Search

Overall, the Swiss prefer domestic production of renewable electricity, but a majority share of imported renewable electricity will likely be cheaper overall and cause fewer issues with intermittency. However, the renewable imports pathway would face more problems with acceptance of new infrastructure, especially long-distance transmission lines. The most recommended option would be to combine the domestic renewable pathway with the imported renewable pathway. The most favourable combination seems to be Swiss rooftop PV, offshore wind from the North Sea, and Swiss hydropower. Such a mix would also be acceptable to the Swiss public. This is especially important, given the Swiss political system in which policies and projects can be challenged in local, cantonal and national referenda. However, depending on the demand for renewables in EU countries, this may require expansion of transmission capacity in the Dutch / Belgian / Danish and German grids. Both the needs for grid expansion, and ways that this could be done in a manner acceptable to residents around the new transmission lines, should be researched further. This narrative has two major implications for the Swiss energy strategy. First, the ES2050 can be broadened to include imports of wind and/or CSP, but Swiss ownership and operational control would be preferable to the Swiss people. Second, as long as there is no forum to resolve the diverging interpretations of ES 2050 amongst local, cantonal and national stakeholders, we can expect conflicts and delays. The risks we examined were of a political, technical and economic nature. The political risks were mostly barriers to implementing one of the pathways, and the technical and economic risks were mostly about the consequences of these pathways. This follows a pattern we have observed in general in the literature about the Swiss energy transition. The most pressing risk seems to be delay or outright failure to obtain permits, and more generally, how to plan an

The sufficient supply of food and energy requires large amounts of fresh water. Mainly required for irrigation, but also processing and cooling purposes, water is one of the essential resources in both sectors. Rising global population numbers and economic development could likely cause an increase in natural resource demand over the coming decades, while at the same time climate change might lead to lower overall water availability. The result could be an increased competition for water resources mainly in water-stressed regions of the world in the future. In this study we explore a set of possible changes in consumption patterns in the agricultural and energy sector that could be primarily motivated by other goals than water conservation measures—for example personal health and climate change mitigation targets, and estimate the indirect effect such trends would have on global water requirements until 2050. Looking at five world regions, we investigated three possible changes regarding future food preferences, and two possible changes in future resource preferences for electricity and transport fuels. We find that while an increase in food supply as a result of higher protein demand would lead to an increase in water demand as well, this trend could be counteracted by other potential dietary shifts such as a reduction in grains and sugars. In the energy sector we find that an increasing water demand can be limited through specific resource and technology choices, while a significant growth of first-generation biofuels would lead to a drastic rise in water demand, potentially exceeding the water requirements for food supply. Looking at the two sectors together, we conclude that an overall increase in water demand for both food and energy is not inevitable and that changes in food and energy preferences could indeed lead to an alleviation of water resource use despite rising population numbers.

The sufficient supply of food and energy requires large amounts of fresh water. Mainly required for irrigation, but also processing and cooling purposes, water is one of the essential resources in both sectors. Rising global population numbers and economic development could likely cause an increase in natural resource demand over the coming decades, while at the same time climate change might lead to lower overall water availability. The result could be an increased competition for water resources mainly in water-stressed regions of the world in the future. In this study we explore a set of possible changes in consumption patterns in the agricultural and energy sector that could be primarily motivated by other goals than water conservation measures—for example personal health and climate change mitigation targets, and estimate the indirect effect such trends would have on global water requirements until 2050. Looking at five world regions, we investigated three possible changes regarding future food preferences, and two possible changes in future resource preferences for electricity and transport fuels. We find that while an increase in food supply as a result of higher protein demand would lead to an increase in water demand as well, this trend could be counteracted by other potential dietary shifts such as a reduction in grains and sugars. In the energy sector we find that an increasing water demand can be limited through specific resource and technology choices, while a significant growth of first-generation biofuels would lead to a drastic rise in water demand, potentially exceeding the water requirements for food supply. Looking at the two sectors together, we conclude that an overall increase in water demand for both food and energy is not inevitable and that changes in food and energy preferences could indeed lead to an alleviation of water resource use despite rising population numbers.

The sufficient supply of food and energy requires large amounts of fresh water. Mainly required for irrigation, but also processing and cooling purposes, water is one of the essential resources in both sectors. Rising global population numbers and economic development could likely cause an increase in natural resource demand over the coming decades, while at the same time climate change might lead to lower overall water availability. The result could be an increased competition for water resources mainly in water-stressed regions of the world in the future. In this study we explore a set of possible changes in consumption patterns in the agricultural and energy sector that could be primarily motivated by other goals than water conservation measures—for example personal health and climate change mitigation targets, and estimate the indirect effect such trends would have on global water requirements until 2050. Looking at five world regions, we investigated three possible changes regarding future food preferences, and two possible changes in future resource preferences for electricity and transport fuels. We find that while an increase in food supply as a result of higher protein demand would lead to an increase in water demand as well, this trend could be counteracted by other potential dietary shifts such as a reduction in grains and sugars. In the energy sector we find that an increasing water demand can be limited through specific resource and technology choices, while a significant growth of first-generation biofuels would lead to a drastic rise in water demand, potentially exceeding the water requirements for food supply. Looking at the two sectors together, we conclude that an overall increase in water demand for both food and energy is not inevitable and that changes in food and energy preferences could indeed lead to an alleviation of water resource use despite rising population numbers.

We examined the co-evolution of the transportation, and electricity and heat generation sectors in the Netherlands until 2040 using a MARKAL bottom-up cost optimisation model. All scenario variants investigated indicate a switch away from crude oil-based diesel and petrol for transportation. Lowest overall CO2 abatement cost is achieved by accommodating transportation first and using relatively expensive options for emissions reduction in electricity generation if needed. Biomass and carbon capture and storage (CCS) are used to full potential. Transportation CO2 emissions are reduced by switching to ethanol or bio-based synthetic fuels combined with CCS, and series hybrid cars if needed. Depending on the availability of biomass and carbon storage capacity, electricity is produced from biomass, coal with CCS, or wind complemented with natural gas. Indirect greenhouse gas emissions rise to 34–54% of national emissions in 2040. The difference in annual investment required between the scenario variants with and without CO2 emissions reductions of 68% by 2040 is 4–7 billion euro/year, or 0.5–1.2% of projected GDP. Investment costs are mostly determined by the cost of cars and electricity generation capacity. We observe competition for limited biomass supply and CO2 storage capacity between the transportation and power sectors.

Globally, our road transport sector is powered almost exclusively by internal combustion engines (ICE) and more than 90% of these engines are powered by fuels derived from crude oil. Both the current cost and projected future costs of crude oil have risen sharply in the last years. Doubts about of security of imported crude oil supplies remain, and prices are expected to remain volatile but higher than in the past. Road transport is also a major source of greenhouse gases (GHG) and air pollutants such as NOx, PM10 and volatile organic compounds. In the European Union (EU), it is responsible for 18% of GHG emissions. Changing the cars, fuels and related infrastructure we use today is a complicated and expensive transition. To reduce dependence on crude oil in transport, the use of electricity and hydrogen in cars has been advocated. However, hydrogen and battery powered cars were found to be uncompetitive by a large margin: even if the cost of fuel cells would come down to 120 €/kW or the cost of batteries to €150/kWh, advanced hybrid cars are found to have a lower cost of driving. Due to increased efficiency, series hybrid cars can reduce emissions of CO2 by 34%-47% compared to regular diesel and petrol cars. Plug-in hybrid cars and fully battery powered cars can further reduce GHG emissions, depending on the source of electricity used. Based on the generation capacity projected for the Netherlands in 2015, electricity for electric vehicle (EV) charging would be generated using natural gas, and this would mean a reduction of GHG emissions of 51%-78% compared to current cars and fuels. If off-peak charging is successfully introduced, electric driving need not strain infrastructure even in case of a 100% switch to electric vehicles. Reduction of oil dependence and, possibly, GHG emissions can also be achieved by using alternative fuels. Synthetic fuel may be competitive with oil-based diesel, and for gas-to-liquids (GTL), coal-to-liquids (CTL) and biomass-to-liquids (