全球能源展望比較方法Global Energy Outlooks Comparison Methods in 2018

全球能源部門(mén)正在迅速變化。人口增長(cháng)和經(jīng)濟發(fā)展正在拉動(dòng)世界能源需求。與此同時(shí)，技術(shù)進(jìn)步正在提高能源效率，降低各種技術(shù)的成本，使更多的非常規能源在經(jīng)濟上可行。其結果是能源生產(chǎn)、消費和貿易流動(dòng)的全球趨勢正在迅速變化。能源展望是理解這些變化的一種方式，特別著(zhù)眼于更長(cháng)遠的未來(lái)。每年，國際能源署（IEA）、石油輸出國組織（OPEC）、美國能源信息署（EIA）和國際能源公司（如BP、?？松梨?、殼牌）等組織都會(huì )發(fā)布多份長(cháng)期能源展望，通常預測未來(lái)20至25年。近年來(lái)，俄羅斯和中國科學(xué)院等其他組織、天然氣出口國論壇等新的國際組織以及中國國家石油公司等國家油氣公司也發(fā)布了年度能源展望。每個(gè)組織都使用自己的模型假設和歷史數據庫進(jìn)行長(cháng)期能源預測。由于這些展望在為市場(chǎng)參與者和決策者的決策提供信息方面發(fā)揮著(zhù)重要作用，因此，采用一致的方法介紹這些展望中的信息，有助于開(kāi)展包容各方和有意義的國際能源對話(huà)。然而，每個(gè)組織都使用不同的方法和假設，在不同的觀(guān)點(diǎn)之間進(jìn)行比較一點(diǎn)也不簡(jiǎn)單。為了解決這一問(wèn)題，我們制定了一種方法，用以協(xié)調和比較來(lái)自不同觀(guān)點(diǎn)的未來(lái)資源——紐厄爾、伊勒和萊米預測，使市場(chǎng)參與者和決策者能夠更清楚地評估全球能源預測的范圍。為了說(shuō)明這一協(xié)調過(guò)程，我們使用可用于能源預測比較分析的最新展望，以及之前發(fā)布的若干展望，以便能夠將2015年數據作為共同基準年進(jìn)行分析：?IEA:2017年世界能源展望（WEO2017），2017年11月發(fā)布。?歐佩克：2017年世界石油展望（WOO2017），2017年11月出版。?美國環(huán)境影響評估：2017年國際能源展望（IEO2017），2017年9月出版。??？松梨冢?017年能源展望，2016年12月出版。?英國石油公司：2017年能源展望，2017年2月出版。在本文中討論的每一個(gè)前景涵蓋廣泛的主題，從能源消耗、供應和二氧化碳排放的定量預測，到技術(shù)發(fā)展的定性描述。我們的目的不是在各機構對能源系統未來(lái)前景的看法中隱藏差異，而是控制慣例和數據來(lái)源的差異，這些差異實(shí)際上混淆了對不同前景中短期、中期和長(cháng)期基本假設和判斷的準確評估。在此，我們將重點(diǎn)放在總體一次能源消耗及其主要燃料來(lái)源石油和其他液體（包括天然氣凝析油）、天然氣、煤炭、核能和可再生能源上，并詳細介紹我們的前景協(xié)調方法。本文件確定并解決了www.rff.org | 1在協(xié)調不同機構來(lái)源的一次能源消費方面的以下具體挑戰：?展望使用不同的一次能源消費單位（如qBtu、mtoe、mboe）。?展望對礦物燃料的能源含量采用不同的假設。?關(guān)于不燃能源（如核能和可再生電力）轉換為一次能源的效率，他們的假設各不相同。?前景不同，是否包括非市場(chǎng)能源，特別是傳統生物量。?對能源的分類(lèi)（如生物燃料、液體、石油、煤制合成氣和可再生能源）以及是否包括燃燒氣體的看法各不相同。?展望使用不同的歷史基線(xiàn)數據。?各國區域集團的前景各不相同。第2、3和4節闡述了上述前四個(gè)問(wèn)題。第5節提出了一種協(xié)調不同觀(guān)點(diǎn)之間世界能源消費的方法，并確定了以2015年為基準年的歷史基線(xiàn)數據中剩余差異的問(wèn)題。第6節討論地理分組的差異，第7節得出結論。

The global energy sector is changing rapidly. Population growth and economic development are driving up world energy demand. At the same time, technological advances are increasing energy efficiency, driving down costs for a variety of technologies, and making more unconventional energy resources economically viable. The results are rapidly changing global trends in energy production, consumption, and trade flows.  Energy outlooks are one way to understand these changes, with a particular eye toward the longer-term future. Each year, multiple long-term energy outlooks, usually projecting 20 to 25 years ahead, are issued by organizations such as the International Energy Agency (IEA), the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), the US Energy Information Administration (US EIA), and international energy companies (e.g., BP, ExxonMobil, Shell). In recent years, other organizations such as the Russian and Chinese Academy of Sciences, new international organizations such as the Gas Exporting Countries Forum, and national oil and gas companies such as the Chinese National Petroleum Company have also issued annual energy outlooks. Each organization makes long-term energy projections using their own model assumptions and historical databases.  Due to the important role these outlooks play in informing decisions by market participants and policymakers, a consistent method of presenting the information from these outlooks can help enable an inclusive and meaningful international energy dialogue. However, each organization uses different methodologies and assumptions, and comparing between and among different outlooks is not at all straightforward. To address this issue, we have developed a methodology to harmonize and compare  Resources for the Future  |  Newell, Iler, and Raimi   projections from various outlooks, enabling market participants and policymakers to more clearly evaluate the range of global energy projections.  To illustrate this harmonization process, we use the most recent outlooks available for comparative analysis of energy forecasts, as well as several previously published outlooks to enable the analysis of 2015 data as a common baseline year:  ?IEA: World Energy Outlook 2017 (WEO2017), published in November 2017.  ?OPEC: World Oil Outlook 2017 (WOO2017), published in November 2017.  ?US EIA: International Energy Outlook 2017 (IEO2017), published in September, 2017.  ?ExxonMobil: Outlook for Energy 2017, published in December 2016.  ?BP: Energy Outlook 2017, published in February 2017.  Each outlook discussed in this paper covers a wide range of topics, ranging from quantitative projections of energy consumption, supply, and carbon dioxide emissions, to qualitative descriptions of technology development. Our purpose is not to hide differences across institutions in their views about the future outlook for the energy system, but rather to control for differences in convention and data sources that in fact obfuscate an accurate assessment of underlying assumptions and judgments about the short-, medium- and long-term in different outlooks.  We focus here on overall primary energy consumption and its key fuel sources—oil and other liquids (including natural gas condensate), natural gas, coal, nuclear, and renewables—and provide a detailed description of our outlook harmonization approach. This paper identifies and addresses    www.rff.org  |  1     the following specific challenges in harmonizing primary energy consumption across different institutional sources:  ?Outlooks use different units of primary energy consumption (e.g., qBtu, mtoe, mboe).  ?Outlooks use different assumptions for the energy content of fossil fuels.  ?Outlooks vary in their assumptions regarding the efficiency of conversion to primary energy of non-combustible energy sources (e.g., nuclear and renewable electric power).  ?Outlooks vary in whether they include non-marketed sources of energy, particularly traditional biomass.  ?Outlooks vary in their categorization of energy sources (e.g., biofuels, liquids, oil, synthetic gas from coal, and renewables), and whether they include flared gas.  ?Outlooks use different historical baseline data.  ?Outlooks differ in their regional groupings of countries.  Sections 2, 3, and 4 elaborate on the first four issues mentioned above. Section 5 presents a method for harmonizing world energy consumption among various outlooks and identifies the issue of remaining differences in historical baseline data, using 2015 as a benchmark year. Section 6 discusses differences in geographic groupings, and Section 7 concludes.