SIXTH FRAMEWORK PROGRAMME
Project no: 502687
NEEDS New Energy Externalities Developments for Sustainability
INTEGRATED PROJECT
Priority 6.1: Sustainable Energy Systems and, more specifically, Sub-priority 6.1.3.2.5: Socio-economic tools and concepts for energy strategy.
PUBLISHABLE FINAL ACTIVITY REPORT M1-M54
Due date of deliverable: 16 April 2009 Actual submission date: 16 April 2009
Start date of project: 1 September 2004 Duration: 54 months
Lead Contractor: ISIS – Institute of Studies for the Integration of Systems Index of Contents
1 PART 1: PROJECT EXECUTION...... 2
1.1 GENERAL OVERVIEW OF THE NEEDS PROJECT (OBJECTIVES, STRUCTURE AND OUTPUTS)...... 2 1.1.1 Objectives of the NEEDS Integrated Project...... 2 1.1.2 The NEEDS consortium...... 2 1.1.3 The Integrated Project Research Streams harmonisation...... 5 1.1.4 Main Outputs of the Integrated Project...... 6 1.2 OVERVIEW OF THE RESULTS ACHIEVED BY THE PROJECT RESEARCH STREAMS...... 11 1.2.1 RS1a: Life cycle approaches to assess emerging energy technologies...... 11 1.2.2 RS1b: Development and improvement of a methodology to estimate external costs of energy...... 18 1.2.3 RS 1c: New Externalities Associated to the Extraction and Transport of Energy...... 26 1.2.4 RS 1d Extension of geographical coverage...... 33 1.2.5 RS 2a: Energy systems modelling and internalisation strategies, including scenarios building...... 39 1.2.6 RS2b: Energy technology roadmap and stakeholders perspective...... 48 1.2.7 RS3a Transferability and Generalisation...... 57 2 PART 2: DISSEMINATION AND USE...... 67
2.1 SECTION 1: - EXPLOITABLE KNOWLEDGE AND ITS USE...... 67 2.2 SECTION 2: - DISSEMINATION OF KNOWLEDGE...... 70 2.3 SECTION 3 - PUBLISHABLE RESULTS...... 73
1 1 PART 1: PROJECT EXECUTION
1.1 GENERAL OVERVIEW OF THE NEEDS PROJECT (OBJECTIVES, STRUCTURE AND OUTPUTS)
1.1.1 Objectives of the NEEDS Integrated Project The NEEDS IP addresses Priority 6.1 of the 6th RTD Framework Programme of the EU: Sustainable Energy Systems and, more specifically, Sub-priority 6.1.3.2.5: Socio-economic tools and concepts for energy strategy. The ultimate objective of NEEDS is to evaluate the full costs and benefits (i.e. direct + external) of energy policies and of future energy systems, both at the level of individual countries and for the enlarged EU as a whole. From the scientific and technological viewpoint, this entails major advancements in the current state of knowledge in the following main areas of: Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of energy technologies Monetary valuation of externalities associated to energy production, transport, conversion and use Integration of LCA and externalities information into policy formulation and scenario building
An additional, important goal is to increase awareness, acceptability and actual use of externality data in policy formulation, calling for dedicated efforts in assessing stakeholders perceptions, facilitating the access to usable externality data, disseminating and communicating results to all involved stakeholders.
1.1.2 The NEEDS consortium The consortium includes 66 partners (of which some 15% are SMEs), representing 26 Countries (12 EU Member States, 9 NAS, 3 Mediterranean Countries, and 2 Countries from other parts of the World). It presents a balanced mix of Universities, Research Institutions (both public and private), Industry, NGOs. Most leading institutions in the area of energy externalities research are represented. NEEDS is coordinated by the Italian research and consultancy firm ISIS (Istituto di Studi per l’Integrazione dei Sistemi - Rome, Italy – www.isis-it.com). Mr Andrea Ricci is the IP coordinator ([email protected]).
The list of the partners is shown at page 4.
2 The IP is built as a series of “streams”, each addressing a specific area of research. Innovation and S&T advancements lie both within each stream and in their overall integration. According to their specific objectives and area of research, the streams can be grouped in three main “blocks”. The first block corresponds to new developments, updating, enhancement of the current state of the art in the field of energy externalities and includes the following research streams (RS): 1a LCA of new energy technologies 1b New and improved methods to estimate the external costs of energy conversion 1c Externalities associated to the extraction and transport of energy 1d Extension of the geographical coverage of the current knowledge of energy externalities The second block addresses long term strategies and includes the two following streams: 2a Modelling internalisation strategies, including scenario building 2b Energy Technology Roadmap and Stakeholder Perspectives The third block focuses on providing input to policy making, dissemination and other communication issues, and includes the following two streams: 3a Transferability and generalisation 3b Dissemination/communication
As for the Integration Stream, it ensures that all interlinkages between research activities are fully recognised, their design continuously validated and enhanced, and their implementation appropriately carried out.
3 The IP management is ensured through a multi layered organisational structure, featuring (i) the IP Coordinator, (ii) the Project Management Committee (regrouping all Stream leaders), and (iii) 9 Stream Management Committees (regrouping all contractors involved in each stream)
List of participants of the NEEDS Integrated Project
1 ISIS 29 IFU 55 SEI 2 AEKI 30 IIASA 56 UA 3 AMBIENTE ITALIA 31 JSI 57 ELSAM 4 ARMINES 32 IMAA-CNR 58 TTU 5 AUTH 33 INE 59 UAB 7 CDER 34 INFM 60 UBATH 8 CEDRE 35 IOM 61 AGH 10 CEPE-ETH 36 JRC 62 UNWE 11 CESIi 37 KANLO 63 UPARIS 12 CHALMER'S TH 38 UNIHH 64 USTUTT 13 CIEMAT 39 KUL 65 VITO 14 CRES 40 EPT 66 VTT 15 CUEC 41 LEI 67 WUDES 16 DLR 42 CNRS/CIREDiii 68 SPOKiv 17 ECN 43 LUND 69 CESI RICERCA 18 ECONCEPT 44 MEERI 70 SWECOv 19 EDF 45 MET.NO 20 ENERO 46 UNEW 21 EPFL 47 UNINE 22 ESU 48 NREA i CESI Changed its name in CESI- Ricerca 23 FEEM 49 NTUA ii Withdrew in August 2006 24 FhG/ISIii 50 OME iii Withdrew in August 2007 25 GLOBE 51 POL TORINO iv New Partner from September 26 HELIO 52 PROFING 2006 27 SIU-IEM 53 PSI v Former name: ECO. ECO was 28 IFEU 54 RISOE purchased by SWECO in 2006
4 1.1.3 The Integrated Project Research Streams harmonisation A particular role within the IP is played by the Integration Stream. The Integration Stream is different from the other research streams in that its methodology must adapt to the various approaches used by the other streams, while ensuring that the entire project is coherent and faithful to its objectives. Generally speaking, the Integration Stream did not propose modifications of the methods and models used in the other streams, with some minor exceptions due to circumstances and by mutual agreement with the research streams. Rather, it aimed at organizing the flow of data coming from and feeding into the various streams, so as to guarantee that the coherence of the entire project and the achievement of the desired objectives are maintained. In so doing, the Integration Stream mission has been to identify and harmonize two kinds of data: the exogenous input data that are common to the various streams, and the endogenous data (i.e. outputs) from some streams that become inputs into other streams. The main “handle” to integration is thus the harmonization of the data flows (exogenous and endogenous to the project) that are common to the various streams. Figure 1 sketches the main blocks of the entire project and identifies the data links between them
SOCIO-ECONOMIC & ENVIRONMENTAL SCENARIOS + INITIAL TECHNICAL DATA (RS2a + RS1a + stakeholders)
EXTERNALITIES LIFE CYCLE DATA (RS1b, RS1c) TECHNOLOGY (RS1a) DATABASE (ALL STREAMS)
COHERENT ENERGY-TECHNOLOGY & TRADE PATHWAYS (RS2a)
OTHER INDICATORS, SOCIAL ACCEPTANCE, MCDA (RS2b)
Figure 1: Interactions between research streams
The “core” of the system is constituted by the RSs 1a, 1b - 1c -1d, and 2a. Each stream constitutes a separated analytical framework that has been integrated through the research and management activities carried out within the Integration Stream. In particular The Impact Pathway Approach (IPA), which calculates the monetary values of the external costs associated to the supply of electricity and heat based on the most relevant – both current and future - technological options (RS 1b for what concerns the core methodology, 1c for what concerns the external costs of the energy carriers
5 transportation and 1d for what concerns the extension of the IPA to the Eastern and Mediterranean countries); Life Cycle Analysis (LCA), which calculates “cradle to grave” energy, environment, material and economic resources used by the most relevant power supply options (RS 1a); The Integrated MARKAL- EFOM System (TIMES), which generates technology rich partial equilibrium solutions for the long term development of energy - environment systems (RS 2a); The Multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA), which allows examining the robustness of the proposed technological solutions in view of stakeholder preferences (RS 2b). Through the development of suitable new interfaces, a direct feedback between changes in the overall energy system and the life cycle inventories of specific technologies and impact evaluations has been ensured, whereby: The IPA provides LCA with the economic evaluation of damages related to main power supply options, whereas LCA adds to the IPA a “cradle to grave” assessment of resources depletion; The IPA feeds into the energy models detailed damage functions per emission / burden, whereas energy models provide equilibrium average commodities / technologies mix for improving the externalities calculations and energy system wide externalities for different policy scenarios: LCA feeds into the energy models detailed “cradle to grave” resources “costs” for power supply options, including learning ratios, whereas scenario dependent fuel mixes and technology markets are used to tune long term LCA of key technologies. This data harmonization results, among other things, in the constitution of a common technology database for the electricity generation sector, used as one input to the TIMES modelling work of stream 2a (see also the Part 2 of this report). This database includes all techno-economic data as well as data concerning LCA and externalities for the technologies concerned It is finally worth noting that the RS 1d has worked in close collaboration with the RS 3a that has provided generalised external cost figures to the Eastern and Mediterranean countries in order to better support them in their analysis. A final but not less important task of the Integration Stream has been to assess the project results in order to formulate general policy guidelines. The assessment of the wealth of outcomes generated by the IP, including the debates that took place within the three NEEDS Policy Workshops and the Final Conference, allowed to wrap up some policy conclusions on the relevance and usability of NEEDS. The conclusions have been analysed and structured in the Final Integrated Report.
1.1.4 Main Outputs of the Integrated Project The ultimate objective of the NEEDS project, that envisaged the evaluation of the full costs of future energy systems, has been achieved. The energy systems analysed in the project are those concerning the Electricity Power Generation technologies (EPG) including both the current and the future ones. For the traditional nuclear and fossil fuel technologies the project has mostly relied on the figures provided by the former ExternE projects while new and original impact and cost data have been generated for the following emerging electricity generation technologies (see the RS 1a output description at page 14): 6 Advance fossil fuel technologies: - coal related technologies - fossil gas related technologies - oil related technologies
- CO2 capture and sequestration Advanced nuclear Fuel cells Wind turbines (on – and off-shore): - electricity less windy areas - electricity more windy areas Photovoltaics (PV) Solar thermal power plants (CSP) Biomass energy technologies - biofuel production (wood chips, SRF) - conversion technologies (c.f. coal)
Achieving the main NEEDS objective has thus allowed the generation of two main sets of results: The production of future scenarios of optimal energy production mixes (see the RS outputs description at page 44) The possibility to compare different technological options either in terms of monetary evaluation of their social (i.e. internal plus external) costs carried out through an analytic bottom up methodology, or in terms of stakeholders preferences analysed through a Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (see respectively the 1b and 2b outputs description at page 22and 51) As briefly outlined in the previous paragraph, these results have been possible thanks to the research work carried out by the different Research Streams that have composed the NEEDS integrated project. Most of the results provided by the RSs are intermediary or propaedeutic to the final ones but, moreover, their intrinsic value must be recongnised per se, as most of them have either provided meaningful advancement in the LCA or Externalities or MCDA research fields or may been used as an autonomous product. Under this point of view a basic contribution to the final results achievements has been provided by the LCA work carried out by RS 1a. Beside providing a “cradle to grave” resource assessment and costs for power supply options into the energy models and the IPA framework, in NEEDS LCA has been further developed in a highly innovative direction, whereby processes have been analysed not only based on their present, known characteristics, but also in the perspective of their future evolution (time- and scenario-dependent). Moreover a complete LCI database containing the new technology data analysed, has been developed (see page 11) and made available on the web. The Monetary valuation of external costs, carried out along the IPA by RS 1b, 1c and 1d, has been notably enhanced with respect the former ExternE projects through the introduction of the biodiversity losses, the consideration of the soil pollution, an improved monetary valuation of the “years of lifetime lost” (see page 18) and finally through the assessment of the externalities
7 provided by the transport of the main traditional and future energy sources (oil, gas, electricity and hydrogen, see page 26). RS 1b has moreover developed and made available on line the EcoSenseWeb tool, to calculate the external costs caused by power plants or other sources of emissions (see also the second part of this report). Finally, RS 1d, in cooperation with RS 3a, has contributed to extend the monetary valuation of external costs to the Eastern and Mediterranean countries. In this framework, it is worth mentioning the contribution of RS 3a that, starting from the achievements of RS 1b, has developed a simple way of calculating, transferring and presenting the uncertainty of default values for average and aggregate external costs, that can be used for: i) energy modelling, ii) assessing different technologies and energy systems, iii) cost-benefit analyses, iv) green accounting, and iv) other policy advice. The Integrated MARKAL- EFOM System, developed by RS 2a (see page 39), provides one of the main outputs of the project through the identification of optimal energy mixes by modelling the interaction over time between technology characteristics, resource availability, technology costs (both private and external), prices, as well as a variety of policy dependent variables and constraints like capacities for building new power plants, emission caps, policy targets regarding renewable energy, etc. To this end, RS 2a developed a set of meaningful products worthy of note for their stand-alone importance also in other contexts: The reference technology database, that includes a fairly complete set of technologies adopted in all sectors of the economy, 30 TIMES European country models, and the Pan European TIMES model (see also the second part of this report) Finally, the MCDA approach (especially as applied in NEEDS, see page 48), besides allowing to compare the different technological options, has a much broader scope than LCA or External cost valuation. First, it accommodates the most essential LCA-results; second, it accommodates the dominant contributors to external costs (global warming and health effects); third, it treats various types of risks in an explicit manner; fourth, it accommodates social concerns (risks being one example) that partially cannot be treated based on natural sciences; fifth, it deals with practical policy relevant issues such as operational aspects and security of supply (though admittedly in a much simplified manner that could be further advanced) Before concluding this overview of the main NEEDS results, it is worthwhile adding some considerations on the strengths and weaknesses of the main 4 analytical frameworks of NEEDS. Although NEEDS can be considered a milestone in the externalities field of research, there still remain some knowledge gaps to be faced to achieve an even broader consensus on the methodological approaches used within the project. The table below summarises the main strengths and limitations of the 4 analytical frameworks developed and applied in NEEDS.
8 Strengths Limitations
LCA Complete account of inputs Uncertainties and outputs associated to long- Can accommodate time- and term dynamics of scenario-dependence private costs Provides fundamental input Indirect link to to external cost valuation decision making process External cost All results in one and the Cannot generate cost valuation same (monetary) unit values for non- Based on real damage costs quantifiable Can accommodate sensitivity externalities to critical parameters (value High sensitivity (and of life, costs of climate therefore uncertainty) change, etc.) to the dynamics of individual preferences (e.g. discount rate) Integrated energy Account for the complex Optimisation based on models interactions between all costs only major variables, constraints Risk of ‘black box’ and policy options perception Accommodates inputs from LCA and External costs valuation Identifies optimal energy mixes ‘automatically’ MCDA Accommodates inputs from Critical dependence LCA and External costs from the choice of valuation indicators and of their Explicit representation of weights risk and other social Does not provide ‘one concerns definite result’, but Provides an effective and rather patterns to be comprehensive platform for interpreted dialogue
It finally appears (and this was in fact one of the founding motivations of the NEEDS Integrated Project!) that none of the individual approaches can, alone, generate a straightforward ranking of energy technologies, while their combined use provides a variety of inputs that are directly relevant (and usable) to policy making. In summary: the fact that technology comparison methods are not capable to cover all the aspects of interest is not a valid argument for not using them; 9 technology comparison through social costs does not lead to an absolute ranking, but rather one that incorporates all quantifiable criteria; comparison based on social costs cannot substitute models that take into account a wider set of variables and constraints. On the other hand, the comparison of the average social costs of different technologies can be used to iteratively crosscheck the model results e.g. to ascertain whether the introduction of certain technologies can be considered ‘reasonable’; the differences of opinion about the use of total costs as an aggregated indicator of technology performance are nothing new. This has been one (among several) motivations behind the inclusion of MCDA in NEEDS, as an additional framework of assessment. The results well reflect these issues and the impact of factors not included in the total cost approach and emphasize the need of scientifically guided/supported discursive processes with stakeholder involvement; transparency in the presentation and explanation of the results of such a complex and multifaceted project as NEEDS is more important than full convergence, when one aims at building the trust of decision makers.
10 1.2 OVERVIEW OF THE RESULTS ACHIEVED BY THE PROJECT RESEARCH STREAMS
1.2.1 RS1a: Life cycle approaches to assess emerging energy technologies
1.2.1.1 General methodology and brief description of the work carried out by each WP Overall objective: The Research Stream provides data on costs and life cycle inventories for a wide range of key emerging energy technologies, with a focus on long term technical developments. Based on these results, in cooperation with RS1b technology specific external costs are quantified for future technology configurations.
Workpackage 1: Specification of interfaces to the assessment of externalities and energy modelling Life Cycle Assessment methodology and Life Cycle Inventory data need to be adapted in order to be useful as an input to energy externality quantification and energy system modelling. A guidance document was elaborated with respect to spatial and temporal resolution, proper system definition and drawing of boundaries, and definition of additional inventory parameters. Software interfaces are specified and an exchange format is developed in order to facilitate data exchange between the LCA and the energy modelling tools. Partners involved: ESU, DLR, PSI, USTUTT.ESA, IFU, KANLO, Main Deliverable: D1.2 Final specification of software interfaces, requirements and technical realisation of exchange formats
Workpackage 2: Technology Foresight in LCA A methodological framework for technology foresight in connection with LCA has been developed and the background for the method has been described. The method is structured in a general part and a part with individual support tools. The method is sufficiently flexible e.g. with respect to being usable for partners with different backgrounds and with respect to not obstruct the decisions on e.g. scenarios and LCA data formats made in the collaboration between RS1a and the other NEEDS research streams. Partners involved: RISOE, DLR, Ambit, Elsam and Ciemat Main Deliverable: D2.1 Final report on technology foresight methods
Workpackage 3: Methodological framework for future cost data An analytical framework is developed for the analysis of future cost development of new energy technologies. The focus is on technologies used to generate electricity, and the approach used is based on experience curves complemented with bottom-up studies of sources of cost reductions and, for some technologies, judgmental expert assessments on long-term development paths. The additional methods, which provide less aggregated and more detailed information on cost
11 development paths, will be used to critically evaluate the cost reduction path described by the experience curves. Partners involved: Lund University, RISOE, USTUTT Main Deliverable: D3.1 Cost development – an analysis based on experience curves
Workpackage 4: Development of parameterisation methods to derive transferable life cycle inventories The environmental performance of energy technologies may vary in space and time, while their main characteristics remain the same. In this workpackage, firstly, general aspects of an advanced parameterised LCA system are discussed. It is proposed that the connection of the LCA model to a Geographical Information System (GIS) should be considered because several spatial parameters can be treated systematically in a GIS software. A couple of explicit examples of parameters relevant for energy systems under the perspective of space-dependency, time-dependency and technology-dependency that could be implemented into an advanced LCA system are provided. For a number of advanced electricity generation technologies, overviews on important space- and time-dependent parameters are given. Partners involved: PSI Main Deliverable: D4.1 Technical guideline on parameterisation of life cycle inventory data
Workpackage 5: Database on life cycle inventories and cost data RS1a produced a unique LCA database covering a broad range of electricity generation technologies, providing LCA data for different future base years (2025, 2050), and for different technology development scenarios. To make the LCA data available to the public, a web-based database has been implemented that provide user friendly access to the full set of RS1a LCA results. Partners involved: ESU, ifu Main Deliverable: D5.2 LCA database
Workpackage 6: Quantification of technology specific external costs External costs for RS1a reference technologies are calculated. The calculation of external costs per unit electricity is based on the combination of the environmental interventions per kWh for each technology assessed (e.g. SO2-emissions per kWh, m2-land use per kWh, CO2-emissions per kWh) with the external costs per unit environmental interventions (e.g. Euro per tonne of SO2 emitted at a specific place). The environmental interventions are taken from the LCI database managed under WP5, the external costs per unit environmental intervention are a result from Stream 1b. Climate change external costs are particularly uncertain. A range of values was used for both climate change damage costs and avoidance costs. Depending on the underlying assumptions, climate change externalities dominate the external cost assessment. In spite of the remaining uncertainties related to the quantification of climate change related external costs, it seems to be a robust result that external costs of future low carbon energy technologies are relatively low compared to internal costs. Some sources of potential external costs (e.g. risks of nuclear 12 accidents, proliferation risks, impacts on marine ecosystems, long term effects of CO 2 storage, etc.) are not addressed. Partners involved: DLR, ESU, AMBIT, POLITO, EDF, PSI, DONG, IFEU, INE, SPOK Main Deliverable: D6.1 External costs from electricity generation for RS1a reference technologies
Workpackage 7-14, 16: Technical data, costs, and life cycle inventories of emerging electricity generation technologies Specification of future technology configurations: Based on the concept of developing three different technology development scenarios for each individual technology addressed by RS1a, technology configurations for each respective technology have been derived for different points in time (current, 2025, 2050), and under different socio-economic and energy-policy framing conditions. Key drivers influencing technology development are described. Following the requirements of RS2a, a set of key technical data has been compiled for each technology. Data has been critically discussed with RS2a to achieve a widely harmonised data base. Assessment of future costs based on experience curves: Based on WP3 results, cost estimates for the future technology configurations were derived, taking into account the different technology development scenarios for the respective individual technologies. Basic assumptions and resulting costs have been discussed in detail with RS2a to achieve a widely harmonised data base. LCA database: Based on the specification of future technology configurations, material inventories have been derived for all future configurations. Inventory data on the unit process level for each individual technology were processed by esu-services. Results are made publicly accessible via a web-based database. Partners involved: DLR, Ambiente Italia, CIEMAT, DLR, DONG Energy, EDF, esu-Services, ifeu, IFU, INE, KANLO, POLITO, PSI, University Stuttgart Main Deliverable: D7.2, D8.2, D9.2, D10.2, D11.2, D12.2, D13.2, D14.2, D16.1: Technical data, costs, and LCI inventories of the above mentioned RS1a reference technologies
Workpackage 15: Background processes Most LCAs carried out today rely on background databases containing LCI data that were compiled in the last few years. This can be viewed as a reasonable approach for assessments relating to today's situation. However, mixing LCI data from databases representing today’s situation with LCI data for systems and technologies that will only be realised in some decades can lead to results that do not well represent the environmental impact of the intended future situation. This is crucial for technologies with low or zero direct emissions such as photovoltaic, wind or solar thermal where improvements in the background data has a direct impact on their performance. In this workpackage, the environmental efficiency of the production of selected relevant commodities are adapted to a 2025 and 2050 situation based on extrapolating existing technologies. Partners involved: ESU, ifeu Main Deliverable: D15.2 LCA of background processes
13 1.2.1.2 Links and cooperation with other RSs in terms of main input/output data flow
Main cooperation with other Research Streams: - Provision of RS1a data on technical specification of future power plant configurations, costs, and life cycle inventories to RS2a as input to energy system modelling. Basic assumptions have been discussed in detail with RS2a to achieve a widely harmonised data base. - Provision of RS1a data on technical specification of future power plant configurations, costs, and life cycle inventories to RS2b as input to MCDA. - Provision of RS1a data on technical specification of future power plant configurations, costs, and life cycle inventories to RS1b for site specific external cost assessment.
1.2.1.3 Brief description of the main RS outputs It is a basic understanding in foresight studies that there is not just one possible future, but many. Dependent on how actors choose to act, different futures are possible, though of course not all of them will become reality. To cover a reasonable range of alternative future development options, we decided to set up three different technology development scenarios for each individual technology, which range from very limited deployment or even stagnation in a ‘pessimistic’ scenario to a high level of market penetration and innovation dynamics in the ‘technology breakthrough’ scenario. The individual technology scenarios are developed by combining a bottom-up technology oriented perspective with a top-down energy system perspective in an iterative way. The key driving forces which can help to activate diffusion factors and to overcome market barriers are identified. As an example, Table 1 provides a description of future configurations of off-shore wind turbines under different technology development scenarios. Table 1: Technology specification of future off-shore wind turbines under different technology development scenarios (Source: D10.2)
2050
‘pessimistic’ - 16 MW turbine, guyed foundation - Carbon fibre tower - 75% carbon fibre + 25% natural fibre blades - Gearbox upscale ‘realistic-optimistic’ - 24 MW turbine, floating foundation - Gearless turbine - Carbon fibre lattice tower - Co-existence with water turbine/wave generator; shared cables to shore ‘very optimistic’ - 32 MW turbine - Hydro-windturbine - Off-shore ‘energy landscape’
14 The assessment of future costs is based on experience curves (Table 2Table 2) accompanied by complementary foresight methods. In addition to experience curves a bottom-up approach is used, describing different sources of cost reduction, leading to cost estimates in a mid-term time perspective. Interviews with experts from both academia and industry were used to envision long- term alternative cost development paths. The environmental performance of the emerging technologies is assessed based on a detailed life cycle assessment (LCA), including all process from material supply, component manufacturing, and power plant construction, operation and dismantling. The main intention of our work is to highlight the implication of technical innovation on the environmental performance of emerging energy technologies. As standard LCA basically is a static approach, the dynamics of ‘environmental learning’ are often neglected, so that the potential of new technologies to contribute to the reduction of environmental pressure is often underestimated. Figure 1 exemplarily shows detailed CO2 life cycle emissions of various future PV-technologies, while Figure 2 shows current and future CO2 life cycle emissions for all RS1a reference technologies.
Table 2: Experience curves for emerging electricity generation technologies (Source: D3.1)
Technologies Progress ratio (%) Sensitivity range (%)
Advance fossil fuel technologies - coal related technologies 95 93-97 - fossil gas related technologies (€/kW) 90 85-95 - oil related technologies (€/kW) 100 -
- CO2 capture and sequestration (€/kW) 100 -
Advanced nuclear (€/kW) 100 95-105
Fuel cells (€/kW) 80 75-90
Wind turbines (on – and off-shore) (€/kW) 90 88-92 - electricity less windy areas (c€/kWh) 85 - electricity more windy areas (c€/kWh) 80
Photovoltaics (PV) 80 70-85
Solar thermal power plants (CSP) 88 83-93
Biomass energy technologies - biofuel production (wood chips, SRF) 85 80-90 - conversion technologies (c.f. coal) 95 90-100
15 present 2025 2050 40 33.0 35
h 30 W
k 25
/
2 20 O
C 12.3 13.7 15 g 8.2 10 4.6 3.0 5 0 single c-Si ribbon CdTe c-Si ribbon CdTe Concentrator crystalline GaInP/GaAs Figure 2: Life cycle CO2 emissions of future PV configurations (southern Europe, 1800 kWh/m²/a, integrated tilted roof, south-oriented)
800 today 2050 700 600 500 h W k / 400 g 300 200 100 0
Figure 3: Life cycle CO2 emissions for current and future technologies (optimistic-realistic technology scenario)
External costs for RS1a reference technologies are calculated by combining the environmental interventions per kWh for each technology from the RS1a LCI database (e.g. SO2-emissions per
16 kWh, m2-land use per kWh, CO2-emissions per kWh) with the external costs per unit environmental interventions (e.g. Euro per tonne of SO2 emitted at a specific place) from RS1b.
Table 3: Quantifiable external costs for future electricity generation technologies (2050 technology configurations; optimistic-realistic technology scenario), in ct/kWh
coal coal wind PV CSP biomass nuclear ocean CCS health impacts 0.90 0.72 0.03 0.04 0.07 1.35 0.05 0.05 Biodiversity 0.07 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.15 0.003 0.00 crop yield losses 0.03 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.001 0.00 material damage 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.001 0.00 land use 0.04 0.05 n.a. n.a. 0.01 0.85 0.002 0.00 sub-total 1.06 0.87 0.03 0.04 0.09 2.45 0.05 0.06 Climate change damage costs low 0.38 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.07 0.002 0.00 damage costs high 3.9 0.88 0.01 0.03 0.21 0.66 0.02 0.04 abatement costs low 4.9 0.21 0.02 0.04 0.08 0.10 0.03 0.06 abatement costs high 12.1 0.52 0.04 0.09 0.21 0.26 0.07 0.15 Other externalities ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
17 1.2.2 RS1b: Development and improvement of a methodology to estimate external costs of energy
1.2.2.1 General methodology and brief description of the work carried out by each WP The RS1b (RS leader USTUTT.TFU) on “Development and improvement of a methodology to estimate external costs of energy conversion” had the task to update and improve the ExternE methodology. This has been done along the Impact Pathway Approach. The ExternE methodology (External costs of Energy (European Commission, 2005) and (ExternE Homepage)) provides a framework for transforming impacts that are expressed in different units
(e.g. global warming [CO2eq], human health impacts like “years of life lost” (YOLL) or “number of chronic bronchitis”, or damage to the biodiversity due to acidification) into a common unit, namely monetary values. It has the following principal stages: 1) Definition of the activity to be assessed and the background scenario where the activity is embedded; definition of the important impact categories and externalities. 2) Estimation of the impacts or effects of the activity (in physical units). The impacts are the difference between the impacts of the scenarios with and without the activity of interests. This is important if non-linear effects are taken into account and in order to calculate marginal impacts. Atmospheric dispersion and environmental fate modelling are necessary in order to allocate impacts to certain sources of emission. 3) Monetisation of the impacts, leading to external costs. 4) Assessment of uncertainties and sensitivity analysis. 5) Analysis of the results and drawing of conclusions.
The assessment of impacts is done via application of the Impact Pathway Approach (IPA). The IPA is used to quantify environmental impacts as defined above. The principal steps are illustrated in Figure 4.
18 S O U R C E - Emission: specification of the relevant ( s p e c i f i c a t i o n o f s i t e a n d t e c h n o l o g y ) e m i s s i o n technologies and pollutants, e.g. kg of oxides ( e . g . , k g / y r o f p a r t i c u l a t e s ) of nitrogen (NOx) per kWhel emitted by a power plant at a specific site.
D I S P E R S I O N - Dispersion: calculation of increased primary ( e . g . a t m o s p h e r i c d i s p e r s i o n m o d e l ) i n c r e a s e i n c o n c e n t r a t i o n and secondary pollutant concentrations in all at receptor sites ( e . g . , µ g / m 3 o f p a r t i c u l a t e s affected regions.. with special attention to i n a l l a f f e c t e d r e g i o n s ) energy sector
D o s e -
T R e s p o n s e C
D O S E - R E S P O N S E F U N C T I O N A F u n c t i o n - Impact: calculation of the cumulated P
( o r c o n c e n t r a t i o n - r e s p o n s e f u n c t i o n ) M I i m p a c t exposure from the increased concentration, ( e . g . , c a s e s o f a s t h m a d u e t o a m b i e n t c o n c e n t r a t i o n o f p a r t i c u l a t e s ) followed by calculation of impacts (damage in DOSE physical units) due to this exposure using concentration-response functions, e.g. cases M O N E T A R Y V A L U A T I O N
c o s t of asthma due to increase in O3. ( e . g . , c o s t o f a s t h m a ) - Cost: valuation of impacts in monetary terms, e.g. multiplication by the monetary value of a case of asthma.
Figure 4: The principal steps of an impact pathway analysis, for the example of air pollution
The estimation of external costs incorporates input from different scientific disciplines. The improvements are archived due to different strategies: On the one hand, uncertainties are reduced by new and more reliable insights. On the other hand, the accounting framework is extended to also cover new substances, geographical extensions, new pathways and new impact categories. Considerable progress and improvements of different methods could be achieved within NEEDS. The rollout of the parameterised version of integrated assessment system EcoSense, the online software tool EcoSenseWeb, and the process of implementing the new or improved methods into EcoSenseWeb led to major advantages regarding the dissemination and maintenance of the methodology to calculate external costs. Feedback to the user can be provided and calculations can be recapitulated. Hence, training is possible and therefore, the misunderstanding and misinterpretation of results has been reduced, i.e. the online tool is applicable by a broader community than the standalone version. New and improved methodologies have been provided by the partners of each Work Package. These are summarised in the following.
WP1 “Improvement of Atmospheric Modelling“. WP leader: MET.NO
19 Partners: USTUTT.TFU, EdF, AUTH
The main objective is to substantially improve the modelling of transport and chemical transformation of pollutants emitted in the atmosphere normally used for estimating external costs by coupling northern hemispheric, regional and local scale approaches. This improves the reliability of the results and a geographic extension. Implementation of the new Source Receptor Matrices (SRM) for dispersion modelling and modules for local scale dispersion modelling in EcoSenseWeb. The SRM and the modules are descript in corresponding reports for the Northern Hemisphere (Wind, 2006), for the European scale (Tarrasón, 2009)including specific treatment of energy sources and for the local scale (Douros et al., 2007).
WP2 “Impact Pathway Analysis via Soil and Water”. WP leader: USTUTT.TFU Partners: Armines, EPFL
The main objective was the improvement of the indirect exposure assessment of the impact pathway approach with respect to biotransfer in biota, the inclusion of trade of food, consumption of fish from high sea catches as well as the extension of the impact pathway approach with respect to indirect exposure to hazardous substances that are not yet included in the methodology. Methodological improvements for the assessment of external costs due to indirect human exposure through ingestion (of heavy metals) and due to ingestion of further substances so far unaddressed are described in (Bachmann et al., 2008). The parameterised results of the indirect exposure assessment of heavy metals, which were implemented in EcoSenseWeb and RiskPoll (Rabl and Spadaro) are described in (Fantke, 2008) and (Spadaro and Rabl, 2008b).
WP3 “Causal links between pollutants and health impacts”. WP leader: VITO Partners: IOM, Armines/Ecole des Mines The main objective was to provide models for the quantification of health effects from air pollution. Moreover, a review on the importance of health effects due to indoor combustion sources has been performed. A state of the art model for the quantification of health effects that incorporates up-to-date results from epidemiology and toxicology, and best current thinking about those results, for use in NEEDS has been summarised in (Torfs et al., 2007)
WP4 “Assessment of Biodiversity Losses”. WP leader: ECONCEPT Partners: ESU, SWECO The main objectives were to further develop methodology for estimating external costs of biodiversity losses. External cost values for different countries per potentially disappeared fraction (PDF) have been derived. Moreover, a methodology for estimating PDF due to acidification and eutrophication because of deposition of S and N has been provided and described in (Ott et al., 2006).
20 WP5 “Assessment of Climate Change“. WP leader: UniHH Partners: David Anthoff The main objective was to provide state-of-the-art marginal external costs of greenhouse gas emissions (CO2, CH4, N2O, SF6, PFCs, HCFs) and to revise average and marginal avoidance costs of greenhouse gas emissions (CO2, CH4, N2O,), with a particular emphasis on European land use. First results have been reported in technical papers (Tol, 2006). Moreover, as a revision of marginal damage cost and update of the FUND model a further deliverable (Anthoff, 2007) provides marginal damage costs describing the methodology of damage assessment with FUND 3.0 in more detail and results for different key value choices like equity weighting and discounting have been reported.
WP6 “New approaches for valuation of mortality and morbidity risks due to pollution” .WP leader: UParis Partners: UAB, Ubath, ARMINES, UNEW, UNINE, SIUIEM, CUEC, WUDES, EdF and E-CO The main objective was to consolidate and provide new, more realistic and reliable monetary values for the most important human health impacts, i.e. “years of life lost” (YOLL) and “chronic bronchitis”.
Development and application of a questionnaire designed to impacts due to air pollution. The results of a new contingent valuation (CV) questionnaire that has been applied in 9 countries: France, Spain, UK, Denmark, Germany, Switzerland, Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland (the total sample size is 1463 person) have been analysed and described in (Desaigues et al., 2007). The new value of a life year lost due to pollution is 40,000 € for EU25.
WP7 “Improvement of Methodology and Tools for the Impact Pathway Assessment, Application and Quality Assessment”. WP leader: USTUTT.TFU Partners: ARMINES, VITO, AUTH, UBATH The main objective were Geographical extension of the software tool Implementation of new and updated data from all work packages and other research streams, mainly Rs1d. Methodology for the assessment of the quality and consistency of results, Report on the methodology for the consideration of uncertainties – (Spadaro and Rabl, 2007) and (Spadaro and Rabl, 2008a) Methodology for the implementation of the precautionary principle in external costs estimations in (Rabl, 2006) Provision of tools for the detailed site-dependent assessment of external costs described in (Preiss and Klotz, 2008) Application of the EcoSenseWeb for selected countries and technologies (Preiss et al., 2009) and to derive generalised values such as Euro per tonne of emission (Preiss et al., 2008).
WP8 “Methodology for linking external cost estimation with economy / energy / environmental models and with LCA data“. WP leader: KUL 21 Partners: USTUTT.TFU, USTUTT.ESA, IMAACNR The main objective was to development and description of a methodology for linking external cost estimation with economy/energy/environmental models and with LCA data. An interface between external cost computation and different types of models and its implementation into the energy system model Interface between external cost computation and LCA approach and data The design of the energy system model integrating this modelling framework to be used in policy scenarios Application of the developed model to a local and a multi national policy question to evaluate the methodology defined. These have been described in (Regemorter, 2006), (Regemorter, 2009) and (Regemorter et al., 2009).
1.2.2.2 Links and cooperation with other Research Streams in terms of main input/output data flow
Main linkages of Rs1b were firstly, directly with Rs1d with regard to the geographical extension of the assessment area, implementation of new data and by application of the methodology within Rs1d in “New Member Countries” and North African countries. Secondly, in Rs3a the EcoSenseWeb tool was used in order to derive “generalised values”, i.e. Euro per tonne of release in each European country. Basically, this means external cost values per tonne of release of a pollutant in different locations (i.e. countries) but impacts in the whole receptor area. These values then have been applied in Rs1a, Rs1c, Rs1d, Rs2a and Rs2b.
1.2.2.3 Brief description of the main RS outputs The main outputs from Rs1b are the main results of each work package as they are listed below. These are mainly data, models and values which have been implemented into the EcoSenseWeb tool. However, most of the data can also be used directly for example, by researchers outside of NEEDS. WP1: The source receptor matrices (SRM) for hemispheric and European scale are available at MET.NO. The “meteorology generator” (to derive meteorological data which is input to the ISC local scale model), and the “complexity tool” (which provides a distinction of local area into “complex” or “non-complex” area) is in principle also available from AUTH. WP2 and WP3: have gathered or developed sets of concentration-response functions regarding impacts on human health which can be applied in other models, too. Secondly, for some heavy metals generalised values as Euro per tonne (partly country specific) have been derived. WP4: External cost values for different countries per potentially disappeared fraction of biodiversity (PDF) have been derived. Moreover, a methodology for estimating PDF due to acidification and eutrophication because of deposition of S and N has been provided and described. WP5: Monetary values for the valuation of greenhouse gas emissions have been provided.
22 WP6: Monetary values for the valuation of “years of lifetime lost” YOLL in Eu16, “New Member Countries” and EU25 (“EU26”, including Switzerland), and consolidation of the monetary value used for the valuation of “new cases of chronic bronchitis” have been provided. WP7: Main outcome is EcoSenseWeb tool itself (Figure 5). This is available at http://EcoSenseWeb.ier.uni-stuttgart.de and the reports regarding uncertainty and precautionary principle.
Figure 5: Homepage and interface of the EcoSenseWeb online tool
Interested people can get an overview of the ExternE methodology, the basic principles of the IPA and examples of the application of EcoSenseWeb. Moreover, after registration users can login and perform own calculations. The tool is as far as possible, self explaining which has been supported via mouseover-functionality and corresponding text. In addition, all important reports concerning the methodology and results of NEEDS are also available. The approach and the functionality is also described in the user manual (Preiss and Klotz, 2008) Within WP7, reports regarding the quantification of uncertainties and implementation of the precautionary principle have been provided. Finally, results of the application of the tool for a number of innovative energy technologies and different locations within member countries of the current EU have been reported in TP 7.2. (Preiss et al., 2009). As an example, the external costs for a selection of NEEDS technologies are shown in Figure 6 and Figure 7. The external costs are based on LCI data corresponding to the “440ppm” and “Realistic / Optimistic” scenario (RO) provided by Rs1a (Frischknecht, 2008). Regarding the valuation of greenhouse gases (GHG) results from WP5 and discussion among all research stream leaders led to the following recommendations listed in Table 4.
23 Table 4: Recommended marginal external costs of GHG
[Euro2005 per tonne emission of CO2eq.]
Year 2010 2025 2050
Scen I 23.5 51 198
Scen II 23.5 32 77
The technologies are ranked according to the total external costs based on the GHG valuation “Scenario II”, i.e. the lower, more realistic external costs regarding greenhouse gas emissions. It becomes quite obvious that the external costs of fossil fuelled technologies are dominated by the costs of GHG (mainly CO2). However, it is also shown that the combustion technology regarding biomass has very high external costs due to main air pollutants by valuing the impacts on human health. The external costs of solar thermal, PV, wave and tidal, wind off-shore and nuclear power are all very small.
6 GHG_high GHG
] 5 Land Use h Human Health other W
k Crops Material BioDiversity
r 4 Human Health main air pollut e p
0 0 0
2 3 t n e C - 2 o r u E [ 1
0
Figure 6: External costs in 2025 (RO1) operation in Germany (except of Solar thermal and PV South) (risk aversion, terrorism and visual intrusion not included)
In 2050 the LCI data of the different technologies are in general lower than in 2025. However, it is assumed that the monetary values of impacts on human health and on biodiversity are increasing with increasing willingness to pay (WTP) to avoid these impacts. It is assumed that the WTP increases proportionally (corrected by a factor of 0.85 for the income elasticity) with the rate of
1 RO: Realistic – Optimistic Scenario 24 economic growth (which is assumed to be ca. 2% per year till 2030 and 1% per year from 2031 till 2050).
16
14 GHG_high
] GHG h 12 Land Use W
k Human Health other
r
e 10 Crops Material BioDiversity p
Human Health main air pollut 0 0 0
2 8 t n e
C 6 - o r
u 4 E [ 2
0
Figure 7: External costs in 2050 (RO) operation in Germany (except of Solar thermal and PV South) (risk aversion, terrorism and visual intrusion not included) The technologies shown in Figure 7 are again ranked according to the total external costs based on the Scenario II, i.e. the lower, more realistic external costs regarding greenhouse gas emissions. In the future, the external costs of fossil fuelled plants are even more dominated by GHG emissions. The technologies including CCS cause considerable external costs due to the emission of GHG. A further main output and link to other research streams are the generalised values derived with EcoSenseWeb in Rs3a. Some example values for different countries are shown in Figure 8. Values for all countries and different conditions are provided together with (Preiss et al., 2008).
25 80,000
70,000 PPM2.5 ] e n
n 60,000 NMVOC o T
r NOX e
p 50,000
o SO2 r u E
[ 40,000
s t s o
c 30,000
l a n r
e 20,000 t x E 10,000
0 I L L 7 L T Z T T Y E E S A S K K E E E S R R R U R D O G F I I 2 T A L P P A B E S E S B T C F U U D E B H O R N G A U B N M E
Figure 8: External costs in 2025 average per tonne of emission from all sectors in selected countries and
average for the Eu27 [Euro2000]
1.2.3 RS 1c: New Externalities Associated to the Extraction and Transport of Energy
1.2.3.1 General methodology and brief description of the work carried out by each WP RS1c partners included OME (Leader), FEEM, VITO, POLITO, ARMINES, SWECO, CEDRE, and NTUA. The objective of RS1c was to assess the externalities associated with the extraction of oil and gas, as well as transport of oil, gas, electricity and hydrogen. These issues are analysed separately in a work package for each of those fuels. The methodology followed in RS1c is the general impact pathway methodology with risk analysis assessing for each stage of the fuel cycle the activities, for each activity the burdens, for each burden the impact, and for each impact the economic valuation. Assessment of externalities concerning extraction and transport of oil and gas were assessed in WP1 and WP2 respectively. In those work packages the first task was to assess present and future supply sources to satisfy EU oil and gas imports, and flows and routes (pipelines and tankers) from producing areas to Europe under three sets of scenarios (high, low, reference) (Technical Reports 1.1-1.2 and 2.1-2.2). Since a special focus is given to oil spills which, when they occur, produce very high and large scale damages and costs, the most critical passages on the maritime oil routes to supply Europe (Technical Report 1.3) as well as risk reduction potential due to new technology and regulation (Technical Report 1.4) were analysed.
26 Later on burdens (Technical Report 1.5) and impact on the environment, health, economy and socio-economy from oil transport (maritime and pipeline) and oil extraction (Technical Reports 1.6a-1.6b) were determined. Similar is done for gas (Technical Report 2.3). In order to be able to integrate the potential externalities due to major accidents, i.e. the “probabilistic externalities” as well as elements linked to risk aversion an innovative methodology was developed (Technical Report 1.7a) and applied (Technical Report 1.7b). Finally a comprehensive evaluation of the external costs (for each pollutant) associated with importing oil/gas into Europe, by taking into account of burdens, environmental and socio-economic impacts along the different routes, for operational (caused by day to day operations) and accidental(probabilistic) externalities are provided under three sets of scenarios mentioned above. Results for total external costs in terms of GHG costs and non-GHG costs for per ton of oil/gas produced and transported to EU are provided in Technical Reports 1.8 and 2.3-2.6.
In Work Package 3, burdens, impacts and valuation of electricity transmission together with externalities assessments on case studies are examined (Technical Paper 3.1-3.4).
Work Package 4 started with an analysis of the present transport schemes for hydrogen and other energy vectors (Technical Report 4.1). After discussing the future penetration of hydrogen (Technical Report 4.2), quantitative and qualitative burdens associated to hydrogen (and other energy carriers) transport are examined (Technical Report 4.3). Moreover, a technical analysis on the simultaneous transmission of chemical and electric power over long distances is provided (Technical Report 4.3a). The following burdens due to normal operations are considered for external cost calculations: trucks (gaseous & liquid) according to different emission reduction standards defined by European standards Euro 1-3-4-5; pipelines and ships (large oceanic, fuelled only with H2). Liquefaction considered as part of the transportation phase. The developed model evaluates marginal damage cost and marginal abatement cost. Impacts as well as estimates of the externalities associated to Hydrogen transport to the EU are given in Technical Report 4.4+4.6. Additional potential externalities due to accidents in the hydrogen chain are detailed in Technical Report 4.5. Uncertainties arise mainly from the transfer of dispersion calculations, exposure-response functions, of monetary values and of technologies. A detailed examination of the uncertainties of each of the steps of the impact pathway analysis is performed in WP5. The available input data have been examined to estimate standard deviation and shape of the probability distribution of their uncertainties. The component uncertainties are then combined to obtain to uncertainty of the damage cost. Review and overall assessment of the estimates obtained in above mentioned work packages (for oil, gas, electricity and hydrogen) and of their transferability (Technical Report 5.1). To examine the transferability of the results to other regions, a value transfer methodology (to value the external costs to ecosystems and tourism of transportation of oil in the Mediterranean) is developed and applied in Technical Report 5.2.
1.2.3.2 Links and cooperation with other RSs in terms of main input/output data flow Data on LCA and cost of new technologies are obtained from RS1a and final outputs are communicated to RS1b.
27 1.2.3.3 Brief description of the main RS outputs
Also for the RS 1c the main outputs are those provided by the WPs in which the stream has been structured.
WP1: Externalities concerning extraction and transport of oil The bulk of external costs are caused by operational externalities of oil extraction, followed by oil tankers’ operational externalities. Probabilistic externalities and those deriving from pipeline transport have very limited impacts on the overall assessment. Results depend crucially on the unit externality values used for extraction. More accurate LCA data for pipelines would have resulted into higher (but not too high) external costs. The resulting total external costs seem quite low, ranging from 2.32 Euro per ton in 2030 in the Low demand scenarios to 2.60 Euro in 2010 in the High demand scenario. Externalities due to pipeline transport are the main driver of the difference, as maintenance standards of Russian pipelines are assumed to close the gap with European standards after 2010. Assuming that no improvements in the maintenance standards of Russian pipelines take place, the overall external costs in 2030 would reach 3.05 Euro in the Low demand scenario, and 3.25 Euro in the High demand scenario. To put things in perspective: Average direct cost of bringing oil to Europe is ~ 7.5 €/b (or 55 €/t). Thus externalities represent about 5% of direct cost and about 1 % of today’s prices
28 Table 5 External costs of oil extraction and transport. high demand scenario. €/t
Tanker Total Total Extraction Non-GHG Total 2010 High Transport Accident GHG costs emissions Externalities costs Externalities Externalities Extrernalities costs
To Atlantic Ports 1,39 0,48 0,013 1,16 0,71 1,87 1,89 To Mediterranenan Ports 1,39 0,41 0,011 1,10 0,70 1,81 1,82 Total EU 1,39 0,45 0,012 1,14 0,71 1,85 1,86 Pipeline 0,00 0,74 0,74 0,74 Total Externalities 1,39 1,19 0,01 1,14 1,44 2,58 2,60
Tanker Total Total Extraction Non-GHG Total 2020 High Transport Accident GHG costs emissions Externalities costs Externalities Externalities Extrernalities costs
To Atlantic Ports 1,72 0,67 0,014 1,50 0,89 2,39 2,41 To Mediterranenan Ports 1,73 0,48 0,007 1,34 0,87 2,20 2,21 Total EU 1,72 0,59 0,011 1,44 0,88 2,32 2,33 Pipeline 0,000 0,035 0,035 0,035 Total Externalities 1,72 0,63 0,01 1,44 0,91 2,35 2,37
Tanker Total Total Extraction Non-GHG Total 2030 High Transport Accident GHG costs emissions Externalities costs Externalities Externalities Extrernalities costs
To Atlantic Ports 1,83 0,72 0,013 1,69 0,86 2,55 2,57 To Mediterranenan Ports 1,84 0,47 0,006 1,47 0,84 2,31 2,31 Total EU 1,83 0,63 0,010 1,61 0,85 2,46 2,47 Pipeline 0,00 0,04 0,04 0,04 Total Externalities 1,83 0,66 0,01 1,61 0,89 2,49 2,51
Bringing oil to Europe is not the most noxious phase of the oil life cycle, as actually using oil as a fuel brings about, on average, much more serious consequences for the environment and for human health. However, transporting oil to Europe is an activity which brings about a non negligible probability of causing very high local damages. The fact that these probabilistic externalities account for a very small fraction of the total external cost of oil transport, once weighted for their occurrence probabilities and the volume of oil transported, by no means should be used as a justification for relaxing pollution prevention and remediation standards in European waters. In fact, the impact on local populations affected can be very substantial.
WP2: Externalities concerning extraction and transport of gas Complete assessment of probabilistic externalities could not be performed due to lack of data. Very few recorded accidents in LNG facilities and non-existence of accidents in LNG transport combined with very high safety standards make it impossible to extract any probability distribution. However, available information suggests that they are small (see Table 6).
Table 6 Overall external costs (Euro per ton) from natural gas extraction and transport. Base year and projections to 2010, 2020 and 2030 under reference, low demand and high demand scenarios
29 Operational externalities are present, but since the sulphur and particulate content of natural gas is negligible, their importance in terms of impacts human health, biodiversity and human activities is much lower than oil. GHG-related externalities are more substantial, especially where fugitive emissions of natural gas are high (e.g. the Russian pipelines); however the current trend of improving standards prompt hopes that also these impacts will be substantially reduced in the coming years. Nevertheless, externalities related to the natural gas chain are not negligible, but still relatively quite small, and slightly declining in the coming decades. Overall externality values which range between 0.32 Euro per ton of natural gas transported to Europe in 2020 in the Low demand scenario and 1.71 Euro per ton of natural gas transported to Europe in the base year (2004).
WP3: External cost of transmission of electricity The private cost of transmissions losses is internalized in the electricity price, and therefore the external cost is simply the external cost of the average electricity that is produced and transmitted. External costs are very low per MWh electricity produced, and vary from 0.1% to 9% of external costs of electricity production for Belgium. External costs for average grid (based on 30 year life time) are estimated to be in the range of 0.03 to 1.66 euro per MWh. Due the availability of data, calculations refer to Belgium (sometimes Flanders). Electromagnetic fields impact on leukemia is uncertain but it is unlikely to be important. Visual intrusion can be important, although valuation is very uncertain and incomplete. Transmission losses can also be important. Impacts can be important especially in urban areas. Due the availability of data, some calculations refer to Belgium (sometimes Flanders, Table 7).
Table 7 External costs of transmission per kWh
30 as % of external external costs costs of impact categories average grid €/MWh production* Visual intrusion (lower values houses) 0.005 - 1.5 visual intrusion non-urban area ? electro magnetic fields, leukemia children 0 - 0.1 emissions of material use and construction 0.01 - 0.03 (C02, NOX, SO2, NH3, PM, VOC ) biodiversity and land use for construction and infrastucture 0.01 - 0.03 (eco indicator and valuation from NEEDS) SUBTOTAL 0.03 - 1.66 0.1 % - 9.2 % Losses transmission (external costs only) 0.45 - 0.9² TOTAL incl transmission lossess 0.48 - 2.56 2.6 % - 14.2 % ² includes losses in distribution * Reference: 18 €/MWH external costs production mix BE
impact categories external costs k€/ km line Cable average max, urban area Visual intrusion (lower values houses) 40 11000 ng visual intrusion non-urban area ? electro magnetic fields, leukemia children 9 416 na emissions of material use and construction 7.8 7.8 5.6 (C02, NOX, SO2, NH3, PM, VOC ) biodiversity and land use for construction and infrastucture 7.4 7.4 20 (eco indicator and valuation from NEEDS) SUBTOTAL 64 11 431 26 referentie: interne investeringskost 400 400 > 400 visual: max includes both high impacts (9 %), urban area, more expensive houses
The impacts of EMF - although uncertain - can be as high as the private costs for a km overhead lines. External costs for land use are higher for cables.
WP4: External costs of transportation of hydrogen
Marginal damage and abatement costs of air pollutants per kWh of gaseous hydrogen transported with trucks are of the 10-4 euro/kwh order of magnitude.
Table 8 Marginal damage cost of air pollutants per kWh of gaseous hydrogen transported with tube trailers operating according to different emission reductions standards [Euro/kWh]
Impact Categories (all countries)
EURO Human Human Crops Materia Total regulations ls Health Health (Rounde Mortality Morbidity d)
min 1,90•10-4 1,45•10-4 1,69•1 6,06•1 3,58•10- Euro1 0-5 0-6 4 max 2,30•10-4 1,74•10-4 1,92•1 7,31•1 4,31•10- 0-5 0-6 4 min 1,13•10-4 8,56•10-5 1,21•1 3,53•1 2,14•10- Euro3 0-5 0-6 4 max 1,36•10-4 1,03•10-4 1,34•1 4,25•1 2,57•10- 0-5 0-6 4 Euro4 min 7,00•10-5 5,70•10-5 1,07•1 2,74•1 1,40•10- 0-5 0-6 4 31 max 8,42•10-5 6,83•10-5 1,16•1 3,31•1 1,68•10- 0-5 0-6 4 min 4,70•10-5 3,67•10-5 8,45•1 1,57•1 9,34•10- Euro5 0-6 0-6 5 max 5,64•10-5 4,39•10-5 8,97•1 1,90•1 1,11•10- 0-6 0-6 4
Marginal abatement cost of GHG emissions [€ /kWh] min max -4 -4 Euro1 1,01•10 1,22•10 -4 -4 Euro3 1,01•10 1,22•10 -4 -4 Euro4 1,00•10 1,21•10 -4 -4 Euro5 1,00•10 1,21•10
Externalities due to transportation of liquid hydrogen (predominantly in the countryside) are lower. While the trip for transporting liquid hydrogen is longer, the number of trips per year is lower and the total number of km run in one year by the considered truck is more or less the same as those run by a truck transporting gaseous hydrogen. Besides, the impact on an urban area is heavier than that in the rural environment: as a consequence, externalities due to transportation of liquid hydrogen (predominantly in the countryside) are lower. External costs are of the 10-5 euro/kWh order of magnitude. For transport by ship the H2 is liquefied and the external costs of pollution are negligible because the engines of the ship are fuelled by H2. The marginal abatement cost due to the transportation of liquid hydrogen by ship is 1.5 10-5 Euro/kWh. In case of liquefaction, marginal abatement cost is 1.74 10-3 €/kWh and marginal damage cost is 1.19 10-3 €/kWh. Externalities due to accidents are very variable due to the large range of risk values calculated for each accidental event. However, they are generally very low except for the cases when the potentially affected people are numerous. Highest cost might be caused by accident with a cryogenic ship (order of 10-6 €/kWh) when potentially affected people are numerous (compared to the most common transportation means, pipelines and trucks for compressed hydrogen)
WP5: Uncertainties of estimates and their transferability For external costs based on LCA inventories the uncertainties are significantly larger than those of the external cost per kg of pollutant because of the uncertainties of LCA databases (especially when applied to scenarios of the future). Uncertainties arise mainly from the transfer of dispersion calculations, exposure-response functions, of monetary values and of technologies (more correctly, the characteristics of the technologies used in other regions or countries, especially the use of pollution abatement). Average transfer errors are in the same order of magnitude as we generally find in international value transfer studies (± 25-40%). This is acceptable transfer errors in most cost-benefit analyses and external costing exercises
32 1.2.4 RS 1d Extension of geographical coverage
1.2.4.1 General methodology and brief description of the work carried out by each WP The main objective of the Research Stream 1d is to extend the geographical coverage of the ExternE method implementation in New EU Member States (Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Poland, and Slovakia), and in some of the North African Countries (Egypt, Morocco, Tunisia). Specifically, the project aims at quantifying the external costs associated with energy generation by the most recently updated ExternE method, particularly by using the extended and revised EcoSenseWeb software tool2. Following the Impact Pathway Approach in combination with the Life Cycle Assessment, the stream aims at an assessment of damage associated with energy generation in recent reference technologies, mostly combusting fossil fuels of various kind3. Due to the fact that valuation of very site-specific impacts attributable to other renewables was beyond the scope of this stream, the stream focused on the impact assessment of renewable energy represented by (co-)burning of biomass only. However, beyond the original plan, the impacts of nuclear power plants in three CEE countries are assessed.4 Utilizing the cost-benefit analysis and the green accounting approaches, the impact assessment method and specific external cost estimations are further used in a range of case studies. In order to identify the most appropriate case studies, energy markets and policies in each country were analysed5, and continuously discussed6. Although, the EcoSenseWeb tool was updated in other streams of NEEDS (namely in RS1b, and partly in RS3a), thanks to the work of all partners involved in RS1d, an update of reference environment data (mainly population data) with regard to all European countries and its extension to the New Accession Countries and the Mediterranean Partner Countries were performed in WP3.7 Thanks to this work, it will be possible to quantify the external costs for more countries and regions than it was before NEEDS. Detailed technological data were collected in WP3 by each partner for specific reference technologies and are part of relevant country implementation report (WP5). To make the EcoSenseWeb tool user friendly, a step-by-step procedure on how to run the model was prepared.8 In order to assess impacts for nuclear energy, a nuclear part of EcosenseWeb was partly updated in WP4 by AEKI, USTUTT, PROFING and CUEC. This includes updating the dose-response functions and attaching monetary values on main impact categories, i.e. fatal and non-fatal cancers, and hereditary defects. Because dispersion modelling of radio nuclides releases has not been implemented in EcoSenseWeb tool yet, evaluation of releases due to normal operation is based on
2 Technical paper T4.1 by USTUTT in WP4. 3 Deliverable D5_1 prepared by AEKI, CDER, CUEC, EPT, MEERI, NREA, PROFING, SEI, UNWE in collaboration with OME and USTUTT. 4 Deliverable D5_1_nuclear by AEKI, CUEC, PROFING and USTUTT.
5 Technical paper T1.1 Energy market and policy, measures addressing the externalities prepared in WP1 by MEERI with contribution from all RS1d partners.
6 Deliverable D1.2 Workshop 2 ‘Policies and Case Studies’, September 2006, Nessebur, Bulgaria. 7 Technical paper T3.1 Datasets on reference environment, technology and monetary values in that all RS1d partners were involved except IOM..
8 Technical paper of WP4 T4.3 Step-by-step procedure how to use EcoSenseWeb prepared by USTUTT. 33 results from studies conducted elsewhere. The factors relating emissions of different radio nuclides expressed as radioactivity to collective dose, i.e. population dose, are derived from UNSCEAR reports, while upstream and downstream processes were assessed using LCI data from the EcoInvent database. Atmospheric emission of pollutants is the most important EcoSenseWeb input data. However, EcoSenseWeb tool requires entering these data as pollutant concentrations in flue gas [mg/Nm 3], and flue gas volume [Nm3/h]; the units not usually reported. In the case that data required for these calculations are not available, or are not consistently reported, we developed a simple user- friendly model that enables to prepare the input data in a consistent way (WP3 by PROFING, USTUTT, and CUEC). In addition, the model enables to allocate the external cost on electricity and heat generation in CHP units, using directly the EcoSenseWeb output. Specifically, damage on human health, building materials, crops, ecosystems and due to climate change are concerned in our impact assessment case studies. The largest part of external costs is, however, associated with the impacts on human health. Therefore a special attention is paid to two issues: an assessment of transferability of concentration-response relationships linking outdoor air pollution and health9, and morbidity endpoints valuation including transferability of monetary values10. Moreover, in order to perform a sensitivity analysis in the external costs quantifications, CUEC provides a list of monetary values for each relevant morbidity end-point for each CEE and MPC country. One of the policy recommendations being raised by most of RS 1d partners is to promote international research networks for comprehensive and scientifically-based assessment of policies and technologies, and to enhance an exchange of knowledge and information about up-to-date approaches, standardized methods and user friendly tools for estimating damages, quantifying the external costs and conducting cost-benefit analysis and comprehensive (regulatory) impact assessment. Although the impact assessment and cost-benefit analysis have been required by law or authorities in many NMS countries, in reality, there is a lack of appropriate methods and standardized tools available for assessing properly involved damages and external costs. Moreover, if there was a tool such as EcoSense or BeTa ExternE tables (see e.g. RS3a WP1, or MethodEx project results), it would be difficult to implement them without appropriate knowledge, skills and training. One goal of this stream was also to teach the methods, conduct training, and exchange knowledge and information just at the core of this stream. In fact, although it might be easier to calculate the external costs by one or few research teams already well trained before this project, the NEEDS project – and RS1d particularly – has been paying a special attention that not only new national implementations are the output of this project, but research capacity is built in both regions. To fulfil this goal, several methodological11, training and policy workshops were organized. Moreover, in order to maximize this effect, at least one of such training event is organized in each North African country that is involved in NEEDS project.12 Moreover, the training events were also used
9 Technical paper of WP4 T4.2b by IOM. 10 Technical paper of WP4 T4.2a by CUEC.
11 Deliverable D2.1 Workshop 1 ‘Basics of the ExternE Methodology And Its Application’ (March and December 2006, Prague, Czech Republic).
12 Technical report T4.3 Training Workshop 3 ‘Use of EcoSense Software Tool’ (April 2007, Tunisia, TN) 34 toThe adjust main and contribution improve the of firstthis version stream (beta is therefore version) threefold:of the EcoSenseWeb first, we madetool due point to feedbackof building of theresearch actual capacity practitioners mostly in RS1d.in countries where the ExternE method has not been explored yet; second, we assess damage of and calculate the external costs for a range of reference technologies in each of the study countries; third, our results from quantification of external costs are further used in impact assessment case studies (CBA, indicators) as well as for drawing the policy recommendations relevant for CEE and MPC region.13
1.2.4.2 Links and cooperation with other RSs in terms of main input/output data flow Methodology improvement to estimate the external costs of energy generation has been an objective of several research streams of NEEDS, the main achievements are however reached in the streams of RS1b and RS1d. Use of the EcoSenseWeb tool to quantify the external costs would not be feasible for some regions (e.g. North Africa, and Eastern European countries), if new dispersion and chemical transformation modelling for main air pollutants (regional, local and North Hemispheric) were not done within NEEDS project. A processor of local meteorology was developed, implemented and integrated into EcoSenseWeb tool (RS3a by AUTH). Moreover, the coverage of the whole Northern Hemisphere is assured by parameterisation of hemispheric scale dispersion model. The development of EcoSenseWeb update benefits from many improvements of the method to estimate external costs that was the objective of different research streams and work packages within NEEDS, particularly of RS1b. These improvements and updates include an extension to other substances and pathways, update of exposure response functions regarding human health impacts, new methodology for assessing the loss of biodiversity, update of monetary values for health endpoints and climate change impacts, or extension of receptor grid area. Guides on Cost-Benefit Analysis and on Green Accounting – prepared in RS3a – were provided to RS1d partners who might benefit from them while conducting their case studies. Moreover, in order to maximise the information exchange and links between relevant streams, all project meetings and training events were organised jointly for RS1d and RS3a partners since month 32 (April 2007).
1.2.4.3 2.3 Brief description of the main RS outputs External costs associated with energy generation are quantified for Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Poland and Slovakia, and three North African Countries (Egypt, Morocco, and Tunisia). Moreover, thanks to this project. Main factor of the magnitude of external costs is the technology used to generate energy. The impacts therefore differ according to fuel type and its quality, efficiency of the technology and
Deliverable D6.2 Workshop 4 ‘Use of ExternE software tools and the ExternE results in policy-decision process in CEEC and the North Africa’ (December 2008, Marrakesh, Morocco) NEEDS13 Deliverable Forum D6.1 ‘External Progress Costs report applied on internalisation to renewable energy energy externalities and energy and efficiencypolicy-relevance in Southern of WP6 andprepared Eastern by Mediterraneaneach RS1d partner countries: from CEE Opportunities and MPC. and Challenges’ (January 2008, Cairo, EGY) 35 Next figure documents only some of our results. Interestingly enough, the external costs for some technologies that combust biomass might be larger than damage associated with burning fossil fuels, particularly natural gas. One shall be however aware of the fact that the magnitude of external costs for fossils is strongly dependent on the chosen value of damage due to climate change.
Gas (AFR) 0.86 Gas & oil (AFR) 4.72 Oil (AFR) 5.90 Oil shale (EST) 5.26 Lignite (SK) 6.35 Hard coal (SK) 4.36 Biomass (HU) 1.82 Oil (HU) 3.44 Gas (HU) 1.35 Coal & biomass (HU) 4.26 Hard coal (HU) 6.71 Lignite (HU) 4.61 Lignite (PL) 6.16 Hard coal (PL) 3.37 Brown coal (CZ) 5.06 Lignite & biomass (CZ) 8.88 Hard coal (CZ) 4.05
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Materials Crops Human health Biodiversity loss Climate change Micropollutants
Figure 9: External costs of some power plants in CEE and MPC countries, in c€ per kWh.
The external costs of nuclear power plants as quantified for three countries – Slovakia, Hungary and the Czech Republic, regarding only the operation phase was calculated as 0.03-0.06 c€/kWh (values differ between countries and years). This value accounts for around 20 % of the external costs of the whole nuclear fuel cycle. Fuel supply (mining, conversion, fuel fabrication, and transport, reprocessing and waste disposal) accounts for 76 % of the total external costs. We highlight, however, other damage might be related to perceived risk and dread that could not be included in our impact assessment. External costs associated with emissions released from all 34 Bulgarian thermal coal fired power plants are quantified as 3.8 billion € a year, or 20.7 € per kWh that is three times higher than current market price of electricity. This estimation is, however, based on the year 2007 before the rehabilitation of the first four units of TPP Maritsa-East II. After the installation of this technology the damage on human health, crops and materials shrank significantly; from 35 c€ to 2.5 c€ per kWh produced. CBA on installation of modern electron beam purifying technology in TPS Sviloza also confirms environmental and economic rationale of this investment. The external costs for almost 20 Czech power plants range between c€ 1 (gas, PPC) to about c€ 6 (lignit) or c€ 7 (heavy oils), while most of brown coal combusting plants generates damage of about c€ 3 to c€ 4 per kWh. Thanks to this work, a specific tax and charge rates were suggested in official documents on environmental tax reform being prepared by the Czech authorities.
36 Damage in Estonia was quantified for major plants including Eesti and Balti oil shale power plants, CHP Iru, and Narva with pulverised oil shale combustion and new circulating fluidized bed combustion covering about 95% of totally generated electricity. External costs for Balti and Eesti are 6.8 c€, or 4.9 c€ per kWh respectively, oil burning in CHP Iru generates damage of about 3.0 c€, while gas burning 1.7 c€ per kWh. Installation of new circulating fluidized bed combustion in Narva reduces the external costs from 6.0 c€ to 2.7 c€. Damage due to energy generation from wood and peat is relatively smaller, but not zero; peat and wood burning in Vao CHE Tallin or Luunja Tartu would lead to the externality of about 0.7 c€, or 0.4 c€ per kWh respectively. For recent technologies, the external costs attributable to plants operating in Hungary due to environmental impact of classical pollutants range between 2.5 and 6.6 c€/kWh, while high share of biomass at Ajka plant resulted in a lower external cost. For natural gas based technologies, the regional external cost is in the 0.2-0.5 c€/kWh range, depending on the location, heat share and technology. Despite using CCGT, Csepel PP has considerably high external costs per unit electricity, because of its location in the capital city with relatively low stack height and low heat share of 10 %. The GHG related external costs are around 0.6–0.7 c€/kWh for natural gas CCGT power plants, while 1.0–1.2 c€/kWh for natural gas condensing power plants. The utilization of cooking gas and blast furnace gas at EMA Power causes at least 3 times higher regional external costs, mostly because of the high sulphur content compared to natural gas. Also, due to the low heat value of cooking gas and blast furnace gas results in a GHG related external cost of 4.7 c€/kWh, which is double of even that of lignite burning condensing power plant. Nine most typical power plants are chosen to estimate their environmental burden and external costs in Poland. On average, the external costs for lignite-based technology are 7.40 c€/kWh, while for hard coal about 6.7 c€/kWh. Most harmful is PM emissions, mainly for a local scale, for which the estimated cost equals 11,300 €/t; SO2 emissions generate less damages (7100 €/t) and relatively low value 5,700 €/t generates NOx emission. The impacts calculated for the upstream and down-stream processes present a minor part of total externalities and amounts about 8% (hard coal) to 3% (lignite) of total magnitude of external costs. Using a dynamic partial equilibrium model of the mid-term development of Polish power sector, the impacts of several policy scenarios were assessed. Hence, a full implementation of EU regulations or the internalisation of externalities implies serious technological and economic adjustments. A dominant position of solid fuels is expected to decrease in favour of gas and renewables. However, the best way to lower the global warming effects is to foster the use of alternative energy technologies (mainly nuclear), or reduce the level of production. The results confirm that a full internalisation of externalities is less costly in a social sense than other scenarios. Aggregated external costs amount about 12 mld Euro per year, which is about 4.9% of Polish GDP. Using the external costs quantification for all major thermal power plants in Slovakia, the analysis indicates that total external cost of electricity generation will increase during the years 2005 and 2010 due the increase of electricity generation level. This is caused by the increasing electricity demand, by the retirement of nuclear power plant JEV1 as well as by the retirement of old units without abatement technology and implementation of new units with lower emission intensity rate. Other practical uses of this method were documented on many interesting case studies on CBA including modelling of impacts by partial equilibrium model MESSAGE. External costs related to seven power plants in Egypt are also quantified; damages on human health are lowest for burning natural gas namely in power plants in El-Shabab and Damitta (0.2 c€ per kWh), while damage associated to oil burning ranges between 1.6 to 6.7 c€ per kWh. Including
37 damages due to climate change, total external costs are about 0.9 c€ (Damietta) and 2.0 c€ (El- Shabeb) for gas fired power plants, with the highest values for steam technologies used in Kafr El- Dawar (with 8.1 c€) and LFO fired plant with gas turbine (5.9 c€). Using technical input data to estimate emissions, the external costs quantified for two important natural gas thermal plants in Rades and for one small heavy fuel thermal plant La Goulette are assessed in Tunisia: damage is 0.034 and 0.06 c€/kWh for natural gas plants and 0.16 c€/kWh for heavy fuel plant. Cost Benefit Analysis performed for a wind plant was utilized to assess profitability of the project to the whole community. The alternative situation is defined as the action of increasing the production of the conventional power stations represented by mix of electric power, equivalent to the production of the windmill. Calculations of NPV using economic prices and discount rate lead to the conclusion that the windmill project is socially profitable and it is worth to be implemented. A sensitivity analysis is performed, considering main variables subject to large variability: discount rate, CO2 price and wind speed.
3.5% climate chnage (21€ / tCO2) 3.0% micropollutants classical pollutants 2.5%
2.0%
1.5%
1.0%
0.5%
0.0%
Note: The external costs in Bulgaria presented 8% of GDP. Recently the externalities are much smaller due to installation of abatement technologies.
Figure 10: External costs of power sector, % of GDP in purchasing power in 2005
Aggregated external costs due to airborne pollution and GHG (valued by 21 € per ton of CO2) for the entire power sector of the EU27 in 2005 is estimated as 68 billion € that corresponds to 0.7% GDP or 140 € per capita. In the EU15, damage attributable to energy sector presents 0.45% of their GDP or 109€ per capita respectively; in New Member States, the external costs present 250 € per capita of EU12 population and 4.3% of EU12 GDP, while the share of damage goes down to 2.4% if EU12 GDP is expressed in purchasing power. External costs related to health impacts due to classical pollutants are product of a number of new cases of certain illness or mortality and corresponding monetary value. Since pollution is dispersed over whole Europe or even over globe, pollution involves adverse health effects in many countries. Since preferences and wealth vary among these countries, a willingness to pay for avoiding the health effects might vary too. So far, the ExternE method and its software tool EcoSense have been using the only one monetary value for each impact regardless where the impact affected
38 people. This stream contributes to this debate by quantifying the external costs by assuming various magnitudes of monetary values of health impacts. Utilizing simple benefit transfer technique, default EcoSense values are adjusted by price indexes and then alternatively by differences in wealth (GDP per capita). Then, based on our literature review we also derive a range of monetary value for each CEE and MPC country. We derive the external costs due to health impacts for overall five possible policy strategies an authority might follow. We document our approach when all emission released by whole power sector of the Czech Republic are assessed. Using the country-specific monetary values, i.e. PPP or GDP ratio adjusted, yields the external costs about 30% lower than the externalities calculated by default values used in EcoSense. Adjustment of the central values come up from our literature review, or using the values as derived for the Czech Republic everywhere, results in even smaller magnitudes of the external costs. Considering the effects only relevant for the country that released the emissions, i.e. the Czech Republic in this case, and using default EcoSense values presents about 11% of total damage. This share goes down even further if the adjusted – country-specific – values are applied in our alternative quantification of the external costs.
1.2.5 RS 2a: Energy systems modelling and internalisation strategies, including scenarios building
1.2.5.1 General methodology with a brief description of the work carried out by each WP The RS 2a work aimed at generating via The Integrated MARKAL- EFOM System (TIMES) partial equilibrium, technology rich, energy-environment models of 30 EU countries and of the EU as a whole (Pan-European model), allowing to obtain a comprehensive country specific and EU wide perspective. These models include the most important externalities and associated damage functions produced by LCA and ExternE. The integration aspects are therefore of fundamental importance: some key environmental data were obtained from the other Research Streams whereas stream RS 2a in turn provided the other streams with equilibrium energy quantities and prices for selected scenarios addressed to the achievement of environmental protection and energy supply targets. For the selected scenarios, the Pan European model identifies the most promising technological options and the prioritised policy measures for their implementation. The overall working structure of RS2a is represented in Figure 11. It points out the feedback among WPs and specifies for each WP the involved Tasks.
39 WP2: Country specific models implementation: 2.1. Determination of a common list of technologies 2.2. Characterisation of technologies 2.3. Definition of scenario parameters 2.4. Training in use of the WP1: Model Design and packages and implementation of the basic country models Interfaces: 2.5. Test runs and calibration of WP5: Training, 1.1. Design of the common MSM models Documentation and Reference Energy System (RES) 2.6. Implementation of the Reporting 1.2. Selection of the main MSM specific runs and cases: common data sources scenario analysis 5.1. Training on use of software and country models 1.3. Design and implementation of spreadsheet interfaces 5.2. Documentation on methodological interfaces and 1.4. Update of the VEDA database interface models features 5.3. Preparation of National 1.5. Improvement and update of the TIMES model generator WP3: Pan-European Reports 5.4. Documentation on the Pan 1.6. Setup of the Pan – EU model implementation European model trading variables 3.1. Test runs and calibration of the Pan-European model 5.5. Workshops proceedings 3.2. Integration of Pan- European model with ExternE/LCA 3.3. Implementation of the Pan-European reference scenarios
WP4: Full cost interactive analyses 4.1. Combined use of general equilibrium models and the Pan-European partial equilibrium energy model to implement a set of policy scenarios 4.2. Evaluation of the impacts of the policy scenarios
Figure 11: Working structure of workpackages within Research Stream 2a.
The general objective of WP1 was the design of a common and combinable methodology for modelling the EU-25 Member State and other European countries. The chosen approach covered not only the typical boundaries of energy systems models but also took into account externalities and other flows (energy, materials, emissions) occurring from “cradle to grave” (LCA approach and external cost approach). WP2 was mainly in charge of the implementation of the basic country models, specialising them to the country features and testing their consistency in the reference scenario. Another main issue was the definition of scenario parameters for the Pan European scenario analysis in compliance with stakeholders and PMC indications. The general objective of WP3 was to implement the Pan European model linking the country models and to check its consistency with respect to variations of boundary conditions. The Pan European model jointly optimised in a multi-region mode the country models. The WP4 concentrated on the simulation of long term policy scenarios. The policy scenarios were defined by the Scientific Committee in close interaction and iteration with the different streams and they take the EU stakeholders’ perspective into account. The integrated model computed the full impact of the policies on the energy system: its full cost, the choice of technologies, the energy use and supply commodities and the environmental impact. The equilibrium values for energy vectors, the market penetration for technologies served as inputs for some policy scenarios computation in stream 1a (LCA approach). The
40 macroeconomic consistency of the baseline and the scenarios was assured by the use of the general equilibrium model GEM-E3 covering 25 European countries. The general objective of WP5 was to provide training, documentation and reporting on the models features and methodological interfaces (Integration of ExternE, LCA and MARKAL/TIMES) and to draw up the workshops proceedings.
An overview of the main deliverables/technical reports realised by each WP as well as of the milestones reached, with an indication of all the involved partners, is provided by Table 9. Table 9: Deliverables and milestones of RS2a
WP N° Title/Other specifications
WP1
Deliverables D1.1 Spreadsheet interfaces (country models) D1.2 Milestone 1: Workshop – starting country models: transfer and training D1.3 Improved Veda front –end shell D1.4 Draft common structure of the national models Technical papers T1.5 Updated TIMES code T1.6 Spreadsheet interfaces for the Pan-European model Milestones MS1 Workshop – Starting country models: transfer and training (WS1)
Involved partners 16 CHALMERS, CIEMAT, CRES, ECN, ENERO, IMAA–CNR, INFM, IPTS – JRC, KANLO, KUL, POLITO, PSI, RISOE, TTU, USTUTT- ESA, VTT
WP2
Deliverables D2. 9 Workshop – Assessment of draft country models results (WS2)
Technical papers T2.7 Reference technology database T2.8 Draft results on country models T2. 11 Final reports on country models T2. 12 Advanced final results of country models (additional technical paper)
Milestones MS2 Workshop - Assessment of draft country models results (WS2)
Involved partners 15 CHALMERS, CIEMAT, CRES, ECN, ENERO, IMAA–CNR, INFM, IPTS – JRC, KUL, POLITO, PSI, RISOE, TTU, USTUTT- ESA, VTT
WP3
Deliverables D3.12 Workshop – Assessment of draft Pan-European model results (WS3)
Technical papers T3.13 Interim Report on draft Pan European integrated model T 3.18 Summary report of Pan European model results – BAU scenario Milestones 3 Workshop – Assessment of draft Pan-European model results
Involved partners 9 IMAA-CNR, ECN, INFM, IPTS – JRC, KANLO, KUL, POLITO, PSI, USTUTT – IER
WP4
Deliverables D 4.17 Milestone 4: Workshop – “Macro-Consistency of the Pan European model” (WS4)
41 Technical papers T 4.19 Report of Pan European model results – Policy scenarios
Milestones MS4 Workshop – “Macro-Consistency of the Pan European model”
Involved partners 4 (+2) IPTS – JRC, KUL, PSI, USTUTT – IER (plus KANLO and POLITO in kind contribution)
WP5
Deliverables D5.10 Documentation on methodological interfaces and models features D5.14 National reports D 5.15 Analytical overview of the technical and scientific production of the stream 2a Analytical overview of the technical and scientific production of the D 5.16 stream 2a – Year III Analytical overview of the technical and scientific production of the D 5.21 stream 2a – Year IV Technical papers T 5.16 Annex to the National Reports (additional technical paper) T 5.20 Report on the Integrated Pan European model Milestones WS2 Workshop – Assessment of draft country models results WS3 Workshop – Assessment of draft Pan-European model results Involved partners 16 CHALMERS, CIEMAT, CRES, ECN, ENERO, IMAA–CNR, INFM, IPTS – JRC, KANLO, KUL, POLITO, PSI, RISOE, TTU, USTUTT- ESA, VTT
1.2.5.2 Links and cooperation with other RSs in terms of main input/output data flow As concerns RS2a, integration/harmonization activities occurred at different levels and involved a large number of data and assumption exchanges with other research streams regarding, in particular, the following issues: Socio-economic fundamentals (POP, GDP, tech. progress) Common Technology Database Life Cycle Data (energy, materials, emissions, direct costs) External costs (cost of damages from ‘emissions’) Coherent Technology Pathways Risk and Other Social Indicators not captured above In details, the main input/output flows among RS2a and the other NEEDS research streams are represented in Figure 12.
42 RS1a RS1b RS1c RS1d LCA of new energy New and improved Externalities associated Extension of the technologies methods to estimate to the extraction and geographical coverage the external costs of transport of energy of the current Cost data and technical data for energy conversion knowledge of energy reference technologies, current External costs related to externalities and future configuration Damage factors per unit extraction and transport of oil LCA data for constructed and dismantled and gas up to the border of the construction/dismantling phase capacity of each power plant EU as a function of different oil of reference technologies (per (kW) and per unit plant and gas import needs kW), for emissions included in production (kWh), for emissions TIMES. For emissions not not included in TIMES (in included in TIMES, see collaboration with RS1a) information flow from RS1b to RS2a. LCA data for fuels imported into EU (per energy unit)
RS2a Modelling Pan European Energy Scenarios RS3a Transferability and
Cost data and technical data for Selected TIMES outputs related generalization electricity generation to the technological pathways technologies as used in TIMES for all common EPG Generalized values of damage Electricity mix for selected key technologies over the whole factors per unit emission RS1a scenarios time horizon, for key scenarios. RS1b Selected TIMES outputs related to the technological pathways Selected TIMES outputs related for all common EPG to the imports of oil and gas by technologies over the whole each EU country, for key RS2b time horizon, for key scenarios. scenarios. Energy Technology RS1c Roadmap and Harmonised cost data for electricity technologies Stakeholder Full-cost interactive analysis for Perspectives Selected TIMES outputs modelled scenarios (WP4) associated with scenario-specific RS2b technological pathways; to be Feedback on preferred paths to provided over the whole time RS1d sustainable development horizon.
Socio – economic and environmental scenario assumptions All streams
Figure 12: Input-output flows among RS2a and other research streams. The main achievements of the RS2a work in the framework of the NEEDS integration activities dealt with the development of an integrating framework to look at the EU energy system as a whole rather than as separate national object. Moreover an outlined and demonstrated ‘full cost’ analysis of the EU system was carried out that internalizes (not all) externalities, demonstrating the use of such a tool on a few key socio-economic-energy-environment scenarios. It provides thus an important platform for future (and current) refinements and enhancements of full cost analyses of the EU energy system. In particular, the NEEDS TIMES Pan European model constructed a coherent technology and fuel pathway for the inter-connected EU countries, by optimizing technology, fuel, and trade choices over the entire horizon, taking into account life-cycle energy and emissions, and external costs and calculating least cost equilibrium solutions for the entire system. Other indicators influencing technology selection (risk, other social indicators) were not yet taken into consideration. It should be pointed out that since LCA data were provided only for electric power generation technologies, the other TIMES technologies had a cost advantage compared to the EPG ones. The extension of the LCA/External costs integration of the energy system to other sectors as well as the inclusion of risk and other social indicators in the Pan European model open the way to further developments and follow-up projects.
43 1.2.5.3 Brief description of the main RS outputs The main objectives of RS2a dealt with the development of a new modelling framework for the EU as a whole, especially its multi-country aspect with trade exchanges among countries and contributing to policy evaluation through: Integration of different objectives in one global modelling environment, allowing to evaluate their mutual interactions Evaluation of the optimal mix of options to reach severe energy-environmental targets Assessment of the role of external costs in the definition of policy strategies Assessment of the structural changes in the energy system and the role of technologies in different boundary conditions As represented in Figure 13, two main intermediate outputs were achieved, worthy of note for their stand-alone importance also in other contexts: The reference technology database that include a fairly complete set of technologies involved in all sectors of the economy, namely: primary energy extraction, energy processing and conversion, energy transport, and end-uses by four main sectors (residential, commercial, industry, transportation) with default technological and economical parameters to be used to perform any model development or scenario analysis. All data were assembled in Excel format and converted into a model’s user- interface ready format that allows direct import into the models. Among these, thanks to an iterative process of data harmonization among streams, it was possible to constitute a common technology database for the electricity generation sector, that represents a more complete subset of the whole reference technology database. 30 TIMES European country models (EU 27 + Iceland, Norway and Switzerland), based on a common structure and utilizing main common data sources. The NEEDS Pan-European model integrates these models that are valid tools for supporting decision making on the medium-long term also at national level.
NEEDS Project The NEEDS modelling platform LCAof the Energy system models of 30 most relevant EU countries power supply Based on the TIMES multi-period linear optimization models generator options (EU27, CH, IS, NO) Technology Common structure of country models (RES- Database Reference Energy System) (inv cost, oper cost, efficiency, ...) Pan European Externalities of Model technologies for the production, transport, transformation and consumption of energy Common sources for the main data (energy balances, material flows, air emissions)
Figure 13: The integrated NEEDS modelling platform.
44 The Pan European TIMES model is more than the sum of the 30 EU countries’ energy models as it allows to reflect links and to impose constraints at European level, reflecting the coordination of policies across borders while maintaining the features and assumptions of the underlying country models. A set of contrasting policy scenarios was defined in agreement with stakeholders and analysed with this modelling platform. The reference scenario (REF) describes the development of the EU- 27 energy system in agreement with most of present policies, providing a baseline for comparing policy scenarios. The policy scenarios analyzed in the NEEDS project were aimed at addressing different policy issues on the table at EU level like environmental issues linked to energy (climate policy and local pollution linked to energy) and energy issues, such as energy dependence, international oil price, nuclear availability. Moreover, taking into account the current variability of oil prices, it was also investigated in depth the stability of the model’s solutions to oil price variations. An overview of the main assumptions and constraints related to each analysed scenario is provided by Table 2. Table 10: Overview of the analysed scenarios with the Pan European model
Scenario / Main assumptions Scenario variant BAU - Business as Usual Reference (Business as usual) - No limits on CO2 emissions - Minimum use of renewable energies in line with national policies - Nuclear phase out in some countries reflecting current policies
450ppm - Reduction of the emissions of CO2 by 71% (relative to 1990) until 2050 in order to achieve the European target of +2°C Post-Industrial Climate protection scenario - Nuclear phase out in some countries reflecting current policies
450ppm_100 - Oil price of 100 $2000/barrel from 2010 onward, gas price adoption respectively Climate protection + high oil price scenario
T OLGA - Reduction of the emissions of CO2 by 71% until 2050 plus reduction of import dependency on oil and gas T U
T Climate protection + Security of supply - Reduction of the net imports of oil by 30% and gas by 40% until 2050 compared to the net imports in 2010 S U
- - Nuclear phase out in some countries R E I OLGA_NUC - Reduction of the emissions of CO2 by 71% until 2050 plus reduction of import dependency on oil and gas Climate protection + Security of supply + Enhanced - Reduction of the net imports of oil by 30% and gas by 40% until 2050 compared to the net imports in 2010 utilization of nuclear energy - Enhanced utilization of nuclear energy open
CO270 - A target gradually increasing from the Kyoto target for 2010 to -70% in 2050 compared to the 2000 emissions on the EU CO2 emissions, EU Post Kyoto climate policy compatible with the long term EU target of 2°temperature. - Permits trade within the EU without burden sharing considerations. CO270 intern - Reduction of the emissions of CO2 by 70% until 2050 plus permits trade EU Post Kyoto climate policy + - Internalisation of the external costs linked to local pollutant (SO2, NOx, PM, NMVOC) combined with the climate policy, aimed at a
L A local pollution policy reduction of the damage from local pollution from the energy system. U K
- S E
C The external costs by country implemented in TIMES are those derived in stream RS1b
CO270 ren - Reduction of the emissions of CO2 by 70% until 2050 plus permits trade EU Post Kyoto climate policy + - A global EU target of 20% renewable for 2020, kept constant till 2050, in final energy consumption, as defined in the EC climate and energy A renewable target policy package (2008) - Possibility of trade in green certificates associated with the climate policy.
Some of the most representative results derived from scenario analysis are represented in the following Figures.
45 7000
6000 ) h W
T 5000 (
n
o Others i t
a 4000 r
e Solar n e
g 3000 Wind y t i c i Hydro r
t 2000 c e
l Nuclear e
t
e 1000 Natural N gas 0 Oil c F F F F A A A A C C C C i m m m m t E E E E p p p p G G G G U U U U s i t p p p p L L L L R R R R N N N N 0 0 0 a 0 O O O O _ _ _ _ t 5 5 5 5 A A A A S 4 4 4 4 G G G G L L L L O O O O
2000 2020 2030 2040 2050
Figure 14: Scenario Comparison, EU27: Net Electricity Production.
5000 4500 4000 Storage of CO2 3500 Households, co t 3000 mmercial, AGR o i
M 2500 Households, co n i 2000 mmercial, AGR s n o
i 1500 Industry s s i 1000 m
e Conversion, prod 500 2 uction O 0 C c F F F F A A A A i C C C C m m m m t E E E E p p p p G G G G U U U U s i p p p p R R R L L R L L t N N N N 0 0 0 0 a O _ O _ O _ O _ t 5 5 5 5 A A A A S 4 4 4 4 G G G G L L L L O O O O
2000 2020 2030 2040 2050
Figure 15: Trend of carbon emissions on the analysed time horizon, by sector and by scenario.
46 CO2: LAP Emission Reduction Relative to the REF Case
100.00% 90.00% 80.00% 70.00% 60.00% 50.00% 40.00% 30.00% 20.00% 10.00% 0.00% 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
NOx PMX SO2 NMVOC CO2
CO2 & Internalization: Extra Emissions Reduction relative to REF due to Internalization
100.00% 90.00% 80.00% 70.00% 60.00% 50.00% 40.00% 30.00% 20.00% 10.00% 0.00% 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
NOx PMX SO2 NMVOC
Figure 16: Trend of air emissions reduction on the analysed time horizon, by air pollutant and by scenario.
The scenario analysis showed the importance of utilizing an integrated modeling framework for climate/energy policy such as TIMES which integrates the whole energy system and takes into account the different trade-off in the system in a consistent way. The main policy conclusions are summarized in the following: The scenarios analyzed showed that it is possible to attain very stringent CO2 reductions in the EU with a total discounted welfare loss of 1.2% compared the reference. This cost is the cost within the energy system inclusive the side benefits from the reduction of local air pollutants and assuming a CO2 tax or a permit system as policy instrument for achieving the CO2 reduction target, i.e. an efficient instrument and without consideration of burden sharing between the EU countries A mix of options have to be used to reach the severe climate target, such as the decrease of energy service demand, efficiency improvement and shift to low carbon energy at start and renewable, carbon capture, hydrogen with higher target. Some technologies are relatively close in terms of overall cost and changes in the cost of one component could induce shifts in the choice of technologies. There is not one technology or one energy stream dominating the future picture. Therefore the analysis should be complemented by sensitivity studies around the main parameters. Also, though the cost of implementing a complete infrastructure for the penetration of some option is taken into account, large resources will have to be mobilized over a rather short period for these infrastructures.
47 The climate policy brings also ancillary benefits by reducing damage from local pollutants (SO2, NOx, PM, NMVOC) but combining it with a policy aiming directly at better air quality is more effective by exploiting the synergies and nearly offsets the cost of the climate policy by reducing the damage from local pollutants. The climate policy alone is not sufficient to reach the EU renewable target in 2020 and a renewable policy alone contribute only slightly to the climate target, it might be more a learning process or incentive for the development of the future technologies or a contribution to the enhancement of the domestic resources. It has however a great impact on the choice of technologies in the medium term.
1.2.6 RS2b: Energy technology roadmap and stakeholders perspective
1.2.6.1 General methodology and brief description of the work carried out by each WP The primary goal of RS2b on “Technology Roadmap and Stakeholder Perspectives” was to broaden the basis for decision support by examining the robustness of results under various stakeholder perspectives. This goal was pursued by combining knowledge expressed in terms of technology attributes (generated internally and by other research streams) with stakeholder preferences. The second general objective of RS2b was to investigate the level of acceptance of external costs. Figure 17 shows the two main blocks of activities corresponding to the objectives and indicating the associated Work Packages (WPs). Table 11 provides the list of WPs, responsible partners, and the deliverables and technical reports produced.
Figure 17 Structure of RS2b.
Table 11 Work packages, responsibilities and products.
WP WORK PACKAGE TITLE (LEADERS) PRODUCT (D = Deliverable, T = Technical Paper) 1 Survey of criteria and indicators D1.1: Report on experience with criteria and indicators of interest for the
48 (PSI) evaluation of sustainability of energy systems 2 Establishment of social criteria D2.1: Set of candidate social criteria and indicators from literature review (USTUTT.SOZ) D2.2: Revised set of social indicators that satisfy basic requirements for the evaluation D2.3: Establishment of social criteria for energy systems (Updated report on social indicators accommodating Delphi results) 3 Establishment of full criteria set Milestone note: Preliminary environmental, economic and social criteria and (PSI) indicators for MCDA D3.1: Environmental, economic and social criteria and indicators for sustainability assessment of energy technologies D3.2: Final set of sustainability criteria and indicators for assessment of electricity supply options 4 Extended technology T4.1: Additional technological advancements to be considered in MCDA characterisation (CESIRICERA) sensitivity analysis 5 Quantification of economic T5.1: Final report on the establishment of economic indicators indicators (EDF) D5.2: Final report on economic indicators for sustainability assessment of future electricity supply options 6 Quantification of environmental T6.2: Preliminary quantification of environmental indicators including indicators (PSI) demonstration of country-specific adjustments D.6.1: Final report on quantification of environmental indicators for sustainability assessment of future electricity supply options 7 Quantification of risk indicators T7.1: Interim report on risk indicators (PSI) D7.1: Final report on quantification of risk indicators for sustainability assessment of future electricity supply options 8 Quantification of social indicators D8.1: Quantification of social indicators for the assessment of energy system (USTUTT.SOZ) related effects 9 MCDA approach and tool selection T9.1: Requirement Analysis for multicriteria analysis in NEEDS RS2b (IIASA) T9.2: Multicriteria methodology for the NEEDS Project 10 Evaluation and analysis integration D10.1: Final report on indicator database for sustainability assessment of (PSI) future electricity supply options D10.2: Final report on sustainability assessment of advanced electricity supply options 11 Acceptability of monetary valuation D11.1: The Role of Monetary Valuation of Externalities and Cost Benefit methods (ARMINES) Analysis in Energy Policy Making Processes 12 Organisation/management of D12.1: Procedures and plans for carrying out surveys 2 surveys and communication T12.4: Survey questionnaire No. 2 on criteria and indicators (ISIS/PSI 3) D12.2: Survey on the externality concept, results and uses D12.3: Implementation, evaluation and reporting on the survey on criteria and indicators for assessment of future electricity supply options 13 Analysis and elaboration of the - results 2 (ISIS/PSI 3) 14 Technical stream co-ordination D14.1: Analytical overview of the technical and scientific production of the (PSI) stream 2b (for the 2nd period) D14.2: Analytical overview of the technical and scientific production of the stream 2b (for the 3rd period) D14.4: Analytical overview of the technical and scientific production of the stream 2b (for the 4th period) 1 Apart from WP Leaders participants included two NGOs, i.e. GLOBE Europe and HELIO International. 2 WPs 12 and 13 were merged in the course of the project with PSI taking the lead due to close connection to WP10. 3 ISIS was responsible for Survey I, PSI for Surveys II and III.
49 As reflected in Figure 17 and Table 11 the main elements and approaches employed by RS2b included:
Establishment of a comprehensive but manageable set of criteria and indicators to be used in the assessment of relative sustainability of future electricity supply technologies (WP1, WP2, WP3). Apart from literature reviews experts were also engaged to participate in the Delphi exercise aiming at consolidating the proposed set of novel social indicators having the capability to differentiate between the various technologies. Quantification of selected indicators (WP5, WP6, WP7, WP8). All selected indicators were quantified for the purpose of using them later within the main analytical framework employed by RS2b, i.e. the Multi-criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA). Methods used for the quantification of indicators included Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) for environmental burdens, Impact Pathways Approach (IPA) for health effects and external costs, Risk Assessment for the impacts of severe accidents, learning curves for costs of future technologies, and expert interviews for those social indicators whose quantification could not be based on natural sciences. Some indicators were supplied by other streams. This applies to costs of future technologies and to LCA-based indicators as further elaborated in section 2.2. These indicators were subject to country-specific adjustments and in the case of the economic ones to extensions called for by the broader scope covered by indicators defined in WP3. Other indicators, i.e. risk-related ones and social in general were quantified within RS2b. Case study on the role of monetary evaluation of externalities and cost benefit analysis in the energy policy decision making process (WP11). This study used the extensive literature as a starting point and then conducted interviews with decision makers representing three countries that have been analysed, i.e. France, U.K. and U.S.A. Surveys with direct stakeholder inputs (WP12, WP13). Three surveys involving stakeholders were conducted. These surveys should be considered as exploratory. Survey I dealt with the acceptability of the externality concept, results an uses. Survey II aimed at receiving stakeholder perspective on the proposed set of environmental, economic and social indicators to be used in the integrated assessment of technologies. Survey III aimed at the elicitation of stakeholder preferences; it was executed as an integral part of the web-based MCDA tool developed for the purpose of combining the technology- specific indicators with stakeholder preferences. Sustainability assessment by means of MCDA (WP4, WP9, WP10). The main efforts undertaken within RS2b have been to develop a framework for implementing a MCDA approach. This has included: (a) developing a structured set of sustainability criteria, and surveying stakeholders on their appropriateness and acceptance; (b) integrating environmental, economic and social indicator results from this and other research streams into a technology database for use in the MCDA process; (c) performing a requirements analysis for the MCDA analysis methodology and a review of existing MCDA approaches; (d) developing a range of new MCDA tools for ranking discrete alternatives (technologies, in the NEEDS context) and selecting the best for use; (e) implementing an interactive, web-based interface for collecting stakeholder criteria preferences (and providing individualized technology rankings to each user); and (f) collecting the individual user inputs, ranking results for analysis of overall patterns and comparing them
50 with total (internal plus external) costs. With the exception of WP11 all other WPs were fully or partially designed to ultimately support the MCDA implementation. Nevertheless, the outputs of the other WPs as such constitute valuable mostly self-standing results that should be of interest to both interdisciplinary research community as well as decision- makers and stakeholders.
1.2.6.2 Links and cooperation with other RSs in terms of main input/output data flow This research stream was strongly end-weighted in the NEEDS schedule and also highly dependent upon data from other streams. The implementation of MCDA as pursued within RS2b was based on quantitative, technology- specific environmental, economic and social indicators generated either within RS2b or in other streams. Some indicators, particularly those characterising environmental burdens, health effects and risks were highly aggregated, based on state-of-the-art approaches. Generation of such indicators, satisfying the requirements on minimum robustness, requires substantial resources and thus the delivery of relevant inputs from other streams was a prerequisite for efficient management of the activities and for reaching the goals. Definitions of reference future technologies, generic aggregated LCA-indicators and costs of technologies were supplied by RS1a. Health impacts and external costs were provided by RS1b. Costs of fuels were supplied by RS2a. RS2b implemented a number of adjustments of the supplied sets to reflect in particular factors specific for the four countries for which MCDA was implemented, i.e. France, Germany, Italy and Switzerland. Furthermore, RS2b acted as catalyser for the partial harmonisation of cost data used in RS1a and in RS2a. Due to the logistics within NEEDS, i.e. RS2b being the end-of-the-pipe activity, iterations of analyses absorbing RS2b findings within the frameworks used by other streams, was not planned since it wouldn’t be feasible. Nevertheless, participants in NEEDS, using specific analytical frameworks (LCA, IPA and energy economic modelling), were sensibilized to the findings of RS2b what concerns the impacts of the use of a broad set of criteria for the evaluation of energy technologies and to the sensitivities with regard to stakeholder preferences. The broader scope of the MCDA evaluation has the following main components: (a) It accommodates the most essential LCA-results; (b) It accommodates the dominant contributors to external costs (global warming and health effects); (c) It treats various types of risks in an explicit manner; (d) It accommodates social concerns (risks being one example) that partially cannot be treated based on natural sciences; and (e) It deals with practical policy relevant issues such as operational aspects and security of supply (though in a much simplified manner that could be further advanced).
1.2.6.3 Brief description of the main RS outputs Stream RS2b carried out two investigations on the acceptability of monetary evaluation of energy externalities (MVE): “Review of Case Studies on Use of MVE in Policy Making in U.K., France and U.S.A.” and “Stakeholder Survey of the Acceptability of Externality Concept, Estimated Results and their Uses”. The review of case studies was undertaken by Armines and addressed apart from MVE acceptability also their role in the energy policy making process in France, UK, and US. The study
51 highlights the many differences in the historical contexts and in the organizational aspects of the three countries, which result in large variation in the uses of MVE. The existence of official requirements to consider full costs and benefits of proposed regulations and/or official guidelines appear to be crucial to explain this pattern. Furthermore, the uses of monetary valuation of externalities and cost benefit analysis are more extensive in other areas (e.g. transport, water policy) than in the energy sector. This is partially due to credibility and uncertainty issues associated with the quantification of some energy-specific burdens or impacts such as nuclear waste and climate change and partially due to more severe institutional conflicts making consensus more difficult to reach. The stakeholder acceptability survey, conducted by ISIS with support of partners, was addressed to more than 2000 European stakeholders. 248 answers were received thus giving a response rate of about 11%. The questionnaire was divided into four sections: 1) The concept of externalities - main principles and suitability of monetization for different impacts and activities; 2) The bottom- up approach - strong and week points; 3) The use of the results; and 4) The assessment and implications. The responses to the survey expressed a very strong acceptance of the concept of externalities, of the internalisation of external costs as well as of the policy use of the results (with the exception of supporting subsidies and penalties for which the acceptance rate was less pronounced). As for the Impact Pathway Approach (IPA), the responses reflected a mixed level of awareness, despite the typically high education level of the respondents. In spite of awareness about the limitations of the approach the results obtained within the ExternE projects for specific energy technologies are mostly widely accepted. There are, however, large differences what concerns the views on the estimates for nuclear energy where the vote is quite symmetrically splitted between acceptance and rejection of the numerically low estimates. Further dissemination efforts are needed to enable better understanding and wider use of externality estimates by policy and decision makers. In parallel there is a need for further developments aiming at increasing the scope of the analysis as well as reduction of major uncertainties. Social aspects associated with energy systems are to a limited extent reflected in external cost estimates. A pioneering effort within NEEDS RS2b under the leadership of social scientists from the University of Stuttgart included the identification and selection of social criteria and the associated indicators for the measurement of social effects of energy systems. A multi-step approach has been applied: in a first step existing indicators available in publications from the last twenty years were identified and examined. From a total of 1320 indicators, 26 were initially selected since they both satisfied specific quality criteria (e.g. clarity; simple and logical: applicable throughout Europe, etc.) and were suitable for NEEDS (i.e. were capable to differentiate between the various future electricity supply technologies to be examined). The indicators were associated with four main criteria classes: 1) Security/reliability of energy provision; 2) Political stability and legitimacy; 3) Social and individual risks; 4) Quality of Life. The set of criteria and indicators theoretically identified was finally tested through a Delphi workshop. Experts reached consensus over a final list recommended for use in NEEDS in MCDA. The final set of social indicators evolved on the basis of integration with the selected environmental and economic indicators, and survey-based feedback from European stakeholders. The candidate indicators were widely accepted; some reductions of the selected set were feasible. The final set includes 16 social indicators, thereof three related to the security/reliability of supply, two to political legitimacy, nine to social and individual risks, and two to the quality of residential environment. These indicators were quantified for the selected future technologies and are considered to be of central importance when contemplating implementation of new technologies. 52 Quantification of technology-specific social indicators is a pioneering activity, subject to many uncertainties. Generally, the scope and depth of the assessment undertaken within RS2b is first of its kind. A full set of evaluation criteria and indicators, covering the three pillars of sustainability, i.e. economic, environmental and social aspects, was established by the Paul Scherrer Institut (PSI) with support from RS2b partners. The set builds on the results of a literature survey and experiences from earlier projects addressing sustainability in quantitative terms. It also accommodates suitably modified social criteria and indicators. The set enables catching the essential characteristics of technologies and differentiating between them. Practical constraints were taken into account, including prospects for successful quantification in view of expected inputs from other streams and from relevant indicator quantification work packages within RS2b. In a final step feedback from stakeholders on the selected set was received through a survey. In total 2848 stakeholders were addressed and 9.7% among them provided a response. In general, the proposed criteria and indicator set found wide acceptance both in terms of content as well as its hierarchical structure. Based on the recommendations the set was somewhat reduced and in some cases the descriptions of indicators were improved to increase the level of clarity. The NEEDS criteria are shown in Table 12.
Table 12: Full set of sustainability criteria used in the NEEDS Project. The set is based on the three dimensions of sustainability i.e. environmental, economic and social.
Criterion
RESOURCES
Energy Resources
Mineral Resources (Ores) N O I S
N CLIMATE CHANGE E M I D
L IMPACT ON ECOSYSTEMS A T N E Impacts from Normal Operation M N O R
I Impacts from Severe Accidents V N E WASTES
Special Chemical Wastes stored in Underground Depositories
Medium and High Level Radioactive Wastes to be stored in Geological Repositories N
O IMPACTS ON CUSTOMERS I S N E
M Price of Electricity I D
C I
M IMPACTS ON OVERALL ECONOMY O N O
C Employment E
Autonomy of Electricity Generation
53 Criterion
IMPACTS ON UTILITY
Financial Risks
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.
N Necessity of Participative Decision-making Processes O I S N E SOCIAL AND INDIVIDUAL RISKS M I D
L Expert-based Risk Estimates for Normal Operation A I C O
S Expert-based Risk Estimates for Accidents
Perceived Risks
Terrorist Threat
QUALITY OF RESIDENTIAL ENVIRONMENT
Effects on the Quality of Landscape
Noise Exposure
There are 36 associated indicators, thereof 11 environmental, 9 economic and 16 social. These indicators were partially collected from other NEEDS Work Packages and partially generated within RS2b. They were processed allowing comparable characterisation of the selected technologies; this included adjustments to the specific conditions in countries of interest. All indicators were then combined in a unique database that includes 36 separate indicators for each of 26 future technologies (in the year 2050) in four countries, i.e. France, Germany, Italy and Switzerland. Comparisons between the various indicators illustrate the differences in profiles and thus strengths and weaknesses of the various technological options and the associated fuel cycles. In some cases there are also substantial differences between the results obtained for the four countries considered; this may be due to objective factors (e.g. climatic conditions affecting the performance of stochastic renewables) or due to different risk perception patterns affecting acceptance of technologies such as nuclear or Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS). While improvements are envisioned for all technologies considered, the most remarkable progress has been credited for the economic performance of renewables, in particular solar technologies. We refer to the corresponding deliverables for the detailed quantitative results and insights from comparative analyses. These results are also first of the kind. The technology-specific sustainability indicators were used within Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA), combining in a structured manner knowledge of specific attributes of the 54 various technologies (provided in the database) with stakeholder preferences. This approach allows to establish ranking of technologies based on distinct stakeholder profiles and investigation of the associated sensitivities. IIASA developed a number of new MCDA methods satisfying the requirements of the NEEDS Project. Upon selection of the most suitable method IIASA and PSI implemented a web-based tool enabling stakeholders to specify their preference profiles, iterate it and explore the resulting ranking of future technologies. The limited statistical basis does not allow for the differentiation of MCDA-results between the four countries. Furthermore, it has not been possible to identify distinct preference profiles that can be associated with specific stakeholder groups. Nevertheless, some patterns related to preference profiles could be identified. The overview of the results based on all stakeholder responses is shown in Figure 18 along with total costs.
Nuclear Fossil Renewable 18 18 GHG em. High 16 16 GHG em. Low g n 14 Pollution 14 i k n a h Land use R W 12 12 k
Generation cost A
/
D s C
t 10 10 n M
e e c
8 8 g € a r e
6 6 v A
4 4
2 2
0 0 . r S ) ) S t S r S c W n W W W W W o C n C C C C t s o C o M a t M i M M M l c C M P C C l C t l C 9 ( ( c . 9 4 1 1 a . 1 l p a a l a
b 2 < r e < e < e b & r c w a e l i . l a l m u R m e e l l a f l c o f m
R n i s b r r t o e e y p y t w o C s o , o s c i c d c m o x s c C o a t
h a t l l e d m o t P a p O l e s
s s G e F e e d i t s f i l c C f f e i s o u u C r s - & a o i d l f U
i n F F r u P a O R n e i a
P
i E t s m e
s C n S b r C C W h & a a v s r P &
l e r
T e m e M G M
h u C g t r
, C o . e T P n P t P V t I C C n P n I U I E GEN IIIGEN IV COAL NAT. GAS NAT. GAS BIOMASS Cogeneration SOLAR WIND Cogeneration Figure 18 Average MCDA ranking of technologies compared to total costs.
While within the external cost estimation framework applied in NEEDS nuclear energy exhibits the lowest total costs, its ranking in the MCDA-framework tends to be lower, mainly due to consideration of a variety of social aspects not reflected in external costs. Thus, nuclear energy ranks in MCDA mostly lower than renewables, which benefit from much improved economic performance. The renewables whose production costs are assumed to be strongly reduced (drastically in the case of solar technologies), have a rather wide range of total costs, with biomass technologies (especially poplar) on the high side and solar and wind on the low. The latter have total costs comparable or even lower than fossil, depending on which value is used for the highly uncertain CO2-damage costs. In the MCDA-framework renewables show most robust behaviour, i.e. in comparison to fossil and nuclear options lower dependence of ranking on the differences in preference profiles; this applies especially to solar technologies. Coal technologies have mostly lower total costs than natural gas. In the MCDA-framework coal on the other hand performs worse than centralized natural gas options; the latter are in the midfield and have thus ranking comparable to nuclear. The performance of CCS is mixed, i.e. in MCDA fossil technologies with CCS may rank better or worse than the corresponding technologies without CCS, depending on which specific CCS option is used. Total costs justify coal with CCS when the costs of CO2-damages are in the upper range of values. 55 The individual preference profiles have a decisive influence on the MCDA-ranking of technologies; this influence is particularly pronounced for technologies which have a highly differentiated profile, i.e. show top performance on a number of indicators but also weak relative performance on some other. Such technologies may be controversial; nuclear energy is the most pronounced example having these features. Thus, given equal weighting of environmental, economic and social dimensions and emphasis on the protection of climate and ecosystems, minimisation of objective risks and affordability for customers, the nuclear options are top ranked. On the other side, focusing on radioactive wastes, land contamination due to hypothetical accidents, risk aversion and perception issues, terrorist threat and conflict potential, the ranking changes to the strong disadvantage of nuclear energy. This emphasizes the need of further technological developments towards mitigating the negative impacts of these issues. The ranking of fossil technologies highly depends on the emphasis put on the environmental performance, which in relative terms remains to be a weakness, more pronounced for coal than for gas. Renewables show mostly a stable very good performance, based on highly improved economics. Still emphasis on the economics along with flexibility and availability of stochastic renewables, and health effects of biomass technologies, leads to some shifts towards lower ranking. To summarise, the main achievements of RS2b include:
Pioneering work on the establishment and quantification of technology-specific social indicators. Establishment of the full set of sustainability indicators covering environmental, economic and social dimensions, with high level of acceptability by the engaged stakeholders. Quantification of the full set of sustainability indicators and establishment of a corresponding database for four countries. Development of new MCDA methods and web-based MCDA implementation. Application of MCDA with a variety of stakeholders, demonstrating the merits of the process, strengths and weaknesses of the analyzed technologies, and the unavoidable impact of stakeholder preferences.
RS2b demonstrated that indicator-based sustainability assessment is feasible for current and future technologies and has the potential to guide in a structured manner the debate on the future energy supply and support informed decisions. The implementation was done for electricity generation technologies with the associated fuel cycles. Improvements of the consistency of the indicators and more robust quantifications of some of the “soft” social indicators are desirable and feasible. Furthermore, the extensions of the scope to include heating technologies need to be pursued. The same approach can also be applied to the current and future mobility options. Eventually, the evaluation of sustainability of alternative energy scenarios could be undertaken based on the indicators for specific technologies. Also geographic scope of the evaluations can be extended much beyond the current applications covering four European countries.
56 1.2.7 RS3a Transferability and Generalisation
1.2.7.1 General methodology and brief description of the work carried out by each WP The overall objective of RS 3a is to develop a simple way of calculating, transferring and presenting the uncertainty of default values for average and aggregate external costs, that can be used for: i) energy modelling, ii) assessing different technologies and energy systems, iii) cost-benefit analyses, iv) green accounting, and iv) other policy advice. RS3a consists of six WPs : 1) Generalisation model, 2) Value Transfer, 3) Treatment of Uncertainty 4) Cost-Benefit Analysis, 5) Green Accounting and 6) Co-ordination. The general methodology used is the Impact Pathway Approach (IPA) developed within the ExternE Project series, which have been extended to produce generalized marginal external costs of electricity from different energy technologies. Figure 19 below shows the steps of the IPA: i) emissions (and other residuals e.g. visual intrusion), ii) transport modelling (air, water and soil dispersion models) , iii) exposure-response modellling to assess impacts (to e.g. agriculture, materials, ecosystems, public health), and iv) monetary (economic) valuation of the impacts (either by a new, primary valuation study like the Contingent Valuation study of Value of a Life Year (VOLY) we performed in RS 1b; or by transferring values from existing valuation studies using the generalized values from WP1 and the guidelines for value transfer developed in WP2.
Emissions and Other Residuals
Explanation Transport Model Input/Output Concentrations/Conditions Methods/ Models Exposure-response Models
Physical Impacts
Primary Valuation Study Value Transfer
Estimated Damages and/or Benefits
Figure 19: Impact Pathway Approach (IPA)
WP1, lead by USTUTT_IER with contributions from AUTH; ISIS and MET.NO, has produced the generalized external costs estimates. One of the difficulties of “generalisation” is that on the one hand, impacts and therefore, external costs are actually site dependent, on the other hand one wants not to evaluate only one certain technology at one location. Therefore, a compromise has to be found. Either, many very site specific calculations for many locations are performed and the results are averaged, or the impact per unit of emission is parameterised. With the tool updated and further developed in RS1b it was possible to generate generalised external cost figures in RS3a. The deliverable D1.1 is several spread sheets with averaged external cost per unit of 57 emission of certain substances for different countries. These generalized unit costs are expressed in Euro per unit (tonne and Bq) of emission in European countries on the regional scale. The deliverable focuses on the priority burdens and impacts of electric power generation, namely the damage costs of the classical air pollutants. These are primary and secondary particulate matter and ozone, caused by the emission of NOx, SO2, NMVOC, NH3, and PM2.5 and PMcoarse. Values corresponding to releases from certain sectors (i.e. SNAP sector 1: Combustion in energy industries) and from “all sectors” (e.g. up- and downstream processes) are generated. Moreover, by further processing for primary particles, all sectors without sector 1 are generated. These values correspond to low and medium height of release. The interactive Excel spread sheet has been designed in order to provide external costs for different years and as time value and net present value. The final recommendation regarding greenhouse gases and the social cost of carbon has also been implemented. WP 2, by SWECO with contributions from University of Bath, review methods for value transfer (.e. (i) unit value, ii) benefit function and iii) meta analysis), and tests of the uncertainty of these methods versus a new primary valuation study ( in terms of transferror errors). Deliverable D2.1 contains this review and practical step-by-step guidelines to value transfer (i.e. transfer of monetary values of ecological and health impacts, as the endpoints of the IPA, in time and space). These guidelines address the economic values used in the impacts covered by the EcoSenseWeb and other impacts, but are particularly useful for economic valuation of impacts which are not covered in this software tool (e.g. aesthetic impacts of wind and other renewables). WP 3, by ARMINES, has developed a methodology to assess the uncertainty of all steps of the IPA. Deliverable 3.1 describes the uncertainty of transferring/generalizing the external costs calculations to other countries and/or future technologies and emission scenarios. It focuses on the priority burdens and impacts of electric power generation, namely the damage costs of the pollutants: greenhouse gases (CO2, CH4 and N2O), classical air pollutants (PM, NOx, SO2, VOC, O3), micropollutants (toxic metals and dioxins). The methodology is based on lognormal distributions and geometric standard deviations (i.e. multiplicative confidence intervals). The uncertainty of transferring components of the external cost calculations to other regions is examined in detail for emissions, dispersion, code-response functions and monetary valuation. In the conclusion the results are summarized in the manner of an instruction manual with an example to show how the uncertainty of an external cost increases with the transfer: For the classical air pollutants the geometric standard deviation can easily increase from 3 (the uncertainty in the EU15) to about 5 in regions where less data are available. An Excel file has also been prepared to illustrate the estimation of uncertainties for cost-benefit analysis of energy systems. The user specifies the probability distributions of the uncertain input parameters and then the Excel file carries out a Monte Carlo analysis to calculate the probability distribution of the net present value. WP 4, lead by CUEC with contributions from University of Bath and SWECO, has in Deliverable 4.1 provided a review of Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA) theory and methods, adapted a practical step-by- step guideline, and provides an example on how the guideline can be applied with to help a country to choose between different energy technologies to sustain or expand their electricity production. WP 5, lead by University of Bath with contributions from CUEC, Deliverable 5.1 reviews the methods for Green (National) Accounting (GA). The framework of Green National Accounting has been developed to deal in particular with two of the problems mentioned in the previous section.
58 Firstly the fact that the environmental impacts caused by production and consumption has a negative effect on human wellbeing, and secondly that under the current System of National Accounts (SNA), the depletion of natural resource stocks is not counted as depreciation in calculating Net National Product. The application in the NEEDS project, of the Genuine Savings measure, is an example of an attempt to address this second issue, and so provide policy relevant data. Conventional national accounting measures the amount of investment in the economic system as GNP minus Consumption (C) = Gross National Savings (GNS). Net National Savings (NNS) equals GNS minus depreciation of produced capital (K). Genuine Savings (GS) is then: GS = NNS – n(R-g) - (e-d) + m, where: n = the value of resource depletion; R = resource extraction; g = renewable resource growth; e = pollution emissions; d = pollution assimilation; = marginal social cost of net pollution accumulation, and; m = expenditure on education. WP 6, by SWECO, coordinated the overall work of the WPs of RS3a, and its relation (inputs/outputs) to other RSs. We also produced a Policy Brief to help the decisionmakers understand the practical policy use of the step-by-step guidelines to CBA and GA. The results from WP 3 feed into WP2; and results from WP1, 2, and 3 feed into the policy applications of WP4 (Cost-Benefit Analysis) and WP 5 (Green Accounting) within RS 3a , as well as into the economic modelling undertaken in RS 2b. The CBA guidelines, and to a lesser extent the GA guidelines, produced in WP 4 and 5 respectively, were applied in case studies in RS 1d in Central and Eastern European Countries (CEECs) and Mediterrenean Partner Countries (MPCs). RS3a and RS 1d had three joint meetings in order to train and disseminate the general methodologies (IPA, Generalized Values, EcoSenseWeb, Value Transfer Guidelines) and guidelines (CBA, GA) produced in RS3a to be used in case studies in CEECs and MPCs in order to extend the geographical coverage of NEEDS.
1.2.7.2 Links and cooperation with other RSs in terms of main input/output data flow RS 3a interacts with several other RSs, but is especially closely linked to RS 1d “Extention of the Geographical Coverage”. RS 1d will apply all 5 deliverables from RS3a in order to perform externality calculations for different energy technologies/energy systems, and selected case studies using CBA or GA, in the Central and Eastern European countries (NAC): Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Poland, Slovak Republic; and Mediterranean Partner countries (MPC): Egypt, Morocco, and Tunisia.. RS1a “Life cycle approaches to assess emerging energy technologies” has provided input to RS3a in terms of identifying impacts not covered in EcoSenseWeb, in particular landscape aestheic impacts from renewable energy sources. The transferability and generalisation of such impacts is adressed in WP2 Value Transfer (but the project and site specificness of these impacts, and small number of primary valuation studies for these impacts restrict the possibilities for value transfer). From RS1b “Development and improvement of a methodology to estimate external costs of energy” RS 3a WP1 use inputs from WP 7 “Improvement of Methodology and Tools for the Impact Pathway Assessment, Application and Quality Assessment”, while RS3a WP2 provded input to the value transfers (using different value transfer techniques) and transfer validity tests performed on the 9-country stated preferences surveys used to estimate “Value of a Life Year” (VOLY) in WP 6 “New approaches for valuation of mortality and morbidity risks due to pollution”. RS3a WP2 also provideed inputs on value transfer methods to RS 1b WP4 “Assessment of biodiversity losses” when they compare results from their Pontentially Disappearing Fraction (PDF) approach with
59 transferred economic estimates of the same type of ecosystems in order to validate the PDF approach. RS 3a WP2 also provided input in terms of more specialized value transfer guidelines to RS 1c in the assessment of external costs of transportation of oil (i.e. RS 1c WP 1: “Assessment of externalities concerning the extraction and transport of oil”). For other WPs of RS1c, i.e. extraction and transport of natural gas (WP2), transmission of electricity (WP3) and transport of other energy vectors - in particular hydrogen (WP4), economic valuation of impacts and the value transfer procedures described in RS3a WP2 is only applied to a limited degree due to the lack of impact assessment and/or transferability of impacts (often landscape aesthetic impacts). RS3a WP2 and WP3 also provide the general framework for applying value transfer methods and the assessment of uncertainty, respectively, in RS 1c WP5 “Review and overall assessment of the estimates obtained and of their transferability”. RS3a WP1 also provide generalized externality figures to be used to the extent possible in the energy system modelling performed within RS 2a.
1.2.7.3 Brief description of the main RS outputs In Deliverable 1.1 (D1.1) the concept of regional range analysis based on source receptor (SR) matrices was developed. The concept regional range analysis results from the need of performing a European-wide (regional) analysis based on an operational amount of data. The regional range analysis is based on the large EMEP-gridcells (50 x 50 km2 each) and covers the whole of Europe. Regional impact assessment is done with regional SR-receptor matrices, i.e. parameterised results of model runs with the EMEP/MSC-West Eulerian dispersion model. These complex model runs are based on certain emission scenarios and meteorological conditions. A reduction of each pollutant by 15% for each source of emission within a corresponding sub-region lets to delta concentration per ton of emission. The matrices are used to derive a concentration increment per unit of emission. The concentration increment per unit of emission is than intercepted with population and other spatial disaggregated receptor data. Subsequently, the concentration response functions for the endpoints and the corresponding monetary values are used to derive the aggregated external costs per unit of emission per source region. Values for 39 European and non-European countries and 5 sea regions have been provided for 2 different background emission scenarios and an average meteorological year. Moreover, for the 5 North African countries have been provided. The results of parameterisation of the WATSON mode, i.e. damage per tonne of release of heavy metals are included. Results for air pollution in the Northern Hemisphere for emission within Europe are included.The resulting generalized values for different air pollutants in each of the EU-countries and in total for EU27 are shown in Euro 2000 per tonne of the pollutant are shown in the two figures below.
60 30,000 NH3 NMVOC 25,000 NOx 20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
0
80,000 PPM2.5_S1
70,000 PPM2.5_all
60,000 SO2
50,000
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
0
Deliverable 2.1. (D2.1) describes value transfer techniques, and adapts a practical step-by-step guideline for transfer of monetary values from existing, primary valuation studies (study site) for
61 impacts identified in the Impact Pathway Approach (IPA) to value external costs in the case studies (Policy site). The eight steps include: 1) Identify the change in the environmental good to be valued at policy site 2) Identify the affected population at the policy site 3) Conduct a literature review to identify relevant primary studies (based on a database) 4) Assessing the relevance and quality of study site values for transfer 5) Select and summarize the data available from the study site(s) 6) Transfer value estimate from study site(s) to policy site (i.e. unit value transfer with income corrections, supplemented by existing meta analyses) 7) Calculating total benefits or costs 8) Assessment of uncertainty and acceptable transfer errors Compared to conducting a new primary valuation studies of the impacts in question, value transfer increases the uncertainty in the external costs estimates. However, a literature review shows that average transfer errors, both for national and international value transfer, seems to be about + 20-40 %. In many cases this would be an acceptable transfer error in e.g. a Cost-Benefit Anaysis (CBA). Sensitivity analysis should be performed to see if this interval for the estimated values would influence the outcome of the CBA. The size of the critical transfer error, i.e. when Net Preset Value (NPV) of the project is zero, should also be calculated, especially in cases where we suspect the transfer errors could be larger. These cases include international value transfers of affected complex environmental goods from study sites that are quite different from the policy site in terms of magnitude and direction of change, initial level of environmental quality, availability of substitutes (scarcity), different size of affected areas, different type of population (locally most affected population versus the national population) etc.. For CBA and other policy uses, like green national accounting and environmental costing (in energy modelling and assessment of energy technologies), we should perform analyses taking all sources of uncertainties in the IPA into account. This is dealt with in Deliverable 3.1. Deliverable 3.1. (D3.1) concerns the uncertainty of transferring/generalizing external cost estimates to other countries and/or future technologies and emission scenarios. The methodology uses a framework based on lognormal distributions and geometric standard deviations (i.e. multiplicative confidence intervals) to each step of the Impact Pathway approach (IPA). If the central damage cost estimate is g and the geometric standard deviation g, the probability is approximately 68% for the true value to be in the interval [g/g,gg,] and 95% for it to be in the 2 2 interval [g/g ,gg ]. For the greenhouse gases CO2, CH4 and N2O there is of course no uncertainty due to transfer because the damage is independent of the emission site. Of course, their damage cost is controversial and highly uncertain. Based on a literature review the geometric standard deviation sg for greenhouse gases is estimated at approximately 5. For the other pollutants considered (i.e. classical air pollutants and micro pollutants) the additional uncertainties due to transfer/generalization are estimated by examining each element of the calculation that is transferred, in particular dispersion modelingmodelling, dose-response functions and monetary valuation; in some cases additional uncertainties arise if one generalizes to other technologies whose emisisonsemissions are not sufficiently well known. Since each transfer of a component of the calculation can be expressed as multiplication by a correction factor, the framework developed by Rabl and Spadaro with ExternE remains valid for the entire damage cost calculation, 62 including the transfer. Thus, for each component i of the calculation one has to estimate the geometric standard deviation gi, and then the overall geometric standard deviation g of a damage cost is obtained by means of the equation:
2 2 2 2 [ln(g)] = [ln(g1)] + [ln(g2)] + ... + [ln(gn)] , with n = number of components (factors) in the calculation.
Based on a critical examination of the various components that may be involved in a transfer, table 1 presents the estimated geometric standard deviations.
63 Table 13 Geometric standard deviations associated with the transfer of components of the damage cost calculation. The ones that are relevant for a region of interest have to be combined with the geometric standard deviations of the damage costs for the EU15 to obtain the total uncertainty in the region.
Component of calculation g
Transfer of technologies
CO2 emissions with CCS 1.3
Other emissions a
Atmospheric modeling
If no data for effective deposition velocity vdep 2
If no data for stack height 2
If no data for local pop or no data for wind 3
Background Concentrations for sulfate and nitrate formation 1.2
Background Concentrations for O3 formation due to NOx 3?
Background Concentrations for O3 formation due to VOC 1.5?
Modeling of ingestion dose
Toxic Metals 2
Exposure-Response Functions
PM, NOx, SO2, toxic metals 2
Monetary values, non-market goods
WTP for goods other than health 2
WTP for health
(GDP/cap)/(GDP/cap)ref = 0.5 1.3
(GDP/cap)/(GDP/cap)ref = 0.2 1.7
(GDP/cap)/(GDP/cap)ref = 0.1 2.1
a depends on site
The ones that are relevant for a region of interest have to be combined with the geometric standard deviations of the damage costs for the EU15 to obtain the total uncertainty in the region.
For example, if the transfer is to a region where no data for the effective deposition velocity v dep are available, where health system and individual sensitivities are very different from the EU15, and where the PPP adjusted GDP/capita is 1/5 that of the EU15, the numbers in table 1 imply that the total uncertainty for the damage cost of SO2 is g = 4.8, much larger than the g = 3 in the EU15. Even if the overall uncertainty of the external costs estimates is large (1/3 to 3 times the
64 mean estimate for a 68 % confidence interval), knowing that this is the magnitude of the external costs can avoid making policy decisions implying large social costs. Deliverable 4.1 (D4.1) reviews the theory and methodology of Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA), and adapts a practical nine-step guideline to CBAs in the energy sector. 1. Define the project and specify project alternatives/options, and the reference alternative they their costs and benefits should be compared to 2. Decide whose benefits and costs should count; i.e. identify the affected interest groups 3. Catalogue the impacts and select measurement indicators 4. Predict the impacts quantitatively over the life of the project 5. Monetize all impacts 6. Aggregate and Discount benefits and costs (over time) to obtain present values 7. Compute the Net Present Value (NPV) of each alternative 8. Perform sensitivity analysis 9. Make a recommendation To illustration the use of the nine-step guideline to CBA, we added an application to alternative coal combustion technologies to replace coal fired units of existing power plants that are near to the end of their service life in the Czech Republic The status quo was defined as putting in coal- fired units with powdered coal burners. Benefits and costs of the Status quo and the four project alternatives are calculated compared to a reference alternative where no investments would take place. Table 2 present the results in terms of the Present Value (PV) of the costs and benefit components, and the Net Present Value (NPV) of the project alternatives. We see that both fluidized bed combustion systems (FBC- Brown and Biomass) provide negative NPV and are not profitable from the society point of view. The Combined heat and power system (CHP), integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC), and powdered coal burners (Status quo), however, provide positive NPV and are profitable. Out of these, the best option is CHP which provides the greatest NPV. Thus, the contribution of this CBA to the decision-making process would be to recommend CHP as the most profitable/efficient coal combustion technology. Table 2 also shows the effect of the inclusion of external costs when calculating the NPV. The ranking of project alternatives when the NPV is based on the full social costs (= Private Costs + External Costs) is different from the NPV based only on private costs. This clearly shows the importance of including external costs. Note, however, that there could be other coal combustion technologies than those considered in this example (e.g. with carbon capture and storage), or technologies utilizing other energy sources than coal, which could be more profitable than the alternatives in Table 14. This illustrates the fact that our recommendation from a CBA is dependent on, and limited by, the definition of the decision problem /project and project alternatives we analyse. However, NEEDS provides external cost estimates that makes it possible to analyse and compare different technologies for many energy sources in CBAs.
Table 14. Present Value (PV) of Costs and Benefits of Project Alternatives (in mill. €; 2005 price level)
Status quo FBC brown IGCC FBC biomass CHP 65 PV Investment costs 300 318 494 340 339
PV Operating costs 387 389 475 499 395
PV External costs 1340 1891 737 1867 1289
PV Benefits 2070 2070 2070 2070 2070
Net Present Value (NPV)
= PV (Benefits) – PV (Total Costs) 44 -527 365 -635 514
Ranking according to NPV including external costs 3 4 2 5 1
Net Present Value (NPV)
= PV (Benefits) – PV (Private Costs) 1383 1363 1101 1231 1336
Ranking according to NPV excluding external costs 1 2 5 4 3
Deliverable 5.1 reviews the concept and measures /indices used in Green National Accounting, and shows how the Genuine Savings (GS) measure can be applied within NEEDS. Table 15 presents the data for the individual savings categories of GS for six of the countries considered in the NEEDS analysis. Egypt is the only one with a negative GS, primarily reflecting the fact that it has depleted its energy resources (oil) without compensating investment in another form of capital. Conversely, GS proves to be higher than Net National Savings (NNS) in the UK, Czech Republic and Morocco, where investment in education has more than balanced any depletion of natural capital stocks.
Table 15. Net National Savings and Genuine Savings for 2006 (% of Gross National Income)
Consumption Net Gross National of Fixed National Education Energy Mineral Net Forest CO2 PM10 Genuine Country Saving Capital Saving Expenditure Depletion Depletion Depletion damage damage Savings Bulgaria 15.55 11.92 3.62 4.24 0.94 2.03 0.00 1.21 1.55 2.13 Czech Republic 25.42 13.71 11.70 4.21 0.32 0.00 0.05 0.73 0.14 14.67 Egypt 22.08 9.81 12.27 4.41 24.42 0.16 0.21 1.08 0.98 -10.17 Morocco 34.97 10.49 24.48 6.47 0.19 0.76 0.00 0.50 0.09 29.40 Tunisia 26.89 11.42 15.47 6.67 7.35 0.39 0.09 0.60 0.27 13.43 United Kingdom 14.17 10.21 3.96 5.33 2.18 0.00 0.00 0.18 0.04 6.89
Additional analysis investigated the importance of uncertainty in determining GS, through a
number of mechanisms including: the measurement of energy depletion, the valuation of CO2
damage, and the measurement and valuation of PM10 damage.
66 2 PART 2: DISSEMINATION AND USE
2.1 SECTION 1: - EXPLOITABLE KNOWLEDGE AND ITS USE It is worth underlying that this section has been mainly conceived for projects dealing with technological innovations and it is thus scarcely suitable to socio-economic projects. This is particularly true when reading the definition provided by the Commission Guideline to the exploitable knowledge that is defined as a: “knowledge having a potential for industrial or commercial application in research activities or for developing, creating or marketing a product or process or for creating or providing a service”. By its nature, NEEDS doesn’t have such industrial or commercial potentialities. Rather, the knowledge generated in NEEDS is mainly supposed to feed the scientific and policy framework for better understanding technological development and evaluating energy policies. An exception to this could be represented by some of the software tools developed by the project. Such tools might acquire an autonomous market value in the future. In this respect, worth mentioning are the LCA database developed by the partner ESU- Service, in cooperation with RS 1a, the EcoSenseWeb tool developed by the partner IER (University of Stuttgart), in cooperation with RS 2b partners, and the NEEDS-TIMES pan European and country models (and related technological database) developed by RS 2a. A brief outline of these products is provided in the following sections.
What the exploitable result is (functionality, purpose, innovation etc.); a. The LCA database This database includes the LCI (Life Cycle Inventory) values for all the technologies analysed within NEEDS. The results are available for three time horizons (today, 2025 and 2050) and for three different scenarios. The LCIs were centrally calculated at ESU-services Ltd. with the software Umberto 5.5. The ecoinvent data v1.3 was used in the background for the "TODAY" scenario and adapted where necessary for the future scenarios. The main innovation of this tool lies in the contents. For the first time, fully consistent life cycle inventories of technologies manufactured and operated in the future were compiled by about ten European institutes and combined in one central LCA tool. Based on those datasets, a series of nine consistent LCI results of each technology was generated centrally. The consistency was achieved as follows: besides technical developments in a particular power plant technology, developments in the European electricity mix, in materials manufacture and in transport service provision are taken into account for each of the scenarios developed. The technical developments were defined according to the characteristics of the different scenarios. The tool is now freely available on the web via http://www.isistest.com/needswebdb/ and has been developed by the Swiss firm ESU-Service in collaboration with the partner IFU (Institut für Umweltinformatik Hamburg GmbH) and ISIS that took care of the web installation of the database.
67 b. The EcoSenseWeb tool The exploitable results are mainly data, models and values which can be used to evaluate impacts caused by different activities which cause emission of pollutants, GHG or land use change. These results have been implemented into the EcoSenseWeb tool. The tool now can be used for calculations of external costs caused by power plants or other point or area sources of emissions. It is moreover worth noting that the generalised values also derived with EcoSenseWeb in Rs3a can be used, for example, in life cycle analysis for impact assessment (LCIA) and for cost benefit analysis. Moreover, they can be used as input for “green accounting”, in industrial or commercial application as well in research activities. The external costs evaluation can also be used in the context of developing, creating or marketing a product or process or for creating or providing a service. c. The NEEDS-TIMES models: These models refer to two regional subsets: The NEEDS TIMES country models: national energy systems templates to support energy planning and decision making on the medium-long term in EU27+ countries. The NEEDS TIMES Pan European model: an integrated modelling platform representing the EU energy system with a country level detail, for the assessment of energy and environmental policies on the medium-long term, taking into account the trade exchanges among countries. Making use of a common “Reference technology database”, that contains the main technological and economical parameters describing a large set of technologies involved in all sectors of the economy and that can be used to perform any model development or scenario analysis.
Partner(s) involved in the exploitation, role and activities The IER institute of the Stuttgart University is the main developer of the EcoSenseWeb tool. Contributions have been provided by: MET.NO, EDF and AUTH for the atmospheric modelling issues Armines and EPFL for the Impact Pathway Analysis via Soil and Water VITO, IOM, Armines for Causal links between pollutants and health impacts Econcept for the assessment of biodiversity losses UniHH for the assessment of climate change. Armines, VITO, AUTH, UBATH for the assessment of the quality and consistency of results OME, Polito, FEEM, VITO, CEDRE for the externalities from the oil, gas, electricity and hydrogen transportation It is worth noting that the EcoSenseWeb tool has already been extensively used in the CASES project (DG Research FP6, 2008) and that many stakeholders from research institutes and NGOs are using it in order to calculate external costs Many partners have contributed to the development of the NEEDS-Times models providing either the specific country data or the scenario input or the software design and procedures. The partners contribution is then outlined in the following table: 68 Pan European Scenario Partner Country models development model analysis development CHALMERS Sweden, Norway, Iceland CIEMAT Spain CIEMAT (UNL) Portugal CRES Greece, Malta, Cyprus ECN The Netherlands, Ireland ENERO Romania IMAA-CNR Italy X INFM Slovenia KANLO X KUL Belgium X KUL (CMA -
ENSMP) France POLITO United Kingdom X PSI Switzerland X RISOE Denmark TTU Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia Germany, Austria, Chzech R., Hungary, X X USTUTT Slovachia, Poland, Bulgaria (outside NEEDS) VTT Finland
How the result might be exploited (products, processes) - directly (spin offs etc) or indirectly (licensing) – on an individual basis or as a consortium/group of partners; The use of the LCA database is free of charge and there are not envisaged commercial licenses to use the EcoSenseWeb tool and the NEEDS-TIMES models. The EcoSenseWeb tool can be used in EU and national projects under bilateral agreement with the IER. The KANLO VEDA suite of software (that constitute the core of the NEEDS-TIMES models) are the property of KANORS Inc and KANLO Consultants; Free usage and technical support of the software was granted within the NEEDS project for all NEEDS RS2a partners. Their use in other EC funded projects is guaranteed, provided proper resources are made available to fund the technical support required by the software, and to insure that the latest versions are used; Their use for other (not EC funded) projects is subject to explicit approval by, and arrangements with KANLO Consultants and KANORS INC
Further additional research and development work; In order to complete/improve the NEEDS framework of analysis, further RTD efforts are required: Extension/harmonisation of LCA, externalities valuation and stakeholders perspective to all energy technologies (e.g. heating) New dispersion models and new background emission scenarios to account for non linearities of ER functions Further reduce uncertainties in the assessment of both physical phenomena and their monetary valuation (e.g. damage costs of climate change) Fresh (original) evidence on health and mortality effects in NMS and non-EU countries (limited transferability) 69 More robust quantification of “soft” sustainability indicators (e.g. social ) Further integration of “non monetizable” dimensions (e.g. risk comfort, etc.) in coherent analytical framework (e.g. through iterative approaches, or through Multi Objective Decision Analysis) And to enhance the exploitation/dissemination potentialities of the project, the following actions should be required: Additional scenarios to account for emerging policy priorities and developments (e.g. extension of ETS, enanced decentralization/integration of energy systems, etc.) Incorporating feedback from stakeholders analysis into externality valuation and modelling (iterations) From Pan-EU to worlwide modelling Further dissemination => better understanding and wider use of externalities estimates by policy and decision makers
Intellectual Property Rights protection measures (patents, design rights, database rights, plant varieties, etc – include references and details); There are in general not IPRs in this project. The IPR for the use of the EcoSenseWeb tool is ruled by a license agreement (see section 3). For what concerns the NEEDS-Times models free usage and technical support of the software was granted within the NEEDS project for all NEEDS RS2a partners; Their use in other EC funded projects is guaranteed, provided proper resources are made available to fund the technical support required by the software, and to insure that the latest versions are used; Their use for other (not EC funded) projects is subject to explicit approval by, and arrangements with KANLO Consultants and KANORS INC that are the owner of the core software of the models..
Any commercial contacts already taken, demonstrations given to potential licensees and/or investors and any comments received (market requirements, potential etc.); Not in the scope of this project Where possible, also include any other potential impact from the exploitation of the result (socio-economic impact). The NEEDS achievements are mainly addressed to decision and policy makers and don’t have an immediate socio-economic impact. Nonetheless the NEEDS results may the establishment of energy-environmental policies that take into account the environmental and societal requirements.
2.2 SECTION 2: - DISSEMINATION OF KNOWLEDGE Overview table:
70 Partner Planned/ Size of Countries responsibl actual Type Type of audience audienc addressed e Dates e /involved February NEEDS website Policy and decision All Europe ISIS 2005 makers, stakeholders, researchers, academia 24 May NEEDS Forum 1 Policy and decision All Europe 50 GLOBE 2005 “Accepting the Real Price for makers, stakeholders, Sustainable” Energy researchers, academia Brussels 7 April 2006 NEEDS Policy workshop 1 Policy and decision All Europe 25 ISIS “Modelling scenarios and makers related policy issues” Rome May 2006 NEEDS Newsletter 1 Policy and decision All Europe 2.000 ISIS makers, stakeholders, researchers, academia January TV interview to present NEEDS Romania Member 2007 Mr Ion Purica of PAG 8 March NEEDS Workshop Policy and decision All Europe 80 JSI 2007 “Externalities in Decentralised makers, stakeholders, vs. Centralised Energy Services researchers, academia Supply (DvCS)” Ljubljana 9 March NEEDS Policy workshop 2 Policy and decision All Europe 25 ISIS 2007 “Stakeholders’ acceptability of makers external costs” Ljubljana May 2007 NEEDS Newsletter 2 Policy and decision All Europe 2.000 ISIS makers, stakeholders, researchers, academia 5 July 2007 NEEDS Forum 2 Policy and decision Eastern 80 AGH “Energy supply security – makers, stakeholders, European present and future issues” researchers, academia countries Krakow December NEEDS Newsletter 3 Policy and decision All Europe 2.000 ISIS 2007 makers, stakeholders, researchers, academia 28-29 NEEDS Forum 3 Policy and decision Mediterranean 80 OME January “Externalities and makers, stakeholders, countries 2008 Mediterranean Countries” researchers, academia Cairo 23 NEEDS National Seminar Policy and decision Hungary 50 AEKI February Hungary makers, stakeholders, 2008 researchers, academia September NEEDS Newsletter 4 Policy and decision All Europe 2.000 ISIS 2008 makers, stakeholders, researchers, academia 29 NEEDS Policy workshop 3 Policy and decision All Europe 25 ISIS September Milan makers 2008 30 NEEDS Key note speeches (in Policy and decision Italy 80 ISIS September conjunction with CASES final makers, stakeholders, 2008 conference) researchers, academia
71 Partner Planned/ Size of Countries responsibl actual Type Type of audience audienc addressed e Dates e /involved Milan 16-17 NEEDS Final Conference Policy and decision All Europe 150 ISIS February “External costs of Energy makers, stakeholders, 2009 Technologies” Brussels researchers, academia EESC
In addition, a considerable amount of dissemination activities has been implemented by NEEDS partners, and Stream leaders in particular over the full duration of the project. To summarise:
27 lectures were given to various private or public master courses based on the NEEDS project 141 presentations were given to various conferences, workshops, seminar presenting the NEEDS project and its outcomes 50 published articles and/or papers based on the NEEDS project methodologies and outcomes were issued in various scientific publications 30 non refereed literature related to NEEDS was prepared, such as technical reports, working papers, conference proceedings 2 posters 11 other dissemination activities were promoted, such as establishment of structured contacts with international energy institutions (IEA, EWEA, Q8 Italy, CENSIS), inclusion in the RESCUE database, participation in international scientific committees.
72 2.3 SECTION 3 - PUBLISHABLE RESULTS Section 2.3, like section 2.1, is not strictly applicable to the NEEDS project. The results cannot be classified as “products” in a strict sense, having functional characteristics and marketable potentialities. As already outlined, the only three outputs having similar characteristics are the LCA database, the EcoSense Tool and the NEEDS-Times models, for which a brief functional description is provided here below. Result description (product(s) envisaged, functional description, main advantages, innovations
As outlined in section 1, the LCA Database is available on the web via http://www.isistest.com/needswebdb/ (see Figure 20). Data are available in the EcoSpold data format (xml technology), the most widespread and technically most advanced data exchange format worldwide (see Figure 21). It allows for an easy import into leading life cycle assessment software tools such as SimaPro, OpenLCA or Umberto. The files are also offered in Excel and html formats.
Figure 20: User interface of the NEEDS life cycle inventory database
73 Users outside d l
NEEDS o p S o c E - L d M l d l T o LCI Result o p H p
S Database S o o c c E - ⋰ ⋰ 2050 E - L Central Database 2025 L M M X Central Database2005 Data collector X Data collector RS1a Reports / (RS1a WP7-14) Central (RS1a WP7-14) Book Database e l b
NEEDS Research Stream 1a a T
l
other NEEDS Research Streams e c x
E External Cost External Cost n i Calculator (RS1b) Reports a l P
MCDA indicator MCDA Reports calculator (RS2b)
Unit Process Data (solid line arrow) System Process Data (dashed line arrow) Type of Data upon the decision of the data collector (dashed-dotted line arrow) Figure 21: Data exchange pathways within the NEEDS project (box) and with third parties
The EcoSenseWeb is an integrated atmospheric dispersion and exposure assessment model which implements the Impact Pathway Approach initially developed within the ExternE project and then further enhanced within NEEDS. Figure 22 show the general structure of the tool. EcoSense was developed to support the assessment of priority impacts resulting from the exposure to airborne pollutants, namely impacts on human health, crops, building materials and ecosystems. The current version of EcoSenseWeb, covers the emission of ‘classical’ pollutants SO 2,
NOx, primary particulates, NMVOC, NH3, as well as some of the most important heavy metals. It includes also damage assessment due to emission of greenhouse gases. Impacts of ‘classical’ pollutants are calculated on different spatial scales, i.e. local (50 km around the emission source), regional (Europe-wide) and (northern) hemispheric scale. The WEB version EcoSenseWeb has a web-based user interface and has been developed within the NEEDS project
74 Figure 22: General structure of the EcoSenseWeb tool
The Reference technology database includes a fairly complete set of technologies involved in all sectors of the economy, namely: primary energy extraction, energy processing and conversion, energy transport, and end-uses by four main sectors (residential, commercial, industry, transportation) with default technological and economical parameters to be used to perform any model development or scenario analysis. All data were assembled in Excel format and converted into a model’s user-interface ready format that allows direct import into the models. Among these, thanks to an iterative process of data harmonization among streams, it was possible to constitute a common technology database for the electricity generation sector, that represents a more complete subset of the whole reference technology database. The 30 NEEDS TIMES country models14 were implemented on the basis of common European data sources (mainly the Eurostat energy section and DG TREN transport information) integrated with national data to correct major inconsistencies and complete missing data. Five “templates”, that are elaborate Excel spreadsheets, lay down the basic structure of the country models and hold the data necessary to calibrate the energy flows of the base-year (2000)
14 Adopted Country’s short names: Iceland IS, Norway NO, Sweden SE, Portugal PT, Spain ES, Cyprus CY, Greece GR, Malta MT, Ireland IE, Netherlands NL, Romania RO, Italy IT, Slovenia SI, Belgium BE, France FR, Luxembourg LU, United Kingdom UK, Poland PL, Slovak Republic SK, Switzerland CH, Denmark DK, Estonia EE, Latvia LV, Lithuania LT, Austria AT, Czech Republic CZ, Germany DE, Hungary HU, Finland FI. 75 per each sector modelled (RCA: Residential/Commercial/Agriculture, IND: Industry, TRA: Transport, ELC: Electricity/Heat production, and SUP: Energy Supply). To carry out the long term analysis (over a 50-year time horizon) three additional inputs have to be specified into VEDA-FE: - Existing and future technologies and fuels - Demand drivers and elasticities - Scenarios parameters Technical and economic information on each existing and future technology in each sector (Supply and Power generation, Industry, Residential, Commercial, Transportation) over the entire time horizon are provided in Excel files (SubRes New Techs) that include life cycle emissions coefficients and external costs. A Business As Usual – BAU scenario was implemented taking into account the national normative on energy and environment and the main requirements of the Pan EU model in order to allow an effective multi-region integration of country in a Pan EU framework. The results obtained in BAU constitute the baseline for scenarios analysis at country level (outside the project)
The NEEDS-TIMES Pan European model represents a new alternative instrument for policy analysis of the European energy system, allowing to create contrasting scenarios representing the potential development of the energy panorama over the years up to 2050 according to the take up of different policy measures. It has a complex multi-region structure, based on the integration of 30 EU TIMES country models, including externalities linked to emissions and the main LCI data for EPG technologies. The model generator utilized for implementing the energy system models is The Integrated MARKAL-EFOM System (TIMES), developed by the Energy Technology Systems Analysis Programme (of the International Energy Agency (IEA), and used worldwide to implement both national and global models. A common structure for the implementation of the country models was defined, based on a Reference Energy System and a set of data files that fully describe the energy in a format compatible with the associated model generator, allowing to obtain coherent policy insights both at Pan EU and country level. The main macroeconomic and sectoral assumptions are in line with the EU projections were derived with the GEM-E3 general equilibrium model and used to derive the sectoral demand projections. The integration efforts among streams resulted in the introduction of LCA and external costs data into the Pan European model. A set of contrasting scenarios was defined in agreement with stakeholders and analysed to illustrate how the Pan European TIMES model developed within the NEEDS project can contribute to the evaluation of long term policies for the energy system. The reference scenario (REF) describes the development of the EU-27 energy system in agreement with most of present policies, providing a baseline for comparing policy scenarios. Besides the Reference scenario, the policy scenarios analysed in the NEEDS project were aimed at addressing different policy issues on the table at EU level like environmental issues linked to energy (climate policy and local pollution linked to energy) and energy issues, such as energy dependence, international oil price, nuclear availability. Moreover, taking into account the current variability of oil prices, it was also investigated in depth the stability of the model’s solutions to oil price variations.
76 This constitutes the basis for the analysis of many possible futures (scenario analysis), according to the aim of the study and stakeholders objectives. In particular, the NEEDS Pan European Model can support decision making by evaluating: The impact of targeted air quality EU policies (emissions standards) on emissions, costs and climate change The full costs and benefits of EU Directives that have an impact on the energy system The impact of different Post Kyoto strategies on the future of energy technologies The impact of alternative internalization policies and their contribution to sustainability The technologies and policies that exhibit the most robust behavior in an overall sustainability perspective
Possible market applications (sectors, type of use ..) or how they might be used in further research (including expected timings)
The LCA database, the EcoSenseWeb and the NEEDS-Times models are not commercial applications. The first tool is available free of charge and the other two can be used by researchers and stakeholders upon agreements to be established with the producers. Both the databases, the tool and the models are mainly addressed to researchers, consultants and health, environment and safety departments of companies and energy economic researchers like: LCA experts ExternE experts MCDA experts Energy systems modellers As already outlined in Section 1, the LCI results datasets are of value in the environmental assessment of future technologies, where consistent life cycle based information of future electricity supply, material manufactures or transport service systems are required. Data are ready to use thanks to the EcoSpold data exchange format. The EcoSenseWeb tool can be used as input for “green accounting” in industrial or commercial application The NEEDS-Times models are currently being widely used in several FP7 projects and is contributing to EU and national policy analysis as well as to the IEA/ETP2008 report.
Stage of development (laboratory prototype, demonstrator, industrial product...) All the products are fully developed and functioning
Collaboration sought or offered (manufacturing agreement, financial support or investment, information exchange, training, consultancy, other) Not applicable to these products
Collaborator details (type of partner sought and task to be performed) Not applicable to these products
Intellectual property rights granted or published
77 EcoSenseWeb was developed within the EU-projects NEEDS and CASES. Project partners from these project have free access. Other users obtain access for a small handling fee and after signing a licence agreement with IER (Institut für Energiewirtschaft und Rationelle Energieanwendung, Universität Stuttgart, 70550 Stuttgart, Germany). For the NEEDS-Times models the property rights are ruled as follow: The Reference technology database constitutes an integral part of country energy models but it can also be distributed in a stand-alone manner (Excel format) free of charge. Each country team is the owner of the models developed and can use/modify it for scientific purposes or distribute the data The Pan EU modelling platform has been providing background/side-ground know-how to other projects (by NEEDS partners involved). In general, free use for EC of all the RS2a NEEDS products for strategic analyses is guaranteed (with the IPR set by KANORS Inc and KANLO Consultants for the utilisation of their software).
Contact details
LCA Database Mr Rolf Frischknecht ESU-services Ltd. “fair consulting in sustainability” Kanzleistrasse 4 CH - 8610 Uster, Switzerland www.esu-services.ch tel +41 44 940 61 91 / 079 736 64 32 fax +41 44 940 61 94 e-mail: mailto:[email protected]
EcoSenSeWeb: Mr Philipp Preiss Institute of Energy Economics and Rational Use of Energy (IER) - Dep. for Technology Assessment and Environment Hessbruehlstr. 49a, 70565 Stuttgart Germany Tel 49 (0)711 780 61 37 Email: [email protected]
78 NEEDS-Times models Vincenzo Cuomo, Carmelina Cosmi CNR-IMAA Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche Istituto di Metodologie per l’Analisi Ambientale C.da S.Loja, 85050 Tito Scalo (PZ), Italy Tel.+39-0971-427208/427268 Fax +39-0971-427271 Emails: [email protected] [email protected]
NEEDS Project Andrea Ricci, Stefano Faberi, Silvia Gaggi ISIS Via Flaminia, 21 00196 Rome, Italy Tel +39 06 3212655 Emails: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
79