北京国际科技产业博览会

人民大会堂 –2013年5月21日

创新推动节能环保业的发展

 

埃德蒙·阿尔方戴利（Edmond ALPHANDERY）

欧元50国集团主席

法国燃气苏伊士集团（GDF-SUEZ）战略委员会主席

我很高兴、也很荣幸受邀在此次北京科技产业博览会开幕式上讲话。感谢北京市市长王安顺先生和中共北京市委给我此次机会与大家分享我的想法。

同时，也请让我对出席此次活动的各位名人致以诚挚的问候，特别欢迎中国科技部部长万钢先生。另外，我也想感谢国际节能环保协会秘书长约翰·李先生，感谢他对此次会议的热情介绍。

我受邀的演讲主题是创新推动环保节能的发展。

也许大家知道，我曾担任过法国核能巨头法国电力集团的主席，该集团因对广东省第一批核电厂的贡献而闻名于中国。

除了参与其他活动之外，目前我还是法国燃气苏伊士集团董事会战略委员会主席，该公司是最大的公用事业公司（从事电力、燃气、节能服务、水及垃圾管理服务）。在这方面，我常常接触到创新、清洁能源、垃圾处理和与今天的主题有关的许多其他事项。

A)  在谈到全球环境、二氧化碳排放和气候变迁的未来时，无法避免的是一幅暗淡前景。

虽说全球可再生能源取得了进展，但其他主要技术却落后了。

研发方面的公共投资以及示范项目已经降低到1980年水平的1/3。

化石燃料仍然是最主要的能源，也一直在继续发展，即便在欧洲也是如此，欧洲已经开始从美国进口煤。

北美的页岩气革命在美国境外产生了双重负面影响：

< >抑制了全球煤价，使得煤矿的应用更为广泛。三年来合同价格首次低于每吨100美元。非常令人惊讶的是，欧洲也正在建造燃煤厂，因为碳价降低，同时燃气电厂也在关闭。 
< >——而不仅仅是在欧洲，因为他们看到了美国工业因为页岩气而大幅提高竞争力。同时，欧洲领导者承诺作为优先事项的应对全球变暖的政策近来遭受重创：

< >（在美国和其他地方均是如此，原因是美国煤实在是很便宜）< >减少来自市场的9亿吨碳信用额度投票。化石能源在全球总体能源生产中所占份额越来越高，因此这一趋势看起来短期内无法逆转。

在这种情况下，毫不意外的是国际能源署在其“2012年能源技术展望”报告中表明了其担忧心态：“实现IEA+2摄氏度目标的机会大门正在迅速关闭：清洁能源缺乏进展，值得人们警惕”。

是不是就没有希望打赢这场对抗全球变暖的仗了？

 

B)我本人并不是非常乐观，但是不仅仅只有坏消息，对清洁能源的投资能带来巨大效益。

首先，国际能源署提醒过我们，清洁能源的投资是很有意义的。国际能源署估算过，每投入一美元，未来到2050年前可节约三美元的燃料。

世界银行在其“中国可持续低碳城市发展”报告中称低碳城市有助于形成更宜居、更有竞争力的城市。

世界银行写到：“好消息是实现全球碳排放相对减少和地方可持续发展这两个目标的行动是有密切联系的。”

然而，为了应对未来减少二氧化碳排放的巨大挑战，我们需要将这个问题作为一个整体解决，站在供需双方的角度，鼓励“优化整个系统”的技术和行动。

我们应同时行动，通过智能电网优化需求，通过改进输电线路减少损失，并通过鼓励热电联产（同时生产蒸汽和电力）和更环保能源来调控能源价格。在这一过程中，公众对研发和示范项目的支持也是非常重要的。

国际能源署认为，这种方法可以“带来巨大的经济效益”。

C) 明确地说，如果我们想要赢得这场对抗全球变暖的战争，尤其是在煤炭使用方面，我们就需要在新技术领域采取决定性步骤。

关于这点，我们必须特别关注低碳电力，这是大幅减少工业、交通和建筑业碳排放的关键所在。

国际能源署称，通过使用新技术，2050年前千瓦时相关的排放可降低80%。

在这种情况下，更好地使用煤炭绝对是核心政策。正如国际能源署所称，不仅仅是在中国等发展中国家，而且也在欧洲，人们发现煤炭的使用日益增加，这是“在能源与气候变化的关系中问题最大的趋势”。

在这方面，碳捕获与封存（CCS）是目前唯一可用的技术，能让发电和工业部门（铁、钢、水泥）大幅减少二氧化碳排放。国际能源署称，因为在2050年二氧化碳排放减少目标中，碳捕获与封存技术最高可占到20.5%的份额，而这一技术没有进展，这是最令人担忧的。

 

D)  作为对技术的补充，这个领域方面的政策可成为强大的催化剂。

在市场经济中，明确的激励措施是决策者引导减少家庭和企业二氧化碳排放的最佳工具。

我们应首先确定能源价格反应在消费者所支付的金额中。但实际上很少是这种情况。

通常来说，价格低于能源的真实“价值”，这会导致过度使用和过度消费。比如说，在许多国家，化石燃料的消费是有补贴的。举个例子，据计算，2011年全球化石燃料补贴是可再生能源资助款的7倍。

因此，在理想情况下，从国际层面来说，我们应向前发展，通过逐步减少补贴，逐步增加二氧化碳税，从而渐进式地将化石燃料的价格调整至其真实价值水平——真实价值中应该包含外部污染费用，因而以这种方式创造一个公平的竞争环境。

我承认这一提案尽管很有逻辑性，但就目前的情况来说，从政治和社会方面来说却很难行得通，因为每个国家都认为征税属于其自身的主权范畴。

E) 因此，我将根据中国国情，提出适合中国的建议。

所有利益相关方团结一致，共同提倡中国的绿色增长。问题是如何以最佳的方式确保绿色发展。

鉴于在座大部分都是中国人，我就不再引述中国政府近年来在绿色经济方面取得的进展。以最新5年计划为例，该计划旨在将每单位GDP的能源强度减少17%，天然气产业的最新5年计划是提倡扩大城市的天然气渗透率，而节能减排的最新计划旨在通过锅炉改造和升级、使用废热发电（热电联产）和节油技术，节约相当于6.7亿吨标准煤的能源。

我们应该承认，我们已经取得了很大的进步，例如大规模的植树造林工作，但我认为，中国应制订一种适用于中国城市企业污染的二氧化碳税；在我看来，这点刻不容缓。为什么呢？

首先，中国城市是中国在全球碳排放量的主要根源。它们在能源相关的碳排放量中所占比例超过70%，而其中许多城市的碳排放量还在不断上涨。

就这一点而言，城市化是一个巨大的挑战：每年，中国城市增加的人口等同于一个大城市的人口，例如上海或北京，而在未来20年，约有3.5亿城镇居民将涌入城市。

因此，显然城市对中国减少二氧化碳排放量的工作起着决定性的作用。

其次，我认为，充分的理由显示，这项任务是中国力所能及的，甚至比其他许多国家要容易得多。这是为什么？

因为，相比世界其他国家，中国城市的特征之一在于其中许多都是重要的工业中心。

工业和发电是中国城市碳排放量的主要根源：在北京、上海或天津，40%的碳排放量来自发电，其余40%来自工业，仅20%来自交通、建筑和垃圾。

恰恰相反，在大多数经济合作与发展组织（OECD）国家的大城市中，大部分碳排放量来自其他方面：交通、建筑和垃圾。如果要取得显著成果，中国只需改变少量厂商的行为，而他们大部分的经济能力能够承受这样的变化。

据我的观察，中国当局已经充分认识到，必须将政策的重心放在城市。而它们似乎依赖于执行二氧化碳排放权交易来鼓励企业开展经批准的业务。

但正如欧洲的一项实验明确显示，二氧化碳的价格极度不稳定。仅仅几个月之间，价格可从每吨20欧元下降到低于5欧元，目前，其价格正在大幅下跌，对企业传达了错误的信号。目前，排放权过度供给，市场未能够发挥其预期的作用。

因此，我不建议采用二氧化碳排放权交易系统，但是，我觉得征收一种二氧化碳税更加可取，而随着时间的推移，可以提高税收的额度。

起初，该项税收可只针对企业和煤炭发电厂。

久而久之，这项税收将极大地推动天然气和/或可再生能源以及原子能逐渐取代煤炭。

如果税收收益用于：

< >CCS技术和二氧化碳存储方面的科研活动；< >发放给投资于更洁净工艺的企业，帮助减少污染，那么，我想我们同时可在多方面取得积极成果：

< >减少二氧化碳排放对气候变化有利；< >该类目标可以实现，同时也不会影响到企业的竞争力。

毫无疑问，中国正面临着巨大的挑战。

但是，诸位阁下、先生们女士们，我仍认为，形势已经好转，只要做出合理的努力，相信我们一定能够成功。

谢谢大家！

 

Beijing International High Tech Expo

The Great Hall of the People – May 21 , 2013

Driving Energy-saving and Environmental Protection Industry through Innovation

 

Edmond ALPHANDERY

Chairman of the Euro50 group

President of the strategic committee of GDF-SUEZ

It is my pleasure and my honor to be invited to speak at the opening of this Beijing high tech Expo. I wish to thank Mr Wan Anshum, the Mayor of Beijing municipality and the CPC Beijing Municipal Committee for giving me the opportunity to share my views with you.

Let me also express my best regards to the high personalities that attend this event, notably Minister WAN Gang, the Minister for Science and Technology of China. I will express my gratitude as well to Mr John LI, the secretary general of IEEPA for his kind introduction to this conference.

I have been asked to speak on Innovation as a driving force for environmental protection and energy saving.

As you may know, I have been chairman of EDF, the French nuclear utility champion, which is well known in china for having contributed to the first nuclear plants in Guangdong Province.

 

And among other activities, I am presently President of the strategic committee of the board of GDF-SUEZ, the largest utility company (doing power, gas, energy efficiency services and water and waste services). In this respect, I am used to tackle issues of innovation, clean energy, waste treatment and many others related to today’s topics.

A)  When we speak of the global outlook in terms of environment, CO2 emissions and climate change, it’s impossible to avoid giving a bleak picture.

If there has been progress in renewable energy around the world, other key technologies lay behind.

Public investment in research and development, and demonstration projects has decreased to 1/3 to its level in 1980.

Fossil fuel remains the dominant source of energy and continues to grow, even in Europe which has started importing coal from the US.

The shale gas revolution in North America is having this double negative impact outside the US:

It pushes US coal abroad, contributing to depress the world price of coal and leading to its wider use. For the first time in three years, contracts have settled below $100 the ton. Very surprisingly in Europe coal fired plants are also being built as carbon prices are also depressed while gas fired plants are shut down.

 

It arouses concern from other industrialists outside the US, not the least in Europe, as they see dramatic improvement in the competiveness of the American Industry due to shale gaz.

At the same time, the policy to confront global warming which EU leaders pledged to be a priority, has recently suffered a blow :

As the shale gas and shale oil revolution bring more carbon based developments worldwide (both in the US and elsewhere due to the US coal being so cheap)

From the European Parliament which refused to vote for a reduction of 900 million tons of carbon credits from the market.

The trend of an increasing part of fossil energy in the global overall production of energy does therefore not seem to reverse any time soon.

In this context, it is no surprise that in its report on “Energy technology perspective 2012”, the International Energy Agency worries that: “the window of opportunity is closing rapidly for achieving the IEA +2 degrees Celsius scenario: the lack of progress in clean energy is alarming”.

Is there no more hope of winning the war against global warming ?

 

 

B) I am not very optimistic, but there are not only bad news and investing in clean energy can bring great benefits.

First, as the IEA reminds us, investing in clean energy makes sense. It has estimated that every dollar invested can generate 3 dollars in future fuel saving by 2050. 

In its report on “sustainable low carbon city development in china”, the World Bank adds that low carbon city leads to more livable, and more competitive cities.

“The good news”, the World Bank writes, “is that action to achieve both globally relevant carbon emission reduction and local sustainable development are closely aligned”.

But in order to face the huge challenges ahead for reduce CO2 emission, we need to address the issue as a whole, on the supply as on the demand side, encouraging technologies and behaviors that “optimize the entire system”.

We should simultaneously act to optimize demand through smart grids, while diminish losses by improving electricity transmission lines, and act on the offer by stimulating co-generation (simultaneous production of steam and electricity) and greener sources of energy. Public support on the R&D and Demonstration projects is also key along the road.

Such approach according to the IEA could “unlock tremendous economic benefits”.  

C) Let’s be clear, we will need decisive steps in new technologies if we want to win the war against global warming and especially on the coal use side.

In this respect, we must pay a special attention to low carbon electricity, which is key for a deep reduction in carbon emissions across the industry, transport and building sectors.

According to the IEA, the emissions related to a kilowatt-hour could be reduced by 80% by 2050 through technology.

A better use of coal in this context is absolutely central. Its’ current increasing use is observed not only in developing economies like China, but in Europe as well, and is - as the IEA puts it - “the single most problematic trend in the relationship between energy and climate change”. 

In this respect Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) is the only technology already available that would allow generation and industry sectors (iron, steel, cement) to reduce significantly CO2 emissions. According to IEA again, the lack of progress in CCS is most worrisome since it could account for up to 20.5 % of CO2 emissions reductions by 2050.

 

D)  As a complement to technologies, policies in this domain could be strong catalysts

In our market economies, clear incentives are the best tools at the disposal of policy makers to lead towards CO2 reductions behaviors of households and firms.

We should first make sure that the price of energy is reflected in what the consumer has to pay. This is rarely the case.

Generally the price is lower than the true “value” of energy leading to over use and over consumption.  In many countries for instance, fossil fuel consumption is subsidized. It has for instance been calculated that in 2011 global subsidies in fossil fuel is 7 times the amount of support to renewable.

Ideally, at the international level, we should therefore move forward creating a level playing field level by suppressing subsidies step by step and introducing incrementally a CO2 tax which could progressively adjust the price of fossil fuel to its true value which should include the external costs of pollution.

I recognize that this proposal, despite its logic, is hardly politically and socially possible in the present context where each country considers that taxing remains in its’ own realm of sovereignty.

 

E) I will therefore make a suggestion for China which seems to be adapted to the characteristics of this country.

All stakeholders unite to advocate green growth in China.  The question is how to ensure it in the best manner.

As many of you are Chinese I will not quote all the major recent developments advocated by the Chinese government to green its economy. I can for instance quote the latest 5 years plan aiming at reducing energy intensity per unit of GDP by 17%, the latest 5 year plans for the gas industry that advocates a larger penetration of gas in the cities or the latest plan for energy saving and emission reduction which aims at saving the equivalent of 670 million tons of standard coal through transformation and upgrading of boilers, use of cogeneration (combined heat and power) and oil saving technologies.

We have to acknowledge that a lot has already been achieved, none the least the huge reforestation effort, but I believe that China should create a CO2 tax applicable to firms’ pollution in Chinese cities; and it  seems to me to be absolutely crucial. Why ?

First, because Chinese cities are major contributors to the global carbon footprint in China. They contribute to more than 70% of energy related carbon emissions and they are on the rise in many of them.  

 

Urbanization is a huge challenge in this respect: every year, the equivalent population of one megacity like Shanghai or Beijing increases in Chinese cities, and 350 million new urban residents are expected to migrate to cities in the next 20 years.

It is clear therefore that cities will play a decisive role in china’s efforts to reduce CO2 emissions.

Second, I think that there are good reasons to believe that the task is within reach in China. It is even probably easier than in many other countries. Why ?

Because compared to the rest of the world, one of the characteristics of the Chinese cities is that most of them are important industrial centers.

Industry and power generation contribute strongly to carbon footprint in Chinese cities: in Beijing, Shanghai or Tianjin, 40% of carbon emission comes from power generation, another 40% from industry and only 20% from transport, building and waste.

On the contrary, in the majority of big OECD cities, the big bulk of emissions comes from other sources: transport, building and waste.

For China to obtain significant results, it has therefore to change the behavior of much fewer agents, the firms, which for the majority of them have the financial capacity to act.

 

As I already observed it, Chinese authorities are perfectly aware that they must focus their policy on cities. And they seem to rely on the implementation of CO2 emissions permits trade to stimulate the firms to undertake the warranted endeavors.

But as the European experiment is clearly showing, the CO2 price is extremely volatile. It can move in a matter of months from 20€/ton to less than 5€, and it is currently falling sharply, giving the wrong signals to firms. There is presently an excess supply of emissions permits and the market does not play the role it was expected to play.

So I should not advise to go for a CO2 emissions permits trading system, but I would find it much more preferable to put in place a CO2 tax which could be raised over time. 

It could be applied to firms only and to plants producing electricity through coal in the first place.

This tax would be a strong incentive to replace progressively over time coal by gas and/or renewable energy as well as nuclear.

If the proceeds of the tax were:

Used to foster research in the CCS technologies and CO2 storage,

And also as a bounty distributed to firms that invest in cleaner processes in order to help them in their effort to reduce pollution,

I think we could simultaneously obtain positive results on many fronts: 

On the quality of life in the cities, on reduction of CO2 emissions which can only be favorable to climate change,

On new steps in the Chinese technologies for clean energy, 

And these targets could be attained without putting in jeopardy the competitiveness of the firms.

China is facing, without any doubt, a huge challenge.

But I do think, your Excellencies, ladies and a gentleman, that it has already taken the right turn, and that it has within reach the necessary tools to succeed.

Thank you for your attention.