This scenario assumes a decisive change of policy and practice – a shift of resources that transforms economies and energy production. The EU27 and China shift strategy from 2018, as political will builds behind the drive for green energy – political, economic and business incentives converge. The USA is behind on this, and initially an outlier, but from 2020 on it, too, joins the drive for clean energy after the next Presidential election results in a change of incumbent. The shift of strategy isn’t accompanied by a parallel shift towards nuclear energy (see also the separate “Going Green with Nuclear” scenario).

Scenario 1: Going Green
  • With US Nuclear
  • Without US Nuclear
<
>
TIPS
1.    Select a country on the map to display a series of Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) in the right panel.
  • Dotted lines represent upper and lower boundaries.
  • Solid lines represent the most commonly occurring result.
  • A fourth line compares the scenario’s results to the GE 2060 Base Case Scenario.  
2.    Hover over a given year to reveal the datapoints for each line, including the base case.
3.    Scroll down to see up to 6 KPIs. ​

Now through the End of 2019

There are significantly higher efficiency gains in the Go Green scenarios than in the base case scenario:
  • Households and Services in the Go Green scenario show a 2.2% efficiency increase per year, compared to 1.6% in base case.
  • Energy demand from industry, other energy sectors, CHP and Heat, non-energy sectors assumed a 2.6% efficiency increase per year, compared to 1.9%.
  • Energy efficiency gains in transport in the Go Green scenario are by 2.8% per year, compared to 0.5% in the base case;
  • Aviation bunkers and marine bunkers are the same as in base case, with marine efficiency increases of of 1% per year, and aviation of 2.4% per year. However, energy demand still grows because of increasing passenger-kilometres and tonne-kms (both freight aviation and marine transport).

Going Green with Nuclear
As in the other Going Green scenario, this scenario assumes a decisive change of policy and practice. The EU27 shift strategy from 2018 and China from 2018, as political will builds behind the drive for green energy – political, economic and business incentives converge. The USA is behind on this, and initially an outlier, but from 2020 on it joins the drive for clean energy after the next Presidential election results in a change of incumbent. But under this scenario, there is also a rethinking of the role of nuclear. Memories of recent nuclear incidents fade; and the fear of the consequences of global warming yields a new pragmatism about the possibilities of nuclear energy, and the funds to match it.
  • The USA begins a new era of nuclear: It adds nuclear at the rate of the $25 CO2 tax assumption in the EIA 2018 Energy Outlook.US plants go offline along the lines of the November 2018 Nuclear Power Summary.
  • In the rest of the world, new nuclear capacity is added many of the countries now considering the option. Germany stops its phase out but does not add any new plants. Japan gradually restarts 27 of its reactors. We assume a number of these countries embark on this effort and each has nuclear power come online in 11 – 20 years from the time of the “GoGreen Decision” that is equivalent of 10% of their total power needs.
  • Smaller projects can come online faster than larger ones. Overall, this only impacts electricity production late in the game while it is already shifting to renewables. In that sense, it reduces the new commissioning of renewables.

Going Green without Nuclear
This scenario assumes a decisive change of policy and practice – a shift of resources that transforms economies and energy production. The EU27 and China shift strategy from 2018, as political will builds behind the drive for green energy – political, economic and business incentives converge. The USA is behind on this, and initially an outlier, but from 2020 on it, too, joins the drive for clean energy after the next Presidential election results in a change of incumbent. The shift of strategy isn’t accompanied by a parallel shift towards nuclear energy (see also the separate “Going Green with Nuclear” scenario).
 
There are significantly higher efficiency gains in the Go Green scenarios than in the base case scenario
Households and Services in the Go Green scenario show a2.2% efficiency increase per year, compared to 1.6% in base case.
  • Energy demand from industry, other energy sectors, CHP and Heat, non-energy sectors assumed a 2.6% efficiency increase per year, compared to 1.9%.
  • Energy efficiency gains in transport in the Go Green scenario are by 2.8% per year, compared to 0.5% in the base case;
  • Aviation bunkers and marine bunkers are the same as in base case, with marine efficiency increases of of 1% per year, and aviation of 2.4% per year. However, energy demand still grows because of increasing passenger-kilometres and tonne-kms (both freight aviation and marine transport).
  • There is a major preference shift to CO2 poor emissions in the electrical power sector, plus a CO2 tax of $50 per tCO2 in the USA, EU, and China. The rest of the world also shifts in terms of preferences, but takes no additional measures. This scenario results in much higher electrification, and within the electrical power sector, more renewables. Only new nuclear is commissioned as it is already planned for. No additional nuclear is commissioned. Several countries phase out nuclear by 2030 (though see the separate “Going Green with Nuclear” scenario for a variant).