¿Energía sostenible para el mundo? Por Sir Christopher Llewellyn Smith, Director de Investigación Energética en la Universidad de Oxford y Ex director general del CERN.

1. Sustainable Energy forSustainable Energy for
the World?the World?
Chris Llewellyn Smith
Director of Energy Research, Oxford University
President SESAME Council

2. ■ The biggest challenge of the 21st
century
- provide sufficient food, water, and energy to allow everyone on the
planet to live decent lives, in the face of rising and increasingly
urbanised population*, the threat of climate change, and (in the long
term) declining fossil fuels
* Today 7 billion, over 50% living in big cities
Later in the century 9 to 10 billion, 80% in big cities
ContextContext
■ Energy is a necessary (but not sufficient) means to meet
this challenge – which must be tackled holistically
■ Want a resilient energy system - sustainable, affordable,
reliable and secure: in practice require trade-offs.

3. Drivers of Energy PolicyDrivers of Energy Policy
1. Security
Will the lights stay on? Can we in (the UK) survive cold winters? Are there
queues at the petrol pumps?
2. Cost
Is energy affordable? Do energy prices foster industrial competiveness?
3. Clean Environment
Does the system minimise pollution, health and climate impacts?
In practice security and costs are mainly driving what’s happening
• Why is decarbonisation important?
• Is it happening? Why not?
• What needs to be done?

4. Key Energy Facts
•The world uses a lot of energy (at a rate of 2.6 kW* per capita), very
unevenly *3.7 kW in Spain
•Energy use is rising fast: 36% increase expected 2011-30 (BP). Almost all
the increase in non-OECD countries – needed to lift billions out of poverty
•In rounded (easy to remember) numbers, primary energy is provided by fossil
fuels ~ 80%, waste and biomass ~ 10%, hydro ~ 5 %, nuclear ~ 5%: other
renewables contribute 1.2%
- these are global averages: there are big differences between countries (Coal
→ 26% of primary energy globally: 64% in China)
•Electricity production uses ~ 38% of primary energy (this % is rising)
•In rounded (easy to remember) numbers, energy is used in
transport ~ 30%, industry ~ 30%, residential ~ 30%, commerce & public
service ~ 9%, agriculture, forestry & fisheries ~ 2%
[Other splits: heat (excluding power generation) 32%...]

5. BP Projections (not including biomass, apart from biofuels, or waste)

6. Energy Inequality
•Energy use is very uneven: 33 times more per capita in the USA than
in Bangladesh
•Impossible for everyone to come to the level in the USA today (energy
production would have to increase five fold by 2050, when the
population will be 9 billion) – we must all be more efficient, and
change expectations and lifestyles
•1.2 billion people still lack electricity: 2.6 billion do not have clean
cooking facilities

7. The Need for DecarbonisationThe Need for Decarbonisation
Reducing the use of fossil fuels is essential
•to reduce pollution*
•to improve energy security in countries which import large quantities of
fossil fuels
•to reduce the scale of climate change
•because in the (very) long run fossil fuels will become increasingly
scarce/expensive
*WHO, 2011: urban outdoor air pollution [indoor air pollution] → 1.35 [2] million premature deaths per year
(typically for each death 8 Disability Adjusted Life Years are lost), out of ~ 60 million total deaths
Hard to attribute these deaths to individual sources, but one study suggests that a modern coal power
station in Europe ~ 215 premature deaths/GW-year (285 for lignite)
but very difficult given that fossil fuels provide 78% of primary energy, and much of
the 10% from bio-mass & and waste is not carbon neutral

8. The Scale of the ChallengeThe Scale of the Challenge
• International Energy Agency ‘New Policies Scenario’
- assumes successful implementation of all agreed national
policies and announced commitments designed to save
energy and reduce use of fossil fuels
Projections for 2010-35:
Energy use* + 35%, fossil fuels + 26%, CO2 + 23%
- almost all from developing countries
* nuclear + 58%, hydro + 65%, bio-energy + 47% , …
• BP thinks that in the shorter period 2010-30
- energy use will rise 39% (36% from 2011)
- fossil fuels + 31%, CO2 + 28%

9. World Primary Energy Demand by Scenario
Source: International Energy Agency
↑
Designed to limit
atmospheric CO2 to 450 ppm
→ temperature rise 2 0
C
BP 2030 →

10. Global Energy-Related Carbon Dioxide Emissions by Scenario
← BP 2030
The relative use of coal in 2035 in CPS, NPS & 450S (1: 0.76: 0.42) is
responsible for most of the difference in CO2
Note: following ‘shale revolution’, USA is moving from coal to gas and
decarbonising relatively fast, but coal not staying in the ground → export
Coal use rising elsewhere (in Europe particularly in Germany)
NPS + all actions
that reduce energy
use & save money

11. Saudi saying: “My father rode a camel. I drive a car.
My son flies a plane. His son will ride a camel”. Is
this true? I think not
But they will become increasingly scare and expensive in the (very) long
run
• Production of conventional oil in conventional
places likely to peak soon, but
Plenty of other oil: altogether IEA thinks
enough for 185 years at current rate of use,
although a lot of it is (currently) relatively
expensive to extract
• IEA thinks enough gas*/coal for 230 year/over
2000 years at current rate of use *60%
conventional, 25 % shale,…
• Fossil fuels able/likely* to continue to play a
dominant role. Don’t be surprised by increasing
oil prices but don’t bet on it
*in which case CCS or other NETs will be
essential to mitigate climate change

12. Big technical & political uncertainties but
•Fracking could lead to abundant and cheap oil and gas world-wide, driving out
renewables and nuclear - I don’t expect this but have heard it suggested. Even if it is
cheap, major problem is surface footprint in countries like the UK.
•Large scale fracking in the USA is already changing the oil and gas market
(gas from Qatar → Far East, UK,… rather than USA) and giving the US
competitive advantage, and could have other consequences:
Perhaps the USA will lead the world in decarbonisation as coal is replaced by gas,
gas is used to power trucks, and low cost of gas generated electricity → rapid
introduction of electric vehicles
However coal is much cheaper than gas elsewhere, and US coal is not staying in
the ground: it is being exported -
10 GW additional fossil capacity in Germany planned to replace nuclear - was
hoped gas, but
Recently + 2.2 GW lignite! Then US coal?
Consequences of the Gas & Oil Fracking Revolution?

13. Fossil Fuel UseFossil Fuel Use
- a brief episode in the world’s history
From a longer perspective

14. What Needs to Be Done
Use of fossil fuels is increasing because
– demand is increasing (more energy needed to lift billions out of
poverty in the developing world)
– the alternatives are (mostly) much more expensive and not
sufficiently abundant (not possible to replace the 14 TW currently provided by
fossil fuels without major contributions from solar and/or nuclear)
Need to:
•Recognise the facts, and develop Carbon Capture and Storage and Negative
Emission Technologies while replacing coal with gas
•Reduce energy demand and increase efficiency
•Expand nuclear, hydro, wind, solar, bio where it makes sense
•Drive down costs of low carbon energy sources

15. ‘‘Negative Emissions Technologies’Negative Emissions Technologies’
 If CO2 emissions stop, level in atmosphere drops very slowly:
l
 Should look for safe, affordable ways to capture carbon at source and bury
it (for thousands of years) or remove it from the atmosphere – Carbon Dioxide
Removal* - and consider Solar Radiation Management **
Great care needed as such ‘Geo-engineering’ could have malign unintended
consequences: many proposed ideas should only be used as a last resort.
CDR* (real or artificial trees, bio-char, enhanced weathering of rocks - ocean and
land,…). SRM** (change albedo – surface, ocean, cloud, put aerosols in
stratosphere, mirrors in space…)
→ need to reduce
cumulative emissions
Simply slowing use of
fossil fuels is no help in
the long run, except by
buying time to develop cost
competitive alternatives

16. Carbon Capture and StorageCarbon Capture and Storage
 Believed can capture & bury up to ~
85% of CO2 from power stations and
large industrial plants, but the
complete process has never been
tested on a large scale
- some doubts on how long it will stay
buried
- costs uncertain: currently claimed
would add ~ 50% to electricity
generating costs*
* capital cost, 10 percentage points reduction in efficiency,….
 CCS should be developed as a matter of urgency
If feasible safe and competitive with other low carbon generation costs, CCS should be
rolled out on the largest possible scale
BUT dangerous to rely on CCS too much as a basis for planning until the costs are clearer
(Note: IEA’s 450 Scenario → 3,600 TW-hrs of electrity with CCS in 2035 = 17% of
today’s total generation)

17. Demand Reduction
Demand Reduction Efficiency gains
Lighting Use natural light Better light bulbs
Cars Use other means Improve engines
Many opportunities to reduce demand (e.g.) in
- Designing buildings
- Planning cities to encourage walking, bicycling or use of public transport
- Planning expanding transport systems & cities in rapidly developing countries - low-
energy/carbon development paths should be adopted as early as possible
Changes in planning and procurement by cities & communities
are increasingly important drivers of demand and efficiency
Management of electrity demand also vital → smart grid

18. Smart Grid
with multiple connections between diverse sources & users, bidirectional flows, feed-
back between suppliers, users & the grid operator, …
is needed to minimise cost, maximise reliability, optimally integrate intermittent
renewables & accommodate new users (electric vehicles,…) and provide
-real time information to operators on demand, power quality & supply to allow them to
monitor, manage constraints, integrate
-information to consumers enabling real-time pricing & incentives to adjust use
→ efficiently balance supply and demand + lower peak load
Questions for Markets: incentivise provision of last kW-hr, upgrading grid, storage (How?
Costing benefits? Who pays?); deal with big changes in supply
(inflexible renewables with low marginal costs) & demand,…

19. Energy Efficiency
Substantial efficiency gains possible, and could save a lot of money
Efficiency is a key component of the solution, e.g.
process
-more efficient technologies in industry, process change, system optimisation
-raise average thermal power plant efficiency from below 40% to 45% or more: will
take time - huge inertia in system in which many $s are sunk
-better insulated buildings
-more efficient lighting
-more efficient internal combustion engines → hybrids → batteries → fuel cells
But, although ‘energy intensity’ = (energy use)/GDP is falling*, demand is
rising faster than potential gains (often over-estimated), which are not
being realised: * except in the Middle East
- Rebound effect (direct & indirect)
- Individual savings often small
- Affluence in developed countries
- Lack of capital in developing countries
- Transactions costs
More information and price increase would help, but also need regulation

21. Key Role of RegulationKey Role of Regulation
End of mandatory Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards

22. Low Carbon Energy SourcesLow Carbon Energy Sources
What can replace the 14 TW (rising) from fossil fuels?
(and solar) need support of large scale storage –
needs to be developed!
Maximum practical additional potentials
(thermal equivalent):
• Wind 3 TW (30 x 2009)
• Hydro 2 TW (2 x 2009)
• Bio 2 TW (1.25x 2009)
•‘Enhanced’ geothermal 1 TW (50 x 2009)
• Marine 0.1 TW (600 x 2009)
We should expand these sources as
much as we reasonably can* - hard as they
are more expensive than fossil fuels, and
wind & marine
?
Not
Enough
ButBut they cannot provide enough to replace fossil fuels
Will need major contributions from solar, nuclear fission or fusion
* Potential very location dependent: the UK has 40% of Europe’s wind potential
and is well placed for tidal and waves; there is big hydro potential in the Congo;…

23. ↑
3.6% of total
↑
15% of total
Contribution of Renewables (excluding hydro)
to Power Generation in IEA’s New Policies Scenario

24. Solar
Enormous potential, but needs cost
reduction, storage, and transmission in
order to be a big player (in 2012 provided
0.4% of world’s electricity)
 Photovoltaics (storage: hydrogen,
synthesised hydrocarbons)
‘Currently’* $25c/kW-hr
→ 5 in 2050 (IEA)??
 Concentration (thermal storage +
fossil- or bio- fuelled furnace)
‘Currently’* $20c/kW-hr
→ 5 in 2030 (IEA)??
*2008, large scale in very good
Conditions. PV cost has already fallen
significantly. EIA thinks 15c average for PV
in USA in 2017 (min 12/max 24);
24c for concentrated (min 18/max 39)

25. Nuclear FissionNuclear Fission
should be expanded dramatically nowshould be expanded dramatically now
■ New generation of reactors: fewer components, passive safety, less
waste, more proliferation resistant, and lower costs – claimed but not (yet?)
realised! This is the big uncertainty
■ Looking to the future, need to consider
• Problems/limitations
- proliferation: mainly a political issue
- safety: mainly a problem of perception, although very great care necessary
- waste: problem technically solved
- uranium resources: enough for over 250 years with current use
• Options (Aims: less waste, prolong nuclear age, reduce proliferation risk, ...)
- Small Modular Reactors – (even) safer, and cheaper??
- re-cycle fuel (20% more energy, less waste)
- fast breeders (60xenergy/kg-U, less waste, but more expensive) – need
development
- thorium (lots of it, less waste, but fuel handling harder) – needs development
- fusion – intrinsically very attractive, but needs development

26. The optimum energy supply mix depends on local energy
resources and use, but there are some universal desiderata:
 Carbon Capture and Storage (if feasible, safe, cost-effective)
 Reduce energy use/improve efficiency
- in principle can save energy and a lot of money, but won’t reduce total use,
assuming continued rise in living standards in the developing world
 Develop and expand low carbon energy sources
-need everything we can sensibly get, but without major contributions from
solar and/or nuclear (fission and/or fusion) it will not be possible to replace the
14 TW currently provided by fossil fuels
 Drive down costs
Meanwhile replacing coal with gas would reduce carbon
emissions and pollution
Challenge: devise economic tools and ensure the political
will to make this happen
Necessary Actions - TechnicalNecessary Actions - Technical

27. Necessary Actions - PolicyNecessary Actions - Policy
• Better planning to reduce demand – especially in growing
cites/developing countries
• Stronger regulations
• Phase out $500 billion/year of subsidies for consumption of
fossil fuels (only 8% benefits world’s 20% poorest)
• Carbon tax (provides more certainty than cap and trade) + in the
absence of global agreement: Border Carbon Adjustments
• Increase the $88 billion/year subsidies to launch* new not yet
cost-effective energy sources and efficiency measures *then
phase out
• Increase long-term publicly funded R&D (currently $20
billion/year)

28. ConclusionsConclusions
 Huge increase in energy use expected; large increase needed to lift world out of
poverty
 Challenge of meeting demand in an environmentally responsible manner is
enormous, and the world is currently not on the right path
No silver bullet - need a portfolio approach
All sensible measures: reduce demand (adopt low energy/carbon development
paths as soon as possible in expanding cities), increase efficiency, more: wind,
hydro, bio, geo, marine, nuclear, and solar, plus CCS [?]
 Must drive down cost of low carbon energy. Huge R&D agenda - needs more
resources (judge on the scale of the $500 billion p.a. subsidies for fossil fuels)
 Need financial incentives - carbon price, and regulation
 Political will (globally) - targets no use on their own
The time for action is now. Malthusian “solution” if we
fail?

29. Back-up Slides

30. EU Progress vs. Targets?
• Reduce Green House Gas Emissions 20% by 2020 relative to 1990
- tool: Emissions Trading System
By 2011 reduction was 16% but not a result of ETS (see next slide) which “has
not succeeded in being a major driver to low carbon investment”
Not including carbon embedded in imports or subtracting exports
• 20% of all energy from renewables by 2020
12.7% in 2010, after 1.9%/year rise 1990-2000, 4.5%/year rise 2000-2010, but
now need 6.9%/year to meet target. “New measures needed to meet targets” +
“massive investment in grid” while “renewable sources [must] become more
cost effective”
• Reduce consumption in 2020 to 20% below 2007 projections
Consumption peaked 2007. Subsequent 5% decline “partly due to economic
crisis” and “preliminary analysis [shows] target will not be met”
Some good news: performance standards for light duty vehicles →
emissions fell from 172 g/km in 2000 to 136 g/km in 2011

31. Coal fell 30%
Gas rose 50%
Overtook coal in 1997
Recession
EU 27 Green House Gas Emissions Relative to 1900

32. Coal and Gas Prices
Unlike coal, no world gas price – liquefaction + shipping from the Gulf of
Mexico to Europe would add ~ $4/MBtu (regasification would add another
$70c) to the US price, which today is ~ $3.5/MBtu
Note: this figure shows how wildly prices can vary - dangerous to
take assumptions about future prices seriously

33. Energy Intensity
….falling (everywhere except the Middle East)
BP
IEA

34. Energy Intensity
….falling (everywhere except the Middle East) -1%/year 1980-2010
New Policy’s Scenario → - 1.8%/year 2010-35
‘Energy Efficient World’ → - 2.8%/year
BP
Savings in IEA Scenarios
IEA claims payback time typically 6 years (including
transaction costs) in NPS
Energy savings in New Policies Scenario are
biggest in Industry ≥ Transport > Buildings
Big additional potential realised in Efficient
World Scenario: greatest in Buildings (80%
unrealised in NPS) ≥ Power generation (80% unrealised)
>Transport (65% unrealised) > Industry (unrealised)
Beware appraisal optimism

35. Nuclear SafetyNuclear Safety
treat with very great respect, but record is generally good
• Three Mile Island (1979) – no deaths
• Chernobyl (1986) < 50 direct/attributable deaths (including thyroid cancers)
A calculation based on collective doses resulting from trivial individual doses,
which ‘should be avoided’ according to the ICRP, using the very questionable
Linear No Threshold assumption for very low doses, gives ~ 7,500 cancer
deaths (although there is no evidence for an increase above the natural cancer
death rate), but the accident had a
major social and economic impact + great stress (‘paralysing fatalism’)
• Fukushima (2011) - no direct deaths; few if any indirect expected
but (Ref: the Japanese Reconstruction Agency) 34 early deaths caused by the
mental or physical burden of forced evacuation following the accident
1916 deaths among people from Fukushima, Iwate and Miyagi prefectures during evacuation
from areas hit only by the tsunami and the earthquake
and with the current (very cautious) approach to radiation, a large area around
Fukushima will continue to be deemed uninhabitable for some years
This should be compared to the safety record of other forms of
power generation

36. Safety ComparisonsSafety Comparisons
• Coal mining: deaths/year in last decade
China* – 4,750 (falling), India* ~ 100, USA – 33 *official statistics
• Bhopal: 3,800
• On roads: over 1 million p.a. globally
• Power production: direct deaths (1969-96) per thermal
equivalent energy output, normalised to coal (PSI study)
LPG ~ 8, Hydro = 2.6, Coal =1, Gas = 0.25, Nuclear = 0.025
• Indirect deaths
Modern 1 GW coal power station in W Europe claimed to kill (~ 8
year loss of life) ~ 200 pa: in 40 year life time → 8,000 deaths

37. Need for a Carbon PriceNeed for a Carbon Price
These behaviours cannot coexist without a large carbon price
In the 450 scenario the price ~ $130/t CO2 which would add ~$50/barrel
to the cost of oil making coexistence possible
In IEA’s scenarios, from 2010 to 2035 use of oil changes by
Current policies +23%
New polices +13%
450 -10%
While: