INSTITUTO DE INVESTIGACIÓN TECNOLÓGICA - IIT

Potential options for mitigation of climate change from the energy and transport sectors

Pedro Linares

BC3 Summer School

San Sebastián, July 10th 2013

1 / 14

Global GHG emissions

2 / 14

Spain and the US, 2011

Avance Emisiones GEI 2011 con datos a 3 de mayo de 2012 página 6

Figura 5.1.- Distribución de las emisiones GEI por grupos SNAP en 2010

DISTRIBUCIÓN DE LAS EMISIONES GEI POR GRUPOS SNAP

AÑO 2010Combustión en la

producción y

transformación de

energía

20,1%

Combustión no industrial

8,6%

Combustión industrial

16,9%

Extracción y distribución

de combustibles fósiles

0,3%

Transporte por carretera

23,6%

Otros modos de

transporte

5,5%

Tratamiento y

eliminación de residuos

4,7%

Agricultura

11,2%

Procesos industriales sin

combustión

6,1%

Uso de disolventes y

otros productos

3,0%

Figura 5.2.- Distribución de las emisiones GEI por grupos SNAP en 2011

DISTRIBUCIÓN DE LAS EMISIONES GEI POR GRUPOS SNAP

AÑO 2011

Combustión en la

producción y

transformación de

energía

23,7%

Combustión no industrial

7,9%

Combustión industrial

15,8%

Extracción y distribución

de combustibles fósiles

0,3%

Transporte por carretera

22,4%

Otros modos de

transporte

5,5%

Tratamiento y

eliminación de residuos

4,9%

Agricultura

10,9%

Procesos industriales sin

combustión

5,5%

Uso de disolventes y

otros productos

3,1%

3 / 14

Mitigation options

Source: IEA World Energy Outlook 2012

Behavioral vs Technological

4 / 14

Potentials and carbon prices

5 / 14

Assessing costs and potentials

• It is easy to overestimate potentials and underestimate costs

• Counterfactual scenarios

• Public vs Private perspectives

– Discount rates

– Taxes

• Interactions between options

• Rebound effect

• Bottom-up vs. Top-down

6 / 14

The McKinsey curve

7 / 14

The Economics for Energy curve

• Expert-based

• Only technological changes

• Interaction between options

• Private and public perspectives

• 80% of energy consumption in Spain

• How to translate energy into GHG mitigation?

– Electricity: 0.3 tCO2/MWh

– Transport: 0.25 tCO2/MWh

8 / 14

Counterfactual scenario

Efficient vehicles Boilers

Lighting

Wind Heat pump

Insulation

26% savings compared to BAU

2% less than 2010

9 / 14

“Strong policy” scenario

Efficient vehicles and modal change

Wind Heat pumps

Insulation

19% additional savings

50% negative cost

10 / 14

“Advanced technology” scenario

Wind

Hybrid / Electric V.

Solar HW Solar TE

Insulation

Lighting

Heat pump

15% additional savings

40% negative cost

11 / 14

Why don’t we use negative cost measures?

• The energy-efficiency paradox

• Non-monetary barriers

–Hidden or transaction costs

– Lack of awareness

– Inertia

– Risk premium

– The problem is not economic: subsidies may be useless

12 / 14

Why do some measures look so expensive?

• Lack of the right information

–Very difficult to get reliable data (non-ETS)

–Data aggregation: there may be niches

• Multiple objectives (e.g., buildings)

–How to allocate the costs?

• Interaction between measures

13 / 14

Priority options

• Efficient / Hybrid vehicles

• Efficient lighting

• Modal change in transport

• Efficient heating & cooling

• Solar water

• Heat pump results are questionable

– Other studies get much better results

• Rehabilitation of buildings might be interesting if other factors are considered (and also its great potential for reduction)

14 / 14

Conclusions

• Large abatement potential in the energy and transport sector

– Technology change has a limited range

– We need behavioral changes

• The cost may be very low, even negative

• In other cases, the cost is very high

– But other factors can be considered

• Results depend very much on fuel prices

• General lack of data for these analyses

Thanks! www.upcomillas.es/personal/pedrol