Technology Assessment under Stakeholder Perspectives
SIXTH FRAMEWORK PROGRAMME [6.1] [ Sustainable Energy Systems] Technology Assessment under Stakeholder Perspectives Stefan Hirschberg, Paul Scherrer Institut Brussels, 16 February 2009 The NEEDS Integrated Project (Where does RS2b fit in?)
Integration 1c 1b Externalities in energy extraction & transport New & improved methods to estimate external costs 1d 3b Communicate & Disseminate Extend geographic coverage 3a 2a LCA/costs of new technologies Transfer & general-ization Model internalization strategies & scenario building 1a Stakeholder assess-ment & acceptance Energy technology roadmap & forecast 2b NEEDS: New Energy Externalities Developments for Sustainability General Objectives of Stream 2b
To broaden the basis for decision support by examining the robustness of results under various stakeholder perspectives To explore stakeholder perspectives on external costs Combines knowledge (technology characteristics) generated internally and from other streams with stakeholder preferences Contributors and Responsibilities
WP WORK PACKAGE TITLE LEADERS 1 Survey of criteria and indicators PSI 2 Establishment of social criteria USTUTT.SOZ 3 Establishment of full criteria set 4 Extended technology characterisation CESIRICERA 5 Quantification of economic indicators EDF 6 Quantification of environmental indicators 7 Quantification of risk indicators 8 Quantification of social indicators 9 MCDA approach and tool selection IIASA 10 Evaluation and analysis integration 11 Acceptability of monetary valuation methods ARMINES 12 Organisation/management of surveys and communication ISIS/PSI 13 Analysis and elaboration of the results 14 Technical stream co-ordination Contributors included also NGOs: GLOBE and HELIO INTERNATIONAL Main Elements, Approaches and Tools
Establishment and evaluation of criteriaand indicators Case study and surveys with directstakeholder inputs Sustainability assessment by means ofMulti-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) Comparison with total costs Case Study Conclusions
Large variation between France, UK and US in the uses of externality valuation in policy Formal requirements are crucial in order to consider the full costs and benefits of proposed regulation There is more extensive use of the monetary valuation of externalities in transport and water policy than in the energy sector Main Stakeholder Categories
Each category is further divided into several sub-categories (not shown) Energy Supplier Energy Consumer Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) Government Energy or Environmental Agency Regulator / Government Authority Association (e.g. trade or industry) Politician Researcher / Academic Consultant Other Stakeholder Categories & Sub-categories 1/4
Energy Supply (Centralized or Decentralized) Manufacturer Technology Agency Transmission & Distribution Sectoral Association Energy Demand Technology Supplier (e.g. Manufacturer of Appliances Energy Consuming Industry Agriculture Transport Sector Services Households Stakeholder Categories & Sub-categories 2/4
NGOs International European National Governmental Energy & Environmental Agencies Regional / Local Regulators / Authorities Stakeholder Categories & Sub-categories 3/4
Researchers Energy Fossil Renewables Nuclear Demand Systems Analysis Other Non-Energy Consultants Small or Medium (1 30 employees) Large (> 30 employees) Stakeholder Categories & Sub-categories 4/4
Associations European National Regional / Local Politicians Left / Green(Socialist Group, Group of the Greens / European Free Alliance, Confederal Group of the European United Left) Center / Liberal(European People's Party and European Democrats, Alliance of Liberals and Democrats) Right / Conservative (Independence/Democracy Group, Union for Europe of the Nations Group) Examples of Difficult but Potentially Important Social Aspects
Social justice Risk aversion and perception Resilience of the energy system Conflict potential Theoretically, any externality can be monetized, but in practice methodologies and valuation are often controversial. Survey I: Externality Concept, Results and Uses
In spite of the limitations, there is general acceptance of the concept of externalities, of the internalisation of external costs and of most results, but Source: Faberi et al., 2007 Survey I: Usefulness of Externalities
Statement: External cost assessment provides decision makers with basic estimates to support their policy decisions. Without such estimates, the social cost of a wrong choice could be very large and harmful. Source: Faberi et al., 2007 The Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) problem
Big, complex problems multiple stakeholders, multiple criteria. Different interests different preferences, no simple optima. Complexity & cognitive inadequacy can prevent evensingle decision makers from making consistentrankings. Purpose: aid to thinking and decision-making (but doesnt give the answer) 7 Steps Towards MCDA 1 Select alternatives (with stakeholder input)
2 Establish criteria and indicators (with stakeholder input) 3 Quantify the technology- and country-specific indicators 4 Analyse the MCDA requirements 5 Select the most suitable MCDA method(s) and tool(s) 6 Test and adapt the selected method(s) and tool(s) 7 Elicit stakeholder preferences, provide feedback Sustainability Criteria Environment
Source: Hirschberg et al., 2007&2008 Criteria / Indicator Description Unit ENVIRONMENT Environment related criteria Source: NEEDS Research Streams 1a & 2b, using Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) RESOURCES Resource use (non-renewable) Energy Energy resource use in whole life-cycle Fossil fuels This criterion measures the total primary energy in the fossil resources used for the production of 1 kWh of electricity. It includes the total coal, natural gas and crude oil used for each complete electricity generation technology chain. MJ/kWh Uranium This criterion quantifies the primary energy from uranium resources used to produce 1 kWh of electricity. It includes the total use of uranium for each complete electricity generation technology chain. Minerals Mineral resource use in whole life-cycle Metal ore This criterion quantifies the use of selected scarce metals used to produce 1 kWh of electricity. The use of all single metals is expressed in antimony-equivalents, based on the scarcity of their ores relative to antimony. kg(Sb-eq.)/kWh CLIMATE Potential impacts on the climate GHG emissions This criterion includes the total for all greenhouse gases expressed in kg of CO2 equivalent. kg(CO2-eq.)/kWh ECOSYSTEMS Potential impacts to ecosystems Normal operation Ecosystem impacts from normal operation Land use This criterion quantifies the loss of species (flora &fauna) due to the land used to produce 1 kWh of electricity. The "potentially damaged fraction" (PDF) of species is multiplied by land area and years. PDF*m2*a/kWh Ecotoxicity This criterion quantifies the loss of species (flora &fauna) due to ecotoxic substances released to air, water and soil to produce 1 kWh of electricity. The "potentially damaged fraction" (PDF) of species is multiplied by land area and years. Acidification / Eutrophication This criterion quantifies the loss of species (flora &fauna) due to acidification and eutrophication caused from production of 1 kWh of electricity. The "potentially damaged fraction" (PDF) of species is multiplied by land area and years. Severe accidents Ecosystem impacts in the event of severe accidents Hydrocarbons Quantification of large accidental spills of hydrocarbons (at least tonnes) which can potentially damage ecosystems. t/kWh Land contamination This criterion quantifies land contaminated due to accidents releasing radioactive isotopes. The land area contaminated is estimated using Probabilistic Safety Analysis (PSA). Note: only for nuclear electricity generation technology chain. km2/kWh WASTE Potential impacts due to waste Chemical waste This criterion quantifies the total mass of special chemical wastes stored in underground repositories due to the production of 1 kWh of electricity. It does not reflect the confinement time required for each repository. kg/kWh Radioactive waste This criterion quantifies the volume of medium and high level radioactive wastes stored in underground repositories due to the production of 1 kWh of electricity. It does not reflect the confinement time required for the repository. m3/kWh Sustainability Criteria Economy
Source: Hirschberg et al., 2007&2008 Criteria / Indicator Description Unit ECONOMY Economy related criteria Source: NEEDS Research Stream 2b contributors for different technologies. CUSTOMERS Economic effects on customers Generation cost This criterion gives the average generation cost per kilowatt-hour (kWh). It includes the capital cost of the plant, (fuel), and operation and maintenance costs. It is not the end price. /MWh SOCIETY Economic effects on society Direct jobs This criterion gives the amount of employment directly related to building and operating the generating technology, including the direct labour involved in extracting or harvesting and transporting fuels (when applicable). Indirect labour is not included. Measured in terms of person-years/GWh. Person-years/GWh Fuel autonomy Electricity output may be vulnerable to interruptions in service if imported fuels are unavailable due to economic or political problems related to energy resource availability. This measure of vulnerability is based on expert. Ordinal UTILITY Economic effects on utility company Financial Financial impacts on utility Financing risk Utility companies can face a considerable financial risk if the total cost of a new electricity generating plant is very large compared to the size of the company. It may be necessary to form partnerships with other utilities or raise capital through financial markets. Fuel sensitivity The fraction of fuel cost to overall generation cost can range from zero (solar PV) to low (nuclear power) to high (gas turbines). This fraction therefore indicates how sensitive the generation costs would be to a change in fuel prices. Factor Construction time Once a utility has started building a plant it is vulnerable to public opposition, resulting in delays and other problems. This indicator therefore gives the expected plant construction time in years. Planning and approval time is not included. Years Operation Factors related to a utility company's operation of a technology. Marginal cost Generating companies dispatch or order their plants into operation according to their variable cost, starting with the lowest cost base-load plants up to the highest cost plants at peak load periods. This variable (or dispatch) cost is the cost to run the plant. cents/kWh Flexibility Utilities need forecasts of generation they cannot control (renewable resources like wind and solar), and the necessary start-up and shut-down times required for the plants they can control. This indicator combines these two measures of planning flexibility, based on expert judgment. Availability All technologies can have plant outages or partial outages (less than full generation), due to either equipment failures (forced outages) or due to maintenance (unforced or planned outages). This indicator tells the fraction of the time that the generating plant is available to generate power. Sustainability Criteria Social
Source: Hirschberg et al., 2007&2008 Criteria / Indicator Description Unit SOCIAL Social related criteria.Source: NEEDS RS 2b survey of social experts. Quantitative risk based on PSI risk database. SECURITY Social Security Political continuity Secure supply Market concentration of energy suppliers in each primary energy sector that could lead to economic or political disruption. Ordinal scale Waste repository The possibility that storage facilities will not be available in time to take deliveries of waste materials from whole life cycle. Adaptability Technical characteristics of each technology that may make it flexible in implementing technical progress and innovations. POL.. LEGITIMACY Political legitimacy Conflict Conflicts that are based on historical evidence. It is related to the characteristics of energy systems that trigger conflicts. Participation Requirement for public, participative decision-making processes, especially for construction or operating permits. RISK Risk Normal risk Normal operation risk Source: NEEDS Research Stream 2b for life cycle risk data Mortality Years of life lost (YOLL) by the entire population due to normal operation compared to without the technology. YOLL/kWh Morbidity Disability adjusted life years (DALY) suffered by the entire population from normal operation compared to no technology. DALY/kWh Severe accidents Risk from severe Accidents Source: NEEDS Research Stream 2b for severe accident data Accident mortality Number of fatalities expected for each kWh of electricity that occurs in severe accidents with 5 or more deaths per accident. Fatalities/kWh Max. fatalities Reasonably credible maximum number of fatalities for a single accident for an electricity generation technology chain. Fatal./accident Perceived risk Normal operation Citizens' fear of negative health effects due to normal operation of the electricity generation technology. Perceived acc. Citizens' perception of risk characteristics, personal control over it, scale of potential damage, and their familiarity with the risk. Terrorism Risk of terrorism Terror-potential Potential for a successful terrorist attack. Based on its vulnerability, potential damage and public perception of risk. Terror-effects Potential maximum consequences of a successful terrorist attack. Specifically for low-probability high-consequence accidents. Exp. fatalities Proliferation Potential for misuse of technologies or substances present in the nuclear electricity generation technology chain. RESIDENTIAL ENV. Quality of the residential environment Landscape Overall functional and aesthetic impact on the landscape of the entire technology and fuel chain. Note: Excludes traffic. Noise The amount of noise caused by the generation plant, as well as transport of materials to and from the plant. Survey II Results: General Information
NEEDS Survey II was running from 9.8% 11.8% 6.2% 7.7% 12.4% 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 France Germany Italy Switzerland Other Invitation Response Relative response rate 660 persons visited the survey website Of these 275 participants filled in the questionnaire completely, representing an overall response rate of 9.7%(The remaining 385 persons completed the questionnaire only partially and could not be included in the analysis) Survey II: Stakeholder Profile
Q5: Main stakeholder categories Researcher/Academia strongly dominated (61.45%) Only three other categories were between 5 and 10 % Energy Supplier - Government Energy & Environmental Agency - Consultant Within Researcher/Academia five sub-categories had the strongest representation: - Energy: Renewables (9.45%) - Energy: Nuclear (11.64%) - Energy: Systems Analysis (19.27%) - Energy: Other (6.18%) - Non-Energy (11.27%) Source: Burgherr et al., 2008 Q49: 5 most important indicators to be absolutely INCLUDED
Survey II: Feedback Q49: 5 most important indicators to be absolutely INCLUDED CATEGORY INDICATOR PARTICIPANTS % PARTICIPANTS N Environment Global warming potential 67 183 Consumption of fossil resources 63 174 Economy Average generation cost 44 121 Impacts of air pollution 29 80 Independence from energy imports 28 78 Social Mortality due to normal operation 26 72 Impacts of toxic substances 19 51 Survey II: Feedback Q50: 5 least important indicators to be absolutely EXCLUDED? CATEGORY INDICATOR PARTICIPANTS % PARTICIPANTS N Social Work qualifications: workforce education 40 111 Share of the electricity costs in the budget of a social welfare recipient 26 71 Economy Construction time 24 67 Psychometric variables: personal control, catastrophic potential, perceived equity familiarity 23 64 Subjective health fears due to normal operation 20 56 Total traffic load 55 Willingness of NGOs and others to act against the realization of an option 17 47 Source: Burgherr et al., 2008 Conclusions: Survey II on Selection of Sustainability Criteria and Indicators
Response rate of 9.7% Highly qualified / educated participants, but an over-representation of researchers Most participants from CH followed by DE General acceptance of indicator set Few individual indicators considered problematic Strong minority (44%) opts for less criteria; i.e. about 20 Most important indicators: Global warming potential, Consumption of fossil fuels, Average generation cost, Impacts of air pollution on ecosystems, Independence from energy imports, Mortality due to normal operation Some indicator descriptions were slightly modified 4 indicators from the social dimension were eliminated givinga final set of 36 Technology Range NUCLEAR Generation III Generation IV European Pressurised Reactor (EPR GEN III) European Fast Reactor (EFR- GEN IV) FOSSIL Centralised Coal Lignite Natural Gas (NG). Decentralised cogeneration Natural Gas only (NG) Conventional and gasification -with/without carbon capture (CCS) Post-combustion Oxyfuel Internal combustion engine (NG) Molten carbonate and solid oxide fuel cells (NG) BIOMASS - Fuel cells. - Gas turbine. Gasified waste wood to fuel cells. Gasified cultivated wood and waste straw to gas turbine. SOLAR Photovoltaics - Centralised and decentralised Centralised thermal power plant Cells - Crystalline silicon (ribbon) Thin film (Cadmium Telluride) Concentrating trough collectors WIND Offshore wind turbine 24MW turbine in deep water Total of 26 for FR,25 for DE,21 for ITand19 for CH Social: Years of Life Lost -YOLL (2050)
Nuclear Fossil Renewable 0.0E+00 1.0E-07 2.0E-07 3.0E-07 4.0E-07 5.0E-07 EU Pressurised Reactor EU Fast Reactor Pulverised Coal (PC) PC & Post comb.CCS PC & Oxyfuel CCS Integrated Gasification Int. Gasification & CCS Combined Cycle (CC) CC & Post comb. CCS Internal Comb.