The International Energy Agency (IEA) has begun releasing a set of technology roadmaps (IEA Roadmaps ) that describe a 40 year long transition to a low carbon energy future, with targets, milestones, and policy needs.  The individual roadmaps are combined in their “BLUE Map” scenario which yields a 50% reduction in global CO2 emission for the year 2050 (relative to 2005).  The big surprises for environmentalists are 1) that after all of those years of rapid growth in renewables and nuclear, coal is still expected to play a major roll in the global energy supply (albeit with carbon capture and sequestration, CCS), and 2) much of the renewable energy in the scenario falls in the high priced category.

 

While energy efficiency produces the largest single reduction in CO2 (36% of total reduction), we will still need to generate a lot of clean electricity in 2050.  The BLUE Map shows 46% of 2050 global electricity from renewables (12% each for hydro, wind, and solar; 10% for other renewables), 23% nuclear, and the balance (31%) from fossil fuel with carbon capture.  It’s described in IEA’s “Energy Technology Perspectives 2008” publication, which is pricey for a casual read, but summary information is available free here: ETP-2008 Page and Fact Sheet and here: ETP-2008 slides.

 

 

 

ETP-2008 has two scenarios that improve over the baseline: the ACT Map, which holds emissions at 2005 levels, and BLUE Map with its 50% reduction (targeting 450 ppm atmospheric CO2).  The BLUE Map actually uses more electricity, due to the much greater use of electric cars.  The ACT scenario spans measures that (like efficiency) save money through those that add $50/ton CO2 (about $20/ bbl oil).  The BLUE Map includes measures that are up to four times more costly (e.g. double the solar, fuel cell vehicles, and CCS for the cement industry).

 

The technology roadmaps, which include wind, solar PV, solar CSP, biofuels, electric cars, carbon capture & sequestration, and eventually nuclear power, provide background information on each technology, as well as policy guidance to expedite role-out.

 

The solar energy technology roadmaps go beyond the 12% fraction of the electricity market for solar specified in the BLUE Map, into uncertain territory with a vision of 12% each for PV and solar thermal.  The BLUE Map kept a 2.6:1 ratio between dispatchable power (fossil fuel, hydro, and biomass) to the most variable renewables (wind and PV); this is consistent with US DOE feasibility studies (EWITS and WWSIS studies).  The solar PV roadmap cautions “... the development and application of enhanced storage technologies will become increasingly important ...”, highlights demand-side management, and advises “... the advancement of smart grids will be instrumental to the widespread use of PV envisioned in this roadmap”.

 

 

The cost of PV and CSP are expected to be similar according to the roadmaps, and fall dramatically as production volume rises.  In the curve below, the red line is cost of solar power in very sunny areas like Arizona or the Sahara; the green line is mostly sunny areas like Florida or Spain  (Continental Europe would be twice as costly).

 

 

CSP is expected to have an extremely non-uniform deployment around with world, with penetration by 2050 ranging from 40% in parts of the US and Australia, to only 4% in China and Russia (with most of that from imports).

 

 

With wind being a more mature technology than solar, the roadmap is correspondingly less speculative.  It sticks to the 12% wind generation share called out in the BLUE Map.  It is upfront about the current need for a carbon price or other subsidy to make wind competitive with other generation in most places.  And as with PV, suggestions are made of technologies needed to achieve high grid penetration: “Importantly, markets need to be designed in such a way that price signals incentivise timely investment in flexible generation (e.g., reservoir based hydro, gas turbines, concentrating solar power (CSP) with integrated thermal storage), deeper trade among adjacent markets, the use of deferrable and responsive demand (DSM) through a “smart meter”, and investment in electrical and other types of storage as well as electric and hybrid vehicles. “

 

As a group, the renewable technology roadmaps reflect an excitement about rapidly growing industries and appealing technologies.  When discussing the need for “flexible generation” to support variable renewables, there seems to be little realism or recognition that most of the flexible generation would be fossil fuel derived.  The Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS) roadmap brings us back to reality with a painful economic data point: “The BLUE Map results revealed that if CCS technologies are not available, the overall cost to achieve a 50% reduction in CO2 emissions by 2050 will increase by 70% (IEA, 2008a).”  See CCS Roadmap.

 

Of course the developed world has the luxury to choose more expensive alternatives, but the CCS roadmap shows that in both 2020 and 2050, developing (non-OECD) countries must deploy the majority of global CCS.  The environment movement needs to wake up to economic reality.