Energy Demand and Mix for Global Welfare and Stable Ecosystems Abstract History and Current Status of Global Energy Consumption

Reducing the Carbon Footprint of Fuels and Chemicals DGMK Conference October 8-10, 2012, Berlin, Germany

Energy Demand and Mix for Global Welfare and Stable Ecosystems A. Jess, C. Kern, P. Kaiser

Abstract Social indicators show that an annual energy consumption of 2 tonnes of oil equivalent per capita (toe pc) should be enough to ensure a sufficient global average level of welfare and happiness. Hence, rich countries with currently up to 8 toe pc should reduce and poor should legitimately increase their energy demand until 2 toe pc are reached. At today´s global energy mix with 80% fossil fuels, even this optimistic scenario will inevitably lead to a conflict between welfare and stable ecosystems. The population will be 9 billion by 2050 and the ecological footprint would rise from today 1.5 to 2 planet Earths. The only option to reach the desired footprint of one planet Earth is a complete shift from fossil fuels to renewables. History and current status of global energy consumption During the last 60 years, the global primary energy consumption has grown by a factor of 4.5, whereas the global population has “only” increased by a factor of 2.5 (Fig. 1). Hence, the average global requirements have almost doubled from 1 tonne of oil equivalent (1 toe = 41.87 GJ) per capita (pc) and year to 1.8 toe pc and year, mostly driven by the increasing energy demand of industrialized countries in North America and Europe.

Fig. 1: History of global population and primary energy (PE) consumption in 1950 to 2010.

One main driver of energy consumption is transport. Exemplarily, the development since the beginning of the 19th century is shown in Fig. 2 for France [1, 2], indicating the shift from horses and water ways to trains and finally to cars and planes, and the drastic increase of the daily individual mobility from 30 m in 1800 to 40 km of today. The current mobility is only possible by a huge consumption of liquid fuels (gasoline, diesel, kerosene) based on oil. The annual global primary energy consumption is 12 billion toe. The fossil fuels fill 82% of the energy supply (34% oil, 27% coal, 21% natural gas). The contribution of nuclear and

DGMK-Tagungsbericht 2012-3, ISBN 978-3-941721-26-5 7 Reducing the Carbon Footprint of Fuels and Chemicals

hydro is 6% and 2%, respectively. The share of biomass is 10%, mainly traditional biomass (7%), which is not traded for money and difficult to quantify, and which has the severe problem of a negligible reforestation. Other renewables such as geothermal, solar, and wind currently do not play a significant role on a global basis (< 1%) (all values for 2007 [3 - 5]). At present, a small part of the world´s population has the lion´s share of the energy consumption. The OECD-countries with a population of 1.2 billion people (18% of global population), have a share of 47% of the global energy consumption and consume triple as much as China with a similar population (data of 2007). In Asia (excl. China) and Africa, the annual demand pc is only 0.7 toe compared to the OECD-value of 4.6 toe [4].

Fig. 2: History of daily mobility in France in the period 1800 to 1990 (data from [1, 2]).

Tab. 1 depicts the annual energy consumption per head in selected countries along with the consumption of food and water, status of poverty, number of cars and internet users and area per person. In some countries, the area per capita is already quite limited, e.g. 0.4 soccer fields in India. Hence, the contribution of biomass is limited as the available land area for energy generation from biomass (without unwanted traditional biomass with a strong negative ecological impact) is by far not high enough. According to own estimations, the maximum energy generation from biomass in 2050 will be around 10% (see [6]). In this regard the following statement of Burkhardt [7] is instructive: “The problems of large scale global use of biomass can be visualized by comparing it with food energy. A person needs some 2000 kcal per day (0.07 toe/a). Feeding the present world energy system with biomass power (1.8 toe pc and a) is equivalent to feeding an additional 27 “energy slaves” per person; it is quite obvious that a healthy World ecosystem cannot spare sufficient biomass production capacity to feed the equivalent of 180 billion human beings”. Fossil energy is limited. Reserves are currently technologically and economically recoverable, whereas resources are the estimated quantities that are not recoverable at current prices and technologies. Tab. 2 shows reserves and the resources-to-production ratios, which are static values based on current prices, technology, and demand. There are certainly vast amounts of fossil fuels left, but the amounts that can be commercially exploited at prices the

DGMK-Tagungsbericht 2012-3 8 Reducing the Carbon Footprint of Fuels and Chemicals

global economy has become accustomed to is certainly limited. It must be also pointed out that today (2011) only 9% of the reserves of gas and only 14% of those of oil are located in OECD countries (coal: 44%) [13]. This non-uniform distribution of gas and oil will play an important role regarding the future struggle for resources and is a political risk. Even more important: The availability of fossil fuels is not the problem of primary concern. The major problem lies in the CO2 produced when fossil fuels are burned. Tab. 1: Primary energy consumption (2008) [4], consumption of food (2001) [8], daily water 1997 - 2001 ([9, 10]), private cars per 100 people 2007 - 2011 [11], internet user (2010) [11], poverty 2005/10 [11] and area per capita (2011) in selected countries.

2 3 Poverty Energy in Daily food Water (m pc/day) Cars3 Internet Area pc in Country < 2 $/day toe pc/a in kcal pc per 100 user/100 soccer fields4 total1 domestic (< 5 $)

USA 7.5 3690 6.8 0.59 - 44 74 4.3

Germany 4.1 3430 4.2 0.18 - 51 83 0.6

Japan 3.9 2870 3.2 0.37 - 45 78 0.4

Russia 4.8 2930 5.1 0.27 - (2.4%) 23 43 17

China 1.6 2910 1.9 0.07 10% (36%) 3 34 1

India 0.5 2320 2.9 0.10 25% (63%) 1 8 0.4

Ethiopia 0.4 1800 2.4 0.01 29% (68%) 0.1 1 4.6

World 1.8 2800 3.4 0.16 20% (40%) 10 30 3 1 Domestic water (drinking, washing, bathing etc.) and water for production of agricultural and industrial goods, whereby internal and external footprints are considered. The internal footprint is water required for the production of goods in national economy minus virtual water export to other countries related to export of domestically produced goods. The external footprint of a country is water used in other countries to produce goods consumed by inhabitants of the country concerned. 2 % living under 2 (5) US dollar a day (purchasing power parity). 3 Private owned cars (> 2 wheels, designed to seat < 9 people including driver). 4 7300 m2. Tab. 2: Reserves and resources of fossil fuels in 2009 [12]

Consumption Reserves Resources Reserves-to- Resources-to- Fuel type in billion in billion in billion production production toe per year toe toe ratio in years ratio in years Crude oil, oil 4.0 227 410 57 103 sands, oil shale Conventional and non-conventional 2.5 179 2690 72 1080 natural gas Coal 3,3 505 11380 153 3450

The current global energy consumption and mix, the continuous growth of the world population, and the still growing energy demand will inevitiably lead to a conflict between stable societies and stable ecosystems. Thus, the question arises how the global energy demand can be reconciled with the necessity to preserve the integrity of the biosphere. To analyse the 21st century sustainability threats, three key questions have to be answered [6, 14]:

DGMK-Tagungsbericht 2012-3 9 Reducing the Carbon Footprint of Fuels and Chemicals

1. What is the energy demand per capita to ensure welfare of a society, i.e. how much energy is really needed to reach a happy world population on a global average basis? 2. What is on the other hand the maximum global energy consumption to ensure stable ecosystems, i.e. to ensure a happy planet? 3. Finally, how are we able to reconcile the world´s future energy demand to ensure welfare for all people with the absolute necessity to preserve the integrity of the biosphere? An attempt to give answers to these questions is done in this paper. The focus is on energy and not on problems like food or water demand although these aspects are somehow strongly linked to energy demand (Tab. 1). To derive answers to the first question, social indicators and their relationship to energy consumption are inspected. To address the second, the ecological footprint representing the demand on the Earth's ecosystem is used. Finally, considerations to solve the conflict between stable ecosystems and stable societies are discussed. This paper summarizes the results already presented in previous publications [6, 14]. Energy consumption and social indicators Usually, the gross national product (GNP) is used as a measure of a country's economic performance. For a comparison of countries, the purchasing power parity (PPP) is used, i.e. the GNP in international dollars with the purchasing power as an US $ in the USA. Fig. 3 shows the relationship of the GNP per capita (pc) and the primary energy consumption (pc).

Fig. 3: Gross national product in purchasing power parity per capita (2008) versus primary energy consumption pc (2007) (solid line with slope of current global average; dot and dash line indicates the development in countries with increased energy efficiency) [6].

Up to a GNP of about 15,000 US $ pc, an increase of the GNP is associated with an almost linear rise of the annual energy demand. For higher GNP values, the energy demand per capita differs substantially among countries, and the correlation between GNP and per capita energy gets nonlinear: Relative efficient and solidly performing European countries need 3 to 4 toe pc to reach a level of 35,000 US $ pc, which equals an energy intensity of 1 toe per 10,000 US $ PPP. To the contrary, relatively wasteful countries have much higher energy intensities, e.g. the US (1.7 toe/10,000 $) and Russia (3 toe). The nonlinear trend in certain

DGMK-Tagungsbericht 2012-3 10 Reducing the Carbon Footprint of Fuels and Chemicals

high-income countries (Europe, Japan) gives rise to a certain optimism, and reflects the positive effect of efficient energy use. Nevertheless, technical improvements and energy conservation are still needed in currently rich nations. If we assume that an average value of 20,000 US $ purchasing power parity is needed per head to reach on a globally average basis a sufficient level of welfare, and use an energy intensity of 1 toe per 10,000 $ PPP already reached today in well performing countries, we get an average value of 2 toe pc as a first estimation of what is needed to ensure a sufficient average status of welfare. An additional instructive indicator of the minimum per capita energy demand can be derived by the correlation of the proportion of undernourished in the total population and the energy consumption per capita (Fig. 4). For all countries with an annual demand above 2 toe pc, the proportion of undernourishment is negligible and not depicted. Fig. 4 clearly indicates that an annual demand above 1 toe pc is a must to exclude starvation, and that more than about 1.5 toe pc are beyond a poor nutritional situation of a society.

Fig. 4: Proportion of undernourished in total population (2004) [6] versus energy consumption pc. For all countries with more than 1.5 toe pc the proportion of undernourishment is negligible [6].

Countries with a high gross national product pc may be more likely to also score high on other measures of welfare. However, there are limitations to apply the GNP pc as a measure of welfare, because the GNP does not measure the quality of life or of the environment, the security from crime or the population health. To characterize the level of human development, the Human Development Index (HDI) is used, which combines with equal weighting factor normalized measures of life expectancy, education, and GNP per capita [14]. Fig. 5 shows the HDI versus the energy consumption pc. In underdeveloped (HDI < 0.5) and developing countries (0.5 < HDI < 0.8), there is a clear relation between HDI and energy demand, but for developed countries (HDI > 0.8), HDI gets independent of energy demand. The following conclusions can be deduced from Fig. 5: 1. A minimum energy consumption of 2 toe per capita is sufficient at the current status of technology to achieve the average HDI value (0.95) of high-income countries.

DGMK-Tagungsbericht 2012-3 11 Reducing the Carbon Footprint of Fuels and Chemicals

2. To achieve a globally just and equitable society, today´s rich countries have to reduce their energy consumption substantially, while the poor legitimately could increase consumption until the consumption of all humans converges toward the common average of 2 toe pc. 3. According to UN estimates, the world population will be 9 billion in 2050 compared to almost 7 billion today. Thus, if nothing changes - constant HDI and energy consumption per head - 35% more energy will be needed, and if the average status of development increases, this will inevitably lead to a further rise, if we do not change our attitudes. 4. The following scenario for 2050 is instructive. Let us be optimistic and assume that the current HDI value of high-income countries (0.95) is then reached globally. Let us also assume that by advanced technologies and energy savings only 2 toe pc and year are consumed in 2050 on a global average. For a population of 9 billion in 2050, the world would then still need 18 billion toe which is 50% more of what is consumed today!

Fig. 5: Human Development Index versus energy consumption pc. The HDI ranks countries by level of "human development” (HDI for 2007 from [15]). The arrow shows the decrease of the global energy consumption pc to the minimum value that we could have today (2008) according to the trend (dot and dash curve) without change of global average HDI [6]. Average richer nations may tend to be happier than poorer nations, but beyond an annual GNP pc of 15,000 US $ (PPP) the average income of a nation makes little difference to the average happiness and life satisfaction of a nation [16 - 18]. Happiness may be determined by asking how happy respondents are, thereby using a 4-point scale (‘‘very happy’’ = 1, ‘‘rather happy’’ = 2, ‘‘not very happy’’ = 3, ‘‘not at all happy’’ = 4). Life satisfaction is assessed by asking respondents how satisfied they are with their life, using a scale from 1 (not at all satisfied) to 10 (very satisfied). For a composite measure of the so-called subjective well- being index (SWB) the responses to both questions are combined [18]. As the two questions have opposite polarity, the SWB is defined as “life satisfaction - 2.5 x happiness”. Thus, if 100% of people are very happy and extremely satisfied, a country gets the maximum score

DGMK-Tagungsbericht 2012-3 12 Reducing the Carbon Footprint of Fuels and Chemicals

of 7.5. If more people are dissatisfied (e.g. average score of 5) or unhappy (e.g. value of 3) than satisfied or happy, the country would even get a negative score (-2.5 for the example). Fig. 6 depicts the subjective well-being index (SWB) versus the primary energy consumption per capita, which leads to a similar correlation as the plot of HDI versus energy consumption (Fig. 5). About 2 toe pc are annually needed to make people happy. If more energy is consumed, this brings no or little further improvement in well-being, although there are substan- tial differences from this trend in the ex-communist countries (less happy) and in Latin America, where people tend to be happier than their energy demand would predict.

Fig. 6: Subjective well-being index (1995-2007) vs. energy consumption pc (2007) [6, 18].

All indicators of prosperity, welfare and happiness show that no more than an annual energy consumption of 2 toe pc is needed to ensure a sufficiently high standard of living. A similar value is given by Smil [19] after concideration of HDI, life expectancy, infant mortality, food availability, and political freedom. Smil states that “all of the quality-of-life variables relate to average per capita energy use in a non linear manner, with clear inflections between 1 to 1.7 toe pc, with diminishing returns afterwards and with basically no additional gains accompany- ing consumption above 2.6 toe pc. Consequently, the quest for ever higher energy use has no justification either in objective evaluations or in subjective self assessments” [19]. (Smil also found out that “prospects for a nation´s political freedoms have little to do with any increases in energy use above existential minimum”. For example, countries with a low freedom rating include also oil-rich countries like Libya, and countries like India or Argentinia have a high degree of freedom but use less than 2 toe pc [19].) Energy consumption and ecological footprint The ecological footprint is a measure of human demand on the Earth's ecosystem (Tab. 3). It compares the demand with planet Earth's ecological capacity to regenerate, and represents the amount of biologically productive land and sea area needed to regenerate the resources consumed by the human population. Using this assessment, it is possible to estimate how many planet Earths it would take to support humanity, if everybody in the world would live a

DGMK-Tagungsbericht 2012-3 13 Reducing the Carbon Footprint of Fuels and Chemicals

given lifestyle in a certain country. According to the Global Footprint Network [20], the ecological footprint is defined as the sum of the area of all cropland, grazing land, forest, build-up land, and fishing grounds required to produce food, fibre, timber etc., and of the carbon (CO2) footprint representing the biocapacity needed to absorb CO2 emissions. In 2008, the total global footprint was 18.2 billion global hectares or 2.7 gha per head (a global hectare is a hectare with world-average ability to produce resources and absorb wastes). On the supply side, the total productive area was 1.78 gha pc. Thus, the humanity's total ecological footprint equals 1.5 planet Earths in 2008 (2005: 1.3). In other words, humanity uses ecological ser- vices 1.5 times as fast as Earth is able to renew them [20]. This value has grown over time, 0.6 planet Earths in 1960, one in 1976, and 1.3 in 2000. Without counteractions (“business as usual” scenario), a value of 2.9 global Earths will be reached in 2050 [20]. In 2008, the single largest demand humanity put on the biosphere was its carbon footprint (54%), followed by cropland (22%), forest (10%), grazing land (8%), fishing grounds (4%), and build-up land (2%). Tab. 3 shows data of population and ecological footprint in important regions. Today, North America, Europe and Asia Pacific have the largest total footprints, but countries like Bangladesch, India and (still) China have much smaller footprints per capita of only 0.4, 0.5 and 1.2 planet Earths compared to Germany (2.6) and the US (4). (The world “record holders” are Haiti with 0.3 plant Earths and Qatar with 6.6.) Tab. 3: Population and ecological footprint in 2008 in different regions (data from [20])

Population Total ecological Ecological footprint per Region in billion footprint in billion gha head in planet Earths

Africa 0.98 1.42 0.8

Middle East and Central Asia 0.38 0.91 1.4

Asia-Pacific 3.73 6.08 0.9

Europe (EU) 0.50 2.36 2.7

Europe (non-EU) 0.24 0.97 2.3

Latin America and the Caribbean 0.58 1.57 1.5

North America 0.34 2.42 4.0

World 6.74 18.20 1.5

Fig. 7 depicts that the ecological footprint is strongly - more or less linearly - linked to energy consumption. As a rule of thumb, an increase of the energy consumption by 1.5 toe pc raises the ecological footprint by one planet Earth (Fig. 7). Hence, the global energy demand should be reduced by about 20% to keep our planet “happy” at current technologies and fuel shares. However, the world population will grow to 9 billion in 2050 compared to 7 billion today, and thus we have to limit our annual energy consumption to 1.1 toe pc. But this is in contradiction with the moral philosophy and obligation to bring welfare and happiness to the greatest number of people, because 2 toe per year and head are needed to reach the level of prosperity, welfare, and happiness, which is today only realised in high-income countries.

DGMK-Tagungsbericht 2012-3 14 Reducing the Carbon Footprint of Fuels and Chemicals

Fig. 7: Ecological footprint (2005) and primary energy consumption in selected countries [6].

Tab. 4 shows the cumulative CO2 emissions from 1850 to 2005 in the ten countries with the highest values as well as the current annual emissions (total and pc). Until now, 59% of the total CO2 were emitted by only six countries (USA, Germany, Russia, UK, Japan, France), and India and China are only responsible for 10%. But this will change: 38% is today emitted by the named six industrialized countries, whereas India and China are responsible for 23%.

Tab. 4: Cumulative and today´s annual CO2-emissions per capita of selected countries ranked by cumulative emissions from 1850 to 2005 [11]

Cumulative CO -emissions CO -emissions CO -emissions in 2005 2 2 2 from 1850 to 2005 in 109 t in 2005 in 109 t in t per capita USA 325 (28% of total) 5.8 (22%) 19.7 = 4.7 x global average (ga) Germany 118 (10%) 0.8 (3%) 9.9 (2.4 x ga) China 94 (8%) 5.1 (19%) 3.9 (0.9 x ga) Russian Fed. 93 (8%) 1.5 (6%) 10.8 (2.6 x ga) Unit. Kingdom 68 (6%) 0.5 (2%) 8.8 (2.1 x ga) Japan 46 (4%) 1.2 (4%) 9.5 (2.3 x ga) France 32 (3%) 0.4 (2%) 6.8 (1.6 x ga) India 29 (2%) 1.2 (4%) 1.1 (0.3 x ga) other countries 341 (21%) 10.1 (38%) - World 1169 (100%) 26.6 (100%) 4.2 (global average)

As already stated, the availability of fossil energy is not the problem that is of primary concern. This can be clearly deduced from the comparison of the carbon inventory of fossil fuels reserves and resources and of the atmosphere (Tab. 5). The maximum allowable carbon inventory in the atmosphere, estimated with global climate models for a global warming of 2 K [1] would be reached, if “only” 60% of the reserves (530 Gt carbon as CO2) are used.

DGMK-Tagungsbericht 2012-3 15 Reducing the Carbon Footprint of Fuels and Chemicals

Tab. 5: Carbon inventory of fossil fuels reserves and resources and inventory of the atmosphere with maximum allowable carbon value in the atmosphere, estimated with global climate models for a global warming of 2 K [1]

Carbon inventory1 in Gt Fossil reserves and resources Reserves Resources

Crude oil, oil sands, oil shale (85 wt-% carbon) 190 350 Convent. and non-convent. natural gas (75 wt-% carbon) 110 1700 Coal (80 wt-% carbon) 550 12500 Total fossil fuels 850 14550

762 (today)

Atmosphere 1290 (global warming + 2 K), i.e. ca. 530 Gt more compared to today

1 To calculate the carbon inventory of fossil fuels, the values in toe (Tab. 3) were converted in t carbon by the

following estimations: 1 toe oil = 0.85 t C, 1 toe gas ≈ 0.84 t CH4 ≈ 0.63 t C, 1 toe coal ≈ 1.4 t coal ≈ 1.1 t C. Considerations to solve the conflict between stable ecosystems and societies Now the question arises how to solve the conflict between a happy planet and a happy world population. For an answer, some assumptions and some estimations are needed: o The world population will continue to grow until 2050 and then peak at 9 billion. o High-income countries with today more than 2 toe pc will reduce their consumption to this value without considerable loss of welfare, whereas low-income countries develop and increase their consumption until 2 toe pc are reached (scenario of happy world population). o Compared to today (1.8 toe pc, 6.9 billion people), this scenario (2 toe pc, 9 billion people) leads to an annual consumption of 18 billion toe compared to today´s value of 12 billion. At current technologies and fuel shares the ecological footprint would increase to ca. 2 planet Earths (18/12 x 1.5 planet Earths in 2008), which would be a desaster! o The only solution to provide an average energy consumption of 2 toe per head (“happy population”) without increasing the ecological footprint (“happy planet”) is to reduce the

single largest demand humanity put on the biosphere, which is the carbon (CO2) footprint with a share of about 50% on the total ecological footprint. Only in case of a complete shift from fossil fuels to renewables (except of the small amount probably still needed for chemicals and coke/steel production within the next decades of about 10% of the current demand of fossil fuels, see [13] for details) would half the ecological footprint; and that is exactly what is needed to achieve a footprint of one planet Earth.

How can the goal of 2 toe per capita and year be reached without damaging the world´s ecosystems? Tab. 6 shows an estimation of the technical feasible potential of renewable energy for a world population of 9 billion based on the data given by MacKay [21]. There is one clear conclusion: The non-solar renewables may be huge, but they are not huge enough. Even the technically feasible potential of wind, hydro, tide, wave, and geothermal energy would only cover 0.8 toe per capita and year compared to the goal of 2 toe pc. To

DGMK-Tagungsbericht 2012-3 16 Reducing the Carbon Footprint of Fuels and Chemicals

complete an energy plan that adds up, we must rely on one or more forms of solar power, or we use nuclear power (or both). One scenario of a sustainable non-nuclear energy plan - out of many one may think of - is given in Tab. 6. It was assumed that only about 50% of the technically feasible potential of solar power, energy crops, wind, hydro, tide, wave, and geothermal power will be used as this may reflect the economically visible potential (see footnotes of Tab. 6). Hence, three quarters have to be covered by concentrated solar power.

Tab. 6: Estimation of the technically feasible potential of renewable energy (data from [21] and an energy plan for a world population of 9 billion [6, 14].

Energy potential and consumption (goal) in toe per capita

Energy source Potential1 (based on Scenario for a happy planet and a happy data from MacKay [21]) world population (2 toe per capita and year)

Wind 0.5 0.22

Hydro 0.13 0.073

Tide and wave 0.02 0.01

Geothermal 0.17 0.08

Biomass 0.24 0.1

Solar power5 6 1.54

1 Direct equivalence method because in an alternative world with plentiful electricity based on renewables we might even use electricity to produce fuels/chemicals [21]. 2 The technically feasible potential of wind energy is higher, but the production of electrical power equivalent to 0.2 toe pc/year (2 TW) would already require the operation of 2 million wind turbines. 3 Value considered to be economically feasible, if capacity is increased by a factor of 2.5 [21]. 4 The theoretical potential of energy crops, if all currently arable or crop land (27 million km2) would be used, is only 0.8 toe pc/year (population 9 billion, 33% losses in processing/farming [21]). This number can not be reached, as we need land for food. According to Heinloth [22], the technically feasible potential of commercial biomass is 0.2 toe pc/year. 5 According to the DESERTEC plan, the use of concentrated solar power in mediterranean countries, and high-voltage transmission lines could deliver power to northern Europe. The economic potential adds up 50 billion toe electricity (= 6 toe pc and a for a global population of 9 billion). It is also assumed that mirrors will remain cheaper than photovoltaic panels [21], i.e. photovoltaic energy is neglected.

Wind, hydro, geothermal and solar energy can practically only be used to generate electricity, but the current global need of electricity and the respective unwanted CO2-emissions only have a share of 41% (Tab. 7). Most of the rest is still the result of transport and the residential sector (together 40%). This leads to the following still by far not solved problems: o Electricity (above all if generated by fluctuating sources like solar or wind energy) has to be stored efficiently and/or transported to consumers. Hydrogen (via water electrolysis) or batteries are principle options, but the volumetric storage capacities are very low today. o For the next decades, transportation will most probably still rely on liquid fuels.

Several options are currently discussed, e.g. Fischer-Tropsch-synthesis [6, 14] or methanol synthesis based on CO2 from flue gases and hydrogen from water electrolysis, an energy supply based on liquid organic hydrogen carriers like carbazol [23], or electromobility for cities, but a detailed discussion is beyond the scope of this work.

DGMK-Tagungsbericht 2012-3 17 Reducing the Carbon Footprint of Fuels and Chemicals

Tab. 7: Global CO2-emissions by sector (without traditional biomass; own estimations based on data published by the International Energy Agency, www.iea.org).

Global CO2-emissions by sector Share

Electricity and heat (63% coal, 30% gas, 7% oil) 41%

Transport (gasoline, diesel oil, kerosine) 27%

Residential (10% coal, 41% oil, 49% gas) 13%

Blast furnaces 12%

Others 7%

References [1] G. Schaub, T. Turek, Energy flows, material cycles and global development, Springer, Heidelberg, 2011. [2] A. Grübler, The rise and fall of infrastructures, Physica Verlag, Heidelberg, 1990. [3] International Energy Agency, Renewables in global energy supply 2007, www.iea.org. [4] International Energy Agency, Key world energy statistics 2009, www.iea.org. [5] BP, 2009. Statistical review of world energy 2009, www.bp.com. [6] A. Jess, Energy Policy 2010, 38, 4663 - 4678. [7] H. Burkhardt, Physics in Canada 2007, 63, no. 3. [8] Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN, Statistical Yearbook 2007/08. www.fao.org. [9] A. Y. Hoekstra, A.K. Chapagain, Water Resources Management 2007, 21, 35 - 48. [10] A. Y. Hoekstra, A.K. Chapagain, Water footprints of nations. Value of Water Research Report Series No. 16, UNESCO-IHE, 2004. [11] World bank, Key statistics, 2010, http//:econ.worldbank.org. [12] Federal German Institute for Geosciences and Natural Resources, Reserves, resources and availability of energy resources, 2009, www.bgr.bund.de [13] BP Statistical Review of World Energy, June 2012, www.bp.com/statisticalreview [14] C. Kern, P. Kaiser, R. Unde, C. Olshausen, A. Jess, Chem. Ing. Techn. 2011, 83, 1777 - 1791. [15] United Nations Development Programme, Human development report 2007/2008, Palgrave Macmillian, Basingstoke, 2007, http://hdr.undp.org/en. [16] R. Layard, Happiness: Has social science a clue? Lionel Robbins memorial lectures 2002/03, 3. to 5.03.2003, London School of Economics. [17] K, Ruckriegel, Erforschung von Glück und Mitmenschlichkeit. Orientierungen zur Wirtschafts- und Gesellschaftspolitik 2007, 113, 75 - 78. [18] R. Inglehart, R. Foa, C. Peterson, C. Welzel, Perspectives on Psycholog. Sci. 2008, 3, 264 -285. [19] V. Smil, Energy at the Crossroad. MIT press, Cambridge, 2003. [20] Global footprint network, Living planet report 2012, www.footprintnetwork.org. [21] D. J. C. MacKay, Sustainable Energy - without the hot air. UIT Cambridge, 2008. [22] K. Heinloth, Die Energiefrage, Vieweg, Braunschweig, Germany, 2003. [23] D. Teichmann , W. Arlt , P. Wasserscheid, R. Freymann, Energy Environ. Sci., 2011, 4 2767-73.

DGMK-Tagungsbericht 2012-3 18