INTERNATIONAL ENERGY WORKSHOP 2009
17-19 June 2009, Fondazione Giorgio Cini, Venice, Italy
Co-benefits of CO2 Reduction in a
Developing Country: Case of Thailand
Ram M. Shrestha and Shreekar
Pradhan
Asian Institute of Technology
Thailand
1
Outline
• Introduction.
• Local environmental effects of CO2 reduction targets
(ERT) .
• Effect on energy efficiency.
• Effect on total primary energy requirements.
• Effect on use of cleaner fuels.
• Effect on energy security.
• Conclusions and final remarks.
2
Brief Background on Thailand
• Location:
– Area of 513,115 km2 and extends about
1,620 km from north to south and
775 kilometres from east to west.
• Population: 66.398 Million (2008)
• Population Density: 129 people/km2
• GDP: US$ 272 billion in 2008 (MER)
• GDP per capita: US $ 4,098 (year 2008)
• 2nd largest economy in the ASEAN
CO2, TPES, GDP and Population Growth
during 1990-2007
2.6
CO2
2.4
TPES
Index (1990 = 1)
2.2
GDP
Population
2
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1
1990
1995
2000
2001
AAGR (2001-2007):
CO2: 3.9%
Population: 1.1%
TPES: 5.7%
GDP: 5.1%
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
Source:
DEDE, 2006 and 2007, IMF, 2008
IEA, 2007 and 2008
4
Scenario Description
Base case and three emission reduction target scenarios as
follows:
1) Base case
2) 10% cumulative emission reduction target from the base case
emissions (ERT10)
3) 20% cumulative emission reduction target from the base case
emissions (ERT20)
4) 30% cumulative emission reduction target from the base case
emissions (ERT30)
•
•
MARKAL based least cost optimization model used for the analysis.
All costs are given in US$ at prices of year 2000.
5
GDP and Population in the
Base Case (2000-2050)
76
3000
Population
74
2500
GDP
2000
70
68
1500
66
1000
GDP, billion 1995
Population, million
72
64
500
62
60
0
2000
2010
CAGR (2000-2050):
Population: 0.4%
2020
2030
GDP: 5.6%
2040
2050
Sources: TDRI, 2004; UN, 2006
Assumptions in the Base Case
• No greenhouse gas (GHG) mitigation policy intervention.
• Nuclear power generation would be introduced from 2020 onwards
(nuclear generation capacity of 2000 MW is proposed to be installed
in 2020 and similarly another 2000 MW in 2021 (EGAT, 2007)).
• Minimum of 3 million liters of ethanol per day and 4 million liters of
biodiesel per day would be used by 2015 in the transport sector.
• 64,000 thousands tons of feedstock (e.g., cassava, molasses,
sugarcane and others) for ethanol production and 2,550 thousands
tons of oil seed (palm oil and coconuts) for biodiesel production
would be available from 2015 onward during the planning horizon.
• Emerging technologies like hybrid vehicles are considered to be
available from 2015 onward; fuel cell vehicles and power generation
with carbon capture and storage technology are considered to be
available from 2020 onward.
7
How much CO2 would be emitted in the base
case?
2005
2050
Others
6%
4%
Power
37%
33%
Transport
34%
32%
Industrial
23%
31%
2,500
Mton
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
2005
2010
2015
2020
2025
2030
2035
2040
2045
2050
Total CO2 emission in 2050 = 9 x Total 2005 emission
223 Mt in 2005 nd 2,006 Mt in 2050.
(AAGR 4%)
8
How would the primary energy supply mix
change in the base case?
4347 PJ
26,449 PJ
Fuel share in TPES
100%
90%
Other Renewables
80%
Hydro
70%
Nuclear
60%
Biomass
50%
40%
Coal
30%
20%
Natural Gas
10%
Oil
0%
2005
2050
 TPES would grow by over 5 folds during the planning horizon.
 In the base case, the shares of natural gas, oil and biomass would decrease and that of
coal would increase.
- natural gas and oil share would decrease from 72% to 47%
- coal share would increase from 14% to 46%.
9
- biomass share would decrease from 11% in 2005 to 3% in 2050
- nuclear share would be 3% in 2050.
How would the final energy consumption change in
the base case?
100%
2,700 PJ
22,015 PJ
Agricultural
90%
Commercial
Fuel Share
80%
70%
Residential
60%
Transport
50%
Industrial
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
2005
2050
Final energy consumption (FEC) in 2050 > 8x FEC in 2005.

transport sector share increase from 40% to 43%.

Industry sector share increase from 36% to 39%.

commercial sector share increase from 5% to 10%.

residential sector share decrease from 14% to 7%.

agriculture sector share decrease from 5% to 1%.
10
How would different sectors contribute to the CO2
emission reduction targets during 2005-2050?
100%
Sectoral share in CO2 reduction, %
Transport
Power
80%
Industrial
60%
Others
40%
20%
0%
ERT10
ERT20
ERT30
-20%
 Highest CO2 emission reduction in the power sector, followed by the industrial and
transport sectors.
 The power sector accounts for over 84%, 74% and 60% of the total CO2 emission
reduction in ERT10, ERT20 and ERT30 cases respectively.
 Mainly use of natural gas based advanced combined cycle power generation and
nuclear based power generation play the major role in CO2 emission reduction.
 Maximum possible reduction target: Up to 52% of the cumulative emission during 11
2005-2050 in the base case.
CO2 intensity of energy use (CO2/TPES)
during 2005-2050
1.6
Base Case
Base Case
Index (2005 = 1)
1.5
ERT10
ERT20
1.4
ERT10
ERT30
1.3
1.2
ERT20
1.1
ERT30
1
2005
2010
2015
2020
2025
2030
2035
2040
2045
2050

In the base case CO2 intensity of energy use would increase from 51 kg/GJ in 2005 to
75 kg/GJ in 2050. It decreases to 65, 57 and 55 kg/GJ in 2050 under ERT10, ERT20
and ERT30 cases respectively.

Significant reduction in CO2 intensity of energy use begins around 2025 under ERT10
and ERT20, while it starts much earlier (i.e., before 2015) under ERT30.
12
What would be the CO2 abatement cost ($/tCO2) under
different ERTs?
600
14,175
500
$/tCO2
400
300
200
Billion US $ 2000 value
0.13%
14,170
ERT30
14,165
14,160
< 0.01%
0.02%
14,155
14,150
Base case
ERT10
ERT20
ERT30
ERT20
100
ERT10
0
2005
2010
2015
2020
2025
2030
2035
2040
2045
2050
 Possible to cost effectively reduce cumulative CO2 emission by up to 20% from that in
the base case in Thailand at the carbon price that grows exponentially from $1.4/tCO2
to $102.4/tCO2 during 2005-2050.
 CO2 abatement cost in 2050 under ERT20 is similar to the carbon price of $100/tCO2
in 2050 as has been reported to be necessary for the stabilization target of 550 ppmv
CO2e by some studies (Edmond et al. as cited in Shukla et al., 2008).
13
How much co-benefit in terms of SO2 reduction?
SO2 Reduction, '000 tons
120
100
Others
Transport
80
60
Industrial
Power
40
20
0
ERT10



ERT20
ERT30
SO2 reduction by 9.1%, 28.6% and 43.2% in ERT10, ERT20 and ERT30 cases
respectively.
The highest reduction in SO2 emission would take place in the industrial sector
followed by the power sector.
About 57%, 46% and 44% of the SO2 reduction would come from the industrial
sector in ERT10, ERT20 and ERT30 cases.
14
Co-benefit in terms of NOx reduction?
NOx Reduction, '000 tons
30
25
Others
Transport
20
Industrial
15
Power
10
5
0
(5)
ERT10
ERT20
ERT30
(10)




% reduction of NOx emission relatively lower than that of SO2 emission.
NOx emission decreases by 3.3%, 5.2%, 5.3% from the base case in
ERT10, ERT20 and ERT30 cases respectively.
The highest NOx reduction (over 80%) would take place in the power
sector followed by the industrial sector.
In the transport sector, NOx would increase due to the high use of
15
biodiesel vehicles under ERT30.
What would be the effect on net energy import
dependency during 2005-2050?
450
400
'000 PJ
350
300
Nuclear
250
Electricity
200
Natural Gas
150
Coal
100
Oil
50
-
Base case
•
•
•
ERT10
ERT20
ERT30
Net energy imports would decrease under all ERT cases.
However, coal import would decrease whereas import of natural gas and
nuclear would increase.
Oil import would exhibit slight increase under ERTs.
16
What would be the effect on net energy import
dependency compared to TPES in base case?
80%
79%
NEID with corresponding case TPES
NEID with base case TPES
78%
77%
EID
76%
75%
74%
73%
72%
71%
70%
Base case


ERT10
ERT20
ERT30
The net energy import dependency (NEID) with respect to TPES of the
corresponding case would decrease by 2.1% under ERT10 during the
period, whereas it would increase by 0.1% and 0.7% under ERT20 and
ERT30 respectively.
The net energy import dependency with respect to the base case TPES
would be reduced under all ERTs.
17
What would be the effect of CO2 reduction in the
diversification of primary energy supply?
1.55
SWI
1.50
1.45
1.40
1.35
1.30
Base case


ERT10
ERT20
ERT30
The diversification of total primary energy supply (TPES) would
increase during the planning horizon.
Shannon-Weiner Index (SWI) is found improved under the ERTs.
(The highest value of SWI with 7 types of fuels under consideration would have been
1.95.)
18
Effect on diversification of net energy imports?
1.30
1.25
SWI
1.20
1.15
1.10
1.05
1.00
Base case


ERT10
ERT20
ERT30
The diversification of net energy import would also increase under
ERTs.
Shannon-Weiner Index (SWI) is found improved under the ERTs.
(The highest value of SWI with 5 types of fuels under consideration would
have been 1.61.)
19
Reduction in primary energy requirement
under ERT?
% decrease from base case
600
2.4%
500
4.1%
7.5%
Other Renewables
Hydro
'000 PJ
400
Nuclear
300
Biomass
200
Natural Gas
100
Oil
Coal
Base case



ERT10
ERT20
ERT30
TPES would be reduced by 2.4%, 4.1% and 7.5% under ERT10,
ERT20 and ERT30 respectively.
The share of coal would decrease; the share of natural gas, biomass
and nuclear would increase.
No significant change in the share of oil.
20
Energy requirement for power generation
under ERT
180
% decrease from base case
160
6.3%
8.4%
10.8%
140
Oil
'000 PJ
120
Other Renewables
100
Hydro
80
Biomass
60
Nuclear
40
Natural Gas
20
Coal
0
Base case



ERT10
ERT20
ERT30
The energy supply for power generation would be reduced by 6.3%,
8.4% and 10,8% under ERT10, ERT20 and ERT30 respectively.
The share of coal would significantly decrease while the share of
natural gas would increase significantly.
The share of nuclear, biomass and other renewables would increase.
21
What would be the effect on the nuclear, other renewables
and biomass based power generations?
2500
ERT30
2000
Nuclear
ERT20
PJ
1500
•
With the increasing CO2
reduction target, nuclear
power generation would have
to increase.
•
Other renewable energy based
power generation (i.e.,
municipal solid waste and
wind) would increase.
•
Early deployment of these
renewables would be required.
•
Likewise, biomass based
power generation would also
gradually reach to the limit of
its availablility.
•
But the ERTs would require an
earlier use of these power
generation during the period.
ERT10
1000
Base case
500
0
2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
Other renewables
140
ERT30
100
ERT20
80
ERT10
60
Base case
PJ
120
40
20
0
2005
2010
2015
1000
800
PJ
600
400
2020
2025
2030
2035
2040
2045
2050
Biomass
ERT30
ERT20
ERT10
Base case
200
0
2005
2010
2015
2020
2025
2030
2035
2040
2045
2050
Reduction in electricity use in the residential sector
under ERT
900
800
Base case
700
ERT10
ERT20
PJ
600
ERT30
500
400
300
200
100
0
2005


2010
2015
2020
2025
2030
2035
2040
2045
2050
Electricity consumption in the residential sector would decrease under
ERTs during 2005-2050 due to the adoption of the energy efficient
appliances in the sector.
Higher the ERT, the earlier the need to introduce energy efficient
devices.
23
Use of bio-fuels in the transport sector under ERT
400
Base case
350
ERT10
300
ERT20
PJ
250
ERT30
200
150
100
50
0
2005
2010
2015
2020
2025
2030
2035
2040
2045
2050

The emission targets would gradually increase the use of bio-fuel in
the transport sector.

ERT10 and ERT20 are not effective to promote bio-fuel use whereas
significant bio-liquid fuel use required under ERT30.
24
Conclusions and final remarks














In the base case, total cumulative CO2 emission would increase by 7 folds during 2005-2050 as a
result, the CO2/TPES increases from 51 kg/GJ in 2005 to 75 kg/GJ in 2050.
The CO2/TPES would be as low as 55 kg/GJ by year 2050 under ERTs.
The total discounted system cost would increase by 0.13% in ERT30 compared to the base case;
the cost was nominally higher in ERT20 (i.e., 0.02%).
The marginal cost of CO2 reduction in ERT20 (i.e., 102.4 US$/tCO2) in year 2050 is similar to the
carbon price in 2050 for stabilization target of 550 ppmV CO2e.
The power sector would account for 60 to 84% of the CO2 emission reduction in the selected
ERTs.
SO2 emission would decrease in the range of 9.1% to 43.2% from the base case emission under
the selected emission reduction targets during 2005-2050.
NOx emission would decrease in the range of 3.3% to 5.3% from the base case emission level.
Both final energy consumption and primary energy supply would decrease under ERTs.
There would be higher diversification of both net energy imports and total primary energy supply
under ERTs.
Total net energy import would decrease under all ERT cases. Greater diversification energy
resource-mix under ER cases.
Use of cleaner fuel (nuclear, biomass and other renewables) in power generation would increase
and the renewables would have to be introduced earlier in ERT cases.
Energy efficient appliances would have to be used in the residential sector earlier than that in the
base case.
Bio-fuel use in the transport sector would increase in higher ERT cases and also results in a
higher transport sector NOx emission than that in the base case.
There is uncertainty as to public acceptability of large scale nuclear power generation.
25
Thank you
For further information:
[email protected]
26