

20%

Renewables/Nuclear100%80%60%40%20%

197060%40%

Coal

80%

100%

20% 80%

Oil/Gas

0%

0%

100%0%

A1T

B2B1

A2

A1F1

CA2

A1

B

A3A1B

1990

Oil & gasforever

Grandtransition

MuddlingthroughReturn

to coal

Path DependentFutures in IIASA-WEC

and IPCC SRES Scenarios

Only “grand transition” scenarios allow full spectrum of climate stabilization targets.“Re-fossilization” scenarios need silver bullet technology fixes (CCS, geo-engineering)with unknown feasibility and side effects.

feedwoodwaterpowercoaloilgashydronuclearTotal

US Energy Transitions

0.00

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

1800 1825 1850 1875 1900 1925 1950 1975 2000

Frac

tion

0.1

1.0

10.0

100.0

1000.0

10000.0

1800 1825 1850 1875 1900 1925 1950 1975 2000

Mto

e

Peak in market shareprecedes absolute production peakby ~60 years:

Wood 1800/1860Feed 1860/1920Coal 1920/ ??Oil 1975/ ??

0.00

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

1800 1825 1850 1875 1900 1925 1950 1975 2000

Frac

tion

0.1

1.0

10.0

100.0

1000.0

10000.0

1800 1825 1850 1875 1900 1925 1950 1975 2000

Mto

e





US - Final Energy Transitions

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000

Perc

ent

Solids

Liquids

Grids

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

1.1

1.2

1.3

1850 1900 1950 2000 2050

wood

coal

oil

gasenergy end-use (consumer)

primary energy (energy system)

Data Source: US DOE EIA (2001): 1960-1999; Grubler (1998): <1960.

US – Decarbonization from Supply and End-use Transitions

Energy Intensities (PE/GDP)

Driver and impact of Transitions: productivity and efficiency growth

Decarbonization of Global Energy:Evolutionary Envelope of Multiple Transitions

10

20

30

1850 1900 1950

gC/M

J

wood = 29.9

coal = 25.8

oil = 20.1

gas = 15.3

2000

15

25

35

Carbon intensity of:

Getting “cleaner” is deeply engrained in history of technological and societal evolution.Climate stabilization requires acceleration of historical trends, but not a departure!

1.25

0.00

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

1850 1900 1950 2000 2050 2100

(1) No uncertainty static technology

(2) Uncertainty in demand, resources, costs

(3) = (2) + uncertain C - tax

(4) Full uncertainty (incl. techn. learning)

Tons

C/to

e

Scenario Differencesas a Function of Models of Technological Change

Drivers of Historical Energy Transitions

• Technological change in end-use: steam engines, automobiles, electric motors and lights

• Supply: no evidence of resource scarcity, but plenty of evidence of TC(coal chemistry, offshore and “unconventionals”, nuclear,..)

• Price volatility (recurring): trigger of TCand structural change

• Policy: few success stories, lots of failures(Project Independence, breeders)

• Quality matters: electrification, decarbonization

A Taxonomy of Environmental Problems (after WB, 1992):

1

2

3

tC/capita

WEU

0

600

1200

1800

μg/m3

0

20

40

60

80

100 1000 100000

10

20

30

URBAN CONCENTRATION OFPARTICULATES

URBAN POPULATION WITHOUTSAFE WATER OR SANITATION MUNICIPAL WASTE PER CAPITA

AVERAGE DEFORESTATIONURBAN CONCENTRATIONS OF

SULFUR DIOXIDE

FSU

SAS PAS

LAMMEA

EEU

PAO

NAM

100

40

50

0

20

40

60

80

100

GDP per capita, US(1990)$

100 1000 10000

4

0 0

200

400

600

kg/capita

100 1000 10000

CPA AFR

CARBON EMISSIONS FROM ENERGYEND USE PER CAPITA

% %

Impact on human health

High High but improving Low

Scale of environmental impactsLocal Local, regional Regional, global

Time scales involved

Hours, days Years Decades, centuries

GDP per capita, US(1990)$ GDP per capita, US(1990)$

μg/m3

Poverty Industrialization Affluence

Particulate Concentrations and Human Exposure in 8 Environments

Exposure = People x Time x Concentration

Sulfur Emissions per Unit Energy

0

10

20

30

1800 1850 1900 1950 2000

kgS/

toe

OECD

World

REFs

DCs

World – Sulfur Emissions by Region (cumulative, MtS)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

1800 1825 1850 1875 1900 1925 1950 1975 2000

TgS

OECD

IND

WORLD

&Int. bunkers

OECD

REF

Developing Countries

Int. bunkers

Per Capita CO2 by Source vs. Population

IIASA GGI A2r Scenario - no climate policy

IIASA GGI A2r Scenario - 1390 ppmv stabilization

BibliographyGrubler, A., 1998, Technology and Global Change, Cambridge University Press.

Nakicenovic, N., Grubler, A., and McDonald, A. (eds), 1998, Global Energy Perspectives,Cambridge University Press.

Nakicenovic, N., Alcamo, J., Davis, G., deVries, B., Fenhann, J., Gaffin, S., Gregory, K., Grubler, A. et al., 2000, Emissions Scenarios, Special Report of Working Group III of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC, Geneva, and Cambridge University Press.

Grubler, A., 2004, Transitions in energy use, Encyclopedia of Energy, Vol. 6, 163–177.).

Grubler A., O´Neill, B., Riahi, K., Chirkov, V., Goujon, A., Kolp, P., Prommer, I., Scherbov, S., and Slentoe, E., 2007, Regional, national, and spatially explicit scenarios of demographic and economic change based on SRES, Technological Forecasting and Social Change 74(89), October–November 2007. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2006.05.023

Riahi, K., Grubler A., and Nakicenovic, N., 2007, Scenarios of long-term socioeconomic and environmental development under climate stabilization, Technological Forecasting and Social Change 74(89), October–November 2007. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2006.05.026

Contact: [email protected]

Environmental Implications of Technological Transitions

Documents

Transcript of Environmental Implications of Technological Transitions