Effects of Structural Change and Climate
Policy on Long-Term Shifts in Lifecycle
Energy Efficiency and Carbon Footprint
Gouri Shankar Mishra
Sonia Yeh, Geoff Morrison, Jacob Teter (University of California at Davis)
Raul Quiceno (Shell Research Limited)
Kenneth Gillingham (Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Studies)
The study projects lifecycle energy efficiency for crude,
natural gas, coal, and nuclear and renewables to 2100
 What is the impact of

carbon policy on the
evolution of lifecycle
efficiency?
 What are the differences in
lifecycle efficiencies of energy
resources across regions? 
 Between developed and
developing countries?
What are the relative roles
of technological
advancements and
structural changes in
evolution of lifecycle
efficiency?
Carbon intensity of
energy resources in terms
of CO2/MJ(useful)
instead of CO2/MJ(final)
Lifecycle Energy Efficiency = Useful Energy / Primary Energy
The lifecycle thermodynamic efficiency considers
energy flows from primary to useful energy
Figure 1. Energy system schematic showing the lifecycle stages (pz). The box represents the
boundary for estimating lifecycle efficiency in this study.
Methodology
General Change Assessment Model
(GCAM) developed by Pacific
Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL)
 Partial-equilibrium model
 Links representations of global
energy, agriculture, land-use, and
climate systems
 Three end-uses: Industry,
Transportation and Buildings
(commercial and residential)
 14 regions
Scenario Analysis
• Total 15 scenarios
• Carbon Policy – No carbon policy,
Moderate carbon policy (RCP6.0),
and Aggressive Carbon Policy
(RCP 4.5)
• CCS and No-CCS
• Technological progress: Reference
and Advanced
Where are the energy losses?
Crude (EJ)
300
Gas (EJ)
250
250
500
200
400
150
300
100
200
50
50
100
0
0
0
200
Coal (EJ)
2075
2085
2095
2075
2085
2095
2065
2055
2045
2035
2025
2015
2095
2085
2075
2065
2055
2045
2035
2025
2005
All Energy (EJ)
2000
Nuclear & Renewable
700
2015
2095
2085
2075
2065
2055
2045
2035
2025
2015
2005
100
2005
150
600
1500
500
400
1000
300
200
500
Energy losses at various stages of fuel conversion and the useful energy
consumption by energy resource for the BAU scenario
2065
2055
2045
2035
2025
2015
2095
2085
2075
2065
2055
2045
2035
2025
2015
0
2005
0
2005
100
Time trends of Efficiency
80%
2015
2025
2035
2045
2055
2065
2075
2085
2095
2025
2035
2045
2055
2065
2075
2085
2095
2095
2085
600
500
400
300
200
Primary Energy (EJ)
2095
2085
2075
2065
2055
2045
2035
2025
100
Lifecycle efficiency (%)
FIG 3: Potential lifecycle energy
efficiencies (blue) and total
primary energy (orange) across
15 scenarios (Global Level)
2075
2065
2055
2045
2035
2025
2015
2005
700
2015
500
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
-
2005
2095
2095
2085
2075
2065
2055
2045
2035
2025
2015
500
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
-
2005
2095
2085
2075
2065
2055
2045
2035
2025
2015
500
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
-
2085
20%
2075
20%
2065
20%
2055
20%
2045
30%
2035
30%
2025
30%
2015
30%
2005
40%
2095
40%
2085
40%
2075
40%
2065
50%
2055
60%
50%
2045
60%
50%
2035
60%
50%
2025
70%
2015
70%
2005
70%
60%
Nuclear and Renewables
2015
Coal
2005
80%
70%
2005
Lifecycle Efficiency %
Primary Energy (EJ)
Natural gas
80%
2005
Crude
80%
-
Primary Energy (EJ)
500
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
2095
2085
2075
2065
2055
500
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
2095
2085
2075
2065
2055
2045
500
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
-
Lifecycle efficiency (%)
Primary Energy (EJ)
Average of No-Policy Scenarios
2095
2085
2075
2065
2055
60%
60%
60%
60%
50%
50%
50%
50%
40%
40%
40%
40%
30%
30%
30%
30%
20%
20%
20%
20%
100
2095
2085
2075
2065
2055
2095
2085
2075
2065
2055
2045
80%
2045
2035
200
2035
300
2025
400
2025
500
2015
600
2015
700
2005
Coal
2005
2095
2085
2075
2065
2055
2045
2035
2025
2015
2005
2095
2085
2075
2065
2055
2045
2035
2025
2015
2005
2095
2085
2075
2065
2055
2045
80%
2045
2035
2025
2015
70%
2035
Natural gas
2005
70%
2025
80%
2035
2025
2015
70%
2015
Crude
2005
70%
2005
80%
2045
2035
2025
2015
2005
Lifecycle Efficiency %
Time trends of Efficiency
Nuclear and Renewables
Time trends of Efficiency
80%
2095
2085
2075
2065
2035
2035
2055
2025
2025
2045
2015
2095
2085
2075
2065
2055
2045
2035
2025
2015
2005
700
600
500
400
300
200
Lifecycle efficiency (%)
Primary Energy (EJ)
Average of No-Policy Scenarios
Average of Moderate Carbon Policy Scenarios (RCP6.0)
2095
2085
2075
2065
2055
-
2045
2095
2085
2075
2065
2055
2045
2035
2025
100
2015
500
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
-
2005
2095
2095
2085
2075
2065
2055
2045
2035
2025
2015
500
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
-
2005
2095
2085
2075
2065
2055
2045
2035
2025
2015
500
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
-
2085
20%
2075
20%
2065
20%
2055
20%
2045
30%
2035
30%
2025
30%
2015
30%
2005
40%
2095
40%
2085
40%
2075
40%
2065
50%
2055
60%
50%
2045
60%
50%
2035
60%
50%
2025
70%
2015
70%
2005
70%
60%
Nuclear and Renewables
2015
Coal
2005
80%
70%
2005
Lifecycle Efficiency %
Primary Energy (EJ)
Natural gas
80%
2005
Crude
80%
There is no clear relationship between lifecycle
efficiency and level of carbon price.
80%
2095
2085
2075
2065
2035
2035
2055
2025
2025
2045
2015
2095
2085
2075
2065
2055
2045
2035
2025
2015
2005
700
600
500
400
300
200
Lifecycle efficiency (%)
Primary Energy (EJ)
Average of No-Policy Scenarios
Average of Moderate Carbon Policy Scenarios (RCP6.0)
Average of High Carbon Policy Scenarios (RCP4.5)
2095
2085
2075
2065
2055
-
2045
2095
2085
2075
2065
2055
2045
2035
2025
100
2015
500
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
-
2005
2095
2095
2085
2075
2065
2055
2045
2035
2025
2015
500
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
-
2005
2095
2085
2075
2065
2055
2045
2035
2025
2015
500
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
-
2085
20%
2075
20%
2065
20%
2055
20%
2045
30%
2035
30%
2025
30%
2015
30%
2005
40%
2095
40%
2085
40%
2075
40%
2065
50%
2055
60%
50%
2045
60%
50%
2035
60%
50%
2025
70%
2015
70%
2005
70%
60%
Nuclear and Renewables
2015
Coal
2005
80%
70%
2005
Lifecycle Efficiency %
Primary Energy (EJ)
Natural gas
80%
2005
Crude
80%
There is no clear relationship between lifecycle
efficiency and level of carbon price.
80%
Complementary roles of
(i) efficiency,
(ii) energy conservation, and
(iii) substitution of fossil resources with
decarbonized energy
to achieve climate change mitigation
goals.
2095
2085
2075
2065
2035
2035
2055
2025
2025
2045
2015
2095
2085
2075
2065
2055
2045
2035
2025
2015
2005
700
600
500
400
300
200
Lifecycle efficiency (%)
Primary Energy (EJ)
Average of No-Policy Scenarios
Average of Moderate Carbon Policy Scenarios (RCP6.0)
Average of High Carbon Policy Scenarios (RCP4.5)
2095
2085
2075
2065
2055
-
2045
2095
2085
2075
2065
2055
2045
2035
2025
100
2015
500
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
-
2005
2095
2095
2085
2075
2065
2055
2045
2035
2025
2015
500
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
-
2005
2095
2085
2075
2065
2055
2045
2035
2025
2015
500
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
-
2085
20%
2075
20%
2065
20%
2055
20%
2045
30%
2035
30%
2025
30%
2015
30%
2005
40%
2095
40%
2085
40%
2075
40%
2065
50%
2055
60%
50%
2045
60%
50%
2035
60%
50%
2025
70%
2015
70%
2005
70%
60%
Nuclear and Renewables
2015
Coal
2005
80%
70%
2005
Lifecycle Efficiency %
Primary Energy (EJ)
Natural gas
80%
2005
Crude
80%
Crude
NG
Coal
1.2
Efficiency(T)
2080
Nucl. & Renew
BAU
Global lifecycle efficiency (S + T)
Technological efficiency (T)
Total energy
Aggressive policy
& advanced tech
(without CCS)
Global lifecycle efficiency (S + T)
Technological efficiency (T)
1.0
0.8
Lifecycle
effic ency
0.6
2080
2060
2040
2020
2080
2060
2040
2020
2080
2060
2040
0.4
2020
Efficiency
2060
Year
2040
2020
2080
2060
2040
2020
Structural shifts dampen improvements in
efficiency due to technological progress
Year
Scenario - ADV_ALL_NoCCS_RCP4.5
FIG 4: Depiction of the change Eff(S+T):
in lifecycle
Eff(S+T):
Scenario energy
- Referenceefficiency over time for structural plus technological
Eff(T): Scenario - ADV_ALL_NoCCS_RCP4.5
shifts (solid lines) and for only technological
(dashed lines).
Eff(T): Scenario -shifts
Reference
While technological advancements at each energy conversion process and end-use lead to important
reductions in primary energy use, structural shifts in how energy is used dampens the gains in
lifecycle efficiency.
Developing countries have a higher lifecycle
efficiency on average than developed countries
Coal
Crude
NG
Nucl. & Renew
Total Energy
No Policy (Ref tech)
No Policy (Adv tech)
Moderate Policy (NoCCS, Ref tech)
2095
2095
2095
2095
Moderate Policy (NoCCS, Adv tech)
2095
Moderate Policy (CCS, Ref tech)
Moderate Policy (CCS, Adv tech)
Aggressive Policy (CCS, Ref tech)
Aggressive Policy (NoCCS, Adv tech)
Aggressive Policy (CCS, Adv tech)
Coal
Crude
NG
Nucl. & Renew
Total Energy
No Policy (Ref tech)
No Policy (Adv tech)
Moderate Policy (NoCCS, Ref tech)
2050
2050
2050
2050
Moderate Policy (NoCCS, Adv tech)
2050
Moderate Policy (CCS, Ref tech)
Moderate Policy (CCS, Adv tech)
Aggressive Policy (CCS, Ref tech)
Aggressive Policy (NoCCS, Adv tech)
Aggressive Policy (CCS, Adv tech)
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.55
0.65 0.70 0.75 0.80
0.28
0.32
0.36
0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.55
Efficiency
Developing countries have a higher lifecycle efficiency on average than developed countries. This is due
to both structural and technological differences.
Developed
Developing
Carbon Intensity – CO2 emissions per unit of
useful energy
Energy Resource CI (ton CO2/PJ)
2100
ALL ENERGY
2005
2100
2005
COAL
2100
NG
2005
2100
300
CRUDE
2005
350
250
2005
200
150
100
50
2100 (BAU Scenario)
Carbon Intensity – CO2 emissions per unit of
useful energy vs. final energy
Energy Resource CI (ton CO2/PJ)
250
2100
ALL ENERGY
2005
2100
2005
COAL
2100
NG
2005
2100
300
CRUDE
2005
350
CI – CO2/PJ(final energy)
CI – CO2/PJ(useful energy)
2005
200
2100 (BAU Scenario)
150
100
50
• Changes in CI(useful energy) over
time are more dramatic than
changes in CI(final energy)
• Quantum of differences between the
two CIs varies across energy
resources
Carbon Intensity – CO2 emissions per unit of final
energy vs. useful energy
Energy Resource CI (ton CO2/PJ)
250
2100
ALL ENERGY
2005
2100
2005
COAL
2100
NG
2005
2100
300
CRUDE
2005
350
CI – CO2/PJ(final energy)
CI – CO2/PJ(useful energy)
2005
200
150
2100 (BAU)
2100 (Aggressive
Policy without CCS)
100
50
• Carbon price has a higher impact on CI(useful) than CI(final) in case of coal
Implications on GHG Emissions
Total Energy, 2005
lifecycle energy efficiency = 38.9%
lifecycle CI = 140.0 tCO2/PJ(useful)
Crude-e
400
Gas-e
Coal-syngas
300
Crude
Gas
Biomass
Coal
100
Nuc & renewable to e
200
Coal-e
Energy Pathway CI (tCO2/PJ)
Total CI, 2005
0
0
200
400
600
800
1000
Primary Energy (EJ)
1200
1400
1600
Global primary energy use and energy pathway lifecycle carbon intensity in 2005
Implications on GHG Emissions
Total Energy, 2005
lifecycle energy efficiency = 38.9%
lifecycle CI = 140.0 tCO2/PJ(useful)
Crude-e
400
Gas-e
Coal-syngas
300
Crude
Nuc & renewable to e
100
Gas
Biomass
Coal
200
Coal-e
Energy Pathway CI (tCO2/PJ)
Total CI, 2005
0
0
200
400
600
800
1000
Primary Energy (EJ)
1200
1400
1600
Implications on GHG Emissions
400
300
100
Crude
Coal-e
Gas
Coal
CTL
Gas-e
200
Nuc &
renewable to e
0
Coal-syngas
Crude-e
BAU (2100)
Total Energy
lifecycle energy efficiency = 45.4%
lifecycle CI = 104.0 tCO2/PJ (useful)
Biomass
Nuc & renewable to e
Crude
Gas
Biomass
Coal
200
100
Energy Pathway CI (tCO2/PJ)
Crude-e
Gas-e
Coal-syngas
300
Coal-e
Energy Pathway CI (tCO2/PJ)
Total Energy, 2005
lifecycle energy efficiency = 38.9%
lifecycle CI = 140.0 tCO2/PJ(useful)
400
Gas-H2
GTL
Coal-H2
Total CI, BAU in 2100
Total CI, 2005
0
0
200
400
600
800
1000
Primary Energy (EJ)
1200
1400
1600
0
200
400
600
800
1000
Primary Energy (EJ)
1200
1400
1600
Implications on GHG Emissions
400
300
100
Crude
Gas
Coal-e
Coal
CTL
Gas-e
200
Nuc &
renewable to e
0
Coal-syngas
Crude-e
BAU (2100)
Total Energy
lifecycle energy efficiency = 45.4%
lifecycle CI = 104.0 tCO2/PJ (useful)
Biomass
Nuc & renewable to e
Crude
Gas
Biomass
Coal
200
100
Energy Pathway CI (tCO2/PJ)
Crude-e
Gas-e
Coal-syngas
300
Coal-e
0
600
800
1000
Primary Energy (EJ)
1200
1400
1600
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
Primary Energy (EJ)
1400
1600
Total CI - Scenario: aggressive carbon policy, No
CCS, advanced technology advancement
400
300
RCP4.5 Advanced Tech no CCS (2100)
Total Energy
lifecycle energy efficiency = 40.0%
lifecycle CI = 37.4 tCO2/PJ
200
100
Nuc & renewable to e
Crude
Gas
400
0
0
200
400
600
800
1000
Primary Energy (EJ)
Gas-e
200
Biomass
0
Energy Pathway CI (tCO2/PJ)
Energy Pathway CI (tCO2/PJ)
Total Energy, 2005
lifecycle energy efficiency = 38.9%
lifecycle CI = 140.0 tCO2/PJ(useful)
400
Gas-H2
GTL
Coal-H2
Total CI, BAU in 2100
Total CI, 2005
1200
1400
1600
Thank You
Effects of Structural Change and Climate Policy on Long-Term Shifts in
Lifecycle Energy Efficiency and Carbon Footprint
Gouri Shankar Mishra (gsmishra@ucdavis.edu)
Sonia Yeh, Gouri Shankar Mishra, Geoff Morrison, Jacob Teter
(University of California at Davis)
Raul Quiceno (Shell Research Limited)
Kenneth Gillingham (Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Studies)