Based erin washington, d. C. We are improving Environmental Issues and pulse engagement, one of the ways that we do that is through are ff meetings like this one where we bring different experts and stakeholders together to develop shared understandings. And that dynamics and the Energy System. For those of you joining us online , you can use rfflive to join us and the conversation. This is the only report of its kind it harmonizes analysis from other organizations to allow for clear understanding and easy comparisons of potential Energy Futures as the world faces. Future Energy Markets , Energy Scenarios, climate trajectories and policy options at the global , regional , and national level. We are integrally pleased that for the first time, local Energy Outlook will be accompanied by an online Interactive Data tool , that you can use to export the data yourself. My colleague daniel will come up to the stage after i complete my initial remark and we will introduce you to that tool and a few minutes. Id like to also recognize the contributions of gloria and stewart who have helped us with the technical issues. I like to tell you little more about the work and give you some findings of the key analysis. First of all why take the effort to compare outlooks of different organizations . Longterm Energy Outlooks are prepared each year by some the most expert and International Organizations around the world. They inform public policy, and they informed 2 trillion each year and Energy Investments around the world. Once youve gathered the data from these outlooks it turns out that they are very difficult to compare to one another. Firstly outlook differs and terms of the units they use. Tons of oil equivalent, british thermal units, and more. And the second , Energy Outlooks differ about the assumptions that they make about the amount of energy included indifference sources of energy. That is the energy contained and each of that of oil, each cubic foot of natural gas , and the contact of energy varies considerably. These are two of the many differences that make it difficult to compare outlooks when trying to compare total energy use known as primary Energy Consumption. If we had a pile of currency, a mix of dollars, yens, pounds, and it euros and we try to figure out who has more money . We dont have the same conversion rates. The same Exchange Rates to add this up. This is a basic situation that we have with different Energy Outlooks. As a result policymakers dont have an easy access to energy experts. I became aware when i was leading the Energy Information organization. And try to reconcile and harmonize the different outlooks from the International Energies with opec and other organizations. With all this problem through the global Energy Outlook. Which takes a number of steps to produce an apples to apples comparison between the scenarios between the nine different institutions that are shown in this life. With this comparison we can provide better answers to questions such as what is the range of natural gas demand and asia . And our policies sufficient to meet longterm climate goals . What can we expect from Technology Like hydrogen and Carbon Captured storage . And much more. One final piece before i go into key findings , the scenarios developed by these institutions very and their assumptions about policies, technologies, and other factors. Many of these institutions produce multiple scenarios where the assumptions vary , and it includes 12 different scenarios in this years of global Energy Outlook which is shown here. We organize a scenarios into three different groups. First are what we call references scenarios. Generally assume that governments dont enact new policies. And Technology Evolves along recent trends. We represent the scenarios with a e line next to the slide. And then policy scenarios which are announced government policies. Visa scenarios are meant to do a better job of estimating how policies can unfold rather than assuming that they are static. We represent visa scenarios with a solid line. And finally the third group of scenarios we call ambitious climate scenarios. They are built around achieving longterm climate goals of less than 20c of warming by the year 2100. We represent those with a dotted line. Lets turn to some of the headline results, more of which are included in the report available online. This chart shows the share different fuels globally. When you look back and history near the left of the slide and then look near 2040 , the set of scenarios on the right , the primary Energy Changes dramatically. The scenarios for 2040 are left to right by decreasing fossil energy. Since 1965 we can see that the total share of fossil energy in the economy , has been roughly steady at 80 . The coal share has been consistently declining , and it is a relatively clean sources like gas and Renewable Technologies that have been expanding. Under every scenario for 2040. One generation from now, fossil energy declined to less than a of Global Energy. This is assuming no change and policies. The share of renewable energy, showing greengrocer varies a strongly. It grows very strongly. This is the story of the Energy Transition that ultra fuels get replaced by newer , cleaner sources over time and a gradual fashion as the system evolves. When it comes to the problem of Climate Change , the share fossil fuel doesnt really matter. It is the absolute level of emissions that count. While we have substantial decline and the cost of renewables, theres been dramatic expansion and renewable investments and an increase share of clean energy and several regions at the global level. That we have not yet seen and a major transition and fuel. Is not yet evident. I 2040 , reference scenarios project further additions to all fuel across the Energy System globally. And evolving policy scenarios which is the middle of the pack. Global consumption is roughly flat , while oil and gas consumption continues to grow. And ambitious climate scenarios we do see signs of a Global Energy transition and fuels. One interesting difference emerging as we look across the three different ambitious climate scenarios. The shelf sky, the substantial development scenario, and there renewable scenario. In this case the ethanol renewal scenario is a similar , the shelf sky is far more bullish on total Energy Demand. And the increase and the use of fossil fuel. This is driven by the inclusion of largescale Carbon Dioxide removal in the second half of the 21st century. We will return to this and if you slide. The point is that even among scenarios it may be targeted, with a particular amount of warming there can still be significant divergence and the evolution of the Energy System. It to create groupings of regions where im going to turn to the next couple of slides. We have two regions east and west. We define east as asia, pacific , the middle east and africa. And then the rest of the world including europe and americas. We see strong signs of transition in the west. This chart shows the consumption of liquid, primarily oil. The largest source of energy today. Over the last 25 years, liquids demand has a double. This is the set of scenarios on the lefthand part of the slide. It stayed flat in the west. Over the next 25 years the next generation , the main growth is and the east. Reaching more than 50 Million Barrels daily under all of the reference Case Scenarios and all the evolving policy scenarios. Only the substantial area do we see substantial decline and liquid demand and the east and the meantime all of these scenarios show flat or declining demand for liquid in the west. The divergence between the east and west is even more stark for coal. Over the last 25 years, cold man in the east has tripled and has declined in the west. The trend continues over the next 25 years as coal use declined in the west, and every scenario, most rapidly in the ambitious climate scenario. And the east the coal share declines quickly under the International Sustainable scenario and grows a strongly and several other scenarios. You can see the coal declining by the year 2040 and the emissions impact our affected by rapid emissions coupling with coal. The next slide turns to electricity globally. The global a little electricity demand is growing rapidly. And it is led by wind and solar power. This is measured and trillion watt hours. And a reference to the evolving policy , the coal shares decline, but the generation grows by 46 over this time. Natural gas, which provides 23 of Electricity Generation and the year 2015, by the way, 2015 as a last year where we have competence of global data from the International Energy agency. Natural gas share grows under the different scenarios. And absolute terms, natural gas increases under all scenarios, instead of the sustainable scenario. Nonhydro renewables like wind and the solar grow dramatically across these different scenarios pick even the most bearish projection shows a share more than doubling from 7 and 2015 to 50 and 2040. Its a very consistent message. As expected , the amount of fossil fuel used for Electricity Generation is significantly lower for scenarios that assume ambitious climate policies. Finally, despite the National Commitment made an accordance with the 2015 paris accord, all of the reference scenarios and most of the evolving policy scenarios a show continued growth and Carbon Emissions globally. Know that the figure shows that the net admissions rather than a growth admissions, meaning it incorporates Carbon Dioxide removal technologies, such as a Biomass Energy with carbon capturing storage and efforts to sequester Carbon Dioxide through reforestation. After stabilizing between 2014 and 2016. Global Greenhouse Gas emissions rose by roughly 2 and 2017 and 3 and the year 2018 , most of the evolving policy scenarios a show the growth flattening by the year 2040 reaching 37 37 billion metro metric tons annually. Still above the levels needed to limit warming to 20c. The ambitious climate scenarios from the company show that it is falling below 19 metric tons by the year 2014. Both scenarios include higher carbon prices, which propel substantial improvements and Energy Efficiency and Carbon Capture and storage apply to fossil fuel energys upscale. The shelf sky scenario projects net co2 emissions rising to 36 billion metric tons and the year 2025 and then falling i 2040. Omissions reach net zero by reach net 0 x 2070 followed by significant net removal of Carbon Dioxide from the atmosphere this is a taste, a flavor of the analysis that is included and our report, the Global Energy output and the data included online. I will now turn it over to daniel to introduce you to the online data tool. Thank you very much. Thank you very much richard , good afternoon. I am going to briefly show you some of the Data Analysis that is available to you all, whether youre here or at home. I fully recognize that watching someone click through website has the potential to be one of most boring things you will see today. So i will not spend too long, but i want to give you an idea for how this tool works and how you can put it to use for yourself or your organization. This is the homepage for the global Energy Outlook. If you scroll down a little bit, you will see our report for this year that we are discussing today. And you will quickly come to the data visualization. This is a tool that gives you a variety of options to click through and get a sense of how the Global Energy system has evolved and the past and how it is likely to evolve and the future, under the range of scenarios that richard has described. I will briefly show you what you have available to you and the default view and then i will show you a few options that you can manipulate as well as being able to Download Data images and embed the visualization into your own website. If you mouse over any of the lines and visualization , the data points pop up. Whether its for shell and the year 2065 or the year 2034. You can view the individual points by mousing over the lines. There are variety of scenarios that we include as default when you select any given measure, but you can also add or subtract scenarios from whatever view you are interested and. Shall goes out to the earth year of 2100. If you want to zoo men and look at a smaller timescale , you can deselect shall and then add n other areas. This is a view that gives you a sense of primary Energy Consumption for the world. For all fuels and all sectors. Lets say that we want to get a more granular. Let saving your interest and the potential for Energy Consumption and china in the future . You can change the region of you. Just click, scroll down to china , hit select , and the graph automatically reloads. Again you have the opportunity to select or deselect different scenarios as you see fit. Lets say we are not interested and total Energy Consumption and china , but we are interested and coal consumption and china. You click on the fuel button , scroll down to coal, select , and we provide the data that is provided and the underlining outlooks from the organizations. If youre interested a Nuclear Energy , you scroll down and click on nuclear. If youre interested and solar or any other type of energy , you can click on those as well. We present to you all the data that is available publicly from these organizations. I will note that at the moment , our sectors button is fairly limited, we are still updating the data that is underlined this tool. So when you click around and sectors you may get a limited result. But rest assured we are working on it to improve the experience. One more thing i want to show you before i asked richard to return to the stage as well as a sarah and ben to have a discussion on this report. I want to show you that you dont have to compare between outlooks. You can dig into any particular outlook and look at fuel consumption or the energy mix and that outlook. The way to do that is to change the data series that you are analyzing. Instead of comparing between outlooks and scenarios city want to compare between regions, sectors , or fuels. I will click on fuels. Quickly, we see primary Energy Consumption is not available here, because the default view is focused on the electricity sector. So lets go down to bp instead. When we click bp , you will see the china still selected as a region of interest , and we have a variety of Energy Sources displayed on on the figure. Coal is a leading Energy Source and china , you can also examine other fuels. Lets say we want to dig into renewable sources. I will click on geothermal energy, biomass, biofuels, solar and wind. Lets take out liquids and natural gas. Once again, i can look at specific transfer specific fuels and specific outlooks, depending on what youre interested him for yourself or your organization . I could spend another several weeks playing around with as a data tool. I will stop there. I hope you get the sense of how it works. I encourage all of you to play around with the data, explore and provide us with feedback. My email and richards and glorias will be displayed shortly on the screen. We encourage you to get a touch with us and let us know your suggestions for improving the tool. Or if you find any bugs in the data, we hope there arent any still lurking and there. But this is an enormous a data set. And we encourage any housekeeping you may be up to help us with. The last thing i will show you on the website before making a few more comments and then turning it over, is the ability to download the data for yourself. I have been looking at visuals, but you can also change the view to a table, just by clicking on the icon on the top right. You can download the data by clicking on the Download Button , or download an image of the two years that we were just looking up. Or you can download a file to and analyze the data yourself. And finally you can embed the tool into your own website using the embed visualization tool. Now im going go away from this website. And i will put us back on our regular scheduled programming. Here you see my email address, glorias , and richards email address. We encourage your engagement and your feedback on this tool as we work to improve it. A couple of final comments. Our plans to explore this tool or expand this tool the next few years are pretty substantial. We are looking for your foot back to learn what is most valuable for the and Energy Environmental to me. And general our plans are to include something old, which is to say add projections from previous years, such as 2011 and forward from all the organizations weve been talking about today. We are planning on adding something new , of course the 2019 projections that have begun to come out a ready from major energy organizations. And we are planning on adding new outlooks from other groups. We are also looking to add something model to the analysis, and particularly looking at including integrated models that inform the process so the people can compare the Energy Scenarios as envisioned by the iea or any other organization and how those up with a scenario. These are all things that we are looking at adding and including in the future. The final bullet we look forward to your comments and suggestions about ways to improve this tool going forward. I will stop there, thank you once again for joining us in the room and online. And i will invite richard back up to the stage along with sarah and ben. Please join us on stage. Thank you. Good afternoon everyone. I would like to start off by saying congratulations Richard Newell this is a very cool and powerful tool. Im glad to see this really great thing. One thing that came to mind as i was looking at it and hearing about it. I was wondering how should policymakers and other stakeholders utilize this . How should they think about it. And terms of area an agreement and diversions across the different types of scenarios. Reference evolving, and within those groupings we see significant areas of a diversion. So how do you interpret or think about how policymakers should fix this thing up and utilize it . s back there are number of different ways that these type of projections can be used and are used. An order to help Decision Makers understand the scale the complexity and the market realities of the Energy System , so that when they are designing policies that they are doing so with a clear eye towards effectiveness. And hopefully efficiency of those policies. And not require the deep understanding of the Global Energy system. Another is a very famous philosopher that says if you dont change direction you may end up where you are headed. Some people see these projections and they dont like them. And not case the usefulness is to show under current policy or policies as its been announced how things may be evolving how the Energy System may evolve. Its very important for informing decisionmakers about where the world is headed. Id also like to congratulate you. I spent a lot of time getting ready for this and i was very excited. Any of you people whove had to do any of the things that they do on this website. Its a lot of fun. And you can just see all the hours. Its a great tool. We released a report last week where we are talking about how a bunch of things we think policymakers should be paying attention to as it relates to how the Energy Landscape is changing and the United States. We talk about these outlooks and tools. Policymakers should go to them looking for a specific answer. They should go looking for relationships. And that is the key that adds to this. A lot of times when we talk with policy makers , they are specifically interested and if it will get the specific correct outlook. And is just a way of trying to figure out the relationships between different factors and the Energy System. This is a really good tool for doing that and being able to do that when you look at the suite of the outlook that you have added. Its sort of an outlier. They do this for the u. S. Government as a service and its very important that we continue to invest and making those a systems better and that they are wellfunded year after year. They are enormously important depending on the themes that are picked and how they are created, and how the relationships between certain factors. It can tell us a lot from a Research Perspective as well as for policymakers. One of the other things that has struck me when i looked at this and when i spoken and different parts of the United States and the world is at these outlooks, and Historical Data can help someone understand what is happening in your region is a different than what is happening and other places of the world. And because people live and work where they are , they get that little bit of a narrowmindedness, these outlooks enable you to understand what is happening globally. Also from a geopolitical point of view , some of the slides , very starkly east to west. They understand where the Energy Demand growth is going, and where energy trade is growing. And this can help inform more geopolitical insight as to how the future world may be different from the current world. Definitely. One of the fuels where policies loom quite large is natural gas. One of the things i wanted to ask about , how should we think about , what struck you about the role of natural gas and these scenarios . Especially in the more ambitious and low carbon scenarios . What struck you about how we may see some diversions in the general trajectory of it . Spike it is funny. I was thinking about that as i was looking. I remember that weve gone through evolutionary cycles on how natural gas fits into these things. At one point when i worked at the department of energy. The secretary used to call the champagne of fuels. You didnt use it for a lot of Different Things it was very specific. And then we went through the displacement. So for a number of years it was looking at the role of gas, is gas going to be too cheap to borrow from a nuclear. Neither was true. I think what is interesting is to see how if carbon constrained future helps gas to a certain extent in the case is when you can back out coal. That is certainly been the case of the United States. We have the Bloomberg Finance outlook, United States i was definitely the case. That was a gas heavy pathway United States. Like you were saying, if that is a vision that you do not like , or one that you do like. Gives you the parameters to grapple it that way. I think its interesting to talk about the shelf guys scenarios. They are saying that we think and a lot of places around the world, politically india or even china, the politically climate makes coal stay longer, and you get less gas and those portions of the outlook. And then you have these other solutions and that brings an opportunity for direct capture. It has been interesting over the last 10 years to see how our sophistication and understanding of gas and the entire energy mix has changed, we are spending so much time on outlooks like this, and focusing on it. s back if you look across the different ambitious climate scenarios from the International Energy agency they find that and most of the west, natural gas peaks out around the year 2040, there is still even under those ambitious climate scenarios additional room for substitution of coal, and then you see an emerging economy, china and india, and parts of central and south america that gas consumption is expanding significantly. Even under the scenarios of constrained Carbon Emissions. Over the longer run , daniel and i wrote a paper on this three years ago where we posed the question. What is a natural gas is a role in an carbon mitigation . Some of the key issues that came out of that was that natural gas substituting has half of the benefits substituting for call. If its a substituting for nuclear which is zero mission is not so good. It displaces the zero emission technology. That is a challenge many states and going offline. Youre unlikely to replace that with a zero carbon sources. The other key aspect is the methane, is a Greenhouse Gas pollution. And minimizing emissions and leakage of natural gas and the atmosphere is very important. And finally and the long run if deep carbonization happens. That natural gas is another issue that will affect whether or not natural gas is a long term part of a constraint carbon scenario. I remember when used to say wouldnt wash your dishes with champagne or scotch . Lets just switch gears to electric vehicles. Something that i read a fair amount about. And the gets a lot of attention. Im wondering how is the forecast around electric vehicle deployment change and what role can they play and reducing emissions . Similar to my natural gas comments, i think were the same point with electrical vehicles. And understanding how to model the variabilitys. You have to keep and mine electric vehicles are difficult to figure out how they make it into the fuel mix. Is not just deployment of power generation. It is a vehicles, how people buy them and how quickly they make it into the market . I was particulate taken with the bp scenario that tried to play around with the question of liquid transportation fuels. Its not one of these, but i think thats another key point. Taken a look at how you look at these scenarios and it leads you to others scenarios that this group has done. And particular looking at by 2040 you would have a ban on purchasing internal combustion vehicles. And what it would do if youre the skillet from 2032 2040. How much oil liquid demand could you remove from the market . The interesting thing is the interplay between bp deployment, it used to be people looking at the cost of an electric vehicle. And if they are cost competitive. And what are the policies that drive them into market . Most recently, the Bloomberg Energy finance took a look and revised it down there there deployment schedule a little bit because of a ridesharing technology. There are a lot of things that people are playing around with trying to understand the interplay between rideshare , automation, and trying to figure out how to properly work it into the market. A lot of that is taking a look at what they are seeing. A lot of it is thinking about infrastructure, and all those types of things. I think its on the more exciting areas of some the outlets that we will see him the next few years. And see how that trend develops. Electrocution is one of those potentially disruptive , but and a broader context of liquid demand. It doesnt look as disruptive as it might at first. Electric vehicles and the potential penetration has changed dramatically over the last decade, along with Renewable Technologies. The battery caused has become more feasible. That they would substance immediately for personal transport. And possibly other transport. One of the interesting twist is that while electric vehicles have been and still are relatively high interment of purchase price. They are inexpensive to operate. If youre operating electric vehicles more , if theyre not sitting and a driveway or parking lot but actually being used for rideshare and automation. It makes a relative attractiveness from an Economic Perspective of electric vehicle look better. There is some of these reinforcing dynamics. When i see technological change reinforcing basic economics that is where you can see significant change happening. The second part of the story is a personal transport is only a fraction of overall oil demand. Even if you eliminate that, you have a vast majority of oil demand left for petrochemicals, aviation, and longhaul freight. Even a substantial change and personal transport doesnt mean it oil is driven down to zero. It may take 20 , but they are are very still a very substantial oil demand. Him that bp scenario that i brought up , even by 2040 the demand was not less. Then there are things that are difficult knows the progression of Battery Technologies , and the penetration into heavy trucking and shipping. Not just personal vehicles. One thing as someone who has paid attention to these different outlooks, one thing that you hear commonly is people pointing out that iea has gone past missing the boat. They have not gotten it right. They said that the penetration level was higher than they expected five years ago. Do you feel like the Modeling Community and the people behind these types of outlooks are improving their capacity to look at where renewables are going to go . We used to get complaints from every possible fuel, nuclear, oil, gas , and coal. For fuel and Energy Sources that are in a. Of rapid innovation. It is very easy to get it wrong. Lincoln moses come the first administrator said that there are no facts about the future. These by nature are scenarios, we do not know what the future will hold. We make assumptions about how technology is going to evolve, how marketing policy will evolve. I do not think that historically eia has been a pessimistic historically. Over the last decade, renewables and when declined by 80 or more. It wasnt just eia that missed that boat. It was any major analyst that missed the speed with which those technologies would come down. I was serving and government around 2006 , at that point the government was fast tracking the import terminals for liquefied natural gas. I was back and government 2019 and the exact opposite was happening. And a period of three years there was a massive change the totally up and did what u. S. Oil and Gas Production looks like. We have to be humble when making projections and we have to look at a range of different scenarios. Eia has routinely done this and the past when you look at high lowcost scenarios to balance arrange. It is true that the degree to which renewable costs have fallen of the decade has apprised almost everyone. Not everyone, but almost everyone. I will say that the criticism and the nature of the criticism is a point that was made earlier, if you do not like what you are seeing and the forecast that you can do something about it from a policy perspective. Some people who do not like what they are seen and the forecast its because they do not like what is being put out. To certain extent, i do think that different forecasting groups have all been wrong to a certain extent when technology has moved ahead. Or when something has happened. I think the underlying reaction to that, which in the last 10 years weve been looking at the economics of show gas , and they have stepped up trying to understand that providing resources. There so much policy dialogue that goes along with that pick an order to decide what we need to do, we need to understand the resource better. So how do we do that and investigate . These groups of the same agencies that come forward and say how do we do that . This one those great places where policymakers and academics are doing a lot of work that would make it into the conversation. Gets communicated through these investigations and then they work their way back. Okay with people criticizing the forecast. And so people doing this they maybe i should give it a second look. Its a great thing to have that criticism and feedback. Along the doesnt undermine the integrity of the institutions. These are precisely the places where we should be doing this kind of investigation. We should welcome that kind of criticism. A few days ago i was looking at the Energy Demand increases there were over and above Economic Growth that are expected to be seen because of greater warming. Essentially the demand for cooling, above what you would expect. I think ed brings us to the question of the different projections and scenarios, look at the drivers of global warming. The gross emissions and so forth. One thing i was wondering about , do the projections look at the effect of Climate Change . Is there a lot more to go . No , they didnt. We host a lot of these outlooks and i have asked different folks how do you think about a world of Climate Impacts. How do you model that . To the highest level of sophistication we drop the gdp a little bit. And thats fine. However, the impact side of the ledger is catching up , capabilities wise. We were going to be able to through a few institutions invested a lot of time and money. And therell be a lot of things that you can match up. Not only an terms of understanding the difference and a different climate forecast the others arrange on that side. Which will hopefully be included. Theres a lot of supply and demand assumptions. And there are gdp assumptions , and there are physical impacts to the structure. I think that there will be a whole new field and the forecast , we are doing a better job. There is no business as usual. You dont get the reference case or the lower emissions case. You get a Climate Impact with all of those. We need to be thinking about what that actually means for the Energy System . Sarah mentioned and it was priced me when i heard this. One of the companies it does these outlooks is that it does have some dismanagement to gdp growth and high warming scenarios. There is a direct implications which is changes and the heating and cooling demand which goes around and then theres a next layer of impact which impacts on energy infrastructure. Are there places that open up that become very unattractive other places that open up. Places that open up interest around me are. With the warming that creates the challenges for the way that it has been done and the past. If there is less ice there, it could open up properties for oil and gas exploration. Then there are the impact on society. Which have ripple effects on the intersystem. We have a major effort underway called the social cost of carbon emission. The cost of carbon is a metric you measure and monetize impacts from Climate Change. Some of these types of impacts are directly relevant for the Energy System and many are not necessarily. There are many different impacts on human health, migration, coastal infrastructures some of way may impact on a much broader issue. What are the things are lurking out there that may complicate the challenge or evolution where the scenarios are constructive. One that came to mind was certainly the United States we have seen a burst and attention around what governments are doing and the absence of federal policies. I dont think its is limited. One question i have , how as is a longterm projections are constructed how do you model it is a National Policy . We do a lot of that, historically i would say the evolution applies to the climate issue its a national and global scale, as a specific policies are being implemented , over the last several years bringing back a couple of years for california and the regional Greenhouse Gas emissions. Weve recognized that the models we use and analysis has to be quite detailed on a much more defined geographic scale , and it can be very different depending on what the region of the United States urine, an terms of what different targets for clean energy and the power sector he also had to take into account the different market structures. The power sectors and the southern United States that are operating under Traditional Service and that may be different from the northeast where they have a different power market. To be very attentive to the local resource traditions , and the local industry traditions. The Manufacturing Sector , or the service sector. And what the regulatory and market structure. Its the same thing for different regions of europe and around the world. It makes a huge difference. I totally agree. A couple things that i find embedded and that they would be really useful, its useful for those doing the modeling on the local level. You can see what is happening there. Cannot influence some of the outcomes you see him these bigger models . And the answer is overtime. If you think about the way that the big factors would be that would change the outputs or models like this . Or the global look at the Energy Future . Some of them is the understanding that we have about Energy Demand and how its going to emerge and develop and the economy. What is the fuel sources , the infrastructure that brings it to them . We start to look at what is happening at a statelevel policy, we do a lot of work and india at a state level. And you get the sense of that they are doing Something Different . Theyre going to choose different fuel sources and have a different level of aggregate demand . Is there electric power going to be different. What does it mean . All of that can feed into the basic computation that a lot of people just insert. Heres what subsaharan african demand is going to look like that can change. And i find it interesting on electrical power side of the equation. Business models for utilities at a local level are changing fundamentally. We would understand what that looks like as a model output at the end of the day. I do not think that we do not know. We were talk about this at the launch last week. We assume that the transmission gets there and everybody gets paid. That missing money and electoral power is not there. And all the structure gets a built. Thats great. Whos going to tell the regulators. There is a lot that actually can change and the next several years. I want to make sure that we have time for audience questions. Are there audience members who want to ask questions of the panelists . I can see over here on my right , the second row back. The gentleman and the white shirt with a black tie . Thank you. I am curious about whether or not your projections take into account the advent of new technologies like the nuclear small reactors and advanced reactors . If they do not, how might this report inform investment and those new technologies . Sure the different scenarios take account of evolving technologies. Do not know for sure. I would tend to doubt it, because of the timeframe over which they operate and most of the, to my knowledge, commercial scale opportunities for small modular, it will take time for that to unfold. Much of that is early commercialization stage. The degree to which the different models represent Nuclear Power at that level of detail, they may have a number of whats of Nuclear Power being deployed in the future. Whether that is as mr or traditional technology, they may not distinguish. They certainly allow for evolution and technology and how that occurs varies among models. They take into account 2 things that usually surprise mothers. 1 is we dont know what the curse for those will be. The second is that could be distributed at a smaller scale than the traditional Nuclear Power plant. That could be a different Business Model application. Distributed energy is harder to figure out how to model. It is untutored silvels. They need to deploy and figure those things out. I think i saw a hand on the side. Over here in the third row back. Holding the notebook. Yes. If you would not mind stating your name and organization. My name is, jane. I have a question regarding the data. Were using data for a specific field or industry or a specific country. The one thing i shouldve said earlier is thank you. All the data in there was not data that originated from rsf. Could not have put this together without their cooperation to bring the data together. And also, to answer the questions we had in order to use a apples to apples comparison, we had to ask questions to get it right. Want to take those institutions. I would say, while these institutions are doing an expert job and have put a lot of time and effort into creating the projections using them as external communication tool and an important tool for internal decisionmaking, they have a point of view. When i look at something coming out of the organization and addition to looking at assumptions, i understand where that institutions coming from. That can color to some degree what they are saying. I would keep that in mind. That is true. They have personalities. The other thing is, i think that caveats matter. A lot of times, when this models get reported on, the caveats do not come with that. You will hear definitively that an organization has completed concluded this about a country. It is not totally true. They are the most useful when you do include those things. Right . I think that these organizations have made big strides in being able to indicate what they are doing, which is investigating a set of issues and coming up with some outlooks about what certain things will look like under certain parameters. I think it is important to contextualize the findings a little bit. You dont have to do all the caveats. It is important. Thank you. I think i saw another hand on the right side of the room over here. My right. Thank you. Im bob. From the council. I think, you talked about that most of these are very supply oriented projections and simplistic assumptions about what influences demand. And so, sarah, i great with your comments about the importance of trying to improve this aggregation on demand issue. Iea the sum of that in their appendices, in terms of energy balances. I dont see much else being done on that side, which i think is going to be more important as systems become more complex. Look at the cooling issue in buildings as a good example. And the ability to use demand side resources and to evaluate the demandside technologies, like we have seen with leds and now with greater interconnected buildings. How can we change that, and what are the what is the possibility of trying to be more bust on the demandside . Well, so, just speaking at the Energy Information administration, for the eia, the domestic u. S. Focused outlook, which is based on something of the National Energy modeling system, out of all these modeling frameworks, quite detailed representation of the demandside. There are individual types of airconditioning units represented there. It is all scaled up and aggregated. To compare that to the international Energy Outlook from the same institution, it is a grocer level representation of demand. And it is the kind of data, an issue. And together is the scale of doing any of this kind of modeling at a double level, which is quite challenging. I think that from a modeling capability point of view, the tonight techniques are there. It is really, you know, scaling that up and doing it at a global level. And also having the data to underpin it is where the challenges. Im going to give a totally selfserving answer, which is, it would be really great if people wanted to do a whole bunch of scenario explanations around demand. Right . Just to a bunch of those. Lets see what you would like to know. What would be interesting to know . Lets us create a prioritized list of what would actually matter on that. Be we could, i can, there is a lot of information, a lot of capability. It is about putting time and resources into the going out what you want to explore. If someone wants to do that, i would totally read it. I think the place where that has been done more is where you get sector specific. There is a lot of interest around demand and electrification. One can start to do that at a double level. It is not that hard to start to get a handle on the global Manufacturing Sector for automobiles. We have a good understanding of the global oil market. It is when you try to do that large across the entire Energy System, it gets pretty overwhelming. Thank you. I think we have time for one more question. The gentleman in the second row on my left side here. Bob ritchie i am a consultant. How do the various models deal with the cost of the Energy Choices . They deal with them, many quite explicitly. I will talk briefly about the model i know best, which is the National Energy modeling system for the electric power sector. What that will have in it is a representation of the different power technologies, both the ones that of already been deployed are in service. What it cost to operate them in terms of fuel cost and ongoing capital investments. That is explicitly represented. And new investment is represented. As power demand increases, it needs to be met by additional generation technology. There is investment choice in the model which looks at the project purchase cost for new power plants of different types. The operating cost. It makes the Investment Decision on that. The degree of that representation and how detailed it is varies by these different models. They all have some kind of representation, which is really some kind of competition between technologies in terms of their cost. But, overlaid by policy constraints. There is also a constraint. There tax incentives were technologies. They are embedded and inform the kinds of decisions that are made in these models. Thank you. I think will make that the last word. I want to thank you. Congratulations. I encourage everyone to take the tool for a spin. It is supple. Lets give our panelists a hand. [ applause ] thank you. Over the 3 president ial leadership surveys, taken between 2020 17, Andrew Jackson dropped from 13th to 18th place. Dwight eisenhower rises from the nights to the sixth spot. Where does your favorite president rank . Learned that in more about the lives and leadership skills of forty fort chief executives in his bens the president s. It is great vacation reading. Available wherever books are sold or it cspan. Org the president s. Or cspan. Org the president s. Federal reserve chairman Jerome Powell will testify before the House Financial Services committee on Monetary Policy and the state of the u. S. Economy, like wednesday, at 10 am eastern. Live at 2 30 pm the house subcommittee hearing on the treatment of immigrant children at the u. S. Mexico border. Witnesses include an asylum seated seeker from guatemala. Live on thursday morning at 930 eastern, michael and 30 eastern, the senate armed Services Committee considers the nomination of chairman of the joint chiefs of staff. Watch all 2 heargs live on cspan3, online cspan. Org, or listen without free cspan radio app. Just ahead of the 50th anniversary of the moon landing, a senate commerce, science and transportation subcommittee held a hearing on past nasa and space exploration. Witnesses included gene kranz, the former nasa engineer and flight director of the apollo 11 and 13 missions, and homer hickam, author of rocket boys. This is 90 minutes. [gavel pounding] this hearing is call to order. Welcome
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.