Energy intensity and carbon intensity

An index that provides an indication of a country's energy efficiency is the ratio of annual energy consumption to gross domestic product (GDP) known as the energy intensity. Figure 11.3 shows that from 1970 to 2005 world total GDP increased by a factor of about 3 while energy consumption increased by a factor of about 2, the result being a decrease in energy intensity of about 30% or an average of about 1% per year. There are substantial differences between countries. Within the OECD, Denmark, Italy and Japan have the lowest energy intensities and Canada and the USA the highest, with more than a factor of 2 between the lowest and the highest.

Of importance too in the context of this chapter is the carbon intensity, which is a measure of how much carbon is emitted for a given amount of energy. This can vary with different fuels. For instance, the carbon intensity of natural gas is 25% less than that of oil and 40% less than that of coal. For renewable sources the carbon intensity is small and depends largely on that which originates during manufacture of the equipment making up the renewable source (e.g. during manufacture of solar cells). Figure 11.3 shows that the average carbon intensity for the globe has reduced only a little since 1970.

The Kaya Identity expresses the level of energy-related carbon dioxide emissions as the product of four indicators, namely carbon intensity, energy intensity, gross domestic product per capita and the population, the global averages for which are all plotted in Figure 11.3. For the reductions in global carbon dioxide emissions required in the future, energy and carbon intensities have to reduce more quickly than income and population growth taken together.

Index 1970 = 1

3.0 2.8 2.6 2.4 2.2 2.0 1.8 1.6 1.4 1.2 1.0 0.8 0.6

Income (GDP-ppp) Energy (TPES) CO2 emissions

Income per capita (GDP-ppp/cap) Population

Carbon intensity (CO2/TPES) Energy intensity (TPES/GDP-ppp) Emission intensity (CO2/GDP-ppp)

Index 1970 = 1

Income (GDP-ppp) Energy (TPES) CO2 emissions

Income per capita (GDP-ppp/cap) Population

Carbon intensity (CO2/TPES) Energy intensity (TPES/GDP-ppp) Emission intensity (CO2/GDP-ppp)

Carbon And Energy Intensity Japan

1970 1975

"1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1

1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

Year

Figure 11.3 Relative global development for the period 1970-2004 of gross domestic product (GDP measured in purchasing power parity: ppp), total primary energy supply (TPES), carbon dioxide emissions (from fossil fuel burning, gas flaring and cement manufacture) and population. In dashed lines are shown income per capita, energy intensity, carbon intensity of energy supply and emission intensity.

1970 1975

"1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1

1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

Year

Figure 11.3 Relative global development for the period 1970-2004 of gross domestic product (GDP measured in purchasing power parity: ppp), total primary energy supply (TPES), carbon dioxide emissions (from fossil fuel burning, gas flaring and cement manufacture) and population. In dashed lines are shown income per capita, energy intensity, carbon intensity of energy supply and emission intensity.

Many national and international bodies and some energy industries have studied future energy scenarios and how they might be achieved. The most comprehensive of these are those by the International Energy Agency presented to year 2030 in its annual volume World Energy Outlook3 and in more detail to 2050 in its Energy Technology Perspectives.4 Three scenarios of interest are presented (Figure 11.4). The first is a reference or baseline scenario that assumes energy carbon dioxide emissions continue to rise with minimal environmental constraints throughout the period; in 2050 emissions are 2.3 times up on their level in 2005 - similar to the SRES A2 scenario (Figure 6.1). As we have already seen in Chapter 10, with this scenario global warming and climate change will continue unchecked. The second, called the ACT Map scenario, brings energy carbon dioxide emissions back to their 2005 level by 2050 and the third, the BLUE Map scenario, returns emissions to their 2005 level by 2025 and reduces them by a further factor of 2 by 2050. As shown in Chapter 10 (Figures 10.2 and 10.3), these scenarios are broadly consistent with stabilised carbon dioxide concentrations of 550 ppm CO2e for ACT and 450 ppm CO2e for BLUE. Also in Figure 11.4 are shown the share of emissions and emissions reductions by different sectors and illustrative options for how these reductions might be made. Reference to these options will be made later in the chapter where more detail regarding different sectors or technologies is presented.

Listed below are some key findings of the IEA that illustrate how achievement of these reducing scenarios can make the world's energy sector more sustainable.5

• For the Baseline scenario in 2050, OECD countries account for less than one-third of global carbon dioxide emissions. Population growth (see Chapter 12, page 393) and the need for economic development make it inevitable that developing countries will, for many decades, consume increased amounts of energy. Global emissions can only be halved if developing countries and transition economies contribute very substantially.

• There is an urgent need for aggressive and determined action in the next decade6. There is a danger that investments made in this period, due to the long lifespan of capital equipment such as buildings, industrial installations and power plants, could be the subject of economically wasteful early replacement or refurbishment if emission reduction targets are to be met. The BLUE scenario already envisages 350 GW of coal-fired power being replaced before the end of its lifespan.

• Deep emission cuts will require extensive application of energy efficiency measures, carbon capture and storage (CCS), renewable energy technologies

Buildings Industry Transport Upstream Power sector

Buildings Industry Transport Upstream Power sector

2005

Baseline 2030

Baseline 2050

ACT Map BLUE Map

2050

2050

2005

Baseline 2030

Baseline 2050

ACT Map BLUE Map

2050

2050

2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 Year

2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 Year

CCS industry and transformation (9%)

CCS power generation (10%) Nuclear (6%) Renewables (21%)

Power generation efficiency and fuel switching (7%) End-use fuel switching (11%)

End-use electricity efficiency (12%)

End-use fuel efficiency (24%)

706050403020-

Baseline emissions 62 Gt-

Baseline emissions 62 Gt-

706050403020-

BLUE map emissions 14 Gt ■

WEO 2007 450 ppm case

ETP 2008 analysis

2025 2030 Year

Power sector (38%) Industry (19%) Buildings (17%) Transport (26%)

BLUE map emissions 14 Gt ■

WEO 2007 450 ppm case

ETP 2008 analysis

2005 2010 2015 2020

2025 2030 Year

2040 2045

Figure 11.4 (a) Global energy-related carbon dioxide emissions in the Baseline, ACT Map and BLUE Map scenarios of the International Energy Agency (IEA) showing division into sectors. (b) and (c) Illustrative options for contributions to emissions reductions 2005-50 for the BLUE Map scenario by source (b) and by sector (c). In (c) reductions from electricity savings have been allocated to end-use sectors.

2035

2050

and nuclear. The transport sector especially will require new solutions with substantial cost.

• Electricity will play an increasing role as a carbon-dioxide-free energy carrier. The near elimination of emissions in the power sector is key to achieving deep emission reductions worldwide. Advances in new technologies are key to accomplishing this.

• Carbon dioxide emission reduction policies can help to avoid very significant supply challenges. This is especially the case for transportation. In both scenarios, oil and gas demand is substantially below the Baseline level in 2050. In the BLUE Map scenario, oil demand is 27% below the 2005 level. Fossil fuels, with large-scale application of carbon capture and storage, remain a key element of the world's energy supply in 2050 in all scenarios.

Getting Started With Solar

Getting Started With Solar

Do we really want the one thing that gives us its resources unconditionally to suffer even more than it is suffering now? Nature, is a part of our being from the earliest human days. We respect Nature and it gives us its bounty, but in the recent past greedy money hungry corporations have made us all so destructive, so wasteful.

Get My Free Ebook


Post a comment