2003年-世界发展银行全球_Greenhouse_Gas_Mitigation_Options_in_the_Sri_Lanka_Power_Sector_77页_429kb

Summary of Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Options in the Sri Lanka Power Sector

Core Content

This document presents an analysis of greenhouse gas (GHG) mitigation options in the Sri Lanka power sector, focusing on reducing emissions through various strategies. It outlines the current energy landscape, GHG emission trends, and the analytical framework used to evaluate potential mitigation measures. The study is conducted using a bottom-up approach and incorporates both deterministic and probabilistic models to assess the cost-effectiveness and feasibility of different options.

Key Findings

1.1 Energy and GHG Emissions in Sri Lanka

• Sri Lanka's carbon emissions are low compared to other countries, both in absolute and per capita terms.
• The power sector's GHG emissions are expected to increase significantly from 18% of total energy sector emissions in 1998 to 45% in 2018.
• In 1998, the power sector emitted approximately 1.7 million tons per year, projected to rise to 20.1 million tons by 2018, a 10-fold increase.
• The dominance of hydroelectric power and the low energy intensity of the industrial sector contribute to the low emissions.

1.2 Analytical Framework

• The study uses the GHG Overlay Guidelines as a basis.
• A bottom-up approach is employed, involving:
  • Estimation of GHG emissions under the business-as-usual (BAU) scenario.
  • Evaluation of reform scenarios incorporating pricing policies and demand side management (DSM).
  • Screening and combining various GHG mitigation options.
  • Analysis of the impact of uncertainty and climate change flexibility mechanisms.

2.1 Sri Lanka's Power Sector

• Hydroelectricity is the main indigenous energy source, with a potential of 2,000 MW and 1,205 MW already harnessed.
• Fossil fuels are entirely imported, and thermal generation has become more prevalent due to the challenges of large hydro projects.
• The Ceylon Electricity Board (CEB) manages the power sector and conducts long-term planning studies.

2.2 Demand Forecast

• Electricity demand has grown at a compound annual growth rate of around 7% since the early 1970s.
• The BAU demand forecast assumes that tariffs increase with inflation, not in real terms.
• By 2018, peak demand is expected to reach 4,292 MW, up from 1,136 MW in 1998, and energy demand is projected to increase from 5,683 GWh to 20,678 GWh.

2.3 Transmission and Distribution (T&D) Assumptions

• T&D loss rates are estimated at 17.6% of generation, with a system load factor of 55%.
• Technical losses account for 15.3%, while nontechnical (commercial) losses are 2.3%.
• These figures are based on 10-year averages and have remained relatively constant over the past decade.

2.4 Fuel Costs

• Fuel costs are a critical factor in power generation and are influenced by international prices and domestic availability.
• The study highlights the importance of fuel substitution and the potential for lower-cost alternatives.

Mitigation Options

4.1 Alternative Energy Options

• Small hydro: A significant potential remains for small hydro projects, which can provide a renewable and low-emission source.
• Wind power: Wind energy is becoming increasingly important and has the potential to reduce emissions significantly.
• Dendro-thermal power: This involves using biomass as a fuel source, which is currently the largest share of primary energy.
• Solar PV systems: These are suitable for remote rural applications and can contribute to emission reductions.

4.2 Fuel Substitution Options

• Oil steam-cycle plants: These are currently used but may be replaced with more efficient alternatives.
• LNG (Liquid Natural Gas): LNG is considered a cleaner alternative to fossil fuels and could reduce emissions.
• Conventional hydro: Still a viable option for power generation.
• Biomass co-firing: This can be used in existing thermal plants to reduce reliance on fossil fuels.

4.3 DSM (Demand Side Management)

• DSM is an important strategy for reducing emissions by improving energy efficiency and reducing demand.
• It includes measures such as energy-efficient air conditioning and improved consumer behavior.

4.4 Options Not Considered

• Nuclear power: Not considered due to high costs and technical and political challenges.
• Rehabilitation of thermal power plants: Not included in the current analysis.

4.5 Results

• The study shows that the power sector's share of GHG emissions will increase significantly, emphasizing the need for mitigation strategies.
• The impact of mitigation options on local air emissions is analyzed, with a focus on cost-effective solutions.
• The study compares the results with similar studies in Haryana, India, to assess the effectiveness of different approaches.

Resolving Uncertainty

6.1 Sources of Uncertainty

• Scientific uncertainties: Unpredictable climate change impacts and their socioeconomic and ecological consequences.
• Technological uncertainties: Uncertainty in future energy technology costs and fuel prices.
• Sociopolitical uncertainties: Political risks associated with energy price increases and the progress of climate change negotiations.

6.2 Real Options Approach

• The real options approach is used to account for the value of flexibility in decision-making.
• This approach considers the possibility of future changes and the value of waiting to implement certain projects.
• It is used to develop a dynamic abatement cost curve (DACC), which accounts for the evolving nature of costs and benefits over time.

Emission Coefficients

• Emission coefficients are calculated using stochiometry to ensure consistency between fuel characteristics, plant efficiency, and pollution control options.
• For gases like CO2, SO2, and CH4, emission factors are based on IPCC guidelines.
• The study uses the standard 100-year equivalents for aggregating emissions to carbon equivalent.

Conclusion

• The reform scenario suggests that the power sector can be improved through T&D loss reduction and DSM.
• Alternative energy sources such as wind and solar PV are identified as promising options.
• The study emphasizes the need for a dynamic approach to GHG mitigation, considering uncertainties and flexibility mechanisms.
• The real options approach is recommended for better decision-making in the face of uncertainty.