1 / 27

Technology Assessment under Stakeholder Perspectives

SIXTH FRAMEWORK PROGRAMME [6.1]. [ Sustainable Energy Systems ]. Technology Assessment under Stakeholder Perspectives. Stefan Hirschberg, Paul Scherrer Institut Brussels, 16 February 2009. The NEEDS Integrated Project (Where does RS2b fit in?). Integration. 1c. 1b.

glovers
Download Presentation

Technology Assessment under Stakeholder Perspectives

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. SIXTH FRAMEWORK PROGRAMME [6.1] [ Sustainable Energy Systems] Technology Assessment under Stakeholder Perspectives Stefan Hirschberg, Paul Scherrer Institut Brussels, 16 February 2009

  2. The NEEDS Integrated Project(Where does RS2b fit in?) Integration 1c 1b Externalities in energy extraction & transport New & improved methods to estimate external costs 3b 1d Communicate & Disseminate Extend geographic coverage 3a 2a LCA/costs of new technologies Transfer & general-ization Model internalization strategies & scenario building 1a Stakeholder assess-ment & acceptance Energy technology roadmap & forecast 2b NEEDS: New Energy Externalities Developments for Sustainability

  3. General Objectives of Stream 2b • To broaden the basis for decision support by examining the robustness of results under various stakeholder perspectives • To explore stakeholder perspectives on external costs  Combines knowledge (technology characteristics) generated internally and from other streams with stakeholder preferences

  4. Contributors and Responsibilities Contributors included also NGOs: GLOBE and HELIO INTERNATIONAL

  5. Main Elements, Approaches and Tools • Establishment and evaluation of criteria and indicators • Case study and surveys with direct stakeholder inputs • Sustainability assessment by means of Multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) • Comparison with total costs

  6. Case Study Conclusions • Large variation between France, UK and US in the uses of externality valuation in policy • Formal requirements are crucial in order to consider the full costs and benefits of proposed regulation • There is more extensive use of the monetary valuation of externalities in transport and water policy than in the energy sector

  7. Main Stakeholder Categories Each category is further divided into several sub-categories(not shown)

  8. Survey I: Externality Concept, Results and Uses In spite of the limitations, there is general acceptance of the concept of externalities, of the internalisation of external costs and of most results, but… Source: Faberi et al., 2007

  9. Survey I: Usefulness of Externalities Statement: External cost assessment provides decision makers with basic estimates to support their policy decisions. Without such estimates, the social cost of a wrong choice could be very large and harmful. Source: Faberi et al., 2007

  10. The Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) problem • Big, complex problems  multiple stakeholders, multiple criteria. • Different interests  different preferences, no simple optima. • Complexity & cognitive inadequacy can prevent even single decision makers from making consistent rankings. • Purpose: aid to thinking and decision-making (but doesn’t give “the” answer)

  11. 7 Steps Towards MCDA 1Select alternatives (with stakeholder input) 2Establish criteria and indicators (with stakeholder input) 3Quantify the technology- and country-specific indicators 4Analyse the MCDA requirements 5Select the most suitable MCDA method(s) and tool(s) 6Test and adapt the selected method(s) and tool(s) 7Elicit stakeholder preferences, provide feedback

  12. Sustainability CriteriaEnvironment Source: Hirschberg et al., 2007&2008

  13. Sustainability CriteriaEconomy Source: Hirschberg et al., 2007&2008

  14. Sustainability CriteriaSocial Source: Hirschberg et al., 2007&2008

  15. Conclusions: Survey II on Selection of Sustainability Criteria and Indicators • Response rate of 9.7% • Highly qualified / educated participants, but an over-representation of researchers • Most participants from CH followed by DE • General acceptance of indicator set • Few individual indicators considered problematic • Strong minority (44%) opts for less criteria; i.e. about 20 • Most important indicators: Global warming potential, Consumption of fossil fuels,Average generation cost,Impacts of air pollution on ecosystems,Independence from energy imports,Mortality due to normal operation • Some indicator descriptions were slightly modified • 4 indicators from the social dimension were eliminated giving a final set of 36

  16. Technology Range Total of 26 for FR, 25 for DE, 21 for IT and 19 for CH

  17. 5.0E-07 4.0E-07 IT DE CH FR 3.0E-07 YOLL / kWh 2.0E-07 1.0E-07 0.0E+00 Offshore 24MW EU Fast Reactor Waste straw 9MW SRC Poplar 9MW PC & Oxyfuel CCS MC Fuel cell <1MW MC Fuel cell <1MW Thermal power plant Pulverised Coal (PC) Combined Cycle (CC) Internal Comb. <1MW PC & Post comb.CCS CC & Post comb. CCS Integrated Gasification Int. Gasification & CCS PV, Thin-film, small sc. EU Pressurised Reactor GEN III GEN IV COAL NAT. GAS NAT. GAS BIOMASS SOLAR WIND Cogeneration Cogeneration Social:Years of Life Lost -YOLL (2050) Nuclear Fossil Renewable Source: Friedrich & Preiss, 2008

  18. 1 100000 0.1 10000 0.01 1000 Maximum fatalities Fatalities / GWe-yr 0.001 100 0.0001 10 0.00001 0.000001 1 IT IT FR FR CH CH DE DE PC & Oxyfuel CCS MC Fuel cell <1MW Pulverised Coal (PC) Combined Cycle (CC) PC & Post comb.CCS Internal Comb. <1MW CC & Post comb. CCS Integrated Gasification Int. Gasification & CCS GEN III - EU Pressurised GEN IV - EU Fast Reactor COAL NAT. GAS NAT. GAS Reactor Cogen. Social:Fatality rates and max. consequences (2050) Nuclear Fossil Source: Burgherr & Hirschberg, 2008

  19. Percieved risk from normal operation Percieved risk of accidents France Offshore 24MW EU Fast Reactor Waste straw 9MW SRC Poplar 9MW PC & Oxyfuel CCS MC Fuel cell <1MW MC Fuel cell <1MW Thermal power plant Pulverised Coal (PC) Combined Cycle (CC) Internal Comb. <1MW PC & Post comb.CCS CC & Post comb. CCS Integrated Gasification Int. Gasification & CCS PV, Thin-film, small sc. EU Pressurised Reactor GEN III GEN IV COAL NAT. GAS NAT. GAS BIOMASS Cogeneration SOLAR WIND Cogeneration Social:Perceived risk from normal operation and accidents Nuclear Fossil Renewable High Low High Low Source: Gallego et al., 2008

  20. Approach to Aggregation (I):Total Costs • Internal + External = Total Costs • Money becomes the common denominator for all indicators. • It is assumed that all indicators can be monetized. • It is assumed that stakeholders can agree on the value of life, the environment, etc. • Nevertheless, money is the most useful and widely accepted common numerator. • Cost-benefit analysis based on (total) costs has great attractions for guiding public policy

  21. Approach to Aggregation (II):General MCDA Algorithm

  22. The Online MCDA Survey Application Key elements: Interactive, graphic interface 1 Open website 2 Enter preferences 3 Solve to show ranking 4 Examine trade-offs for ‘best’ technologies 5 Repeat until satisfied Immediate feedback Iterative learning Automatic data collection

  23. Distribution of NEEDS MCDA Survey Respondents by top level criteria weights

  24. Average technology ranks - cluster groups 1 & 2 (148 & 11)

  25. Total CostswithAverageMCDA Ranking Nuclear Fossil Renewable Worst 18 18 GHG em. High 16 16 GHG em. Low 14 14 Pollution Land use 12 12 Generation cost € cents / kWh Average MCDA Ranking 10 10 8 8 6 6 4 4 2 2 Best 0 0 Offshore 24MW EU Fast Reactor SRC Poplar 9MW Waste straw 9MW PC & Oxyfuel CCS MC Fuel cell <1MW MC Fuel cell <1MW PC & Post comb.CCS Pulverised Coal (PC) Thermal power plant CC & Post comb. CCS Internal Comb. <1MW Combined Cycle (CC) PV, Thin-film, small sc. Int. Gasification & CCS Integrated Gasification EU Pressurised Reactor GEN III GEN IV COAL NAT. GAS NAT. GAS BIOMASS Cogeneration SOLAR WIND Cogeneration Total costs = generation costs + externalities Source: Hirschberg et al., to be published

  26. RS2b Conclusions General acceptance of the concept of externalities, internalisation of external costs and most results in spite of limitations.  Results for nuclear remain controversial. A powerful framework for MCDA-based sustainability assessment developed, implemented and applied to four countries. Wide stakeholder acceptance of the proposed criteria and indicator set. Comprehensive indicator database established for four countries; also future technologies exhibit strengths and weaknesses. Total cost approach favours nuclear and disfavours biomass. Ranking of fossil technologies in comparison to (remarkably improved) solar and wind strongly depends on which value for GHG-damages is used. MCDA-approach favours renewables, in particular solar technologies. Inclusion of a wide set of social criteria leads to lower ranking of nuclear with GEN IV fast breeder performing better than GEN III EPR. Coal technologies perform worst in MCDA while centralized gas options are along with nuclear in the midfield. CCS-performance is mixed. Emphasis on environment penalizes fossil options; emphasis on economy penalizes nuclear options; emphasis on social penalizes nuclear.

  27. Thank you for your attention Stefan Hirschberg stefan.hirschberg@psi.ch Laboratory for Energy systems Analysis (LEA) http://lea.web.psi.ch/

More Related