Environmental Implications of Technological Transitions Bloustein School for Planning and Public Policy Rutgers University, November 29, 2007 Arnulf Grubler – Yale FES and IIASA
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
Slide 6
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
Peak in market shareprecedes absolute production peakby ~60 years:
Wood 1800/1860Feed 1860/1920Coal 1920/ ??Oil 1975/ ??
Peak in market shareprecedes absolute production peakby ~60 years:
Wood 1800/1860Feed 1860/1920Coal 1920/ ??Oil 1975/ ??
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 - no climate policy
IIASA GGI A2r Scenario - 1390 ppmv stabilization
IIASA GGI A2r Scenario - 1090 ppmv stabilization
IIASA GGI A2r Scenario - 970 ppmv stabilization
IIASA GGI A2r Scenario - 820 ppmv stabilization
IIASA GGI A2r Scenario - 670 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]