NORDIC ETP 2013 SLIDES+MINUTES – WEB MTG 29/01/12

Participants Present Anna Krook Riekkola AKR Antti Lehtilä AL Arne Lind ALI Benjamin Smith BS Bjørn Bakken BB Håkan Sköldberg HS Jonas Hallgrimsson JH Julia Hansson JHA Kari Aamodt Espegren KAE Kenneth Karlsson KK Lars Bregnbæk LB Lars Zetterberg LZ Marie Loe Halvorsen MLH Markus Wråke MW Tiina Koljonen TK

Summary & Next Steps • Nordic breakout sent, please review before Paris workshop

• Scenario feedback positive, changes to be discussed in Paris

• Work on Indicators and Technology Policy sections getting underway

• Tell Markus who is attending Paris workshop

• Look out for requests from WP leaders

• Provide contact people to Kari for Indicator WP

• Markus is in contact with project leaders to coordinate secondment schedule

Slides & Minutes:

1. Practicalities (MW) (next page)

Stensberggata 25 NO-0170 Oslo www.nordicenergy.net

30 March 2012

© OECD/IEA 2012

© OECD/IEA 2012

Timeline and deliverables - overview

Date Activity Deliverable

April 11-13 Paris modeling workshop

April 25 RG meeting 2 Presentation of scenarios First results and reflections

April-July Main modeling period

June-September Drafting of texts

September Review

September-October Revisions, editing and proofing

November Production

November 20 Launch

© OECD/IEA 2012

Activities and milestones

Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Decweek: 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50

WP 1 Administrative Project Management ^RG mtg2 ^RG mtg3 (phone)WP 2 Research Project Management

WP 3 Modelling

WP 3.1 National data collection

WP 3.2 Scenario Development ^final WP 3.3 Power and District Heating ^1st results ^2nd results ^final results WP 3.4 Buildings ^1st results ^2nd results ^final results WP 3.5 Transport ^1st results ^2nd results ^final results WP 3.6 Industry ^1st results ^2nd results ^final resultsWP 4 Technology Policy ^proposal ^1st results ^2nd results WP 4.1 Case studies ^proposal ^1st results ^2nd resultsWP 5 Indicators ^proposal ^1st results ^2nd resultsWP 6 Formulation of reports, Publication ^draft chapter outlines ^first draft, editors ^final draft for review ^to layout ^launchWP 7 Promotion ^events begi

Secondees ^main secondee window starts ^backup window startsETP ^to layout ^launch, roadshow roadshow con't

© OECD/IEA 2012

Paris modeling workshop

April 11 14h00 - April 13, 16h00 Objectives:

Kick start the modeling Build the team Define cases Decide on tools

Activities Presentation and discussion of ETP2012 results Presentations of initial runs form Nordic modelers based

on ETP 2012 Discuss implications for our scenarios

© OECD/IEA 2012

Paris modeling workshop [2]

Activities (cont’d) Decide scenario variants Define in depth side cases Decide tools; ETP model vs soft linking vs stand alone

Nordic models

Preparations Review ETP 2012 results, send questions in advance Prepare 30 min presentation of own model rune, either

based on ETP 2012 or other relevant analysis Proposed scenario variants and in depth cases

© OECD/IEA 2012

Modeling

Date Activity Deliverable

April 11-13 Paris WS Review of existing results (ETP and Nordic) Decision on focus questions Decision on tools to use

April 13-24 Development of first quantitative storylines for scenarios

Presentation to RG April 25 Guidance for future modeling.

May-July Main modeling period Four main scenarios, based on revised IEA ETP model Variants, decided at Paris WS In depth cases done with linked or stand alone models

August-September Review period Based on feedback from reviewers and RG, revise and finalise results

© OECD/IEA 2012

Nordic visits to the IEA

Main window May-July 1-2 person/country, discussions ongoing Minimum 2 weeks, preferably longer Focus on modeling, cover all sectors Priorities:

Build our four scenarios for each sector Revise and improve ETP model (functionality and data) Scenario variants with linked or stand alone Nordic

models in collaboration with IEA analysts

© OECD/IEA 2012

Report

Outline will be circulated by April 30 (IEA) Draft key messages by chapter mid May 15 (WP

leads) First draft June 23 (WP leads) Draft to editors, July 15 (WP leads) Draft presented to RG September (IEA+WP leads) Peer review September: suggest names, send to

Ben.

Minutes for 1. Practicalities

General points (MW)

Early release of Tracking Progress report for Clean Energy Ministerial in late April

NETP analysis has to happen before summer

Pre-modelling in preparation for Paris workshop would be appreciated

Review process will generate considerable work. We need a good process around this. 200 reviewers for global ETP, a handful would be sufficient for the Nordic ETP

Writing chapters (MW)

• May-September for writing NETP chapters

• Suggest starting from the end with the report, outlining what we want to say with each chapter and working from there. What do we want to see on a presentation or quoted in the media?

Secondees (MW)

• Ongoing bilateral discussions with project leaders

• The longer the better for stays

• Modeling plus knowledge of sectors is most critical, policy+indicators less important for secondees

2. Scenarios + modelling (KK)

The 2°C external world in the scenarios The idea with the scenarios is to illustrate the role the Nordic countries can play in an ambitious world. Therefore it is proposed to look at the Nordic scenarios in +2°C external world and on the +3.5°C world for the baseline. Do you agree on these premises?

High agreeance on the stated premises

Some argued that a 2 degC external world seems somewhat distant and hard to obtain.

Some suggested a third option of having another external world (e.g. 5-6 degC)

One suggested a more ambitious target by aiming for a 400 ppm CO2eq curve.

Possibly a BAU scenario

Agree; 13 Agree Partially; 9

Disagree; 1

Disagree partially; 0

Not clarified; 0

No answer given; 1

Question 1 - The 2°C external world in the scenarios

Agree

Agree Partially

Disagree

Disagree partially

Not clarified

No answer given

The focus areas and names of the scenarios There are three scenarios with different focus areas (FlexFlow: renewable energy and electricity) (Big’nBio: biomass, CCS and nuclear) (SuperSaver: energy efficiency). Do you find these scenarios cover field of possible CO2 neutral energy futures of your country? Are the scenarios compatible with other studies used and referred to by your institution?

A lot of remarks of the fact that the scenarios seems reasonable, but a lot had remarks o Small scale technologies could play a larger role in the future then assumed o Combinations of the scenarios focus areas could be equally interesting o FlexFlow concentrates a bit too much on electricity o None of the scenarios should assume weaker sustainability criteria for imported biomass

than is currently the case in the EU legislation (criteria for biofuels). Some of the scenarios might use stricter criteria (e.g. criteria for all biomass).

o To what extend does the model allows for offsetting Nordic emissions with reductions in the inside and outside the EU through trading mechanisms. To ensure comparability of the scenarios, the same assumptions should be made for all three technology scenarios.

Big'nBio scenario is not very realistic in a Nordic perspective o Some concerns on the large role nuclear plays. o Some reservations on where CCS should be used

One thought the scenarios was a bit extreme and suggested an additional scenario with a balanced development to reach the 2 degC target.

Agree; 8

Agree Partially; 9

Disagree; 2

Disagree partially; 4

Not clarified; 0 No answer given; 0

Question 2 - The focus areas and names of the scenarios

Agree

Agree Partially

Disagree

Disagree partially

Not clarified

No answer given

The expansion of transmission lines In all scenarios apart from the SuperSaver scenario, expansion of transmission lines is assumed, with high expansion in the FLexFlow scenario and medium in the Base and Big’nBio scenarios. Do you agree that these are plausible futures?

High agreeance

An expansion of the grid is expected, no matter what

Transmission line capacity will perhaps become too large in the future if local production increases.

One thinks an expansion should be decided upon by the model and not be assumed.

Agree; 15

Agree Partially; 5

Disagree; 1

Disagree partially; 0

Not clarified; 1 No answer given; 2

Question 3 - The expansion of transmission lines

Agree

Agree Partially

Disagree

Disagree partially

Not clarified

No answer given

The use of nuclear and CCS In all scenarios nuclear and CCS is assumed utilised, albeit at different degrees. Do you agree on this assumption?

Nuclear doesn’t seem relevant for a Nordic perspective.

This will only change, if public acceptance changes.

CCS is not expected to become of great significance

CCS would not be expected to exceed 50% in the Nordic energy mix

In general a very hard question to answer

Agree; 4

Agree Partially; 9 Disagree; 4

Disagree partially; 2

Not clarified; 3

No answer given; 1

Question 4 - The use of nuclear and CCS

Agree

Agree Partially

Disagree

Disagree partially

Not clarified

No answer given

The biomass import Net import of biomass is assumed in the Base and the Big’nBio scenarios whereas no net import is assumed in the remaining scenarios. Do you agree on these assumptions?

A general question is raised on: if the Nordic countries, which have a lot of biomass locally available, should become net importers, what is the rest of the world supposed to do and how would they ever reach the 450ppm target?

One said that there will probably be room for biomass import in FlexFlow also

A general opinion of perceiving the Nordic countries as net exporters, and especially in the Big’nBio

Agree; 6

Agree Partially; 6 Disagree; 6

Disagree partially; 2

Not clarified; 2

No answer given; 1

Question 5 - The biomass import

Agree

Agree Partially

Disagree

Disagree partially

Not clarified

No answer given

The use of explorative and anticipative scenarios It is proposed not to make predictive scenarios, but explorative and anticipative ones to assess the ‘extremities’. Do you find this will facilitate communicating the results? Which scenario do you think will subsequently be quoted in communications/ the media?

Regarding using explorative and anticipative scenarios

Generally a good idea, due to the large number of political uncertainties

“…the more anticipative the scenarios are, the more you need to take care of validation”

Some confusion about whether the baseline is a predictive or explorative/anticipative scenario.

Given its name, it seems like it should be treated as a predictive one.

The figure does not reflect the answers given on communicating the scenarios.

Regarding choosing one scenario to be communicated outwards

Hard to choose one now

Should be decided upon post scenario work, not pre.

One scenario might not be sufficient

Suggestions of a mix between SuperSaver and FlexFlow is suggested

Agree; 13

Agree Partially; 3

Disagree; 0

Disagree partially; 1

Not clarified; 3

No answer given; 3

Question 6 - The use of explorative and anticipative scenarios

Agree

Agree Partially

Disagree

Disagree partially

Not clarified

No answer given

Additional notes

The Swedish District Heating Association: “I think it is good approach to make more descriptive scenarios to be able to illustrate results of technology choices made now and in the future. All of the scenarios are a bit extreme, and the nuclear scenarios are always very controversial in Sweden.” Swedish Transport Administration: “…it is difficult to see the usefulness of these scenarios for the transport sector.” Vattenfall: “First I have a general comment on scenarios: I prefer the explorative approach in order to realise the very diverging futures that might show up in 30 – 40 years time. It is very important that scenarios are communicative. One way of facilitating this is to base them on two fundamental driving forces that can take either direction, combine them in a four-field context and develop the scenarios on this. My preferable scenario set-up should be based on the two driving forces “the focus on climate change” and “markets or regulation”. This means that I find it hard to clearly see how the scenarios Flex flow, Big´nbio and Super saver should work. I understand that the target is to achieve the CO2 targets by 2050 in all three scenarios, but which technologies that should help to realise this is not so clear. I also lack the role of pV, think that the role of CHP is exaggerated (Flexflow) and that the relationship between energy savings and use of electricity is not described in a proper way. In the latter case a strong focus on energy savings could lead to a higher electricity need as electricity will by 2050 be a CO2 neutral energy carrier that is maybe the most important tool to combat climate change. And also in this case a strong reinforcement of the transmission systems is needed. See also my response to the question on transmission below! Finally I do not think that a substantial exploitation of hydro in Sweden and Norway is possible, as anticipated in the FlexFlow scenario.” Energi Norge: “…the scenarios would be clearer if the contain some key figures” Finnish Ministry of the Environment: “In the three technology scenarios, we would encourage you to consider addressing the following issues: 1. Can the Nordic electricity market be improved and the market for renewable energy and fuels be better harmonized? Can Nordic cooperation be increased on: - energy efficiency measures - peak load capacity and conditions (not all Nordic countries have a sufficient amount of peak load capacity) including any electricity storage possibilities - smart grids - decentralized energy production and support instruments - harmonization of RE support policies (there is a research project ongoing under the Nordic Council of Ministers on this topic…) 2. Can Nordic cooperation be increased on CCS? - new technologies, such as biomaterials and mineral capture - common projects with "conventional" CCS 3. Is there room for more Nordic cooperation with sustainability criteria for biomass? 4. How about Nordic cooperation possibilities in development and deployment of RE? 5. …or cooperation possibilities in transport energy systems? - biofuels, electric cars, flexifuel cars, natural gas/biogas cars and buses, transport infrastructure”

Enova: “We would like to see a comparison of socio-economic costs between the scenarios.” Enova: “ Climatic changes will have effects on the scenarios. A higher CO2-concentration with a corresponding temperature increase will improve the biomass supply and also the hydro production resources. Are such effects included – affecting particularly the Big’n’Bio and FlexFlow scenarios?” Institute for Energy, EC Joint Research Centre: "...Overall, CCS should be considered conservatively in the scenarios."

Minutes for 2. Scenarios + modelling

Biomass import in scenarios

• We can either start with a limit or first see how much import would be needed (KK)

• A risk that that the media will take “Nordic region to import xxxx much unsustainable biofuels” as the key message (KK)

• There needs to be a story behind the big’n’bio scenario, an explanation if we are to import significant biomass (TK)

Types of scenarios

• What do we want the media to quote? They will take one extreme message, from just one scenario if we do not give a middle scenario (BS)

Next steps for feedback

• Will send out the data to all in WG (KK)

• Results will be summarised and integrated at the Paris Workshop (KK)

National data questionnaire

• An idea to provide data based on 2C and baseline, forgetting scenarios for now (TK)

• Need to know national emission allocations to provide 2C numbers (KAE)

• Idea to use existing analyses, such as Klima Kommissionen in Denmark (KK)

• Important to attempt the national data questionnaire before the workshop in Paris, get in touch with Kenneth if there are any questions (KK)

Nordic breakout for global ETP (MW)

• Emission envelope for Nordic 5 a ca 16% reduction, from 2009-2050

• National targets likely not consistent, Iceland data needs updating for example.

• WP leaders should go through these results from national and sector perspectives in preparation for Paris workshop.

3. Indicators (KAE)

Indicators

29. March 2012 Kari Aamodt Espegren

Nordic ETP

Indicators in the Nordic ETP

What kind of indicators do IEA use in ETP2012? Two important chapters to look at: 1. Policy to Promote Low-Carbon Technology Innovation 2. Tracking progress towards a clean energy economy

Policy to Promote Low-Carbon Technology Innovation

Policy to Promote Low-Carbon Technology Innovation • Change in annual government RD&D expenditures • Number of demonstration projects in specific technologies • Deployment rates

• investment in new capacity

• Number of patents • by technology area and by inventor’s country of residence

• Number of inventions patented in at least two countries • Statistics on world trade of low-carbon capital and

intermediate high-tech goods • Categorisation of selected low-carbon technologies

• impediments that constrain their uptake • the relative importance of the specific stage of innovation that

policy should target

Public spending on RD&D

Policy to Promote Low-Carbon Technology Innovation

Technology Technical challenges

Market challenges

Institutional and political challenges

Social and environmental challenges

Experimental technologies

Nuclear fusion

Hydrogen fuel cell

Niche market technologies

LED Off grid solar BEV and PHEV

Secondary technologies: Closer to competitive secondary

Nuclear fission Geothermal Biofuels On-grid solar On-grid offshore wind

Secondary technologies: Less mature secondary

CCS SCP Offshore wind Enhanced geothermal

Incremental technologies

Building technologies

Tracking progress towards a clean energy economy

Tracking progress towards a clean energy economy Power technologies included in ETP: • Coal • Nuclear • Renewable

• Solar PV • CSP • Wind (onshore and offshore) • Geothermal • Biomass • Hydro power

Tracking progress towards a clean energy economy The following sectors are analyzed: • Industry (Iron and Steel, Cement, Chemicals. Pulp &

Paper, Aluminium) • Buildings (refrigerators, light bulbs) • Heating and cooling systems for buildings • Transport (BEV, HEV and bio fuels) • CCS for power and industry sector

Tracking progress towards a clean energy economy

• Change in electricity production • Capacity increase & capacity targets • Efficiency improvements • Public opinion • Average installation speed/delay • Energy demand by sector • Energy intensity

Development in energy demand, power production and GDP in Norway

Source: Enova, SSB, 2011

Tracking progress towards a clean energy economy

• Buildings energy consumption & efficiency improvement • Appliance efficiency • Minimum performance standards • District heating trench length • Vehicle fuel economy standards • Vehicle sales and production targets • SSC projects by development stage • Public funding for large-scale demo

Tracking progress towards a clean energy economy • Progress assessment table (for renewables – other

metrics for other sectors) • RD&D • Technology cost/kW • Investment • Generation • Growth rates • Share of generation • Market concentration

• Relative importance of technologies • Vehicle fuel economy x registrations/sales • Vehicle sales x gasoline price

Energy technology progress towards 2 DS

Factors influencing development and deployment

CO2 reductions in 2DS

Indicators in the Nordic ETP

• Which are most important? • Which can we take directly from the global ETP? • Which do we need to find ourselves?

• Are they easy to find (national statistics)?

• IFE will make a suggestion on indicators to include • We will need input from all Nordic partners

Minutes for 3. Indicators

Linking indicators with modelling results

• Discussion of ETP2012 red/green indicators – demands a certain degree of subjectivity

• With the Nordic countries we have a chance to be specific (MW)

Categorisation issues exist

• CCS, biomass co-firing, waste-to-energy, passive houses – all have categorization issues (TK)

• Hydro can be storage, run of river, pumped storage (BB)

Further discussion in Paris

Contact people for each WP in each country

CONTACTS DK FI IS NO SE Power/DH LB TK/AL JH BB TU Buildings KK TK JH KAE/Eva JG Transport János TK BD/JH KAE Håkan Industry Marie TK JH KAE/Eva LZ Policy KK TK JH KAE LZ/TU Scenarios KK TK JH KAE BR Indicators

4. Technology Policy (LZ)

Lars Zetterberg Nordic ETP Meeting 2012-03-29

Outline for Tech policy analysis in Nordic ETP - input for discussion at project meeting 29 March

0

Part 1. Define cases Each country identifies at least one national case that: 1) has been successful in reducing GHG emissions 2) Is relevant for the Nordic ETP scenarios 3) Is relevant for the EU; could be applied in other EU member states, 4) Other criteria (political acceptance?) Examples of cases: Sweden: CO2-tax, Green certificates Denmark: Wind power Finland: Voluntary agreements Norway: CO2-tax off shore, efficiency and renewables policy Iceland: ?

Lars Zetterberg Nordic ETP Meeting 2012-03-29

1

Part 2. Describe experiences and conclusions/recommendations Questions to address include: Magnitude: Total emissions reduction. Effectiveness: Costs per ton reduced. Success factors and lessons learned: Why was the policy successful? What

were the main drivers? The policy, other cost savings, strategic. Other… Working plan - Required input from other project activities, i.e. scenarios - Time, milestones - Who does what? - (Budget) - Deliverables

Minutes for 4. Technology Policy

Case studies

• Hard to know what type of case is needed (TK)

• Should build on Nordic success stories and look at aspects like system integration (MW)

• Should be more than just previous experiences (LZ)

Further discussion in Paris