Ce diaporama a bien été signalé.
Le téléchargement de votre SlideShare est en cours. ×

Climate friendly energy for Europe ”We are in the beginning of a Green industrial revolution” by Satu Hassi

Prochain SlideShare
Energy And Climate Change
Energy And Climate Change
Chargement dans…3

Consultez-les par la suite

1 sur 77 Publicité

Plus De Contenu Connexe

Diaporamas pour vous (20)

Les utilisateurs ont également aimé (20)


Similaire à Climate friendly energy for Europe ”We are in the beginning of a Green industrial revolution” by Satu Hassi (20)

Plus par Gerd Tarand (20)


Climate friendly energy for Europe ”We are in the beginning of a Green industrial revolution” by Satu Hassi

  1. 1. Climate friendly energy for Europe ”We are in the beginning of a Green industrial revolution” Tallinn Apr 17th 2009 Satu Hassi, Member of European Parliament www.satuhassi.net
  2. 2. EU has listened to scientists (1) <ul><li>1990: 1 st IPCC report: “The unequivocal detection of the enhanced (= anthropogenic) greenhouse effect is not likely for a decade or more” </li></ul><ul><li>1991: First European Community strategy on reducing GHG emissions </li></ul><ul><li>1992: UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (Rio de Janeiro) </li></ul>
  3. 3. EU has listened to scientists (2) <ul><li>1995: 2 nd IPCC report: “The balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate” </li></ul><ul><li>1996: EU Council: “Global average temperatures should not exceed 2 degrees C above pre-industrial” (that time understanding: CO 2 < 550 ppm”) </li></ul><ul><li>1997: Kyoto Protocol </li></ul><ul><li>EU offer in Kyoto: -15 % (vs 1990 by 2008-2012) if other industrialized countries adopt comparable targets </li></ul><ul><li>EU Kyoto target -8 %, average of industrialized countries -5,2 % (US -7 %) </li></ul>
  4. 4. EU has listened to scientists (3) <ul><li>2001: 3 rd IPCC report: “Most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in GHG concentrations” </li></ul><ul><li>2001: US withdraws from Kyoto Protocol </li></ul><ul><li>2001: EU campaigns for continuing negotiations on the implementation rules of Kyoto </li></ul><ul><li>2001: Marrakech Accord makes Kyoto Protocol ratifiable </li></ul><ul><li>2002: EU ratifies Kyoto </li></ul><ul><li>2005 Kyoto Protool enters into force </li></ul><ul><li>2005: Start of EU CO 2 emission trading system (ETS) </li></ul>
  5. 5. EU has listened to scientists (4) <ul><li>2005: European Parliament: Industrialized countries should cut emissions 30 % by 2020 and 60-80% by 2050 </li></ul><ul><li>2007: 4 th IPCC report: “Most of the observed increase in globally av’d temperatures since the mid-20 th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic GhG concentrations” </li></ul><ul><li>2007: EU Commission: +2 o C means max 450 ppm CO 2 -eq, globally 50 % emission cuts by 2050 </li></ul><ul><li>2007: EU Summit agrees post 2012 climate targets </li></ul>
  6. 6. EU Summit 9.3.2007 <ul><li>Global warming should be limited below +2°C compared to pre-industrial time </li></ul><ul><li>To avoid dangerous climate change </li></ul><ul><ul><li>As a part of an international agreement EU will cut emissions (from 1990 level) - 30 % by 2020 - 60-80 % by 2050 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Even without an international agreement EU will cut emissions by 20% by 2020 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>20 % share of renewable energy by 2020, 10% in transport </li></ul></ul>
  7. 7. Arctic Sea summer ice minimum 1979 & 2005 (NASA) www.vulnerablearctic.net
  8. 8. Arctic Sea summer ice minimum 1979 & 2007 (NASA) www.vulnerablearctic.net
  9. 9. Source: WHO, 2003: Climate change and human health: risks and responses.
  10. 10. Paradigm change: <ul><li>Coming to mainstream thinking: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>We need a new industrial revolution to tackle triple challenge: climate change, energy security, economic crisis </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Power sector must be decarbonized </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Decentralized renewable energy production + intelligent grids change the energy system in a similar way as small computers and Internet have changed the information system </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Green New Deal - intelligent economic recovery </li></ul></ul>
  11. 11. Expressions of paradigm change <ul><li>Mr Barroso, President of the EU Commission: We need a new industrial revolution, EU must be in the forefront </li></ul><ul><li>Ban Ki Moon, UN Secretary General: Climate as the defining challenge of our era, green new deal for economic recovery </li></ul><ul><li>IEA (International Energy Agency): Clean energy new deal. ”Blue scenario” by IEA 2008. </li></ul>
  12. 12. EU climate and energy package is based on the “3 x 20” decision <ul><li>Legislative files: </li></ul><ul><li>Reform of the emissions trading system (ETS) from 2013 </li></ul><ul><li>Effort sharing (burden sharing) between member countries for reducing other GHG emissions (e.g. transport, housing, agriculture) (ES) </li></ul><ul><li>Directive on renewable energy sources (RES) </li></ul><ul><li>Legal framework for carbon capture and storage (CCS) </li></ul><ul><li>Related new legislation: </li></ul><ul><li>Including aviation into CO 2 emission trading </li></ul><ul><li>Legal limits for CO 2 emissions from cars </li></ul><ul><li>Decisions on banning incandescent light bulbs (2009-2012) and limiting standby power first to 1 W, later 0,5 W. </li></ul>
  13. 13. Directive on Renewable Energy Sources
  14. 14. Renewable Energy – 20 % binding target for EU by 2020 <ul><li>By 2020 at least 20% of the EU energy consumption to be produced from renewable energy sources. </li></ul><ul><li>Binding target for each member country </li></ul><ul><li>MS have to submit Renewables Action Plans (RAPs) in June 2010. RAP’s will include measures to improve energy efficiency. </li></ul><ul><li>Safeguards national support schemes (feed in tariffs) </li></ul><ul><li>Increased transparency </li></ul><ul><li>Better access to grid for “green” electricity </li></ul>
  15. 15. Renewables in transport (biofuels) <ul><li>10% renewables target for transport by 2020. </li></ul><ul><li>Originally meant just biofuels. Changed to cover all renewables in transport (including “green” electricity/ hydrogen in electric or hydrogen vehicles). </li></ul><ul><li>For biofuels greenhouse gas saving requirement 35 % (compared to conventional fuels), rising to 50% in 2017 and 60% for new installations. </li></ul><ul><li>Sustainability criteria to limit the environmental damage caused by biofuels, indirect land use included. </li></ul><ul><li>To incentivise non food/feed sources, each unit coming from second generation biofuels (e.g. from waste and algae) multiplied by and “green” electricity in transport by 2,5. </li></ul>
  16. 16. Wind has bypassed nuclear in new investments <ul><li>Around 2000 wind power exceeded nuclear in terms of globally installed new power capacity. </li></ul><ul><li>2000-04 new global nuclear capacity ca. 3000 MW/yr, 2004-07 ca. 2000 MW/yr. </li></ul><ul><li>2004-06 average global growth of wind power 13 300 MW , more than 6,5-fold to new nuclear capacity. </li></ul><ul><li>2007 new wind power capacity +27%, and over 20 000 MW. </li></ul><ul><li>2007 new wind power capacity 10-fold compared to new nuclear. </li></ul>
  17. 17. Global additions of electric energy generating capacity by year and technology Amory Lovins, Nuclear Engineering International, December 2005
  18. 18. Europe: Net capacity additions/reductions in 2007 (MW) European Wind Energy Association &quot;Pure Power - Wind Energy Scenarios up to 2030&quot;
  19. 19. Renewable energy 2007 The REN21 Renewables Global Status Report Pre-Publication Summary for UNFCCC COP-13 Worldwatch institute, UNEP, German Government <ul><li>Production capacity using renewable energy in 2007 ca. 240 GW (large hydro excluded) </li></ul><ul><li>6% of total global energy capacity (4 300 GW) </li></ul><ul><li>CO 2 saving 5 bln tn/yr </li></ul><ul><li>Global market in 2007 was 100 bn €, growth 60 % in one year > growth of mobile telecom in 1990ies. </li></ul><ul><li>China and India moving towards top </li></ul><ul><li>In many fields of renewable energy China is among the top 3 countries </li></ul>
  20. 20. Employment in the renewable energy sector <ul><li>2006 globally ca. 2,5 million jobs, in Germany 235 000. </li></ul><ul><li>Allianz: In 2020 renewable energy will employ more in Germany than the car industry. </li></ul><ul><li>Each terawatt hour produced by renewables generates 250-300 new jobs. Employment by renewable energy 2-5 fold compared to nuclear power and fossils. </li></ul>
  21. 21. Finnish Olkiluoto 3 nuclear power station – sad lesson of broken promises <ul><li>May 2002 the Parliament gave the permission for 5th nuclear reactor in Finland </li></ul><ul><li>It was sold as the most cost effective and reliable way to meet the Kyoto target </li></ul>
  22. 22. Finnish Olkiluoto 3 nuclear power station – sad lesson of broken promises (2) <ul><li>Construction started in spring 2005, planned timetable was 4 years – which would have meant a world record timetable for the world´s biggest nuclear reactor </li></ul><ul><li>During every year of construction almost one more year of delay announced </li></ul><ul><li>Now (spring 2009) announced delay 3,5 years, plant estimated to start operation 2012 </li></ul>
  23. 23. Finnish Olkiluoto 3 nuclear power station – sad lesson of broken promises (3) <ul><li>In 2002 the cost difference between nuclear and non-nuclear Kyoto scenarios was estimated to 0,1-0,3 % of GDP in 2010, or 0,2-0,6 bn €. </li></ul><ul><li>Purchasing price of OL3 was 3,2 bn euros (fixed price and timetable) </li></ul><ul><li>2009 Areva estimated the construction cost to be 4,7 bn €. </li></ul><ul><li>TVO has demanded 2,4 bn € as compensation for delay. </li></ul><ul><li>Who will pay the difference of 7,1 – 3,2 bn? </li></ul>
  24. 24. Finnish Olkiluoto 3 nuclear power station – sad lesson of broken promises (4) <ul><li>Scandals of quality and safety problems started very soon, autumn 2005 it turned out that too porous concrete was cast for the foundation. </li></ul><ul><li>After that a long list of quality and safety problems </li></ul><ul><li>STUK 2006: Main constructor has failed to provide safety education for sub-constructors and to communicate the special quality requirements linked to building a nuclear power station </li></ul><ul><li>Critical safety report by STUK in English www.stuk.fi/stuk/tiedotteet/en_GB/news419/_files/12222632510022546/default/investigation_report.pdf </li></ul><ul><li>Summary: www.stuk.fi/stuk/tiedotteet/2006/en_GB/news_419 </li></ul>
  25. 25. Finnish Olkiluoto 3 nuclear power station – sad lesson of broken promises (5) <ul><li>STUK, the Finnish radiation and nuclear safety authority complained in November 2008 that too often they have had to intervene, Areva and TVO have not done the quality control of sub-contractors. </li></ul><ul><li>Main problems: too porous concrete in the foundation, problems in the welding of the steel containment of the reactor building, wrong material of the main pipelines and construction design faults of the turbine building. </li></ul>
  26. 26. Independent, 16 January 2008 <ul><li>Power failure: What Britain should learn from Finland's nuclear saga: </li></ul><ul><li>- It was hailed as the template for all future reactors – but then they tried to build it. </li></ul><ul><li>“ Olkiluoto 3 serves as a potent warning that the construction of nuclear power plants remains an unpredictable and potentially costly business. “ </li></ul>
  27. 27. Nobel price laureat (physics) Carlo Rubbia, European Parliament 19.11.07: <ul><li>2005 fossil dependency </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Global 81 % </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>China 82 % </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>USA 88 % </li></ul></ul><ul><li>2007 world energy consumption equals to a ”machine” with capacity of 15 TW (1 TW = 1 000 000 MW) </li></ul><ul><li>Business as usual would make this ”machine” to grow to 30-35 TW by 2050 </li></ul><ul><li>2050 ”fossil budget” ca. 6 TW </li></ul><ul><li>2050 necessary non-fossil capacity at least 24-29 TW </li></ul>
  28. 28. Potentials/ Rubbia: <ul><li>15 TW nuclear = 15 000 * 1 GW (1000 MW) reactors ~ one new 1 GW reactor each day for 41 years. </li></ul><ul><li>Radiation of the Sun 15 TW to an area 200 km * 200 km = 0,1 % of the global sunny deserts </li></ul>
  29. 29. Daniel B Botkin: Oct 21th 2008 International Herald Tribune <ul><li>With present use feasible uranium reserves run out in 80 years. </li></ul><ul><li>If present use of fossil would be replaced by nuclear instantaneously, uranium would run out in less than 5 years. </li></ul><ul><li>If all necessary CO 2 emission reductions from now on would be done via nuclear, feasible uranium reserves would run out by 2019 and all known uranium reserves by 2038. </li></ul>
  30. 30. Supergrid <ul><li>Growth of renewable energy can be accelerated by strengthening the power transmission grid </li></ul><ul><li>” Supergrid”: Connecting EU-countries (and North-Africa) with a low loss high voltage DC grid </li></ul><ul><li>Each form of renewable energy can be produced in the optimal geographical location </li></ul><ul><li>Connecting of large area smoothens fluctuations of production and consumption </li></ul>
  31. 31. Smart grid <ul><li>Smart grid communicates to the consumers </li></ul><ul><ul><li>real time consumption -> consumers better aware of how to cut unnecessary consumption </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>real time price of electricity -> helps to adapt the real time consumption to the real time production </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Smart consumption devices detect automatically overconsumption/ overproduction, and adapt their switching on/off. Enables using of plug-in hybrid cars for energy storage </li></ul><ul><li>Supergrid and smart grid central elements of Green industrial revolution in Europe </li></ul>
  32. 32. Revision of EU Emissions Trading System 2013-
  33. 33. GHG Target: -20% compared to 1990 -14% compared to 2005 EU ETS -21% compared to 2005 Non ETS sectors -10% compared to 2005 27 Member State targets, stretching from -20% to +20%
  34. 34. EU ETS review 2013 (1) <ul><li>Linear target towards 2020 with yearly binding targets 2013-2020, pathway beyond 2020 </li></ul><ul><li>Target will be tightened after an international agreement </li></ul><ul><li>New sectors: e.g. chemicals & aluminium ( 2005-2012: Power, steel, paper, cement, oil refineries ) </li></ul><ul><li>Allocation of emission permits EU-wide ( 2005-2012 each government has allocated to installations in their territory ) </li></ul><ul><li>Allocation principle: Auctioning for power sector, in other sectors phasing in of auctioning, free allocation for sectors in risk of carbon leakage ( 2005-2012 mainly free allocation ) </li></ul>
  35. 35. Cap setting -20% -30% 2083 Mtyr Gradient: -1.74% 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 EU ETS after 2013 (1)
  36. 36. EU ETS review (2) <ul><li>Separate legislation on aviation, which will be included to ETS in 2012 (all flights departing from or arriving to EU, also foreign carriers) </li></ul><ul><li>International shipping will be included in 2013 if IMO does not act before </li></ul><ul><li>Political commitment to earmark 50 % of the auctioning revenues to climate related purposes, including assistance to developing countries for climate mitigation and adaptation </li></ul>
  37. 37. EU ETS review, main fights (1) <ul><li>Allocation principle </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Result: Full auctioning to power sector from 2013, limited derogation for old power stations in 10 new member countries (former eastern bloc), ends in 2020 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Phasing in of auctioning to manufacturing sectors, 20 % auctioning in 2013, 70% in 2020, 100% in 2027 </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Definition of carbon leakage </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Result: too wide criteria, covers 96 % of non-power emissions covered by ETS.  These sectors get 100% free allocation up to a sectoral benchmark, subject to a decreasing overall cap for the sector. Review of carbon leakage criteria after an international climate deal. </li></ul></ul>
  38. 39. EU ETS from 2013, main fights (2) <ul><li>Quantity and quality of CDM/JI: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Result: Offsetting max 50 % of absolute emission reductions </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Improved criteria for quality of projects </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Earmarking: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Result: Political commitment of earmarking 50 % of auctioning revenues, not legally enforceable </li></ul></ul>
  39. 40. Effort sharing between EU member countries of reduction of non-ETS GHG emissions 2013-2020
  40. 41. Effort Sharing <ul><li>Emission Trading System and Effort Sharing together form the EU cap </li></ul><ul><li>Country specific targets for 2020 for each member country. Targets between +20% … -20% (compared to 2005). </li></ul><ul><li>Base year 2005 in order to eliminate ”hot air” from Kyoto Protocol. </li></ul><ul><li>Linear pathway, yearly targets also legally binding. Sanctions for non-compliance. </li></ul><ul><li>Allows trading between member countries and used of CDM/JI credits. </li></ul><ul><li>Commitment to tighten target after an international deal. Reference to global -50 % by 2050. </li></ul>
  41. 42. Effort Sharing, main fights <ul><li>Sanctions </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Result: Non compliance -> corrective action plan + deduction of the extra tons from the quota of next year, multiplied by 1,08. Fines also possible, but not automathic. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Quantity and quality of CDM </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Result: Quantitative limit for each year 3 % of the emissions of 2005, 1 % more for some countries. If fully used, 80 % of the absolute emission reduction between 2005 and 2020 could be offset.  </li></ul></ul>
  42. 43. Non ETS & use of CDM/JI-credits –Article 4 2020 2005 08 10 13 Effort CDM 3% -X% Emissions -2+2% Starting point
  43. 44. CO 2 emissions from cars
  44. 45. CO 2 from cars -background <ul><li>1990-2005 EU CO 2 emissions from transport: +32%. At the same time other sectors on average: -9.5%. In 2005 passenger cars caused 13 % of CO 2 emissions from EU. </li></ul><ul><li>1998 European car industry gave a voluntary promise to reduce CO 2 emissions from new cars to 140 g/km by 2008 with a view to 120 g/km to be achieved by 2012 (average of new cars). </li></ul><ul><li>2007 average CO 2 emissions from new passenger cars in EU were 158 g/km. </li></ul>
  45. 46. CO 2 from cars, new legislation <ul><li>Commission proposal in December 2007: average fleet limit for new cars 130 g/km in 2012 (=49 MPG) </li></ul><ul><li>Massive lobbying by car industry lead to 3 years “phasing in”, meaning that in reality the limit is effective only in 2015.  Fines were reduced compared to original proposal. </li></ul><ul><li>Changes also in the counting rules to ease the targets. </li></ul><ul><li>Does not incentivise speeding up of development of fuel efficiency compared to business as usual. </li></ul><ul><li>Long term target 95 g in 2020 (=65 MPG). Not legally enforceable without a review of the legislation in 2014. </li></ul>
  46. 50. Directive on Carbon capture and storage
  47. 51. Carbon capture and storage directive <ul><li>Directive sets out the legal framework for CCS (administrative processes for requests for exploration and storage and the procedures to follow after the closure/sealing of storage sites) </li></ul><ul><li>Financing of first CCS installations (part of ETS legislation) </li></ul><ul><li>First CCS projects (also renewable energy projects representing not yet commercial technologies) will receive 300 million ETS emissions allowances to finance pilot projects. </li></ul>
  48. 52. Carbon capture and storage, main fights <ul><li>Emission performance standard for all new power generation -> not adopted, but included in review in 2015. </li></ul><ul><li>Double CO 2 crediting of first CCS demonstration projects to finance them -> yes but technology neutral, covers also renewable energy projects </li></ul><ul><li>Enhanced oil recovery -> allowed </li></ul>
  49. 53. What does the climate package cost? <ul><li>Direct cost: increased energy and non CO 2 mitigation cost to meet both targets domestically: 0.45% of GDP in 2020, or some €70 billion. </li></ul><ul><li>Increased energy cost of 150 € per family by 2020, 3 € per week. </li></ul><ul><li>Macro-economic GDP effects: GDP growth reduced by some 0.04-0.06% between 2013 and 2020 </li></ul><ul><li>These are conservative estimates, based on oil price of $60 per barrel. </li></ul><ul><li>Impact on employment is stable (projected between -0.11% and +0.05%) but differences between sub-sectors </li></ul>
  50. 54. Thank you. www.satuhassi.net [email_address]
  51. 55. Emissions Trading System review <ul><li>EU wide total cap for the ETS sectors with harmonised allocation (45% of EU emissions, ETS to deliver 2/3 of total reduction effort by 2020) </li></ul><ul><li>ETS reduction pathway continues beyond 2020 with mandatory review of the linear factor by 2025 </li></ul><ul><li>Principle of full auctioning to power sector maintained although with derogation for 10 new MSs </li></ul><ul><li>Principle of transition to full auction to industry sectors not exposed to significant leakage risk </li></ul><ul><li>Aluminium production (CO2 and PFCs) and chemical industry included (CO2 and N2O) </li></ul><ul><li>Increase in share of emissions covered around 5% compared to 2008-2012 period </li></ul><ul><li>Review on the criteria relating to potential carbon leakage in review by 2011 (possible Future Allowance Import Requirement, FAIR) </li></ul>
  52. 56. Emissions Trading System review <ul><li>Commitment to implement the internationally agreed target with reference to the -30% target. Full automatism in moving to -30% target was not maintained. </li></ul><ul><li>International shipping included in EU targets and Community measures by 2013 </li></ul><ul><li>Comitology process for assessing CDM/JI offset environmental and sustainability quality and for banning certain projects /types. </li></ul><ul><li>CDM/JI use limited to 50% of the reductions between 2008-2020 (quota for 2008-2013 period represented already 45% of reductions until 2020). </li></ul><ul><li>CDM/JI project types limited to those recognised in ETS for 2008-2012, i.e. no nuclear project </li></ul><ul><li>Voluntary 50% earmarking of action revenue for climate purposes with reference to contributions to developing countries </li></ul><ul><li>EU spring summit 2009 will make proposals about EU contribution in terms of financing for the international post-2012 agreement </li></ul><ul><li>free allocation based on ex-ante, best performance benchmarking with free allocation to process waste gas related emissions </li></ul><ul><li>CCS and renewables demonstration get double crediting representing 300 Mton allowances (€9 bio with 30€/ton) </li></ul>
  53. 57. Emissions Trading System review <ul><li>10 new MS may apply for derogation for free allocation to power sector (from 70% to 0% free allocation in 2020). Required that corresponding revenues to be invested in improving the grid, the efficiency of power sector or diversifying energy mix. </li></ul><ul><li>Transition to full auction sectors not subject to leakage risk starting from 20% auction in 2013, 70% auction in 2020. </li></ul><ul><li>Carbon leakage criteria, as it is now, covers 96% of the non-power emissions under ETS. These sectors get 100% free allocation (to the benchmark level, and subject to reducing cap). </li></ul><ul><li>European Council to discuss the leakage sectors before publishing of the list, as a unprecedented case, mentioned in legislative text. </li></ul><ul><li>88% of allowances to be auctioned distributed to MSs based on 2005 emissions; 10% based on GDP/capita to favour lower income countries and additional 2% to MSs that loose the most from changing base year from 1990 to 2005 </li></ul><ul><li>MS may give state aid up to 15% to new high efficiency and renewable power stations </li></ul><ul><li>Mechanism to introduce early auction if carbon price more than triples for more than 6 month </li></ul>
  54. 58. Effort Sharing <ul><li>Effort sharing and ETS form the EU emissions cap. </li></ul><ul><li>ES covers the non-ETS sectors such as transport, buildings, services, smaller industrial installations, agriculture and waste. </li></ul><ul><li>Enforceable EU-27 binding effort sharing by 2020, in co-decision for the first time. </li></ul><ul><li>Binding linear pathway, not just a target for 2020. </li></ul><ul><li>All Member States need to make an effort regardless of the large variation of individual targets (+/-20% compared to 2005). </li></ul><ul><li>Up to 1,9 billion tonnes of “hot air” removed from the system when changing base year within EU from 1990 to 2005). </li></ul><ul><li>Harmonised rules on use of external credits for non-ETS sector. </li></ul><ul><li>Contains commitment to implement the internationally agreed target and has reference to the 30% target, although automatism in moving to -30% target after international agreement was not maintained. </li></ul>
  55. 59. Effort Sharing <ul><li>Mandatory replacement of any underachievement of targets, with abatement factor of 1,08% </li></ul><ul><li>Reference to 30% target in objective (art 1), MS need to take higher target into their reporting and projections. </li></ul><ul><li>Reference to further reductions beyond 2020 to be introduced in review by 2016 </li></ul><ul><li>Qualitative guidance and reporting on use and quality of CDM/JI credits. </li></ul><ul><li>Commission reporting on additional Community measures and assessment with proposals by 2012 of the 20% energy efficiency target. </li></ul><ul><li>Maritime emissions to be included in Community reduction targets and measures by 2013 if IMO has not progressed by end of 2011 </li></ul><ul><li>EU to finance GHG reductions in developing countries in line with +2C target. </li></ul><ul><li>Allowed quota for CDM/JI offsetting: European Council decided for 3% of 2005 emissions +1% extra quota for 12 MS. This represents a potential of offsetting appr 80% of the reductions . </li></ul>
  56. 60. CO2 in cars – Compliance mechanism/penalties <ul><li>Non-compliance is disincentivised by financial penalties. </li></ul><ul><li>Council introduced a so-called window of flexibility until 2018 whereby manufacturers that miss their emissions limit by under 3 g/km pay reduced fines: </li></ul><ul><li>1 g/km overshoot pays €5 per car; </li></ul><ul><li>2 g/km €5 per car for the 1st gram and €15 for 2nd gram; </li></ul><ul><li>3 g/km €5 and €15 and €25 per car for the 3rd gram. </li></ul><ul><li>Only year 2019 will the full compliance penalty of €95 g/km per car apply. </li></ul><ul><li>This represents a loophole of at least 3 g/km until 2019. </li></ul>
  57. 61. CO2 in cars – supercredit, eco-innovation & 2020 target <ul><li>Supercredit: Cars that emit less than 50 g/km will be counted 3.5 times in 2012 reducing each year until 2016. </li></ul><ul><li>This represents a loophole of at least 2 g/km until 2016. </li></ul><ul><li>Eco-innovation: Up to 7 g/km of the co2 emissions reductions can be delivered through so-called 'eco-innovation' (additional emissions reduction technologies that are not included in the test procedure) until the current test cycle system is reviewed </li></ul><ul><li>This represents a loophole of at least 7g/km until the test procedure is reviewed. </li></ul><ul><li>The overall average EU co2 emissions limit for 2012 would be only 162 g/km (EU fleet current average is 158 g/km) </li></ul><ul><li>Legislation also includes a non-binding target of 95 g/km for 2020. </li></ul>
  58. 63. Global cost curve of GHG abatement opportunities beyond business as usual <ul><li>2030 </li></ul><ul><li>4 </li></ul><ul><li>3 </li></ul><ul><li>27 </li></ul><ul><li>26 </li></ul><ul><li>25 </li></ul><ul><li>24 </li></ul><ul><li>23 </li></ul><ul><li>22 </li></ul><ul><li>21 </li></ul><ul><li>20 </li></ul><ul><li>10 </li></ul><ul><li>0 </li></ul><ul><li>9 </li></ul><ul><li>8 </li></ul><ul><li>20 </li></ul><ul><li>30 </li></ul><ul><li>40 </li></ul><ul><li>-10 </li></ul><ul><li>-100 </li></ul><ul><li>-110 </li></ul><ul><li>-120 </li></ul><ul><li>-130 </li></ul><ul><li>-140 </li></ul><ul><li>-150 </li></ul><ul><li>-160 </li></ul><ul><li>-20 </li></ul><ul><li>7 </li></ul><ul><li>-40 </li></ul><ul><li>-50 </li></ul><ul><li>-60 </li></ul><ul><li>-70 </li></ul><ul><li>-80 </li></ul><ul><li>-90 </li></ul><ul><li>0 </li></ul><ul><li>1 </li></ul><ul><li>10 </li></ul><ul><li>11 </li></ul><ul><li>12 </li></ul><ul><li>13 </li></ul><ul><li>14 </li></ul><ul><li>15 </li></ul><ul><li>16 </li></ul><ul><li>17 </li></ul><ul><li>18 </li></ul><ul><li>19 </li></ul><ul><li>2 </li></ul><ul><li>6 </li></ul><ul><li>5 </li></ul><ul><li>-30 </li></ul><ul><li>Cost of abatement </li></ul><ul><li>EUR/tCO 2 e </li></ul><ul><li>Insulation improvements </li></ul><ul><li>Fuel efficient commercial vehicles </li></ul><ul><li>Lighting systems </li></ul><ul><li>Air Conditioning </li></ul><ul><li>Water heating </li></ul><ul><li>Fuel efficient vehicles </li></ul><ul><li>Sugarcane biofuel </li></ul><ul><li>Nuclear </li></ul><ul><li>Livestock/ soils </li></ul><ul><li>Forestation </li></ul><ul><li>Industrial non-CO 2 </li></ul><ul><li>CCS EOR; New coal </li></ul><ul><li>Industrial feedstock substitution </li></ul><ul><li>Wind; low pen. </li></ul><ul><li>Forestation </li></ul><ul><li>Cellulose ethanol </li></ul><ul><li>CCS; new coal </li></ul><ul><li>Soil </li></ul><ul><li>Avoided deforestation America </li></ul><ul><li>Industrial motor systems </li></ul>Coal-to-gas shift <ul><li>CCS; coal retrofit </li></ul><ul><li>Waste </li></ul><ul><li>Industrial CCS </li></ul><ul><li>Abatement GtCO 2 e/year </li></ul><ul><li>Stand-by losses </li></ul><ul><li>Co-firing biomass </li></ul><ul><ul><li>~27 Gton CO 2 e below 40 EUR/ton (-46% vs. BAU) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>~7 Gton of negative and zero cost opportunities </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Fragmentation of opportunities </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Smart transit </li></ul><ul><li>Small hydro </li></ul><ul><li>Industrial non-CO 2 </li></ul><ul><li>Airplane efficiency </li></ul><ul><li>Solar </li></ul>www.vattenfall.com/climatemap
  59. 64. Uhkaako hiilivuoto? <ul><li>IEA: Tähän mennessä ei havaintoja ”hiilivuodosta” EU:n ilmastotoimien vuoksi </li></ul><ul><li>Potentiaalinen uhka päästörajoitusten kiristyessä, ellei päästöjä rajoittavien maiden määrä kasva </li></ul><ul><li>Kattava kv. sopimus ensisijainen </li></ul><ul><li>Hiilivuotouhka vain joillakin sektoreilla & alasektoreilla, ei koko teollisuudessa </li></ul><ul><li>Hiilivuotoargumentilla ajetaan päästöoikeuksien ilmaisjakoa muillekin – > windfall-voittojen uhka </li></ul>
  60. 67. Green New Deal <ul><li>Vastaavasti kuin Rooseveltin ”New Deal” auttoi elpymään 30-luvun lamasta, taloutta voidaan nyt elvyttää investoimalla ilmastonsuojeluun, ”uuteen teolliseen vallankumoukseen”. </li></ul><ul><li>EU:n ilmastopaketin arvioitu hinta 70 mrd €/v. </li></ul><ul><li>EU-maat myöntäneet pankkitukea (ml takaukset) n 1500 mrd € </li></ul><ul><li>EU-elvytyspaketti 200 mrd € (komission esitys) </li></ul>
  61. 68. Maailman energian tuotanto 2003 Fossiiliset polttoaineet hallitsevat Source: IEA, Martinot
  62. 69. Maailman uudet energiainvestoinnit, 2000 - 2005 Uusiutuvat hallitsevat Source: Eric Martinot; BP Annual Rate of Growth
  63. 70. Global additions of electrical generating capacity by year and technology Amory Lovins, Nuclear Engineering International, December 2005
  64. 71. Rahavirrat uusiutuviin EREC, European Renewables Energy Council Futu[r]e investments –publication <ul><li>Investoinnit kaupallisiin uusiutuvan energian muotoihin kasvaneet ennätysvauhtia </li></ul><ul><li>Tuuli- ja aurinkoenergia ja biomassa jo paikoin kilpailukykyisiä markkinaehdoin, ilman tukia. </li></ul><ul><li>Energia-ala globaaleista investoinneista n. 18 % uusiutuviin (v. 2007 n. 100 mrd €). </li></ul>
  65. 72. Eurooppa: <ul><li>7 vuoden ajan eniten uutta sähköntuotantokapasiteettia on rakennettu maakaasuun ja tuulivoimaan </li></ul><ul><li>Saksan koneenrakennusteollisuuden työllisyys kasvaa nopeasti, tuulivoima keskeinen syy </li></ul><ul><li>EU:n uusiutuvan energian tavoite on myös teollisuuspolitiikkaa: halutaan olla kasvualan kärjessä </li></ul>
  66. 73. Texas: <ul><li>Yksi ainoa investoija, T Boone Pickins aikoo seuraavien 4 vuoden aikana rakentaa 2 700 tuulivoimalaa, teho yhteensä 4000 MW (2,5 kertaa Olkiluoto 3) </li></ul><ul><li>Sähköä miljoonalle kotitaloudelle </li></ul>
  67. 75. Independent, 16 January 2008 <ul><li>Power failure: What Britain should learn from Finland's nuclear saga: </li></ul><ul><li>- It was hailed as the template for all future reactors – but then they tried to build it. </li></ul><ul><li>“ Olkiluoto 3 serves as a potent warning that the construction of nuclear power plants remains an unpredictable and potentially costly business. “ </li></ul>
  68. 76. Maailman ydinvoima-alan tilannekatsaus 2007 Mycle Schneider ja Antony Froggatt <ul><li>Vuonna 2007 maailmassa 339 ydinreaktoria. </li></ul><ul><li>Vuonna 2002 reaktoreja oli 344 (huippuvuosi). </li></ul><ul><li>Kapasiteetti on kasvanut lähinnä vanhojen laitosten tehoa nostamalla. </li></ul><ul><li>Vuoden 2004 jälkeen on käynnistetty 9 reaktoria mutta suljettu 10, joista 8 vuonna 2006. </li></ul><ul><li>Koska uusia reaktoreja ei merkittävästi rakenneta, ydinvoimalaitosten keskimääräinen käyttöikä on koko maailmassa kasvanut tasaisesti, ja on nyt 23 vuotta. </li></ul>
  69. 77. Impact on GNP: 1 non-nuclear, 2 nuclear