Comprehensive futures studies of natural resources and renewable electricity

1. Natural resources futures study
A British think tank Chatham House published a study on future resource issues in agriculture, metals, and energy sectors in the years 2020, 2030, and 2040. It is very informative.

Lee, B., Preston, F., Kooroshy, J., Bailey, R., & Lahn, G. (2012). Resources Futures: A Chatham House Report. London, UK: Chatham House. [Full-text at http://j.mp/Resource_Futures]

2. Renewable electricity futures studies

In 2012, there were two mutually conflicting renewable electricity futures studies.

(1) Pro-renewable futures study
This report admits renewable electricity demands more costs than conventional power sources. But its conclusion is that a high-penetration (80%) of renewables in the U.S. electricity system by 2050 is environmentally desirable and technologically doable.

Hand, M. M., Baldwin, S., DeMeo, E., Reilly, J. M., Mai, T., Arent, D., Porro, G., Meshek, M., Sandor, D. (Eds.). (2012). Renewable Electricity Futures Study. 4 volumes. (NREL/TP-6A20-52409). Golden, CO: National Renewable Energy Laboratory.
Full-text at:
http://j.mp/RE_Futures_1 = Volume 1: Exploration of High-Penetration Renewable Electricity Futures (includes Executive Summary)
http://j.mp/RE_Futures_2 = Volume 2: Renewable Electricity Generation and Storage Technologies
http://j.mp/RE_Futures_3 = Volume 3: End-Use Electricity Demand
http://j.mp/RE_Futures_4 = Volume 4: Bulk Electric Power Systems: Operations and Transmission Planning

(2) Pro-nuclear futures study
This NEA report is not entirely about futures. But some of its data contain projections into 2020, 2030, and 2050. It considered 10% and 30% penetration levels of renewables in the grid. The NEA says grid integration costs of renewable electricity are too high. (How high? See the table below the citation.)

Nuclear Energy Agency. (2012). Nuclear Energy and Renewables: System Effects in Low-carbon Electricity Systems. (NEA No. 7056). Paris, France: OECD/NEA Publishing. [Full-text at http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264188617-en]

Total cost of electricity supply at different penetration levels of renewable energy (USD/MWh)

Country		Reference	10% penetration level			30% penetration level
		Mix of conventional dispatchable technologies	Wind onshore	Wind offshore	Solar	Wind onshore	Wind offshore	Solar
Finland	Total cost of electricity supply	75.9	81.2	86.5	121.8	93.5	109.0	215.9
	Increase in plant-level cost	-	3.5	8.2	41.2	10.5	24.7	123.7
	Grid-level system costs	-	1.8	2.3	4.7	7.1	8.3	16.3
	Cost increase	-	5.3	10.6	45.9	17.6	33.1	140.0
France	Total cost of electricity supply	73.7	79.5	82.9	112.0	92.1	102.5	189.6
	Increase in plant-level cost	-	3.7	6.9	34.0	11.1	20.8	101.9
	Grid-level system costs	-	2.0	2.3	4.3	7.2	7.9	14.0
	Cost increase	-	5.8	9.2	38.3	18.3	28.8	115.9
Germany	Total cost of electricity supply	80.7	86.6	91.3	101.2	105.5	116.9	156.2
	Increase in plant-level cost	-	3.9	7.8	16.9	11.6	23.3	50.6
	Grid-level system costs	-	1.9	2.8	3.6	13.2	12.9	24.9
	Cost increase	-	5.8	10.6	20.4	24.8	36.2	75.4
South Korea	Total cost of electricity supply	63.8	70.5	77.4	82.8	86.3	107.1	122.8
	Increase in plant-level cost	-	4.7	11.0	15.8	14.1	33.1	47.5
	Grid-level system costs	-	2.0	2.6	3.1	8.4	10.2	11.4
	Cost increase	-	6.7	13.6	19.0	22.5	43.3	59.0
United Kingdom	Total cost of electricity supply	98.3	101.7	105.6	130.6	111.9	123.6	199.4
	Increase in plant-level cost	-	1.5	3.9	26.5	4.5	11.7	79.6
	Grid-level system costs	-	1.9	3.4	5.8	9.1	13.6	21.5
	Cost increase	-	3.4	7.3	32.3	13.6	25.3	101.1
United States	Total cost of electricity supply	72.4	76.1	78.0	88.2	84.6	91.5	123.7
	Increase in plant-level cost	-	2.1	4.2	14.3	6.2	12.5	42.8
	Grid-level system costs	-	1.6	1.4	1.5	6.0	6.5	8.5
	Cost increase	-	3.7	5.6	15.7	12.2	19.1	51.2

Source: Nuclear Energy Agency. (2012). Nuclear Energy and Renewables: System Effects in Low-carbon Electricity Systems. (NEA No. 7056). Paris, France: OECD/NEA Publishing.
Note: Higher electricity prices associated with the high renewable scenarios are driven by replacement of existing generation plants with new generators (mostly renewable); additional balancing requirements reflected in expenditures for combustion turbines, storage, and transmission; and the assumed higher relative capital cost of renewable generation, compared to conventional technologies, assumed in the analysis.

Comparison of global CO2 emissions estimates by GCP, IEA, BP, EDGAR, and US EIA (1990-2012)

I updated the table in a new post for the year of 2013. Please move to the post cited below.

Park, H. (2013). Comparison of Global CO₂ Emissions Estimates by GCP, IEA, BP, EDGAR, and US EIA (1990-2012)  [Blog post]. Retrieved from http://j.mp/CO2-1990-2012

Maximum CO2 Emissions According to IEA's Updated Estimation of Fossil Fuel Reserves and Resources

According to the IEA's World Energy Outlook 2012, the updated data table for fossil fuel reserves and resources is as below. (Notes: (1) R/P ratio = Reserves-to-production ratio based on 2011 levels of production. (2) Resources are remaining technically recoverable resources.)

Table. Fossil-fuel reserves and resources by region and type, end-2011 (coal = 2010 data)

	Coal (billion tonnes)		Natural gas (tcm)		Oil (billion barrels)
	Proven reserves	Recoverable resources	Proven reserves	Recoverable resources	Proven reserves	Recoverable resources
OECD	427	10,657	28	193	244	2,345
Non-OECD	576	10,551	205	597	1,450	3,526
Share of non-OECD	57%	50%	88%	76%	86%	60%
World	1,004	21,208	232	790	1,694	5,871
R/P ratio (years)	132	2,780	71	241	55	189

WEO 2012 says we have plenty of fossil fuels currently: 132 years' supply of coal, 71 years' supply of natural gas, and 55 years' supply of oil, only from "proven" reserves.
Then, however, how much carbon dioxide can be released to the atmosphere if we consume (combustion) all the fossil fuel reserves or resources? Using the BP's suggested conversion factors, I got the following estimation.

Table. A rough estimation of possible CO₂ emissions based on reserves or resources*
(unit: gigatonnes of CO₂)

	Proven reserves	Recoverable resources
Coal	2,304	48,668
Natural gas	491	1,671
Oil	709	2,458
Total	3,504**	52,797

* NOT an official estimation. Errors are mine.
** World Energy Outlook 2012 states the global carbon reserve is 2,860 gigatonnes of CO₂ (p. 259). I think I used inaccurate emission factors, especially for coal.

That is, proven reserves alone can emit 3,504 (or 2,860) gigatonnes of carbon dioxide. A study published in Nature (Allen et al., 2009) stated that the total anthropogenic emissions could be 3.67 trillion tonnes of CO₂ and about half of them had already been emitted since industrialization began. So at the time of the study's publication, about 1.8 trillion tonnes of CO₂ were yet to be emitted. However, the new IEA estimation of reserves asserts there are still 3.5 (or 2.9) trillion tonnes of CO₂ to emit.
So, technological advancement has significantly increased the possible future CO₂ emissions. Do we have to be complacent because we have enough fossil fuels or is it a really sad news for our children? I hope that the world can somehow reach to an agreement soon and prevent the catastrophic climate change that could be realized if we burn all the fuels.


Emissions factors used in the emissions estimation:

Coal	3.96 ton CO2/toe	=	2.294789 ton CO2/ton
Natural gas	2.35 ton CO2/toe	=	0.002115 ton CO2/cm
Oil	3.07 ton CO2/toe	=	0.418748 ton CO2/bbl

References:

Reserves/resources:	IEA. (2012). World Energy Outlook 2012. Paris, France: IEA Publications. http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/
Conversion factors modified from:	BP. (2012). BP Statistical Review of World Energy June 2012. London, UK: BP p.l.c. http://j.mp/BP_Review_2012
Cited previous study:	Allen et al. (2009). Warming caused by cumulative carbon emissions towards the trillionth tonne. Nature, 458, 1163-1166. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature08019

Full-text of IIASA's Global Energy Assessment

I found out that the full-text of IIASA's Global Energy Assessment is available for download.

GEA. (2012). Global Energy Assessment: Toward a Sustainable Future. Cambridge, UK and New York, NY: Cambridge University Press; Laxenburg, Austria: International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis. [Full-text at http://j.mp/GEAbyIIASA]

By the 1865-page-long rigorously reviewed study, GEA will be a good source of latest global energy data and references along with IPCC's recent two reports, SREX (582 pages) and SRREN (1076 pages), published this year:

IPCC. (2012). Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation: A Special Report of Working Groups I and II of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, UK and New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. [Full-text at http://j.mp/SREX_by_IPCC].

IPCC. (2012). IPCC Special Report on Renewable Energy Sources and Climate Change Mitigation. Cambridge, UK and New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. [Full-text at http://j.mp/SRREN].

Global Energy Assessment: Table of Contents

SECTION 1

Foreword ...................................................................   x

Preface .................................................................... xii

Key Findings ...............................................................  xv

SECTION 2

Summary for Policy Makers ..................................................   3

Technical Summary ..........................................................  31

SECTION 3

Chapter 1: Energy Primer ...................................................  99

CLUSTER 1

Chapter 2: Energy, Poverty, and Development ................................ 151

Chapter 3: Energy and Environment .......................................... 191

Chapter 4: Energy and Health ............................................... 255

Chapter 5: Energy and Security ............................................. 325

Chapter 6: Energy and Economy .............................................. 385

CLUSTER 2

Chapter 7: Energy Resources and Potentials ................................. 423

Chapter 8: Energy End-Use: Industry ........................................ 513

Chapter 9: Energy End-Use: Transport ....................................... 575

Chapter 10: Energy End-Use: Buildings ...................................... 649

Chapter 11: Renewable Energy ............................................... 761

Chapter 12: Fossil Energy .................................................. 901

Chapter 13: Carbon Capture and Storage ..................................... 993

Chapter 14: Nuclear Energy .................................................1069

Chapter 15: Energy Supply Systems ..........................................1131

Chapter 16: Transitions in Energy Systems ..................................1173

CLUSTER 3

Chapter 17: Energy Pathways for Sustainable Development ....................1203

Chapter 18: Urban Energy Systems ...........................................1307

Chapter 19: Energy Access for Development ..................................1401

Chapter 20: Land and Water: Linkages to Bioenergy ..........................1459

Chapter 21: Lifestyles, Well-Being and Energy ..............................1527

CLUSTER 4

Chapter 22: Policies for Energy System Transformations: Objectives and
 Instruments ...............................................................1549

Chapter 23: Policies for Energy Access .....................................1603

Chapter 24: Policies for the Energy Technology Innovation System ...........1665

Chapter 25: Policies for Capacity Building .................................1745

SECTION 4

Annex I: Acronyms, Abbreviations and Chemical Symbols ......................1803

Annex II: Technical Guidelines .............................................1815

Annex III: Contributors to the GEA .........................................1823

Annex IV: Reviewers of the GEA .............................................1833

Index ......................................................................1839

Per Capita Residential and Industrial Electricity Consumption in OECD Countries, 1980-2010

We know per capita total electricity consumption by country.
This time, I tried to disaggregate the statistics by sector: residential sector and industry.
Due to limited data availability, I concentrated on selected OECD member countries.

1. Per capita residential electricity consumption in selected OECD countries, 1980-2010 (kWh)

To magnify the lower countries,

2. Per capita industrial electricity consumption in selected OECD countries, 1980-2010 (kWh)

To magnify lower countries,


Sources:
(1) Electricity consumption by sector: International Energy Agency. (2012). Electricity Information 2012. Paris, France: IEA Publications.
(2) Population estimates:
a. Department of Economic and Social Affairs, United Nations Population Division. (2011). World Population Prospects: The 2010 Revision. New York, NY: United Nations. Retrieved September 28, 2012 from http://esa.un.org/wpp/Excel-Data/population.htm
b. OECD. Country statistical profiles: OECD - Total. OECD.Stat. Retrieved September 28, 2012 from http://stats.oecd.org/index.aspx?r=854170

Data Tables for the Figures above (NOT official OECD statistics):
Unit: kWh/person

Residential Sector	1980	1990	2000	2005	2009	2010
OECD	1,473	1,854	2,180	2,388	2,363	2,456
Australia	1,971	2,252	2,546	2,686	2,726	2,703
Austria	1,166	1,551	1,874	2,126	2,115	2,156
Belgium	1,330	1,849	2,329	2,497	1,895	1,895
Canada	3,459	4,686	4,506	4,677	4,404	4,324
Chile	161	326	402	509	525	549
Czech Republic	604	932	1,347	1,438	1,408	1,430
Denmark	1,444	1,887	1,910	1,919	1,828	1,874
Finland	1,695	2,928	3,499	3,928	4,119	4,399
France	1,141	1,709	2,180	2,369	2,429	2,588
Germany	1,469	1,733	1,585	1,712	1,689	1,722
Greece	591	896	1,292	1,511	1,598	1,593
Hungary	467	887	960	1,100	1,120	1,122
Iceland	2,630	2,355	2,134	2,359	2,852	2,187
Ireland	1,053	1,161	1,683	1,804	1,836	1,902
Israel	801	1,178	1,929	2,074	2,080	2,062
Italy	672	927	1,072	1,142	1,144	1,149
Japan	1,002	1,506	2,051	2,240	2,260	2,413
Korea	141	412	807	1,082	1,203	1,272
Luxembourg	1,373	1,574	1,837	1,750	1,809	1,774
Mexico	145	242	361	399	439	436
Netherlands	1,072	1,108	1,374	1,484	1,461	1,487
New Zealand	2,542	3,002	2,929	2,927	3,054	3,045
Norway	5,507	7,144	7,705	7,354	7,509	7,905
Poland	301	531	548	663	719	747
Portugal	337	594	977	1,252	1,332	1,358
Slovak Republic	484	702	999	868	807	806
Spain	523	777	1,082	1,443	1,650	1,684
Sweden	3,092	4,452	4,740	4,729	4,393	4,307
Switzerland	1,602	2,038	2,190	2,374	2,349	2,427
Turkey	79	168	376	453	544	569
United Kingdom	1,529	1,639	1,899	2,088	1,922	1,913
United States	3,122	3,647	4,221	4,579	4,428	4,658
Industry	1980	1990	2000	2005	2009	2010
OECD	2,208	2,427	2,809	2,629	2,270	2,452
Australia	2,209	3,463	4,018	3,637	3,479	3,364
Austria	1,881	2,347	2,586	3,098	3,190	3,181
Belgium	2,427	3,066	3,921	3,783	3,067	3,557
Canada	5,535	6,061	6,629	6,554	4,811	4,883
Chile	573	773	1,667	2,000	2,159	2,098
Czech Republic	2,173	2,611	1,845	2,260	2,088	2,192
Denmark	1,132	1,634	1,873	1,901	1,538	1,550
Finland	4,770	6,518	8,292	8,218	6,777	7,531
France	1,771	2,023	2,281	2,287	1,789	1,870
Germany	2,548	2,737	2,570	2,802	2,451	2,739
Greece	1,089	1,191	1,229	1,288	1,245	1,241
Hungary	1,290	1,330	862	922	860	982
Iceland	8,766	10,204	18,492	19,883	42,783	43,107
Ireland	936	1,274	2,024	1,852	1,881	1,544
Israel	934	1,178	1,729	1,787	1,446	1,685
Italy	1,672	1,951	2,488	2,468	2,002	2,112
Japan	2,828	2,759	2,876	2,699	2,292	2,636
Korea	606	1,345	3,270	3,911	4,155	4,734
Luxembourg	6,865	7,345	7,348	6,999	6,229	7,094
Mexico	439	633	995	981	964	1,015
Netherlands	1,995	2,229	2,572	2,551	2,192	2,354
New Zealand	2,447	3,296	3,629	3,701	3,054	3,251
Norway	9,766	10,798	11,490	11,247	8,544	9,113
Poland	1,464	1,122	1,057	1,082	1,041	1,092
Portugal	838	1,229	1,548	1,631	1,520	1,639
Slovak Republic	2,600	2,846	1,795	2,031	1,981	1,996
Spain	1,438	1,628	2,125	2,420	1,775	1,812
Sweden	4,885	6,309	6,422	6,379	5,520	5,800
Switzerland	1,888	2,577	2,525	2,549	2,388	2,518
Turkey	277	504	725	891	952	1,061
United Kingdom	1,551	1,758	1,938	1,927	1,635	1,685
United States	3,246	3,420	4,043	3,112	2,597	2,833

Reviews of Disaster at Fukushima Dai-ichi Nuclear Power Plant

1. Japan

Fukushima Nuclear Accident Independent Investigation Commission. (2012). The official report of the Fukushima Nuclear Accident Independent Investigation Commission. Tokyo, Japan: The National Diet of Japan. [Full-text at http://warp.da.ndl.go.jp/info:ndljp/pid/3856371/naiic.go.jp/en/]

Funabashi, Y., & Kitazawa, K. (2012). Fukushima in review: A complex disaster, a disastrous response. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 68(2), 9-21. [Full-text at http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0096340212440359]

Government of Japan. (2012). Road to Recovery. Tokyo, Japan: Government of Japan. [Full-text at http://j.mp/Japan_Fukushima]

Investigation Committee on the Accident at Fukushima Nuclear Power Stations of Tokyo Electric Power Company. (2012). Final Report. Tokyo, Japan: Secretariat of the Investigation Committee on the accidents at the Fukushima Nuclear Power Station. [Full-text at http://icanps.go.jp/eng/final-report.html]

Nuclear Emergency Response Headquarters. (2011). Report of the Japanese Government to the IAEA Ministerial Conference on Nuclear Safety - The Accident at TEPCO's Fukushima Nuclear Power Stations. Vienna, Austria: International Atomic Energy Agency. [Full-text at http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/focus/fukushima/japan-report/]

Nuclear Emergency Response Headquarters. (2011). Additional Report of the Japanese Government to the IAEA - The Accident at TEPCO's Fukushima Nuclear Power Stations. Vienna, Austria: International Atomic Energy Agency. [Full-text at http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/focus/fukushima/japan-report2/]

Nuclear Emergency Response Headquarters. (2011). Mid-and-long-Term Roadmap towards the Decommissioning of Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station Units 1-4, TEPCO. Tokyo, Japan: Tokyo Electric Power Company. [Full-text at http://j.mp/TEPCO_Fukushima]

2. United States

Gauntt, R., et al. (2012). Fukushima Daiichi Accident Study (Status as of April 2012). (SAND2012-6173). Albuquerque, NM: Sandia National Laboratories. [Full-text at http://j.mp/SandiaReport]

Institute of Nuclear Power Operations. (2011). Special Report on  the Nuclear Accident  at the Fukushima  Daiichi Nuclear  Power Station. Atlanta, GA: Institute of Nuclear Power Operations. [Full-text at http://j.mp/INPO_Fukushima]

Joskow, P. L., & Parsons, J. E. (2012). The Future of Nuclear Power After Fukushima. Cambridge, MA: A Joint Center of the Department of Economics, MIT Energy Initiative and MIT Sloan School of Management. [Full-text at http://j.mp/MIT_Fukushima]

Miller, C., Cubbage, A., Dorman, D., Grobe, J., Holahan, G., & Sanfilippo, N. (2011). Recommendations for Enhancing Reactor Safety in the 21st Century: The Near-Term Task Force Review of Insights from the Fukushima Dai-ichi Accident. Washington, DC: United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission. [Full-text at http://j.mp/USNRC_Fukushima]

Special Committee on Fukushima. (2012). Fukushima Daiichi: ANS Committee Report. La Grange Park, IL: American Nuclear Society. [Full-text at http://j.mp/ANS_Fukushima]

3. European Union

HM Chief Inspector of Nuclear Installations. (2011). Chief Nuclear Inspector's report on lessons from Fukushima. Bootle, UK: Office for Nuclear Regulation. [Full-text at http://j.mp/UK_Fukushima]

Institut de Radioprotection et de Sûreté Nucléaire (IRSN). (2012). Fukushima, one year later - Initial analyses of the accident and its consequences. (IRSN/DG/2012-003).  [Full-text at http://j.mp/IRSN_Fukushima]

4. International organizations

Dallos, G. (2013). Beyond Nuclear: The Triple Challenge Facing Japanese Utilities. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Greenpeace International. [Full-text at http://j.mp/Fukushima_GP]

Great East Japan Earthquake Expert Mission. (2011). IAEA International Fact Finding Expert Mission of The Fukushima Dai-Ichi NPP Accident Following the Great East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami. Vienna, Austria: International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). [Full-text at http://j.mp/IAEA_Fukushima]

Morris-Suzuki, T., Boilley, D., McNeill, D., Gundersen, A., & Fairewinds Associates. (2012). Lessons from Fukushima. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Greenpeace International. [Full-text at http://j.mp/Greenpeace_Fukushima]

Nuclear Energy Agency. (2012). Japan's Compensation System for Nuclear Damage: As Related to the TEPCO Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Accident. Paris, France: OECD Nuclear Energy Agency. [Full-text at http://j.mp/TEPCO_Compensation]

Nuclear Energy Agency. (2013). The Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant Accident: OECD/NEA Nuclear Safety Response and Lessons Learnt. Paris, France: OECD/NEA Publishing. [Full-text at http://j.mp/Fukushima_NEA]

World Energy Council. (2012). World Energy Perspective: Nuclear Energy One Year After Fukushima. London, UK: World Energy Council. [Full-text at http://j.mp/WEC_Fukushima]

World Health Organization. (2013). Health risk assessment from the nuclear accident after the 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami, based on a preliminary dose estimation. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization. [Full-text at http://j.mp/Fukushima_WHO]

5. Media

Bloomberg. (2012). Japan Quake One Year Anniversary. [Full-text at http://j.mp/Bloomberg_Fukushima]

Economist. (2012). The Dream That Failed. [Special Report]. [Full-text at http://j.mp/Economist_Fukushima]

New York Times, & International Herald Tribune. (2012). Japan — Earthquake, Tsunami and Nuclear Crisis. [Full-text at http://j.mp/NYT_Fukushima]

Spiegel. (2012). Fukushima Nuclear Catastrophe. [Full-text at http://j.mp/Spiegel_Fukushima]

6. Scientific journals

Buesseler, K., Nies, H., Aoyama, M., Povinec, P., & Dai, M. (Eds.). (2013). Impacts of the Fukushima nuclear power plant discharges on the ocean. Biogeosciences Discussions, Special Issue. [Full-text at http://www.biogeosciences-discuss.net/special_issue100.html]

Levelized Costs of Electricity Generation (LCOE) - 2012 Update

I updated the list in a new post for the year of 2013. Please move to the post cited below.

Park, H. (2013). Levelized Costs of Electricity Generation (LCOE) - 2013 Update [Blog post]. Retrieved from http://j.mp/LCOE_2013