Some new thinking from Natsource. More growth. Less pollution.
description
Transcript of Some new thinking from Natsource. More growth. Less pollution.
1
Technology TransferTechnology Transfer
TETRIS Work Package 2TETRIS Work Package 2
Rob Youngman / Dirk Forrister, Natsource
Amsterdam, June 21, 2006
Some new thinking from Natsource.More growth. Less pollution.
2
Overview of PresentationOverview of Presentation
Case studies
Literature review
Quantitative analysis of potential for technology transfer
For each:
Status of work
Next steps
Timetable and milestones
3
WP2 Objectives and ComponentsWP2 Objectives and Components
Objectives– to learn how project-based emissions trading affects
or facilitates technology transfer– to examine and describe real technology transfers
associated with GHG trading– to determine the scope for technology transfer in large
potential CDM host countries, and from EU technology-exporting countries
4
Case Studies - OverviewCase Studies - Overview Three case studies of CDM and JI projects implemented or
planned under early greenhouse gas (GHG) trading initiatives
Describe and analyze:
– the background of the project (sponsor, host country partners, history, geographic location and social conditions, etc.);
– the technology that have been transferred;
– the current availability of this technology in the host country;
– social and environmental benefits for the host country;
– critical factors related to financial viability of the project (crediting period, baseline standardisation)
5
Case Studies – Status, Next StepsCase Studies – Status, Next Steps Circulated 1st draft case study of wind project in Philippines at Bern
meeting
Prepared 2nd draft case study of photovoltaic (PV) kits for rural households in Morocco
Open issues
– Seeking input on draft case study
– Selection of other final case studies: Any particular type of project to round out the 3 case studies? Perhaps a non-CO2 gas project, given results of quantitative analysis of TT.
Next steps, timetable and milestones
– Incorporate input on draft case study
– Select and draft final case study
– Complete case studies and circulate by end July for comments
– Finalize case studies in time for inclusion in Sept deliverable
6
Case Study 2 - SummaryCase Study 2 - Summary
Photovoltaic kits for rural households in Morocco
Selection criteria: CDM in Africa, registered project, technology transfer involved
Participants: Office National de l’Electricity (ONE), Morocco, private companies, governments of France and Germany
Total capacity of 7.7 MW avoids 395,400 tonnes CO2e (from diesel generators off-grid) over the 10-year crediting period beginning in 2007
Demonstration of TT
– Key TT effect is in maintaining large numbers of small, decentralized power sources
– PC modules imported from South Africa; production of the modules “will induce technological development in Africa”
– 85% of 300-400 jobs to be created will be local technicians trained for installation and after-sales services for the equipment
7
Case Study 1 – Summary (cont’d)Case Study 1 – Summary (cont’d)
Role of carbon value
– Carbon revenue critical to implementation
– Cost of PV kit is EUR 900, vs. 400 to share diesel generator with neighboring households
– CER revenue can reduce cost by 22%
8
Literature Review / WP2 Paper - OverviewLiterature Review / WP2 Paper - Overview
Analyze how CDM and JI can initiate or facilitate technology transfer for developing countries and/or economies in transition
Review existing literature on technology transfer, including literature by:
– Private-sector firms
– Government agencies
– Multi-national organizations
Identify key determinants of technology transfer and effectiveness of CDM and JI in facilitating technology transfer
Analyze the potential and distribution of technology types which have been or will be most attractive for JI or CDM projects
9
Literature Review – Overview (cont’d)Literature Review – Overview (cont’d) WP2 report incorporates literature review and other segments of WP2. The
report will include:
– Definition of TT, based on review of literature (UNFCCC, KP, related efforts, other sources) and the agreed criteria for quantifying TT for this project
– Review of technologies in CDM and JI transactions and pipeline, and in World Bank and Netherlands purchasing programs
– Quantification of TT in CDM and JI jurisdictions, and coming from EU, with discussion of methodology and findings
– Implications of TT findings for EU as seller and developer of technologies
– Consideration of how project-based emissions trading affects technology transfer in light of CDM/JI review, TT quantification
Role of carbon value in transactions – overcomes financing hurdles
Market pursues economically viable projects using existing technologies, given prevailing GHG prices
Barriers to transfer of clean energy technologies include the closing window for CDM projects, carbon revenue too small to push past hurdle rate, various risks, more mature, cheaper alternatives
10
Literature Review – Overview (cont’d)Literature Review – Overview (cont’d)– Literature review
Provide broader context for the challenges of facilitating TT in CDM and JI by briefly describing other discussions on challenges and issues relating to TT
– Competitive stance of clean energy technologies – intermittency, costs, competition
from fossil sources
– Host country issues – technical capacity and know-how, investment environment, IPR
enforcement and open trade policies to attract technology
– Technology sellers’ concerns and issues (e.g. IPR, profit from innovation)
– Deploy technology in developing countries to bring costs down? New or mature
technologies? Or develop and deploy technology in industrialized countries for energy
security, industrial development, employment, environmental objectives?
– Need for/role of policies to support deployment of technologies, reduce barriers,
including lack of internalization of market externalities
Provide thoughts on potential approaches for improving on CDM/JI’s ability to
facilitate TT, in light of quantification results and literature review
11
WP 2 Paper – Status and Next StepsWP 2 Paper – Status and Next Steps
Status
– Key components of paper are complete
Description and findings of TT quantitative analysis of CDM, JI
Definition of TT (from scoping paper submitted for Bern meeting)
Review of technologies in historic CDM/JI transactions and in pipeline (presented in Bern, and since updated – see annex)
2 of 3 case studies
– In process of putting paper together and writing the literature review sections
Next steps, timetable and milestones– Prepare full draft paper incorporating all components– Circulate for comments by end-July– Coordinate to submit to DG Competition– Finalize report in time for Sept. submission of deliverable
12
Quantitative Analysis of Potential for Technology Quantitative Analysis of Potential for Technology Transfer – Overview, Status, Next StepsTransfer – Overview, Status, Next Steps
Analyse the potential for TT in several large potential CDM (ECN) host countries and JI (CCAP) host countries
Status and findings
– See presentations to follow
Next steps, timetable and milestones
– Apply lessons from the CDM/JI TT assessment to the
estimates of CDM and JI potential to evaluate TT potential
– Include findings in final draft of WP2 paper
13
AnnexAnnex
14
Data on Technologies in Historic CDM and JI Data on Technologies in Historic CDM and JI Transactions by VolumeTransactions by Volume
January 2005 – March 2006 World Bank, “State of the Carbon Market 2006,” based on WB, Natsource and Evolution
Markets data
15
Data on Technology in Historic Transactions Data on Technology in Historic Transactions (cont’d)(cont’d)
HFC23 share of volume up dramatically, from 36% in 2004 to 58% in January 2005-March 2006
78% of traded reductions were non-CO2 gases, vs. 55% in 2004.
Next largest after HFC: landfill gas (9%), coal mine methane (6%)
Combined share of hydro, wind, biomass, other renewables and energy efficiency projects was 12%, down from 25% in 2004.
Geographical distribution
– China’s share jumped from 5% in 2004 to 66% in 2005-06 (high-volume HFC projects)
– India’s share down to 3% from 43% in 2004
– Asia accounted for 73% (vs. 54% in 2004)
– Latin America accounted for 17% (vs. 25% in 2004)
16
Data on Technology % of CDM Volumes in PipelineData on Technology % of CDM Volumes in Pipeline
UNEP Riso database (May 3, 2006), CDM projects in pipeline (projects using methodologies that have been approved by the CDM EB)
Includes 744 projects, 978 Mt by 2012 Largest categories: HFCs (40%; avg size = 30 Mt)), N2O (12%; avg = 23 Mt)), LFG (12%), biomass
energy (7%), industrial energy efficiency (6%) Wind and hydro at 5% each, fossil fuel switch at 1%, solar at 0%
Hydro, 5%
Landfill gas, 12%
N2O, 12%
Biogas, 1%Biomass
energy, 7%
Cement, 2%
Fugitive, 4%
HFCs, 40%
Fossil fuel switch, 1%
EE industry, 6%
Geothermal, 1%
Wind, 5%Agriculture, 4%
17
Data on Technology % of CDM Projects in PipelineData on Technology % of CDM Projects in Pipeline
Largest categories: biomass energy (23%), hydro (17%), wind (13%), industrial energy efficiency (12%), agriculture (10%), landfill gas (8%)
Small categories include HFC (2%), N2O (3%), solar (1%)
Biomass energy, 23%
Cement, 3%
Agriculture, 10%
Biogas, 4%
Landfill gas, 8%
Fossil fuel switch, 4%
Geothermal, 1%
HFCs, 2%
EE industry, 12%
Hydro, 17%
Fugitive, 1%
Solar, 1% Wind, 13%
N2O, 1%
18
Data on Technology % of JI Volume in PipelineData on Technology % of JI Volume in Pipeline
UNEP Riso database (May 3, 2006), JI projects for which PDDs are available for public comment on the websites of DOEs
Includes 110 projects, 64 Mt by 2012 Largest categories: fossil fuel switch (19%), energy distribution (15%), N20 (14%), biomass energy (9%),
hydro (8%), fugitive (8%), industrial energy efficiency (5%) HFC at <1%, solar at <1%
Coal bed/mine methane, 1%
Energy distribution,
15%
Fossil fuel switch, 19%
Fugitive, 8%
Geothermal, 3%
HFCs, 0%
Hydro, 8%
Landfill gas, 6%
N2O, 14%
Solar, 0%
Wind, 9%
EE industry, 5%
EE households,
1%
Afforestation, 1%
Biomass energy, 9%Biogas, 2%
19
Data on Technology % of JI Projects in PipelineData on Technology % of JI Projects in Pipeline
Largest categories: hydro (21%), wind (14%), LFG (13%), biomass energy (11%), fossil fuel switch (9%), industrial energy efficiency (8%)
HFC at <1%, N2O = 3%
Fugitive, 6%Hydro, 21%
Landfill gas, 13%
N2O, 3%
Solar, 0%
Coal bed/mine methane, 1%
Biomass energy, 11%
Energy distribution, 6%
EE households, 1%
Afforestation, 1%
Wind, 14% Biogas, 2%
Agriculture, 1%
EE industry, 8%
Geothermal, 4%HFCs, 0%
Fossil fuel switch, 9%
Some new thinking from Natsource.More growth. Less pollution.
www.natsource.com
Tel + 44 (0) 20 7827 [email protected]
+ 1 202 496 1423 x227 [email protected]
m