Fornybar energi: Politikk, rollefordeling, fortjeneste Danske finansanalytikere, København, 21. November, 2007 Gunnar S. Eskeland, CICERO
Klimaet har alltid variert Skyldes naturlige faktorer som variasjon i solstråling og vulkanutbrudd Klimaet har vært forholdsvis stabilt de siste ti tusen år Nå står vi overfor store klimaendring vi selv skaper
Hovedkonklusjonen til FNs klimapanel 2007 FNs klimapanel regner det som meget sannsynlig at mesteparten av klimaendringene de siste 50 år er menneskeskapte. (Meget sannsynlig > 90 % sannsynlighet)
Kilde: IPCC
Vind og havnivåstigning I Skagerrak og Nordsjøen beregnes inntil 8 flere døgn per år med sterk kuling, en økning på rundt 20 % Men vanskelig å si noe om ekstremvind Om høsten øker vinden mest langs kysten Havnivåstigning (nedsmelting av is, oppvarming av vann) stiger nå med dobbel hastighet jf. målinger siste hundre år Lavtrykksaktivitet øker: stormflo økende
Climate change impacts on electricity supply Hydro-electric: Likely boosted Wind: poorly predicted by climate scientists. Likely boosted Thermal, both nuclear and combustion based: likely negative impact through cooling costs Biomass: positive impact possible (temperature, precipitation, co2 fertilization). Unlikely important. Solar: on solar thermal, positive perhaps. Photovoltaics: no effect Generally: apart from through hydropower, effects are poorly known, or considered minor
Enorm treghet i klimasystemet Tilpasning må starte nå, samtidig med utslippsreduksjoner
Utslippsreduksjoner: 500 PPM (togradersmålet), krever store globale utslippsreduksjoner innen 2050
Behovet for utslippsreduksjoner Planleggerens løsning: hvor og hvordan kniper vi på utslippene Økonomlæreboken: hvis det koster å slippe ut... Markedet: en svak eim av profittmuligheter? - Feel good vs money does not stink - Skal noen miste skjorten også? - Etablerte interesser, og creative destruction
Internasjonal klimapolitikk Kyotoprotokollen: 28 % av verdens utslipp, 5 av århundrets år, kanskje ikke avvik fra business as usual (3 dimensjonalt svakt) IPCCs 4th assessment report, and Stern Review: mitigation is good investment Europa: 2 grader celsius 100 år, 20 eller 30 prosent kutt, 20 år Etter Kyotos første periode 2008-12?
What are the macro-economic costs (2030)?
All sectors and regions have the potential to contribute (IPCC)
How can emissions be reduced?
Behovet for teknologisk endring: Lavutslippsbanen 1990-2005 peker på muligheter. Kilde: NOU 2006:18 Et klimavennligere Norge
Emission Reduction by Technology Area ACT Map Scenario Coal to gas Nuclear End-use efficiency Power generation Fossil fuel generation efficiency CCS Hydropower Biomass Biofuels in transport CCS in fuel transformation Fuel mix in buildings and industry Other renewables CCS in industry Improved energy efficiency most important contributor to reduced emissions
Scenario Analysis Key Findings (from IEA, ETP study) Most energy still comes from fossil fuels in 2050 Global CO2 emissions can be returned towards today s level by 2050 Growth in global oil and electricity demand can be halved Power generation can be substantially de-carbonised by 2050 De-carbonising transport will take longer but must be achieved in the second half of the century INTERNATIONAL ENERGY AGENCY AGENCE INTERNATIONALE DE L ENERGIE
Key Technologies A technology portfolio will be needed Improving energy efficiency is top priority CCS is key for a sustainable energy future Other important technologies: Renewables, including biofuels Nuclear Efficient use of natural gas In time and with effort, hydrogen and fuel cells INTERNATIONAL ENERGY AGENCY AGENCE INTERNATIONALE DE L ENERGIE
Costs None of the technologies have higher incremental costs than 25 USD/tonne CO2 Significant transitional costs for RD&D and deployment programs Improved energy efficiency substantially reduce need for supply side investments and fuel imports Electricity sector: demand side savings offset most of the additional investment costs for power generation Progress in efficiency and CCS key to keep mitigation costs down INTERNATIONAL ENERGY AGENCY AGENCE INTERNATIONALE DE L ENERGIE
Bottom up analysis ce nt s/ kw h Marginal costswith no CO2-price 6,77 8,00 5,59 4,89 4,83 6,00 3,29 3,50 2,72 4,00 1,99 2,00 0,00 EC EG NG NC NG NC EC EG CCS CCS CCS CCS EC EG NG NC NGCCS NCCCS ECCCS EGCCS
Carbon capture and storage: a central question New Power Plants: Cost of electricity Equivalent CO2 price Natural Gas Combined Cycle cents/kwh /tco2 Without CCS 2,38-3,85 With capture and enhanced oil recovery 2,85-5,38 14,6-52,3 With capture and geological storage 3,30-5,92 29,2-70 Pulverized Coal Without CCS 3,30-4,00 With capture and enhanced oil recovery 3,77-6,23 6,9-33,8 With capture and geological storage 4,85-7,61 23-54,6 Integrated Coal Gasification Combined Cycle Without CCS 3,15-4,69 With capture and enhanced oil recovery 3,07-5,77 (-5,4) - 23,8 With capture and geological storage 4,23-7,0 10,8-40,8 Source: IPCC Special Report on Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage - 2005, CICERO calculations
Marginal costswith various CO2 prices 14,00 cents/ kwh 12,00 10,00 8,00 6,00 4,00 0,00 50 EC EG NG The colors show how each technology will be affected relative to the others of higher NC NGCCS NCCCS ECCCS 0 EGCCS CO2 prices: 0,20,50 & 100 / tco 2 2,00
Behovet for teknologisk endring: Energi: Green energy Fossil energy Emissions Biomass Wind Sun Waves Tides Geothermal Salt gradients Nuclear CO2 capture & storage Coal, oil, gas 2000 2025 2050 2075 2100
Teknologiutvikling: myndighetsoppgave?
Cap-and-trade, or emission tax regime No Yes No - Cost effective. - No climate policy Con: - Likely to have low participation. - W eak on long term mitigation. Pro: - Seeks long term carbon-lean solutions. - Some R&D can be done by country or small coalition. Yes Technology, R&D cooperation regime Pro: - Some climate friendly tech. R&D justified by other objectives: energy security, environment, etc. Con: - R&D program alone likely weak on direction, implementation and adoption, since incentives fail Pro: - R&D strengthens long term dimension of tax- or cap-and-trade system. Technological advances will reduce political resistance to mitigation. Cap-andtrade improves direction and efficiency of R&D. Thereby also broadens participation and deepens emission reductions. Con: - Multiple treaties may make for complex negotiations
The distribution of costs: Depends entirely on instrument choice History speaks: Established capital is barely challenged Freely distributed quotas as a way to change the world Electricity sector as example Free quotas to old and to new: reasons and consequences Green certificates etc: Tax and cross-subsidize (variations on PPP: PPO and CPP) Future speaks Rewards to renewables: New capacity and old, new tech. and old Who generates new technology?
El i Europa: Halvparten fossilt, halve resten kjernekraft Country Fossil fuels Nuclear France 8,6 76,5 Germany 62,5 29,4 Italy 77,4 0 Netherlands 90,7 4,2 Norway 0,4 0 Russia 64,6 15,4 Sweden 4 44,6 73,5 23,4 UK Average Source: IEA, 2001a. Electricity statistics. 48 24
Answer: deployment of presently available technologies will be assisted (not merely pulled): Green certificates investment subsidies feed in tariffs Standards Quotas and/or emission trading system Energy efficiency/decentralized solutions
Til slutt: Utslippsreduksjoner kan vanskelig bli drepende Internasjonal koordinering betyr alt Stødighet betyr nesten alt Teknologiendring betyr mye Bred politisk forankring viktig og mulig