全球能源展望比较方法Global Energy Outlooks Comparison Methods in 2018

全球能源部门正在迅速变化。人口增长和经济发展正在拉动世界能源需求。与此同时，技术进步正在提高能源效率，降低各种技术的成本，使更多的非常规能源在经济上可行。其结果是能源生产、消费和贸易流动的全球趋势正在迅速变化。能源展望是理解这些变化的一种方式，特别着眼于更长远的未来。每年，国际能源署（IEA）、石油输出国组织（OPEC）、美国能源信息署（EIA）和国际能源公司（如BP、埃克森美孚、壳牌）等组织都会发布多份长期能源展望，通常预测未来20至25年。近年来，俄罗斯和中国科学院等其他组织、天然气出口国论坛等新的国际组织以及中国国家石油公司等国家油气公司也发布了年度能源展望。每个组织都使用自己的模型假设和历史数据库进行长期能源预测。由于这些展望在为市场参与者和决策者的决策提供信息方面发挥着重要作用，因此，采用一致的方法介绍这些展望中的信息，有助于开展包容各方和有意义的国际能源对话。然而，每个组织都使用不同的方法和假设，在不同的观点之间进行比较一点也不简单。为了解决这一问题，我们制定了一种方法，用以协调和比较来自不同观点的未来资源——纽厄尔、伊勒和莱米预测，使市场参与者和决策者能够更清楚地评估全球能源预测的范围。为了说明这一协调过程，我们使用可用于能源预测比较分析的最新展望，以及之前发布的若干展望，以便能够将2015年数据作为共同基准年进行分析：•IEA:2017年世界能源展望（WEO2017），2017年11月发布。•欧佩克：2017年世界石油展望（WOO2017），2017年11月出版。•美国环境影响评估：2017年国际能源展望（IEO2017），2017年9月出版。•埃克森美孚：2017年能源展望，2016年12月出版。•英国石油公司：2017年能源展望，2017年2月出版。在本文中讨论的每一个前景涵盖广泛的主题，从能源消耗、供应和二氧化碳排放的定量预测，到技术发展的定性描述。我们的目的不是在各机构对能源系统未来前景的看法中隐藏差异，而是控制惯例和数据来源的差异，这些差异实际上混淆了对不同前景中短期、中期和长期基本假设和判断的准确评估。在此，我们将重点放在总体一次能源消耗及其主要燃料来源石油和其他液体（包括天然气凝析油）、天然气、煤炭、核能和可再生能源上，并详细介绍我们的前景协调方法。本文件确定并解决了www.rff.org | 1在协调不同机构来源的一次能源消费方面的以下具体挑战：•展望使用不同的一次能源消费单位（如qBtu、mtoe、mboe）。•展望对矿物燃料的能源含量采用不同的假设。•关于不燃能源（如核能和可再生电力）转换为一次能源的效率，他们的假设各不相同。•前景不同，是否包括非市场能源，特别是传统生物量。•对能源的分类（如生物燃料、液体、石油、煤制合成气和可再生能源）以及是否包括燃烧气体的看法各不相同。•展望使用不同的历史基线数据。•各国区域集团的前景各不相同。第2、3和4节阐述了上述前四个问题。第5节提出了一种协调不同观点之间世界能源消费的方法，并确定了以2015年为基准年的历史基线数据中剩余差异的问题。第6节讨论地理分组的差异，第7节得出结论。

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.