Technology Assessment under Stakeholder Perspectives.ppt

《Technology Assessment under Stakeholder Perspectives.ppt》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《Technology Assessment under Stakeholder Perspectives.ppt（47页珍藏版）》请在麦多课文档分享上搜索。

1、Technology Assessment under Stakeholder Perspectives,SIXTH FRAMEWORK PROGRAMME6.1, Sustainable Energy Systems,Stefan Hirschberg, Paul Scherrer Institut Brussels, 16 February 2009,The NEEDS Integrated Project (Where does RS2b fit in?),NEEDS: New Energy Externalities Developments for Sustainability,Ex

2、tend geographic coverage,Communicate & Disseminate,Externalities in energy extraction & transport,New & improved methods to estimate external costs,LCA/costs of new technologies,Model internalization strategies & scenario building,1d,Transfer & general-ization,1c,1a,2b,3a,3b,1b,2a,Energy technology

3、roadmap & forecast,Integration,Stakeholder assess-ment & acceptance,General Objectives of Stream 2b,To broaden the basis for decision support by examining the robustness of results under various stakeholder perspectivesTo explore stakeholder perspectives on external costs Combines knowledge (technol

4、ogy characteristics) generated internally and from other streams with stakeholder preferences,Contributors and Responsibilities,Contributors included also NGOs: GLOBE and HELIO INTERNATIONAL,Main Elements, Approaches and Tools,Establishment and evaluation of criteria and indicators Case study and su

5、rveys with direct stakeholder inputs Sustainability assessment by means of Multi-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 policyFormal requirements are crucial in order to co

6、nsider the full costs and benefits of proposed regulationThere 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),Stakeholder Cat

7、egories & Sub-categories 1/4,Stakeholder Categories & Sub-categories 2/4,Stakeholder Categories & Sub-categories 3/4,Stakeholder Categories & Sub-categories 4/4,Examples of Difficult but Potentially Important Social Aspects,Social justiceRisk aversion and perceptionResilience of the energy systemCon

8、flict 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 ex

9、ternal costs and of most results, but,Source: Faberi et al., 2007,Survey I: Usefulness of Externalities,Source: Faberi et al., 2007,Statement: External cost assessment provides decision makers with basic estimates to support their policy decisions. Without such estimates, the social cost of a wrong

10、choice could be very large and harmful.,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 even single decision makers from maki

11、ng consistent rankings. 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 indicators4 Analyse the MC

12、DA requirements5 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,Source: Hirschberg et al., 2007&2008,Sustainability Crite

13、ria Economy,Sustainability Criteria Social,Source: Hirschberg et al., 2007&2008,Survey II Results: General Information,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 com

14、pleted the questionnaire only partially and could not be included in the analysis),NEEDS Survey II was running from 27.11.2007 20.01.2008,Relative response rate,Q5: Main stakeholder categories,Survey II: Stakeholder Profile,Researcher/Academia strongly dominated (61.45%)Only three other categories w

15、ere between 5 and 10 % Energy Supplier - Government Energy & Environmental Agency - ConsultantWithin 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-Ene

16、rgy (11.27%),Source: Burgherr et al., 2008,Survey II: Feedback,Q49: 5 most important indicators to be absolutely INCLUDED,Survey II: Feedback,Q50: 5 least important indicators to be absolutely EXCLUDED?,Source: Burgherr et al., 2008,Conclusions: Survey II on Selection of Sustainability Criteria and

17、Indicators,Response rate of 9.7%Highly qualified / educated participants, but an over-representation of researchersMost participants from CH followed by DEGeneral acceptance of indicator setFew individual indicators considered problematicStrong minority (44%) opts for less criteria; i.e. about 20Mos

18、t 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 operationSome indicator descriptions were slightly modified 4 indicators from the social dimension

19、 were eliminated giving a final set of 36,Technology Range,Total of 26 for FR, 25 for DE, 21 for IT and 19 for CH,Social: Years of Life Lost -YOLL (2050),Source: Friedrich & Preiss, 2008,Nuclear,Fossil,Renewable,Social: Fatality rates and max. consequences (2050),Source: Burgherr & Hirschberg, 2008,

20、Nuclear,Fossil,Social: Perceived risk from normal operation and accidents,Source: Gallego et al., 2008,High,Low,High,Low,Nuclear,Fossil,Renewable,Approach to Aggregation (I): Total Costs,Internal + External = Total Costs Money becomes the common denominator for all indicators. It is assumed that all

21、 indicators can be monetized. It is assumed that stakeholders can agree on the value of life, the environment, etc. Nevertheless, money is the most useful and widely accepted common numerator. Cost-benefit analysis based on (total) costs has great attractions for guiding public policy,Approach to Ag

22、gregation (II): General MCDA Algorithm,The Online MCDA Survey Application,Key elements:Interactive, graphic interface 1 Open website 2 Enter preferences 3 Solve to show ranking 4 Examine trade-offs for best technologies 5 Repeat until satisfiedImmediate feedbackIterative learningAutomatic data colle

23、ction,Survey Response Information,Schematic Boxplot Description,Distribution of NEEDS MCDA Survey Respondents by top level criteria weights,Average technology ranks - cluster groups 1 & 2 (148 & 11),Total Costs with Average MCDA Ranking,Nuclear,Fossil,Renewable,Worst,Best,Average MCDA Ranking, cents

24、 / kWh,Total costs = generation costs + externalities,0,2,4,6,8,10,12,14,16,18,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. 1MW,MC Fuel cell 1MW,M

25、C Fuel cell 1MW,SRC Poplar 9MW,Waste straw 9MW,PV, Thin-film, small sc.,Thermal power plant,Offshore 24MW,GEN III,GEN IV,COAL,NAT. GAS,NAT. GAS,Cogeneration,BIOMASS Cogeneration,SOLAR,WIND,0,2,4,6,8,10,12,14,16,18,GHG em. High,GHG em. Low,Pollution,Land use,Generation cost,Source: Hirschberg et al.,

26、 to be published,Total costs with average MCDA rank,Nuclear,Fossil,Renewable,10,1,2,3,6,8,11,12,14,15,16,17,13,19,20,21,24,Rank,Source: Hirschberg et al., to be published,RS2b Conclusions,General acceptance of the concept of externalities, internalisation of external costs and most results in spite

27、of limitations. Results for nuclear remain controversial. A powerful framework for MCDA-based sustainability assessment developed, implemented and applied to four countries. Wide stakeholder acceptance of the proposed criteria and indicator set. Comprehensive indicator database established for four

28、countries; also future technologies exhibit strengths and weaknesses. Total cost approach favours nuclear and disfavours biomass. Ranking of fossil technologies in comparison to (remarkably improved) solar and wind strongly depends on which value for GHG-damages is used. MCDA-approach favours renewa

29、bles, in particular solar technologies. Inclusion of a wide set of social criteria leads to lower ranking of nuclear with GEN IV fast breeder performing better than GEN III EPR. Coal technologies perform worst in MCDA while centralized gas options are along with nuclear in the midfield. CCS-performa

30、nce is mixed. Emphasis on environment penalizes fossil options; emphasis on economy penalizes nuclear options; emphasis on social penalizes nuclear.,RS2b-Specific Inputs: Main deliverables (I),Case studies on acceptability of monetary valuation of externalities methods and their role for the energy

31、policy making process in France, UK and US Exploratory stakeholder survey on acceptability of externality concept, results and their uses Social criteria for a differentiated evaluation of energy technologies Sustainability criteria and indicators for evaluation of energy technologies; survey-based

32、stakeholder feedback included in the process Extensive stakeholder database for four countries (France, Germany, Italy and Switzerland) Web-based platform for the elicitation of stakeholder preferences and for carrying out interactive Multi-criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) combining interdisciplina

33、ry technology performance indicators with user-specific preferences,RS2b-Specific Inputs: Main deliverables (II),Quantitative social indicators for (conventional and) advanced electric generation technologies for four countries; based on expert interviews, literature and relevant adapted inputs from

34、 other research streams. Quantitative economic indicators for (conventional and) advanced electric generation technologies for four countries; based on RS2b-analysis and relevant adapted inputs from other research streams. Quantitative environmental indicators for (conventional and) advanced electri

35、c generation technologies for four countries; based on relevant adapted inputs from other research streams. Quantitative risk indicators for (conventional and) advanced electric generation technologies for four countries; based on RS2b-analysis. Database of electricity generation technology-specific

36、 sustainability indicators for four countries MCDA-based sustainability assessment integrating environmental, economic and social aspects; sensitivity cases.,RS2b-Specific Inputs: Policy Queries (I),In a number of cases it will not be feasible to provide the “final” answer; rather the work is a firs

37、t essential step in the research on issues that have not been explored before in the quantitative manner pursued within NEEDS. Is use of monetary values accepted and favoured by stakeholders? If yes, for what purposes? Are they satisfied with the methodology? Do they favour internalisation of extern

38、al costs? Do they agree with technology-specific results? Which kind of social effects have to be considered for the implementation of new energy technologies? Are there any differences concerning citizens acceptance of energy technologies in different European countries? If yes, what would need to

39、be considered in each of the selected countries in order to avoid conflicts?,RS2b-Specific Inputs: Policy Queries (II),Which kind of scientific methodology can be used to receive valid information about social performance of energy systems? Which indicators can be found in European and international

40、 literature for the measurement of social effects of energy systems? Is there a lack of indicators and if yes, which kind of indicators are missing? How do citizens perceive various types of risks associated with energy systems? Are there any structures in societies concerning perception and accepta

41、nce of technologies that can be generalized? How about trust in risk management? Do citizens trust official agencies concerning risk management?,RS2b-Specific Inputs: Policy Queries (III),What patterns can be observed in technology performance on various criteria? How sustainable are the various tec

42、hnologies when performance indicators are combined with various stakeholder preference profiles? What are the similarities and differences between technology performance based on MCDA (with direct stakeholder inputs) and on total costs?Same questions for supply mixes resulting from different policie

43、s (since policies cannot be assessed this can be done only as extension of NEEDS). Which technologies (and policies) exhibit most robust behaviour? Which technology developments are most essential for the improvement of the overall performance? Which developments could improve the social acceptability of specific technologies?,Thank you for your attentionStefan Hirschberg stefan.hirschbergpsi.ch Laboratory for Energy systems Analysis (LEA) http:/lea.web.psi.ch/,