Technology Assessment under Stakeholder Perspectives

1
Technology Assessment under Stakeholder
Perspectives
SIXTH FRAMEWORK PROGRAMME 6.1
Sustainable Energy Systems
Stefan Hirschberg, Paul Scherrer
Institut Brussels, 16 February 2009
2
The NEEDS Integrated Project(Where does RS2b fit
in?)
Integration
1c
1b
Externalities in energy extraction transport
New improved methods to estimate external costs
3b
1d
Communicate Disseminate
Extend geographic coverage
3a
2a
LCA/costs of new technologies
Model internalization strategies scenario
building
Transfer general-ization
1a
Energy technology roadmap forecast
Stakeholder assess-ment acceptance
2b
NEEDS New Energy Externalities Developments for
Sustainability
3
General Objectives of Stream 2b

• To broaden the basis for decision support by
  examining the robustness of results under various
  stakeholder perspectives
• To explore stakeholder perspectives on external
  costs
• ? Combines knowledge (technology
  characteristics) generated internally and
  from other streams with stakeholder preferences

4
Contributors and Responsibilities
Contributors included also NGOs GLOBE and HELIO
INTERNATIONAL
5
Main Elements, Approaches and Tools

• Establishment and evaluation of criteria and
  indicators
• Case study and surveys with direct stakeholder
  inputs
• Sustainability assessment by means of
  Multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA)
• Comparison with total costs

6
Case Study Conclusions

• Large variation between France, UK and US in the
  uses of externality valuation in policy
• Formal requirements are crucial in order to
  consider the full costs and benefits of proposed
  regulation
• There is more extensive use of the monetary
  valuation of externalities in transport and water
  policy than in the energy sector

7
Main Stakeholder Categories

• Each category is further divided into several
  sub-categories (not shown)

8
Stakeholder Categories Sub-categories1/4
9
Stakeholder Categories Sub-categories2/4
10
Stakeholder Categories Sub-categories3/4
11
Stakeholder Categories Sub-categories
4/4
12
Examples of Difficult but Potentially
Important Social Aspects

• Social justice
• Risk aversion and perception
• Resilience of the energy system
• Conflict potential
• Theoretically, any externality can be monetized,
  but in practice methodologies and valuation are
  often controversial.

13
Survey I Externality Concept, Results and Uses
In spite of the limitations, there is general
acceptance of the concept of externalities, of
the internalisation of external costs and of most
results, but
Source Faberi et al., 2007
14
Survey I Usefulness of Externalities
Statement External cost assessment provides
decision makers with basic estimates to support
their policy decisions. Without such estimates,
the social cost of a wrong choice could be very
large and harmful.
Source Faberi et al., 2007
15
The Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA)
problem

• Big, complex problems ? multiple stakeholders,
  multiple criteria.
• Different interests ?
  different preferences, no simple
  optima.
• Complexity cognitive inadequacy can prevent
  even single decision makers from making
  consistent rankings.
• Purpose aid to thinking and decision-making
• (but doesnt give the answer)

16
7 Steps Towards MCDA

• 1 Select alternatives (with stakeholder input)
• 2 Establish criteria and indicators (with
  stakeholder input)
• 3 Quantify the technology- and country-specific
  indicators
• 4 Analyse the MCDA requirements
• 5 Select the most suitable MCDA method(s) and
  tool(s)
• 6 Test and adapt the selected method(s) and
  tool(s)
• 7 Elicit stakeholder preferences, provide
  feedback

17
Sustainability Criteria Environment
Source Hirschberg et al., 20072008
18
(No Transcript)
19
Sustainability Criteria Economy
Source Hirschberg et al., 20072008
20
(No Transcript)
21
Sustainability Criteria Social
Source Hirschberg et al., 20072008
22
(No Transcript)
23
Survey II Results General Information

• NEEDS Survey II was running from 27.11.2007
  20.01.2008

Relative response rate

• 660 persons visited the survey website
• Of these 275 participants filled in the
  questionnaire completely, representing an overall
  response rate of 9.7 (The remaining 385
  persons completed the questionnaire only
  partially and could not be included in the
  analysis)

24
Survey II Stakeholder Profile
Q5 Main stakeholder categories

• Researcher/Academia strongly dominated (61.45)
• Only three other categories were between 5 and 10
  
• Energy Supplier- Government Energy
  Environmental Agency- Consultant
• Within Researcher/Academia five sub-categories
  had the strongest representation
• - Energy Renewables (9.45)
• - Energy Nuclear (11.64)
• - Energy Systems Analysis (19.27)
• - Energy Other (6.18)
• - Non-Energy (11.27)

Source Burgherr et al., 2008
25
Survey II Feedback
Q49 5 most important indicators to be absolutely
INCLUDED
26
Survey II Feedback
Q50 5 least important indicators to be
absolutely EXCLUDED?
Source Burgherr et al., 2008
27
Conclusions Survey II on Selection of
Sustainability Criteria and Indicators

• Response rate of 9.7
• Highly qualified / educated participants, but an
  over-representation of researchers
• Most participants from CH followed by DE
• General acceptance of indicator set
• Few individual indicators considered problematic
• Strong minority (44) opts for less criteria
  i.e. about 20
• Most important indicators Global warming
  potential, Consumption of fossil fuels, Average
  generation cost, Impacts of air pollution on
  ecosystems, Independence from energy imports,
  Mortality due to normal operation
• 
  
• Some indicator descriptions were slightly
  modified
• 4 indicators from the social dimension were
  eliminated giving a final set of 36

28
Technology Range
Total of 26 for FR, 25 for DE, 21 for IT and
19 for CH
29
SocialYears of Life Lost -YOLL (2050)
Nuclear
Fossil
Renewable
Source Friedrich Preiss, 2008
30
SocialFatality rates and max. consequences
(2050)
Nuclear
Fossil
Source Burgherr Hirschberg, 2008
31
Social
Perceived risk from normal operation and
accidents
Nuclear
Fossil
Renewable
High
Low
High
Low
Source Gallego et al., 2008
32
Approach to Aggregation (I)Total Costs

• Internal External Total Costs
• Money becomes the common denominator for all
  indicators.
• It is assumed that all indicators can be
  monetized.
• It is assumed that stakeholders can agree on the
  value of life, the environment, etc.
• Nevertheless, money is the most useful and widely
  accepted common numerator.
• Cost-benefit analysis based on (total) costs has
  great attractions for guiding public policy

33
Approach to Aggregation (II)General MCDA
Algorithm
34
The Online MCDA Survey Application

• Key elements
• Interactive, graphic interface
• 1 Open website
• 2 Enter preferences
• 3 Solve to show ranking
• 4 Examine trade-offs for best technologies
• 5 Repeat until satisfied
• Immediate feedback
• Iterative learning
• Automatic data collection

35
Survey Response Information
36
Schematic Boxplot Description
37
Distribution of NEEDS MCDA Survey Respondents by
top level criteria weights
38
Average technology ranks - cluster groups 1 2
(148 11)
39
Total Costs with Average MCDA Ranking
Nuclear
Fossil
Renewable
Worst
18
18
GHG em. High
16
16
GHG em. Low
14
14
Pollution
Land use
12
12
Generation cost
cents / kWh
Average MCDA Ranking
10
10
8
8
6
6
4
4
2
2
Best
0
0
Offshore 24MW
EU Fast Reactor
SRC Poplar 9MW
Waste straw 9MW
PC Oxyfuel CCS
MC Fuel cell lt1MW
MC Fuel cell lt1MW
PC Post comb.CCS
Pulverised Coal (PC)
CC Post comb. CCS
Thermal power plant
Combined Cycle (CC)
Internal Comb. lt1MW
PV, Thin-film, small sc.
Int. Gasification CCS
Integrated Gasification
EU Pressurised Reactor
GEN III
GEN IV
COAL
NAT. GAS
NAT. GAS
BIOMASS Cogeneration
SOLAR
WIND
Cogeneration
Total costs generation costs externalities
Source Hirschberg et al., to be published
40
Total costs with average MCDA rank
Nuclear
Fossil
Renewable
Rank
10
1
2
3
6
8
11
12
14
15
16
17
13
19
20
21
24
Source Hirschberg et al., to be published
41
RS2b Conclusions

• General acceptance of the concept of
  externalities, internalisation of external costs
  and most results in spite of limitations.
• ? Results for nuclear remain controversial.
• A powerful framework for MCDA-based
  sustainability assessment developed,
  implemented and applied to four countries.
• Wide stakeholder acceptance of the proposed
  criteria and indicator set.
• Comprehensive indicator database established for
  four countries also future technologies exhibit
  strengths and weaknesses.
• Total cost approach favours nuclear and
  disfavours biomass. Ranking of fossil
  technologies in comparison to (remarkably
  improved) solar and wind strongly depends on
  which value for GHG-damages is used.
• MCDA-approach favours renewables, in particular
  solar technologies.
• Inclusion of a wide set of social criteria leads
  to lower ranking of nuclear with GEN IV fast
  breeder performing better than GEN III EPR.
• Coal technologies perform worst in MCDA while
  centralized gas options are along with nuclear in
  the midfield. CCS-performance is mixed.
• Emphasis on environment penalizes fossil options
  emphasis on economy penalizes nuclear options
  emphasis on social penalizes nuclear.

42
RS2b-Specific Inputs Main deliverables (I)

• Case studies on acceptability of monetary
  valuation of externalities methods and their role
  for the energy policy making process in France,
  UK and US
• Exploratory stakeholder survey on acceptability
  of externality concept, results and their uses
• Social criteria for a differentiated evaluation
  of energy technologies
• Sustainability criteria and indicators for
  evaluation of energy technologies survey-based
  stakeholder feedback included in the process
• Extensive stakeholder database for four countries
  (France, Germany, Italy and Switzerland)
• Web-based platform for the elicitation of
  stakeholder preferences and for carrying out
  interactive Multi-criteria Decision Analysis
  (MCDA) combining interdisciplinary technology
  performance indicators with user-specific
  preferences

43
RS2b-Specific Inputs Main deliverables (II)

• Quantitative social indicators for (conventional
  and) advanced electric generation technologies
  for four countries based on expert interviews,
  literature and relevant adapted inputs from other
  research streams.
• Quantitative economic indicators for
  (conventional and) advanced electric generation
  technologies for four countries based on
  RS2b-analysis and relevant adapted inputs from
  other research streams.
• Quantitative environmental indicators for
  (conventional and) advanced electric generation
  technologies for four countries based on
  relevant adapted inputs from other research
  streams.
• Quantitative risk indicators for (conventional
  and) advanced electric generation technologies
  for four countries based on RS2b-analysis.
• Database of electricity generation
  technology-specific sustainability indicators for
  four countries
• MCDA-based sustainability assessment integrating
  environmental, economic and social aspects
  sensitivity cases.

44
RS2b-Specific Inputs Policy Queries (I)

• In a number of cases it will not be feasible to
  provide the final answer rather the work is a
  first essential step in the research on issues
  that have not been explored before in the
  quantitative manner pursued within NEEDS.
• Is use of monetary values accepted and favoured
  by stakeholders? If yes, for what purposes? Are
  they satisfied with the methodology? Do they
  favour internalisation of external costs? Do they
  agree with technology-specific results?
• Which kind of social effects have to be
  considered for the implementation of new energy
  technologies?
• Are there any differences concerning citizens
  acceptance of energy technologies in different
  European countries? If yes, what would need to be
  considered in each of the selected countries in
  order to avoid conflicts?

45
RS2b-Specific Inputs Policy Queries (II)

• Which kind of scientific methodology can be used
  to receive valid information about social
  performance of energy systems?
• Which indicators can be found in European and
  international literature for the measurement of
  social effects of energy systems? Is there a lack
  of indicators and if yes, which kind of
  indicators are missing?
• How do citizens perceive various types of risks
  associated with energy systems?
• Are there any structures in societies concerning
  perception and acceptance of technologies that
  can be generalized?
• How about trust in risk management? Do citizens
  trust official agencies concerning risk
  management?

46
RS2b-Specific Inputs Policy Queries (III)

• What patterns can be observed in technology
  performance on various criteria?
• How sustainable are the various technologies when
  performance indicators are combined with various
  stakeholder preference profiles? What are the
  similarities and differences between technology
  performance based on MCDA (with direct
  stakeholder inputs) and on total costs?
• Same questions for supply mixes resulting from
  different policies (since policies cannot be
  assessed this can be done only as extension of
  NEEDS).
• Which technologies (and policies) exhibit most
  robust behaviour?
• Which technology developments are most essential
  for the improvement of the overall performance?
  Which developments could improve the social
  acceptability of specific technologies?

47

• Thank you for your attention
• Stefan Hirschberg
• stefan.hirschberg_at_psi.ch
• Laboratory for Energy systems Analysis (LEA)
• http//lea.web.psi.ch/