Less Energy, a Better Economy, and a Sustainable South Korea: An Energy Efficiency Scenario Analysis
Identifieur interne : 000705 ( Istex/Corpus ); précédent : 000704; suivant : 000706Less Energy, a Better Economy, and a Sustainable South Korea: An Energy Efficiency Scenario Analysis
Auteurs : Young-Doo Wang ; John Byrne ; Jung Wk Kim ; Jong Dall Kim ; Kyung-Jin Boo ; Sun-Jin Yun ; Yu Mi Mun ; Chung-Kyung Kim ; Yongkyeong Soh ; Takuo YamaguchiSource :
- Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society [ 0270-4676 ] ; 2002-04.
Abstract
An energy efficiency scenario (Joint Institute for a Sustainable Energy and Environmental Future) demonstrates that an energy future built on the use of cost-effective, high-efficiency technologies is clearly within the grasp of South Korea and would justify a nuclear power moratorium with significantly lower carbon dioxide emissions. This is a promising result, especially because applications of other sustainable energy options, such as renewables, decentralized technologies, material recycling/reuse, ecologically based land use planning, forest conservation, sustainable agriculture, and redirection of economic development toward an environment-friendly industrial base, are not included in the analysis. Here lies one of the most fundamental policy choices of the newcentury: Will we build a sustainable energy and environmental future, or will we send forward the burdens and risks of a policy regime that is unwilling to value the future beyond the satisfaction of short-term interests and convenience? It is a critical time for South Korean policy making.
Url:
DOI: 10.1177/0270467602022002005
Links to Exploration step
ISTEX:D46CCFA8433D141A4BDBDD86B4EF02ECC8A3A284Le document en format XML
<record><TEI wicri:istexFullTextTei="biblStruct"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title xml:lang="en">Less Energy, a Better Economy, and a Sustainable South Korea: An Energy Efficiency Scenario Analysis</title><author wicri:is="90%"><name sortKey="Wang, Young Doo" sort="Wang, Young Doo" uniqKey="Wang Y" first="Young-Doo" last="Wang">Young-Doo Wang</name></author><author wicri:is="90%"><name sortKey="Byrne, John" sort="Byrne, John" uniqKey="Byrne J" first="John" last="Byrne">John Byrne</name></author><author wicri:is="90%"><name sortKey="Kim, Jung Wk" sort="Kim, Jung Wk" uniqKey="Kim J" first="Jung Wk" last="Kim">Jung Wk Kim</name></author><author wicri:is="90%"><name sortKey="Kim, Jong Dall" sort="Kim, Jong Dall" uniqKey="Kim J" first="Jong Dall" last="Kim">Jong Dall Kim</name></author><author wicri:is="90%"><name sortKey="Boo, Kyung Jin" sort="Boo, Kyung Jin" uniqKey="Boo K" first="Kyung-Jin" last="Boo">Kyung-Jin Boo</name></author><author wicri:is="90%"><name sortKey="Yun, Sun Jin" sort="Yun, Sun Jin" uniqKey="Yun S" first="Sun-Jin" last="Yun">Sun-Jin Yun</name></author><author wicri:is="90%"><name sortKey="Mun, Yu Mi" sort="Mun, Yu Mi" uniqKey="Mun Y" first="Yu Mi" last="Mun">Yu Mi Mun</name></author><author wicri:is="90%"><name sortKey="Kim, Chung Kyung" sort="Kim, Chung Kyung" uniqKey="Kim C" first="Chung-Kyung" last="Kim">Chung-Kyung Kim</name></author><author wicri:is="90%"><name sortKey="Soh, Yongkyeong" sort="Soh, Yongkyeong" uniqKey="Soh Y" first="Yongkyeong" last="Soh">Yongkyeong Soh</name></author><author wicri:is="90%"><name sortKey="Yamaguchi, Takuo" sort="Yamaguchi, Takuo" uniqKey="Yamaguchi T" first="Takuo" last="Yamaguchi">Takuo Yamaguchi</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Joint Institute for a Sustainable Energy and Environmental Future</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author></titleStmt><publicationStmt><idno type="wicri:source">ISTEX</idno><idno type="RBID">ISTEX:D46CCFA8433D141A4BDBDD86B4EF02ECC8A3A284</idno><date when="2002" year="2002">2002</date><idno type="doi">10.1177/0270467602022002005</idno><idno type="url">https://api.istex.fr/document/D46CCFA8433D141A4BDBDD86B4EF02ECC8A3A284/fulltext/pdf</idno><idno type="wicri:Area/Istex/Corpus">000705</idno><idno type="wicri:explorRef" wicri:stream="Istex" wicri:step="Corpus" wicri:corpus="ISTEX">000705</idno></publicationStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct><analytic><title level="a" type="main" xml:lang="en">Less Energy, a Better Economy, and a Sustainable South Korea: An Energy Efficiency Scenario Analysis</title><author wicri:is="90%"><name sortKey="Wang, Young Doo" sort="Wang, Young Doo" uniqKey="Wang Y" first="Young-Doo" last="Wang">Young-Doo Wang</name></author><author wicri:is="90%"><name sortKey="Byrne, John" sort="Byrne, John" uniqKey="Byrne J" first="John" last="Byrne">John Byrne</name></author><author wicri:is="90%"><name sortKey="Kim, Jung Wk" sort="Kim, Jung Wk" uniqKey="Kim J" first="Jung Wk" last="Kim">Jung Wk Kim</name></author><author wicri:is="90%"><name sortKey="Kim, Jong Dall" sort="Kim, Jong Dall" uniqKey="Kim J" first="Jong Dall" last="Kim">Jong Dall Kim</name></author><author wicri:is="90%"><name sortKey="Boo, Kyung Jin" sort="Boo, Kyung Jin" uniqKey="Boo K" first="Kyung-Jin" last="Boo">Kyung-Jin Boo</name></author><author wicri:is="90%"><name sortKey="Yun, Sun Jin" sort="Yun, Sun Jin" uniqKey="Yun S" first="Sun-Jin" last="Yun">Sun-Jin Yun</name></author><author wicri:is="90%"><name sortKey="Mun, Yu Mi" sort="Mun, Yu Mi" uniqKey="Mun Y" first="Yu Mi" last="Mun">Yu Mi Mun</name></author><author wicri:is="90%"><name sortKey="Kim, Chung Kyung" sort="Kim, Chung Kyung" uniqKey="Kim C" first="Chung-Kyung" last="Kim">Chung-Kyung Kim</name></author><author wicri:is="90%"><name sortKey="Soh, Yongkyeong" sort="Soh, Yongkyeong" uniqKey="Soh Y" first="Yongkyeong" last="Soh">Yongkyeong Soh</name></author><author wicri:is="90%"><name sortKey="Yamaguchi, Takuo" sort="Yamaguchi, Takuo" uniqKey="Yamaguchi T" first="Takuo" last="Yamaguchi">Takuo Yamaguchi</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Joint Institute for a Sustainable Energy and Environmental Future</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author></analytic><monogr></monogr><series><title level="j">Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society</title><idno type="ISSN">0270-4676</idno><idno type="eISSN">1552-4183</idno><imprint><publisher>Sage Publications</publisher><pubPlace>Sage CA: Thousand Oaks, CA</pubPlace><date type="published" when="2002-04">2002-04</date><biblScope unit="volume">22</biblScope><biblScope unit="issue">2</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" from="110">110</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" to="122">122</biblScope></imprint><idno type="ISSN">0270-4676</idno></series><idno type="istex">D46CCFA8433D141A4BDBDD86B4EF02ECC8A3A284</idno><idno type="DOI">10.1177/0270467602022002005</idno><idno type="ArticleID">10.1177_0270467602022002005</idno></biblStruct></sourceDesc><seriesStmt><idno type="ISSN">0270-4676</idno></seriesStmt></fileDesc><profileDesc><textClass></textClass><langUsage><language ident="en">en</language></langUsage></profileDesc></teiHeader><front><div type="abstract" xml:lang="en">An energy efficiency scenario (Joint Institute for a Sustainable Energy and Environmental Future) demonstrates that an energy future built on the use of cost-effective, high-efficiency technologies is clearly within the grasp of South Korea and would justify a nuclear power moratorium with significantly lower carbon dioxide emissions. This is a promising result, especially because applications of other sustainable energy options, such as renewables, decentralized technologies, material recycling/reuse, ecologically based land use planning, forest conservation, sustainable agriculture, and redirection of economic development toward an environment-friendly industrial base, are not included in the analysis. Here lies one of the most fundamental policy choices of the newcentury: Will we build a sustainable energy and environmental future, or will we send forward the burdens and risks of a policy regime that is unwilling to value the future beyond the satisfaction of short-term interests and convenience? It is a critical time for South Korean policy making.</div></front></TEI><istex><corpusName>sage</corpusName><author><json:item><name>Young-Doo Wang</name></json:item><json:item><name>John Byrne</name></json:item><json:item><name>Jung wk Kim</name></json:item><json:item><name>Jong dall Kim</name></json:item><json:item><name>Kyung-Jin Boo</name></json:item><json:item><name>Sun-Jin Yun</name></json:item><json:item><name>Yu Mi Mun</name></json:item><json:item><name>Chung-Kyung Kim</name></json:item><json:item><name>Yongkyeong Soh</name></json:item><json:item><name>Takuo Yamaguchi</name><affiliations><json:string>Joint Institute for a Sustainable Energy and Environmental Future</json:string></affiliations></json:item></author><subject><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>energy efficiency</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>sustainable development</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>scenario analysis</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>nuclear moratorium</value></json:item></subject><articleId><json:string>10.1177_0270467602022002005</json:string></articleId><language><json:string>eng</json:string></language><originalGenre><json:string>research-article</json:string></originalGenre><abstract>An energy efficiency scenario (Joint Institute for a Sustainable Energy and Environmental Future) demonstrates that an energy future built on the use of cost-effective, high-efficiency technologies is clearly within the grasp of South Korea and would justify a nuclear power moratorium with significantly lower carbon dioxide emissions. This is a promising result, especially because applications of other sustainable energy options, such as renewables, decentralized technologies, material recycling/reuse, ecologically based land use planning, forest conservation, sustainable agriculture, and redirection of economic development toward an environment-friendly industrial base, are not included in the analysis. Here lies one of the most fundamental policy choices of the newcentury: Will we build a sustainable energy and environmental future, or will we send forward the burdens and risks of a policy regime that is unwilling to value the future beyond the satisfaction of short-term interests and convenience? It is a critical time for South Korean policy making.</abstract><qualityIndicators><score>6.812</score><pdfVersion>1.3</pdfVersion><pdfPageSize>612 x 792 pts (letter)</pdfPageSize><refBibsNative>true</refBibsNative><abstractCharCount>1068</abstractCharCount><pdfWordCount>7485</pdfWordCount><pdfCharCount>48672</pdfCharCount><pdfPageCount>13</pdfPageCount><abstractWordCount>151</abstractWordCount></qualityIndicators><title>Less Energy, a Better Economy, and a Sustainable South Korea: An Energy Efficiency Scenario Analysis</title><genre><json:string>research-article</json:string></genre><host><volume>22</volume><publisherId><json:string>BST</json:string></publisherId><pages><last>122</last><first>110</first></pages><issn><json:string>0270-4676</json:string></issn><issue>2</issue><genre><json:string>journal</json:string></genre><language><json:string>unknown</json:string></language><eissn><json:string>1552-4183</json:string></eissn><title>Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society</title></host><categories><wos></wos><scienceMetrix><json:string>economic & social sciences</json:string><json:string>social sciences</json:string><json:string>science studies</json:string></scienceMetrix></categories><publicationDate>2002</publicationDate><copyrightDate>2002</copyrightDate><doi><json:string>10.1177/0270467602022002005</json:string></doi><id>D46CCFA8433D141A4BDBDD86B4EF02ECC8A3A284</id><score>0.05014632</score><fulltext><json:item><extension>pdf</extension><original>true</original><mimetype>application/pdf</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/D46CCFA8433D141A4BDBDD86B4EF02ECC8A3A284/fulltext/pdf</uri></json:item><json:item><extension>zip</extension><original>false</original><mimetype>application/zip</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/D46CCFA8433D141A4BDBDD86B4EF02ECC8A3A284/fulltext/zip</uri></json:item><istex:fulltextTEI uri="https://api.istex.fr/document/D46CCFA8433D141A4BDBDD86B4EF02ECC8A3A284/fulltext/tei"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title level="a" type="main" xml:lang="en">Less Energy, a Better Economy, and a Sustainable South Korea: An Energy Efficiency Scenario Analysis</title></titleStmt><publicationStmt><authority>ISTEX</authority><publisher>Sage Publications</publisher><pubPlace>Sage CA: Thousand Oaks, CA</pubPlace><availability><p>SAGE</p></availability><date>2002</date></publicationStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct type="inbook"><analytic><title level="a" type="main" xml:lang="en">Less Energy, a Better Economy, and a Sustainable South Korea: An Energy Efficiency Scenario Analysis</title><author xml:id="author-1"><persName><forename type="first">Young-Doo</forename><surname>Wang</surname></persName></author><author xml:id="author-2"><persName><forename type="first">John</forename><surname>Byrne</surname></persName></author><author xml:id="author-3"><persName><forename type="first">Jung wk</forename><surname>Kim</surname></persName></author><author xml:id="author-4"><persName><forename type="first">Jong dall</forename><surname>Kim</surname></persName></author><author xml:id="author-5"><persName><forename type="first">Kyung-Jin</forename><surname>Boo</surname></persName></author><author xml:id="author-6"><persName><forename type="first">Sun-Jin</forename><surname>Yun</surname></persName></author><author xml:id="author-7"><persName><forename type="first">Yu Mi</forename><surname>Mun</surname></persName></author><author xml:id="author-8"><persName><forename type="first">Chung-Kyung</forename><surname>Kim</surname></persName></author><author xml:id="author-9"><persName><forename type="first">Yongkyeong</forename><surname>Soh</surname></persName></author><author xml:id="author-10"><persName><forename type="first">Takuo</forename><surname>Yamaguchi</surname></persName><affiliation>Joint Institute for a Sustainable Energy and Environmental Future</affiliation></author></analytic><monogr><title level="j">Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society</title><idno type="pISSN">0270-4676</idno><idno type="eISSN">1552-4183</idno><imprint><publisher>Sage Publications</publisher><pubPlace>Sage CA: Thousand Oaks, CA</pubPlace><date type="published" when="2002-04"></date><biblScope unit="volume">22</biblScope><biblScope unit="issue">2</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" from="110">110</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" to="122">122</biblScope></imprint></monogr><idno type="istex">D46CCFA8433D141A4BDBDD86B4EF02ECC8A3A284</idno><idno type="DOI">10.1177/0270467602022002005</idno><idno type="ArticleID">10.1177_0270467602022002005</idno></biblStruct></sourceDesc></fileDesc><profileDesc><creation><date>2002</date></creation><langUsage><language ident="en">en</language></langUsage><abstract xml:lang="en"><p>An energy efficiency scenario (Joint Institute for a Sustainable Energy and Environmental Future) demonstrates that an energy future built on the use of cost-effective, high-efficiency technologies is clearly within the grasp of South Korea and would justify a nuclear power moratorium with significantly lower carbon dioxide emissions. This is a promising result, especially because applications of other sustainable energy options, such as renewables, decentralized technologies, material recycling/reuse, ecologically based land use planning, forest conservation, sustainable agriculture, and redirection of economic development toward an environment-friendly industrial base, are not included in the analysis. Here lies one of the most fundamental policy choices of the newcentury: Will we build a sustainable energy and environmental future, or will we send forward the burdens and risks of a policy regime that is unwilling to value the future beyond the satisfaction of short-term interests and convenience? It is a critical time for South Korean policy making.</p></abstract><textClass><keywords scheme="keyword"><list><head>keywords</head><item><term>energy efficiency</term></item><item><term>sustainable development</term></item><item><term>scenario analysis</term></item><item><term>nuclear moratorium</term></item></list></keywords></textClass></profileDesc><revisionDesc><change when="2002-04">Published</change></revisionDesc></teiHeader></istex:fulltextTEI><json:item><extension>txt</extension><original>false</original><mimetype>text/plain</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/D46CCFA8433D141A4BDBDD86B4EF02ECC8A3A284/fulltext/txt</uri></json:item></fulltext><metadata><istex:metadataXml wicri:clean="corpus sage not found" wicri:toSee="no header"><istex:xmlDeclaration>version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"</istex:xmlDeclaration><istex:docType PUBLIC="-//NLM//DTD Journal Publishing DTD v2.3 20070202//EN" URI="journalpublishing.dtd" name="istex:docType"></istex:docType><istex:document><article article-type="research-article" dtd-version="2.3" xml:lang="EN"><front><journal-meta><journal-id journal-id-type="hwp">spbst</journal-id><journal-id journal-id-type="publisher-id">BST</journal-id><journal-title>Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society</journal-title><issn pub-type="ppub">0270-4676</issn><publisher><publisher-name>Sage Publications</publisher-name><publisher-loc>Sage CA: Thousand Oaks, CA</publisher-loc></publisher></journal-meta><article-meta><article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1177/0270467602022002005</article-id><article-id pub-id-type="publisher-id">10.1177_0270467602022002005</article-id><article-categories><subj-group subj-group-type="heading"><subject>Articles</subject></subj-group></article-categories><title-group><article-title>Less Energy, a Better Economy, and a Sustainable South Korea: An Energy Efficiency Scenario Analysis</article-title></title-group><contrib-group><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Wang</surname><given-names>Young-Doo</given-names></name></contrib></contrib-group><contrib-group><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Byrne</surname><given-names>John</given-names></name></contrib></contrib-group><contrib-group><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Kim</surname><given-names>Jung wk</given-names></name></contrib></contrib-group><contrib-group><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Kim</surname><given-names>Jong dall</given-names></name></contrib></contrib-group><contrib-group><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Boo</surname><given-names>Kyung-Jin</given-names></name></contrib></contrib-group><contrib-group><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Yun</surname><given-names>Sun-Jin</given-names></name></contrib></contrib-group><contrib-group><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Mun</surname><given-names>Yu Mi</given-names></name></contrib></contrib-group><contrib-group><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Kim</surname><given-names>Chung-Kyung</given-names></name></contrib></contrib-group><contrib-group><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Soh</surname><given-names>Yongkyeong</given-names></name></contrib></contrib-group><contrib-group><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Yamaguchi</surname><given-names>Takuo</given-names></name><aff>Joint Institute for a Sustainable Energy and Environmental Future</aff></contrib></contrib-group><pub-date pub-type="ppub"><month>04</month><year>2002</year></pub-date><volume>22</volume><issue>2</issue><fpage>110</fpage><lpage>122</lpage><abstract><p>An energy efficiency scenario (Joint Institute for a Sustainable Energy and Environmental Future) demonstrates that an energy future built on the use of cost-effective, high-efficiency technologies is clearly within the grasp of South Korea and would justify a nuclear power moratorium with significantly lower carbon dioxide emissions. This is a promising result, especially because applications of other sustainable energy options, such as renewables, decentralized technologies, material recycling/reuse, ecologically based land use planning, forest conservation, sustainable agriculture, and redirection of economic development toward an environment-friendly industrial base, are not included in the analysis. Here lies one of the most fundamental policy choices of the newcentury: Will we build a sustainable energy and environmental future, or will we send forward the burdens and risks of a policy regime that is unwilling to value the future beyond the satisfaction of short-term interests and convenience? It is a critical time for South Korean policy making.</p></abstract><kwd-group><kwd>energy efficiency</kwd><kwd>sustainable development</kwd><kwd>scenario analysis</kwd><kwd>nuclear moratorium</kwd></kwd-group><custom-meta-wrap><custom-meta xlink:type="simple"><meta-name>sagemeta-type</meta-name><meta-value>Journal Article</meta-value></custom-meta><custom-meta xlink:type="simple"><meta-name>search-text</meta-name><meta-value> BULLETIN OF SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY & SOCIETY / April 2002Wang et al. / AN ENERGY EFFICIENCY SCENARIOANALYSIS Less Energy, a Better Economy, and a Sustainable South Korea: An Energy Efficiency Scenario Analysis Young-Doo Wang John Byrne Jung wk Kim Jong dall Kim Kyung-Jin Boo Sun-Jin Yun Yu Mi Mun Chung-Kyung Kim Yongkyeong Soh Takuo Yamaguchi Joint Institute for a Sustainable Energy and Environmental Future 1 An energy efficiency scenario (Joint Institute for a Sustainable Energy and Environmental Future) dem- onstrates that an energy future built on the use of cost- effective, high-efficiency technologies is clearly within the grasp of South Korea and would justify a nuclear power moratorium with significantly lower carbon di- oxide emissions. This is a promising result, especially because applications of other sustainable energy op- tions, such as renewables, decentralized technologies, material recycling/reuse, ecologically based land use planning, forest conservation, sustainable agricul- ture, and redirection of economic development toward an environment-friendly industrial base, are not in- cluded in the analysis. Here lies one of the most funda- mental policy choices of the new century: Will we build a sustainable energy and environmental future, or will we send forward the burdens and risks of a policy re- gime that is unwilling to value the future beyond the satisfaction of short-term interests and convenience? It is a critical time for South Korean policy making. Key Words: energy efficiency, sustainable develop- ment, scenario analysis, nuclear moratorium Future global development will depend on energy resources that are safe, reliable, and environmentally sound. Yet most countries continue to use fuels that are nonrenewable and technologies that pose significant hazards to the environment and human health. There is a pressing need in the new century to adopt sustainable energy options, especially in the face of mounting evi- dence of global warming linked to fossil fuel use and the persisting threat of nuclear accidents, unresolved problems of radioactive waste disposal, and the spec- ter of nuclear weapons proliferation associated with continued use of nuclear power. Recent progress in the fields of energy efficiency, energy conservation, alter- native energy, and materials recycling and reuse make possible an energy transition built on a decentralized, renewable, and low-emission technology platform. South Korea can be an active participant in building such a future. To do so, it will need to change its energy strategy. The country's energy policies over the past 30 years have mainly sought to assure stable energy sup- plies from fossil fuels and nuclear power. In 1999, imported coal, oil, natural gas, and uranium accounted for 98% of national energy supply, whereas nuclear power represented 29% of electrical generation capac- ity (13.7 GW), provided 43% of electricity supplied (103.1 TWh), and accounted for 14% of total national energy supply (Ministry of Commerce, Industry and Energy and Korea Energy Economics Institute [MOCIE/KEEI], 2000). The country's energy inten- sity rate has been and remains above the world average Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, Vol. 22, No. 2, April 2002, 110-122 Copyright 2002 Sage Publications and is actually increasing. Energy consumption in South Korea has grown so dramatically that it is now the 10th largest source of carbon dioxide (CO2) emis- sions in the world (World Bank, 1999).2 Recognition that environmental problems associ- ated with energy use must be addressed by the entire global community is beginning to be reflected in national policies. This includes South Korea, which is a signatory to the UN Framework Convention on Cli- mate Change. In 1998, the national government announced a plan to voluntarily reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from the year 2018. As shown in this article, there are practical and economical energy strategies available to South Korea that can reduce GHG emissions at a much faster rate than was antici- pated in the government's 1998 pronouncement. Pur- suing these strategies would allow the country to secure an environmentally sustainable future and a more competitive economy. The first step in creating a sustainable future is for South Korea to take advantage of the significant energy efficiency and conservation opportunities available to the country. Called the Joint Institute for a Sustainable Energy and Environmental Future (JISEEF), this strategy offers the society a future that reduces energy-related pollution, enables it to be a leader in addressing the problem of climate change, saves a significant amount of capital for consumers and businesses (compared to the existing unsustain- able energy path), and restores balance between human life and nature that has been a key reason for Korea's long and successful history. More than 1,000 years ago, Korea was described as "silk-embroidered rivers and mountains." It is possible for the country to recapture this legacy even as the society pursues its contemporary ambitions. JISEEF JISEEF, created by the sponsorship of the W. Alton Jones Foundation, is designed to play an innovative and creative role in identifying and promoting oppor- tunities for a sustainable future for the Korean penin- sula. It serves as a catalyst for reform and a compre- hensive response to interlocking energy, environmen- tal, economic, and policy issues. A central part of its activities is to present new ideas for an ecologically responsible future, to encourage the two Koreas to advocate energy and environmental policies that can bring about such a future, and to offer practical models for pursuing a sustainable future for the peninsula. JISEEF accomplishes its goals by linking a highly respected international research team organized by the Center for Energy and Environmental Policy with South Korea's foremost experts in the energy and envi- ronmental fields led by the Environmental Planning Institute of Seoul National University; the Research Institute for Energy, Environment and Economy of Kyungpook National University; and the Citizens' Institute for Environmental Studies of the Korea Fed- eration of Environmental Movements. This unique organization is undertaking a series of studies and planning initiatives to identify and promote sustain- able energy and environmental paths for South Korea. This represents an unprecedented nongovernmental arrangement to tackle major issues for the country's 21st century. This article intends to introduce the results of the JISEEF initiatives prepared by an international team of 38 independent researchers using objective engi- neering and economic methods to evaluate more than 3,000 technology options for improving energy effi- ciency in South Korea. The JISEEF team identified a detailed, practical, and economical strategy to reduce South Korea's energy consumption while improving environmental quality and strengthening the national economy. These technologies already exist--no research and development breakthroughs are needed to implement the initiatives. JISEEF provides South Korea's citizens with a clearly defined policy choice: one based on market development of energy services versus one based on monopoly investment planning. Because the latter option precludes vigorous pursuit of a more energy- efficient future, the JISEEF team has painstakingly examined the country's options, using objective meth- ods and the best available engineering and economic databases, to determine if an efficiency-led future is viable. Its researchers have documented in detail an alternative path that is safer, environmentally sustain- able, and economically more practical. Through a comprehensive study of energy efficiency opportuni- ties addressing nearly all of the society's energy-using activities--from lighting to automobile and truck transportation, refrigeration, heating, air conditioning, and electricity service--JISEEF provides an action agenda for South Korea's public and private sectors to build a better future. What follows is first a brief description of JISEEF's modeling approach, followed by an introduction of the Korean government's official "business-as-usual" (BAU) scenario devised by the KEEI in collaboration Wang et al. / AN ENERGY EFFICIENCY SCENARIO ANALYSIS 111 with the Korean MOCIE. The BAU forecast includes information on energy consumption and CO2 emis- sions by energy sector for the years of 2010 and 2020. To prepare our sustainable scenario analysis (JISEEF Scenario), a sectoral energy efficiency database for South Korea was built. Policy scenario methodology was reviewed, and energy efficiency potentials by energy sector were derived. Next, the JISEEF Scenario compared energy efficiency opportunities with nuclear power investment. In the final section, the energy and CO2 impacts of a nuclear power morato- rium are evaluated. "Bottom-Up" Model The JISEEF team adopted a bottom-up modeling approach that employs engineering and economic esti- mates of energy savings, emissions, and costs of dif- ferent technologies to create a database for analysis of efficiency technology potentials. Often, these esti- mates can derive from actual results of the deployment of new technology in various applications. But impact estimates for technology that has not reached the mar- ket, even in the form of pilot or demonstration projects, requires estimations based on engineering design information and calculations. The data needed to build a database that will ade- quately and credibly represent the technology choices available at the macrosocial scale can be daunting. Indeed, the large data requirements of a bottom-up analysis have led researchers, in certain instances, to prefer the less data-intensive "top-down" approach.3 South Korea's data systems are quite extensive in their coverage of energy use by fuel type and sector. Data on a variety of energy supply technologies and existing equipment stocks are also readily available. However, limited information exists on high-efficiency technol- ogies in South Korea's markets.4 To address this data gap, the JISEEF team turned to databases prepared by U.S. and Japanese research organizations. Although one must be careful in the use of such data to ensure its applicability to South Korean circumstances (e.g., it was essential to recognize dif- ferences in U.S., Japanese, and South Korean building stocks),5 this strategy to address the detailed informa- tional requirements for a bottom-up analysis can be analytically sound. Two important factors, in this regard, that can justify the use of international data sets are market competitiveness6 and international policy trends.7 The JISEEF team sought a method for its scenario analysis that could capture the benefits of both bottom- up and top-down approaches while pursuing a deci- sion strategy to address the unavoidable problems associated with any model that avoided overly opti- mistic decisions of the potential for change in South Korea's economy-environment-energy relationships. Toward that end, top-down modeling was embraced to establish the BAU forecast.8 The JISEEF team then employed a bottom-up analytical strategy to assess the potential for energy efficiency. BAU Projections of Energy and CO2 The JISSEF team has adopted the 1999 results of the KEEI/MOCIE model (MOCIE/KEEI, 1999) as the benchmark for its analyses. This choice was dictated by our desire to evaluate sustainable energy options against the South Korean government's official BAU forecast for energy and CO2 to the target year 2020.9 Major energy and economic assumptions used in the KEEI/MOCIE model and the forecasted results are presented in Table 1. The growth rate for primary energy consumption in South Korea is projected to increase, but at a slower rate than that of the gross domestic product, through- out the forecast period. As a result, the official forecast anticipates a lower energy intensity rate for the national economy, declining from 0.40 in 1995 to 0.29 in 2020 (see Table 1). CO2 emissions from the energy sector are projected to more than double, growing at an annual rate of 2.8% during the period from 1996 to 2020, from 101.8 million tons of carbon (MTC) in 1995 to 204.4 MTC in 2020. Per capita CO2 emissions are projected to increase from 2.3 tons of carbon (TC) in 1995 to 3.7 TC in 2020, but CO2 per unit of GDP and per unit of energy consumed are projected to decline through 2020. The trends in energy consumption and CO2 emissions are associated with economic growth rates that project continued rapid development of South Korea, although at a slower pace than in the 1990s. Full recovery from the financial difficulties affecting the region since the end of 1997 is expected to occur by the end of 2001.10 Energy Efficiency Database With the South Korean government's BAU forecast for energy consumption and CO2 emissions in 2020 as the benchmark, the JISEEF team has developed alter- 112 BULLETIN OF SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY & SOCIETY / April 2002 native scenarios for a sustainable energy and environ- mental future for South Korea. The first scenario developed (JISEEF) is focused on energy efficiency improvements only and is aimed at evaluating poten- tial energy savings and CO2 emission reductions.11 The JISEEF team focused on specific technologies in each end-use sector as part of its construction of the JISEEF Scenario analysis. These technology catego- ries were selected for two reasons: (a) They represent significant sources of energy consumption in South Ko- rea, and (b) detailed data on current technology stocks in South Korea were available. In some instances, data limitations prevented the team from exploring energy efficiency improvements that have been found in stud- ies of other countries to be significant (e.g., high-effi- ciency windows and doors, wall and roofing materials, and efficient building design strategies). The technol- ogy categories targeted in JISEEF for efficiency im- provements in each sector are listed below: Industrial Heat recovery upgrades sector: Space conditioning upgrades Boiler and steam efficiency upgrades Motor drive efficiency upgrades Fuel switching Enhanced cogeneration Lighting upgrades Operation and maintenance upgrades Transport Passenger car fuel efficiency upgrades sector: Light and heavy truck fuel efficiency upgrades Bus fuel efficiency upgrades Rail, air, and marine transport efficiency upgrades Introduction of alternative fuel vehicles Commercial Commercial space conditioning sector: efficiency upgrades High-efficiency commercial lighting High-efficiency motor Building shell upgrades Residential Residential space conditioning sector: efficiency upgrades High-efficiency residential lighting High-efficiency residential refrigeration Fuel switching for water heating Housing shell upgrades An Energy Efficiency Database by end-use sector has been constructed by the JISEEF team that is based on South Korea's energy end-use characteristics. It re- lies on comprehensive technology assessments con- ducted by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and its five national laboratories, a consortium of inde- pendent, nongovernmental researchers in the United States that published Energy Innovations (Energy In- novations, 1997), and an independent, nongovern- mental research team in Japan that published Recom- mended Strategies for the Mitigation of CO2 Emissions: Phase I (Citizens'Alliance to Save the At- mosphere and Earth, 1997). These studies are used to complement data gathered from a full range of South Korea sources (including Korea Electric Power Cor- poration [KEPCO], 1997a, 1997b, 1997c, 1999; KEEI, 1997, 1998a, 1998b, 1999a, 1999b, 2000; Ko- rea Energy Management Corporation, 1997a, 1997b, 1997c; Korea Institute of Construction Technology, 1999; Korea Institute for Industrial Economics and Trade [KIET], 1998; and MOCIE, 1998). This data- Wang et al. / AN ENERGY EFFICIENCY SCENARIO ANALYSIS 113 Table 1. Business-as-Usual Projections of Trends in Major Economic and Environmental Indicators Annual Growth (%) Major Indicator 1995 2000 2010 2020 96-00 01-10 11-20 Gross domestic product (GDP) (in billions of 1995 won) 377 461 784 1,163 4.1 5.4 4.0 Population (millions) 45.1 47.3 50.6 52.4 0.9 0.7 0.4 Primary energy consumption (MTOE) 150.4 191.1 271.2 332.2 4.9 3.6 2.1 CO2 emissions (million tons of carbon) 101.8 120.6 173.2 204.4 3.6 3.7 1.7 Energy/gross domestic product (TOE/in millions of 1995 won) 0.40 0.41 0.35 0.29 0.8 1.8 1.9 CO2/GDP (tons of carbon/in millions of 1995 won) 0.27 0.26 0.22 0.18 0.5 1.7 2.2 Final energy consumption (MTOE) 122.0 152.4 213.9 257.9 4.6 3.4 1.9 Source: Ministry of Commerce, Industry and Energy and Korea Energy Economics Institute (1999). Note: MTOE = million tons of oil equivalent; TOE = tons of oil equivalent. base is in a spreadsheet format, in which row entries have energy-efficiency technologies and column en- tries contain energy and economic savings informa- tion, including percentage energy savings, incremen- tal costs (to install and operate the improved technology), cost of conserved energy, and payback period. For the industrial sector, two criteria were used to select efficiency technologies: energy savings from individual technology changes that are greater than 10%12 and a payback period of less than 5 years, with an average of 1.23 years. For the residential and com- mercial buildings sectors, technologies were selected that have a cost of conserved energy of less than 5/ kWh.13 In the case of the transportation sector, effi- ciency measures with a payback period of less than 5 years were selected. The database was subjected to validation checks by energy experts in South Korea, including members of KEEI. The JISEEF team has adjusted the technology matrix in the database to reflect existing South Korean data, and it has compared the matrix entries with com- parable ones developed in bottom-up studies for Japan.14 Using the refined database, the team has con- ducted an alternative scenario analysis for each end- use sector to evaluate the potential energy savings from energy-efficiency improvements. From its esti- mated energy savings by fuel source, potential CO2 emission reductions specific to each sector are then determined. Policy Scenario Methodology and Results The JISEEF team prepared three policy strategies for capturing the efficiency benefits identified in each end-use sector: a full-implementation scenario in which all identified cost-effective, technically feasible savings are realized; a major policy commitment strat- egy that would seek to realize 65% of the identified energy and CO2 savings under the full-implementation scenario; and a modest policy commitment strategy that would capture 35% of identified savings of the full implementation scenario. These policy strategies are modeled after the recently published U.S. national study by the Interlaboratory Working Group (IWG, 1998, 2000). Based on the efficiency technologies and measures identified by the U.S. IWG and other U.S., South Korean, and Japanese databases, the JISEEF team was able to develop a detailed, sector-by-sector forecast of energy demand through 2010. It then extrapolated technological improvements from 2010 to the target year of 2020 by means of autonomous energy effi- ciency improvement indices estimated by the KIET. A summary of energy and CO2 savings from energy-efficiency improvements is shown below by energy sector. Most significant savings are from the industrial sector, followed by the electricity sector (see Table 2). Total savings in primary energy use and in CO2 emissions from full implementation are 95.4 mil- lion tons of oil equivalent (MTOE) and 58.9 MTC, respectively. A major policy commitment strategy is expected to achieve a 19% savings in primary energy use and a 19% reduction in CO2 emissions. A Nuclear Power Moratorium for South Korea To prepare an analytically sound strategy that can be used to accomplish a sustainable future for South Korea, the JISEEF team has defined an alternative energy scenario benchmarked against the South Korean government's BAU energy forecast for the year 2020. In particular, JISEEF contrasts a sustain- able energy policybased energy service strategy focused on efficiency improvements with the monop- oly planning approach of the Long-Term Power Development Plan of MOCIE/KEPCO. The JISEEF Scenario describes a future for South Korea that could sustain economic development with significantly lower CO2 emissions. The magnitude of the identified cost-effective efficiency opportunities in electricity use is compared below to the increase in electricity generation from new nuclear power plants that is fore- casted by MOCIE/KEEI. The official estimate is that approximately 17 new nuclear power plants will be needed to generate 121.2 TWh (equivalent to 17.3 GW)15 by 2020 (MOCIE/KEEI, 1999). Are cost-effective options for energy efficiency improvements in South Korea's future sufficient to enable the society to meet national economic objec- tives without the construction of additional nuclear power plants? JISEEF answers this question in the affirmative, based on careful, detailed analyses of the country's efficiency opportunities. The answer pro- vided by the JISEEF Scenario is that an energy future built on the use of cost-effective, high-efficiency tech- nologies is clearly within the grasp of South Korea and would justify a nuclear power moratorium.16 A key advantage of a moratorium policy would be the release of 30 trillion won (U.S.$25 billion) for market-based 114 BULLETIN OF SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY & SOCIETY / April 2002 development of energy efficiency (and other) strate- gies to meet South Korea's energy needs in an ecologi- cally responsible manner. Electricity savings estimated by sector for the JISEEF Scenario are shown in Table 3. Electricity sav- ings from full implementation for end uses targeted in the JISEEF Scenario amount to 10.1 MTOE, which is equivalent to 29.2 MTOE of primary energy savings.17 If the country champions JISEEF's major policy com- mitment strategy to capture 65% of the electricity savings identified in JISEEF, it is possible to reduce electricity demand by 19.0 MTOE. The industrial and commercial sectors are projected to be major contribu- tors to electricity savings from efficiency improve- ments identified in the JISEEF Scenario. The estimated primary electricity savings of 29.2 MTOE in 2020 is derived from efficiency improve- ments in targeted energy uses, which account for 87% of the total electricity consumed by the society.18 Assuming that equivalent opportunities for efficiency improvements exist for uses of electricity that are included in the 13% of national electricity consump- tion not analyzed by JISEEF, the savings of 29.2 MTOE is equivalent to 33.6 MTOE (149.5 TWh) in the event of full implementation (see Table 4).19 Wang et al. / AN ENERGY EFFICIENCY SCENARIO ANALYSIS 115 Table 2. Summary of Primary Energy Savings and Carbon Dioxide (CO2 ) Emission Reductions in 2020 for the Joint Institute for a Sustainable Energy and Environmental Future Scenario by End-Use Sector (unit: million tons of oil equivalent, million tons of carbon) Sector Full Implementation Major Policy Commitment Industrial savings Final energy 32.1 (25.0 ) 20.8 (16.3 ) CO2 19.1 (25.2 ) 12.4 (16.4 ) Transportation savings Final energy 16.5 (28.1 ) 10.7 (18.2 ) CO2 13.3 (28.0 ) 8.6 (18.2 ) Residential savings Final energy 14.7 (33.8 ) 9.6 (22.0 ) CO2 9.6 (34.5 ) 6.2 (22.5 ) Commercial savings Final energy 9.8 (35.8 ) 6.4 (23.3 ) CO2 5.7 (35.3 ) 3.7 (22.9 ) Reduced electricity lossesa Energy conversion 22.3 (28.7 ) 14.6 (18.7 ) CO2 11.2 (28.7 ) 7.3 (18.7 ) Total Savings Primary energy 95.4 (28.7 ) 62.1 (18.7 ) CO2 58.9 (28.8 ) 38.2 (18.7 ) Note: Percentages are in parentheses. a. Denotes avoided energy losses and CO2 emissions from conversion due to end-use energy savings. Table 3. Electricity Savings in 2020 From the Joint Institute for a Sustainable Energy and Environmental Future Scenario (unit: million tons of oil equivalent) Full Major End-Use Sector Implementation Commitment (65%) End-use electricity savings Industrial 4.37 2.84 Transportation 0.13 0.08 Residential 1.01 0.66 Commercial 4.56 2.96 Total end-use electricity savings 10.07 6.54 Primary energy savingsa 29.22 18.98 a. Primary energy savings are obtained by multiplying end-use electricity savings by a factor of 2.902, which is derived from Min- istry of Commerce, Industry and Energy and Korea Energy Eco- nomics Institute (1999). Table 4. Nuclear Moratorium Through Energy Efficiency Improvements Energy Options Full Implementation New nuclear plant capacity 30.3 MTOE (121.2 TWh) Energy efficiency improvements 33.6 MTOE (149.5 TWh) (electricity) Note: MTOE = million tons of oil equivalent; MTC = million tons of carbon. On the other hand, the government calls for 30.3 MTOE (121.2 TWh) of new nuclear power capacity by 2020, which amounts to a doubling of electricity sup- ply from this source (from 25.3 MTOE in 2000 to 55.6 MTOE in 2020). JISEEF has identified sufficient cost- effective energy efficiency improvements to enable South Korea to adopt a moratorium of all planned nuclear plant construction while meeting the same national economic objectives. Although it can be shown that energy-efficiency opportunities exist to justify a nuclear power morato- rium policy in South Korea, it may be difficult to real- ize all of the country's efficiency potential by 2020. A more realistic approach might consider the feasibility of capturing 65% of the country's efficiency potential through a major policy commitment strategy. To real- ize a nuclear power moratorium when only 65% of energy efficiency improvements are expected to be implemented, it is necessary to rethink the use of the country's existing and planned liquefied natural gas (LNG)fired power plants. In 2000, South Korean LNG combined cycle power plants ran at a 25% capacity factor (MOCIE, 2000), but that is projected to increase to 28% in 2020. Because this fuel is currently expensive, these plants are largely relegated to peak-load services. To meet the nuclear moratorium goal, additional generation of 24.0 TWh could be provided by increasing the capac- ity factor from 28% to 39% for existing and new LNG plants.20 Such a step would increase fuel costs paid by South Korea's consumers and businesses. An initial estimate of the added fuel cost for more extensive use of LNG plants is 0.7 trillion won (or U.S.$0.6 bil- lion).21 For this calculation, we assume an improvement in the heat rate of LNG plants from the 48.8% rate pro- jected in the MOCIE/KEEI BAU forecast to a 60% rate anticipated by the United States and others (Pew Cen- ter, 1999).22 Under these circumstances, the modest fuel cost increase occurred by increasing the LNG capacity factor could readily be offset by the net capi- tal cost savings of 24.8 trillion won (U.S.$20.6 bil- lion)23 associated with the shift from nuclear power to energy efficiency to meet projected energy demand in 2020. Thus, by increased use of South Korea's LNG plants, it is possible to economically fulfill the objec- tive of a nuclear moratorium even when only 65% of the country's identified efficiency gains are realized. At the same time, an increase in CO2 emissions from LNG plants of only 0.21 MTC would result.24 Toward a Climate-Sensitive Energy Future The JISEEF team estimates that full implementa- tion of the JISEEF Scenario will yield energy savings of nearly 29% (i.e., a decrease of 95.4 MTOE) over official forecasts for 2020 and will cut CO2 emissions by a similar rate (reducing national emissions by 58.9 MTC). Full implementation anticipates a national effort to capture all cost-effective energy efficiency measures identified by the JISEEF team. The major policy commitment strategy identifies energy and CO2 savings of nearly 19% (corresponding to a decrease in energy use of 62.1 MTOE and emissions of 38.2 MTC) (see Table 5). The aim of the JISEEF project is to create for South Korea a sustainable energy future. One standard of sustainability under investigation by the JISEEF team is to encourage South Korea to voluntarily seek to cap its emissions by 2020 at year 2000 levels. Measured by this yardstick, the JISEEF Scenario would help the country to make substantial progress toward meeting a year 2000 CO2 cap. The official BAU forecast antici- pates a near doubling of CO2 emissions (from 120.6 MTC to 204.4 MTC). The JISEEF Scenario eliminates 70% of the MOCIE/KEEI projected growth in CO2 emissions--a significant and positive step by any pol- icy standard. This leaves only 24.9 MTC to be removed to achieve the stabilization cap of year 2020 emissions returning to year 2000 levels. The JISEEF major policy commitment strategy will significantly cut expected CO2 emissions while removing the need to build any nuclear power plants. To realize an additional 47.6 MTC of CO2 reduction necessary to meet a year 2000 CO2 gap, the JISEEF team is investigating scenarios that promote renewable energy use, take advantage of materials recycling and reuse, invest in new technologies (notably, fuel cells), and embrace sustainable development planning strate- gies to cut CO2 emissions still further. Through these scenarios, JISEEF's partners are confident that they can offer practical pathways for creating sustainable energy choices for South Korea that also enable the society to meet a climate-sensitive goal of CO2 emis- sion stabilization. Conclusion In one future projected by MOCIE/KEEI, energy use and CO2 emissions continue to rise rapidly. Indeed, the BAU forecast anticipates a 74% increase in 116 BULLETIN OF SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY & SOCIETY / April 2002 energy consumption and a 70% increase in CO2 emis- sions. The latter projection is especially sobering because the BAU forecast assumes a major increase in nuclear power capacity; still, national CO2 emissions grow substantially. Such a future also expands the country's social and environmental vulnerabilities through a dramatic escalation in the use of nuclear power. This is the future that South Korea's current energy managers offer. In the JISEEF alternative, the country can choose a sustainable future in which energy consumption and CO2 emissions reach pla- teaus by 2015 at levels that are nearly one third less than conventional policy now expects. This sustain- able future dramatically reduces energy-based pollu- tion, frees up economic capital to serve important social needs, protects national and global ecological resources, and offers an opportunity for expanding public participation in the process of energy decision making. Assuming that the year 1999 oil price of $27 per barrel and electricity price of 71 won (5.9) per kWh would be maintained through 2020, the JISEEF team estimates that the full implementation strategy of the JISEEF Scenario would yield economic savings of 43.5 trillion won (U.S.$36.3 billion) for South Korea in 2020.25 Environmental benefits26 in the form of CO2 emission reductions from the JISEEF Scenario are also significant. According to Edmonds, Scott, Roop, and MacCracken (1999), reducing CO2 emissions to 1990 levels will cost Japan approximately U.S.$324 (1992 dollars) per avoided TC in 2020 (assuming no emissions trading). The United States will have rela- tively lower marginal abatement costs (U.S.$170/TC avoided) but will bear the largest total costs because of the large amount of carbon reduction to be avoided (Edmonds et al., 1999). Assuming a cost of U.S.$200 per avoided ton of car- bon for South Korea,27 the full implementation strat- egy, with its currently cost-effective efficiency oppor- tunities, would save 14.2 trillion won (U.S.$11.8 billion) for the South Korean economy by 2020. Com- bining the economic and environmental savings (43.5 trillion won plus 14.2 trillion won under JISEEF's full implementation strategy), societal savings of 57.7 tril- lion won (U.S.$48.1 billion) can be expected in 2020. Figure 1 depicts the supply curve of avoided CO2 emissions under the full implementation strategy of the JISEEF Scenario. In this graph, the y axis denotes the cost per avoided ton of carbon, and the x axis denotes avoided carbon emissions. To calculate the unit cost of the avoided carbon emissions, the annual investment in each efficiency measure (for materials and labor) is divided by the annual carbon emissions avoided. Among the 28 aggregate measures displayed in Figure 1, commercial lighting is the least expensive measure to avoid CO2 emissions in South Korea, Wang et al. / AN ENERGY EFFICIENCY SCENARIO ANALYSIS 117 Table 5. Summary of Primary Energy Savings and Carbon Dioxide (CO2 ) Emission Reductions in 2020 for the Joint Institute for a Sustainable Energy and Environmental Future Scenario by End Use Sector (unit: MTOE, MTC) Sector Full Implementation Major Policy Commitment Total savings Primary energy 95.4 (28.7% ) 62.1 (18.7% ) CO2 58.9 (28.8% ) 38.2 (18.7% ) MTOE in 1998 165.9 165.9 MTOE in 2000: BAU 191.1 191.1 MTOE in 2020: BAUa 332.2 332.2 CO2 emissions in 1998 101.0 101.0 CO2 emissions in 2000: BAU 120.6 120.6 CO2 emissions in 2020: BAUa 204.4 204.4 Energy reduction with nuclear moratorium 30.3 27.7b CO2 reduction with nuclear moratorium 58.9 38.0c CO2 emissions in 2020 for JISEEF Scenario 145.5 166.4 Additional CO2 reduction needed to meet a Year 2000 emissions cap 24.9 45.8 Note: MTOE = million tons of oil equivalent; MTC = million tons of carbon; BAU = business as usual; JISEEF = Joint Institute for a Sustain- able Energy and Environmental Future. a. The BAU forecast is provided in Ministry of Commerce, Industry and Energy and Korea Energy Economics Institute (1999). b. Electricity savings of 21.8 MTOE derived from the 65% policy commitment are not enough to meet the 30.3 MTOE required for a nuclear moratorium. Liquefied natural gas (LNG) power plants are operated at a higher capacity factor with a higher heat rate, which increases en- ergy consumption by 5.9 MTOE. c. This figure is adjusted for increased emissions from LNG plants (38.2 0.2 million tons of carbon). whereas electric cars and buses are more expensive. The largest avoided CO2 emissions in the JISEEF Sce- nario derive from industrial cogeneration (7.6 MTC), followed by efficiency upgrades for industrial thermal systems (6.9 MTC), fuel efficiency gains for passenger cars (6.8 MTC), residential heating upgrades (5.1 MTC), and commercial lighting improvements (3.9 MTC). The total investment cost for JISEEF efficiency upgrades under the full implementation strategy amounts to 5.1 trillion won (U.S.$4.3 billion), and the avoided CO2 emissions are 58.9 MTC, yielding a mar- ginal cost of approximately 86 thousand won (U.S.$72) per avoided ton of carbon. Thus, the net ben- efits to the South Korean economy would be 52.6 tril- lion won (U.S.$43.8 billion) in 2020 (economic and 118 BULLETIN OF SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY & SOCIETY / April 2002 Figure 1. A Supply Curve of Avoided Carbon Dioxide Emissions in South Korea: Full Implementation Strategy Note: MTC = million tons of carbon; TC = tons of carbon. 1. Commercial lighting upgrades 2. Improved industrial operation and maintenance improvments 3. Improved industrial combustion systems 4. Residential lighting upgrades 5. Improved industrial building and grounds 6. Improved industrial thermal systems 7. Commercial cooling upgrades 8. Commercial motor upgrades 9. Improved industrial motor drives 10. Commercial shell technology upgrades 11. Residential shell technology upgrades 12. Industrial others 13. Commercial others 14. Higher efficiency heavy-duty trucks 15. Residential others 16. Higher efficiency light-duty trucks 17. Commercial heating upgrades 18. Residential heating upgrades 19. Higher efficiency buses 20. Transportation others 21. Higher efficiency passenger cars 22. Cogeneration 23. Compressed natural gas buses 24. Residential air conditioning upgrades 25. Residential refrigeration upgrades 26. Compressed natural gas passenger cars 27. Electric vehicle passenger cars 28. Electric vehicle buses environmental benefits of 57.7 trillion won minus a marginal investment cost of 5.1 trillion won). This is probably a conservative estimate because the uncer- tainties associated with petroleum prices, CO2 abate- ment costs, and multiplier effects are likely to favor higher benefit values. Can South Korea sustain its economic development without further construction of nuclear power plants? The JISEEF Scenario demonstrates that it is possible to meet forecasted national energy needs without addi- tional nuclear power plants and with significantly lower CO2 emissions. Moreover, JISEEF is likely to provide at least 19.6 trillion won (U.S.$16.3 billion) in net societal benefits. This is a promising result, espe- cially because applications of other sustainable energy options, such as renewables, decentralized technolo- gies, material recycling and reuse, ecologically based land use planning, forest conservation, sustainable agriculture, and redirection of economic development toward an environment-friendly industrial base are not included in the analysis. Here lies one of the most fun- damental policy choices of the new century: Will we build a sustainable energy and environmental future, or will we send forward the burdens and risks of a pol- icy regime that is unwilling to value the future beyond the satisfaction of short-term interests and conve- nience? It is a critical time for South Korean policy making. The choice outlined here for South Korea is not for this country alone. All industrial countries must make equivalent decisions. Our planet can sustainably recy- cle approximately 3.3 tons of CO2 per person per year, but all industrial countries are well above this rate (the U.S. rate is more than 20 tons of CO2 per person per year; see Byrne, Wang, Lee, & Kim, 1998). An indus- trial BAU response to our global energy problem will risk climate change, environmental degradation (espe- cially loss of biodiversity), and continued social inequality to serve the luxury appetites of the wealthy countries. The responsible alternative is to direct inter- national efforts toward a climate-sensitive, sustainable energy future that replaces social, economic, and envi- ronmental risk with a livable world for future genera- tions to appreciate. Notes 1. The Joint Institute for a Sustainable Energy and Environ- mental Future (JISEEF) is an umbrella organization that relies on researchers from several institutions. The authors of this article have their primary appointments in the following institutions: Young-Doo Wang, John Byrne, Kyung-Jin Boo, Sun-Jin Yun, Yu Mi Mun, Chung-Kyung Kim, Yongkyeong Soh, and Takuo Yamaguchi, University of Delaware; Jung wk Kim, Seoul National University; and Jong dall Kim, Kyungbuk National University. 2. Carbon dioxide is the principal gas released by human ac- tivity that has been linked to the prospect of climate change (Inter- governmental Panel on Climate Change, 1990, 1996, 2001). 3. Top-down models rely on econometric methods to build multiequation descriptions of macroscale energy-environment- economy (E 3 ) interactions based on historical data. If existing con- ditions prevail in to the future, these models furnish a reliable pic- ture of the interactive character of E3 relations in a society, but they have limitations in this case because significant changes are poised to occur in the energy sector. 4. For example, information on annual purchases of existing lighting technologies can be found; and audit data exist from which reasonable estimates of the share of energy use for lighting needs in different buildings can be derived. But the performance of high- efficiency lighting in South Korean buildings compared to existing equipment could not be found in sufficient detail to calculate en- ergy savings and costs. 5. It is important to note that the JISEEF Scenario has been subjected to peer review. In fact, reviews by South Korea's experts have occurred through extensive meetings and workshops held since July 1999 with organizations such as the Korea Energy Eco- nomics Institute; the Korea Environment Institute; the Korea En- ergy Management Corporation; the Korea Electric Power Corpo- ration; the Ministry of Environment; the Ministry of Commerce, Industry and Energy; the President's Commission for Sustainable Development; and the Environmental Forum of the Korea National Assembly. 6. Adoption of technologies that improve efficiency and ser- vices are an important factor in maintaining competitiveness. South Korea's recent success in the international cell phone market is due to innovations introduced by a number of its companies. Just as South Korea industries can gain market share by technology in- novation, it is also possible that its companies need to consider the adoption of high-efficiency technologies to maintain or expand their performance in competitive markets. 7. International policy trends in the environmental and energy areas suggest that competition for higher energy efficiency will be- come an increasingly important goal for industrialized and newly industrialized countries alike. International action to address cli- mate change will place increased emphasis on energy efficiency and other sustainable energy options. 8. The Korea Energy Economics Institute and Ministry of Commerce, Industry and Energy forecast of a business-as-usual future for South Korea is based on a top-down model that modifies LEAP software developed at the Stockholm Environment Insti- tute. 9. Business as usual (BAU) is a term used by energy research- ers to refer to the likely demand for energy at a future date (in this study, that date is the year 2020) if there are no significant changes in the society, its economy, and its policies. The so-called BAU forecast offers Ministry of Commerce, Industry and Energy and Korea Energy Economics Institute's (MOCIE/KEEI's) best esti- mate of demand based on current knowledge and trends, and as- sumptions about future technology and economic changes. For our JISEEF analysis, we have used the BAU forecast of MOCIE/KEEI because these organizations have official responsibility for prepar- ing national energy demand estimates (which are used in national Wang et al. / AN ENERGY EFFICIENCY SCENARIO ANALYSIS 119 and international policy discussions). Our use of their forecast does not mean that we agree with its contents. Indeed, the JISEEF research team doubts the assumption of continued, rapid economic growth used to make the official BAU forecast. The team believes that slower growth is likely; however, this belief was not pursued in JISEEF in order to evaluate the government planon its own terms. 10. The Asia-Pacific Energy Research Centre (1998), an arm of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation, anticipated a somewhat slower recovery process than the MOCIE/KEEI projection. How- ever, economic growth in 1999 and the first quarter of 2000 would suggest a rapid return to precrisis patterns. 11. Additional scenarios are being developed to incorporate such sustainable energy options as renewables, other decentralized generation technologies, materials recycling, and industrial re- structuring (beyond that already anticipated in the official business as usual). 12. Discussions with industrial facility managers in the United States and South Korea indicated that small energy savings--even when cost-effective--can be ignored because staff planning time may be better used on projects with more significant impacts. 13. In the commercial lighting case, certain efficiency technol- ogies have negative costs of conserved energy. This is due to the la- bor savings associated with a reduced need to replace longer lived halogen and compact fluorescent lamps. 14. See Citizens' Alliance to Save the Atmosphere and Earth (1997). 15. The calculation is based on an 80% capacity factor pro- jected for nuclear plants by MOCIE (2000). 16. This study did not set out to prove the validity of a nuclear power moratorium. Rather, the finding that a moratorium is eco- nomically justified is an outcome of the detailed analysis con- ducted by the JISEEF team. One economic reservation to this find- ing might be that the marginal cost of nuclear power is lower than that of natural gas and, therefore, that gains in energy efficiency should be directed at reducing the use of liquified natural gas (LNG) power plants. In terms of marginal generation cost, nuclear power in South Korea may be a less expensive supply option, but such a conclusion ignores social and environmental costs, which may be much higher for nuclear power. In any case, LNG is used in the South Korean electricity system to serve intermediate and peak loads. However, the energy efficiency technologies analyzed by the JISEEF team address long-term, base-load electricity demand. Nuclear power is a base-load supply technology. Thus, energy effi- ciency is properly conceived as a competitor to nuclear power (and coal) to serve South Korea's base-load electricity markets. Be- cause the cost of electric end-use efficiency improvements is much cheaper than nuclear power as a base-load option, a nuclear power moratorium is a logical conclusion of the JISEEF study of effi- ciency potential. 17. Primary energy savings include electricity savings by end users and the reduction in fuel consumption at power plants as a re- sult of lower electricity use in industry, homes, and commercial buildings (currently, little electricity is consumed by South Korea's transportation sector). The conversion factor for primary energy savings is 2.902, which is derived from primary energy used in electric power generation divided by electric end-use consumption as reported by the MOCIE/KEEI in its 1999 report titled The Third- Year Study of Planning National Actions for the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (December, but re- leased for public use in autumn 2000). 18. In other words, end-use electricity consumed in South Ko- rea amounts to 38.7 million tons of oil equivalent (MTOE), but the target end uses analyzed in the Joint Institute for a Sustainable En- ergy and Environmental Future Scenario account for only 33.7 MTOE of total end-use electricity consumption. 19. The conversion from MTOE to TWh in the case of nuclear power is based on the 1999 MOCIE/KEEI report, which uses the following factor: 1.0 MTOE 4.0 Twh. 20. According to the 1999 MOCIE/KEEI report, South Korea is expected to have LNG plants with a combined capacity of 25 GW (62.4 TWh) and operating at a 28% capacity factor in 2020. To in- crease electricity generation by 24 TWh, the capacity factor needs to increase by 11%. 21. We arrive at this figure by using the assumption made in the MOCIE/KEEI (1999) BAU that LNG prices would increase annu- ally by 0.7% between 1999 and 2020. 22. Also see Estimated Costs: Combined Cycle vs. Nuclear Plants at http://www.ieer.org/ensec/no-5/table.html and Green- house Gas Emissions from Power Station at http://www.ieagreen. org.uk/emis5.htm. 23. The South Korean government estimate of the capital cost for nuclear power plants implies a 30 trillion won (U.S.$25 billion) payment for new nuclear generation by 2020. Our estimate of the capital cost of electricity efficiency upgrades in the major policy commitment strategy for the JISEEF is 3.4 trillion won (U.S.$2.8 billion--for a savings of 21.8 MTOE). This means that JISEEF of- fers capital savings of 26.6 trillion won (U.S.$22.2 billion) over the government long-term power development plan (with the added fuel cost of 0.7 trillion won--U.S.$0.6 billion) for extensive use of LNG plants). 24. Our calculation uses a conversion factor of 0.637 million tons of carbon (MTC) per 1 MTOE in the process of producing electricity from an LNG combined cycle power plant (MOCIE/ KEEI, 1999). Assuming a higher capacity factor of 38.8% as pro- jected here and the higher heat rate of 60%, LNG combined cycle plants would burn an additional 3.1 MTOE (4.2 * 44.8 / 60) of fuel instead of 4.2 MTOE to generate the 24 TWh needed to meet elec- tricity demand under the major policy commitment scenario. This would lead to the release of an additional 1.97 MTC. But after ap- plying the 60% heat rate to all LNG generation by 2020, the BAU- projected generation of 62.4 TWh needs only 8.15 MTOE instead of 10.92 MTOE fuel, reducing CO2 emissions by 1.76 MTC, com- pared to the BAU forecast. Consequently, the net increase in CO2 emissions would be only 0.21 MTC. 25. The MOCIE/KEEI forecast adopts the 1999 oil price for its forecast. The JISEEF team did not alter this assumption. Recent in- creases in world oil prices underscore the conservative character of this assumption. The assumed constant price of electricity through 2020 is mainly due to the effect of expected competition to be in- troduced by restructuring of the electricity sector. Of the primary energy savings of 95.4 MTOE, 33.6 MTOE that will be annually realized with full implementation of the JISEEF Scenario are elec- tricity savings. The economic benefit of these savings is estimated to yield a value of 29.1 trillion won (U.S.$24.3 billion). The re- maining savings of 61.8 MTOE are mostly in the form of oil im- ports that will be annually avoided with full implementation of JISEEF. The economic value of these avoided imports is 14.4 tril- lion won (U.S.$12 billion) based on an oil price of $27 per barrel in 2020 and a conversion factor of 7.21 barrels per 1.0 TOE. 120 BULLETIN OF SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY & SOCIETY / April 2002 26. Only CO2 savings were considered here, but efficiency im- provements offer many environmental benefits. For instance, in- creased energy efficiency reduces the release of not only CO2 but SO2 , NOx, creosote, radon, TSP, and so forth. These pollutants ad- versely affect air and water quality and can elevate acid levels in soils that harm tree growth and threaten a variety of vegetation. Thus, it is likely that the JISEEF team's estimate of the JISEEF Scenario's benefits is conservative. 27. The $200 figure is based on the assumption that an interna- tional market for carbon emissions credits is established by 2020. References Asia-Pacific Energy Research Centre. (1998). APEC energy de- mand and supply outlook. Tokyo, Japan: Institute of Energy Economics. Byrne, J., Wang, Y-D., Lee, H., & Kim, J-d. (1998). An equity- and sustainability-based policy response to global climate change. Energy Policy, 26(4), 335-343. Citizens'Alliance to Save the Atmosphere and Earth. (1997). Rec- ommended strategies for the mitigation of CO2 emissions: Phase I. Tokyo, Japan: Author. Edmonds, J., Scott, M. J., Roop, J. M., & MacCracken, C. N. (1999, December). International emissions trading & global climate change: Impacts on the costs of greenhouse gas mitiga- tion. Prepared for the Pew Center on Global Climate Change. Energy Innovations. (1997). Energy innovations: A prosperous path to a clean environment. Washington, DC: Alliance to Save Energy, American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, Natural Resources Defense Council, Tellus Institute, and Un- ion of Concerned Scientists. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (1990). Climate change: The IPCC scientific assessment (J. T. Houghton, G.J. Jenkins, & J. J. Ephraums, Eds.). New York: Cambridge Uni- versity Press. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (1996). Climate change 1995: The science of climate change, contribution of Working Group II to the 2nd assessment report of the Intergov- ernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, UK: Cam- bridge University Press. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (2001). Climate change 2001: The scientific basis (J. T. Houghton et al., Eds.). New York: Cambridge University Press. Interlaboratory Working Group. (1998). Scenarios of U.S. carbon reductions: Potential impacts of energy-efficient and low- carbon technologies by 2010 and beyond. Prepared by staff from five U.S. Department of Energy national Laboratories: Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Argonne National Laboratory, the National Re- newable Energy Laboratory, and the Pacific Northwest Na- tional Laboratory. Interlaboratory Working Group. (2000). Scenarios for a clean en- ergy future. Prepared for Office of Energy Efficiency and Re- newable Energy, U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). Prepared by staff from five DOE national Laboratories: Oak Ridge Na- tional Laboratory, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Argonne National Laboratory, the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, and the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. Korea Electric Power Corporation. (1997a). Electric audit and DSM potential survey of (Korea's) large buildings. Seoul, Ko- rea: Author. Korea Electric Power Corporation. (1997b). Statistics of electricity generation. Seoul, Korea: Author. Korea Electric Power Corporation. (1997c). White paper on nu- clear energy. Seoul, Korea: Author. Korea Electric Power Corporation. (1999). Statistics of electricity generation. Seoul, Korea: Author. Korea Energy Economics Institute. (1997). Financial crisis and the energy industry. Korea Energy Economics Institute. (1998a). GHG mitigation strategies in energy and industrial sectors. Korea Energy Economics Institute. (1998b). Greenhouse gas miti- gation potentials and costs for Korea. Korea Energy Economics Institute. (1999a). Energy statistics in- formation system. Retrieved from http://www.keei.re.kr Korea Energy Economics Institute. (1999b). Greenhouse gas emission forecast for the energy and industrial sectors. Korea Energy Economics Institute. (2000). Energy statistics infor- mation system. Retrieved from http://her.keei.re.kr:3081 Korea Energy Management Corporation. (1997a). Energy analysis for KEMCO-designated commercial and industrial entities. Korea Energy Management Corporation. (1997b). Handbook of (Korean) energy conservation. Korea Energy Management Corporation. (1997c). KEMCO an- nual report. Korea Institute of Construction Technology. (1999). Mid- and long-term energy conservation strategies in buildings for the United Nation Framework Convention on Climate Change. Korea Institute for Industrial Economics and Trade. (1998). Framework convention on climate change and industrial struc- tural change. Ministry of Commerce, Industry and Energy. (1998, January). 4th long-term electricity supply plan.. Ministry of Commerce, Industry and Energy. (2000, January). 5th long-term electricity supply plan. Retrieved from http:// www.mocie.go.kr./ Ministry of Commerce, Industry and Energy and Korea Energy Economics Institute. (1998, December). The second-year study of planning national actions for the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Ministry of Commerce, Industry and Energy and Korea Energy Economics Institute. (1999, December). The third-year study of planning national actions for the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Ministry of Commerce, Industry and Energy and Korea Energy EconomicsInstitute.(2000).2000yearbookofenergystatistics. Pew Center. (1999, October). Developing countries & global cli- mate change: Electric power options in Korea. Prepared by Jin- Gyu Oh and Jeffrey Logan et al. World Bank. (1999). World development report: Knowledge for development. New York: Oxford University Press. Young-Doo Wang is associate director and associate profes- sor of the Center for Energy and Environmental Policy at the University of Delaware. He serves as a director of the Joint Institute for Sustainable Energy and Environmental Future, headquartered in Seoul, Korea. Wang et al. / AN ENERGY EFFICIENCY SCENARIO ANALYSIS 121 John Byrne is director and professor of the Center for En- ergy and Environmental Policy at the University of Dela- ware. He serves as coexecutive director of the Joint Institute for Sustainable Energy and Environmental Future, head- quartered in Seoul, Korea. Address correspondence to the Center for Energy & Environmental Policy, University of Delaware, Newark, DE 19716-7301; phone: (302) 831- 8405; e-mail: jbbyrne@strauss.udel.edu. Jung wk Kim is professor of the Graduate School of Environ- mental Studies at Seoul National University. He serves as coexecutive director of the Joint Institute for Sustainable Energy and Environmental Future, headquartered in Seoul, Korea. Jong dall Kim is associate professor of economics at the Kyungbuk National University. He serves as a director of the Joint Institute for Sustainable Energy and Environmen- tal Future, headquartered in Seoul, Korea. Kyung-Jin Boo is a senior researcher at the Korea Energy Economics Institute. Sun-Jin Yun is assistant professor of public administration at the University of Seoul. Yu Mi Mun is a research associate at the Center for Energy and Environmental Policy at the University of Delaware, completing a degree program. Chung-Kyung Kim is a research associate at the Center for Energy and Environmental Policy at the University of Dela- ware, completing a degree program. Yongkyeong Soh is a research associate at the Center for Energy and Environmental Policy at the University of Dela- ware, completing a degree program. Takuo Yamaguchi is a research associate at the Center for Energy and Environmental Policy at the University of Dela- ware, completing a degree program. 122 BULLETIN OF SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY & SOCIETY / April 2002 </meta-value></custom-meta></custom-meta-wrap></article-meta></front><back><notes><p>1. The Joint Institute for a Sustainable Energy and Environmental Future (JISEEF) is an umbrella organization that relies on researchers from several institutions. The authors of this article have their primary appointments in the following institutions: Young-Doo Wang, John Byrne, Kyung-Jin Boo, Sun-Jin Yun, Yu Mi Mun, Chung-Kyung Kim, Yongkyeong Soh, and Takuo Yamaguchi, University of Delaware; Jung wk Kim, Seoul National University; and Jong dall Kim, Kyungbuk National University.</p><p>2. Carbon dioxide is the principal gas released by human activity that has been linked to the prospect of climate change (Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change, 1990, 1996, 2001).</p><p>3. Top-down models rely on econometric methods to build multiequation descriptions of macroscale energy-environment-economy (E<sup>3</sup>) interactions based on historical data. If existing conditions prevail in to the future, these models furnish a reliable picture of the interactive character of E<sup>3</sup> relations in a society, but they have limitations in this case because significant changes are poised to occur in the energy sector.</p><p>4. For example, information on annual purchases of existing lighting technologies can be found; and audit data exist fromwhich reasonable estimates of the share of energy use for lighting needs in different buildings can be derived. But the performance of high-efficiency lighting in South Korean buildings compared to existing equipment could not be found in sufficient detail to calculate energy savings and costs.</p><p>5. It is important to note that the JISEEF Scenario has been subjected to peer review. In fact, reviews by South Korea’s experts have occurred through extensive meetings and workshops held since July 1999 with organizations such as the Korea Energy Economics Institute; the Korea Environment Institute; the Korea Energy Management Corporation; the Korea Electric Power Corporation; the Ministry of Environment; the Ministry of Commerce, Industry and Energy; the President’s Commission for Sustainable Development; and the Environmental Forum of the Korea National Assembly.</p><p>6. Adoption of technologies that improve efficiency and services are an important factor in maintaining competitiveness. South Korea’s recent success in the international cell phone market is due to innovations introduced by a number of its companies. Just as South Korea industries can gain market share by technology innovation, it is also possible that its companies need to consider the adoption of high-efficiency technologies to maintain or expand their performance in competitive markets.</p><p>7. International policy trends in the environmental and energy areas suggest that competition for higher energy efficiency will become an increasingly important goal for industrialized and newly industrialized countries alike. International action to address climate change will place increased emphasis on energy efficiency and other sustainable energy options.</p><p>8. The Korea Energy Economics Institute and Ministry of Commerce, Industry and Energy forecast of a business-as-usual future for South Korea is based on a top-down model that modifies LEAP software developed at the Stockholm Environment Institute.</p><p>9. <italic>Business as usual</italic> (BAU) is a termused by energy researchers to refer to the likely demand for energy at a future date (in this study, that date is the year 2020) if there are no significant changes in the society, its economy, and its policies. The so-called BAU forecast offers Ministry of Commerce, Industry and Energy and Korea Energy Economics Institute’s (MOCIE/KEEI’s) best estimate of demand based on current knowledge and trends, and assumptions about future technology and economic changes. For our JISEEF analysis, we have used the BAU forecast of MOCIE/KEEI because these organizations have official responsibility for preparing national energy demand estimates (which are used in national and international policy discussions). Our use of their forecast does not mean that we agree with its contents. Indeed, the JISEEF research team doubts the assumption of continued, rapid economic growth used to make the official BAU forecast. The team believes that slower growth is likely; however, this belief was not pursued in JISEEF in order to evaluate the government plan on its own terms.</p><p>10. The Asia-Pacific Energy Research Centre (1998), an armof the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation, anticipated a somewhat slower recovery process than the MOCIE/KEEI projection. However, economic growth in 1999 and the first quarter of 2000 would suggest a rapid return to precrisis patterns.</p><p>11. Additional scenarios are being developed to incorporate such sustainable energy options as renewables, other decentralized generation technologies, materials recycling, and industrial restructuring (beyond that already anticipated in the official business as usual).</p><p>12. Discussions with industrial facility managers in the United States and South Korea indicated that small energy savings—even when cost-effective—can be ignored because staff planning time may be better used on projects with more significant impacts.</p><p>13. In the commercial lighting case, certain efficiency technologies have negative costs of conserved energy. This is due to the labor savings associated with a reduced need to replace longer lived halogen and compact fluorescent lamps.</p><p>14. See Citizens’ Alliance to Save the Atmosphere and Earth (1997).</p><p>15. The calculation is based on an 80% capacity factor projected for nuclear plants by MOCIE (2000).</p><p>16. This study did not set out to prove the validity of a nuclear power moratorium. Rather, the finding that a moratorium is economically justified is an outcome of the detailed analysis conducted by the JISEEF team. One economic reservation to this finding might be that the marginal cost of nuclear power is lower than that of natural gas and, therefore, that gains in energy efficiency should be directed at reducing the use of liquified natural gas (LNG) power plants. In terms of marginal generation cost, nuclear power in South Korea may be a less expensive supply option, but such a conclusion ignores social and environmental costs, which may be much higher for nuclear power. In any case, LNG is used in the South Korean electricity systemto serve intermediate and peak loads. However, the energy efficiency technologies analyzed by the JISEEF team address long-term, base-load electricity demand. Nuclear power is a base-load supply technology. Thus, energy efficiency is properly conceived as a competitor to nuclear power (and coal) to serve South Korea’s base-load electricity markets. Because the cost of electric end-use efficiency improvements is much cheaper than nuclear power as a base-load option, a nuclear power moratorium is a logical conclusion of the JISEEF study of efficiency potential.</p><p>17. Primary energy savings include electricity savings by end users and the reduction in fuel consumption at power plants as a result of lower electricity use in industry, homes, and commercial buildings (currently, little electricity is consumed by South Korea’s transportation sector). The conversion factor for primary energy savings is 2.902, which is derived from primary energy used in electric power generation divided by electric end-use consumption as reported by the MOCIE/KEEI in its 1999 report titled <italic>The Third-Year Study of Planning National Actions for the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change</italic> (December, but released for public use in autumn 2000).</p><p>18. In other words, end-use electricity consumed in South Korea amounts to 38.7 million tons of oil equivalent (MTOE), but the target end uses analyzed in the Joint Institute for a Sustainable Energy and Environmental Future Scenario account for only 33.7 MTOE of total end-use electricity consumption.</p><p>19. The conversion fromMTOE to TWh in the case of nuclear power is based on the 1999 MOCIE/KEEI report, which uses the following factor: 1.0 MTOE [H20687] 4.0 Twh.</p><p>20. According to the 1999 MOCIE/KEEI report, South Korea is expected to have LNG plants with a combined capacity of 25 GW (62.4 TWh) and operating at a 28% capacity factor in 2020. To increase electricity generation by 24 TWh, the capacity factor needs to increase by 11%.</p><p>21. We arrive at this figure by using the assumption made in the MOCIE/KEEI (1999) BAU that LNG prices would increase annually by 0.7% between 1999 and 2020.</p><p>22. Also see <italic>Estimated Costs: Combined Cycle vs. Nuclear Plants</italic> at http://www.ieer.org/ensec/no-5/table.html and <italic>Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Power Station</italic> at http://www.ieagreen. org.uk/emis5.htm.</p><p>23. The South Korean government estimate of the capital cost for nuclear power plants implies a 30 trillion won (U.S.$25 billion) payment for new nuclear generation by 2020. Our estimate of the capital cost of electricity efficiency upgrades in the major policy commitment strategy for the JISEEF is 3.4 trillion won (U.S.$2.8 billion—for a savings of 21.8 MTOE). This means that JISEEF offers capital savings of 26.6 trillion won (U.S.$22.2 billion) over the government long-term power development plan (with the added fuel cost of 0.7 trillion won—U.S.$0.6 billion) for extensive use of LNG plants).</p><p>24. Our calculation uses a conversion factor of 0.637 million tons of carbon (MTC) per 1 MTOE in the process of producing electricity from an LNG combined cycle power plant (MOCIE/KEEI, 1999). Assuming a higher capacity factor of 38.8% as projected here and the higher heat rate of 60%, LNG combined cycle plants would burn an additional 3.1 MTOE (4.2 * 44.8 / 60) of fuel instead of 4.2 MTOE to generate the 24 TWh needed to meet electricity demand under the major policy commitment scenario. This would lead to the release of an additional 1.97 MTC. But after applying the 60% heat rate to all LNG generation by 2020, the BAU-projected generation of 62.4 TWh needs only 8.15 MTOE instead of 10.92 MTOE fuel, reducing CO<sub>2</sub> emissions by 1.76 MTC, compared to the BAU forecast. Consequently, the net increase in CO<sub>2</sub> emissions would be only 0.21 MTC.</p><p>25. The MOCIE/KEEI forecast adopts the 1999 oil price for its forecast. The JISEEF teamdid not alter this assumption. Recent increases in world oil prices underscore the conservative character of this assumption. The assumed constant price of electricity through 2020 is mainly due to the effect of expected competition to be introduced by restructuring of the electricity sector. Of the primary energy savings of 95.4 MTOE, 33.6 MTOE that will be annually realized with full implementation of the JISEEF Scenario are electricity savings. The economic benefit of these savings is estimated to yield a value of 29.1 trillion won (U.S.$24.3 billion). The remaining savings of 61.8 MTOE are mostly in the form of oil imports that will be annually avoided with full implementation of JISEEF. The economic value of these avoided imports is 14.4 trillion won (U.S.$12 billion) based on an oil price of $27 per barrel in 2020 and a conversion factor of 7.21 barrels per 1.0 TOE.</p><p>26. Only CO<sub>2</sub> savings were considered here, but efficiency improvements offer many environmental benefits. For instance, increased energy efficiency reduces the release of not only CO<sub>2</sub> but SO<sub>2</sub>, NOx, creosote, radon, TSP, and so forth. These pollutants adversely affect air and water quality and can elevate acid levels in soils that harm tree growth and threaten a variety of vegetation. Thus, it is likely that the JISEEF team’s estimate of the JISEEF Scenario’s benefits is conservative.</p><p>27. The $200 figure is based on the assumption that an international market for carbon emissions credits is established by 2020.</p></notes><ref-list><ref><citation citation-type="book" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Asia-Pacific Energy Research Centre</surname></name> . (<year>1998</year>). <source>APEC energy demand and supply outlook</source>. <publisher-loc>Tokyo, Japan</publisher-loc>: <publisher-name>Institute of Energy Economics</publisher-name>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Byrne, J.</surname></name> , <name name-style="western"><surname>Wang, Y-D.</surname></name>, <name name-style="western"><surname>Lee, H.</surname></name>, & <name name-style="western"><surname>Kim, J-d.</surname></name> (<year>1998</year>). <article-title>An equity- and sustainability-based policy response to global climate change</article-title>. <source>Energy Policy</source>, <volume>26</volume>(<issue>4</issue>), <fpage>335</fpage>-<lpage>343</lpage>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="book" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Citizens’Alliance to Save the Atmosphere and Earth</surname></name> . (<year>1997</year>). <source>Recommended strategies for the mitigation of CO2 emissions: Phase I</source>. <publisher-loc>Tokyo, Japan</publisher-loc>: <publisher-name>Author</publisher-name>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="book" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Edmonds, J.</surname></name> , <name name-style="western"><surname>Scott, M. J.</surname></name>, <name name-style="western"><surname>Roop, J. M.</surname></name>, & <name name-style="western"><surname>MacCracken, C. N.</surname></name> (<year>1999, December</year>). <source>International emissions trading & global climate change: Impacts on the costs of greenhouse gas mitigation</source>. Prepared for the Pew Center on Global Climate Change.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="book" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Energy Innovations</surname></name> . (<year>1997</year>). <source>Energy innovations: A prosperous path to a clean environment</source>. <publisher-loc>Washington, DC</publisher-loc>: <publisher-name>Alliance to Save Energy, American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, Natural Resources Defense Council, Tellus Institute, and Union of Concerned Scientists</publisher-name>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="book" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change</surname></name> . (<year>1990</year>). <source>Climate change: The IPCC scientific assessment</source> (<name name-style="western"><surname>J. T. Houghton</surname></name>, <name name-style="western"><surname>G.J. Jenkins</surname></name>, & <name name-style="western"><surname>J. J. Ephraums</surname></name>, Eds.). <publisher-loc>New York</publisher-loc>: <publisher-name>Cambridge University Press</publisher-name>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="book" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change</surname></name> . (<year>1996</year>). <source>Climate change 1995: The science of climate change, contribution of Working Group II to the 2nd assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change</source>. <publisher-loc>Cambridge, UK</publisher-loc>: <publisher-name>Cambridge University Press</publisher-name>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="book" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change</surname></name> . (<year>2001</year>). <source>Climate change 2001: The scientific basis</source> (<name name-style="western"><surname>J. T. Houghton</surname></name> et al., Eds.). <publisher-loc>New York</publisher-loc>: <publisher-name>Cambridge University Press</publisher-name>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Interlaboratory Working Group. (1998). Scenarios of U.S. carbon reductions: Potential impacts of energy-efficient and low-carbon technologies by 2010 and beyond. Prepared by staff from five U.S. Department of Energy national Laboratories: Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Argonne National Laboratory, the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, and the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Interlaboratory Working Group. (2000). <italic>Scenarios for a clean energy future</italic>. Prepared for Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). Prepared by staff from five DOE national Laboratories: Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Argonne National Laboratory, the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, and the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="book" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Korea Electric Power Corporation</surname></name> . (<year>1997a</year>). <source>Electric audit and DSM potential survey of (Korea’s) large buildings</source>. <publisher-loc>Seoul, Korea</publisher-loc>: <publisher-name>Author</publisher-name>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="book" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Korea Electric Power Corporation</surname></name> . (<year>1997b</year>). <source>Statistics of electricity generation</source>. <publisher-loc>Seoul, Korea</publisher-loc>: <publisher-name>Author</publisher-name>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="book" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Korea Electric Power Corporation</surname></name> . (<year>1997c</year>). <source>White paper on nuclear energy</source>. <publisher-loc>Seoul, Korea</publisher-loc>: <publisher-name>Author</publisher-name>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="book" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Korea Electric Power Corporation</surname></name> . (<year>1999</year>). <source>Statistics of electricity generation</source>. <publisher-loc>Seoul, Korea</publisher-loc>: <publisher-name>Author</publisher-name>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="book" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Korea Energy Economics Institute</surname></name> . (<year>1997</year>). <source>Financial crisis and the energy industry</source>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="book" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Korea Energy Economics Institute</surname></name> . (<year>1998a</year>). <source>GHG mitigation strategies in energy and industrial sectors</source>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="book" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Korea Energy Economics Institute</surname></name> . (<year>1998b</year>). <source>Greenhouse gas mitigation potentials and costs for Korea</source>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="book" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Korea Energy Economics Institute</surname></name> . (<year>1999a</year>). <source>Energy statistics information system</source>. Retrieved from<uri xlink:type="simple">http://www.keei.re.kr</uri></citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="book" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Korea Energy Economics Institute</surname></name> . (<year>1999b</year>). <source>Greenhouse gas emission forecast for the energy and industrial sectors</source>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="book" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Korea Energy Economics Institute</surname></name> . (<year>2000</year>). <source>Energy statistics information system</source>. Retrieved from<uri xlink:type="simple">http://her.keei.re.kr:3081</uri></citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="book" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Korea Energy Management Corporation</surname></name> . (<year>1997a</year>). <source>Energy analysis for KEMCO-designated commercial and industrial entities</source>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="book" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Korea Energy Management Corporation</surname></name> . (<year>1997b</year>). <source>Handbook of (Korean) energy conservation</source>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="book" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Korea Energy Management Corporation</surname></name> . (<year>1997c</year>). <source>KEMCO annual report</source>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="book" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Korea Institute of Construction Technology</surname></name> . (<year>1999</year>). <source>Mid- and long-term energy conservation strategies in buildings for the United Nation Framework Convention on Climate Change</source>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="book" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Korea Institute for Industrial Economics and Trade</surname></name> . (<year>1998</year>). <source>Framework convention on climate change and industrial structural change</source>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="book" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Ministry of Commerce</surname></name> , <name name-style="western"><surname>Industry and Energy</surname></name>. (<year>1998, January</year>). <source>4th long-term electricity supply plan</source>..</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="book" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Ministry of Commerce</surname></name> , <name name-style="western"><surname>Industry and Energy</surname></name>. (<year>2000, January</year>). <source>5th long-term electricity supply plan</source>. Retrieved from <uri xlink:type="simple">http://www.mocie.go.kr./</uri></citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="book" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Ministry of Commerce</surname></name> , <name name-style="western"><surname>Industry and Energy and Korea Energy Economics Institute</surname></name>. (<year>1998, December</year>). <source>The second-year study of planning national actions for the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change</source>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="book" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Ministry of Commerce</surname></name> , <name name-style="western"><surname>Industry and Energy and Korea Energy Economics Institute</surname></name>. (<year>1999, December</year>). <source>The third-year study of planning national actions for the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change</source>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="book" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Ministry of Commerce</surname></name> , <name name-style="western"><surname>Industry and Energy and Korea Energy Economics Institute</surname></name>. (<year>2000</year>). <source>2000 yearbook of energy statistics</source>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="book" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Pew Center</surname></name> . (<year>1999, October</year>). <source>Developing countries & global climate change: Electric power options in Korea</source>. Prepared by JinGyu Oh and Jeffrey Logan et al.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="book" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>World Bank</surname></name> . (<year>1999</year>). <source>World development report: Knowledge for development</source>. <publisher-loc>New York</publisher-loc>: <publisher-name>Oxford University Press</publisher-name>.</citation></ref></ref-list></back></article></istex:document></istex:metadataXml><mods version="3.6"><titleInfo lang="en"><title>Less Energy, a Better Economy, and a Sustainable South Korea: An Energy Efficiency Scenario Analysis</title></titleInfo><titleInfo type="alternative" lang="en" contentType="CDATA"><title>Less Energy, a Better Economy, and a Sustainable South Korea: An Energy Efficiency Scenario Analysis</title></titleInfo><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Young-Doo</namePart><namePart type="family">Wang</namePart></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">John</namePart><namePart type="family">Byrne</namePart></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Jung wk</namePart><namePart type="family">Kim</namePart></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Jong dall</namePart><namePart type="family">Kim</namePart></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Kyung-Jin</namePart><namePart type="family">Boo</namePart></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Sun-Jin</namePart><namePart type="family">Yun</namePart></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Yu Mi</namePart><namePart type="family">Mun</namePart></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Chung-Kyung</namePart><namePart type="family">Kim</namePart></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Yongkyeong</namePart><namePart type="family">Soh</namePart></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Takuo</namePart><namePart type="family">Yamaguchi</namePart><affiliation>Joint Institute for a Sustainable Energy and Environmental Future</affiliation></name><typeOfResource>text</typeOfResource><genre type="research-article" displayLabel="research-article"></genre><originInfo><publisher>Sage Publications</publisher><place><placeTerm type="text">Sage CA: Thousand Oaks, CA</placeTerm></place><dateIssued encoding="w3cdtf">2002-04</dateIssued><copyrightDate encoding="w3cdtf">2002</copyrightDate></originInfo><language><languageTerm type="code" authority="iso639-2b">eng</languageTerm><languageTerm type="code" authority="rfc3066">en</languageTerm></language><physicalDescription><internetMediaType>text/html</internetMediaType></physicalDescription><abstract lang="en">An energy efficiency scenario (Joint Institute for a Sustainable Energy and Environmental Future) demonstrates that an energy future built on the use of cost-effective, high-efficiency technologies is clearly within the grasp of South Korea and would justify a nuclear power moratorium with significantly lower carbon dioxide emissions. This is a promising result, especially because applications of other sustainable energy options, such as renewables, decentralized technologies, material recycling/reuse, ecologically based land use planning, forest conservation, sustainable agriculture, and redirection of economic development toward an environment-friendly industrial base, are not included in the analysis. Here lies one of the most fundamental policy choices of the newcentury: Will we build a sustainable energy and environmental future, or will we send forward the burdens and risks of a policy regime that is unwilling to value the future beyond the satisfaction of short-term interests and convenience? It is a critical time for South Korean policy making.</abstract><subject><genre>keywords</genre><topic>energy efficiency</topic><topic>sustainable development</topic><topic>scenario analysis</topic><topic>nuclear moratorium</topic></subject><relatedItem type="host"><titleInfo><title>Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society</title></titleInfo><genre type="journal">journal</genre><identifier type="ISSN">0270-4676</identifier><identifier type="eISSN">1552-4183</identifier><identifier type="PublisherID">BST</identifier><identifier type="PublisherID-hwp">spbst</identifier><part><date>2002</date><detail type="volume"><caption>vol.</caption><number>22</number></detail><detail type="issue"><caption>no.</caption><number>2</number></detail><extent unit="pages"><start>110</start><end>122</end></extent></part></relatedItem><identifier type="istex">D46CCFA8433D141A4BDBDD86B4EF02ECC8A3A284</identifier><identifier type="DOI">10.1177/0270467602022002005</identifier><identifier type="ArticleID">10.1177_0270467602022002005</identifier><recordInfo><recordContentSource>SAGE</recordContentSource></recordInfo></mods></metadata><serie></serie></istex></record>Pour manipuler ce document sous Unix (Dilib)
EXPLOR_STEP=$WICRI_ROOT/Wicri/Agronomie/explor/SisAgriV1/Data/Istex/Corpus
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_STEP/biblio.hfd -nk 000705 | SxmlIndent | more
Ou
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/Istex/Corpus/biblio.hfd -nk 000705 | SxmlIndent | more
Pour mettre un lien sur cette page dans le réseau Wicri
{{Explor lien
|wiki= Wicri/Agronomie
|area= SisAgriV1
|flux= Istex
|étape= Corpus
|type= RBID
|clé= ISTEX:D46CCFA8433D141A4BDBDD86B4EF02ECC8A3A284
|texte= Less Energy, a Better Economy, and a Sustainable South Korea: An Energy Efficiency Scenario Analysis
}}
| This area was generated with Dilib version V0.6.28. |  |