how sustainable is india’s energy system : a lifehow ... sustainable is india’s energy system :...
Post on 10-Jun-2018
220 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
How Sustainable is India’s Energy System : A Life cycle andHow Sustainable is India’s Energy System : A Life-cycle and Modeling Perspective
By
Diptiranjan MahapatraVisiting Researcher, Hiroshima University
04th June10, NIES04 June10, NIES
“Following up program for young researchers leading the sustainable Asia” Graduate School for International Development and Cooperation (IDEC)
A short Introduction • PhD 2009 Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad(IIMA) India in Energy• PhD 2009, Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad(IIMA), India, in Energy
& Environment Policy (www.iimahd.ernet.in)
• Prior to this 10 years in Energy / Infrastructure Industry• Prior to this – 10 years in Energy / Infrastructure Industry
• Current Affiliation – Adani Institute of Infrastructure Management
(www aiim ac in)(www.aiim.ac.in)
– A start-up b-school with Energy & Infra Focus MBA
• Research Skills• Research Skills
– Life Cycle Analysis & Monetization of externalities
– Energy-Environment-Economy Modeling– Energy-Environment-Economy Modeling
– Scenario Analysis
– GIS based spatial analysisGIS based spatial analysis
– Simulation
A short Introduction • Research Interest
E & Cli t P li– Energy & Climate Policy
– Local Pollution (SOx, NOx, SPM etc.)Technology Policy
– Carbon Capture & Sequestration (CCS)
– Sustainability - How firms in developing economies will
adapt and adopt environmental practices; If not – why?adapt and adopt environmental practices; If not – why?
– Infrastructure and Regulations
– NOC vs. IOC and resource nationalism
Context• Energy production and consumption: unintended impacts• Energy production and consumption: unintended impacts
perturb market equilibrium : Getting the price right
• Fundamental structural change in energy supply systemalong with climate regimealong with climate regime
• Structural change has to be embedded into an economicStructural change has to be embedded into an economic,social and ecological framework (TBL framework)
• Evaluation of existing taxes or permit system / designingnew ones
Assisting market processes– Assisting market processes– Making effective social choices
Context• ... pricing of energy production and use should reflect the full costs of thep g f gy p f f f
associated environmental problems. The concept of full social cost pricing is a goaltowards which to strive. Including all social, environmental, and other costs inenergy prices would provide consumers and producers with the appropriateinformation to decide about fuel mix, new investments, and research anddevelopment (National Academy of Sciences, 1991, p. 73 in Viscusi et al., 1994)
• .. even though monetary estimates of external cost may not be precise and itspartial equilibrium framework is less than perfect, ``full social cost pricing'' in theenergy sector is a positive contribution to greater economic welfare (Hall, 1990 inLawrey, 1999)
• The US National Research Council has just published a study on the hidden healthand environmental costs of energy production and consumption in the USA. It putthese costs at $120 billion in 2005 The study - entitled Hidden Costs of Energy:Unpriced Consequences of Energy Production and Use - was conducted at therequest of Congress and examines external energy costs in the USA.
Research Questions1. How do market prices compare with the life cycle costs for major primaryp p y j p y
energy resources (coal, natural gas, nuclear and biomass) in India ?
2 Wh t ld b th l t ilib i t j t i f I di d2. What would be the long-term energy equilibrium trajectories for India underbusiness-as-usual (BAU) policy regime?
3. How could external costs from life cycle assessment for different primaryenergy resources be internalized in energy market?
4. How would policies based on life cycle cost policies alter long-term energymarket equilibrium vis-à-vis BAU trajectory in India?
5. Once external costs are internalized through alternate packages of policies,d i t t h d th i t i di t likmeasures, and instruments, how do they impact indicators like energy
security, energy access and sustainability?
Framework of AnalysisResearch Questions
External Cost of Major Fuels
BAU Energy Equilibrium
Q2Impact on indicators like energy security, energy
Q1 access and sustainability Q5Internalization of
External CostQ3
Comparison of BAU versus External Cost
ScenariosScenariosQ4
MethodologyMethodology
Fuel Cycle Analysis Energy System Case AnalysisFuel Cycle AnalysisExternE (2005)
Energy System Modeling with
Scenario Analysis
Case Analysis
Methodology for RQ1E ternalit of Energ (E ternE)• Externality of Energy (ExternE)
– European Commission began as a collaborative project with the
US partners Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) and
Resources for the Future (RFF)
• Environmental impacts may be valuedp y
– Control cost ( Upstream i.e. Mining plus Transport)
– Damage cost.( Power Generation )
– Using other country’s figure (Wang and Nakata, 2007) (Renewables)g y g ( g , ) ( )
Data Collection• Primary Datay
– Site Visits, Interviews, Emails and Tele-talk• Coal MCL mines ; GSECL Corporate officeCoal MCL mines ; GSECL Corporate office
• Nuclear UCIL mines ; Nuclear Power plant at Kakrapar, Surat
• Natural Gas PLL-LNG terminal ; GSECL Corporate Officep
• Secondary Data
– Online databases (CMIE Infraline)Online databases (CMIE, Infraline)
– Energy Markets Database (BP, IEA, DOE/EIA)
T h l D t b ( DOE / EIA )– Technology Database ( DOE / EIA )
– Annual Reports, Publications & Websites (Planning Commission
– & Various central and state Ministries)
• Critical Parameters – DRF, VoL, Source Apportionment
Research Question-1
How do market prices compare with the life cycle costs for major primary energy resources (coal,
t l l d bi ) i I di ?natural gas, nuclear and biomass) in India ?
External Cost of Major Fuels
Q1
Fuel Cycle AnalysisExternE (2005)
Boundary Setting
Upstream Transportation Power GenerationProcess Generation
Coal Mining Rail Subcritical PCNatural Gas Exploration LNG plus Pipe CCGTNatural Gas Exploration LNG plus Pipe CCGTNuclear Mining Truck PHWRBagasse Farming Tractor CogenerationWind Manufacturing S-66 and S-70 Solar Manufacturing ISCC
Emission related Impacts
Coal Fuel Cycle Analysis• Coal Mines & Transport
!(!(
• Coal Mines & Transport– Dust Generation
• Ghose 2007 5419 kg / day• Ghose, 2007 – 5419 kg / day
– Mines Fire ( Report7 of Coal (Lok Sabha, 2006):Rs.395 crore for shifting and rehabilitation,
dealing with fire and stabilization of unstable area )
– Emission from POL consumption to produce Coal
– Fugitive Emission
– Control Cost
• Coal Power Generation– Local Damage PM10 Impact
– Radioactive Damage (Mandal, Dasgupta and Mandal, 2006; Lalit, Ramanchandra and
Mishra, 1986)
– Global Warming Damage
Natural Gas Fuel Cycle Analysis!(!(
• Natural Gas Exploration & Transport
– Emission during exploration (Oil and Gas Producersg p (
(OGP) report, 2006)
Emission LNG life cycle (LNG : Indigenous 50:50 )– Emission LNG life cycle (LNG : Indigenous 50:50 )
• Power generation
– Fugitive Emission
– Local Damage: NOx impact
– Global Damage– Global Damage
Nuclear Fuel Cycle Analysis• Uranium Mines & Transport
!(!(
p• Dust Emission• Effluent Discharge• Radiation Dose• Radiation Dose
– Activity content 4000 Bq · kg–1 versus normal soil of 40 Bq · kg–1; Radonemanation 222Rn from the tailings average around was 1.5 Bq · m–2 · s–1compared to an acceptable limit of 0.7 (comm with BARC official)compared to an acceptable limit of 0.7 (comm with BARC official)
– Jha, Khan and Mishra (2000a); Jha, Khan and Mishra(2000b), Khan et al.,2006; Mahur et al., (2008)
• CO2 emission (Mudd and Diesendorf, 2007)CO2 emission (Mudd and Diesendorf, 2007)• Control Cost
• Power generation– Radio active Nuclide emission through HEPA
• Tritium (3 H), Fission Product Noble Gases (FPNG) like Xenon (135 Xe),Krypton (85 Kr) etc., radioactive iodine (131 I) and radioactive PM < 0.2μ(NEERI 1992) Details(NEERI, 1992) Details
• French Fuel Cycle
Bagasse, Wind and Solar Fuel Cycle• Bagasse
!(!(
• Bagasse– Sugarcane Farming, Agricultural Operation & Transport.
Methane and N O emissions from the b rning of s gar cane trash before har esting• Methane and N2O emissions from the burning of sugar cane trash before harvesting
• N2O soil emissions; and methane emissions from bagasse burning in boilers
• The annual diesel oil consumption in agricultural operations and in harvesting
• Transportation - distance of reference cogeneration plant and cane procurementcentre : 300km
P G ti– Power Generation• Assumption: 4.1kg of sugarcane is required to generate 1kg of bagasse and to
generate 1kWh, 2.7 kg of bagasse and 6kg of steam are required
(Macedo, 2004)
• Wind & Solar.– No upstream processes
– Data from other country
External Costs : SummaryType External Cost External cost as % ofCost of GenerationType External Cost External cost as % of
Cost of Generation(Paisa / kWh) Min Max
Coal Pithead 87.28 271.5
Cost of Generation (Paisa / kWh)
Coal Non-Pithead 199.4 214.29 482.64 93%
Gas 36.4 105.65 554 34%
Nuclear 11.3 139 208 8%
Source : Cost of generation has been retrieved from Infraline / CEA website
Wind 5.94 200 250 3%
Solar 12.7 800 1600 2%Bagasse 14.05 200 280 7%
Sim lation ith E ternal Cost for S bCr Coalg Simulation with External Cost for SubCr Coal
8%
10%
12%
n
4%
6%
8%D
istr
ibut
ion
With Ext CostW/o Ext Cost
Simulation0%
2%
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
COE in Rs / kWh
Using External Costs in Energy Modelling
E t l C tExternal Cost from answer
to RQ1
Current Energy
Equilibrium +Energy System
q
System Model
New Energy Equilibrium (RQ 2,3,4)
Policy RecommendationPolicy Recommendation
Research Questions 2,3,4
2 Wh ld b h l2. What would be the long-termenergy equilibrium trajectories forIndia under business-as-usual
BAU Energy Equilibrium
Q2
(BAU) policy regime?3. How could external costs from life
l t f diff t
Q
Internalization of External Cost
cycle assessment for differentprimary energy resources beinternalized in energy market?
Q3
Comparison of BAU
4. How would policies based on lifecycle cost alter long-term energymarket equilibrium vis à vis BAU
versus External Cost Scenarios
Q4
market equilibrium vis-à-vis BAUtrajectory in India?
Energy System Modeling withModeling with
Scenario Analysis
Long-term Supply & Demand Technology-Mix, Fuel-Mix, Emission, Cost
Integrated Bottom-Up Energy Modeling System
ANSWER MARKAL (MARKet ALlocation) Energy Optimization Model T h l D iliTechnology Detailing
Transport Agriculture Residential CommercialIndustry
End-use Sub-Sector Models
Transport Agriculture Residential CommercialIndustry
Urban Rural Steel
CementRoad Rail
Sugar
Ship Air
Aluminum Chlor-Alkali PaperBrickTextiles Fertilizer Others
End Use DemandsLong-Term Demand Projection based on GDP
End-Use Demands
Business As Usual (BAU) Assumptions• Story-line for the BAU scenario refers to the B2 scenario of IPCC/SRES
Y GDP (2005 i ) P l ti P i d G th t
Story line for the BAU scenario refers to the B2 scenario of IPCC/SRES
• MacroeconomicYear GDP (2005 prices) Population Period Growth rate
(Bill. Rs.) (Million) GDP Population 2005 32833 1103 2005-30 8.1% 1.1% 2030 229573 1449 2030-50 5.9% 0.5%2050 774673 1593 2005-50 7.1% 0.8%
E P i• Energy Prices
– Ministry & Infraline Website – Imported – IEA – Supply Curves– Supply Curves
• Carbon Prices– outputs from global Second Generation Model (SGM) results (Edmonds, 2007)outputs from global Second Generation Model (SGM) results (Edmonds, 2007)
Scenario ArchitectureGlobal Damage Scenario
Local Damage Scenario (LDS)
External fuel life-cycle costs
Global Damage Scenario (GDS)
External fuel life-cycle costs, local air pollution (SO2 NOx)
Business As Usual
External fuel life cycle costs, local air pollution (SO2, NOx)
internalized
local air pollution (SO2, NOx)and emissions causing global climate change (CO2) @ 650
ppmvBusiness As Usual
(BAU)GDP- 8% CAGR 2005-50
No local, No global externalities; Story-line forexternalities; Story line for
the Baseline scenario refers to the B2 scenario
of IPCC/SRES
High Carbon Scenario Nuclear Cooperation Scenario
(NUCC)
Impact analysis of Indo-US 123
g(HIGHCARB)
External fuel life-cycle costs, local air pollution (SO2, NOx)and emissions causing global p y
Agreement g g
climate change (CO2) @ 550 ppmv
External costs representation in MARKALCoal Power External Cost Natural Gas Power External CostCoal Power External Cost
400.00
500.00
600.00
/ PJ
2010 w /o CO2 2050 w /o CO2
2010 w ith CO2 2050 w ith CO2
150 00
200.00
250.00
PJ
2010 w /o CO2 2050 w /o CO2
2010 w ith CO2 2050 w ith CO2
100.00
200.00
300.00
Mill
ion
Rs
/
50.00
100.00
150.00
Mill
ion
Rs
/ P
0.00Sub CriticalPC Existing
IGCC PlusCCS
Retrofit
Existing PCPlus CCSRetrofit
IGCC PlusCCS
Sub CriticalPC New
Sub CriticalPC w ith
FGDRetrof it
SuperCritical PCw ith FGD
Technology
0.00GT Existing CCGT Existing CCGT Future CCGT plus
CCSAdvanced
CCGT
Technology
Non-Fossil Power External Cost
120.00
140.00
160.00
J
2010 w /o CO2 2050 w /o CO2
2010 w ith CO2 2050 w ith CO2 2010 w/o CO2
20.00
40.00
60.00
80.00
100.00
Mill
ion
Rs
/ PJ
2050 w/o CO2
2010 with CO2
2050 with CO20.00
Nuclear Plant WindElectricity
Plant
BiomassElectricity
Cogeneration SolarPhotovoltaic
Technology
2050 with CO2
Source :Author’s own estimate using Rafaj and Kypreos , 2007
Business As Usual ResultsPrimary Energy Supply (MTOE)y gy pp y ( )
2000
2500
3000
Coal Oil
Gas Hydro
Nuclear Other Renew ables
1000
1500
Commercial Biomass Non Com Biomass
• Coal dominance in primary
0
500
2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
energy as well as powergeneration continues
Electricity Capacity (GW)
1000
1200
RenewableNuclearHydroOilGas
400
600
800GasCoalTotal
0
200
2005 2035 2050 2050
Business As Usual ResultsElectricity Generation (TWh)
5000
6000 Total Coal
Gas Oil
Hydro NuclearWind
2000
3000
4000 Wind
• Enhanced CO2 emissions
0
1000
2005 2035 2050 2050
CO2 E i i (MT)CO2 Emission (MT)
7000
8000
9000
3000
4000
5000
6000
0
1000
2000
2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
Local Damage Scenario ResultsCoal Power Plants: Technology Transition (GW)
400
500
600
Sub Critical PC w ith FGD-1New
Sub Critical PC w ith FGD-1Retrofit
IGCC-2 +CCS
• Coal technologies with SOxand NOx removal systems
i i200
300
400
Ultra / Super Cr PC (2005-2035)
Adv Sub Cr+DeSOx DeNOx
New PC+CCS Retrofit
SO E i i BAU LDS
come into generation0
100
2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
Existing PC+CCS Retrofit
Sub Critical PC-1
SOx Emissions: BAU vs LDS
10000
12000
BAU-SOxLDS-SOX 17%
4000
6000
8000
in '0
00 to
nnes
17%
0
2000
2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
Global Damage Scenario ResultsCoal Technology Trsnition- GD Scenario (GW)
250
300
350
Advanced Coal Electric w ith CCSIGCC-2 +CCS
100
150
200
• Carbon capture technologybecomes competitive
0
50
2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
CO2 E i i BAU GDS
becomes competitive
• Carbon capture technologyCO2 Emissions: BAU vs GDS
8000.0
9000.0
10000.0
BAU CO2 24
• Carbon capture technologyin BAU 105 GW
3000.0
4000.0
5000.0
6000.0
7000.0
in '0
00 to
nnes
BAU-CO2GDS-CO2
24%
0.0
1000.0
2000.0
2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
Nuclear Cooperation ScenarioNuclear Fuel Availability Analysis
Reserve U3O8 (inDescription Life of Mines
Reserve U3O8 (in Tonne) 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
A. MININGExisting MinesJaduguda Mines 9 608
Narwapahar Mines 20 4500
Bhatin Mines 7 95
Turamdih Mines 20 3000
Banduhurang Mines 20 10500
i
Existing mines can produce till 2035
Future MinesAP Mines- Tummalapalle+Lambapur-2015 30 8100
Meghalaya Mines-2020 30 10800
Bagjata- 2008 20 900
Mohuldih- 2011 20 900B. MILLINGCurrent Production of U3O8 Tonne per annum 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200
Another U3O8 mill getting commissioned (tonne @ annum) 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200
Assuming one mill at AP tonne @ annum 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200g @
Assuming one mill at Meghalaya tonne @ annum 200 200 200 200 200 200 200
Total U3O8 that can be produced tonne @ annum 200 400 600 800 800 800 800 800 800 800
U3O8 SHORTFALL in tonne per annum 239.6 267.7 329.6 591.5 984.4 1377 1639 2294 2949Installed Capacity- MW 4120 6780 8000 10000 12000 15000 18000 20000 25000 30000
Electricity Production (TwH) per annum 18.046 35.636 45.552 56.94 68.328 85.41 102.49 113.88 142.35 170.82
Amt of U3O8 in tonne required per annum 415.05 819.62 1047.7 1309.6 1571.5 1964.4 2357.3 2619.2 3274.1 3928.9
Amt of U3O8 in gm reqd to produce 1 kWh 0.023
Nuclear Cooperation Scenario ResultsInstalled Capacity GW in "NUCC Case"
800
1000
1200
Biomass Coal
Gas/ Naptha Geothermal
Hydro Nuclear
400
600
Oil Solar
Waste Heat Wind
• Nuclear 300 GW in linewith DAE’s forecast
0
200
2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
Ad N l T h(GW) t ti i NUCC d
with DAE s forecast
• Fast Breeder ReactorAdvance Nuclear Tech(GW) penetration in NUCC and BAU scenario
225250275300
Advanced Nuclear BAU
• Fast Breeder Reactor(FBR) becomes mainstay
100125150175200 Advanced Nuclear
NUCC
0255075
2005 2020 2035 2050
High Carbon Scenario ResultsCarbon Tax
100
60
80
S $
/tC
O2)
20
40
Price
CO
2 (U
S
• CO2 emission showsdecoupling effect
02010 2020 2030 2040 2050
CO G C
decoupling effect
CO2 Emissions: BAU vs HIGHCARB
8000.0
9000.0
10000.0
BAU CO2
3000.0
4000.0
5000.0
6000.0
7000.0
in '0
00 to
nnes
BAU-CO2HIGHCARB-CO2
0.0
1000.0
2000.0
2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
Electricity Generation Across Scenarios
Electricity Generation by Fuel7,000
Biomass Coal2050
5,000
6,000 Biomass Coal
Gas/ Naptha Geothermal
Hydro Nuclear
Oil S l
3,000
4,000
TWh
/ Yr
Oil Solar
Waste Heat Wind
2,0002010
-
1,000
ase RB
LDS
GDS
CC ase RB
LDS
GDS
CC
Bas
HIGHCARB
LD GD
NUCC
Bas
HIGHCARB
LD GD
NUCC
Scenarios
Coal Transition in all Scenarios 2050Installed Cap (GW) BAU LDS GDS NUCC HIGHCARB
800
900Installed Cap (GW) BAU LDS GDS NUCC HIGHCARBAdv Sub Cr+DeSOx DeNOx 68 5Ultra / Super Cr PC 475.72SC with FGD Retrofit 10SC with FGD New 10Adv Sub Cr+DeSOx DeNOx 8 58
600
700Adv Sub Cr+DeSOx DeNOx 8.58Adv Coal with CCS 272.7IGCC+CCS 69.5 170.02IGCC 105.6 98.35Super Cr 676.13 441.28
400
500Super Cr
Super
200
300Ultra/ Super Cr IGCC+
CCS
Super Cr
0
100
200
IGCCAdv SC+DeSOx De NOx
Adv Coal +CCS
IGCC
IGCC+ CCS
0BAU LDS GDS NUCC HIGHCARB
De NOx
Primary Energy Supply Across Scenarios
( ) S SPE (Mtoe) Supply in 2050 in Various Scenarios3000
2000
2500 BASE8 LDS
GDS NUCC
HIGHCARB
1500
2000 HIGHCARB
1000
0
500
0Coal Oil Gas Hydro Nuclear Other Ren Total
Research Question 5
l i li d h h lOnce external costs are internalized through alternate packages of policies, measures, and instruments, how do they impact indicators like energy security energy accessthey impact indicators like energy security, energy access
and sustainability?
Impact on indicators like energy security, energy access
and sustainabilityand sustainabilityQ5
Case Analysis
Research Question 5 Framework
New Energy Equilibrium (RQ 2,3,4)
Policy Recommendation on Carbon Dioxide Capture &
Storage (CCS)Storage (CCS)
Case Analysis (RQ 5)
CCS
Case Analysis of CCS with Enhanced Oil RecoveryProposed Pipeline between Power Plants and Oil Fieldoposed pe e be ee o e a s a d O e d
43Km43KmVirajViraj
GEB, GEB,
36Km36KmJholeraJholera
GandhinagarGandhinagar
AEC, Ahmedabad
AEC, Ahmedabad
Proposed Pipeline
Legend
��
ï Oil Wells77 Thermal Power Plants�� Settlements Sabarmati River
Oil FieldSett e e ts Sabarmati River
5% Recovery factor corresponds to 2774 bbl/dcorresponds to 2774 bbl/d6% 3329 bbl/d7% 3884 bbl/d8% 4438 bbl/d9% 4993 bbl/d10% 5548 bbl/d
Parameters
Carbon Dioxide Capture & Storage Supply CurveCO2 (T t l)S l C I diCO2 (Total)Supply Curve - India
140
160
180
100
120
140
ne C
O2)
Deep saline aquifers and basalt formations are so
40
60
80
Cos
t ($/
tonn Deep saline aquifers and basalt formations are soabundant that they create a backstop at about $100-$150 / tCO2
-20
0
20
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Cum CO2 Capacity (GtCO2)Initial low-hanging fruits :EOR andECBM based low cost storage potential.
Conclusions - CCSL C b t & t t f I di 100 150$ / t CO2• Long run Carbon capture & storage cost for India –100-150$ / t CO2
• Additional geological investigation• Pilot Plant should be initiated for learning and preparedness
Data
Findings• Fast introduction of emissions control systems and low-emitting power plants• Internalized external costs : positive global and local environmental impacts• Internalized external costs : positive global and local environmental impacts• Internalization results - energy mix portfolio diversified as opposed to a pure coal
dominance• Primary Energy Supply gets decreasedPrimary Energy Supply gets decreased• Charging the “global” externalities : strong decarbonisation effect• Local Damage Scenario – preferred option• UMPPs and 11th Planned power plants – well placed w.r.t basinsUMPPs and 11th Planned power plants well placed w.r.t basins• Absent a carbon price or some explicit incentive to capture: deployment of CCS• CCS–Energy Security• Carbon mitigation w/o carbon centric, market efficient instrumentsCarbon mitigation w/o carbon centric, market efficient instruments• Cheaper electricity options?• FBR going to mainstay – Plutonium reprocessing augmentation• Electricity generation cost post nuclear dealElectricity generation cost post nuclear deal
Shadow Price of Electricity (Rs/ kWh)
4.00
5.00
6.00 BAU GDS
LDS HIGHCARB
NUCC
CO2 Emission in Various Scenarios
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
BAULDSGDS
-
1.00
2.00
3.00
2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 20500.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
HIGHCARB
Nuc
Policy ImplicationsInformation from this Research What decisions can this improve?
Impacts and costs of fuel cycle(aggregation over all stages of the technologies
Public choice of technologies(e.g. coal vs. nuclear)(aggregation over all stages of the technologies
under consideration)(e.g. coal vs. nuclear)
Impacts and costs of power plant(aggregation over the emissions for each of the
Choice of a new power plant(aggregation over the emissions for each of the technologies under consideration)Impacts and costs of each of the plants in electric grid (aggregation over all stages)
Optimal dispatching of existing plantsg ( gg g g )
Impacts and costs, for each pollutant and each polluter (no aggregation)
Optimization of regulations(emission limits, tradable permits, pollution ( , p , ptaxes)
Costs The “Green Accounting for Indian States &(aggregation over all emission sources in a country)
Union Territories Project” (“GAISP”)(correction of GNP for environmental damage)
Policy Implications
• “Externality Ladder” – tool for sustainable energy
framework
• Institutional and Regulatory Frameworks
d– SPCB, Cap & Trade or Tax
• Initial compliance versus continuing compliance
• UMPPs and 11th plan power plants – “Capture Ready”
• What is in policy maker’s mind : Energy access ,
Energy security or Climate ?
• No Silver bullet
Contribution
• Methodological
– Quantification of external costQuantification of external cost
– Modeling with external costs
• Database
– Environmental database
– Technology databasegy
• CCS Spatial Analysis
• Policy
Future Research
• Epidemiological Studies
• Sustainable Natural Resource exploitation
• Energy & Environment InfrastructureEnergy & Environment Infrastructure
• Sustainable Energy System
• Regional MARKAL Modelling incorporating the
externalities
• Top Down modelling to forecast Green GDP• Top-Down modelling to forecast Green-GDP
Th kThank you
top related