china2010options

Toward 20% Reduction in Energy Intensity by 2010:An exploration in possible scenarios: 

Toward 20% Reduction in Energy Intensity by 2010: An exploration in possible scenarios Presented at the Energy Foundation’s Dialogue Partners meeting Beijing June 24-25, 2006 LIN Jiang and Mark Levine With analytic support from David Fridley, Lynn Price, ZHOU Nan, Nate Aden

Overview　概述: 

Overview　概述 Background What happened over the last decade Possible scenarios for energy intensity reduction

Background背景: 

Background 背景

Slide4: 

Source: NBS, China Statistical Yearbook, various years; China Statistical Abstract 2006. China’s bold reform policies of the 1980’s showed that energy and GDP growth can be decoupled 中国上个世纪80年代大胆的改革措施实现了GDP翻两番，能源消耗翻一番的成就。 GDP （调整后数据） 能源

Energy usage has grown much faster than GDP since 2001, even accounting for this year’s GDP revisions. 2001年以来，能源消耗增速超过GDP增长速度，即使在今年对GDP总量调整后，仍然如此。: 

Energy usage has grown much faster than GDP since 2001, even accounting for this year’s GDP revisions. 2001年以来，能源消耗增速超过GDP增长速度，即使在今年对GDP总量调整后，仍然如此。 调整后GDP 实际能源消耗 原GDP 2020能源发展目标 Source: NBS, China Statistical Yearbook, various years; China Statistical Abstract 2006.

Another way to look at the data from previous graph.对前图的另一种数据解读: 

Source: NBS, China Statistical Yearbook, various years; China Statistical Abstract 2005; targets announced by NDRC. Another way to look at the data from previous graph. 对前图的另一种数据解读 实际的能源消耗 能源目标 GDP目标 调整后GDP 能源消耗（单位：10亿吨标煤）

What happened to Energy Intensity over the last decade?过去十年能源强度状况回顾: 

What happened to Energy Intensity over the last decade? 过去十年能源强度状况回顾

Up-and-down in Energy Intensity of GDPGDP能耗强度的波动: 

Up-and-down in Energy Intensity of GDP GDP能耗强度的波动 总能耗 第一部门（农业） 第二部门（工业和建筑业） 第三部门（交通、电信、邮政、零售） 标煤/万元（ 2000价格）

“Heavy Industrialization”?重化工业化？: 

“Heavy Industrialization”? 重化工业化？ Rising share of industrial GDP 工业占GDP份额增加 第一部门（农业） 第二部门（工业和建筑业） 第三部门（交通、电信、邮政、零售） 中国GDP结构

Inter-Sector Structural Change vs Intensity Reduction产业部门间的结构变化与能耗强度降低: 

Inter-Sector Structural Change vs Intensity Reduction 产业部门间的结构变化与能耗强度降低 Declining Intensity offsets structural effect until 2001 2001年前能耗强度降低抵消了产业结构变化的影响 Intensity rebounds 能耗强度反弹 剩余 产业结构变化 能耗强度变化 百万吨标煤

Why would industrial energy intensity rise?: 

Why would industrial energy intensity rise? Energy intensity changes are caused by two factors Changes in efficiency within a sub-sector (eg, Chemicals) Relative growth in output of sub-sectors

Energy intensities within industrial sub-sectors are actually declining 工业部门的能耗强度实际在下降: 

Energy intensities within industrial sub-sectors are actually declining 工业部门的能耗强度实际在下降 黑色金属 有色金属 石油、焦炭、核工业 非金属矿产 化工 电力 纺织 煤 造纸 公斤标煤/元（2000）

Changes in the relative output of industrial sub-sectors are driving overall intensity higher: 

Changes in the relative output of industrial sub-sectors are driving overall intensity higher

Summary: what happened to energy intensity: 

Summary: what happened to energy intensity The largest factor in intensity growth is due to rapid growth in heavy industries (Iron and Steel, Chemicals, Cement) The second largest factor is the overall growth of industries, relative to services and agriculture Thirdly, this is partially offset by continuing energy efficiency gains However, since 2001 efficiency gains alone have not been nearly sufficient

Possible scenarios towards a 20% energy intensity reduction by 2010实现2010能耗强度降低20%的可能情景: 

Possible scenarios towards a 20% energy intensity reduction by 2010 实现2010能耗强度降低20%的可能情景

Possible scenarios towards a 20% energy intensity reduction by 2010: 

Possible scenarios towards a 20% energy intensity reduction by 2010 LEAP-LBNL/China Energy Model Bottom-up end-use energy demand model Built in 2005 using LEAP accounting framework Revision of the LBNL BAU Baseline updated China baseline to reflect revised industrial sector output targets built-in intensity improvement goals similar to Development Research Center’s China Energy Development Strategy 2004

Possible scenarios towards a 20% energy intensity reduction by 2010 实现2010能耗强度降低20%的可能情景: 

Possible scenarios towards a 20% energy intensity reduction by 2010 实现2010能耗强度降低20%的可能情景 LEAP-LBNL/China Energy Model Bottom-up end-use energy demand model Built in 2005 using LEAP accounting framework Revision of LBNL BAU Baseline updated China baseline to reflect revised industrial sector output targets built-in intensity improvement goals similar to Development Research Center’s China Energy Development Strategy 2004 LEAP-LBNL/中国能源模型 自下而上终端应用能源需求模型 利用LEAP架构于2005年建立 基数修订 修订中国基数以反映修订过的工业部门产出目标 根据中国发展研究中心《2004年能源政策与战略研究报告》设定的能效提高目标

National Analysis: Examples of approaches that might lead to 20% energy intensity reduction: 

National Analysis: Examples of approaches that might lead to 20% energy intensity reduction Best practices for industries rapid physical intensity decline in heavy industrial sub-sectors (moving 2020 targets to 2010). Appliance efficiency improvement accelerated efficiency improvement in appliances. Energy efficiency improvement in power sector Additional reduction in transmission and distribution losses and further thermal efficiency improvement.

China’s Goal: reducing energy intensity by 20% by 2010 implies an annual growth rate (AGR) of 2.8% in energy use: 

China’s Goal: reducing energy intensity by 20% by 2010 implies an annual growth rate (AGR) of 2.8% in energy use

Our base line scenario incorporates moderate energy efficiency improvement.: 

Our base line scenario incorporates moderate energy efficiency improvement.

The production in major industrial sectors in 2005 exceeds the original target by 50% on average.: 

The production in major industrial sectors in 2005 exceeds the original target by 50% on average.

2005 productions are higher for other heavy industries as well.: 

2005 productions are higher for other heavy industries as well. Glass: production exceeds target by 82.3% Ethylene: no change Ammonia: production exceeds target by 28% Paper : production exceeds target by 31.5% Aluminum : production exceeds target by 92.5%

Industry Major Drivers: 

Industry Major Drivers Industry Production Revision (million ton) Major Industry Sector Energy Intensity (tce/ton)

Achieving the 2020 targets for industrial energy intensities in 2010 would reduce energy growth rate from 5% to 4.3%: 

Achieving the 2020 targets for industrial energy intensities in 2010 would reduce energy growth rate from 5% to 4.3%

Additional appliance efficiency improvement brings the growth rate down to 4.1%: 

Additional appliance efficiency improvement brings the growth rate down to 4.1%

Another 1% increase in T&D and thermal efficiency would lead to an annual growth rate of 3.9%: 

Another 1% increase in T&D and thermal efficiency would lead to an annual growth rate of 3.9%

Efficiency and plant closures make a big difference, but . . .: 

Efficiency and plant closures make a big difference, but . . . -11% -17%

Overview of Analysis Results: 

Overview of Analysis Results Tough energy efficiency measures and plant closures can achieve ~85% of 2010 target by our analysis, still an important gap Ways of filling the gap include Efficiency measures not explicitly considered (energy savings in transportation; utility demand-side management; other industrial programs) Macroeconomic policies to promote structural change

“Crossing the River by Touching the Stones”: 

“Crossing the River by Touching the Stones” Microeconomic policies (targeting energy efficiency) targets for energy efficiency for industries, with strong incentives (carrots) and penalties (sticks) Key supporting policies: information and technical guidance; strengthening local energy conservation service provider network; and subsidies directly connected to achieving industrial targets enhanced enforcement of tighter building energy standards, tighten and assure compliance with appliance efficiency standards, strict enforcement and strengthening of auto fuel economy standards, initiation of demand-side management programs of scale in several electric utilities, and investment in mass transit alternatives.

Policies (cont): 

Policies (cont) Macroeconomic Policies Revisiting of energy prices to better reflect costs and taxes to better achieve social/political objectives Re-creation of successful approach (during 1980s and part of 1990s) of subsidizing investments in energy efficiency Policies that result in additional closings of energy inefficient factories We also recommend exploration of ways in which macroeconomic policies can lead to structural changes favoring lower energy use.

Thank you: 

Thank you For more information, please contact Lin Jiang at j_lin@lbl.gov Mark Levine at mdlevine@lbl.gov