Energy and Ecology

Please visit my twitter account for more frequent updates

2021-04-08T18:28:00.000-04:00

I admit that I haven’t written posts here very often, lately.

For more frequent updates (and my thoughts) on energy and ecology, please visit my twitter account.

https://twitter.com/parkhun

Best,

Countries by GDP per capita (in PPP dollars), estimated by IMF in October 2020

2020-11-19T01:38:00.003-05:00

Gross domestic product per capita, current prices

(Expressed in GDP in PPP dollars per person)

Source: IMF. (2020). World Economic Outlook Database, October 2020 Edition. International Monetary Fund.

	1995	2000	2005	2010	2015	2020	2025
Macao SAR			58,907	96,639	109,014	58,931	140,447
Luxembourg	47,789	65,410	79,622	90,741	104,976	112,875	134,001
Singapore	35,130	43,833	58,717	75,294	86,975	95,603	115,445
Qatar	64,710	96,677	116,805	145,583	97,847	91,897	114,095
Ireland	19,816	31,957	42,619	43,920	68,860	89,383	112,201
Switzerland	33,996	40,537	47,143	54,927	64,275	68,340	78,445
Norway	36,534	46,042	55,851	60,767	60,190	64,856	78,375
Brunei Darussalam	66,423	68,194	76,650	80,660	62,922	61,816	76,480
United States	28,671	36,318	44,026	48,403	56,849	63,051	76,475
Hong Kong SAR	24,118	28,057	37,920	48,991	56,267	58,165	72,455
Denmark	27,367	33,751	39,769	43,199	49,265	57,781	70,345
Netherlands	25,692	33,566	39,085	45,269	50,419	57,101	68,924
San Marino				63,044	56,138	56,690	68,730
Austria	24,739	30,910	36,793	42,461	49,955	55,406	67,025
Taiwan Province of China	15,493	21,485	28,753	38,400	46,911	54,020	66,459
Germany	24,765	29,477	33,947	40,097	47,622	53,571	66,366
Iceland	20,980	28,027	36,658	39,366	49,109	54,482	63,657
Sweden	22,825	29,427	36,823	42,494	48,858	52,477	62,654
United Arab Emirates	87,593	102,898	109,065	67,123	62,748	58,466	61,855
Belgium	23,545	29,143	35,215	40,158	46,365	50,114	61,683
Australia	22,973	28,998	36,047	41,689	46,407	50,845	60,427
Finland	20,197	27,766	34,932	39,353	42,570	49,334	59,754
Malta	15,867	19,336	22,827	28,401	37,922	43,087	57,561
Canada	23,708	29,949	36,243	40,013	44,703	47,569	57,306
France	23,203	28,580	33,587	37,361	42,289	45,454	57,035
Bahrain	36,745	43,970	45,418	47,112	45,627	49,057	56,268
Korea	12,207	16,806	23,469	30,985	37,908	44,292	55,810
United Kingdom	21,016	26,553	33,314	36,134	42,522	44,288	54,780
Saudi Arabia	38,539	40,253	48,145	51,264	49,637	46,273	53,135
Czech Republic	14,175	16,914	23,118	28,007	33,933	40,293	52,916
Lithuania	6,851	9,704	16,513	20,615	28,824	38,605	50,899
Japan	23,751	26,956	31,776	35,149	40,448	41,637	50,071
Spain	18,393	23,905	29,218	31,594	34,939	38,143	49,797
Slovenia	13,511	18,032	23,938	28,178	31,647	38,506	49,708
Italy	24,341	29,242	33,593	35,402	36,870	40,066	49,467
Israel	17,040	20,965	23,523	29,066	35,488	39,126	48,618
Estonia	8,208	12,446	20,453	22,520	29,397	37,033	48,424
New Zealand	18,117	21,950	27,601	31,399	37,051	41,072	48,089
Cyprus	18,797	23,418	30,095	33,761	31,747	39,079	48,057
Kuwait	49,090	51,806	63,497	61,763	43,308	41,735	44,697
Poland	8,273	11,796	15,315	21,336	26,843	33,739	44,611
Portugal	15,987	20,675	23,677	26,635	29,669	33,131	43,923
Slovak Republic	9,740	12,427	17,867	24,843	29,938	32,184	43,063
Hungary	11,209	14,224	19,987	21,932	26,633	32,434	42,817
Latvia	6,029	8,873	15,583	17,715	24,724	30,579	42,002
The Bahamas	21,335	27,280	30,900	31,670	34,342	33,808	41,918
Puerto Rico	17,877	22,961	29,333	30,925	34,007	34,998	41,855
Romania	7,900	8,294	12,819	17,071	21,566	30,141	40,125
Greece	15,601	19,821	26,378	28,143	26,810	29,045	38,260
Croatia	9,685	12,641	17,406	19,748	23,011	27,681	38,042

Cost of Energy Comparison, Including Levelized Cost of Energy (LCOE)—2020 Update

2020-04-14T04:20:00.033-04:00

There must be numerous ways to compare cost of technologies for generation, storage and delivery of energy. The most widely used measure for this purpose has been Levelized Cost of Energy (LCOE). LCOE is also known as LEC (Levelized Energy Cost), LUEC (Levelized Unit Energy Cost), or busbar cost. LRMC (Long-Run Marginal Cost) is a similar but different measure, although it is often presented by LCOE due to LCOE’s characteristics being a proxy of LRMC (Roughly put: LCOE = capital cost + LRMC; LRMC = fuel + carbon + variable O&M + fixed O&M).
I have been updating this list since April 2010. In this new list for 2020, I tried to include a variety of cost comparison metrics, while continuing to provide extensive references for LCOE.
However, let me admit that there are many critics of (or alternatives to) using LCOE as a means of comparing the economics of electricity generation technology options. The three most notable examples of them:

Horowitz, K. A. W., Palmintier, B., Mather, B., & Denholm, P. (2018). Distribution system costs associated with the deployment of photovoltaic systems. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 90, 420–433. [Full-text at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2018.03.080];
Schmalensee, R. (2016). The Performance of U.S. Wind and Solar Generators. The Energy Journal, 37(1), 123–151. [Full-text at http://dx.doi.org/10.5547/01956574.37.1.rsch];
Simpson, J., Loth, E., & Dykes, K. (2020). Cost of Valued Energy for design of renewable energy systems. Renewable Energy, 153, 290–300. [Full-text at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2020.01.131]

I. Cost of Every Power Technology

Alberici, S. et al. (2014). Subsidies and Costs of EU energy. (DESNL14583). Ecofys. [Full-text at http://j.mp/EU-LCOE] | Component cost breakdown for each country at http://j.mp/EU-LCOE-Component]

The Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering. (2011). New Power Cost Comparisons: Levelised Cost of Electricity for a Range of New Power Generating Technologies. The Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering (ATSE) [Full-text at http://j.mp/l1Sk1j]

Australian Energy Market Operator. (2017). South Australian Fuel and Technology Report. Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO). [Full-text at http://j.mp/AEMO_LCOE]

Bedilion, R. (2013). Program on Technology Innovation: Integrated Generation Technology Options 2012. Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI). [Full-text at http://j.mp/EPRI2012]

Black & Veatch. (2012). Cost and Performance Data for Power Generation Technologies: Prepared for the National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Black & Veatch Corporation. [Full-text at http://j.mp/BV_LCOE]

BloombergNEF. (2020). 2020 Sustainable Energy in America Factbook. Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BloombergNEF) & the Business Council for Sustainable Energy. [Full-text at https://j.mp/BNEF-LCOE-2020]

Bureau of Resources and Energy Economics (BREE). (2013). Australian Energy Technology Assessment (AETA) 2013 Model Update. Bureau of Resources and Energy Economics (BREE). [Full-text at http://j.mp/AETA2013]

Channell, J., Jansen, H. R., Syme, A. R., Savvantidou, S., Morse, E. L., Yuen, A. (2013). Energy Darwinism: The Evolution of the Energy Industry. Citi GPS: Global Perspectives & Solutions. Citigroup. [Full-text at http://j.mp/Citi_LCOE]

Climatescope. (2019). Emerging Markets Outlook 2019: Energy transition in the world’s fastest growing economies. Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BloombergNEF). [Full-text and data https://j.mp/Climatescope-2019]

Cole, W. et al. (2019). 2019 Standard Scenarios Report: A U.S. Electricity Sector Outlook. (NREL/TP-6A20-74110). National Renewable Energy Laboratory. [Website for the "Annual Technology Baseline (ATB)" https://atb.nrel.gov/; Full-text at https://j.mp/ATB-2019; Excel spreadsheet at https://j.mp/ATB-2019-XLS]

Committee on America’s Energy Future. (2009). America’s Energy Future: Technology and Transformation. The National Academies Press. [Full-text at http://bit.ly/8ZsYVM]

Committee on Climate Change. (2015). Power Sector Scenarios for the Fifth Carbon Budget. Committee on Climate Change. [Full-text at http://j.mp/UK_LCOE; Data at http://j.mp/UK_LCOE_XLS]

Committee on Determinants of Market Adoption of Advanced Energy Efficiency and Clean Energy Technologies. (2016). The Power of Change: Innovation for Development and Deployment of Increasingly Clean Electric Power Technologies. The National Academies Press. [Full-text at http://j.mp/US_LCOE]

Danish Energy Agency. (2015). Levelized Cost of Energy Calculator. Danish Energy Agency. [Full-text at http://j.mp/LCOE_Calculator; Spreadsheet at http://j.mp/LCOE_Calculator_XLSM]

Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS). (2020). Electricity Generation Costs 2020. Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. [Full-text at http://j.mp/BEIS-2020; Spreadsheet at http://j.mp/BEIS-2020-XLS]

Dowling, P., & Gray, M. (2016). End of the Load for Coal and Gas?: Challenging Power Technology Assumptions. Carbon Tracker. [Full-text at http://j.mp/CarbonTracker_LCOE]

E3M-Lab. (2016). EU Reference Scenario 2016: Energy, transport and GHG emissions Trends to 2050. European Commission. [Full-text at http://j.mp/EU_Reference_LCOE]

Electric Power Research Institute. (2016). Australian Power Generation Technology Report. CO2CRC. [Full-text at http://j.mp/Australia_LCOE]

Electricity Generation Costs Verification Working Group (Japan). (2015). Electricity Generation Costs Verification Report for the Long-Term Energy Supply and Demand Outlook Subcommittee (長期エネルギー需給見通し小委員会に対する発電コスト等の検証に関する報告). Agency for Natural Resources and Energy. [Full-text at http://j.mp/Japan_LCOE_2015; Power plant specifications at http://j.mp/Japan_Specs_2015]

Energy and Environment Conference, & Electricity Generation Costs Verification Committee (Japan). (2011). Electricity Generation Costs Verification Report. National Policy Unit, Cabinet Secretariat. [Full-text at http://j.mp/Japan_LCOE; Summary chart at http://j.mp/Japan_LCOE_Summary; Excel spreadsheet at http://j.mp/Japan_LCOE_XLS]

ENTSO-E, & ENTSOG. (2019). TYNDP 2020 Scenario Report. ENTSOG (European Network of Transmission System Operators for Gas) & ENTSO-E (European Network of Transmission System Operators).[Full-text at https://j.mp/TYNDP2020]
Note: TYNDPs = Ten-Year Network Development Plans

European Commission. (2008). Commission staff working document accompanying the communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions - Second Strategic Energy Review: an EU energy security and solidarity action plan - Energy Sources, Production Costs and Performance of Technologies for Power Generation, Heating and Transport. SEC(2008) 2872. European Commission. [Full-text at http://j.mp/9BST2r]

Finkel, A. (2017). Independent Review into the Future Security of the National Electricity Market: Blueprint for the Future. Commonwealth of Australia. [Full-text at http://j.mp/Finkel_Review]

Freese, B., Clemmer, S., Martinez, C., & Nogee, A. (2011). A Risky Proposition: The Financial Hazards of New Investments in Coal Plants. Union of Concerned Scientists. [Full-text at: http://j.mp/Risky_Proposition; Appendix A (LCOE) at http://j.mp/UCS_LCOE]

Fürstenwerth, D. (2014). Calculator of Levelized Cost of Electricity for Power Generation Technologies. Agora Energiewende. [Excel spreadsheet at http://j.mp/Agora_LCOE]

Google.org. (2011). The Impact of Clean Energy Innovation: Examining the Impact of Clean Energy Innovation on the United States Energy System and Economy. [Full-text at http://j.mp/Google_CEI]

Graham, P., Hayward, J., Foster, J. & Havas, L. (2020). GenCost 2019-20. Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO). [Full-text at https://doi.org/10.25919/5eb5ac371d372]

Greenstone, M., & Looney, A. (2011). A Strategy for America’s Energy Future: Illuminating Energy’s Full Costs. The Brookings Institution. [Full-text at http://j.mp/mqEXUQ]

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (2014). Working Group III Contribution to the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report, Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. [Full-text at http://mitigation2014.org (Find in Chapter 7: Energy Systems.)]

International Energy Agency. (2014). The Power of Transformation: Wind, Sun and the Economics of Flexible Power Systems. IEA Publications. [Full-text at http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264208032-en]

International Energy Agency. (2015). Energy Technology Perspectives 2015: Mobilising Innovation to Accelerate Climate Action. IEA Publications. [Full-text at http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/20792603 | Executive Summary | Tracking Clean Energy Progress 2015]

International Energy Agency. (2016). Energy Technology Perspectives 2016: Towards Sustainable Urban Energy Systems. IEA Publications. [Full-text at http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/energy_tech-2016-en | Executive Summary | Tracking Clean Energy Progress 2016]

International Energy Agency. (2017). Energy Technology Perspectives 2017: Catalysing Energy Technology Transformations. IEA Publications. [Full-text at http://doi.org/10.1787/energy_tech-2017-en | Executive Summary | Tracking Clean Energy Progress 2017]

International Energy Agency. (2017). World Energy Investment 2017. IEA Publications. [Full-text at http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264277854-en]

International Energy Agency (IEA), & International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA). (2017). Perspectives for the Energy Transition: Investment Needs for a Low-Carbon Energy System. Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Energie (BMWi; Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Energy). [Full-text at http://j.mp/IEA_IRENA_2DS]

International Energy Agency, & Nuclear Energy Agency. (2015). Projected Costs of Generating Electricity - 2015 Edition. OECD Publications. [Full-text at http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/cost_electricity-2015-en; Corrigendum at http://j.mp/IEA2015LCOE_Corrigendum; Executive summary at http://j.mp/IEA2015LCOE_ES | Presentation slides at http://j.mp/IEA2015LCOE_PPT]

International Energy Agency (IEA), & Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA). (2020). Projected Costs of Generating Electricity—2020 Edition. OECD Publishing. [Full-text at https://j.mp/IEA2020LCOE]

International Energy Agency (IEA). (2020). World Energy Model Documentation: 2020 Version. International Energy Agency (IEA). [Full-text at http://j.mp/WEM-2020]

Irlam, L. (2015). The Costs of CCS and Other Low-Carbon Technologies in the United States: 2015 Update. Global Carbon Capture and Storage Institute. [Full-text at http://j.mp/CCS_Costs]

Joskow, P. L. (2011). Comparing the Costs of Intermittent and Dispatchable Electricity Generating Technologies. EUI Working Paper RSCAS (Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies), 2011/45. European University Institute. [Full-text at http://j.mp/Joskow_EUI]

Kaplan, S. (2008). Power Plants: Characteristics and Costs. CRS Report for Congress, RL34746. Congressional Research Service. [Full-text at http://bit.ly/d7M0Ja]

Küchler, S., & Meyer, B. (2012). The full costs of power generation: A comparison of subsidies and societal cost of renewable and conventional energy sources. Greenpeace Energy eG; Bundesverband WindEnergie (BWE; German Wind Energy Association). [Full-text at http://j.mp/Full_Costs]

Lazard Ltd. (2020). Lazard’s Levelized Cost of Energy Analysis—Version 14.0. Lazard Ltd. [Full-text at http://j.mp/Lazard-LCOE-v14]

Leidos, Inc. (2020). Distributed Generation, Battery Storage, and Combined Heat and Power System Characteristics and Costs in the Buildings and Industrial Sectors. U.S. Energy Information Administration. [Full-text at https://j.mp/DG-LCOE]

Liebreich, M., Zindler, E., Tringas, T., Gurung, A., & von Bismarck, M. (2011). Green Investing 2011: Reducing the Cost of Financing. World Economic Forum. [Full-text at http://j.mp/BNEF-WEF-2011]

Logan, J. et al. (2017). Electricity Generation Baseline Report. (NREL/TP-6A20-67645). National Renewable Energy Laboratory. [Full-text at http://j.mp/EG_Baseline_LCOE]

Matsuo, Y., Yamaguchi, Y., & Murakami, T. (2013). Historical Trends in Japan’s Long-Term Power Generation Costs by Source: Assessed by Using Corporate Financial Statements. The Institute of Energy Economics, Japan (IEEJ). [Full-text at http://j.mp/JP_Gen_Cost]

Mott MacDonald. (2011). Costs of low-carbon generation technologies. Committee on Climate Change. [Full-text at http://j.mp/Mott-MacDonald]

National Renewable Energy Laboratory. (2013). Transparent Cost Database: Generation. National Renewable Energy Laboratory. [Data at http://en.openei.org/apps/TCDB/]

National Renewable Energy Laboratory. (2016). Levelized Cost of Energy Calculator. National Renewable Energy Laboratory. [Website at http://j.mp/LCOE_NREL]

Neff, B. (2019). Estimated Cost of New Utility-Scale Generation in California: 2018 Update. (CEC-200-2019-005). California Energy Commission. [Full-text at http://j.mp/CEC-LCOE]

Nitsch, J. et al. (2012). Langfristszenarien und Strategien für den Ausbau der Erneuerbaren Energien in Deutschland bei Berücksichtigung der Entwicklung in Europa und Global (Long-term scenarios and strategies for the deployment of renewable energies in Germany in view of European and global developments). Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety. [Full-text at http://j.mp/German_LCOE; Technical annex at http://j.mp/German_LCOE_Annex; Data at http://j.mp/German_LCOE_XLS]

Parsons Brinckerhoff. (2013). Electricity Generation Cost Model - 2013 Update of Non-Renewable Technologies. Department for Energy and Climate Change. [Full-text at http://j.mp/UK_NonRE_LCOE]

Paul Scherrer Institut. (2010). Sustainable Electricity: Wishful thinking or near-term reality? Energie-Spiegel: Facts for the Energy Decisions of Tomorrow, 20. Paul Scherrer Institut. [Full-text at http://j.mp/Energie-Spiegel]

Paul Scherrer Institut (PSI). (2017). Potentials, Costs and Environmental Assessment of Electricity Generation Technologies. Bundesamt für Energie (BFE; Swiss Federal Office of Energy [SFOE]). [Full-text at http://j.mp/Swiss_LCOE; Synthesis at http://j.mp/Swiss_LCOE_Synthesis]

Pourreza, S. et al. (2014). Evolving Economics of Power and Alternative Energy. Citi Research. [Full-text at http://j.mp/Citi_LCOE_2014]

Pöyry. (2013). Technology Supply Curves for Low-Carbon Power Generation: A Report to the Committee on Climate Change. Pöyry Management Consulting. [Full-text at http://j.mp/LowCarbonLCOE]

Ram, M., Child, M., Aghahosseini, A., Bogdanov, D., & Poleva, A. (2017). Comparing Electricity Production Costs of Renewables to Fossil and Nuclear Power Plants in G20 Countries. Greenpeace. [Full-text at http://j.mp/Greenpeace_LCOE]

Rhodes, J. D. et al. (2016). New U.S. Power Costs: by County, with Environmental Externalities—A Geographically Resolved Method to Estimate Levelized Power Plant Costs with Environmental Externalities. "The Full Cost of Electricity (FCe-)" initiative. Energy Institute, The University of Texas at Austin. [Full-text at: http://j.mp/US_Power_LCOE; Calculator at http://j.mp/US_Power_LCOE_Calc]

Schröder, A., Kunz, F., Meiss, J., Mendelevitch, R., & von Hirschhausen, C. (2013). Current and prospective costs of electricity generation until 2050. (Data Documentation, No. 68). Deutsches Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung (DIW Berlin; the German Institute for Economic Research). [Full-text at http://j.mp/DIW_LCOE]

Siemens Wind Power. (2014). SCOE – Society’s costs of electricity: How society should find its optimal energy mix. Siemens AG. [Full-text at http://j.mp/Siemens_SCOE]

Skone, T. J., Littlefield, J., Cooney, G., & Marriott, J. (2013). Power Generation Technology Comparison from a Life Cycle Perspective. (DOE/NETL-2012/1567). National Energy Technology Laboratory. [Full-text at http://j.mp/NETL_LCOE]

Stacy, T. F., & Taylor, G. S. (2019). The Levelized Cost of Electricity from Existing Generation Resources. Institute for Energy Research. [Full-text at https://j.mp/IER-LCOE]

Timilsina, G. R. (2020). Demystifying the Costs of Electricity Generation Technologies. Policy Research Working Paper, 9303. World Bank. [Full-text at https://j.mp/WorldBank-LCOE]

U.S. Department of Energy. (2015). Quadrennial Technology Review: An Assessment of Energy Technologies and Research Opportunities. U.S. Department of Energy. [Full-text at http://j.mp/QTR_2015]

U.S. Energy Information Administration. (2020). Levelized Cost and Levelized Avoided Cost of New Generation Resources in the Annual Energy Outlook 2020. U.S. Energy Information Administration. [Full-text at http://j.mp/AEO2020-LCOE]

Veiga, M. M., Álvarez, P. F., Moraleda, M. F.-M., & Kleinsorge, A. (2013). Study on Cost and Business Comparison of Renewable vs. Non-renewable Technologies (RE-COST). IEA - Renewable Energy Technology Deployment (RETD). [Full-text at http://j.mp/RE-COST]

VGB PowerTech. (2015). Levelised Cost of Electricity 2015. VGB PowerTech Service. [Full-text at http://j.mp/VGB_LCOE]

World Energy Council, & Bloomberg New Energy Finance. (2013). World Energy Perspective: Cost of Energy Technologies. World Energy Council. [Full-text at http://j.mp/WEC_LCOE]

II. Cost of Renewable Power

II-1. Renewable Power Cost Comparison

Artelys, Armines, & Energies Demain. (2016). A 100% Renewable Electricity Mix? Analysis and Optimisation: Exploring the Boundaries of Renewable Power generation in France by 2050. Agence de l’environnement et de la maîtrise de l’énergie (ADEME; French Environment and Energy Management Agency). [Full-text at http://j.mp/France_LCOE]

Black & Veatch Corporation. (2010). Renewable Energy Transmission Initiative Phase 2B: Final Report. RETI Stakeholder Steering Committee. [Full-text at http://j.mp/8ZbLPl]

De Jager, D. et al. (2011). Financing Renewable Energy in the European Energy Market. (PECPNL084659). European Commission. [Full-text at http://j.mp/EU_RE_LCOE]

E3: Energy + Environmental Economics. (2015). CPUC RPS Calculator. California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC). [XLSM spreadsheet at http://j.mp/CPUC_RPS_LCOE]

European Commission. (2020). Clean Energy Transition – Technologies and Innovations Report (CETTIR). (SWD(2020) 953 final). European Commission. [Full-text at https://j.mp/LCOE-EU]

Frankfurt School-UNEP Collaborating Centre, & BloombergNEF. (2020). Global Trends in Renewable Energy Investment 2020. Frankfurt School of Finance & Management. [Full-text at https://j.mp/RE-Investment-2020]

Gorman, W. (2020). The Rise of the Hybrid Power Plant. (DE-AC02-05CH11231). Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. [Slides at http://j.mp/Hybrid-LCOE]

Hearps, P., & McConnell, D. (2011). Renewable Energy Technology Cost Review. Melbourne Energy Institute. [Full-text at http://j.mp/iYoa6E]

IEA-ETSAP, & IRENA. (2013). Technology Briefs (of 10 Renewable Energy Technologies). International Renewable Energy Agency. [Full-text at http://j.mp/ETSAP_IRENA]

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (2012). IPCC Special Report on Renewable Energy Sources and Climate Change Mitigation. Cambridge University Press. [Full-text at http://j.mp/SRREN]

International Energy Agency. (2019). Renewables 2019: Analysis and forecast to 2024. IEA Publications. [Full-text at https://doi.org/10.1787/25202774]

International Renewable Energy Agency. (2014). REmap 2030: A Renewable Energy Roadmap, June 2014. IRENA Secretariat. [Full-text at http://j.mp/REmap2030]

International Renewable Energy Agency. (2012). Renewable Energy Technologies: Cost Analysis Series - Volume 1: Power Sector. IRENA Secretariat. [Full-text: http://j.mp/IRENA_Wind; http://j.mp/IRENA_PV; http://j.mp/IRENA_Hydro; http://j.mp/IRENA_CSP; http://j.mp/IRENA_Biomass]

International Renewable Energy Agency. (2016). The Power to Change: Solar and Wind Cost Reduction Potential to 2025. IRENA Secretariat. [Full-text at http://j.mp/Solar_Wind]

IRENA. (2019). Global Energy Transformation: A Roadmap to 2050 (2019 edition). International Renewable Energy Agency. [Full-text at https://j.mp/REmap-2050]

IRENA. (2020). Renewable Power Generation Costs in 2019. International Renewable Energy Agency. [Full-text at https://j.mp/Renewables-LCOE-2019]

Jacobson, M. Z. et al. (2015). 100% clean and renewable wind, water, and sunlight (WWS) all-sector energy roadmaps for the 50 United States. Energy & Environmental Science, 8, 2093–2117. [Full-text and data at http://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/WWS-50-USState-plans.html]

Jacobson, M. Z. et al. (2017). 100% Clean and Renewable Wind, Water, and Sunlight (WWS) All-Sector Energy Roadmaps for 139 Countries of the World (September 6, 2017). The Solutions Project. [Full-text at http://j.mp/WWS_LCOE; Excel spreadsheet at http://j.mp/WWS_LCOE_XLS]

Kost, C. et al. (2018). Levelized Cost of Electricity – Renewable Energy Technologies. Fraunhofer Institute for Solar Energy Systems ISE. [Full-text at http://j.mp/LCOE_Fraunhofer]

Ove Arup & Partners Ltd. (2011). Review of the generation costs and deployment potential of renewable electricity technologies in the UK. Department of Energy and Climate Change. [Full-text at http://j.mp/UK_Renewable_LCOE]

Ram, M. et al. (2017). Global Energy System based on 100% Renewable Energy—Power Sector. Lappeenranta University of Technology & Energy Watch Group. [Full-text at http://j.mp/LUT_EWG_LCOE]

REN21. (2019). Renewables 2019 Global Status Report. REN21 Secretariat. [Full-text at https://j.mp/REN2019GSR]

Sustainable Energy Advantage, LLC. (2011). Cost of Renewable Energy Spreadsheet Tool (CREST). National Renewable Energy Laboratory. [Excel files at http://j.mp/CREST_LCOE]

Syed, A. et al. (2014). Asia Pacific Renewable Energy Assessment. Bureau of Resources and Energy Economics (BREE). [Full-text at http://j.mp/Asia-Pacific_RE_LCOE]

Tesniere, L. et al. (2017). Mapping the cost of capital for wind and solar energy in South Eastern European Member States. Ecofys. [Full-text at http://j.mp/SE_EU_LCOE]

資源エネルギー庁. (2020). 第63回調達価格等算定委員会: 太陽光発電について & 風力発電について. 経済産業省. [Full-text at 太陽光発電 (solar PV) | 風力発電 wind power)].

II-2. Biomass Power

LCICG. (2012). Technology Innovation Needs Assessment (TINA): Bioenergy - Summary Report. Low Carbon Innovation Co-ordination Group (LCICG). [Full-text at http://j.mp/LCICG_Bioenergy]

II-3. Geothermal Power

Limberger, J. et al. (2014). Assessing the prospective resource base for enhanced geothermal systems in Europe. Geothermal Energy Science, 2. 55–71. [Full-text at http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/gtes-2-55-2014]

National Energy Technology Laboratory. (2012). Role of Alternative Energy Sources: Geothermal Technology Assessment. (NETL/DOE-2011/1531). National Energy Technology Laboratory. [Full-text at http://j.mp/NETL_Geothermal]

U.S. Department of Energy. (2019). GeoVision: Harnessing the Heat Beneath Our Feet. (DOE/EE–1306). U.S. Department of Energy. [Full-text at https://j.mp/Geothermal-LCOE]

II-4. Hydro Power

European Small Hydropower Association. (2012). Small Hydropower Roadmap: Condensed research data for EU-27. European Small Hydropower Association. [Full-text at http://j.mp/Small_Hydro_LCOE; Data at http://streammap.esha.be/19.0.html]

Kurup, P. et al. (2018). Analysis of Supply Chains and Advanced Manufacturing of Small Hydropower Systems. (NREL/TP-6A20-71511). Clean Energy Manufacturing Analysis Center. [Full-text at http://j.mp/Hydro_LCOE]

National Energy Technology Laboratory. (2012). Role of Alternative Energy Sources: Hydropower Technology Assessment. (NETL/DOE-2011/1519). National Energy Technology Laboratory. [Full-text at http://j.mp/NETL_Hydro]

II-5. Marine (Wave, Tide) Power

Badcock-Broe, A. et al. (2014). Wave and Tidal Energy Market Deployment Strategy for Europe. Strategic Initiative for Ocean Energy (SI OCEAN). [Full-text at http://j.mp/Wave_Tide_LCOE]

Carbon Trust, University of Edinburgh, & JRC. (2013). Ocean Energy: Cost of Energy and Cost Reduction Opportunities. Strategic Initiative for Ocean Energy (SI OCEAN). [Full-text at http://j.mp/Ocean_LCOE]

Commission Staff. (2014). Impact Assessment: Accompanying the document Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions - Ocean Energy: Action needed to deliver on the potential of ocean energy by 2020 and beyond. (SWD(2014) 13 final). European Commission. [Full-text at http://j.mp/OceanE_LCOE]

LCICG. (2012). Technology Innovation Needs Assessment (TINA): Marine Energy - Summary Report. Low Carbon Innovation Co-ordination Group (LCICG). [Full-text at http://j.mp/LCICG_Marine]

Magagna, D., & Uihlein, A. (2015). 2014 JRC Ocean Energy Status Report: Technology, market and economic aspects of ocean energy in Europe. Joint Research Centre, European Commission. [Full-text at http://j.mp/EU_Ocean_LCOE]

Neary, V. S. et al. (2014). Methodology for Design and Economic Analysis of Marine Energy Conversion (MEC) Technologies. Sandia National Laboratories. [Full-text at http://j.mp/Marine_LCOE]

II-6. Solar Photovoltaic (and Thermal) Power

Al Matin, M. A. et al. (2019). LCOE Analysis for Grid-Connected PV Systems of Utility Scale Across Selected ASEAN Countries. Economic Research Institute for ASEAN and East Asia (ERIA). [Full-text at http://j.mp/ASEAN-PV]

Australian Energy Council. (2020). Solar Report. (Quarterly). Australian Energy Council. [Full-text at http://j.mp/Australia_PV_Quarterly]

Baker, E., Fowlie, M., Lemoine, D., & Reynolds, S. S. (2013). The Economics of Solar Electricity. Annual Review of Resource Economics, 5, 387-426. [Full-text at http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev-resource-091912-151843]

Barbose, G., & Darghouth, N. (2018). Tracking the Sun: Installed Price Trends for Distributed Photovoltaic Systems in the United States – 2018 Edition. [Full-text at http://j.mp/US_PV_2018; Dataset at http://j.mp/US_PV_2018_Data]

Bolinger, M., Seel, J., & Robson, D. (2019). Utility-Scale Solar: Empirical Trends in Project Technology, Cost, Performance, and PPA Pricing in the United States – 2019 Edition. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. [Full-text at https://j.mp/US-PV-LCOE-2019; Excel spreadsheet at https://j.mp/US-PV-LCOE-2019-XLS]

Bolinger, M., Seel, J., Robson, D., & Warner, C. (2020). Utility-Scale Solar Data Update: 2020 Edition. (DE-AC02-05CH11231). Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. [Full-text at

http://j.mp/US-PV-2020; Excel spreadsheet at http://j.mp/US-PV-2020-XLS]

Breyer, C., & Gerlach, A. (2013). Global overview on grid-parity. Progress in Photovoltaics: Research and Applications, 21(1), 121–136. [Full-text at http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/pip.1254]

Briano, J. I., Báez, M. J., & Morales, R. M. (2016). PV Grid Parity Monitor (Commercial, Residential, and Utility Sectors). Creara. [Full-text at http://j.mp/PV_GridParity]

Bronski, P., Creyts, J., Crowdis, M., Doig, S., Glassmire, J., Guccione, L, Lilienthal, P., Mandel, J., Rader, B., Seif, D., Tocco, H., & Touati, H. (2015). The Economics of Load Defection: How Grid-Connected Solar-Plus-Battery Systems Will Compete with Traditional Electric Service, Why It Matters, and Possible Paths Forward. Rocky Mountain Institute. [Full-text at http://j.mp/Solar_Battery_Cost]

Darling, S. B., You, F., Veselka, T., & Velosa, A. (2011). Assumptions and the levelized cost of energy for photovoltaics. Energy & Environmental Science, 4, 3133–3139. [Full-text at http://dx.doi.org/10.1039/c0ee00698j]

Denholm, P., O’Connell, M., Brinkman, G., & Jorgenson, J. (2015). Overgeneration from Solar Energy in California: A Field Guide to the Duck Chart. (NREL/TP-6A20-65023). National Renewable Energy Laboratory. [Full-text at http://j.mp/CA_PV_LCOE]

Fraunhofer ISE. (2020). Photovoltaics Report, 16 September 2020. Fraunhofer Institute for Solar Energy Systems, ISE. [Full-text at http://j.mp/PV-Report]

IEA PVPS. (2016). Trends 2016 in Photovoltaic Applications: Survey Report of Selected IEA Countries between 1992 and 2015. (IEA PVPS T1-30:2016). IEA Photovoltaic Power System Programme. [Full-text at http://j.mp/PVPS2016]

IRENA. (2017). IRENA Cost and Competitiveness Indicators: Rooftop Solar PV. International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA). [Full-text at http://j.mp/Rooftop_PV]

IRENA. (2019). Future of Solar Photovoltaic: Deployment, investment, technology, grid integration and socio-economic aspects. International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA). [Full-text at http://j.mp/IRENA-PV]

Jäger-Waldau, A. (2019). PV Status Report 2019. (EUR 29938 EN). Publications Office of the European Union. [Full-text at http://j.mp/JRC-PV]

Jones-Albertus, R., Feldman, D., Fu, R., Horowitz, K., & Woodhouse, M. (2015). Technology Advances Needed for Photovoltaics to Achieve Widespread Grid Price Parity. Department of Energy. [Full-text at http://j.mp/PV_Grid_Parity]

Kimura, K. (2019). Solar Power Generation Costs in Japan: Current Status and Future Outlook. Renewable Energy Institute. [Full-text at https://j.mp/Japan-PV]

KPMG. (2015). UK Solar beyond Subsidy: The Transition. Renewable Energy Association. [Full-text at http://j.mp/UK_PV_LCOE]

Mendelsohn, M., Kreycik, C., Bird, L., Schwabe, P., & Cory, K. (2012). The Impact of Financial Structure on the Cost of Solar Energy. (NREL/TP-6A20-53086). [Full-text at http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy12osti/53086.pdf]

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL). (2012). SunShot Vision Study. (DOE/GO-102012-3037). U.S. Department of Energy. [Full-text at http://www1.eere.energy.gov/solar/pdfs/47927.pdf]

Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy (EERE). (2016). The SunShot Initiative’s 2030 Goal: 3¢ per Kilowatt Hour for Solar Electricity. (DOE/EE-1501). U.S. Department of Energy. [Full-text at http://j.mp/SunShot2030LCOE; Presentation slides at http://j.mp/SunShot2030LCOE_PPTX]

Philipps, S. P., Kost, C., & Schlegl, T. (2014). Up-to-Date Levelised Cost of Electricity of Photovoltaics: Background from Fraunhofer ISE Relating to IPCC WGIII 5th Assessment Report, Final Draft, September 2014. Fraunhofer Institute for Solar Energy Systems ISE (Institut für Solare Energiesysteme). [Full-text at http://j.mp/LCOE_PV]

Reichelstein, S., & Yorston, M. (2012). Solar-LCOE Calculator. [Excel spreadsheet at http://j.mp/Reichelstein_LCOE; Developed for the following paper: Reichelstein, S., & Yorston, M. (2013). The prospects for cost competitive solar PV power. Energy Policy, 55, 117-127. [Full-text at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2012.11.003]

Rutovitz, J. et al. (2014). Breaking the solar gridlock: Potential benefits of installing concentrating solar thermal power at constrained locations in the NEM. Institute for Sustainable Futures, UTS (University of Technology, Sydney). [Full-text at http://j.mp/CSP_LCOE_AU]

Schmalensee, R. et al. (2015). The Future of Solar Energy: An Interdisciplinary MIT Study. Massachusetts Institute of Technology. [Full-text at http://j.mp/MIT_Solar_LCOE]

Shah, V., & Booream-Phelps, J. (2015). Crossing the Chasm: Solar Grid Parity in a Low Oil Price Era. Deutsche Bank Securities Inc. [Full-text at http://j.mp/Solar_Grid_Parity]

SunPower Corporation. (2011). Grid-Competitive Residential and Commercial Fully Automated PV Systems Technology. (DE-FC136-07GO17043). U.S. Department of Energy. [Full-text at http://j.mp/SunPower_LCOE]

Tjengdrawira, C., Richter, M., & Theologitis, I.-T. (2016). Best Practice Guidelines for PV Cost Calculation: Accounting for Technical Risks and Assumptions in PV LCOE. Solar Bankability Consortium. [Full-text at http://j.mp/PV_Risks_LCOE]

Tsuchida, B. et al. (2015). Comparative Generation Costs of Utility-Scale and Residential-Scale PV in Xcel Energy Colorado’s Service Area. The Brattle Group. [Full-text at http://j.mp/PV_PV_LCOE]

Vartiainen, E., Masson, G., & Breyer, C. (2015). PV LCOE in Europe 2014–30. Secretariat of the European Photovoltaic Technology Platform. [Full-text at http://j.mp/PV_LCOE_EU]

Vartiainen, E., Masson, G., & Breyer, C. (2017). The True Competitiveness of Solar PV: A European Case Study. Secretariat of the European Technology and Innovation Platform for Photovoltaics. [Full-text at http://j.mp/EU_PV_LCOE]

Wirth, H. (2020). Recent Facts about Photovoltaics in Germany. Fraunhofer ISE. [Full-text at http://j.mp/GermanPV_LCOE]

Woodhouse, M. et al. (2016). On the Path to SunShot: The Role of Advancements in Solar Photovoltaic Efficiency, Reliability, and Costs. (NREL/TP-6A20-65872). National Renewable Energy Laboratory. [Full-text at http://j.mp/PV_Cost]

Zinaman, O., & Darghouth, N. (2020). Distributed Solar Utility Tariff and Revenue Impact Analysis: A Guidebook for International Practitioners. United States Agency for International Development (USAID) & National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL). [Full-text at https://j.mp/Distributed-Solar]

II-7. Solar Thermal Power/Heating/Cooling

National Energy Technology Laboratory. (2012). Role of Alternative Energy Sources: Solar Thermal Technology Assessment. (NETL/DOE-2012/1532). National Energy Technology Laboratory. [Full-text at http://j.mp/NETL_Solar]

Stadelmann, M., Frisari, G., Boyd, R., & Feás, J. (2014). The Role of Public Finance in CSP: Background and Approach to Measure its Effectiveness. Climate Policy Initiative. [Full-text at http://j.mp/CSP_LCOE]

Weiss, W., & Spörk-Dür, M. (2018). Solar Heat Worldwide: Global Market Development and Trends in 2017—Detailed Market Figures 2016. IEA Solar Heating & Cooling Programme. [Full-text at http://j.mp/SHC_2018]

II-8. Wind Power

Lacal Arántegui, R., & Serrano González, J. (2015). 2014 JRC Wind Status Report: Technology, Market and Economic Aspects of Wind Energy in Europe. Publications Office of the European Union. [Full-text at http://j.mp/Wind_LCOE]

LCICG. (2012). Technology Innovation Needs Assessment (TINA): Offshore Wind Power - Summary Report. Low Carbon Innovation Co-ordination Group (LCICG). [Full-text at http://j.mp/LCICG_Wind]

Moné, C., Hand, M., Bolinger, M., Rand, J., Heimiller, D., & Ho, J. (2017). 2015 Cost of Wind Energy Review. (NREL/TP-6A20-66861). National Renewable Energy Laboratory. [Full-text at http://j.mp/Wind_LCOE_2015]

Musial, W., Beiter, P., & Nunemaker, J. (2020). Cost of Floating Offshore Wind Energy Using New England Aqua Ventus Concrete Semisubmersible Technology. (NREL/TP-5000-75618). National Renewable Energy Laboratory. [Full-text at https://j.mp/Floating-Wind-LCOE]

Musial, W., Beiter, P., Spitsen, P., Nunemaker, J., Gevorgian, V., Cooperman, A., Hammond, R., & Shields, M. (2020). 2019 Offshore Wind Technology Data Update. (NREL/TP-5000-77411). National Renewable Energy Laboratory. [Full-text at http://j.mp/2019-Offshore; Excel spreadsheet at http://j.mp/2019-Offshore-XLS]

National Energy Technology Laboratory. (2012). Role of Alternative Energy Sources: Wind Technology Assessment (NETL/DOE-2012/1536). National Energy Technology Laboratory. [Full-text at http://j.mp/NETL_Wind]

Offshore Renewable Energy (ORE) Catapult. (2015). Cost Reduction Monitoring Framework: Summary Report to the Offshore Wind Programme Board. Offshore Wind Programme Board, the Crown Estate. [Full-text at http://j.mp/UK_Offshore_LCOE; Qualitative summary (by DNV GL) at http://j.mp/UK_Offshore_Qualitative; Quantitative summary (by Deloitte) at
http://j.mp/UK_Offshore_Quantitative]

Orrell, A., Preziuso, D., Morris, S., & Homer, J. (2020). 2019 Distributed Wind Data Summary. (PNNL-30168). Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL). [Full-text at http://j.mp/2019-Distributed-Wind; Excel spreadsheet at http://j.mp/2019-Distributed-Wind-XLS]

Sherman, P., Chen, X., & McElroy, M. (2020). Offshore wind: An opportunity for cost-competitive decarbonization of China’s energy economy. Science Advances, 6(8), eaax9571. [Full-text at https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aax9571]

Tegen, S., Lantz, E.,Hand, M., Maples, B.,Smith, A., & Schwabe, P. (2013). 2011 Cost of Wind Energy Review. (NREL/TP-5000-56266). National Renewable Energy Laboratory. [Full-text at http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy13osti/56266.pdf]

Vitina, A. et al. (2015). IEA Wind Task 26: Wind Technology, Cost, and Performance Trends in Denmark, Germany, Ireland, Norway, the European Union, and the United States: 2007–2012. (NREL/TP-6A20-64332). National Renewable Energy Laboratory. [Full-text at http://j.mp/IEA_Wind_LCOE]

Willow, C., & Valpy, B. (2015). Approaches to Cost-Reduction in Offshore Wind: A Report for the Committee on Climate Change. BVG Associates. [Full-text at http://j.mp/Offshore_Wind_LCOE]

Wiser, R. et al. (2015). Wind Vision: A New Era for Wind Power in the United States. (DOE/GO-102015-4557). U.S. Department of Energy. [Full-text at http://j.mp/Wind_Vision | Scenario Viewer]

Wiser, R. et al. (2016). Forecasting Wind Energy Costs and Cost Drivers: The Views of the World’s Leading Experts. (LBNL- 1005717). Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. [Full-text at http://j.mp/Wind_Cost]

Wiser, R., & Bolinger, M. (2019). 2018 Wind Technologies Market Report. U.S. Department of Energy. [Full-text at http://j.mp/2018_Wind; Excel spreadsheet at http://j.mp/2018_Wind_XLS]

Wiser, R. et al. (2020). Wind Energy Technology Data Update: 2020 Edition. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. [Full-text at http://j.mp/2020-Wind; Excel spreadsheet at http://j.mp/2020-Wind-XLS]

III. Cost of Fossil Energy Power

III-1. Fossil Power Cost Comparison

Finkenrath, M. (2011). Cost and Performance of Carbon Dioxide Capture from Power Generation. IEA Energy Papers, N° 2011/05. [Full-text at http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5kgggn8wk05l-en]

Fout, T. et al. (2015). Cost and Performance Baseline for Fossil Energy Plants. Volume 1a: Bituminous Coal (PC) and Natural Gas to Electricity - Revision 3. National Energy Technology Laboratory. [Full-text at http://j.mp/PC_NGCC_COE]

International Energy Agency. (2013). Technology Roadmap: Carbon Capture and Storage. IEA Publications. [Full-text at http://j.mp/IEA_CCS_LCOE]

National Energy Technology Laboratory. (2010). Life Cycle Analysis: Power Studies Compilation Report (DOE/NETL-2010/1419). National Energy Technology Laboratory. [Full-text at http://j.mp/laPsP6]

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. (2018). Economic Impact Analysis for the Review of Standards of Performance for Greenhouse Gas Emissions from New, Modified, and Reconstructed Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units. (EPA 452/R-18-005). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. [Full-text at http://j.mp/EPA_LCOE]

Pöyry Management Consulting, & Element Energy. (2015). Potential CCS Cost Reduction Mechanisms. Committee on Climate Change. [Full-text at http://j.mp/CCS_LCOE_UK]

UK Carbon Capture and Storage Cost Reduction Task Force. (2013). CCS Cost Reduction Taskforce: Final Report. Department of Energy & Climate Change. [Full-text at http://j.mp/UK_CCS_LCOE]

WorleyParsons, & Schlumberger. (2011). Economic Assessment of Carbon Capture and Storage Technologies: 2011 Update. The Global CCS Institute. [Full-text at http://j.mp/CCS_LCOE]

III-2. Coal Power

Epstein, P. R., Buonocore, J. J., Eckerle, K., Hendryx, M., Stout III, B. M., Heinberg, R., Clapp, R. W., May, B., Reinhart, N. L., Ahern, M. M., Doshi, S. K., & Glustrom, L. (2011). Full cost accounting for the life cycle of coal. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1219, 73-98. [Full-text at http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-6632.2010.05890.x]

IEAGHG. (2014). CO₂ Capture at Coal Based Power and Hydrogen Plants. IEA Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme (IEAGHG). [Full-text at http://j.mp/IEAGHG_LCOE]

Lako, P. (2010). Coal-Fired Power. Technology Brief, E01. International Energy Agency. [Full-text at http://j.mp/ETSAP_Coal_LCOE]

National Energy Technology Laboratory. (2012). Role of Alternative Energy Sources: Pulverized Coal and Biomass Co-firing Technology Assessment (NETL/DOE-2012/1537). National Energy Technology Laboratory. [Full-text at http://j.mp/Cofiring]

National Energy Technology Laboratory. (2012). Updated Costs (June 2011 Basis) for Selected Bituminous Baseline Cases (NETL/DOE-341/082312). National Energy Technology Laboratory. [Full-text at http://j.mp/Bituminous]

III-3. Natural Gas Power

National Energy Technology Laboratory. (2012). Role of Alternative Energy Sources: Natural Gas Technology Assessment (NETL/DOE-2012/1539). National Energy Technology Laboratory. [Full-text at http://j.mp/NG_Power]

Seebregts, A. J. (2010). Gas-Fired Power. Technology Brief, E02. International Energy Agency. [Full-text at http://j.mp/ETSAP_Gas_LCOE]

IV. Cost of Nuclear Power

Congressional Budget Office. (2008). Nuclear Power’s Role in Generating Electricity. Congressional Budget Office. [Full-text at http://j.mp/CBO_Atom]

Cour des comptes. (2012). The Costs of the Nuclear Power Sector: Thematic Public Report. Cour des comptes (Court of Audit). [Full-text at http://j.mp/FR_Atom_Costs]

De Roo, G., & Parsons, J. E. (2011). A methodology for calculating the levelized cost of electricity in nuclear power systems with fuel recycling. Energy Economics, 33(5), 826-839. doi: 10.1016/j.eneco.2011.01.008. [Full-text at http://web.mit.edu/ceepr/www/publications/reprints/Reprint_233_WC.pdf]

Deutch, J. M., Forsberg, C. W., Kadak, A. C., Kazimi, M. S., Moniz, E. J., Parsons, J. E., Yangbo, D., & Pierpoint, L. (2009).Update of the MIT 2003 Future of Nuclear Power Study. Massachusetts Institute of Technology. [Full-text at http://j.mp/MIT_Atom_LCOE]

DGA Consulting, & Carisway. (2016). Quantitative Viability Analysis of Electricity Generation from Nuclear Fuels. Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission. [Full-text at http://j.mp/Australia_Atom_LCOE]

D’haeseleer, W. D. (2013). Synthesis on the Economics of Nuclear Energy. (ENER/2012/NUCL/SI2.643067). Directorate-General for Energy (DG Enery), European Commission. [Full-text at http://j.mp/ENER_Atom]

Energy Options Network. (2017). What Will Advanced Nuclear Power Plants Cost? A Standardized Cost Analysis of Advanced Nuclear Technologies in Commercial Development. Energy Innovation Reform Project. [Full-text at http://j.mp/Nuclear_LCOE]

Harris, G., Heptonstall, P., Gross, R., & Handley, D. (2012). Cost Estimates for Nuclear Power in the UK. (ICEPT/WP/2012/014). Imperial College Centre for Energy Policy and Technology (ICEPT). [Full-text at http://j.mp/UK_Atom_LCOE]

Hogue, M. T. (2012). A Review of the Costs of Nuclear Power Generation. Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah. [Full-text at http://j.mp/Atom_LCOE_Utah]

International Atomic Energy Agency. (2014). Climate Change and Nuclear Power 2014. International Atomic Energy Agency. [Full-text at http://j.mp/CC_Atom]

LCICG. (2013). Technology Innovation Needs Assessment (TINA): Nuclear Fission - Summary Report. Low Carbon Innovation Co-ordination Group (LCICG). [Full-text at http://j.mp/LCICG_Atom]

Lecomte, M., Mario, N., & Vignon, D. (2014). A Worldwide Review of the Cost of Nuclear Power. NucAdvisor. [Full-text at http://j.mp/NucAdvisor_LCOE]

National Audit Office. (2016). Nuclear Power in the UK. National Audit Office. [Full-text at http://j.mp/2016_UK_LCOE]

National Audit Office. (2017). Hinkley Point C. National Audit Office. [Full-text at http://j.mp/UK_Nuclear_Cost]

National Energy Technology Laboratory. (2012). Role of Alternative Energy Sources: Nuclear Technology Assessment (NETL/DOE-2011/1502). National Energy Technology Laboratory. [Full-text at http://j.mp/NETL_Atom]

Nuclear Energy Agency. (2011). Current Status, Technical Feasibility and Economics of Small Nuclear Reactors. OECD/NEA Publishing. [Full-text at http://j.mp/SMR_LUEC]

Nuclear Energy Agency. (2012). The Economics of Long-term Operation of Nuclear Power Plants. OECD/NEA Publishing. [Full-text at http://j.mp/NEA_LCOE]

Nuclear Energy Agency. (2015). Nuclear New Build: Insights into Financing and Project Management. OECD/NEA Publishing. [Full-text at http://j.mp/Atom_New_LCOE]

Nuclear Energy Institute. (2016). Status and Outlook for Nuclear Energy in the United States. Nuclear Energy Institute. [Full-text at http://j.mp/NEI_LCOE]

Nuclear Energy Institute. (2018). Nuclear Costs in Context. Nuclear Energy Institute. [Full-text at http://j.mp/NEI_LCOE_2018]

Rosner, R., Klavans, J., & Olofin, S. (2015). Nuclear Fuel Cycle Cost Calculator. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. [Full-text and data at http://j.mp/Atom_LCOE]

Severance, C. A. (2009). Business Risks and Costs of New Nuclear Power. Center for American Progress. [Full-text at http://j.mp/CAP_Atom_LCOE]

SFEN. (2018). French Nuclear Power in the European Energy System. Société Française d'Énergie Nucléaire (SFEN; French Nuclear Energy Society). [Full-text at http://j.mp/SFEN-LCOE]

Simbolotti, G. (2010). Nuclear Power. Technology Brief, E03. International Energy Agency. [Full-text at http://j.mp/ETSAP_Atom_LCOE]

Szilard, R. et al. (2017). Economic and Market Challenges Facing the U.S. Nuclear Commercial Fleet—Cost and Revenue Study. (DE-AC07-05ID14517). Idaho National Laboratory. [Full-text at http://j.mp/INL_Nuclear_LCOE]

Task Force on the Future of Nuclear Power. (2016). Secretary of Energy Advisory Board—Report of the Task Force on the Future of Nuclear Power. U.S. Department of Energy. [Full-text at http://j.mp/SEAB_Nuclear_TF]

Thomas, S. (2013). The Economics of Nuclear Power. Evaluation einer Hypothetischen "NUklearen Renaissance" (EHNUR). [Full-text at http://j.mp/EHNUR_Atom]

World Nuclear Association. (2017). Nuclear Power Economics and Project Structuring - 2017 Edition. World Nuclear Association. [Full-text at http://j.mp/Nuclear_Economics]

WSP and Parsons Brinckerhoff. (2016). Quantitative Analysis and Initial Business Case - Establishing a Nuclear Power Plant and Systems in South Australia. Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission. [Full-text at http://j.mp/SA_Atom_LCOE]

V. Cost of Hydrogen-Carried Energy

Burke, A., & Sinha, A. K. (2020). Technology, Sustainability, and Marketing of Battery Electric and Hydrogen Fuel Cell Medium-Duty and Heavy-Duty Trucks and Buses in 2020–2040. National Center for Sustainable Transportation. [Full-text at https://j.mp/Trucks-Buses]

Campbell, R. J. (2020). Hydrogen in Electricity’s Future. CRS Report, R46436. Congressional Research Service. [Full-text at https://j.mp/LCOH-CRS]

Christensen, A. (2020). Assessment of Hydrogen Production Costs from Electrolysis: United States and Europe. International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT). [Full-text at http://j.mp/H2-Cost]

Cihlar, J. et al. (2020). Hydrogen Generation in Europe: Overview of Key Costs and Benefits. Publications Office of the European Union. [Full-text at https://j.mp/LCOH-EU]

Gandolf, A., Patel, A., Vigna, M. D., Pombeiro, M., & Pidoux, M. (2020). Green Hydrogen: The next transformational driver of the Utilities industry. Goldman Sachs. [Full-text at https://j.mp/LCOH-GS]

Hinkley, J. et al. (2016). Cost Assessment of Hydrogen Production from PV and Electrolysis. Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO). [Full-text at http://j.mp/H2_PV]

International Energy Agency. (2015). Technology Roadmap: Hydrogen and Fuel Cells. IEA Publications. [Full-text at http://j.mp/H2_LCOE]

IRENA. (2018). Hydrogen from Renewable Power: Technology Outlook for the Energy Transition. International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA). [Full-text at http://j.mp/LCOH_2018]

Qamar Energy. (2020). Hydrogen in the GCC: A Report for the Regional Business Development Team Gulf Region. Netherlands Enterprise Agency. [Full-text at http://j.mp/LCOH-GCC]

VI. Cost of Energy Storage

AECOM Australia. (2015). Energy Storage Study: A Storage Market Review and Recommendations for Funding and Knowledge Sharing Priorities. Australian Renewable Energy Agency (ARENA). [Full-text at http://j.mp/ESS_LCOE]

Akhil, A. A. et al. (2015). DOE/EPRI Electricity Storage Handbook in Collaboration with NRECA. (SAND2015-1002). Sandia National Laboratories. [Full-text at http://j.mp/ES_LCOE_2015]

Brinsmead, T. S., Graham, P., Hayward, J., Ratnam, E. L., & Reedman, L. (2015). Future Energy Storage Trends: An Assessment of the Economic Viability, Potential Uptake and Impacts of Electrical Energy Storage on the NEM 2015–2035. (EP155039). Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO). [Full-text at http://j.mp/ESS_LCOE_CSIRO]

Carnegie, R., Gotham, D., Nderitu, D., & Preckel, P. V. (2013). Utility Scale Energy Storage Systems: Benefits, Applications, and Technologies. State Utility Forecasting Group. [Full-text at http://j.mp/Utility_ESS]

Cole, W., & Frazier, A. W. (2020). Cost Projections for Utility-Scale Battery Storage: 2020 Update. (NREL/TP-6A20-75385). National Renewable Energy Laboratory. [Full-text at https://j.mp/Utility-Battery-Cost]

Gardner, P., Jones, F., Rowe, M., Nouri, A., & van de Vegte, H. (2016). E-Storage: Shifting from Cost to Value, Wind and Solar Applications. World Energy Council. [Full-text at http://j.mp/WEC_LCOS]

International Energy Agency. (2014). Technology Roadmap: Energy Storage. IEA Publications. [Full-text at http://j.mp/IEA_ES_LCOE; Technology annex at http://j.mp/IEA_ES_Annex]

International Renewable Energy Agency. (2012). Electricity Storage and Renewables for Island Power: A Guide for Decision Makers. International Renewable Energy Agency. [Full-text at http://j.mp/ESS_IRENA]

International Renewable Energy Agency. (2015). Battery Storage for Renewables: Market Status and Technology Outlook. International Renewable Energy Agency. [Full-text at http://j.mp/IRENA_Battery]

Joint Research Centre. (2011). 2011 Technology Map of the European Strategic Energy Technology Plan (SET-Plan): Technology Descriptions. Publications Office of the European Union. [Full-text at http://j.mp/JRC_ESS]

Lazard Ltd. (2020). Lazard’s Levelized Cost of Storage Analysis—Version 6.0. Lazard Ltd. [Full-text at http://j.mp/Lazard-LCOS-v6]

Mongird, K. et al. (2019). Energy Storage Technology and Cost Characterization Report. U.S. Department of Energy. [Full-text at https://j.mp/LCOS-DOE]

Mongird, K. et al. (2020). 2020 Grid Energy Storage Technology Cost and Performance Assessment. U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). [Full-text at http://j.mp/2020-ESS]

Nykvist, B. & Nilsson, M. (2015). Rapidly falling costs of battery packs for electric vehicles. Nature Climate Change, 5, 329–332. [Full-text at http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2564; Data at http://j.mp/BEV_LCOE]

Rastler, D. (2010). Electricity Energy Storage Technology Options: A White Paper Primer on Applications, Costs, and Benefits. Electric Power Research Institute. [Full-text at http://j.mp/EPRI_ESS]

Schmidt, O., Melchior, S., Hawkes, A., & Staffell, I. (2019). Projecting the Future Levelized Cost of Electricity Storage Technologies. Joule, 3(1), 81–100. [Full-text at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joule.2018.12.008]

VII. Cost (LCOE or LCCE [Levelized Cost of Conserved Energy]) of Energy Efficiency or Demand Response Programs

Alstone, P. et al. (2016). 2015 California Demand Response Potential Study: Charting California’s Demand Response Future – Interim Report on Phase 1 Results. Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. [Full-text at http://j.mp/LC_DR_California]

Billingsley, M. A. et al. (2014). The Program Administrator Cost of Saved Energy for Utility Customer-Funded Energy Efficiency Programs. (DE-AC02-05CH11231). Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. [Full-text at http://j.mp/LBNL_LCSE]

Hoffman, I. M. et al. (2015). The Total Cost of Saving Electricity through Utility Customer-Funded Energy Efficiency Programs: Estimates at the National, State, Sector and Program Level. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. [Full-text at http://j.mp/Saved_Electricity]

Hoffman, I. M. et al. (2017). Trends in the Program Administrator Cost of Saving Electricity for Utility Customer-Funded Energy Efficiency Programs. (LBNL-1007009). Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. [Full-text at http://j.mp/PA_CSE]

Hoffman, I. M. et al. (2018). The Cost of Saving Electricity Through Energy Efficiency Programs Funded by Utility Customers: 2009–2015. (DE-AC02-05CH11231). Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. [Full-text at http://j.mp/Saved_Power_LCOE]

Hornby, R. et al. (2015). Avoided Energy Supply Costs in New England: 2015 Report. Massachusetts Energy Efficiency Advisory Council (EEAC). [Full-text at http://j.mp/New_England_Avoided_Cost]

Molina, M. (2014). The Best Value for America’s Energy Dollar: A National Review of the Cost of Utility Energy Efficiency Programs. American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE). [Full-text at http://j.mp/ACEEE_LCOE]

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2015). Demand-Side Energy Efficiency Technical Support Document. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. [Full-text at http://j.mp/LCSE_EE]

We need clean and low-carbon energy

2019-04-18T01:01:00.002-04:00

We need ‘clean and low-carbon’ energy, NOT ‘dirty and low-carbon’ energy.

Why do we have to give up the ‘clean’ part, while we can keep it?

An Excellent 2019 Book for Studying Pathways to Achieve the Goals of the Paris Agreement

2019-03-02T04:10:00.001-05:00

I found an excellent book for studying pathways to achieve the goals of the Paris Agreement. Its contents are excellent, of course. In addition, it is an open access book (CC BY 4.0).

Before formally introducing the book, I want to make it clear: What are the goals of the Paris Agreement? The most important of the goals is:
"Holding the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels and pursuing efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels, recognizing that this would significantly reduce the risks and impacts of climate change"

I didn't read the whole book yet. But those figures and tables I've flipped through tell us reasonable but urgent conclusions.

The book:

Sven Teske. (Ed.). (2019). Achieving the Paris Climate Agreement Goals: Global and Regional 100% Renewable Energy Scenarios with Non-energy GHG Pathways for +1.5°C and +2°C. Cham, Switzerland: Springer. [Full-text at https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-05843-2]

Contents

1 Introduction.................................................... 1
Sven Teske and Thomas Pregger

2 State of Research............................................... 5
Sven Teske, Malte Meinshausen, and Kate Dooley

3 Methodology.................................................... 25
Sven Teske, Thomas Pregger, Sonja Simon, Tobias Naegler,
Johannes Pagenkopf, Bent van den Adel, Malte Meinshausen,
Kate Dooley, C. Briggs, E. Dominish, D. Giurco, Nick Florin,
Tom Morris, and Kriti Nagrath

4 Mitigation Scenarios for Non-energy GHG........................ 79
Malte Meinshausen and Kate Dooley

5 Main Assumptions for Energy Pathways........................... 93
Thomas Pregger, Sonja Simon, Tobias Naegler, and Sven Teske

6 Transport Transition Concepts................................. 131
Johannes Pagenkopf, Bent van den Adel, Özcan Deniz,
and Stephan Schmid

7 Renewable Energy Resource Assessment.......................... 161
Sven Teske, Kriti Nagrath, Tom Morris, and Kate Dooley

8 Energy Scenario Results....................................... 175
Sven Teske, Thomas Pregger, Tobias Naegler, Sonja Simon,
Johannes Pagenkopf, Bent van den Adel, and Özcan Deniz

9 Trajectories for a Just Transition of the Fossil Fuel Industry 403
Sven Teske

10 Just Transition: Employment Projections for the 2.0°C
and 1.5°C Scenarios............................................. 413
Elsa Dominish, Chris Briggs, Sven Teske, and Franziska Mey

11 Requirements for Minerals and Metals for 100%
Renewable Scenarios............................................. 437
Damien Giurco, Elsa Dominish, Nick Florin, Takuma Watari,
and Benjamin McLellan

12 Implications of the Developed Scenarios for Climate
Change.......................................................... 459
Malte Meinshausen

13 Discussion, Conclusions and Recommendations.................. 471
Sven Teske, Thomas Pregger, Johannes Pagenkopf,
Bent van den Adel, Özcan Deniz, Malte Meinshausen,
and Damien Giurco

Annex........................................................... 489

Cost of Energy Comparison, Including Levelized Cost of Energy (LCOE)—2019 Update

2019-01-03T18:35:00.004-05:00

I updated the list in a new post for the year of 2020. Please move to the post cited below.

Park, H. (2020). Cost of Energy Comparison, Including Levelized Cost of Energy (LCOE)—2020 Update. Energy and Ecology. https://j.mp/LCOE-2020

Three takeaways from UNEP’s “The Emissions Gap Report 2018”

2018-11-29T19:27:00.001-05:00

A few days ago, the United Nations Environment Programme released the latest version of its annual global climate action assessment, “The Emissions Gap Report 2018.”

I picked up three takeaways from the report:

(A) “Global peaking of emissions by 2020 is crucial for achieving the temperature targets of the Paris Agreement” ⋯ [Yet,] “global emissions are not estimated to peak by 2030, let alone by 2020.”

(B) ⋯ “this original level of ambition [of the current Nationally Determined Contributions] needs to be roughly tripled for the 2 °C scenario and increased around fivefold for the 1.5 °C scenario.”

(C) “If international cooperative initiatives [of Non-state and Subnational Actors] are scaled up to their fullest potential, the impact could be ⋯ up to 19 GtCO₂e/year by 2030. If realized, this would be instrumental in bridging the emissions gap to 2 °C pathways.”

Figure Above: Explaining takeaways (A) and (B).

Figure Above: Explaining takeaway (C).

Source: UNEP. (2018). The Emissions Gap Report 2018. Nairobi, Kenya: United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). [Full-text at http://j.mp/UNEP-EGR2018]

Share of Renewables in OECD Countries’ Energy Supply in 2017

2018-10-06T01:38:00.003-04:00

X axis: Renewables/[Total Primary Energy Supply]
Y axis: Renewables/[Total Electricity]

http://j.mp/OECD-Renewables2018

Source: International Energy Agency. (2018). Renewables Information 2018. Paris, France: IEA Publications.

Electricity Generation by Source, 2017 -- Top 25 Power-Producing Countries

2018-07-04T11:11:00.001-04:00

Who is leading the transition towards a cleaner and safer energy mix?

Data source:
BP. (2018). BP Statistical Review of World Energy 2018. London, UK: BP p.l.c.
RTE. (2018). Bilan électrique 2017. Paris, France: Réseau de transport d'électricité (RTE).

Greenhouse Gas Emissions per Capita: Top 20 Countries in 2016

2018-03-23T12:33:00.001-04:00

The graph below renders a different picture of how people around the world are warming the Earth by accounting for all Kyoto protocol greenhouse gases, not just carbon dioxide.

Source: Olivier, J. G. J., Schure, K. M., & Peters, J. A. H. W. (2017). Trends in Global CO₂ and Total Greenhouse Gas Emissions: 2017 Report. The Hague, The Netherlands: Planbureau voor de Leefomgeving (PBL; Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency).

State of Deforestation by Country, 1990-2015

2018-03-07T00:27:00.001-05:00

Can the deforestation be stopped and then reversed? Reforested areas could be a good source of additional carbon sinks.

Forest Area by Country
Unit: km²

Deforestation Rank	Country	1990	2015	1990–2015	CAGR (’90–’15)
1	Togo	6,850	1,880	-72.55%	-5.04%
2	Nigeria	172,340	69,930	-59.42%	-3.54%
3	Uganda	47,510	20,770	-56.28%	-3.26%
4	Mauritania	4,150	2,245	-45.90%	-2.43%
5	Honduras	81,360	45,920	-43.56%	-2.26%
6	Pakistan	25,270	14,720	-41.75%	-2.14%
7	Niger	19,450	11,420	-41.29%	-2.11%
8	Korea, North	82,010	50,310	-38.65%	-1.94%
9	Sudan	307,273	192,099	-37.48%	-1.86%
10	Zimbabwe	221,640	140,620	-36.55%	-1.80%
11	Nicaragua	45,140	31,140	-31.01%	-1.47%
12	El Salvador	3,770	2,650	-29.71%	-1.40%
13	Mali	66,900	47,150	-29.52%	-1.39%
14	Timor-Leste	9,660	6,860	-28.99%	-1.36%
15	Paraguay	211,570	153,230	-27.57%	-1.28%
16	Chad	67,050	48,750	-27.29%	-1.27%
17	Cambodia	129,440	94,570	-26.94%	-1.25%
18	Myanmar	392,180	290,410	-25.95%	-1.19%
19	Guatemala	47,480	35,400	-25.44%	-1.17%
20	Virgin Islands (U.S.)	236	176	-25.36%	-1.16%
21	Ethiopia	167,350	124,990	-25.31%	-1.16%
22	Benin	57,610	43,110	-25.17%	-1.15%
23	Nepal	48,170	36,360	-24.52%	-1.12%
24	Comoros	490	370	-24.49%	-1.12%
25	Kyrgyzstan	8,360	6,370	-23.80%	-1.08%
26	Indonesia	1,185,450	910,100	-23.23%	-1.05%
27	Somalia	82,820	63,630	-23.17%	-1.05%
28	Cameroon	243,160	188,160	-22.62%	-1.02%
29	Argentina	347,930	271,120	-22.08%	-0.99%
30	Burkina Faso	68,470	53,500	-21.86%	-0.98%
31	Namibia	87,620	69,190	-21.03%	-0.94%
32	Botswana	137,180	108,400	-20.98%	-0.94%
33	Malawi	38,960	31,470	-19.22%	-0.85%
34	Tanzania	559,200	460,600	-17.63%	-0.77%
35	Haiti	1,160	970	-16.38%	-0.71%
36	Equatorial Guinea	18,600	15,680	-15.70%	-0.68%
37	Belize	16,160	13,663	-15.45%	-0.67%
38	Liberia	49,290	41,790	-15.22%	-0.66%
39	Ecuador	146,309	125,479	-14.24%	-0.61%
40	Dominica	500	433	-13.34%	-0.57%
41	Northern Mariana Islands	340	295	-13.24%	-0.57%
42	Bolivia	627,950	547,640	-12.79%	-0.55%
43	Mozambique	433,780	379,400	-12.54%	-0.53%
44	Guinea	72,640	63,640	-12.39%	-0.53%
45	Senegal	93,480	82,730	-11.50%	-0.49%
46	Guinea-Bissau	22,160	19,720	-11.01%	-0.47%
47	Venezuela	520,260	466,830	-10.27%	-0.43%
48	Brazil	5,467,050	4,935,380	-9.72%	-0.41%
49	Sri Lanka	22,840	20,700	-9.37%	-0.39%
50	Colombia	644,170	585,017	-9.18%	-0.38%
51	Madagascar	136,920	124,730	-8.90%	-0.37%
52	Panama	50,400	46,170	-8.39%	-0.35%
53	Brunei	4,130	3,800	-7.99%	-0.33%
54	Zambia	528,000	486,350	-7.89%	-0.33%
55	Portugal	34,360	31,820	-7.39%	-0.31%
56	St. Lucia	218	203	-6.88%	-0.28%
57	Eritrea	16,210	15,100	-6.85%	-0.28%
58	Kenya	47,240	44,130	-6.58%	-0.27%
59	Mauritius	411	386	-6.08%	-0.25%
60	Solomon Islands	23,240	21,850	-5.98%	-0.25%
61	Mexico	697,600	660,400	-5.33%	-0.22%
62	Angola	609,760	578,560	-5.12%	-0.21%
63	Peru	779,210	739,730	-5.07%	-0.21%
64	Congo, Dem. Rep.	1,603,630	1,525,780	-4.85%	-0.20%
65	Antigua and Barbuda	103	98	-4.85%	-0.20%
66	American Samoa	184	175	-4.62%	-0.19%
67	Burundi	2,890	2,760	-4.50%	-0.18%
68	Bangladesh	14,940	14,290	-4.35%	-0.18%
69	Sao Tome and Principe	560	536	-4.29%	-0.18%
70	Kazakhstan	34,220	33,090	-3.30%	-0.13%
	World	41,282,695	39,991,336	-3.13%	-0.13%
71	Australia	1,285,410	1,247,510	-2.95%	-0.12%
72	Korea, South	63,700	61,840	-2.92%	-0.12%
73	Marshall Islands	130	126	-2.77%	-0.11%
74	Jamaica	3,446	3,352	-2.73%	-0.11%
75	Trinidad and Tobago	2,407	2,345	-2.58%	-0.10%
76	British Virgin Islands	37	36	-2.43%	-0.10%
77	Sierra Leone	31,180	30,440	-2.37%	-0.10%
78	Albania	7,888	7,715	-2.19%	-0.09%
79	Central African Republic	225,600	221,700	-1.73%	-0.07%
80	Congo, Rep.	227,260	223,340	-1.72%	-0.07%
81	Bosnia and Herzegovina	22,100	21,850	-1.13%	-0.05%
82	Armenia	3,350	3,320	-0.90%	-0.04%
83	Malaysia	223,760	221,950	-0.81%	-0.03%
84	Guyana	166,600	165,260	-0.80%	-0.03%
85	Suriname	154,300	153,320	-0.64%	-0.03%
86	Canada	3,482,730	3,470,690	-0.35%	-0.01%
87	Luxembourg	870	867	-0.34%	-0.01%
88	Papua New Guinea	336,270	335,590	-0.20%	-0.01%
89	Norway	121,320	121,120	-0.16%	-0.01%
90	Afghanistan	13,500	13,500	0.00%	0.00%
90	Andorra	160	160	0.00%	0.00%
90	Aruba	4	4	0.00%	0.00%
90	Bahamas	5,150	5,150	0.00%	0.00%
90	Barbados	63	63	0.00%	0.00%
90	Bermuda	10	10	0.00%	0.00%
90	Cayman Islands	127	127	0.00%	0.00%
90	Channel Islands	8	8	0.00%	0.00%
90	Djibouti	56	56	0.00%	0.00%
90	Faroe Islands	1	1	0.00%	0.00%
90	Greenland	2	2	0.00%	0.00%
90	Grenada	170	170	0.00%	0.00%
90	Guam	250	250	0.00%	0.00%
90	Isle of Man	35	35	0.00%	0.00%
90	Jordan	975	975	0.00%	0.00%
90	Kiribati	122	122	0.00%	0.00%
90	Libya	2,170	2,170	0.00%	0.00%
90	Maldives	10	10	0.00%	0.00%
90	Malta	4	4	0.00%	0.00%
90	New Caledonia	8,390	8,390	0.00%	0.00%
90	Oman	20	20	0.00%	0.00%
90	Saudi Arabia	9,770	9,770	0.00%	0.00%
90	Seychelles	407	407	0.00%	0.00%
90	Singapore	164	164	0.00%	0.00%
90	South Africa	92,410	92,410	0.00%	0.00%
90	St. Kitts and Nevis	110	110	0.00%	0.00%
90	St. Martin (French part)	10	10	0.00%	0.00%
90	Tonga	90	90	0.00%	0.00%
90	Turkmenistan	41,270	41,270	0.00%	0.00%
90	Turks and Caicos Islands	344	344	0.00%	0.00%
90	Tuvalu	10	10	0.00%	0.00%
90	Vanuatu	4,400	4,400	0.00%	0.00%
90	Yemen	5,490	5,490	0.00%	0.00%
123	Japan	249,500	249,580	0.03%	0.00%
124	Sweden	280,630	280,730	0.04%	0.00%
125	Mongolia	125,360	125,528	0.13%	0.01%
126	Micronesia	640	643	0.42%	0.02%
127	Russia	8,089,500	8,149,305	0.74%	0.03%
128	Slovak Republic	19,220	19,400	0.94%	0.04%
129	Tajikistan	4,080	4,120	0.98%	0.04%
130	West Bank and Gaza	91	92	0.99%	0.04%
131	Germany	113,000	114,190	1.05%	0.04%
132	Estonia	22,060	22,320	1.18%	0.05%
133	Czech Republic	26,290	26,670	1.45%	0.06%
134	Finland	218,750	222,180	1.57%	0.06%
135	Cote d'Ivoire	102,220	104,010	1.75%	0.07%
136	Belgium	6,670	6,834	2.46%	0.10%
137	Austria	37,760	38,690	2.46%	0.10%
138	United States	3,024,500	3,100,950	2.53%	0.10%
139	Georgia	27,520	28,224	2.56%	0.10%
140	Iraq	8,040	8,250	2.61%	0.10%
141	Croatia	18,500	19,220	3.89%	0.15%
142	Ukraine	92,740	96,570	4.13%	0.16%
143	Gabon	220,000	230,000	4.55%	0.18%
144	Lebanon	1,310	1,373	4.81%	0.19%
145	Slovenia	11,880	12,480	5.05%	0.20%
146	New Zealand	96,580	101,520	5.11%	0.20%
147	Uzbekistan	30,450	32,199	5.74%	0.22%
148	Latvia	31,730	33,560	5.77%	0.22%
149	Palau	380	403	6.05%	0.24%
150	Liechtenstein	65	69	6.15%	0.24%
151	Poland	88,810	94,350	6.24%	0.24%
152	Laos	176,449	187,614	6.33%	0.25%
153	Fiji	9,529	10,172	6.75%	0.26%
154	Cyprus	1,611	1,727	7.19%	0.28%
155	Costa Rica	25,640	27,560	7.49%	0.29%
156	Romania	63,710	68,610	7.69%	0.30%
157	St. Vincent and the Grenadines	250	270	8.00%	0.31%
158	Ghana	86,270	93,370	8.23%	0.32%
159	Switzerland	11,510	12,540	8.95%	0.34%
160	Netherlands	3,450	3,760	8.99%	0.34%
161	Macedonia	9,120	9,980	9.43%	0.36%
162	Serbia	24,760	27,200	9.85%	0.38%
163	Bhutan	25,067	27,549	9.90%	0.38%
164	Gambia	4,420	4,880	10.41%	0.40%
165	India	639,390	706,820	10.55%	0.40%
166	Belarus	77,800	86,335	10.97%	0.42%
167	Lithuania	19,450	21,800	12.08%	0.46%
168	Denmark	5,432	6,122	12.70%	0.48%
169	United Kingdom	27,780	31,440	13.17%	0.50%
170	Morocco	49,540	56,320	13.69%	0.51%
171	Hungary	18,010	20,690	14.88%	0.56%
172	Bulgaria	33,270	38,230	14.91%	0.56%
173	Chile	152,630	177,350	16.20%	0.60%
174	Thailand	140,050	163,990	17.09%	0.63%
175	Algeria	16,670	19,560	17.34%	0.64%
176	France	144,360	169,890	17.68%	0.65%
177	Iran	90,761	106,920	17.80%	0.66%
178	Turkey	96,220	117,150	21.75%	0.79%
179	Italy	75,900	92,970	22.49%	0.81%
180	Lesotho	400	490	22.50%	0.82%
181	Philippines	65,550	80,400	22.65%	0.82%
182	Greece	32,990	40,540	22.89%	0.83%
183	Swaziland	4,720	5,860	24.15%	0.87%
184	Israel	1,320	1,650	25.00%	0.90%
185	Moldova	3,190	4,090	28.21%	1.00%
186	Samoa	1,300	1,710	31.54%	1.10%
187	United Arab Emirates	2,450	3,226	31.67%	1.11%
188	Syria	3,720	4,910	31.99%	1.12%
189	Montenegro	6,260	8,270	32.11%	1.12%
190	China	1,571,406	2,083,213	32.57%	1.13%
191	Spain	138,095	184,179	33.37%	1.16%
192	Azerbaijan	8,520	11,394	33.73%	1.17%
193	Rwanda	3,180	4,800	50.94%	1.66%
194	Cuba	20,580	32,000	55.49%	1.78%
195	Cabo Verde	578	899	55.67%	1.79%
196	Vietnam	93,630	147,730	57.78%	1.84%
197	Tunisia	6,430	10,410	61.90%	1.95%
198	Ireland	4,650	7,540	62.15%	1.95%
199	Egypt	440	730	65.91%	2.05%
200	Puerto Rico	2,870	4,960	72.80%	2.21%
201	Dominican Republic	11,050	19,830	79.46%	2.37%
202	Kuwait	35	63	81.16%	2.41%
203	Uruguay	7,978	18,450	131.26%	3.41%
204	Bahrain	2	6	172.73%	4.09%
205	French Polynesia	550	1,550	181.82%	4.23%
206	Iceland	161	492	205.59%	4.57%

Source: World Bank. (2018). World Development Indicators (Last Updated on March 1, 2018). Washington, DC: World Bank.

Cost of Energy Comparison, Including Levelized Cost of Energy (LCOE)—2018 Update

2018-01-02T06:42:00.000-05:00

I updated the list in a new post for the year of 2019. Please move to the post cited below.

Park, H. (2019). Cost of Energy Comparison, Including Levelized Cost of Energy (LCOE)—2019 Update [Blog post]. Retrieved from http://j.mp/LCOE_2019

Per Capita Residential and Industrial Electricity Consumption in G20 Countries, 2000–2015

2017-08-28T03:58:00.000-04:00

It is a maintenance update of my previous post.
I've updated the post's two figures with latest data.

Figure 1: Per Capita Residential Electricity Consumption of G20 Countries, 2000–2015

Figure 2: Per Capita Industrial Electricity Consumption of G20 Countries, 2000–2015

Data sources:

(1) Electricity consumption:
International Energy Agency. (2003). Energy Statistics of Non-OECD Countries 2003. Paris, France: IEA Publications.
International Energy Agency. (2008). Energy Statistics of Non-OECD Countries 2008. Paris, France: IEA Publications.
International Energy Agency. (2013). Energy Statistics of Non-OECD Countries 2013. Paris, France: IEA Publications.
International Energy Agency. (2017). Electricity Information 2017. Paris, France: IEA Publications.
International Energy Agency. (2017). World Energy Statistics 2017. Paris, France: IEA Publications.
(2) Population:
World Bank. (2017). World Development Indicators—July 1, 2017. Washington, DC: World Bank.

Due to Accelerating Greenhouse Effect, Oceans Are Recently Losing More Oxygen, with Deeper Water Masses Leaking Even Further

2017-05-11T03:50:00.000-04:00

We know global oceans are absorbing 93 % of increased Earth’s heat content due to greenhouse effect, which are caused by anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide (CO₂) and methane (CH₄). Are those oceans just very generous bottomless sinks of global heat with no side effects? Of course, “NO”. They have been leaking oxygen into the atmosphere, possibly due to the rising water temperature.

The finding comes from a recent paper published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters. Historic observations of dissolved oxygen (DO) in the global oceans from 1958 to 2015 quantitatively prove a significantly negative correlation between the DO and ocean heat content (OHC). Yes, our oceans are losing oxygen.

Sounds familiar? But, this study goes further. It shows that deeper water is losing more oxygen than the water at shallower depths. The reason? Deeper ocean is storing more heat. I regret that I cannot show the disturbing graphs here. Check out the paper by clicking the link below.

Reference: Ito, T., Minobe, S., Long, M. C., & Deutsch, C. (2017). Upper Ocean O₂ Trends: 1958–2015. Geophysical Research Letters, (In Press), n/a–n/a. [Full-text at https://doi.org/10.1002/2017GL073613]

Figure: Global map of the linear trend of dissolved oxygen at the depth of 100 meters. (Credit: Georgia Tech)

“Protecting 50 % of Earth’s Surface Area”: the CBD’s Equivalent Goal to the UNFCCC’s Target of “Limiting Surface Temperature Rise to 2 Degrees”

2017-04-21T07:34:00.000-04:00

Source: Dinerstein et al., 2017

I thought Edward O. Wilson was the first person who called for protecting half of the global terrestrial area in order to avoid catastrophic mass extinctions. Now, however, I learned the “Half-Earth” (Wilson, 2016) or “Nature Needs Half” (Locke, 2013) slogans have a decades-long robust scientific consensus among conservation biologists, dating back to Odum brothers’ 1972 paper. This month, a group of scientists published a comprehensive review paper (Dinerstein et al., 2017) in BioScience along with online thematic maps of 864 ecoregions distributed among the Earth’s 14 terrestrial biomes at http://ecoregions2017.appspot.com/.

For this paper, the authors have updated the famous 2001 ecoregions map. Then they assessed the extent of both protected areas and remaining natural habitat withing each (forested and nonforested) ecoregion. Previously, about 15 % of global land was known to be protected. According to this new analysis, only 12 % of the terrestrial biosphere (13 % of forested biomes and 10 % of nonforested biomes) is protected. So the authors suggest that the global efforts increase the amount of land under formal protection by 8 to 10 % per decade, while the current increase rate is 4 % per decade.

So, I think the Convention on Biological Diversity can set the “Half-Earth” as a tentative global goal that is its equivalent target to the UNFCCC’s goal of limiting global warming under 2 degrees Celsius from pre-industrial global average surface temperature. Of course, when the IPBES’s global assessment on biodiversity and ecosystem services is published in 2019 (2nd quarter), the official global target endorsed by policymakers might become stricter, just as the Paris Agreement called for limiting the temperature increase to “below 1.5 degrees Celsius” above pre-industrial levels, even further than IPCC’s previous recommendation of 2 degrees-warming.

References:

Dinerstein, E., et al. (2017). An Ecoregion-Based Approach to Protecting Half the Terrestrial Realm. BioScience, 67(6), 534–545. [Full-text at http://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/bix014]

Locke, H. (2013). Nature Needs Half: A Necessary and Hopeful New Agenda for Protected Areas. Parks, 19(2), 9–18. [Full-text at http://j.mp/Locke2013]

Odum, E. D., & Odum, H. T. (1972). Natural Areas as Necessary Components of Man’s Total Environment. In Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference (pp. 178–189). Washington, DC: Wildlife Management Institute.

Wilson, E. O. (2016). Half-Earth: Our Planet’s Fight for Life. New York, NY: Liveright.

Analytical Conceptual Frameworks of IPBES: An Update

2017-04-02T22:05:00.000-04:00

This is a minor update of my previous (June 2014) post (“Analytical Conceptual Frameworks of IPBES”) at http://j.mp/IPBES. There was a small change from the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES).

The “Nature’s Benefits to People,” a key component of the IPBES’s analytical conceptual frameworks, was renamed to “Nature’s Contributions to People” (NCP) by the October 2016 decision of the platform’s Multidisciplinary Expert Panel (MEP) for the following two reasons (see IPBES/5/INF/24):

The word “benefits”, with its strongly positive connotation, wrongly conveyed the idea that negative contributions from nature towards peoples’ good quality of life would be excluded.
The different meanings of the word “benefits” in common speech in different languages as well as in the social sciences and the valuation literature represented potential sources of confusion.

Therefore, NCP represents of two contributions that people obtain from nature (Pascual et al., 2017):

All the positive contributions or benefits
Occasionally negative contributions, losses or detriments

So, I have updated the Analytical Conceptual Frameworks of IPBES. Please note that “only images and web-links” are updated. All the remaining are the same.

Analytical Conceptual Frameworks of IPBES: An Update

Now the IPCC's Fifth Assessment Reports (a.k.a. AR5) are all released except the Synthesis part. There is a relatively new IPCC-like intergovernmental organization focusing on biodiversity and ecosystem services.
The Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, or IPBES, has launched in 2012.
I welcome this new organization wholeheartedly. See, the title of my blog is "Energy and Ecology." If the IPCC is more about energy (as a means of climate change mitigation), the IPBES is more about ecology.
Just as the IPCC has done to connect science and policy since the publication of the First Assessment Report (FAR) in 1990, the IPBES is planning to generate timely assessment reports regularly for the world's policymakers. The first global assessment of the IPBES is scheduled to be published by 2018 and will replace the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (published by WRI, UNEP, the World Bank, and UNDP in 2005) as the most authoritative report on the status of the Earth's biomes and ecosystems.
The following figures are a beautified version of the IPBES's analytical conceptual framework and operational conceptual model drawn by the Platform's experts at the 2013 IPBES's second Plenary (IPBES-2). These figures will provide a basis of future IPBES studies. In the analytical framework (Figure 1), there are six building-blocks and two big arrows representing spatial and temporal scales each. The operational model (Figure 2) explains how science and policy interacts with each other through the IPBES processes, while the analytical framework supports the four functions of the IPBES – knowledge generation, assessments, policy support tools and methodologies, and capacity-building.
These figures appear to be influenced by the conceptual framework of the United Kingdom's 2011 National Ecosystem Assessment (2011) as well as that of the United Nations Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005). Interestingly, the IPBES analytical conceptual framework has made the UK NEA framework updated as manifested in its follow-on phase report (2014) (Figure 3). A detailed explanation of Figures 1 and 2 can be found in the IPBES-2 report (2014) and could be compared with the conceptual framework of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment.

Figure 1. IPBES Analytical Conceptual Framework
(vector [emf] image: http://j.mp/IPBES-ACF)

Source: My drawing based on IPBES-5.

Figure 2. Operational Conceptual Model of the IPBES
(vector [emf] image: http://j.mp/IPBES-OCM)

Source: My drawing based on IPBES-5.

Figure 3. UK NEA Follow-on Phase Ecosystem Services Conceptual Framework

Source: My drawing based on UK NEA FO.

Reference: Pascual, U., Balvanera, P., Díaz, S., Pataki, G., Roth, E., Stenseke, M., . . . Yagi, N. (2017). Valuing nature’s contributions to people: the IPBES approach. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 26–27, 7–16. doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2016.12.006

Cost of Energy Comparison, Including Levelized Cost of Energy (LCOE)—2017 Update

2017-02-19T16:56:00.001-05:00

I updated the list in a new post for the year of 2018. Please move to the post cited below.Park, H. (2018). Cost of Energy Comparison, Including Levelized Cost of Energy (LCOE)—2018 Update [Blog post]. Retrieved from http://j.mp/LCOE_2018

In 2025, Onshore Wind and Large-Scale Solar Will Outperform Nuclear

2016-07-15T01:46:00.000-04:00

According to the UK’s Department of Energy & Climate Change (DECC), the estimated future costs (in 2025) of onshore wind and large-scale solar power will be more competitive than that of nuclear power. As we can obviously notice, DECC's estimates for the same year were quite different just 3 or 6 years ago. It is good news for those countries who have to greatly increase the shares of low-carbon energy sources to satisfy the mitigation pledges manifested in their Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs; or now, their first Nationally Determined Contributions [NDCs]).

Note: If you want to know the current cost estimates of different energy technologies, please read my previous post (“Cost of Energy Comparison, Including Levelized Cost of Energy (LCOE) - 2016 Update” at http://j.mp/LCOE_2016).

Figure: Levelized cost of generating 1 MWh with different technologies in 2025: changes in DECC’s estimates

Source: National Audit Office. (2016). Nuclear Power in the UK. London, UK: National Audit Office. [Full-text at http://j.mp/2016_UK_LCOE]

$/£ Exchange Rate in 2014: 1 pound sterling = $1.6484 (Source: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/AEXUSUK)

Cost of Energy Comparison, Including Levelized Cost of Energy (LCOE) - 2016 Update

2016-01-18T14:26:00.000-05:00

I updated the list in a new post for the year of 2017. Please move to the post cited below.Park, H. (2017). Cost of Energy Comparison, Including Levelized Cost of Energy (LCOE)—2017 Update [Blog post]. Retrieved from http://j.mp/LCOE_2017

Suicide Rates in Old Age: An International Comparison

2015-12-01T15:46:00.001-05:00

I have compared elderly suicide rates among 34 countries. As we can easily observe from the figure below, South Korea’s elderly suicide rates are a big problem in the country.
In Korea, among 100,000 people who are 75 years old and over, 109 people committed suicide in 2009. The second-highest suicide rate in this comparison (42/100,000 in Hungary) is less than half of the tragic number.

Source: WHO (2014)
Note: All data (‘number of deaths’ and ‘age group population’) are from 2009, except Canada (2005) and United States of America (2007).

South Korea’s high suicide rates among elders might be partially caused by their poverty. Among OECD countries, South Korean elders suffer the most from destitution.
Source: OECD (2015)
Note: All data are from 2013 or most recent year.

References:

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2015). Pensions at a Glance 2015: OECD and G20 Indicators. Paris, France: OECD Publishing. [Full-text at http://j.mp/OECD_Pensions_2015]

World Health Organization. (2014). WHO Mortality Database. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization. [Data at http://apps.who.int/healthinfo/statistics/mortality/whodpms/]

Life Expectancy and Energy Consumption: Countries and U.S. States - an Update

2015-09-12T23:32:00.001-04:00

All of a sudden, I wanted to update my old post with the latest data. So I did using the year 2010 data. Below, I'm presenting a summary plot first, and then you can find the data table.
In general, as you can easily observe from the figure, longer-living people consume more energy. However, the U.S. states look different. The slope of the trend line is negative in the United States.

Life Expectancy and Energy Use: Countries and U.S. States
(All data are from the year 2010.)

Data table:

Country / State	Life expectancy at birth (years)	Energy use (tonnes of oil equivalent per capita)
Hong Kong SAR, China	82.98	4.855
Japan	82.84	4.305
Switzerland	82.25	4.272
Italy	82.04	3.178
Iceland	81.90	17.354
Australia	81.70	6.962
France	81.66	4.278
Spain	81.63	3.383
Israel	81.60	3.269
Singapore	81.54	14.084
Sweden	81.45	6.113
Malta	81.40	6.489
Hawaii	81.30	5.065
Minnesota	81.05	8.820
Norway	81.00	9.928
Canada	80.89	9.692
Connecticut	80.82	5.342
California	80.77	5.267
Ireland	80.74	3.464
Netherlands	80.70	6.491
New Zealand	80.70	5.122
Faroe Islands	80.64	5.597
Luxembourg	80.63	10.016
Austria	80.58	4.681
Korea, South	80.55	5.608
Massachusetts	80.52	5.418
New York	80.48	4.813
Vermont	80.45	6.023
United Kingdom	80.40	3.605
Greece	80.39	3.164
New Hampshire	80.32	5.594
New Jersey	80.28	6.879
Belgium	80.23	6.866
Utah	80.20	6.854
Colorado	80.02	7.535
Germany	79.99	4.328
Wisconsin	79.98	7.913
Washington	79.92	7.610
Finland	79.87	6.223
Rhode Island	79.87	4.561
Nebraska	79.84	11.819
Iowa	79.71	12.323
Macao SAR, China	79.69	1.293
Arizona	79.64	5.418
North Dakota	79.55	17.741
Oregon	79.52	6.426
Idaho	79.49	8.316
South Dakota	79.47	11.642
Florida	79.45	5.720
Slovenia	79.42	3.914
Cyprus	79.31	2.777
Bermuda	79.29	3.571
Costa Rica	79.28	1.044
Lebanon	79.25	1.667
Maine	79.19	7.812
Taiwan	79.18	5.352
Denmark	79.10	3.786
Chile	79.05	1.987
Portugal	79.03	2.623
Virginia	79.01	7.787
Illinois	78.96	7.761
Maryland	78.80	6.401
Kansas	78.72	10.256
Cuba	78.72	0.908
United States	78.54	7.942
Pennsylvania	78.50	7.434
Montana	78.49	10.055
Texas	78.45	11.894
New Mexico	78.43	8.114
Delaware	78.36	7.056
Wyoming	78.34	23.940
Alaska	78.29	22.629
Michigan	78.23	7.031
Puerto Rico	78.18	2.543
Qatar	78.15	18.623
Guam	78.10	5.682
Nevada	78.05	5.997
Brunei	77.99	9.397
North Carolina	77.81	7.081
Ohio	77.75	8.391
Indiana	77.61	11.163
Missouri	77.54	8.089
New Caledonia	77.47	4.221
Czech Republic	77.42	3.955
Georgia	77.23	8.039
Albania	76.98	1.067
South Carolina	76.95	8.921
Panama	76.95	2.180
Maldives	76.79	0.929
Mexico	76.69	1.634
Uruguay	76.62	1.586
United Arab Emirates	76.60	18.121
District of Columbia	76.53	7.761
Croatia	76.48	2.194
Tennessee	76.30	8.946
Bahrain	76.26	11.793
Poland	76.25	2.653
Oman	76.05	8.040
Kentucky	75.97	11.441
Arkansas	75.96	9.601
Oklahoma	75.88	10.584
Bosnia and Herzegovina	75.81	2.200
Louisiana	75.71	22.604
French Polynesia	75.69	1.676
Argentina	75.66	2.156
Ecuador	75.65	1.014
Estonia	75.43	1.579
Alabama	75.42	10.256
West Virginia	75.40	9.979
Antigua and Barbuda	75.33	2.956
Vietnam	75.31	0.570
Slovakia	75.11	3.543
Saudi Arabia	75.08	8.148
Mississippi	74.96	10.029
Aruba	74.95	3.699
China	74.89	1.798
Syria	74.87	1.152
Barbados	74.80	1.703
Libya	74.79	3.867
Macedonia	74.72	1.519
Tunisia	74.60	0.740
Bahamas, The	74.59	3.951
Malaysia	74.50	2.709
Montenegro	74.42	2.061
Saint Lucia	74.41	0.960
Serbia	74.34	2.434
Armenia	74.22	1.111
Turkey	74.21	1.454
Hungary	74.21	2.656
Venezuela	74.17	2.988
Kuwait	74.16	13.257
Peru	73.91	0.767
Cape Verde	73.86	0.273
Thailand	73.81	1.704
Nicaragua	73.80	0.325
Sri Lanka	73.76	0.291
Georgia	73.67	1.054
Bulgaria	73.51	2.607
Latvia	73.48	1.939
Romania	73.46	1.625
Jordan	73.44	1.269
Colombia	73.37	0.783
Belize	73.27	0.960
Lithuania	73.27	1.831
Seychelles	73.20	4.121
Iran	73.13	3.021
Brazil	73.08	1.475
Mauritius	72.97	1.399
Honduras	72.85	0.418
Jamaica	72.85	1.000
Dominican Republic	72.79	0.742
Palestinian Territories (West Bank and Gaza)	72.64	0.299
Samoa	72.41	0.375
Grenada	72.34	0.927
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines	72.18	0.785
Tonga	72.18	0.602
Paraguay	72.03	1.729
El Salvador	71.63	0.519
Guatemala	71.00	0.396
Vanuatu	70.84	0.182
Greenland	70.84	6.004
Cambodia	70.64	0.107
Algeria	70.62	1.312
Egypt	70.45	1.017
Azerbaijan	70.45	1.561
Belarus	70.40	2.940
Suriname	70.34	2.028
Ukraine	70.27	2.801
Morocco	70.17	0.582
Indonesia	70.17	0.649
Kosovo	69.90	1.484
Trinidad and Tobago	69.60	19.358
Bangladesh	69.49	0.153
Fiji	69.38	0.674
Kyrgyzstan	69.30	0.940
Korea, North	68.90	0.850
Russia	68.86	5.309
Iraq	68.83	1.298
Moldova	68.46	0.819
Kazakhstan	68.30	3.452
Philippines	68.23	0.307
Kiribati	67.88	0.220
Uzbekistan	67.86	1.781
Nepal	67.10	0.073
Solomon Islands	67.07	0.138
Bhutan	67.00	2.076
Tajikistan	67.00	0.654
Laos	66.90	0.293
Mongolia	66.89	0.792
Bolivia	66.32	0.615
Pakistan	66.13	0.357
Timor-Leste (East Timor)	65.94	0.061
Sao Tome and Principe	65.85	0.275
India	65.69	0.491
Turkmenistan	65.02	5.059
Burma (Myanmar)	64.58	0.114
Madagascar	63.35	0.040
Senegal	62.84	0.187
Yemen	62.53	0.389
Namibia	62.48	0.747
Gabon	62.29	0.812
Rwanda	62.21	0.028
Papua New Guinea	62.01	0.243
Haiti	61.87	0.081
Ethiopia	61.47	0.040
Eritrea	61.19	0.042
Mauritania	61.02	0.219
Ghana	60.60	0.208
Djibouti	60.29	0.567
Comoros	60.20	0.066
Sudan and South Sudan	59.73	0.177
Afghanistan	59.60	0.106
Kenya	59.55	0.138
Liberia	59.43	0.052
Tanzania	59.18	0.069
Benin	58.75	0.205
Gambia, The	58.13	0.097
Uganda	57.30	0.050
Congo (Brazzaville)	57.20	0.445
Niger	56.99	0.031
Togo	55.47	0.138
Guinea	55.30	0.059
Burkina Faso	55.01	0.042
Zambia	54.53	0.260
South Africa	54.39	2.910
Somalia	54.02	0.030
Mali	53.77	0.021
Cameroon	53.69	0.163
Zimbabwe	53.59	0.348
Guinea-Bissau	53.56	0.090
Malawi	53.47	0.050
Burundi	52.62	0.012
Equatorial Guinea	51.53	2.638
Nigeria	51.29	0.126
Angola	50.65	0.422
Chad	49.77	0.009
Côte d'Ivoire (Ivory Coast)	49.68	0.147
Mozambique	49.14	0.208
Congo (Kinshasa)	48.99	0.042
Swaziland	48.35	0.340
Central African Republic	48.10	0.032
Lesotho	47.48	0.199
Botswana	46.44	0.923
Sierra Leone	44.84	0.050

Sources:

Energy Information Administration. (2015). International Energy Statistics. Washington, DC: Energy Information Administration. [Data at http://j.mp/TETPB_Countries]

Energy Information Administration. (2015). State Energy Data System (SEDS): 1960-2013 (Complete). Washington, DC: Energy Information Administration. [Data at http://j.mp/EIA_SEDS]

Lewis, K., & Burd-Sharps, S. (2013). The Measure of America 2013-2014. New York, NY: Measure of America. [Full-text at http://www.measureofamerica.org/measure_of_america2013-2014/]

Ministry of the Interior, R.O.C. (2014). Life Tables for Republic of China. Taipei, Taiwan: Ministry of the Interior, R.O.C. [Data at http://j.mp/Taiwan_LE]

World Bank. (2015). Life expectancy at birth, total (years). Washington, DC: The World Bank. [Data at http://j.mp/WB_LE]

Per Capita Residential and Industrial Electricity Consumption in U.S. States, 2003-2013

2015-08-25T00:08:00.002-04:00

I heard California was an exceptional case (in a good sense) in the U.S. electricity consumption pattern. I wanted to check out the facts. Of course, this is a companion to my previous comparison of electricity consumption in the G20 countries. Because this comparison of U.S. states is not so viewer-friendly, this post will be very brief.

Remember: In the following four figures, the lower any state's data points, the more efficient is the state's electricity consumption behavior. The lower, the better.

(1) Per capita residential electricity consumption
When we look into the per capita residential electricity consumption, California is really exemplary. California is not number one. The most frugal electricity user is Hawaii. Only next to the island state, however, Californians use the least residential electricity per person. New York residents are the third. Alaska, Rhode Island and Massachusetts ranked 4th, 5th, and 6th in 2010, respectively.
By contrast, North Dakota, Louisiana, Alabama, Tennessee, West Virginia, and Mississippi used the most per capita residential electricity in the United States in 2010.

(2) Per capita industrial electricity consumption
By per capita industrial electricity consumption, Washington DC was consuming the least power. Beside the capital city, Maryland was number one in terms of least industrial-power consumption. Industries in Florida was next to those in Maryland. New Jersey (3rd), Rhode Island (4th), New York (5th), and Connecticut (6th) consumed less industrial electricity per person, too.
On the contrary, manufacturing facilities in Wyoming consumed the most electricity per capita in the United States. Kentucky was a distant runner-up. North Dakota, Indiana, Alabama and Louisiana were also consuming more industrial electricity than most states.

Data sources:

Population: U.S. Census Bureau. (2015). Population Estimates. Suitland, MD: U.S. Census Bureau. [Data at http://j.mp/States_Population]

State electricity consumption: U.S. Energy Information Administration. (2015). Electricity: Detailed State Data. Washington, DC: U.S. Energy Information Administration. [Data at http://j.mp/States_Electricity]

Per Capita Residential and Industrial Electricity Consumption in G20 Countries, 2003-2013

2015-08-18T16:46:00.000-04:00

What you see on this post is an update to my previous research, which compared the OECD members in terms of per capita residential and industrial electricity consumption. Instead of simply adding new data to the graphs, however, I changed the subject of the comparison: from the OECD countries to the G20 members. In so doing, We can put in the picture the electricity
consumption by important non-OECD countries such as China and India.
(Note: The European Union, which collectively is a member of the G20, is excluded from this analysis for a country-by-country comparison.)

Firstly, the figure below shows how residential sectors in the G20 countries change over the past decade. While North American countries (Canada and the United States) are consuming the most electricity per capita, the rapid growth in power use by Saudi Arabians is noticeable.

Because some countries' data points are too close to distinguish each other, I made a separate graph below that tracks the change in the countries’ rankings over the years (If you really want to see the difference, see the appendix A for the magnified graph for the least-consuming 11 countries.). The country rankings did not show as much change as the residential sector’s per capita electricity consumption.

Secondly, the figure below shows how industrial sectors in the G20 countries change over the latest past decade. Industrial sectors' electricity consumption experienced much change in G20 countries. A majority of the countries reduced industrial electricity use in 2009 due to the global financial crisis, the most famous trigger of which was a bankruptcy protection request filed by Lehman Brothers on September 15, 2008. However, China's industries didn't stop increasing their power consumption. Meanwhile, industrial electricity consumption in South Korea also increased each year for most of the years in the past decade, making the country No.1 by per capita since 2012.

Again, I made a separate graph of their rankings below, in case some countries' data points are too close together (If you really want to see the difference, see the appendix B for the magnified graph for the least-consuming 11 countries.). China's rank rose from 16th in 2003 to 7th in 2013. Saudi Arabia also rose 4 ranks during the same period. In comparison, Japan's rank dropped from 5th down to 9th among G20 countries, presumably because of the nation-wide shut-down of nuclear power plants since the 2011 accident at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant. Argentina, Brazil, Italy and Mexico all stepped down 3 ranks, too.

Finally, I am pasting the data tables below, just in case someone wants to know the exact numbers.
(CAGR = Compound Annual Growth Rate, 2003-2013)

Residential electricity consumption (kWh/person)
Country	2003	2005	2007	2009	2011	2013	CAGR
Argentina	563	621	714	792	870	943	5.28%
Australia	2,643	3,005	2,682	2,740	2,749	2,596	-0.18%
Brazil	415	441	471	517	558	611	3.96%
Canada	4,684	4,681	4,635	4,394	4,436	4,466	-0.48%
China	173	216	275	365	417	496	11.08%
France	2,341	2,434	2,352	2,422	2,220	2,630	1.17%
Germany	1,711	1,739	1,733	1,729	1,698	1,688	-0.13%
India	81	87	103	117	142	162	7.18%
Indonesia	162	182	204	233	269	303	6.43%
Italy	1,121	1,142	1,137	1,159	1,175	1,121	0.00%
Japan	2,068	2,229	2,287	2,246	2,281	2,246	0.83%
Korea, South	947	1,069	1,124	1,182	1,253	1,284	3.08%
Mexico	374	420	441	421	436	423	1.24%
Russia	984	758	810	865	914	976	-0.08%
Saudi Arabia	3,013	3,164	3,447	3,679	3,795	4,161	3.28%
South Africa	725	765	829	789	774	723	-0.03%
Turkey	381	456	525	549	602	590	4.46%
United Kingdom	1,944	1,940	1,881	1,905	1,767	1,774	-0.91%
United States	4,377	4,590	4,615	4,434	4,555	4,386	0.02%
World	616	645	668	688	711	730	1.72%

Industrial electricity consumption (kWh/person)
Country	2003	2005	2007	2009	2011	2013	CAGR
Argentina	999	1,104	1,129	1,116	1,211	1,150	1.42%
Australia	4,300	4,553	4,422	3,500	3,627	3,399	-2.32%
Brazil	873	930	999	947	1,044	1,029	1.65%
Canada	6,548	6,560	5,854	4,801	5,901	5,123	-2.42%
China	754	1,035	1,415	1,527	1,969	2,227	11.44%
France	2,214	2,253	2,140	1,784	1,863	1,745	-2.35%
Germany	2,842	2,847	3,002	2,509	2,857	2,784	-0.21%
India	162	184	224	245	283	293	6.09%
Indonesia	166	188	197	196	226	257	4.51%
Italy	2,489	2,468	2,472	2,028	2,146	1,924	-2.54%
Japan	3,091	2,544	2,761	2,277	2,253	2,136	-3.63%
Korea, South	3,582	3,864	4,160	4,084	4,985	5,130	3.66%
Mexico	931	975	1,015	925	1,031	1,111	1.79%
Russia	2,271	2,297	2,464	2,176	2,324	2,348	0.34%
Saudi Arabia	747	627	664	885	1,123	1,389	6.40%
South Africa	2,269	2,272	2,357	2,241	2,327	2,181	-0.39%
Turkey	813	894	1,028	960	1,168	1,199	3.96%
United Kingdom	1,919	1,968	1,913	1,621	1,620	1,532	-2.23%
United States	3,216	3,120	3,079	2,601	2,726	2,669	-1.85%
World	889	946	1,041	977	1,116	1,150	2.61%

Data sources:

Population:

UN DESA Population Division (2015). World Population Prospects: The 2015 Revision. New York, NY: United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs. [Data at http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/DVD/]

Electricity consumption:

International Energy Agency. (2006-2015). Energy Statistics of Non-OECD Countries. Paris, France: International Energy Agency. [Full-text at http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/19962851-en]

International Energy Agency. (2006-2015). Energy Statistics of OECD Countries. Paris, France: International Energy Agency. [Full-text at http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/19962827-en]

Appendices:

A: Residential electricity consumption per capita: least consuming 11 countries

B: Industrial electricity consumption per capita: least consuming 11 countries

UN's Finalized 17 Sustainable Development Goals and 169 Targets

2015-08-06T07:46:00.000-04:00

On August 2, the United Nations' 193 member countries agreed on the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and subsidiary 169 targets to be the core of the organization's post-2015 development agenda. UN aims to fully implement the goals and targets by 2030.
Its previous development core agenda was called 18 Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and their subsidiary 18 targets. MDGs had been implemented from 2000 to 2015. With varying success rates of MDGs across the globe, more action was urgently needed for the sustainability of people and the planet. SDGs are the outcome from the negotiations for the needed action. I am copying the SDGs and their targets below.

Source: United Nations. (2015). Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. New York, NY: United Nations. [Full-text at http://j.mp/UN_SDGs]

Sustainable Development Goals

Goal 1. End poverty in all its forms everywhere

Goal 2. End hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition and promote sustainable agriculture

Goal 3. Ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages

Goal 4. Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all

Goal 5. Achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls

Goal 6. Ensure availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all

Goal 7. Ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable and modern energy for all

Goal 8. Promote sustained, inclusive and sustainable economic growth, full and productive employment and decent work for all

Goal 9. Build resilient infrastructure, promote inclusive and sustainable industrialization and foster innovation

Goal 10. Reduce inequality within and among countries

Goal 11. Make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable

Goal 12. Ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns

Goal 13. Take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts*

Goal 14. Conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas and marine resources for sustainable development

Goal 15. Protect, restore and promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, sustainably manage forests, combat desertification, and halt and reverse land degradation and halt biodiversity loss

Goal 16. Promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, provide access to justice for all and build effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels

Goal 17. Strengthen the means of implementation and revitalize the global partnership for sustainable development

* Acknowledging that the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change is the primary international, intergovernmental forum for negotiating the global response to climate change.

Goal 1. End poverty in all its forms everywhere

1.1 By 2030, eradicate extreme poverty for all people everywhere, currently measured as people living on less than $1.25 a day

1.2 By 2030, reduce at least by half the proportion of men, women and children of all ages living in poverty in all its dimensions according to national definitions

1.3 Implement nationally appropriate social protection systems and measures for all, including floors, and by 2030 achieve substantial coverage of the poor and the vulnerable

1.4 By 2030, ensure that all men and women, in particular the poor and the vulnerable, have equal rights to economic resources, as well as access to basic services, ownership and control over land and other forms of property, inheritance, natural resources, appropriate new technology and financial services, including microfinance

1.5 By 2030, build the resilience of the poor and those in vulnerable situations and reduce their exposure and vulnerability to climate-related extreme events and other economic, social and environmental shocks and disasters

1.a Ensure significant mobilization of resources from a variety of sources, including through enhanced development cooperation, in order to provide adequate and predictable means for developing countries, in particular least developed countries, to implement programmes and policies to end poverty in all its dimensions

1.b Create sound policy frameworks at the national, regional and international levels, based on pro-poor and gendersensitive development strategies, to support accelerated investment in poverty eradication actions

Goal 2. End hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition and promote sustainable agriculture

2.1 By 2030, end hunger and ensure access by all people, in particular the poor and people in vulnerable situations, including infants, to safe, nutritious and sufficient food all year round

2.2 By 2030, end all forms of malnutrition, including achieving, by 2025, the internationally agreed targets on stunting and wasting in children under 5 years of age, and address the nutritional needs of adolescent girls, pregnant and lactating women and older persons

2.3 By 2030, double the agricultural productivity and incomes of small-scale food producers, in particular women, indigenous peoples, family farmers, pastoralists and fishers, including through secure and equal access to land, other productive resources and inputs, knowledge, financial services, markets and opportunities for value addition and non-farm employment

2.4 By 2030, ensure sustainable food production systems and implement resilient agricultural practices that increase productivity and production, that help maintain ecosystems, that strengthen capacity for adaptation to climate change, extreme weather, drought, flooding and other disasters and that progressively improve land and soil quality

2.5 By 2020, maintain the genetic diversity of seeds, cultivated plants and farmed and domesticated animals and their related wild species, including through soundly managed and diversified seed and plant banks at the national, regional and international levels, and ensure access to and fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from the utilization of genetic resources and associated traditional knowledge, as internationally agreed

2.a Increase investment, including through enhanced international cooperation, in rural infrastructure, agricultural research and extension services, technology development and plant and livestock gene banks in order to enhance agricultural productive capacity in developing countries, in particular least developed countries

2.b Correct and prevent trade restrictions and distortions in world agricultural markets, including through the parallel elimination of all forms of agricultural export subsidies and all export measures with equivalent effect, in accordance with the mandate of the Doha Development Round

2.c Adopt measures to ensure the proper functioning of food commodity markets and their derivatives and facilitate timely access to market information, including on food reserves, in order to help limit extreme food price volatility

Goal 3. Ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages

3.1 By 2030, reduce the global maternal mortality ratio to less than 70 per 100,000 live births

3.2 By 2030, end preventable deaths of newborns and children under 5 years of age, with all countries aiming to reduce neonatal mortality to at least as low as 12 per 1,000 live births and under-5 mortality to at least as low as 25 per 1,000 live births

3.3 By 2030, end the epidemics of AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria and neglected tropical diseases and combat hepatitis, water-borne diseases and other communicable diseases

3.4 By 2030, reduce by one third premature mortality from non-communicable diseases through prevention and treatment and promote mental health and well-being

3.5 Strengthen the prevention and treatment of substance abuse, including narcotic drug abuse and harmful use of alcohol

3.6 By 2020, halve the number of global deaths and injuries from road traffic accidents

3.7 By 2030, ensure universal access to sexual and reproductive health-care services, including for family planning, information and education, and the integration of reproductive health into national strategies and programmes

3.8 Achieve universal health coverage, including financial risk protection, access to quality essential health-care services and access to safe, effective, quality and affordable essential medicines and vaccines for all

3.9 By 2030, substantially reduce the number of deaths and illnesses from hazardous chemicals and air, water and soil pollution and contamination

3.a Strengthen the implementation of the World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control in all countries, as appropriate

3.b Support the research and development of vaccines and medicines for the communicable and non-communicable diseases that primarily affect developing countries, provide access to affordable essential medicines and vaccines, in accordance with the Doha Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health, which affirms the right of developing countries to use to the full the provisions in the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights regarding flexibilities to protect public health, and, in particular, provide access to medicines for all

3.c Substantially increase health financing and the recruitment, development, training and retention of the health workforce in developing countries, especially in least developed countries and small island developing States

3.d Strengthen the capacity of all countries, in particular developing countries, for early warning, risk reduction and management of national and global health risks

Goal 4. Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all

4.1 By 2030, ensure that all girls and boys complete free, equitable and quality primary and secondary education leading to relevant and effective learning outcomes

4.2 By 2030, ensure that all girls and boys have access to quality early childhood development, care and pre-primary education so that they are ready for primary education

4.3 By 2030, ensure equal access for all women and men to affordable and quality technical, vocational and tertiary education, including university

4.4 By 2030, substantially increase the number of youth and adults who have relevant skills, including technical and vocational skills, for employment, decent jobs and entrepreneurship

4.5 By 2030, eliminate gender disparities in education and ensure equal access to all levels of education and vocational training for the vulnerable, including persons with disabilities, indigenous peoples and children in vulnerable situations

4.6 By 2030, ensure that all youth and a substantial proportion of adults, both men and women, achieve literacy and numeracy

4.7 By 2030, ensure that all learners acquire the knowledge and skills needed to promote sustainable development, including, among others, through education for sustainable development and sustainable lifestyles, human rights, gender equality, promotion of a culture of peace and non-violence, global citizenship and appreciation of cultural diversity and of culture’s contribution to sustainable development

4.a Build and upgrade education facilities that are child, disability and gender sensitive and provide safe, non-violent, inclusive and effective learning environments for all

4.b By 2020, substantially expand globally the number of scholarships available to developing countries, in particular least developed countries, small island developing States and African countries, for enrolment in higher education, including vocational training and information and communications technology, technical, engineering and scientific programmes, in developed countries and other developing countries

4.c By 2030, substantially increase the supply of qualified teachers, including through international cooperation for teacher training in developing countries, especially least developed countries and small island developing States

Goal 5. Achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls

5.1 End all forms of discrimination against all women and girls everywhere

5.2 Eliminate all forms of violence against all women and girls in the public and private spheres, including trafficking and sexual and other types of exploitation

5.3 Eliminate all harmful practices, such as child, early and forced marriage and female genital mutilation

5.4 Recognize and value unpaid care and domestic work through the provision of public services, infrastructure and social protection policies and the promotion of shared responsibility within the household and the family as nationally appropriate

5.5 Ensure women’s full and effective participation and equal opportunities for leadership at all levels of decisionmaking in political, economic and public life

5.6 Ensure universal access to sexual and reproductive health and reproductive rights as agreed in accordance with the Programme of Action of the International Conference on Population and Development and the Beijing Platform for Action and the outcome documents of their review conferences

5.a Undertake reforms to give women equal rights to economic resources, as well as access to ownership and control over land and other forms of property, financial services, inheritance and natural resources, in accordance with national laws

5.b Enhance the use of enabling technology, in particular information and communications technology, to promote the empowerment of women

5.c Adopt and strengthen sound policies and enforceable legislation for the promotion of gender equality and the empowerment of all women and girls at all levels

Goal 6. Ensure availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all

6.1 By 2030, achieve universal and equitable access to safe and affordable drinking water for all

6.2 By 2030, achieve access to adequate and equitable sanitation and hygiene for all and end open defecation, paying special attention to the needs of women and girls and those in vulnerable situations

6.3 By 2030, improve water quality by reducing pollution, eliminating dumping and minimizing release of hazardous chemicals and materials, halving the proportion of untreated wastewater and substantially increasing recycling and safe reuse globally

6.4 By 2030, substantially increase water-use efficiency across all sectors and ensure sustainable withdrawals and supply of freshwater to address water scarcity and substantially reduce the number of people suffering from water scarcity

6.5 By 2030, implement integrated water resources management at all levels, including through transboundary cooperation as appropriate

6.6 By 2020, protect and restore water-related ecosystems, including mountains, forests, wetlands, rivers, aquifers and lakes

6.a By 2030, expand international cooperation and capacity-building support to developing countries in water- and sanitation-related activities and programmes, including water harvesting, desalination, water efficiency, wastewater treatment, recycling and reuse technologies

6.b Support and strengthen the participation of local communities in improving water and sanitation management

Goal 7. Ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable and modern energy for all

7.1 By 2030, ensure universal access to affordable, reliable and modern energy services

7.2 By 2030, increase substantially the share of renewable energy in the global energy mix

7.3 By 2030, double the global rate of improvement in energy efficiency

7.a By 2030, enhance international cooperation to facilitate access to clean energy research and technology, including renewable energy, energy efficiency and advanced and cleaner fossil-fuel technology, and promote investment in energy infrastructure and clean energy technology

7.b By 2030, expand infrastructure and upgrade technology for supplying modern and sustainable energy services for all in developing countries, in particular least developed countries, and small island developing States

Goal 8. Promote sustained, inclusive and sustainable economic growth, full and productive employment and decent work for all

8.1 Sustain per capita economic growth in accordance with national circumstances and, in particular, at least 7 per cent gross domestic product growth per annum in the least developed countries

8.2 Achieve higher levels of economic productivity through diversification, technological upgrading and innovation, including through a focus on high-value added and labour-intensive sectors

8.3 Promote development-oriented policies that support productive activities, decent job creation, entrepreneurship, creativity and innovation, and encourage the formalization and growth of micro-, small- and medium-sized enterprises, including through access to financial services

8.4 Improve progressively, through 2030, global resource efficiency in consumption and production and endeavour to decouple economic growth from environmental degradation, in accordance with the 10-year framework of programmes on sustainable consumption and production, with developed countries taking the lead

8.5 By 2030, achieve full and productive employment and decent work for all women and men, including for young people and persons with disabilities, and equal pay for work of equal value

8.6 By 2020, substantially reduce the proportion of youth not in employment, education or training

8.7 Take immediate and effective measures to eradicate forced labour, end modern slavery and human trafficking and secure the prohibition and elimination of the worst forms of child labour, including recruitment and use of child soldiers, and by 2025 end child labour in all its forms

8.8 Protect labour rights and promote safe and secure working environments for all workers, including migrant workers, in particular women migrants, and those in precarious employment

8.9 By 2030, devise and implement policies to promote sustainable tourism that creates jobs and promotes local culture and products

8.10 Strengthen the capacity of domestic financial institutions to encourage and expand access to banking, insurance and financial services for all

8.a Increase Aid for Trade support for developing countries, in particular least developed countries, including through the Enhanced Integrated Framework for Trade-Related Technical Assistance to Least Developed Countries

8.b By 2020, develop and operationalize a global strategy for youth employment and implement the Global Jobs Pact of the International Labour Organization

Goal 9. Build resilient infrastructure, promote inclusive and sustainable industrialization and foster innovation

9.1 Develop quality, reliable, sustainable and resilient infrastructure, including regional and transborder infrastructure, to support economic development and human well-being, with a focus on affordable and equitable access for all

9.2 Promote inclusive and sustainable industrialization and, by 2030, significantly raise industry’s share of employment and gross domestic product, in line with national circumstances, and double its share in least developed countries

9.3 Increase the access of small-scale industrial and other enterprises, in particular in developing countries, to financial services, including affordable credit, and their integration into value chains and markets

9.4 By 2030, upgrade infrastructure and retrofit industries to make them sustainable, with increased resource-use efficiency and greater adoption of clean and environmentally sound technologies and industrial processes, with all countries taking action in accordance with their respective capabilities

9.5 Enhance scientific research, upgrade the technological capabilities of industrial sectors in all countries, in particular developing countries, including, by 2030, encouraging innovation and substantially increasing the number of research and development workers per 1 million people and public and private research and development spending

9.a Facilitate sustainable and resilient infrastructure development in developing countries through enhanced financial, technological and technical support to African countries, least developed countries, landlocked developing countries and small island developing States

9.b Support domestic technology development, research and innovation in developing countries, including by ensuring a conducive policy environment for, inter alia, industrial diversification and value addition to commodities

9.c Significantly increase access to information and communications technology and strive to provide universal and affordable access to the Internet in least developed countries by 2020

Goal 10. Reduce inequality within and among countries

10.1 By 2030, progressively achieve and sustain income growth of the bottom 40 per cent of the population at a rate higher than the national average

10.2 By 2030, empower and promote the social, economic and political inclusion of all, irrespective of age, sex, disability, race, ethnicity, origin, religion or economic or other status

10.3 Ensure equal opportunity and reduce inequalities of outcome, including by eliminating discriminatory laws, policies and practices and promoting appropriate legislation, policies and action in this regard

10.4 Adopt policies, especially fiscal, wage and social protection policies, and progressively achieve greater equality

10.5 Improve the regulation and monitoring of global financial markets and institutions and strengthen the implementation of such regulations

10.6 Ensure enhanced representation and voice for developing countries in decision-making in global international economic and financial institutions in order to deliver more effective, credible, accountable and legitimate institutions

10.7 Facilitate orderly, safe, regular and responsible migration and mobility of people, including through the implementation of planned and well-managed migration policies

10.a Implement the principle of special and differential treatment for developing countries, in particular least developed countries, in accordance with World Trade Organization agreements

10.b Encourage official development assistance and financial flows, including foreign direct investment, to States where the need is greatest, in particular least developed countries, African countries, small island developing States and landlocked developing countries, in accordance with their national plans and programmes

10.c By 2030, reduce to less than 3 per cent the transaction costs of migrant remittances and eliminate remittance corridors with costs higher than 5 per cent

Goal 11. Make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable

11.1 By 2030, ensure access for all to adequate, safe and affordable housing and basic services and upgrade slums

11.2 By 2030, provide access to safe, affordable, accessible and sustainable transport systems for all, improving road safety, notably by expanding public transport, with special attention to the needs of those in vulnerable situations, women, children, persons with disabilities and older persons

11.3 By 2030, enhance inclusive and sustainable urbanization and capacity for participatory, integrated and sustainable human settlement planning and management in all countries

11.4 Strengthen efforts to protect and safeguard the world’s cultural and natural heritage

11.5 By 2030, significantly reduce the number of deaths and the number of people affected and substantially decrease the direct economic losses relative to global gross domestic product caused by disasters, including water-related disasters, with a focus on protecting the poor and people in vulnerable situations

11.6 By 2030, reduce the adverse per capita environmental impact of cities, including by paying special attention to air quality and municipal and other waste management

11.7 By 2030, provide universal access to safe, inclusive and accessible, green and public spaces, in particular for women and children, older persons and persons with disabilities

11.a Support positive economic, social and environmental links between urban, peri-urban and rural areas by strengthening national and regional development planning

11.b By 2020, substantially increase the number of cities and human settlements adopting and implementing integrated policies and plans towards inclusion, resource efficiency, mitigation and adaptation to climate change, resilience

to disasters, and develop and implement, in line with the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 20152030, holistic disaster risk management at all levels

11.c Support least developed countries, including through financial and technical assistance, in building sustainable and resilient buildings utilizing local materials

Goal 12. Ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns

12.1 Implement the 10-year framework of programmes on sustainable consumption and production, all countries taking action, with developed countries taking the lead, taking into account the development and capabilities of developing countries

12.2 By 2030, achieve the sustainable management and efficient use of natural resources

12.3 By 2030, halve per capita global food waste at the retail and consumer levels and reduce food losses along production and supply chains, including post-harvest losses

12.4 By 2020, achieve the environmentally sound management of chemicals and all wastes throughout their life cycle, in accordance with agreed international frameworks, and significantly reduce their release to air, water and soil in order to minimize their adverse impacts on human health and the environment

12.5 By 2030, substantially reduce waste generation through prevention, reduction, recycling and reuse

12.6 Encourage companies, especially large and transnational companies, to adopt sustainable practices and to integrate sustainability information into their reporting cycle

12.7 Promote public procurement practices that are sustainable, in accordance with national policies and priorities

12.8 By 2030, ensure that people everywhere have the relevant information and awareness for sustainable development and lifestyles in harmony with nature

12.a Support developing countries to strengthen their scientific and technological capacity to move towards more sustainable patterns of consumption and production

12.b Develop and implement tools to monitor sustainable development impacts for sustainable tourism that creates jobs and promotes local culture and products

12.c Rationalize inefficient fossil-fuel subsidies that encourage wasteful consumption by removing market distortions, in accordance with national circumstances, including by restructuring taxation and phasing out those harmful subsidies, where they exist, to reflect their environmental impacts, taking fully into account the specific needs and conditions of developing countries and minimizing the possible adverse impacts on their development in a manner that protects the poor and the affected communities

Goal 13. Take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts*

13.1 Strengthen resilience and adaptive capacity to climate-related hazards and natural disasters in all countries

13.2 Integrate climate change measures into national policies, strategies and planning

13.3 Improve education, awareness-raising and human and institutional capacity on climate change mitigation, adaptation, impact reduction and early warning

13.a Implement the commitment undertaken by developed-country parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change to a goal of mobilizing jointly $100 billion annually by 2020 from all sources to address the needs of developing countries in the context of meaningful mitigation actions and transparency on implementation and fully operationalize the Green Climate Fund through its capitalization as soon as possible

13.b Promote mechanisms for raising capacity for effective climate change-related planning and management in least developed countries, including focusing on women, youth and local and marginalized communities

* Acknowledging that the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change is the primary international, intergovernmental forum for negotiating the global response to climate change.

Goal 14. Conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas and marine resources for sustainable development

14.1 By 2025, prevent and significantly reduce marine pollution of all kinds, in particular from land-based activities, including marine debris and nutrient pollution

14.2 By 2020, sustainably manage and protect marine and coastal ecosystems to avoid significant adverse impacts, including by strengthening their resilience, and take action for their restoration in order to achieve healthy and productive oceans

14.3 Minimize and address the impacts of ocean acidification, including through enhanced scientific cooperation at all levels

14.4 By 2020, effectively regulate harvesting and end overfishing, illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing and destructive fishing practices and implement science-based management plans, in order to restore fish stocks in the shortest time feasible, at least to levels that can produce maximum sustainable yield as determined by their biological characteristics

14.5 By 2020, conserve at least 10 per cent of coastal and marine areas, consistent with national and international law and based on the best available scientific information

14.6 By 2020, prohibit certain forms of fisheries subsidies which contribute to overcapacity and overfishing, eliminate subsidies that contribute to illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing and refrain from introducing new such subsidies, recognizing that appropriate and effective special and differential treatment for developing and least developed countries should be an integral part of the World Trade Organization fisheries subsidies negotiation*

14.7 By 2030, increase the economic benefits to Small Island developing States and least developed countries from the sustainable use of marine resources, including through sustainable management of fisheries, aquaculture and tourism

14.a Increase scientific knowledge, develop research capacity and transfer marine technology, taking into account the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission Criteria and Guidelines on the Transfer of Marine Technology, in order to improve ocean health and to enhance the contribution of marine biodiversity to the development of developing countries, in particular small island developing States and least developed countries

14.b Provide access for small-scale artisanal fishers to marine resources and markets

14.c Enhance the conservation and sustainable use of oceans and their resources by implementing international law as reflected in UNCLOS, which provides the legal framework for the conservation and sustainable use of oceans and their resources, as recalled in paragraph 158 of The Future We Want

* Taking into account ongoing World Trade Organization negotiations, the Doha Development Agenda and the Hong Kong ministerial mandate.

Goal 15. Protect, restore and promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, sustainably manage forests, combat desertification, and halt and reverse land degradation and halt biodiversity loss

15.1 By 2020, ensure the conservation, restoration and sustainable use of terrestrial and inland freshwater ecosystems and their services, in particular forests, wetlands, mountains and drylands, in line with obligations under international agreements

15.2 By 2020, promote the implementation of sustainable management of all types of forests, halt deforestation, restore degraded forests and substantially increase afforestation and reforestation globally

15.3 By 2030, combat desertification, restore degraded land and soil, including land affected by desertification, drought and floods, and strive to achieve a land degradation-neutral world

15.4 By 2030, ensure the conservation of mountain ecosystems, including their biodiversity, in order to enhance their capacity to provide benefits that are essential for sustainable development

15.5 Take urgent and significant action to reduce the degradation of natural habitats, halt the loss of biodiversity and, by 2020, protect and prevent the extinction of threatened species

15.6 Ensure fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising from the utilization of genetic resources and promote appropriate access to such resources

15.7 Take urgent action to end poaching and trafficking of protected species of flora and fauna and address both demand and supply of illegal wildlife products

15.8 By 2020, introduce measures to prevent the introduction and significantly reduce the impact of invasive alien species on land and water ecosystems and control or eradicate the priority species

15.9 By 2020, integrate ecosystem and biodiversity values into national and local planning, development processes, poverty reduction strategies and accounts

15.a Mobilize and significantly increase financial resources from all sources to conserve and sustainably use biodiversity and ecosystems

15.b Mobilize significant resources from all sources and at all levels to finance sustainable forest management and provide adequate incentives to developing countries to advance such management, including for conservation and reforestation

15.c Enhance global support for efforts to combat poaching and trafficking of protected species, including by increasing the capacity of local communities to pursue sustainable livelihood opportunities

Goal 16. Promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, provide access to justice for all and build effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels

16.1 Significantly reduce all forms of violence and related death rates everywhere

16.2 End abuse, exploitation, trafficking and all forms of violence against and torture of children

16.3 Promote the rule of law at the national and international levels and ensure equal access to justice for all

16.4 By 2030, significantly reduce illicit financial and arms flows, strengthen the recovery and return of stolen assets and combat all forms of organized crime

16.5 Substantially reduce corruption and bribery in all their forms

16.6 Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels

16.7 Ensure responsive, inclusive, participatory and representative decision-making at all levels

16.8 Broaden and strengthen the participation of developing countries in the institutions of global governance

16.9 By 2030, provide legal identity for all, including birth registration

16.10 Ensure public access to information and protect fundamental freedoms, in accordance with national legislation and international agreements

16.a Strengthen relevant national institutions, including through international cooperation, for building capacity at all levels, in particular in developing countries, to prevent violence and combat terrorism and crime

16.b Promote and enforce non-discriminatory laws and policies for sustainable development

Goal 17. Strengthen the means of implementation and revitalize the global partnership for sustainable development

Finance

17.1 Strengthen domestic resource mobilization, including through international support to developing countries, to improve domestic capacity for tax and other revenue collection

17.2 Developed countries to implement fully their official development assistance commitments, including the commitment by many developed countries to achieve the target of 0.7 per cent of ODA/GNI to developing countries and 0.15 to 0.20 per cent of ODA/GNI to least developed countries; ODA providers are encouraged to consider setting a target to provide at least 0.20 per cent of ODA/GNI to least developed countries

17.3 Mobilize additional financial resources for developing countries from multiple sources

17.4 Assist developing countries in attaining long-term debt sustainability through coordinated policies aimed at fostering debt financing, debt relief and debt restructuring, as appropriate, and address the external debt of highly indebted poor countries to reduce debt distress

17.5 Adopt and implement investment promotion regimes for least developed countries

Technology

17.6 Enhance North-South, South-South and triangular regional and international cooperation on and access to science, technology and innovation and enhance knowledge sharing on mutually agreed terms, including through improved coordination among existing mechanisms, in particular at the United Nations level, and through a global technology facilitation mechanism

17.7 Promote the development, transfer, dissemination and diffusion of environmentally sound technologies to developing countries on favourable terms, including on concessional and preferential terms, as mutually agreed

17.8 Fully operationalize the technology bank and science, technology and innovation capacity-building mechanism for least developed countries by 2017 and enhance the use of enabling technology, in particular information and communications technology

Capacity-building

17.9 Enhance international support for implementing effective and targeted capacity-building in developing countries to support national plans to implement all the sustainable development goals, including through North-South, South-South and triangular cooperation

Trade

17.10 Promote a universal, rules-based, open, non-discriminatory and equitable multilateral trading system under the World Trade Organization, including through the conclusion of negotiations under its Doha Development Agenda

17.11 Significantly increase the exports of developing countries, in particular with a view to doubling the least developed countries’ share of global exports by 2020

17.12 Realize timely implementation of duty-free and quota-free market access on a lasting basis for all least developed countries, consistent with World Trade Organization decisions, including by ensuring that preferential rules of origin applicable to imports from least developed countries are transparent and simple, and contribute to facilitating market access

Systemic issues

Policy and institutional coherence

17.13 Enhance global macroeconomic stability, including through policy coordination and policy coherence

17.14 Enhance policy coherence for sustainable development

17.15 Respect each country’s policy space and leadership to establish and implement policies for poverty eradication and sustainable development

Multi-stakeholder partnerships

17.16 Enhance the global partnership for sustainable development, complemented by multi-stakeholder partnerships that mobilize and share knowledge, expertise, technology and financial resources, to support the achievement of the sustainable development goals in all countries, in particular developing countries

17.17 Encourage and promote effective public, public-private and civil society partnerships, building on the experience and resourcing strategies of partnerships

Data, monitoring and accountability

17.18 By 2020, enhance capacity-building support to developing countries, including for least developed countries and small island developing States, to increase significantly the availability of high-quality, timely and reliable data disaggregated by income, gender, age, race, ethnicity, migratory status, disability, geographic location and other characteristics relevant in national contexts

17.19 By 2030, build on existing initiatives to develop measurements of progress on sustainable development that complement gross domestic product, and support statistical capacity-building in developing countries

A Great (Free) Book on Sustainable Development Touching All Fronts of the Topic

2015-07-14T12:41:00.000-04:00

The free pdf book linked below is the proceedings of the joint workshop between the Pontifical Academy of Sciences and Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences that happened in Vatican City last year. The workshop's theme was “Sustainable Humanity, Sustainable Nature: Our Responsibility.”
Throughout 704 pages, you can find quality papers written by prominent authors that are organized by a well-balanced editing. I think this latest publication from the Vatican Press could save you some money from buying some mediocre textbooks on sustainable development.

Bibliographic information:

Dasgupta, P. S., Ramanathan, V., & Sorondo, M. S. (Eds.). (2015). Sustainable Humanity, Sustainable Nature: Our Responsibility. Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana. [Full-text at http://j.mp/Sustainability_Vatican_Press]

Selected Table of Contents:

Introduction........................................... 14

Sustainable Humanity, Sustainable Nature: Our
Responsibility
Oscar Andrés Cardinal Rodríguez Maradiaga, SDB......... 22

Programme.............................................. 37

List of Participants................................... 42

I. THE BROADER CONTEXT

Human-Nature Co-Evolution
Werner Arber........................................... 49
The Emergence of Humans: Brains (Bodies and Hands), Mind
and Soul
Yves Coppens........................................... 55

THE NEW ERA OF HUMAN-NATURE INTERACTIONS

II. FUNDAMENTAL DRIVERS OF FOOD, HEALTH, AND ENERGY
NEEDS

Impediments to Sustainable Development: Externalities in
Human-Nature Exchanges
Partha Dasgupta........................................ 63
Population et Nature: Antagonisme ou Concordance? People
and Nature: Antagonism or Concordance?
Gérard-François Dumont................................. 79
Food Demand, Natural Resources, and Nature
Joachim von Braun..................................... 115
Sustainable Development Goals for a New Era
Jeffrey D. Sachs...................................... 134

III. ANTHROPOCENE: GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE

Climate-System Tipping Points and Extreme Weather Events
Hans Joachim Schellnhuber and Maria A. Martin......... 151
An Oceanographic Perspective
Walter Munk........................................... 171

IV. COMPETING DEMANDS ON NATURE AS A SOURCE

Can We “Save” the Ocean?
Nancy Knowlton........................................ 181
Tropical Forests, for Richer and for Poorer
Jeffrey R. Vincent.................................... 192
The Promise of Mega-Cities: Moving from Despair to Hope.
Urban Informality and the Favelas of Rio de Janeiro
Janice Perlman........................................ 206

V. COMPETING DEMANDS ON THE CRYOSPHERE

Glaciers as Source of Water: The Himalaya
Anil V. Kulkarni...................................... 219
The Polar Regions
Peter Wadhams......................................... 225

VI. COMPETING DEMANDS ON THE BIOSPHERE

Green Fields: Feeding the Hungry, Raising the Poor and
Protecting Nature in Africa
Robert (Bob) Scholes.................................. 239
Stability of Coastal Zones
Marcia McNutt......................................... 248

VII. SOCIETY’S RESPONSE TO CURRENT UNSUSTAINABLE
GROWTH

Why Have Climate Negotiations Proved So Disappointing?
Scott Barrett......................................... 261
Towards an Inclusive “Green Economy”: Rethinking Ethics
and Economy in the Age of the Anthropocene
Achim Steiner......................................... 277
The Two Worlds Approach for Mitigating Air Pollution and
Climate Change
Veerabhadran Ramanathan............................... 285
Mainstreaming the Values of Nature for People into
Decision-Making
Gretchen C. Daily..................................... 301
Energy for Sustainable and Equitable Development
Daniel M. Kammen, Peter Alstone, Dimitry Gershenson... 316
Global Knowledge Action Network
Charles F. Kennel..................................... 347
Sustainable Transformation of Human Society in Asia
Yuan Tseh Lee......................................... 370

VIII. SOCIAL INFRASTRUCTURE

The Price of Inequality: How Today’s Divided Society
Endangers our Future
Joseph E. Stiglitz.................................... 379
Humanity’s Responsibility Toward Creation – An Ethical and
Anthropological Challenge
Archbishop Roland Minnerath........................... 400
Nature and the Law: The Global Commons and the Common
Concern of Humankind
Edith Brown Weiss..................................... 407

IX. SOCIAL INCLUSION

Towards a Social Balance of the Current Globalization
Juan J. Llach......................................... 425
Sustainable Education: Uruguay’s Plan Ceibal
Antonio M. Battro and Cecilia de la Paz............... 448
Being Trafficked to Work: How Can Human Trafficking Be
Made Unsustainable?
Margaret S. Archer.................................... 460
Precariedad laboral, exclusión social y economía popular
Juan Grabois.......................................... 483
The Influence of Virtuous Human Life in Sustaining Nature
Stefano Zamagni....................................... 539
Social Inclusion in Governance and Peace-Building in Asia
Wilfrido V. Villacorta................................ 567

X. CLOSING SESSION: MOTIVATING SOCIETIES

What Role for Scientists?
Naomi Oreskes, Dale Jamieson, Michael Oppenheimer..... 617
Existential Risks
Martin Rees........................................... 650
Humanity’s Responsibility Toward Nature
Enrico Berti.......................................... 661

XI. CELEBRATIONS FOR THE TWENTIETH ANNIVERSARY OF
PASS

The History of the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences
Herbert Schambeck..................................... 669

Summary
Werner Arber.......................................... 677

Statement of the Joint PAS/PASS Workshop on
“Sustainable Humanity, Sustainable Nature: Our
Responsibility”
...................................................... 685

Signatories to the Statement.......................... 704