Upload
ralph-torrie
View
121
Download
4
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
ΔE/GDP ofSegments
ExtractionΔE/GDP
PipelinesΔE/GDP
RefineriesΔE/GDP
-0.2-0.10.00.10.20.30.40.50.6
TotalIndustry
CompositionΔE/GDP ofSegments
ΔE/GDP
(MJ/
2002
$)
0.00.10.20.30.40.50.6
ExtractionΔE/GDP ΔEo/GDP ΔE/Eo
ΔE/GDP
(MJ/
2002
$)
-0.2-0.10.00.10.2
PipelinesΔE/GDP ΔEo/GDP ΔE/Eo
RefineriesΔE/GDP ΔEo/GDP ΔE/Eo
3B. Oil & gas showed an increase in E/GDP due to higherenergy costs for extraction. Pipeline and refinerysegments showed efficiency improvements:
Pipelines RefineriesExtraction
-0.6
3 -0.4
1
0.40
-0.2
5
-0.2
3
-0.1
3
-0.0
1
-0.2
0
0.04
-0.1
7
-0.8
-0.4
0.0
0.4
Total C & I Oil andGas
EnergyIntensiveIndustry
OtherIndustry
ElectricPower
FreightTransport
Resid-ential
PersonalTransport
Impa
ct o
n to
talΔ
E/GD
P(M
J/20
02$)
3. A net decrease in energy intensity (increase in energyefficiency) of Canada’s productive and household economies.
Note that large differences exist among sectors in thecontribution to net energy intensity…
…and within each sector, large differences exist in thefactors contributing to energy intensity change, as shownbelow.
- METHODS -
- ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
- -
- RESULTS - - DISCUSSION / CONCLUSION-- INTRODUCTION -
-2.63
-0.63
-0.17
-0.62
-1.22
-3
-2
-1
0Total
Δ SectorEnergy
Intensities
Δ Per CapitaPersonalEnergy
ΔProductivity(GDP/capita)
Δ GDPComposition
by Sector
Chan
ge in
tota
l E/G
DP (M
J/20
02$)
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
0.6
1.0
1.4
1.8
1983 1993 2003 2013
Axis
Titl
e
Rela
tive
Valu
e(1
983
= 1.
0)
8
10
12
14
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
1983 1993 2003 2013
E/GD
P (M
J/20
02$)
Rela
tive
Valu
e(1
983
= 1.
0)
1995
-2.63 MJ/2002$(~23% reduction)
Why did Canada’sGDP and energyuse (E) diverge
between1995 & 2010?
2. Loss in manufacturing more than compensated for by anincrease in the Commercial & Institutional (C&I) sectors.
GDP/Capita
Population
GHG/E
E/GDP
GDP
E
E/GDP
-0.4
-0.2
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
O&
G ex
trac
tion
prod
uct m
ixFr
eigh
t tra
nspo
rt m
ode
shar
ePe
rson
al tr
ansp
ort P
KT/c
apita
O&
G ex
trac
tion
E/Eo
Min
ing
E/GD
PRe
siden
tial f
loor
are
a pe
r dw
ellin
gPe
rson
al tr
ansp
ort m
ode
shar
eRe
siden
tial h
ouse
hold
size
(peo
ple/
HH)
O&
G pi
pelin
e Eo
/GDP
O&
G in
dust
ry c
ompo
sitio
nO
&G
extr
actio
n Eo
/GDP
C&I b
uild
ing
type
shar
eRe
siden
tial d
wel
ling
type
shar
ePo
wer
gen
erat
ion
E/Eo
by
type
O&
G re
finer
y Eo
/GDP
O&
G pi
pelin
e pr
oduc
t mix
Ener
gy in
tens
ive
indu
stry
com
posit
ion
Chem
ical
s E/G
DPCe
men
t E/G
DPPo
wer
gen
erat
ion
mix
O&
G re
finer
y E/
EoFr
eigh
t tra
nspo
rt T
KT/G
DPPo
wer
gen
erat
ion
Eo/G
DPSm
eltin
g E/
GDP
Pulp
& p
aper
E/G
DPFr
eigh
t tra
nspo
rt E
/TKT
by
mod
eO
&G
pipe
line
E/Eo
by
prod
uct
C&I E
/flo
or a
rea
by b
uild
ing
type
Pers
onal
tran
spor
t E/P
KT b
y m
ode
Oth
er in
dust
ry E
/GDP
C&I f
loor
are
a/GD
PRe
siden
tial E
/flo
or a
rea
Impa
ct o
n to
talΔ
E/GD
P (M
J/20
02$)
0200400600800
1,000
GDP
(200
2$)
0
50
100
Ener
gyIn
tens
ity(M
J/20
02$)
Oil &Gas
PowerGen’n
EnergyIntensiveIndustry
FreightTransport C & I
OtherIndustry
A
B
Why did Canada’s GDP and Energy Use Diverge after 1995?Ralph Torrie1,2, Chris Stone1, David B. Layzell1,3
1 Canadian Energy Systems Analysis Research (CESAR) Init., U Calgary, AB; 2Torrie Smith Assoc. Coburg, ON; 3 Correspondance: [email protected]
-0.5-0.4-0.3-0.2-0.10.0
TotalΔFloor
area/GDP ΔE/floor area
ΔE/GDP
(MJ/
2002
$)
3A. The C&I sector required less floor area per $GDP andhad lower energy use/m2, due to more efficient buildings.
ΔE/floor areaΔBuilding
mix
ΔE/floorarea by
building type
-0.21-0.13 -0.10
-0.04 -0.04
0.09
ΔE/GDPof
SegmentsPulp &Paper
Smelting&
Refining Cement Chemicals Mining
-0.3-0.2-0.10.00.1
TotalIndustry
compositionΔE/GDP ofSegments
ΔE/GDP
(MJ/
2002
$)
3C. The energy intensive industries all decreased intheir energy use/GDP except for mining:
3G. Personal transport increases in person-km travelled/yr(i.e. higher energy intensity) were largely offset by vehicleefficiency improvements.
-0.2-0.10.00.10.2
Total ΔPKT/capita ΔE/PKT
ΔE/GDP
(MJ/
2002
$)
ΔE/PKT ΔMode share ΔE/PKT by mode
3F. Residence sector had lower energy intensities due to lowerenergy use/m2, despite larger dwelling sizes:
-0.4-0.3-0.2-0.10.00.1
TotalΔPeople perhousehold
ΔE perhousehold
ΔE/GDP
(MJ/
2002
$)
ΔE perhousehold ΔHousing Mix ΔDwelling size ΔE/floor area
3E. Freight transport reductions in energy intensity(tonne(t)-km/GDP) were offset by more energy use per tshipped due to mode share change (more truck, less traintransport):
-0.2-0.10.00.10.20.3
Total ΔTKT/GDP ΔE/TKT
ΔE/G
DP(M
J/20
02$)
ΔE/TKT ΔMode share ΔE/TKT by mode
3D. Power generation showed a decrease in energy intensitydue to improved efficiency & a shift in the generation mix.
-0.2-0.10.00.1
Total ΔEo/GDP ΔE/Eo
ΔE/G
DP(M
J/20
02$)
ΔE/EoChange in
generation mixNet
efficiency
Growth in the national economies (measured as Gross DomesticProduct, GDP) are often correlated with increases in both fuel andelectrical energy use (E) and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Thiswas the case in Canada between 1983-1995 (Fig. 1).
However, uncoupling GDP from E and GHG emissions can make animportant contribution to climate change mitigation.
Since 1995, government data on Canada’s energy systems hasshown a divergence in GDP and E (Fig 1B). We want to know Why.
Fig. 1. Changes in key parameters of Canada’s Energy Systems
- REFERENCES -
C&I3A
Oil &Gas3B Energy
IntensiveIndustries
3C
PowerGen3D
FreightTransp.
3E Resid-ential3F
Pers.Transp.
3G
[1] CanESS v6 from whatIf? Technologies Inc, Ottawa, ON[2] B.W. Ang, 2005 “The LMDI approach to decomposition analysis: a practicalguide”, Energy Policy 33 (2005) 867-871
We thank whatIf? Technologies Inc (Ottawa, ON) for allowing us to accessand use the extensive database resources that they have incorporated intotheir Canadian Energy Systems Simulator (CanESS) model.
Fig. 3. Changes (1995-2010) in energy intensity & GDP of Sectors in Canadian Economy
1. Richer Canadiansspend less of new$ on energyservices.
Fig. 5. Changes in ΔE/GDP of the C&I sectors between 1995 & 2010
Fig. 6. Changes in ΔE/GDP of the oil & gas sector between 1995 & 2010
Fig. 7. Changes in ΔE/GDP of the energy intensive sectors between 1995 & 2010 Fig. 11. Changes in ΔE/GDP of Personal transport between 1995 & 2010
Fig. 10. Changes in ΔE/GDP of Residential buildings between 1995 & 2010
Fig. 9. Changes in ΔE/GDP of the Freight Transport sector between 1995 & 2010
Fig. 8. Changes in ΔE/GDP of the Power Gen sector between 1995 & 2010
Fig. 2. Factors contributing to ΔE/GDP
Fig. 12. Contribution to the energy intensity (ΔE/GDP) of the Cdn economy (1995-2010from 32 underlying trends affecting the productive & household sectors.
Structural Changes in the Canadian economy (i.e. an increase role forCommercial & Institutional sectors that use little energy per GDP$)accounted for 46% of the economy’s observed decrease in the energyintensity (MJ//2002$) between 1995 and 2010.
An addition 24% of the observed decrease in energy intensity wasattributed to an increase in the wealth of Canadians who don’t spendtheir additional resources on energy services, at least in Canada.
The remaining 30% of the energy intensity change was attributed to anet improvement in energy efficiency in Canada’s productive andhousehold economies.We deconstructed the components of energy use and economicchange between 1995 & 2010 and found that some trends increasedand some decreased ΔE/GDP as shown in Fig. 12.
Most data for these analyses were obtained from the Canadian EnergySystems Simulator (CanESS) model [1] which integrates large amounts ofgovernment database resources. Energy use was separated into thesectors (i) associated with the productive economy (EP) & the householdeconomy (EH):
where Si=GDPi/GDP and is the structural factor (the share of GDPgenerated by sector i) and Ii=Ei/GDPi and is the intensity factor (the energyuse per dollar of value added in sector i).Decompositional analysis was conducted using the Logarithmic MeanDivisia Index (LMDI-I) method [2] which uses the above equations toproduce the following four factors that sum to the total change in energyintensity (∆E/GDP) over the study period (T1=1995 and T2=2010):Economic Structure Factor - changes in E/GDP due to changes inGDPi/GDP:
Productive Economy Intensity Factor - changes in E/GDP due tochanges in Ei/GDPi:
Personal Productivity Impact - changes in E/GDP due to changes inGDP/capita:
Household Per Capita Energy Intensity - changes in E/GDP due tochanges in per capita residential and personal transportation energy use:
Where
These equations were applied to annual data for the study period, usingannual chained analysis. A similar approach was used for subsequentdecomposition analyses within the various sectors.
1995 2010
SectoralEnergy
intensity
Per capitapersonal
energy use
SectoralComposition
of GDP
OtherInd.
Fig. 4. Breakdown of impacts from sectoral changes on total ΔE/GDP
Total
Trends increasingE/GDP
Trends decreasingE/GDP
This work shows that the observed decoupling of E and GDPbetween 1995 & 2010 was an emergent property of a large numberof changes in the Canadian economy and energy use.The study also identifies key trends in Canada’s energy systems thatcontribute to increases or decreases in ΔE/GDP. Some of thesecould provide policy levers to take action on climate change.
E
Productivity(GDP/capita)