1 / 9

COMMENTS FROM INT. ADV. PANEL (IAP)

COMMENTS FROM INT. ADV. PANEL (IAP). Authors: Thomas Johansson (Lund University) and Niels I. Meyer (Technical University of Denmark) Subjects: Overall project co-ordination and project framework Balance between treatment of supply and demand Transparency of modelling structure

smoreno
Télécharger la présentation

COMMENTS FROM INT. ADV. PANEL (IAP)

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. COMMENTS FROM INT. ADV. PANEL (IAP) • Authors: Thomas Johansson (Lund University) and Niels I. Meyer (Technical University of Denmark) • Subjects: • Overall project co-ordination and project framework • Balance between treatment of supply and demand • Transparency of modelling structure • Relation to economic models • Relation between energy consumption and emission of greenhouse gases, including other ghg’s than CO2 • Various technological questions TBJ/NIM August 29, 2007/1

  2. CO-ORDINATION OF WORK PACKAGES • The application has described the overall project objectives and the connection between work packages. As the work is progressing, however, changes and new elements are introduced. This may influence scenarios. • An efficient co-ordinating group should keep the subgroups on track to secure comprehensive results from work packages in the overall context. • It is recommended that an up-dated paper is written by the co-ordinating group on the connection of results from work packages before each yearly project meeting. TBJ/NIM August 29, 2007/2

  3. SYSTEM BOUNDARY • The system boundary of the studyis clear in terms of energy carrier production, however, not in terms of linking energy use and emissions with consumption. The issue is indicated in the reports and will need more attention. • Boundaries re EU and WTO should be clarified. • The treatment of the demand side seems to be given much less attention than the supply side.When the goal is expressed as 50 to 100 % coverage by renewables before 2050 then the absolute level of energy demand is a significant parameter. TBJ/NIM August 29,2007/3

  4. ENERGYPLAN MODEL • Credibility of model essential: Transparency is required. • Concepts like “negative feasibility”, “suitable investments in flexibility” and “business-economic optimization” should be explained in more detail. • As EnergyPlan is not a traditional optimization model reference to “optimization” needs further description. • “the insulation of houses, may be feasible in the reference but not in the alternative system, if solar thermal is applied to the same houses or improved CHP is also part of the overall strategy”. Is this a technical restriction or a restriction imposed by the designer of the model? If so, why has this restriction been imposed? TBJ/NIM August 29, 2007/4

  5. ECONOMIC MODELS • It is questionable whether macro-economic models can illustrate major structural changes in society as implicit behind the CEESA project. As a minimum, such models need to be complemented with bottom-up modelling. • Will the project include a scenario with strong reductions in energy demand? (See e.g. Monbiots “Heat”, 2006/07). • The discrepancy between calculations of the Danish Ministry of Finance and the Danish Engineering Society (IDA) should be clarified. This is important for the credibility of the CEESA model calculations. TBJ/NIM August 29, 2007/5

  6. MARKET DEVELOPMENT AND REGULATION • In the draft most attention is given to a general text book description of markets and their function. Is this the right balance in relation to the CEESA project? • We propose that in the coming work higher priority is given to detailed analyses of merits and disadvantages of concrete policy instruments. • This should result in recommendations on the best policy instruments and a description of the expected effects of these instruments. TBJ/NIM August 29, 2007/6

  7. POLICIES • Policy packages should be identified that could implement energy scenarios in agreement with desired societal goals (economic growth, social development, reduced climate change and environmental quality). • One example on issues to address is international trade and WTO influence. Another the role of competition and development of the EU energy scene towards increasing oligopoly. • What are the constraints on an independent Danish energy policy from the liberalised energy market in EU? TBJ/NIM August 29, 2007/7

  8. GHG EMISSIONS • GHG emissions should be calculated and given as CO2eqv, not CO2 alone. • Even if CO2 dominates at present, the other gases will become increasingly important as CO2 emissions are reduced. • Be careful to explain how GHG emissions are included on a life-cycle basis (including N2O from fertilization and possible soil C losses). TBJ/NIM August 29, 2007/8

  9. TECHNICAL POTENTIALS • It is not clear what the technical potential for renewables really are, esp. bioenergy and wind. The same question applies also to solar. • Technical potentials for renewables in Denmark should be analysed and included in the report. • Environmental constraints should be described and included in the analyses of technical potentials. TBJ/NIM August 29, 2007/9

More Related