1
Energy Security Co-Benefits of Transport Sector
GHG Reduction Policies Presentation by Nikolas Hill (AEA)
www.eutransportghg2050.eu
Final Conference
23 February 2012, Diamant Conference Center, Brussels
Overview
• Introduction
• Overview Task 1 on co-benefits, focus on
Energy Security
• Summary of developed approach
• Draft final results and conclusions from the
analysis
• Questions and discussion 2
Introduction – Task 1
• Previous EU Transport GHG: Routes to 2050? study indicated co-
benefits of policies to reduce transport GHG could be significant
Further research required
• EU Transport GHG: Routes to 2050?:
– Initial work on energy security;
– Development of functionality in SULTAN tool allowing for high-level assessment
of potential NOX and particulate matter impacts of scenarios
• However, recognise a need to quantify the benefits as far as
possible Task 1 focus on four areas of co-benefits:
– Air Quality;
– Noise;
– Health; and
– Energy Security.
– (+ Ad-hoc paper on Congestion)
3
Co-benefits of GHG reduction policies: Energy Security
• Previous project report: “Energy Security and the Transport Sector”
– Overview of energy security issues relating to the transport sector;
– Extent to which the supply of energy for the transport sector is secure
(qualitative – current/future situation);
– Review of existing approaches to quantifying energy security benefits
associated with GHG abatement options;
– Development of a new framework approach for quantifying the energy
security benefits/impacts of transport sector GHG abatement options.
• Full quantification not possible semi-quantitative analysis using a
qualitative scoring system allowing GHG options to be ranked
• This new project sub-task concerned with:
– Improving the quantitative datasets for a range of parameters; and
– Investigating the impacts of energy security of using different methods
to supply transport energy
4
Co-benefits of GHG reduction policies: Energy Security – Approach
5
The MCA framework
a) Linkage between price of new energy source and oil price
b) Proportion of vehicle fleet able to use energy source
c) Cost of new energy source compared to oil
d) Surplus of supply capacity over demand*
e) Resilience of new energy source to disruptions
f) Resource concentration for supply
Energy security factors
• Oil derived liq. fuels
• LPG
• Natural gas
• Biofuels
• Hydrogen
• Electricity
• Demand reduction
Policy options
(fuel types)
2010... 2020… 2030... 2040... 2050...
Timescale
Co-benefits of GHG reduction policies: Energy Security – Link of Fuel Price with Oil Price
• The chosen metric was
oil cost factor
(JRC WTW, 2006)
• Ratio showing the effect
of a percentage change
in oil price on the price
of the new energy
source
• Biofuels: from mix
production pathways
• Elec: Mix generation
• H2: NG Elec by 2050
[100 = highest energy
security, 0 = lowest] 6
a) Linkage between price of new energy source and oil price
Conventional oil-derived liquid fuels, LPG and
Natural Gas
Bioethanol
Biodiesel
Hydrogen
Electricity
Energy demand reduction
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
Normalisedscore
Co-benefits of GHG reduction policies: Energy Security – Proportion of Fleet Compatible
7
b) Proportion of vehicle fleet able to use energy source
• Challenge : making
comparisons across
modes/different vehicle sizes
• Solution: utilise gross tonne-
km metric based on vkm
activity and typical Kerb
Weight*
• Notes: aviation and maritime
ships are treated separately from
road/rail/inland ships since they
use completely different fuels
[100 = highest energy
security, 0 = lowest]
* Pending amendment to energy basis
using fleet average MJ/km and vkm
by vehicle type
Gasoline
Diesel
LPG
CNG
Biofuel
Hydrogen
Electricity
Jet fuel
Ship fuel
LNG
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
Normalisedscore
R1-a: Core 60% Reduction Scenario
Co-benefits of GHG reduction policies: Energy Security – Cost of Energy Relative to Oil
• A key element of energy
security is affordability.
With rising energy costs,
affordable prices have
become a central
element of energy
security concerns
• Calculated on a “useful
energy” basis (to correct
for increased efficiency
electric and hydrogen
vehicles)
[100 = highest energy
security, 0 = lowest] 8
c) Cost of new energy source compared to oil
Gasoline
Diesel
LPG
CNG
Biofuel
Hydrogen
Electricity
Jet fuel
Ship fuel
LNG
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
Normalisedscore
Conventional oil-derived
fuels
Natural gas
Biofuels
Hydrogen
Electricity
Energy demand reduction
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
Normalisedscore
Co-benefits of GHG reduction policies: Energy Security – Surplus of Supply Capacity
9
d) Surplus of supply capacity over demand
• This indicator is
expressed in terms of
annual consumption as a
percentage of total global
fuel reserves.
• A sufficient fuel would
constitute a large-scale
source not limited by
finite global stores.
• Based on IEA datasets
[100 = highest energy security,
0 = lowest]
Co-benefits of GHG reduction policies: Energy Security – Resilience to Disruptions
• Scores sourced from the
World Energy Council
(2007)
• Expert members of the
Mobility Specialist Study
Group ranked the
reliability and security
[100 = highest energy
security, 0 = lowest]
10
e) Resilience of new energy source to disruptions
Oil-derived liq fuels
LPG
Natural gas
Biofuel
Hydrogen
Electricity
Energy demand reduction
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
Normalisedscore
Co-benefits of GHG reduction policies: Energy Security – Resource Concentration for Supply
• Geographical
concentration of
resources endows
regions with a certain
amount of market
power which could
adversely affect energy
security in terms of
affordability and
sufficiency.
• IEA (2007) ESMC
(Energy Security
Market Concentration)
[100 = highest energy
security, 0 = lowest] 11
f) Resource concentration for supply
Conventional oil-derived liq.
fuel & LPG
NG
Biofuel
Electricity
Energy demand reduction
Hydrogen
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
Normalisedscore
Co-benefits of GHG reduction policies: Energy Security – Overall Scores
12
Petrol/Diesel
LPG
Natural gas
Biofuels
Electricity
Hydrogen
Ship/Jet Fuel
Energy demand reduction
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
Overall Energy security factor
Fuel Change
Petrol/diesel -35%
Natural gas -30%
Ship/jet fuel -30%
Biofuels -36%
LPG -50%
Hydrogen +11%
Electricity +12%
[100 = highest energy
security, 0 = lowest]
Co-benefits of GHG reduction policies: Energy Security – Overall Scores
13
020406080
100Oil cost factor
Fleet readiness
Cost
Surplus capacity
Supply resilience
Resource concentration
Petrol/Diesel2010 2030 2050 0
20406080
100Oil cost factor
Fleet readiness
Cost
Surplus capacity
Supply resilience
Resource concentration
Ship/Jet Fuel2010 2030 2050
020406080
100Oil cost factor
Fleet readiness
Cost
Surplus capacity
Supply resilience
Resource concentration
LPG2010 2030 2050
020406080
100Oil cost factor
Fleet readiness
Cost
Surplus capacity
Supply resilience
Resource concentration
Natural gas2010 2030 2050
020406080
100Oil cost factor
Fleet readiness
Cost
Surplus capacity
Supply resilience
Resource concentration
Biofuels2010 2030 2050 0
20406080
100Oil cost factor
Fleet readiness
Cost
Surplus capacity
Supply resilience
Resource concentration
Electricity2010 2030 2050
020406080
100Oil cost factor
Fleet readiness
Cost
Surplus capacity
Supply resilience
Resource concentration
Hydrogen2010 2030 2050
Co-benefits of GHG reduction policies: Energy Security – Scenario Analysis
14
• BAU-a - the energy security
rating falls by 33%
(from 68 in 2010 to 46 in 2050)
• R1-a - the energy security rating
is much better protected, and
drops only 5% (to 65)
0
20
40
60
80
100
Oil cost factor
Fleet readiness
Cost
Surplus capacity
Supply resilience
Resource concentration
BAU-a
2010 2030 2050
0
20
40
60
80
100Oil cost factor
Fleet readiness
Cost
Surplus capacity
Supply resilience
Resource concentration
R1-a: Core Reduction Scenario
2010 2030 2050
Co-benefits of GHG reduction policies: Energy Security – Scenario Analysis
15
• C5-a – using all technical/non-
technical options increases the
energy security rating by 10%
(from 68 in 2010 to 75 in 2050)
• C6-a - using only non-technical
options the energy security rating
~same at 2050, mainly due to
energy demand/activity reduction
0
20
40
60
80
100Oil cost factor
Fleet readiness
Cost
Surplus capacity
Supply resilience
Resource concentration
C6-a: Non-Tech Measures
2010 2030 2050
0
20
40
60
80
100Oil cost factor
Fleet readiness
Cost
Surplus capacity
Supply resilience
Resource concentration
C5-a: All Options
2010 2030 2050
Co-benefits of GHG reduction policies: Energy Security – Final Conclusions
• A semi-quantitative methodology for assessing energy
security has been developed and applied
• Results show a decline in energy security for
conventional fuels, but improvements in electricty/H2
• Application to the project’s core GHG reduction scenario
demonstrates significant benefits over BAU
• The developed energy security methodology has also
been integrated into the SULTAN scenario analysis tool
16
Any questions or comments…
…?
18
Energy Security Co-Benefits of Transport Sector
GHG Reduction Policies Presentation by Nikolas Hill (AEA)
www.eutransportghg2050.eu
Final Conference
23 February 2012, Diamant Conference Center, Brussels
