SIXTH FRAMEWORK PROGRAMME 6 1 Sustainable Energy Systems
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 RS 2 b fit in? ) Integration 1 c 1 b Externalities in energy extraction & transport 1 d New & improved methods to estimate external costs 3 b Communicate & Disseminate Extend geographic coverage 3 a 1 a LCA/costs of new technologies 2 a Transfer & generalization Stakeholder assessment & acceptance Model internalization strategies & scenario building Energy technology roadmap & forecast 2 b NEEDS: New Energy Externalities Developments for Sustainability
General Objectives of Stream 2 b • 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
Contributors and Responsibilities WP WORK PACKAGE TITLE LEADERS 1 Survey of criteria and indicators PSI 2 Establishment of social criteria USTUTT. SOZ 3 Establishment of full criteria set PSI 4 Extended technology characterisation CESIRICERA 5 Quantification of economic indicators EDF 6 Quantification of environmental indicators PSI 7 Quantification of risk indicators PSI 8 Quantification of social indicators USTUTT. SOZ 9 MCDA approach and tool selection IIASA 10 Evaluation and analysis integration PSI 11 Acceptability of monetary valuation methods ARMINES 12 Organisation/management of surveys and communication ISIS/PSI 13 Analysis and elaboration of the results ISIS/PSI 14 Technical stream co-ordination PSI Contributors included also NGOs: GLOBE and HELIO INTERNATIONAL
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
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
Main Stakeholder Categories Each category is further divided into several sub-categories (not shown) Energy Supplier Energy Consumer Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) Government Energy or Environmental Agency Regulator / Government Authority Association (e. g. trade or industry) Politician Researcher / Academic Consultant Other
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
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
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)
7 Steps Towards MCDA 1 Select alternatives (with stakeholder input) 2 Establish criteria and indicators (with stakeholder input) 3 Quantify the technology- and country-specific indicators 4 Analyse the MCDA requirements 5 Select the most suitable MCDA method(s) and tool(s) 6 Test and adapt the selected method(s) and tool(s) 7 Elicit stakeholder preferences, provide feedback
Sustainability Criteria Environment Source: Hirschberg et al. , 2007&200
Sustainability Criteria Economy Source: Hirschberg et al. , 2007&2008
Sustainability Criteria Social Source: Hirschberg et al. , 2007&200
Conclusions: Survey II on Selection of Sustainability Criteria and Indicators • Response rate of 9. 7% • Highly qualified / educated participants, but an overrepresentation 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
Technology Range NUCLEAR • Generation III • Generation IV FOSSIL BIOMASS SOLAR WIND • European Pressurised Reactor – GEN III) • European Fast Reactor GEN IV) (EPR (EFR- Centralised • Coal • Lignite • Natural Gas (NG). • Conventional and gasification - with/without carbon capture (CCS) § Post-combustion § Oxyfuel Decentralised cogeneration • Natural Gas only (NG) • Internal combustion engine (NG) • Molten carbonate and solid oxide fuel cells (NG) • Decentralised cogeneration - Fuel cells. - Gas turbine. • Gasified waste wood to fuel cells. • Photovoltaics - Centralised and decentralised • Cells - Crystalline silicon (ribbon) • Thin film (Cadmium Telluride) • Centralised thermal power plant • Concentrating trough collectors • Offshore wind turbine • 24 MW turbine in deep water • Gasified cultivated wood and waste straw to gas turbine. Total of 26 for FR, 25 for DE, 21 for IT and 19 for CH
0. 0 E+00 GEN IIIGEN IV COAL NAT. GAS Cogeneration BIOMASS Cogeneration SOLAR Offshore 24 MW Thermal power plant PV, Thin-film, small sc. Waste straw 9 MW Fossil SRC Poplar 9 MW MC Fuel cell <1 MW CH Internal Comb. <1 MW CC & Post comb. CCS DE Combined Cycle (CC) Nuclear Int. Gasification & CCS IT Integrated Gasification PC & Oxyfuel CCS PC & Post comb. CCS Pulverised Coal (PC) EU Fast Reactor EU Pressurised Reactor YOLL / k. Wh Social: Years of Life Lost -YOLL (2050) Renewable 5. 0 E-07 4. 0 E-07 FR 3. 0 E-07 2. 0 E-07 1. 0 E-07 WIND Source: Friedrich & Preiss, 2008
Social: Fatality rates and max. consequences (2050) Fossil 100000 10000 0. 01 1000 0. 001 100 0. 0001 10 GEN III - EU Pressurised GEN IV - EU Fast Reactor COAL MC Fuel cell <1 MW Internal Comb. <1 MW CC & Post comb. CCS Combined Cycle (CC) Int. Gasification & CCS Integrated Gasification PC & Oxyfuel CCS PC & Post comb. CCS Pulverised Coal (PC) FR CH DE IT FR DE 0. 000001 CH 0. 00001 IT Fatalities / GWe-yr 0. 1 Maximum fatalities Nuclear 1 1 NAT. GAS Cogen. Source: Burgherr & Hirschberg, 2008
Low GEN IIIGEN IV COAL Combined Cycle (CC) Int. Gasification & CCS France NAT. GAS BIOMASS Cogeneration. SOLAR Cogeneration Offshore 24 MW Thermal power plant PV, Thin-film, small sc. Percieved risk from normal operation Waste straw 9 MW Fossil SRC Poplar 9 MW MC Fuel cell <1 MW Internal Comb. <1 MW CC & Post comb. CCS Nuclear Integrated Gasification PC & Oxyfuel CCS PC & Post comb. CCS Pulverised Coal (PC) EU Fast Reactor High EU Pressurised Reactor Social: Perceived risk from normal operation and accidents Renewable Low High Percieved risk of accidents WIND Source: Gallego et al. , 2008
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
Approach to Aggregation (II): General MCDA Algorithm
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
Distribution of NEEDS MCDA Survey Respondents by top level criteria weights
Average technology ranks cluster groups 1 & 2 (148 & 11)
0 GEN IIIGEN IV COAL NAT. GAS Total costs = generation costs + externalities 14 12 NAT. GAS BIOMASS Cogeneration SOLAR Cogeneration Offshore 24 MW 16 Thermal power plant Renewable GHG em. High 16 GHG em. Low 14 Pollution Land use 12 Generation cost 10 10 8 8 6 6 4 4 2 2 0 Average MCDA Ranking Fossil PV, Thin-film, small sc. Waste straw 9 MW SRC Poplar 9 MW MC Fuel cell <1 MW Internal Comb. <1 MW CC & Post comb. CCS 18 Combined Cycle (CC) Nuclear Int. Gasification & CCS Integrated Gasification PC & Oxyfuel CCS PC & Post comb. CCS Pulverised Coal (PC) EU Fast Reactor EU Pressurised Reactor € cents / k. Wh Total Costs with Average MCDA Ranking 18 Worst Best WIND Source: Hirschberg et al. , to be publi
RS 2 b 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.
Thank you for your attention Stefan Hirschberg stefan. hirschberg@psi. ch Laboratory for Energy systems Analysis (LEA) http: //lea. web. psi. ch/
- Slides: 27