1 / 22

Global Energy and Environment: Solving the Technology Challenge to Meet World Demands--Biomass

Global Energy and Environment: Solving the Technology Challenge to Meet World Demands--Biomass. John Reilly MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change Snowmass Summer Workshop, Biofuels Aug. 1-2. Some calculations on the scale of future energy demand Issues of scale

mira
Download Presentation

Global Energy and Environment: Solving the Technology Challenge to Meet World Demands--Biomass

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. Global Energy and Environment: Solving the Technology Challenge to Meet World Demands--Biomass John Reilly MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change Snowmass Summer Workshop, BiofuelsAug. 1-2

  2. Some calculations on the scale of future energy demand Issues of scale The world’s willingness pay for a technology solution Overview of Presentation

  3. Population may stabilize in the 8.5-10 billion range sometime after 2050—or if pattern in Europe, Japan is harbinger it may start to decline . Bigger driver, however, is income and wealth. On order of 2 Billion people are energy poor—virtually no use of commercial energy. If incomes rise these people will switch from non-commercial energy. Rich getting richer. US per capita energy use flat (but pop. growing through immigration), Japan, Europe per capita energy use is growing. Dynamic growth of China and India: energy implications mind boggling. GDP of world if things proceed as last century could rise 10-14 times. Post-industrial society, new technology probably leads to lower energy intensity and improved energy efficiency—energy intensity of GDP in developed countries had been declining by 1% or so for decades Will it continue—Japan? Many developing countries still in structural transformation. Higher quality/cleaner fuels desired for end use. Efficient end use but these fuels are often transformed from lower quality energy carriers with substantial losses in conversion (50% plus). Future Global Energy Use

  4. IGSM Version2 (animated) MIT Integrated Global System Model (IGSM) Version 2 Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

  5. Radiation, Humidity, Pressure, Winds, Temperature, Precipitation Surface Heat Fluxes Air Temperature, Rainfall, CO2, O3 and Solar Radiation Monthly CO2, CH4 and N2O Fluxes Monthly: Evapotranspiration Soil Water Storage Soil Temperature Monthly: Evapotranspiration Daily: Soil Hydrothermal Profile Daily: Rainfall Statistics Soil Hydrothermal Profiles Hourly: Soil Hydrothermal Profiles DYNAMIC TERRESTRIAL ECOSYSTEMS MODEL (TEM) Soil Carbon and Nitrogen CH4 EMISSIONS MODULE N2O EMISSIONS MODULE IGSM Global Land System 2D COUPLED ATMOSPHERIC CHEMISTRY, 2D/3D OCEAN AND ATMOSPHERIC PROCESSES COMMUNITY LAND MODEL (CLM) (TERRESTRIAL BIOGEOPHYSICS)

  6. GHG and Other Pollutants from energy and agriculture/land use Land use shares for crops, livestock, bioenergy, forestry Coupled Ocean, Atmosphere Crop, pasture, bioenergy, forest productivity CH4, N2O, Net CO2 from land use Biogeophysical Land Processes Spatial data (1º x 1º) for land use Temperature, Precipitation, Solar Radiation CO2, Tropospheric Ozone, Nitrogen deposition EPPA-Global Land System Interactions MIT EPPA, 16 Region, multi-sector CGE model GTAP land data/ Spatial disaggregation algorithm DYNAMIC TERRESTRIAL ECOSYSTEMS MODEL (TEM)

  7. Model Framework to Ask Some “What If?” questions. • Computable General Equilibrium (CGE) model of world economy with regional/sectoral detail. • Fully treats demand/supply, capital/investment, macroeconomic/trade implications of growth, policies, alternative technologies

  8. Another View: Relatively Detailed Energy Sector in Global Economy Model

  9. Perfect Substitute for other Elec. Tech. Limits penetration in the short-run Agriculture, bio-liquids compete for Land, implicit biomass yield and 40% conversion efficiency Biomass Electricity in Electric Sector

  10. Perfect Substitute for REFOIL Agriculture, bio-electric compete for Land, implicit biomass yield and 40% conversion efficiency; assume energy is self-supplied, sustainable yield, 0 CO2 emissions. Biomass Liquids Supply

  11. Biomass production, transportation, & conversion compressed into a single production function. “structural” approach might grow a crop or several different ones, represent transportation of biomass to a processing/conversion facility, conversion, and different end-use equipment requirements. We have no direct conventional energy inputs in this process Assume that needed energy (harvesting/planting crop; transporting to conversion facility, and in conversion is provided by biomass itself—thus relatively low (40% conversion efficiency) Indirectly energy used in production of other industry/capital goods production that are inputs. We have no carbon emissions from this process We assume that biomass crops are not grown on land converted from old growth forest, and thus leading to big initial carbon releases—all of this biomass is “sustainable.” We have not yet added other pollutant emission to biomass. There is a detailed study of the Brazilian ethanol industry that provides some estimates Features of this approach

  12. Economic—supplemental physical accounts Land input in $$--rental value: average rent/acre or hectare » # of hectares/$$ 000’s; physical biomass yield » Energy content of biomass » conversion efficiency » physical energy output in EJ. This allows us to both benchmark CGE model where input quantities are in $$$ to bottom-up analysis that is often in physical units and to create the supplemental physical energy (and land) accounts that are consistent with our existing supplemental accounts for energy and land—and consistent with the production function accounting. Liquid fuels (Hamelinck et al., 2005) Lignocellusic conversion of ethanol of 8.7 to 13 €GJ compared with 8 to 12 and eventually 5 to 7 €GJ for methanol production from biomass. Compared to before tax costs of gasoline production of 4 to 6 €GJ. Our mark-up of 2.1 is thus consistent with the lower end of the near- and mid-term costs for ethanol or methanol. Bio-electricity (International Energy Agency, 1997) Mark-up of 1.4-2.0, based on similar comparison of bioelectric with baseload electricity—note adjust for transmission costs. Input Shares Land .10 in liquids; .19 in bio-electric—same biomass production per hectare, but more other processing costs for liquids so land is a smaller share. Global Resource Potential (Edmonds and Reilly, 1985) and recent reviews (Moreira, 2004; Berndes et al., 2003). Benchmarking the Production Function

  13. Short background on CCSP exercise Some background on overall results Role of biomass, global & US Application Example: US Climate Change Science Program (CCSP) Scenarios Exercise

  14. Global in scale CO2 and non-CO2 GHG emissions projections Compute Concentrations and Radiative Forcing Multiple regions Sector and Technology resolution Economics-based and price implications of stabilization Up to 2100 Record of publications 3 Involved: MIT, MiniCAM; MERGE Criteria for Models to Participate

  15. Some Results from public comment draft of Climate Change Science Program “New Scenarios Product” • Reference (best guess with no climate policy) • four different stabilization levels • GHG emissions, concentrations, radiative forcing • Stabilization in terms of total radiative forcing • GHG policies that constrain emissions and cause different technology choices to be economic.

  16. EPPA Energy Prices - Stabilization • Focus on Reference; • -Oil, gas prices rise by factor of 5 from 2000. • -coal by about 2. • Effects of stabilization policies • Reduction in oil price, drastic reduction in level 1 • Reduction in coal price • Increase in gas price due to increase in demand (switch from coal and oil), decrease in gas price in level 1 – tight constraint

  17. EPPA Energy - Stabilization • Increase in energy use • Reliance on fossil fuels • Growing presence of biomass • Growth in nuclear is constrained • Level 3: • Energy Use reduction • Fossil Fuel Use reduction • CCS technologies • Level 1: • Action earlier • Larger reduction • Coal CCS

  18. EPPA Electricity - Stabilization • Reliance on fossil fuels • Coal Use increase • Level 3: • CCS technologies • oil use reduction • mid-21st century: more gas, less coal • nuclear increased but constrained (coal study: if unconstrained – nuclear replaces CCS) • Level 1: • by 2100: all fossil with CCS • no oil

  19. Biomass reaches about 180 EJ in Reference Globally, 36 EJ in US in 2100. • Biomass comes in earlier in stabilization scenarios • Stabilization scenarios bring biomass in earlier, but additional supply limited (increase by about 1/3 in 2100) due to competition for land with agriculture.

  20. Wind and hydropower together—about 10% of elec. generation in 2100. But… Global wind generation alone is nearly 60% of US current electric generation from 1 TW of installed capacity=125,000+ 5 MW Wind Turbines Biofuels, mainly ethanol, are about 14% of total primary energy in 2100 but at 180 EJ is about level of all global oil production today. More than 100 times current US & Brazil ethanol production Shale oil production in the US alone is 101 EJ or equal to about 60% of total current global oil production (about 7 times current US oil production) If coal generated electricity was replaced by nuclear Would require about 10 TW of new nuclear capacity—10,000 new power plants at 1,000 MW capacity each—currently 104 nuclear power plants in the US. Scale….

  21. Competitiveness at small scales: Fully commercialized, and operating to supply on the order of .01 to .1% of current global energy use. Order of magnitude 5 to 50 1000 MW power plants. back-up or storage for intermittent sources such as wind, peaking capacity for baseload technologies like advanced nuclear, alterations to the energy using equipment (e.g. fuel cell, flexible fuel vehicles for hydrogen/ethanol) Market penetration to achieve significant commercial production levels: achieve a smooth regulatory process so that expansion is routine. siting of wind, solar, or nuclear power facilities grid connections for disbursed wind or pipelines and distribution stations for hydrogen fuel or vehicle standards that would promote alternative fuels such as ethanol or methanol Resource limits at large scales (100 EJ ~7-12% of year 2100 energy demand): biomass competition for land with agriculture and urban/industrial uses. varying quality of wind and solar resources and their location relative to demand. different sources of feedstock for hydrogen production. nuclear resources, fuel cycle Pollution levels Scaled up combustion means cleanest technologies not clean enough, e.g. ozone damage Feasible?

  22. What is the challenge? Oil gas prices rise by factor of 5, coal by 2 What if new technology could keep these more or less where we are now (~$50/barrel oil)? Discounted present value through 2100 of difference in total economic consumption= $30 Trillion=about 3% of NPV of total consumption through 2100= about total world GDP in 2005. Bad News: Lower energy prices leads to big increase in fossil fuel consumption—Instead of 23 Gt C in 2100, emissions = 49 Gt C. Discounted present value of consumption if we have the carbon policy falls to $4.5 Trillion-15% of value without the constraint. Solving energy problem but not offering environmental solution at the same time is worth a lot less. Value of Solving the Energy Challenge

More Related