CAPÍTULO VI ADELANTOS Y PAGO
CONCILIACIÓN Y ARBITRAJE Artículo 182 Disposiciones Generales
All scenarios meet the -60% CO2 objective for 2050, but in very different ways
Although all four scenarios show that 60% IPCC-TTW CO2 emission reduction can be
realized by 2050, this reduction is realized in very different ways. Essentially, scenario 3 reaches the technical limits of vehicle efficiency and reduction of mobility growth. In scenario 1, essential limitation is the availability of sufficient sustainable biomass, which could be increased by further innovation. In scenarios 2 and 4, CO2 emission is mainly
limited by the growth rates of new battery and fuel cell electric vehicles, which could also be ramped up. This means that towards and after 2050, further emission reductions are better conceivable in scenarios 1, 2 and 4 than in scenario 3.
The 2030 CO2 objective seems difficult to meet
In three of the four scenarios, the short-term development rates of new technologies are not sufficient to keep the ambition from the Energy Agreement to limit transport CO2 emissions to 25 Mton by 2030 within reach. In the only scenario in which this
ambition is met (scenario3), this is realised by a strong reduction in transport volume, through systemic changes affecting behaviour. The 15-20 PJ energy efficiency gain by 2020, also part of the Energy Agreement, is within reach. In general, the introduction of new fuels and vehicles starts having a noticeable effect only after 2020, as their roll-out develops and market share increases. In the short term, actions may be needed to prepare for their introduction, but impacts in terms of efficiency gains and CO2-emission
reductions will be limited initially. By 2030, the impacts of new fuels and vehicles becomes visible in the amount of CO2 emissions, but the strongest effects are visible in
that towards 2030, other, more systemic measures will be needed, next to the technical measures considered.
Well-to-wheel and tank-to-wheel emissions differ between the scenarios
In the study, the scenarios are designed in such a way that all of them reach the 60% reduction target by 2050, defined in TTW terms. Some clear differences between the scenarios can be observed. These are mainly caused by upstream emissions in production of biofuels, electricity and hydrogen. This means that the 60% reduction target for transport as defined by the Energy Agreement in line with IPCC TTW definitions, will in most scenarios result in less than 60% emission reduction for transport on a WTW basis. This difference between TTW and WTW impacts can be reduced by corresponding efforts to improve upstream CO2 emission profiles of these
energy chains. In scenario 3, in which fossil fuels remain strongly dominant, the additional pressure on other sectors due to technology shifts in transport remains limited. In the other scenarios, this pressure increases.
In terms of cost per km, most scenarios show a cost hurdle by 2030, but do not differ strongly by 2050
A combination of increasing energy prices and upfront costs for new technologies make that TCOs and costs per vehicle km show a peak by 2030, with a decrease in costs afterwards. This peak is weakest in scenario 3, in which no fundamentally new technologies are introduced. However, cost reduction through technology learning make that by 2050, costs per km do not vary greatly between the scenarios.
Perspectives for green growth vary but can be identified
Particularly the scenarios with innovative technologies in them (all but scenario 3) contain opportunities for green growth, but on different aspects per scenario. In the scope of this study it is not possible to identify the best green growth scenario. In all scenarios the cost of transport in 2050 are reduced compared to the reference scenario. Specifically for scenarios 1, 2 and 4 this means that from a macro-economic perspective economic growth in these scenarios could be higher than in the reference scenario. Examples of market segments with green growth opportunities are:
Scenario 1: Biomass logistics, biofuels production, vehicle efficiency and LNG introduction in shipping
Scenario 2: Heavy duty applications of electric powertrains, urban logistics, infrastructure, smart grids, offshore wind
Scenario 3: Vehicle efficiency, logistics optimisation, mobility management
Scenario 4: Heavy duty applications of electric powertrains, urban logistics, infrastructure, smart grids, clean fossil and CCS.
Introduction of gaseous fuels in transport seems to be the main factor driving external safety concerns
External safety and public acceptance of safety are of essential importance. Scenarios with substantial introduction of gaseous fuels (hydrogen in scenarios 2 and 4, methane in scenario 3) are most sensitive to external safety issues. Due to the current activities surrounding LNG, it is a necessary condition for large scale roll-out that the issues with methane in whatever form are solved in the short or medium term. For hydrogen, the external safety aspect has recently become an important point to which attention
should be paid. This is mainly the case for centralized production, requiring a wide distribution network.
Energy security: new and all-renewable scenario provides most benefits
Although the energy security assessment is qualitative and very indicative, it indicates that the New and all-renewable scenario leads to the most improvements on energy security, and on all aspects of it. The runner-up, the Efficient fossil energy scenario provides strongest improvements on some of the criteria, but to more modest benefits on others. The other two scenarios score lower.