Energy Technology Roadmap & Stakeholder Perspectives · Case Study and Surveys •Case study:-the...

Energy Technology Roadmap & Energy Technology Roadmap &

StakeholderStakeholder PerspectivesPerspectives

SIXTH FRAMEWORK PROGRAMME[6.1]

[ Sustainable Energy Systems]

Stefan Hirschberg, Paul Scherrer InstitutBrussels, 17 February 2009

The NEEDS Integrated Project(Where does RS2b fit in?)

NEEDS: New Energy Externalities Developments for Sustainability

Extend

geographic

coverage

Communicate

& Disseminate

Externalities

in energy

extraction &

transport

New & improved methods to

estimate external costs

LCA/costs of

new

technologies

Model internalization

strategies & scenario

building

1d

Transfer &

general-

ization

1c

1a

2b

3a

3b

1b

2a

Energy technology

roadmap & forecast

Integration

Stakeholder assess-

ment & acceptance

NEEDS RS2b Objectives

General - Combine technology knowledge with stakeholder preferences, examining

Robustness of results for different stakeholders

Specific

Stakeholder acceptance of external costsassessed

Sustainability of technologies

Sensitivity to stakeholder preference patterns

Identify robust (and/or promising) technologies

Stream Structure and Status

External costs

acceptabilityTechnology Assessment

under stakeholder perspectives

Survey I

(WP12&13)

Case study

Acceptability

of monetary

values

(WP11)

Establishment of

criteria & indicators

Review (WP1)

Social (WP2)

Full set (WP3)

Survey II (WP12&13)

Quantification of

Indicators

Economy (WP5)

Environment (WP6)

Risks (WP7)

Social (WP8)

Documentation

Multi-criteria

decision analysis

Requirements (WP9)

Sensitivities (WP4)

Developments,

Implementation

& Evaluation (WP10)

Inputs from

RS1a

Inputs from

RS1a & RS1b

Case Study and Surveys

• Case study:

- the acceptability of monetary valuation methods and

- their role in the energy policy making processes in France, UK and US.

• Three “surveys” with stakeholder participation:

- Acceptability of the externality framework, evaluation of results and their uses

- Selection of evaluation criteria and indicators

- Elicitation of stakeholder preferences leading to multi-criteria sensitivity mapping of technological options

Case Study Conclusions

• Large variation between France, UK and US in the uses of externality valuation in policy

• Formal requirements are crucial in order to consider the full costs and benefits of proposed regulation

• There is more extensive use of the monetary valuation of externalities in transport and water policy than in the energy sector

Main Stakeholder Categories

Each category is further divided into several sub-categories

Other

Consultant

Researcher / Academic

Politician

Association (e.g. trade or industry)

Regulator / Government Authority

Government Energy or Environmental Agency

Non-Governmental Organization (NGO)

Energy Consumer

Energy Supplier

Stakeholder Categories & Sub-categories1/4

Energy Demand• Technology Supplier (e.g. Manufacturer of Appliances

• Energy Consuming Industry

• Agriculture

• Transport Sector

• Services

• Households

• Technology Agency

• Sectoral Association

Energy Supply• (Centralized or Decentralized)

• Manufacturer

• Technology Agency

• Transmission & Distribution

• Sectoral Association

Regulators / Authorities• European

• National

• Regional / Local

Governmental Energy & Environmental Agencies• European

• National


NGOs• International

• European

• National


Researchers• Energy

- Fossil

- Renewables

- Nuclear

- Demand

- Systems Analysis

- Other

• Non-Energy

Consultants• Small or Medium (1 – 30 employees)

• Large (> 30 employees)


Associations• European

• National


Politicians• Left / Green(Socialist Group, Group of the Greens / European Free Alliance, Confederal Group of the European United Left)

• Center / Liberal(European People's Party and European Democrats, Alliance of Liberals and Democrats)

• Right / Conservative(Independence/Democracy Group, Union for Europe of the Nations Group)

Stakeholder Categories & Sub-categories 4/4

Justified and Non-Justified Stakeholder Criticisms of External Costs

• Monetisation as such is not accepted by all.

• Alternatives to Willingness to Pay (WTP) are preferred.

• The way WTP estimates are generated is questionable.

• Very large overall uncertainties mean non-robust rankings.

• The history of cost estimates is troublesome.

• Estimates of specific external costs often questionable; for some with potential importance they are not available.

• Social factors are scarcely represented.

• It is impossible and/or meaningless to monetise some of the social factors.

Survey I: Evaluating Monetisation

Source: Faberi et al., 2007

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Loss of human lives Loss of biodiversity Damage to ecosystems Global warming

No opinion/don't know

Monetisation is impossible as a matter of principle

Monetisation may be possible, but problematic

Monetisation is possible, but values too uncertain

Monetisation is possible

17% skipped these questions

Survey I: Evaluating Monetisation


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Nuclear Proliferation Security against

terrorism

Nuclear waste storage Security of electricity

supply

No opinion/don't know

Monetisation is impossible as a matter of principle

Monetisation may be possible, but problematic

Monetisation is possible, but values too uncertain

Monetisation is possible

17% skipped these questions

Survey I: Usefulness of Externalities


Statement: External cost assessment provides decision makers with basic estimates to support their policy decisi ons. Without such estimates, the social cost of a wrong choice c ould be very large and harmful.

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

Mostly agree

Fully agree

Fully disagree

Mostly disagree

I don't know

Survey I: Externality Concept, Results and Uses

In spite of the limitations, there is general accep tance of the concept of externalities, of the internalisation of external c osts and of most results, but…

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

Coal and oil technologies have thelowest external costs

Natural gas technologies have quitelow external costs due to low air

pollution and moderate external costsdue to greenhouse gases.

Renewable technologies have mostlylow external costs

Nuclear energy has low external costs

I don’t know Fully agree Mostly agree Mostly disagree Fully disagree


What is Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) and why is it necessary?

• Decision support through the combination of many criteria, based on decision-maker/stakeholder preferences

• Cognitive limitations (7 criteria average max.)

• Comparison to monetisation (damage costs v. control costs v. market cost v. individual’s…)

• Reconciling preferences with preconceptions…

Balancing Tradeoffs - Terminology

Discrete

alternatives

may be either

individual

technologies,

or utility

strategies

Environment

Eco

no

my

7 Steps Towards MCDA7 Steps Towards MCDA

1 Select alternatives (with stakeholder input)

2 Establish criteria and indicators (with stakeholder input)

3 Quantify the technology- and country-specific indicators

4 Analyse the MCDA requirements

5 Select the most suitable MCDA method(s) and tool(s)

6 Test and adapt the selected method(s) and tool(s)

7 Elicit stakeholder preferences, provide feedback

MCDA-based Aggregation :General Algorithm

Sustainability Criteria

Sou

rce: Hirschbe

rg et a

l., 200

7&20

08

Criterion

RESOURCES Energy Resources

Mineral Resources (Ores) CLIMATE CHANGE

IMPACT ON ECOSYSTEMS

Impacts from Normal Operation Impacts from Severe Accidents WASTES

Special Chemical Wastes stored in Underground Depositories

EN

VIR

ON

ME

NT

AL

DIM

EN

SIO

N

Medium and High Level Radioactive Wastes to be stored in Geological Repositories

IMPACTS ON CUSTOMERS Price of Electricity IMPACTS ON OVERALL ECONOMY Employment

Autonomy of Electricity Generation IMPACTS ON UTILITY Financial Risks

ECO

NO

MIC

DIM

EN

SIO

N

Operation

SECURITY/RELIABILITY OF ENERGY PROVISION Political Threats to Continuity of Energy Service

Flexibility and Adaptation POLITICAL STABILITY AND LEGITIMACY

Potential of Conflicts induced by Energy Systems. Necessity of Participative Decision-making Processes SOCIAL AND INDIVIDUAL RISKS

Expert-based Risk Estimates for Normal Operation Expert-based Risk Estimates for Accidents Perceived Risks

Terrorist Threat QUALITY OF RESIDENTIAL ENVIRONMENT Effects on the Quality of Landscape

SO

CIA

L D

IME

NS

ION

Noise Exposure

Risk-relevant Criteria & Indicators (NEEDS) 1/2

Source: NEEDS Project; Hirschberg et al., 2007

Risk-relevant Criteria & Indicators (NEEDS) 2/2

Sou

rce: NEEDS Project; H

irschbe

rg et a

l., 200

7

Q5: Main stakeholder categories

Survey II: Stakeholder Profile

• Researcher/Academia strongly dominated (61.45%)

• Only three other categories were between 5 and 10 %

-Energy Supplier

- Government Energy & Environmental Agency

- Consultant

• Within Researcher/Academia five sub-categories had the

strongest representation:

- Energy: Renewables (9.45%)

- Energy: Nuclear (11.64%)

- Energy: Systems Analysis (19.27%)

- Energy: Other (6.18%)

- Non-Energy (11.27%)

Source: Burgherr et al., 2008

Survey II on Sustainability Criteria and Indicators

• Response rate of 9.7%

• Highly qualified / educated participants, but an over-representation of researchers

• General acceptance of indicator set

• Few individual indicators considered problematic

• Strong minority (44%) opts for less criteria; i.e. about 20

• Most participants from CH followed by DE

� Small number of indicator descriptions were slightly modified

� 4 indicators from the social dimension were eliminated giving a final set of 36

Survey II: Feedback

Q49: 5 most important indicators to be absolutely INCLUDED

5119Impacts of toxic substances

Environment

7226Mortality due to normal operation

Social

7828Independence from energy imports

Economy

8029Impacts of air pollution Environment

12144Average generation cost

Economy

17463Consumption of fossil resources

Environment

18367Global warming potential

Environment

PARTICIPANTS

N°

PARTICIPANTS %

INDICATORCATEGORY

Survey II: Feedback

Q50: 5 least important indicators to be absolutely EXCLUDED?

Source: Burgherr et al., 2008

4717Willingness of NGOs and others to act against the realization of an option

Social

5520Total traffic loadSocial

5620Subjective health fears due to normal operation

Social

6423Psychometric variables: personal control, catastrophic potential, perceived equity familiarity

Social

6724Construction timeEconomy

7126Share of the electricity costs in the budget of a social welfare recipient

Social

11140Work qualifications: workforce education

Social

PARTICIPANTS

N°

PARTICIPANTS %

INDICATORCATEGORY

Technology Range

• 24MW turbine in deep water• Offshore wind turbineWIND

• Cells - Crystalline silicon (ribbon)

• Thin film (Cadmium Telluride)

• Concentrating trough collectors

• Photovoltaics

- Centralised and decentralised

• Centralised thermal power plant

SOLAR

• Gasified waste wood to fuel cells.

• Gasified cultivated wood and waste straw to gas turbine.

• Decentralised cogeneration

- Fuel cells.

- Gas turbine.

BIOMASS

• Conventional and gasification

- with/without carbon capture (CCS)

� Post-combustion

� Oxyfuel

• Internal combustion engine (NG)

• Molten carbonate and solid oxide fuel cells (NG)

Centralised

• Coal

• Lignite

• Natural Gas (NG).

Decentralised cogeneration

• Natural Gas only (NG)

FOSSIL

• European Pressurised Reactor (EPR – GEN III)

• European Fast Reactor (EFR- GEN IV)

• Generation III

• Generation IV

NUCLEAR

Total of 26 for FR, 25 for DE, 21 for IT and 19 for CH

The MCA Indicator Database

NEEDS Database Adjustments

• Fossil: Thermal efficiencies depend on ambient air temperature causing lower values in Italy

• Lignite: FR & DE only; heating value adjusted

• Natural gas: Country specific import mix

• Biomass: Poplar irrigation & yield higher in Italy

• Solar & Offshore wind: Hours/year adjusted

• Solar thermal: FR & IT only

• Nuclear: Site specific risk

• LCA: Generic but country specific

Environment:GHG Emissions (2050)

Source: Bauer et al., 2008

Nuclear Fossil Renewablekg

(C

O2-

eq.)

/ kW

h

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

EU Pressurised Reactor

EU Fast Reactor

Pulverised Coal (PC)

PC & Post comb.CCS

PC & OxyfuelCCS

Integrated Gasification

Int. Gasification & CCS

Pulverised Lignite (PL)

PL & Post comb.CCS

PL & Oxyfuel& CCS



Combined Cycle (CC)

CC & Post comb. CCS

Internal Comb. <1MW

MC Fuel cell 2MW

SO Fuel cell <1MW

MC Fuel cell <1MW

MC Fuel cell <1MW

SRC Poplar 9MW

Waste straw 9MW

PV, large scale

PV, small scale

PV, Thin-film

, small sc.

Thermal power plant

Offshore 24MW

GEN

III

GEN

IV

COAL LIGNITE NAT. GAS NAT. GAS

Cogeneration

BIOMASS

Cogeneration

SOLAR WIND

IT DE CH FR

Environment:Non-energetic Resource Consumption (2050)

Source: Bauer et al., 2008

Nuclear Fossil Renewablekg (Sb-eq.) / kW

h

0.E+00

1.E-06

2.E-06

3.E-06

4.E-06

5.E-06


EU Fast Reactor


PC & Post comb.CCS

PC & OxyfuelCCS




PL & Post comb.CCS

PL & Oxyfuel& CCS



Combined Cycle (CC)

CC & Post comb. CCS

Internal Comb. <1MW

MC Fuel cell 2MW

SO Fuel cell <1MW

MC Fuel cell <1MW

MC Fuel cell <1MW

SRC Poplar 9MW

Waste straw 9MW

PV, large scale

PV, small scale

PV, Thin-film

, small sc.

Thermal power plant

Offshore 24MW

GEN

III

GEN

IV


Cogeneration

BIOMASS

Cogeneration

SOLAR WIND

IT DE CH FR

Environment:Accidental Radioactive Contamination (2050)

Source: Burgherr & Hirschberg., 2008

km2/ GW

e-yr

Nuclear Fossil Renewable

0.E+00

1.E-05

2.E-05

3.E-05

4.E-05

5.E-05

6.E-05

7.E-05


EU Fast Reactor


PC & Post comb.CCS

PC & OxyfuelCCS




PL & Post comb.CCS

PL & Oxyfuel& CCS



Combined Cycle (CC)

CC & Post comb. CCS

Internal Comb. <1MW

MC Fuel cell 2MW

SO Fuel cell <1MW

MC Fuel cell <1MW

MC Fuel cell <1MW

SRC Poplar 9MW

Waste straw 9MW

PV, large scale

PV, small scale

PV, Thin-film

, small sc.

Thermal power plant

Offshore 24MW

GEN

III

GEN

IV


Cogeneration

BIOMASS

Cogeneration

SOLAR WIND

IT DE CH FR

Social:Years Of Life Lost - YOLL (2050)

Source: Friedrich & Preiss, 2008

Nuclear Fossil RenewableYOLL / kW

h

0.E+00

1.E-07

2.E-07

3.E-07

4.E-07

5.E-07


EU Fast Reactor


PC & Post comb.CCS

PC & OxyfuelCCS




PL & Post comb.CCS

PL & Oxyfuel& CCS



Combined Cycle (CC)

CC & Post comb. CCS

Internal Comb. <1MW

MC Fuel cell 2MW

SO Fuel cell <1MW

MC Fuel cell <1MW

MC Fuel cell <1MW

SRC Poplar 9MW

Waste straw 9MW

PV, large scale

PV, small scale

PV, Thin-film

, small sc.

Thermal power plant

Offshore 24MW

GEN

III

GEN

IV


Cogeneration

BIOMASS

Cogeneration

SOLAR WIND

IT DE CH FR

Social:Fatality Rates and Max. Consequences (2050)

Source: Burgherr & Hirschberg, 2008

Nuclear Fossil

0.000001

0.00001

0.0001

0.001

0.01

0.1

1

IT DE

CH

FR IT DE

CH

FR

Pul

veris

ed C

oal (

PC

)

PC

& P

ost c

omb.

CC

S

PC

& O

xyfu

elC

CS

Inte

grat

ed G

asifi

catio

n

Int.

Gas

ifica

tion

& C

CS

Pul

veris

ed L

igni

te (

PL)

PL

& P

ost c

omb.

CC

S

PL

& O

xyfu

el&

CC

S

Inte

grat

ed G

asifi

catio

n

Int.

Gas

ifica

tion

& C

CS

Com

bine

d C

ycle

(C

C)

CC

& P

ost c

omb.

CC

S

Inte

rnal

Com

b. <

1MW

MC

Fue

l cel

l 2M

W

SO

Fue

l cel

l <1M

W

MC

Fue

l cel

l <1M

W

GEN III - EUPressurised Reactor

GEN IV - EU FastReactor

COAL LIGNITE NAT. GAS NAT. GASCogeneration

Fatalities / GW

e-yr

1

10

100

1000

10000

100000

Maximum fatalities

F-N Curves:Latent Cancer Fatalities (LCF) for current plants and EPR

1.E-12

1.E-11

1.E-10

1.E-9

1.E-8

1.E-7

1.E-6

1.E-5

1.E-4

1 10 100 1000 10000 100000

Number of Late Cancer Fatalities (LCF)

Frequency of exceedance per GWeyr

CH 2000

FR 2030 CH 2030

FR 2000

Source: Hirschberg et al., 2008

Social: legitimacy, necessity of participative decision making

Source: Gallego et al., 2008

Social: legitimacy, conflict potential

Source: Gallego et al., 2008

Economy:Direct Work Opportunities (2050)

Source: Schenler et al., 2008

Nuclear Fossil Renewable

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450


EU Fast Reactor


PC & Post comb.CCS

PC & OxyfuelCCS




PL & Post comb.CCS

PL & Oxyfuel& CCS



Combined Cycle (CC)

CC & Post comb. CCS

Internal Comb. <1MW

MC Fuel cell 2MW

SO Fuel cell <1MW

MC Fuel cell <1MW

MC Fuel cell <1MW

SRC Poplar 9MW

Waste straw 9MW

PV, large scale

PV, small scale

PV, Thin-film, small sc.

Thermal power plant

Offshore 24MW

GEN

III

GEN

IV


Cogeneration

BIOMASS

Cogeneration

SOLAR WIND

Person-yrs / GWh

IT DE CH FR

Economy:Capital costs (France, 2050)

Source: Schenler et al., 2008

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500


EU Fast Reactor


PC & Post comb.CCS

PC & OxyfuelCCS




PL & Post comb.CCS

PL & Oxyfuel& CCS



Combined Cycle (CC)

CC & Post comb. CCS

Internal Comb. <1MW

MC Fuel cell 2MW

SO Fuel cell <1MW

MC Fuel cell <1MW

MC Fuel cell <1MW

SRC Poplar 9MW

Waste straw 9MW

PV, large scale

PV, small scale

PV, Thin-film

, small sc.

Thermal power plant

Offshore 24MW

GEN

III

GEN

IV


Cogeneration

BIOMASS

Cogeneration

SOLAR WIND

Present value capital costs ( €/ kW

e)Nuclear Fossil Renewable

Total Costs

• Internal + External = Total Costs

• Money becomes the common denominator for all indicators.

• It is assumed that all indicators can be monetized.

• It is assumed that stakeholders can agree on the value of life, the environment, etc.

• Nevertheless, money is the most useful and widely accepted common numerator.

• Cost-benefit analysis based on (total) costs has great attractions for guiding public policy

Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA)

• An extensive survey of multi-criteria methods for the technology choice problem was made.

• A full MCDA problem specification was made of the NEEDS problem.

• Existing multi-criteria analysis methods for discrete alternatives had significant deficiencies for the NEEDS problem specification.

• As a result, IIASA has developed and implemented a range of new MCDA methods (algorithms), far beyond the original NEEDS scope.

MCDA Process in NEEDS

• Extensive survey of multi-criteria methods for the technology choice problem

• Full MCDA specification

• Existing MCDA methods for discrete alternatives had significant deficiencies for NEEDS

- Many not suited to discrete alternatives

- Orientation to alternative ranking v. indicator results

- Weighted sum method (rank reversal problem)

� As a result, IIASA developed and implemented a range of new MCDA methods (algorithms), beyond the original NEEDS scope.

MCDA-based Aggregation :General Algorithm

MCDA Methods Developed for NEEDS

• Objective aspiration/reservation

• Reference point – Nadir

• Reference point – Utopia

• Reference point – Pareto

• Dominating alternative

• Non-linear aggregation

• Quantile aggregation

• LexMax regularization

• Weighted sum

MCDA Methods Developed

Methods developed (and variations) fall into several main groups:

• Aspiration/Reservation

• Reference Point (Utopia, Pareto & Nadir)

• Dominating Alternative

• LexMaxReg (improving worst criteria)

• Quantile & Non-linear Aggregation

The weighted sum approach (with known deficiencies) was also implemented for comparison.

MCDA Review & Selection Process

• 9 algorithms were evaluated

• (using weighted sum as a reference)

• Blind testing by PSI team (2 rounds)

• expected response to multiple preference profiles

• sensitivity to shifting preferences

• Iteration with 3 algorithm modifications

• Selection of Dominating Alternative algorithm

Examples of criteria/issues for Examples of criteria/issues for

MCDA method and tool selectionMCDA method and tool selection

• Is method/tool available or requires limited amount of adjustments and tests?

• Availability (free or licence, restrictions, price)

• Has method/tool been successfully used for energy applications relevant for NEEDS?

• Simplicity, transparency, easy to use, interactivity

• Mathematical correctness (within limits)

• Internal consistency checks

• Suitable for large amount of applications

• Processing, analysis and presentation of results

• Sensitivity analysis capability (uncertainty analysis probably not realistic)

• Compatibility with the intended (problematic) elicitation of preferences

• Possibility to use “simulated” typical preference profiles

• Expandability in the future

• Can minority views be considered?

• Non-discriminatory treatment of technologies

The Chosen MCA Algorithm

• The dominating alternative (DA) algorithm compares pairs of alternatives and chooses one that tends to minimize poor performance (similar to a max-min approach). By n-1 comparisons it selects the best of the n alternatives.

• This algorithm was selected by blind testing by a PSI team from a portfolio of 12 different solvers. The criteria included;

- expected responses to known preferences, using multiple profiles

- sensitivity to shifting preferences

Dominance Components and Index

))]()(()([)(11

jk

n

kikjkikk

n

kjikijkij rrrrwdcdcd ββ −∗−∗=−= ∑∑

==

dcijk = wk ∗ (rik − rjk )∗ β(rik )

dcjik = wk ∗ (rjk − rik )∗ β(rjk )

β(x) = α−x(alpha = 10, 0 < x < 1 for the MCDA analysis)

If dij > 0 then alternative i dominates j, i.e. alternative i is preferred to j.

The beta factor is key, otherwise the algorithm reduces to the weighted

sum approach.

indicator weight

relative ∆ in indicator performance

absolute performance weighting factor

Dominating Alternative Flowchart

• Compares pairs of alternatives

• Selects one that tends to minimizes poor performance.

• By n-1 comparisons it selects the best of the n alternatives.

• Transitivity check compares best to all others.

• Remove best & repeat to get full ranking

The Online MCDA Survey Application

Key elements:

• Interactive, graphic interface

1 Open website

2 Enter preferences

3 Solve to show ranking

4 Examine trade-offs for ‘best’ technologies

5 Repeat until satisfied

• Immediate feedback

• Iterative learning

• Automatic data collection

Online Demo of NEEDS Survey

Distribution of NEEDS Survey Respondents by top level criteria weights

Criteria Weights:All survey respondents

Technology Ranks:All survey respondents

Technology Ranks:

Cluster group 1 (11)

Technology Ranks:

Cluster group 2 (148)

Technology Ranks:equal weighting of highest level criteria (37)

Technology Ranks:

environment dominant (22)

Technology Ranks:

economy dominant (6)

Technology Ranks:

social dominant (2)

Total Costs with MCDA Ranking

Nuclear Fossil RenewableWorst

Best

Average MCDA Ranking

€cents / kW

h

0

5

10

15

20

25

Total costs = generation costs + externalities


EU Fast Reactor


PC & Post comb.CCS

PC & OxyfuelCCS




PL & Post comb.CCS

PL & Oxyfuel& CCS



Combined Cycle (CC)

CC & Post comb. CCS

Internal Comb. <1MW

MC Fuel cell 2MW

SO Fuel cell <1MW

MC Fuel cell <1MW

MC Fuel cell <1MW

SRC Poplar 9MW

Waste straw 9MW

PV, large scale

PV, small scale

PV, Thin-film, small sc.

Thermal power plant

Offshore 24MW

GEN

III

GEN

IV

COAL LIGNITE NAT.

GAS

NAT. GAS

Cogeneration

BIOMASS

Cogeneration

SOLAR WIND

0

5

10

15

20

25GHG em. High

GHG em. Low

Pollution

Land use

Generation cost

Source: Hirschberg et al., to be published

RS2b Conclusions

• Large variation in FR, UK and US using externality valuation forpolicy making.

• General acceptance of the concept of externalities, internalisation of external costs and most results in spite of limitations.� Results for nuclear remain controversial.

• A powerful framework for MCDA-based sustainability assessment developed, implemented and applied to four countries.

•Wide stakeholder acceptance of the proposed criteria and indicator set.

• Comprehensive indicator database established for four countries.

•Optimistic-realistic technology development scenarios show remarkable future performance improvements for renewables, particularly for solar.

• Total cost approach favours nuclear and disfavours biomass. Ranking of fossil technologies in comparison to (remarkably improved) solar and wind strongly depends on which value for GHG-damages is used.

RS2b Conclusions (cont.)

• None of the technological options can fulfill all sustainability criteria and market requirements. Trade-offs between environmental, economic and social sustainability components are heavily influenced by valuejudgements.

• MCDA-approach favours renewables, in particular solar technologies.

• Inclusion of a wide set of social criteria leads to lower ranking of nuclear with GEN IV fast breeder performing better than GEN III EPR.

• Coal technologies perform worst in MCDA while centralized gas options are along with nuclear in the midfield. CCS-performance is mixed.

• Emphasis on environment penalizes fossil options; emphasis on economy penalizes renewable options; emphasis on social penalizes nuclear.

• Need for future extensions of scope and depth- Coverage of technologies (heating systems, transportation, conventional and advanced electric, efficiency)

- Indicators (e.g. surveys for social indicators)analytical issues (e.g. integration of TIMES and MCDA)tools (e.g. MCDA-methods and user interfaces)

- Geographic coverage (world) and applications (e.g. MCDA for policies)- Broader involvement of stakeholders and more direct interactions desirable

Contributors and ResponsibilitiesContributors and Responsibilities

PSITechnical stream co-ordination14

ISIS/PSIAnalysis and elaboration of the results 13

ISIS/PSIOrganisation/management of surveys and communication12

ARMINESAcceptability of monetary valuation methods11

PSIEvaluation and analysis integration10

IIASAMCDA approach and tool selection9

USTUTT.SOZQuantification of social indicators8

PSIQuantification of risk indicators7

PSIQuantification of environmental indicators6

EDFQuantification of economic indicators5

CESIRICERAExtended technology characterisation4

PSIEstablishment of full criteria set3

USTUTT.SOZEstablishment of social criteria2

PSISurvey of criteria and indicators1

LEADERSWORK PACKAGE TITLEWP

Contributors included also NGOs: GLOBE and HELIO IN TERNATIONAL

Thank you for your attention

Stefan Hirschberg

[email protected]

Laboratory for Energy systems Analysis (LEA)

http://lea.web.psi.ch/

Energy Technology Roadmap & Stakeholder Perspectives · Case Study and Surveys •Case study:-the...

Documents

Transcript of Energy Technology Roadmap & Stakeholder Perspectives · Case Study and Surveys •Case study:-the...