# LongBench v2 / 6703f57bbb02136c067cd714 task_id: 11fefad4-6a26-5957-b07e-c9057c2dec5e task_key: train--6703f57bbb02136c067cd714 task_revision_id: 1 {"choice_A":"The APS will result in a 15.9% decrease in primary energy consumption and a 22.3% reduction in CO2 emissions compared to the BAU scenario.","choice_B":"The APS will lead to a 27.53 Mtoe increase in primary energy consumption, but will have no effect on CO2 emissions.","choice_C":"The implementation of the APS will have no significant impact on primary energy consumption or CO2 emissions compared to the BAU scenario.","choice_D":"The APS is projected to slow the growth of primary energy consumption to a 2.9% annual increase and reduce CO2 emissions by 22.3% compared to the BAU scenario.","context":"PREFACE\nEnergy security and climate change are very important issues in the world. At the Second \nEast Asia Summit (EAS) in Cebu, Philippines in January 2007, the leaders of the region \ndeclared that East Asia could mitigate problems on these two issues through strong \nleadership on several countermeasures. These include promoting energy conservation, \nand utilising biofuels, and adopting cleaner use of coal. \nTwo groups were designated to assist in implementing the countermeasures mentioned \nabove: the Energy Cooperation Task Force (ECTF) and the Economic Research Institute \nfor ASEAN and East Asia (ERIA). The ECTF is responsible for supporting the efforts of the \nEAS and its Energy Ministers Meeting to promote cooperation on policies to implement \nthese countermeasures. ERIA is responsible for studying the potential impacts of the \ncountermeasures and is focusing its energy studies in two areas: (i) promotion of energy \nconservation and (ii) utilisation of biofuels.\nThis report was prepared by the Working Group for Analysis of Energy Saving Potential \nin East Asia under the ERIA Energy Project. The report covers all research activities of \nthe Working Group from August 2015 to May 2016, including methodology, estimated \nimpacts of current energy-saving goals, and policy recommendations to the ECTF. \nThe structure of this report is like the earlier editions because of the application of similar \nmethodology. However, one important accomplishment of this study is the development \nof energy efficiency targets for the countries that did not have targets when this project \nstarted in 2007. It could be said that those countries started adopting energy efficiency as \nan important energy policy as a result of this study.\nThis report hopefully contributes to mitigating problems related to energy security and \nclimate change by increasing understanding of the potential for energy savings of a range \nof energy efficiency goals, action plans, and policies. It also discusses several key insights \nfor policy development.\nShigeru Kimura\nLeader of the Working Group\n2019\n\n\nIV\nENERGY OUTLOOK AND ENERGY SAVING POTENTIAL IN EAST ASIA 2019\nACKNOWLEDGEMENTS\nThis study is a joint effort of Working Group members from the East Asia Summit countries, \nthe Economic Research Institute for ASEAN and East Asia (ERIA), and The Institute of \nEnergy Economics, Japan (IEEJ). We would like to acknowledge the support provided \nby everyone involved. We especially take this opportunity to thank the members of the \nWorking Group, ERIA’s energy team, the International Affairs Division of the Agency for \nNatural Resources and Energy of the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry of Japan, \nand IEEJ’s energy outlook modelling team.\nSpecial acknowledgement also goes to Shigeru Kimura, Han Phoumin, Yanfei Li, and \nCecilya Laksmiwati Malik for their technical editing of this report.\nThis study could not have been realised without the invaluable support and contribution \nprovided by many people (please see details in the List of Project Members).\nSpecial thanks go to ERIA Publications Department—Stefan Wesiak, Chrestella Budyanto, \nFadriani Trianingsih, and their team of editors for helping edit the report and prepare it for \npublication.\nThe Authors\n\n\nV\nCONTENTS\nTables\nFigures\nAbbreviations and Acronyms\nProject Members\nExecutive Summary\nEnergy Outlook and Saving Potential in the East Asia \nRegion: Main Report\nHan Phoumin, Shigeru Kimura, and Cecilya Laksmiwati Malik\nAustralia Country Report\nShamim Ahmad and Lu Zheng\nBrunei Darussalam Country Report\nMinistry of Energy and Industry, Brunei Darussalam\nCambodia Country Report\nChiphong Sarasy\nChina Country Report\nYu Hao and Mingyuan Zhao\nIndia Country Report\nAtul Kumar, Michael O. Dioha, and Lu Zheng\nIndonesia Country Report\nCecilya Laksmiwati Malik\nChapter 1\nChapter 2\nChapter 3\nChapter 4\nChapter 5\nChapter 6\nChapter 7\nVII\nIX\nXIX\nXXI\nXXIV\n1\n53\n66\n77\n97\n112\n128\n\n\nVI\nENERGY OUTLOOK AND ENERGY SAVING POTENTIAL IN EAST ASIA 2019\nJapan Country Report\nSeiya Endo\nRepublic of Korea Country Report\nKyung-Jin Boo\nLao PDR Country Report\nKhamso Kouphokham\nMalaysia Country Report\nZaharin Zulkifli\nMyanmar Country Report\nTin Zaw Myint\nNew Zealand Country Report\nHien Dieu Thi Dang and Seiya Endo\nPhilippines Country Report\nDanilo V. Vivar\nSingapore Country Report\nLoi Tian Sheng Allan\nThailand Country Report\nSupit Padprem\nViet Nam Country Report\nNguyen Minh Bao\nUnited States Country Report\nClara Gillispie and Seiya Endo\nResults Summary Tables\nChapter 8\nChapter 9\nChapter 10\nChapter 11\nChapter 12\nChapter 13\nChapter 14\nChapter 15\nChapter 16\nChapter 17\nChapter 18\nAnnex\n153\n164\n181\n199\n219\n243\n255\n281\n304\n316\n334\n349\n\n\nVII\nTABLES\nMain Report\nGeographic, Demographic, and Economic Profiles, 2015\nEconomic Structure and Energy Consumption, 2015\nAccess to Electricity, %\nAssumptions on Biofuels – Summary by Country\nReference Materials and their Estimation\nProduction Outlook of Oil\nProduction Outlook of Gas\nProduction Outlook of Coal\nSummary of Energy-Saving Goals, Action Plans, and Policies \nCollected from Each EAS17 Working Group Member\nComparison of CO2 Emissions amongst the Scenarios in \n2040, Mt-C\nBrunei Darussalam Country Report\nEnergy Supply and Consumption, 2015 (Mtoe)\nCambodia Country Report\nPower Generation Facility by Fuel Type\nUpdated Cambodia Energy Information\nBAU Installed Capacity\nAPS Installed Capacity\nCambodia’s INDC Targets\nResults of CO2 Emissions Reduction by 2040 (Million Tons \nCO2)\nChapter 1\nTable 1.1 \nTable 1.2\nTable 1.3\nTable 1.4\nTable 1.5\nTable 1.6\nTable 1.7\nTable 1.8\nTable 1.9\nTable 1.10\nChapter 3\nTable 3.1\nChapter 4\nTable 4.1\nTable 4.2\nTable 4.3\nTable 4.4\nTable 4.5\nTable 4.6\n3\n4\n17\n18\n20\n22\n22\n23\n24\n40\n67\n78\n78\n79\n79\n81\n94\n\n\nVIII\nENERGY OUTLOOK AND ENERGY SAVING POTENTIAL IN EAST ASIA 2019\nIndonesia Country Report\nNDC Emissions Reduction Targets for GHG\nCO2 Emissions in 2030 and 2040, BAU and APS\nLao PDR Country Report\nAssumption of Annual Average Annual Growth of GDP and \nPopulation\nMalaysia Country Report\nGDP Growth Assumptions by Sector to 2040 (% per year)\nPopulation Growth Assumptions to 2040\nPotential Mitigation Scenarios\nCurrent Results of Key Indicators from APS \nNewly Proposed Mitigation Scenarios\nResults for INDC Scenario\nMyanmar Country Report\nInstalled Capacity and Power Generation by Fuel Type \n(2015–2016) \nYearly Plan for the Construction of Power Plan Projects (MW) \n(2018–2022)\nInstalled Capacity and Power Supply in Scenarios for 2030\nChapter 7\nTable 7.1\nTable 7.2\nChapter 10\nTable 10.1\nChapter 11\nTable 11.1\nTable 11.2\nTable 11.3\nTable 11.4\nTable 11.5\nTable 11.6\nChapter 12\nTable 12.1\nTable 12.2\nTable 12.3\n146\n147\n184\n202\n203\n206\n215\n216\n216\n220\n222\n222\n\n\nIX\nFIGURES\nMain Report\nAssumed Population in the EAS17 Region, 2015 and 2040\nAssumed Average Annual Growth in Population, 2015–2040\nAssumed Economic Activity in the EAS17 Region, 2015 and \n2040\nAssumed Average Annual Growth in GDP, 2015–2040\nReal GDP per Capita, 2015 and 2040\nThermal Efficiencies of Gas Electricity Generation\nThermal Efficiencies of Coal Electricity Generation\nShare of Fuel Type in the Electricity Generation Mix in the \nEAS17 Region\nReal Oil, Natural Gas, and Coal Imported Price Assumptions \n(Real prices in 2016 US$)\nFinal Energy Consumption by Sector, BAU (1990–2040)\nFinal Energy Consumption Share by Sector (1990–2040)\nFinal Energy Consumption by Fuel Type (1990–2040)\nFinal Energy Consumption Share by Fuel Type (1990–2040)\nPrimary Energy Supply in EAS17 (1990–2040)\nShare of Primary Energy Mix by Source (1990–2040)\nPower Generation in EAS17 (1990–2040)\nShare of Power Generation Mix in EAS17 (1990–2040)\nThermal Efficiency by Fuel Type, BAU (1990–2040)\nEnergy Indicators in EAS17\nTotal Final Energy Consumption, BAU and APS\nFinal Energy Consumption by Sector, BAU vs APS\nPrimary Energy Supply by Sources, BAU and APS\nTotal Primary Energy Supply – BAU and APS\nTotal CO2 Emissions – BAU and APS\nInvestment Share by Power Source (EAS17–BAU)\nInvestment Share by Power Source (EAS17–APS)\nInvestment Share by Power Source (ASEAN–BAU)\nInvestment Share by Power Source (ASEAN–APS)\nChapter 1\nFigure 1.1\nFigure 1.2\nFigure 1.3\nFigure 1.4\nFigure 1.5\nFigure 1.6\nFigure 1.7\nFigure 1.8\nFigure 1.9\nFigure 1.10\nFigure 1.11\nFigure 1.12\nFigure 1.13\nFigure 1.14\nFigure 1.15\nFigure 1.16\nFigure 1.17\nFigure 1.18\nFigure 1.19\nFigure 1.20\nFigure 1.21\nFigure 1.22\nFigure 1.23\nFigure 1.24\nFigure 1.25\nFigure 1.26\nFigure 1.27\nFigure 1.28\n9\n10\n11\n12\n13\n14\n15\n16\n19\n26\n26\n27\n28\n29\n30\n31\n32\n33\n34\n35\n36\n37\n38\n39\n41\n41\n42\n42\n\n\nX\nENERGY OUTLOOK AND ENERGY SAVING POTENTIAL IN EAST ASIA 2019\nEnergy Infrastructure Investment (EAS17, BAU–APS)\nEnergy Infrastructure Investment (ASEAN, BAU–APS)\nAustralia Country Report\nFinal Energy Consumption by Sector, BAU\nFinal Energy Consumption by Fuel Type, BAU\nPrimary Energy Supply by Fuel Type\nPower Generation under BAU\nFinal Energy Consumption by Sector, BAU and APS\nTotal Primary Energy Supply, BAU and APS\nPrimary Energy Supply by Fuel Type, BAU and APS\nCO2 Emissions from Energy Combustion, BAU and APS\nBrunei Darussalam Country Report\nFinal Energy Consumption by Sector, BAU\nFinal Energy Consumption by Sector, BAU and APS (2015 \nand 2040)\nPrimary Energy Supply by Source, BAU and APS (2015 and \n2040)\nReduction of Primary Energy Supply, BAU and APS (2015 \nand 2040)\nCO2 Emissions from Energy Consumption, BAU and APS \n(2015 and 2040)\nCambodia Country Report\nPrimary Energy Supply by Source, BAU\nFinal Energy Consumption by Sector, BAU\nFinal Energy Consumption by Fuel Type, BAU\nPower Generation by Fuel Type, BAU\nCO2 Emissions from Energy Consumption, BAU\nEnergy and CO2 Indicators\nComparison of Scenarios to Total Primary Energy Supply by \n2040 \nComparison of Scenarios of Electricity Generation by 2040\nComparison of Scenarios to CO2 Emissions, 2040 \nFigure 1.29\nFigure 1.30\nChapter 2\nFigure 2.1\nFigure 2.2\nFigure 2.3\nFigure 2.4\nFigure 2.5\nFigure 2.6\nFigure 2.7\nFigure 2.8\nChapter 3\nFigure 3.1\nFigure 3.2\nFigure 3.3\nFigure 3.4\nFigure 3.5\nChapter 4\nFigure 4.1\nFigure 4.2\nFigure 4.3\nFigure 4.4\nFigure 4.5\nFigure 4.6\nFigure 4.7\nFigure 4.8\nFigure 4.9\n43\n44\n56\n57\n58\n59\n60\n61\n61\n63\n70\n71\n72\n73\n74\n81\n83\n84\n85\n86\n87\n88\n89\n90\n\n\nXI\nFinal Energy Consumption by Sector, BAU and APS\nPrimary Energy Supply by Fuel Type, BAU and APS\nTotal Primary Energy Saving Potential by Fuel Type, BAU vs APS\nCO2 Emissions by Fuel Type, BAU and APS\nChina Country Report\nFinal Energy Consumption by Sector, BAU (1990–2040)\nFinal Energy Consumption by Fuel Type, BAU (1990–2040)\nFinal Energy Consumption, BAU and APS (2015 and 2040)\nPrimary Energy Supply by Energy Type, BAU (1990–2040)\nPrimary Energy Supply by Source, BAU and APS (2015 and \n2040)\nTotal Primary Energy Supply, BAU and APS (2015 and 2040)\nCO2 Emissions from Energy Consumption, BAU and APS \n(2015 and 2040)\nPower Generation, BAU (1990–2040)\nThermal Efficiency by Fuel Type, BAU (1990–2040)\nEnergy Indicators, BAU (1990–2040)\nIndia Country Report\nGrid Power Sources (GW) and their Percentage Shares as of \nJune 2017\nFinal Energy Consumption by Sector, BAU (1990–2040)\nFinal Energy Consumption by Fuel Type (1990–2040)\nPrimary Energy Supply by Source, BAU (1990–2040)\nElectricity Generation under BAU (1990–2040)\nCO2 Emissions under BAU (1990–2040)\nFinal Energy Consumption under APSs\nFinal Energy Consumption, BAU vs APS5 (2015 and 2040)\nPrimary Energy Supply by Sector, BAU vs APS5\nTotal Primary Energy Supply, BAU vs APS5 (2015 and 2040)\nTotal Primary Energy Supply by Fuel Type, BAU vs APS5 \n(2015 and 2040)\nCO2 Emissions from Energy Combustion, BAU vs APSs\nCO2 Emissions from Energy Combustion, BAU vs APS5 \n(2015 and 2040)\nFigure 4.10\nFigure 4.11\nFigure 4.12\nFigure 4.13\nChapter 5\nFigure 5.1\nFigure 5.2\nFigure 5.3\nFigure 5.4\nFigure 5.5\nFigure 5.6\nFigure 5.7\nFigure 5.8\nFigure 5.9\nFigure 5.10\nChapter 6\nFigure 6.1\nFigure 6.2\nFigure 6.3\nFigure 6.4\nFigure 6.5\nFigure 6.6\nFigure 6.7\nFigure 6.8\nFigure 6.9\nFigure 6.10\nFigure 6.11\nFigure 6.12\nFigure 6.13\n91\n92\n92\n93\n102\n103\n103\n104\n105\n106\n107\n108\n108\n109\n114\n116\n117\n118\n119\n120\n121\n122\n122\n123\n123\n124\n125\nFigures\n\n\nXII\nENERGY OUTLOOK AND ENERGY SAVING POTENTIAL IN EAST ASIA 2019\nIndonesia Country Report\nEnergy Efficiency and Conservation Assumptions\nFinal Energy Consumption by Sector (1990–2040)\nFinal Energy Consumption by Energy Type, BAU (1990–2040))\nPrimary Energy Supply, BAU (1990–2040)\nPower Generation by Fuel Type (TWh) (1990–2040))\nThermal Efficiency, BAU (2015–2040)\nEnergy Intensity and Other Energy Indicators (1990=100)\nComparison of Scenarios of Total Primary Energy Supply by \n2040\nComparison of Scenarios to Electricity Generation by 2040\nComparison of Scenarios to CO2 Emissions by 2040\nFinal Energy Consumption by Sector, BAU and APS (2015 \nand 2040)\nPrimary Energy Supply by Source, BAU and APS (2015 and \n2040)\nTotal Primary Energy Supply, BAU and APS (2015 and 2040)\nEnergy Intensity, BAU and APS (1990–2040)\nCO2 Emissions from Energy Consumption, BAU and APS \n(2015–2040)\nPower Generation Mix, BAU and APS (2015 and 2040)\nJapan Country Report\nAnnual Growth Rate of GDP and Population\nThermal Efficiency, BAU (1990–2040)\nFinal Energy Consumption by Sector, BAU (1990–2040)\nFinal Energy Consumption by Source, BAU (1990–2040)\nPrimary Energy Supply, BAU (1990–2040)\nIndices of Energy and CO2 Intensities, Energy per Capita,and \nCarbonisation Rate, BAU (1990–2040) \nFinal Energy Consumption by Sector, BAU and APS (2015 \nand 2040)\nPrimary Energy Supply by Source, BAU and APS (2015 and \n2040)\nTotal Primary Energy Supply, BAU and APS (1990, 2015, and \n2040)\nChapter 7\nFigure 7.1\nFigure 7.2\nFigure 7.3\nFigure 7.4\nFigure 7.5\nFigure 7.6\nFigure 7.7\nFigure 7.8\nFigure 7.9\nFigure 7.10\nFigure 7.11\nFigure 7.12\nFigure 7.13\nFigure 7.14\nFigure 7.15\nFigure 7.16\nChapter 8\nFigure 8.1\nFigure 8.2\nFigure 8.3\nFigure 8.4\nFigure 8.5\nFigure 8.6\nFigure 8.7\nFigure 8.8\nFigure 8.9\n130\n131\n133\n134\n136\n137\n138\n139\n140\n141\n142\n143\n143\n144\n145\n148\n155\n156\n157\n157\n158\n159\n160\n160\n161\n\n\nXIII\nCO2 Emissions from Fossil Fuel Combustion, BAU and APS \n(1990, 2015, and 2040)\nRepublic of Korea Country Report\nAssumptions for GDP and Population (1990–2040)\nFinal Energy Consumption by Sector, BAU (1990–2040)\nFinal Energy Consumption by Energy Type, BAU (1990–2040)\nFinal Energy Consumption by Sector, BAU and APS\nFinal Energy Consumption by Energy, BAU and APS\nFinal Energy Consumption by Sector, BAU and APS (2015 \nand 2040)\nPrimary Energy Supply by Energy Type, BAU and APS (1990–\n2040)\nTotal Primary Energy Supply, BAU and APSs\nTotal Primary Energy Supply, BAU and APS (2015 and 2040)\nPrimary Energy Supply by Source, BAU and APS (2015 and \n2040)\nCO2 Emissions from Energy Consumption, BAU and APS \n(2015 and 2040)\nEnergy and Carbon Intensities (1990–2040)\nLao PDR Country Report\nFinal Energy Consumption by Sector (1990–2040)\nSectors’ Share in Final Energy Consumption (1990–2040)\nFuels’ Share in Total Final Energy Consumption (1990–2040) \nFinal Energy Consumption by Fuel Type (1990–2040)\nPrimary Energy Supply by Source (1990–2040)\nFuels’ Share in Primary Energy Supply (1990–2040)\nElectricity Generation in 2040\nTechnologies’ Share in Electricity Generation (1990–2040)\nEnergy Intensity and Other Energy Indicators (1990–2040)\nComparison of Scenarios to Total Primary Energy Supply in \n2040\nComparison of Scenarios to Electricity Generation in 2040\nComparison of Scenarios to Carbon Emissions in 2040\nFinal Energy Consumption by Sector, BAU and APS (2015 \nand 2040)\nFigure 8.10\nChapter 9\nFigure 9.1\nFigure 9.2\nFigure 9.3\nFigure 9.4\nFigure 9.5\nFigure 9.6\nFigure 9.7\nFigure 9.8\nFigure 9.9\nFigure 9.10\nFigure 9.11\nFigure 9.12\nChapter 10\nFigure 10.1\nFigure 10.2\nFigure 10.3\nFigure 10.4\nFigure 10.5\nFigure 10.6\nFigure 10.7\nFigure 10.8\nFigure 10.9\nFigure 10.10\nFigure 10.11\nFigure 10.12\nFigure 10.13\n162\n166\n168\n169\n170\n171\n171\n172\n173\n175\n175\n176\n177\n185\n185\n186\n186\n189\n189\n190\n190\n191\n192\n192\n193\n194\nFigures\n\n\nXIV\nENERGY OUTLOOK AND ENERGY SAVING POTENTIAL IN EAST ASIA 2019\nPrimary Energy Demand by Source, BAU and APS (2015 and \n2040)\nTotal Primary Energy Supply, BAU and APS (2015 and 2040)\nFinal Energy Intensity, BAU and APS (1990–2040)\nPrimary Energy Intensity, BAU and APS (1990–2040)\nCO2 Emissions from Energy Consumption, BAU vs APS \n(2015 and 2040)\nMalaysia Country Report\nModelling Structure\nPrimary Energy Consumption by Fuel Type, BAU (1990–2040)\nShare of Primary Energy Supply by Fuel Type, BAU (1990–2040)\nFinal Energy Consumption by Fuel Type, BAU (1990–2040)\nShare of Final Energy Consumption by Fuel Type, BAU \n(1990–2040)\nFinal Energy Consumption by Sector, BAU (1990–2040)\nShare of Final Energy Consumption by Sector, BAU (1990–\n2040)\nPower Generation by Fuel Type, BAU (1990–2040)\nShare of Power Generation by Fuel Type, BAU (1990–2040)\nThermal Efficiency by Fuel Type, BAU (1990–2040)\nEnergy Indicators, BAU (1990–2040)\nFinal Energy Consumption by Sector, BAU and APS (2015 \nand 2040)\nPrimary Energy Supply by Source, BAU and APS (2015 and \n2040)\nTotal Primary Energy Supply, BAU and APS (2015 and 2040)\nCO2 Emissions from Energy Combustion, BAU and APS \n(2015 and 2040)\nMyanmar Country Report\nFinal Energy Demand by Sector, BAU (1990–2040)\nFinal Energy Consumption by Fuel Type, BAU (1990–2040) \nPrimary Energy Supply by Source, BAU (1990–2040)\nPower Generation Mix, BAU (1990–2040)\nFigure 10.14\nFigure 10.15\nFigure 10.16\nFigure 10.17\nFigure 10.18\nChapter 11\nFigure 11.1\nFigure 11.2\nFigure 11.3\nFigure 11.4\nFigure 11.5\nFigure 11.6\nFigure 11.7\nFigure 11.8\nFigure 11.9\nFigure 11.10\nFigure 11.11\nFigure 11.12\nFigure 11.13\nFigure 11.14\nFigure 11.15\nChapter 12\nFigure 12.1\nFigure 12.2\nFigure 12.3\nFigure 12.4\n195\n195\n196\n197\n197\n201\n207\n207\n208\n208\n209\n209\n210\n210\n211\n211\n212\n213\n213\n214\n227\n228\n229\n230\n\n\nXV\nEnergy Intensity, CO2 Intensity, and Energy per Capita \n(1990–2040)\nComparison of Scenarios to Total Primary Energy Supply in \n2040\nComparison of Scenarios of Electricity Generation in 2040\nComparison of Scenarios to CO2 Emissions in 2040\nFinal Energy Consumption by Sector, BAU and APS (2015 \nand 2040)\nPrimary Energy Supply by Source, BAU and APS (2015 and \n2040)\nEvolution of Primary Energy Supply, BAU and APS (2015 and \n2040)\nCO2 Emissions from Energy Consumption, BAU and APS \n(2015 and 2040)\nElectricity Demand, BAU and APS (2015–2040)\nPower Generation Capacity in 2030, BAU and APS\nNew Zealand Country Report\nGDP and Population (1990–2040)\nPower Generation by Fuel, BAU (1990–2040)\nFinal Energy Consumption by Sector, BAU (1990–2040)\nFinal Energy Consumption by Fuel Type, BAU (1990–2040)\nFinal Energy Consumption by Sector, BAU and APS (2015 \nand 2040)\nPrimary Energy Supply by Fuel Type, BAU (1990–2040)\nPrimary Energy Intensity and Energy per Capita Indicator, \nBAU (1990–2040)\nPrimary Energy Supply by Fuel Type, BAU and APS (2015 and \n2040)\nTotal Primary Energy Supply, BAU and APS (1990, 2015, and \n2040)\nCO2 Emissions from Energy Consumption, BAU and APS \n(1990, 2015, and 2040)\nFigure 12.5\nFigure 12.6\nFigure 12.7\nFigure 12.8\nFigure 12.9\nFigure 12.10\nFigure 12.11\nFigure 12.12\nFigure 12.13\nFigure 12.14\nChapter 13\nFigure 13.1\nFigure 13.2\nFigure 13.3\nFigure 13.4\nFigure 13.5\nFigure 13.6\nFigure 13.7\nFigure 13.8\nFigure 13.9\nFigure 13.10\n231\n232\n233\n234\n235\n236\n237\n237\n239\n240\n245\n245\n247\n247\n248\n249\n250\n251\n251\n252\nFigures\n\n\nXVI\nENERGY OUTLOOK AND ENERGY SAVING POTENTIAL IN EAST ASIA 2019\nPhilippines Country Report\nFinal Energy Consumption by Sector, BAU (1990, 2015, and \n2040)\nFinal Energy Consumption by Fuel Type, BAU (1990, 2015, \nand 2040)\nPrimary Energy Supply by Fuel Type, BAU (1990, 2015, and 2040)\nPower Generation by Fuel Type, BAU (1990, 2015, and 2040)\nThermal Efficiency by Fuel Type, BAU (1990, 2015, and 2040)\nEnergy Intensity, Energy Per Capita, and Income Elasticity of \nEnergy (1990, 2015, and 2040)\nComparison of Scenarios to Total Primary Energy Supply \n(2040)\nComparison of Scenarios to Electricity Generation (2040)\nComparison of Scenarios to CO2 Emissions (2040)\nComparison of Total Final Energy Consumption in 2040, BAU \nand APS \nComparison of Final Energy Consumption in 2040, BAU and \nAPS \nComparison of Final Energy Consumption by Fuel Type in \n2040, BAU and APS\nComparison of Total Primary Energy Supply in 2040 (BAU, \nINDC, and APS5)\nComparison of Total CO2 in 2040 (BAU, INDC, and APS5)\nComparison of Final Energy Consumption by Sector in 2040 \n(BAU, INDC, and APS5)\nComparison of Final Energy Consumption by Fuel Type in \n2040 (BAU, INDC, and APS5)\nSingapore Country Report\nFinal Energy Consumption by Sector, BAU (1990–2040)\nFinal Energy Consumption by Fuel Type, BAU (1990–2040)\nPrimary Energy Supply, BAU (1990–2040)\nElectricity Generation, BAU (1990–2040)\nEnergy Indicators, BAU (1990–2040)\nFinal Energy Consumption by Sector, BAU and APSs\nTotal Primary Energy Supply by Fuel Type, BAU and APSs\nChapter 14\nFigure 14.1\nFigure 14.2\nFigure 14.3\nFigure 14.4\nFigure 14.5\nFigure 14.6\nFigure 14.7\nFigure 14.8\nFigure 14.9\nFigure 14.10\nFigure 14.11\nFigure 14.12\nFigure 14.13\nFigure 14.14\nFigure 14.15\nFigure 14.16\nChapter 15\nFigure 15.1\nFigure 15.2\nFigure 15.3\nFigure 15.4\nFigure 15.5\nFigure 15.6\nFigure 15.7\n263\n264\n266\n267\n267\n268\n269\n270\n271\n272\n272\n273\n274\n275\n276\n277\n290\n291\n292\n293\n294\n294\n295\n\n\nXVII\nPrimary Energy Supply by Fuel Type, BAU and APS5 (2015 \nand 2040)\nElectricity Generation, BAU and APSs\nCO2 Emissions from Energy Supply, BAU and APS5 (2015 \nand 2040)\nThailand Country Report\nFinal Energy Consumption by Fuel Type, BAU (1990–2040)\nFinal Energy Consumption by Sector, BAU (1990–2040)\nPrimary Energy Supply by Fuel Type, BAU (1990–2040)\nPower Generation by Fuel Type, BAU (1990–2040)\nThermal Efficiency by Fuel Type, BAU (1990–2040)\nEnergy Indicators (1990–2040)\nFinal Energy Consumption by Sector, BAU and APS (2015 \nand 2040)\nPrimary Energy Demand by Source, BAU and APS (2015 and \n2040)\nTotal Primary Energy Supply, BAU and APS (1990, 2015, and \n2040)\nCO2 Emissions from Energy Consumption, BAU and APS \n(1990, 2015, and 2040)\nViet Nam Country Report\nFinal Energy Consumption by Sector, BAU (1990–2040)\nFinal Energy Consumption by Fuel Type, BAU (1990–2040)\nPrimary Energy Supply by Source, BAU (1990–2040)\nPower Generation by Fuel Type, BAU (1990–2040)\nEnergy Indicators (1990–2040)\nTotal Final Energy Consumption by Sector, BAU and APSs\nFinal Energy Consumption by Sector, BAU vs APS (2015 and \n2040)\nPrimary Energy Saving Potential by Fuel Type, BAU and APS \n(2015 and 2040)\nEvolution of Primary Energy Supply, BAU and APS (1990, \n2015, and 2040)\nCO2 Emissions by Fuel Type, BAU and APSs\nFigure 15.8\nFigure 15.9\nFigure15.10\nChapter 16\nFigure 16.1\nFigure 16.2\nFigure 16.3\nFigure 16.4\nFigure 16.5\nFigure 16.6\nFigure 16.7\nFigure 16.8\nFigure 16.9\nFigure 16.10\nChapter 17\nFigure 17.1\nFigure 17.2\nFigure 17.3\nFigure 17.4\nFigure17. 5\nFigure 17.6\nFigure 17.7\nFigure 17.8\nFigure 17.9\nFigure 17.10\n296\n296\n297\n306\n307\n308\n309\n310\n310\n311\n312\n313\n314\n320\n321\n322\n323\n324\n325\n326\n327\n327\n328\nFigures\n\n\nXVIII\nENERGY OUTLOOK AND ENERGY SAVING POTENTIAL IN EAST ASIA 2019\nEvolution of CO2 Emissions, BAU and APS (1990, 2015, and \n2040)\nGHG Reduction Targets, APS5 vs INDC\nUnited States Country Report\nGDP and Population (1990–2040)\nPer Capita GDP (1990–2040)\nFinal Energy Consumption by Sector, BAU (1990–2040)\nChanges in Final Energy Consumption by Fuel Type, BAU \n(1990–2040)\nPrimary Energy Consumption by Fuel Type, BAU (1990–2040)\nPower Generation under BAU (1990–2040)\nShare of Power Generation Mix under BAU (1990–2040)\nFinal Energy Consumption by Sector, BAU vs APS (2015 and \n2040)\nTotal Primary Energy Supply, BAU vs APS (2015 and 2040)\nTotal Primary Energy Supply by Fuel Type, BAU vs APS (2015 \nand 2040)\nCO2 Emissions Trends under APS (1990–2040)\nFigure 17.11\nFigure 17.12\nChapter 18\nFigure 18.1\nFigure 18.2\nFigure 18.3\nFigure 18.4\nFigure 18.5\nFigure 18.6\nFigure 18.7\nFigure 18.8\nFigure 18.9\nFigure 18.10\nFigure 18.11\n329\n331\n337\n337\n339\n340\n341\n341\n342\n343\n344\n345\n346\n\n\nXIX\nABBREVIATIONS AND \nACRONYMS\nAAGR \naverage annual growth rate\nAPS \nAlternative Policy Scenario\nASEAN \nAssociation of Southeast Asian Nations\nBAU \nBusiness-As-Usual\nBCA \nBuilding and Construction Authority (Singapore)\nBPS \nCentral Bureau of Statistics (Indonesia)\nCCS \ncarbon capture and storage\nCNG \ncompressed natural gas\nCO2 \ncarbon dioxide\nDOE \nDepartment of Energy (Philippines)\nDSM \ndemand-side management\nEAS \nEast Asia Summit\nECTF \nEnergy Cooperation Task Force\nEEC \nenergy efficiency and conservation\nEPU \nEconomic Planning Unit (Malaysia)\nERIA \nEconomic Research Institute for ASEAN and East Asia\nFiT \nfeed-in tariff\nGDP \ngross domestic product\nGHG \ngreenhouse gas \nGTMP \nGreen Technology Master Plan (Malaysia)\nGWh \ngigawatt-hour\nHDB \nHousing and Development Board (Singapore)\nIEEJ \nThe Institute for Energy Economics, Japan\nINDC \nIntended Nationally Determined Contributions\nKEN \nNational Energy Policy (Indonesia)\nktoe \nthousand tons of oil equivalent\nkWh \nkilowatt-hour\nLEAP \nLong-range Energy Alternative Planning System\nLPG \nliquefied petroleum gas\nLSS \nlarge-scale solar\nMEF \nMinistry of Economy and Finance (Cambodia)\n\n\nXX\nENERGY OUTLOOK AND ENERGY SAVING POTENTIAL IN EAST ASIA 2019\nMEGTW \nMinistry of Energy, Green Technology and Water (Malaysia)\nMELS \nMandatory Energy Labelling Scheme (Singapore)\nMEMR \nMinistry of Energy and Mineral Resources (Indonesia)\nMEPS \nMinimum Energy Performance Standards (Singapore)\nMETI \nMinistry of Economy, Trade and Industry (Japan)\nMtoe \nmillion tons of oil equivalent\nMt-C \nmillion tons of carbon\nMW \nmegawatts\nMWh \nmegawatt-hour\nMWp \nmegawatt-peak\nNDC \nNationally Determined Contributions\nNEB \nNational Energy Balance (Malaysia)\nNEM \nnet energy metering\nNRE \nnew and renewable energy\nNREP \nNational Renewable Energy Program (Philippines)\nOECD \nOrganization for Economic Cooperation and Development\nPPP \npurchasing power parity\nPRC \nPeople’s Republic of China\nRE \nrenewable energy\nRPS \nRenewable Portfolio Standards\nSEDA \nSustainable Energy Development Authority (Malaysia)\nTCF \ntrillion cubic feet\nTCM \ntrillion cubic metres\ntoe \ntons of oil equivalent\nt-C \ntons of carbon\nTFEC \ntotal final energy consumption\nTPES \ntotal primary energy supply\nTscf \ntrillion standard cubic feet\nTWh \nterawatt-hour\nUS$ \nUnited States dollar\n\n\nXXI\nPROJECT MEMBERS\nSHIGERU KIMURA (LEADER): Special Advisor to President on Energy Affairs, \nEconomic Research Institute for ASEAN and East Asia (ERIA) \nPHOUMIN HAN (SUB-LEADER): Energy Economist, ERIA\nSHIGEKI KAMIYAMA (COORDINATOR): Director General for Research \nAdministration, ERIA\nYANFEI LI (COORDINATOR): Energy Economist, ERIA\nHIEN DIEU THI DANG: Senior Analyst, Energy Information, Strategy and Programme, \nEnergy Efficiency and Conservation Authority, New Zealand\nSHAMIM AHMAD: Assistant Director, Policy Analysis and Implementation Division, \nDepartment of the Environment and Energy, Australia\nCLARA ELIZABETH GILLISPIE: Senior Director, Trade, Economics, and Energy \nAffairs, National Bureau of Asia Research, United States\nRIFDI SAHARI: Economic Officer, Strategy, Energy Commercial and Data Division, \nEnergy and Industry Department, Prime Minister’s Office, Brunei Darussalam\nCHIPHONG SARASY: Chief, Renewable Energy Office, Department of New and \nRenewable Energy, Ministry of Mines and Energy, Cambodia\nYU HAO: Associated Professor, School of Management and Economics, Beijing \nInstitute of Technology, China\nATUL KUMAR: Professor, Department of Energy and Environment, The Energy and \nResources Institute of Advanced Studies, India\n\n\nXXII\nENERGY OUTLOOK AND ENERGY SAVING POTENTIAL IN EAST ASIA 2019\nCECILYA LAKSMIWATI MALIK: Energy Policy Planning Expert (Former Senior \nScientist and Researcher of BPPT), Indonesia \nKIMINORI MAEKAWA: Senior Coordinator and Manager, The Institute of Energy \nEconomics, Japan (IEEJ)\nSHIGERU SUEHIRO: Senior Economist and Manager, The Energy Data and Modelling \nCenter, IEEJ\nZHENG LU: Senior Economist, The Energy Data and Modelling Center, IEEJ\nMOMOKO AOSHIMA: Senior Economist, The Energy Data and Modelling Center, IEEJ\nSEIYA ENDO: Economist, IEEJ\nKYUNG-JIN BOO: Professor, Urban Affairs and Public Policy, Technology and \nManagement, Economics and Policy Program, College of Engineering, Seoul National \nUniversity, Korea\nKHAMSO KOUPHOKHAM: Acting Director-General, Department of Law, Ministry of \nEnergy and Mines, Lao PDR\nZAHARIN ZULKIFLI: Senior Regulatory Officer, Malaysia Energy Information \nHub, Energy Management and Service Quality Development Department, Energy \nCommission, Malaysia\nTIN ZAW MYINT: Director, Oil and Gas Planning Department, Ministry of Electricity \nand Energy, Myanmar\nDANILO V. VIVAR: Chief, Policy Formulation and Research Division, Energy Policy and \nPlanning Bureau, Department of Energy, Philippines\nALLAN LOI: Energy Analyst, Energy Economics Department, Energy Studies Institute, \nNational University of Singapore, Singapore\nSUPIT PADPREM: Director, Energy Analysis and Forecast Group, Energy Forecast and \nInformation Technology Center, Energy Policy and Planning Office, Ministry of Energy, \nThailand\n\n\nXXIII\nNGUYEN MINH BAO: Former Senior Researcher, Institute of Energy, Viet Nam\nLEONG SIEW MENG: Consultant, Green Tech Solution Inc. (ASHRAE, Malaysia \nChapter)\nProject Members\n\n\nXXIV\nENERGY OUTLOOK AND ENERGY SAVING POTENTIAL IN EAST ASIA 2019\n\n\nXXV\nEXECUTIVE SUMMARY\nThe Economic Research Institute for ASEAN and East Asia–East Asia Summit (ERIA-EAS) \nEnergy Outlook was updated in 2017–2018 through a revision of macro assumptions, \nsuch as economic and population growth as well as crude oil prices under the current \nlower price situation. In addition, this outlook incorporates more recent information on the \nEAS17 member countries’ energy-saving goals and action plans, and power development \nplans such as renewable electricity. \nThe outlook still focuses on analysing the additional energy savings that might be achieved \nby the individual countries above and beyond the Business-As-Usual (BAU) scenario \nprojection. It continues to examine two scenarios, the BAU scenario and the Alternative \nPolicy Scenario (APS), and predicts energy supply, consumption, and CO2 emissions from \n2015 until 2040. The APS includes not only more ambitious energy-saving targets but \nalso rapid advances in low-carbon energy technologies, especially renewable energy.\nUnder the BAU scenario, sustained population and economic growth will significantly \nincrease the total final energy consumption (TFEC) by 1.6 times in 2015–2040. The total \nprimary energy supply (TPES) in the EAS17 region is projected to grow at a slightly slower \npace of 1.5% per year. It is projected to increase from 7,488 Mtoe in 2015 to 10,943 \nMtoe in 2040. Coal will remain the largest share of the TPES, but its growth is expected \nto be slower, increasing at 1.3% per year. Consequently, the share of coal in the TPES is \nforecasted to decline from 41.4% in 2015 to 38.9% in 2040. Increasing the use of clean \ncoal technology and development of carbon capture storage technology will be critical for \nthe coal power plants in this region to mitigate CO2 emissions and become carbon free.\nFossil fuel energy consisting of coal, oil, and gas will still be dominant in 2040 and its \nshare under the BAU scenario will be 84.1%. If EAS17 countries remain dedicated to \nimplementing their energy efficiency and conservation (EEC) policies and increase low-\ncarbon energy technologies, such as nuclear power generation and solar photovoltaic \n(PV)/wind (APS), the EAS17 region could achieve fossil fuel savings of 23.4% and \nthe fossil fuel share could fall to 76.6%. CO2 emissions would be reduced significantly \nabout 24.2% from BAU to the APS consequently. In view of this, EAS countries need to \nimplement their EEC and renewable energy policies (energy saving targets and action \nplans) as scheduled. The targets and action plans that will be applied across sectors – \n\n\nXXVI\nENERGY OUTLOOK AND ENERGY SAVING POTENTIAL IN EAST ASIA 2019\nindustry, transport, residential, and commercial – should be appropriate and feasible. \nGovernments of EAS17 countries are encouraged to support the activities of energy \nservice companies as such is crucial in achieving energy efficiency and savings. \nRenewable energy such as hydro, geothermal, solar PV, wind, and biomass will also \ncontribute to the expected reduction of fossil fuel consumption, which will result in a \nmitigation of CO2 emissions. To increase the share of renewable energy in the primary \nenergy mix, appropriate government policies will be crucial. Policies such as net metering, \nRenewable Portfolio Standards, and feed-in tariff have been implemented in some \nEAS17 member countries and have accelerated the deployment of renewable energy at \nappropriate levels. \nEnergy supply security has become a top priority energy issue for the EAS17 region. \nImplementing EEC measures and increasing renewable energy shares will certainly \ncontribute to maintaining regional energy security through the reduction of imported \nfossil fuel consumption and increasing the use of domestic energy. In addition, regional \nenergy networks, such as the Trans-ASEAN Gas Pipeline and the ASEAN Power Grid, \nand oil stockpiling are recommended to maintain energy supply security. Nuclear power \ngeneration is another option for securing the energy supply in this region.\nThe ERIA-EAS17 Outlook 2018 assessed the Intended Nationally Determined \nContributions (INDC)/NDC reported by EAS17 countries. Some INDC/NDC might be \ntoo ambitious because CO2 emissions targets seem to be much higher than their APS \ntargets. Governments should review their INDC/NDC applying energy outlook models \nand prepare appropriate CO2 emission targets.\nThis year, 2019, the Energy Outlook includes an estimation of the investment cost \nrequired for power generation and the whole energy infrastructure, including liquefied \nnatural gas (LNG)–receiving terminals and oil refineries. The analysis results indicate that \nthe EAS17 region will need an investment in power generation of around US$3.5 trillion \nfor the BAU scenario and US$4 trillion for the APS to meet electricity demand by 2040. \nThe APS will be higher than the BAU scenario because of the shift to low-carbon power \nsources, such as nuclear and renewable energy.\n\n\nXXVII\nThe required investment cost of refinery and LNG-receiving terminals in the EAS17 \nwill be US$367 billion and US$132 billion, respectively, in the BAU scenario due to the \nincrease in oil demand especially in the road transport sector and natural gas demand in \nthe power generation sector. Investment in the APS is expected to be reduced to US$60 \nbillion for refineries and US$75 billion for LNG-receiving terminals, respectively, due to \npromotion of energy efficiency. These investment costs will be much lower than power \ngeneration. Power generation and refineries and LNG-receiving terminals have different \ncapacity factors. Usually the capacity factor of power generation is much lower (around \n10%–33%) than refineries and LNG-receiving terminals.\nExecutive Summary\n\n\nX\nX\nV\nI\nI\nI\nENERGY OUTLOOK AND ENERGY SAVING POTENTIAL IN EAST ASIA 2019\n\n\n1\nENERGY OUTLOOK AND SAVING \nPOTENTIAL IN THE EAST ASIA \nREGION: MAIN REPORT \n1. Introduction\nSustained population and economic growth in the East Asia Summit (EAS) region (the \noriginal EAS plus the United States of America [EAS17]) are the key drivers for the \nprojected increasing energy demand for both primary and final energy consumption \nto nearly 50% from 2015 to 2040, reflecting an annual growth rate of about 1.6%. This \nincreasing energy demand threatens the region’s energy security. Hence, potential energy \nsaving is key to reducing energy demand and carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. \nIn 2007, leaders from member countries of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations \n(ASEAN), as well as Australia, the People’s Republic of China (henceforth, China), India, \nJapan, the Republic of Korea, and New Zealand (the original EAS), adopted the Cebu \nDeclaration, which focused on energy security. The leaders agreed to promote energy \nefficiency, new renewable energy, and the clean use of coal. Subsequently, the EAS Energy \nCooperation Task Force (ECTF) was established in response to the Cebu Declaration, \nand Japan proposed to undertake a study on energy savings and the potential of reducing \nCO2 emissions. This is an agreed area of cooperation on which the Economic Research \nInstitute for ASEAN and East Asia (ERIA), through the EAS Energy Ministers Meeting, \nofficially requested to support studies.\nCHAPTER 1\nHan Phoumin, Energy Economist, Economic Research Institute for \nASEAN and East Asia (ERIA)\nShigeru Kimura, Special Advisor on Energy Affairs to the ERIA \nPresident\nCecilya Laksmiwati Malik, Regional Consultant on Energy Policy \nPlanning\n\n\n2\nENERGY OUTLOOK AND ENERGY SAVING POTENTIAL IN EAST ASIA 2019\nThis study shows the energy saving potential using the Business-As-Usual (BAU) \nscenario and Alternative Policy Scenarios (APS). The BAU scenario was developed for \neach EAS country, outlining future sectoral and economy-wide energy consumption, \nassuming no significant changes to government policies. The APS was set to examine the \npotential impacts if additional energy efficiency goals, action plans, or policies being or \nlikely to be considered were developed. The difference between the BAU scenario and \nthe APS in both final and primary energy supply represents potential energy savings. \nThe difference in CO2 emissions between the two scenarios represents the potential for \nreducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The scope of analysis of this outlook covers \nthe original EAS – the original EAS composed of 10 ASEAN+6 countries mentioned on \npage 1 – plus the United States of America (US) (EAS17). Under the EAS’s initiative of \nenergy cooperation is an energy research platform called the Energy Research Institutes \nNetwork, of which the US is a member. Therefore, the scope of this outlook extends to \ninclude the US. This publication uses the terms EAS and EAS17. The EAS refers to the 10 \nASEAN+6 countries before 2012 and 10 ASEAN+8 countries after 2013. EAS17 refers \nto the 10 ASEAN+7 countries, meaning, the original EAS plus the US.\nThe findings of this study continue to shed light on the policy implications for decision-\nmaking to ensure that the region can enjoy both economic growth and investment \nopportunities without compromising the aversion to the threat to energy security and of \nenvironmental problems due to rising CO2 emissions.\n1.1. The East Asia Summit\nThe EAS17 is a collection of diverse countries, with wide variations amongst them in \nterms of per capita income, standards of living, energy resource endowments, climate, \nand energy consumption per capita. It is composed of the 10 ASEAN member countries – \nBrunei Darussalam, Cambodia, Indonesia, Lao People’s Democratic Republic (Lao PDR), \nMalaysia, Myanmar, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, and Viet Nam – and seven \nother countries – Australia, China, India, Japan, Republic of Korea (henceforth, Korea), \nNew Zealand, and the US.\nWhereas some EAS17 countries are mature economies, the majority are developing \neconomies. Several countries have a per capita gross domestic product (GDP) of less \nthan US$11,000 (in 2010 prices1). Countries with mature economies have higher energy \nconsumption per capita, whereas developing countries generally have lower energy \nconsumption per capita. A large percentage of the people in developing countries still \nmeet their energy needs using mainly traditional biomass fuels. \n1 \nAll US$ (US dollars) in this document are stated at constant year 2010 values unless specified.\n\n\n3\nMain Report\nThese differences partly explain why energy efficiency and conservation (EEC) goals, \naction plans, and policies are assigned different priorities across countries. Developed \neconomies may be very keen in reducing energy consumption, whereas developing \ncountries tend to emphasise economic growth and improving the standard of living. \nHowever, as the economies of these countries grow, energy consumption per capita is \nexpected to grow as well. \nDespite the differences amongst the 17 countries, the leaders agreed that the EAS could \nplay a significant role in community building’ which could be an important cornerstone in \ndeveloping regional cooperation in the years to come. \nTable 1.1 shows the geographic, demographic, and economic profiles of the EAS17 \ncountries. Table 1.2 shows their economic structure and energy consumption profiles.\nTable 1.1: Geographic, Demographic, and Economic Profiles, 2015\nLand Area \n(thousand \nkm2)1 \nPopulation \n(million)\nPopulation \nDensity \n(persons/km2)\nGDP (billion \n2010 US$)\nGDP per \nCapita (2010 \nUS$/person)\nAustralia\n7,682\n23.79\n3.10\n1,355\n56,953\nBrunei Darussalam\n5.3\n0.42\n79.03\n14\n33,344\nCambodia\n177\n15.52\n87.91\n16\n1,025\nChina\n9,388\n1,371.22\n146.06\n8,910\n6,498\nIndia\n2,973\n1,311.05\n440.96\n2,288\n1,745\nIndonesia\n1,812\n258.16\n142.51\n988\n3,828\nJapan\n365\n126.96\n348.25\n5,986\n47,150\nKorea, Rep. of\n97\n51.07\n523.89\n1,267\n24,801\nLao PDR\n231\n6.66\n28.87\n5\n764\nMalaysia\n329\n30.72\n93.51\n330\n10,740\nMyanmar\n653\n52.40\n80.24\n71\n1,346\nNew Zealand\n263\n4.60\n17.45\n169\n36,801\nPhilippines\n298\n101.72\n341.14\n266\n2,616\nSingapore\n0.7\n5.54\n7,806.77\n289\n52,245\nThailand\n511\n65.73\n128.66\n394\n5,989\nViet Nam\n310\n91.71\n295.77\n155\n1,685\nUnited States\n9,147\n321.42\n35.14\n16,598\n51,638\nGDP = gross domestic product, km2 = square kilometre.\nSource: World Bank (2018) World Databank: http://databank.worldbank.org/data/source/world-development-indicators# (accessed: 27 May 2018).\n\n\n4\nENERGY OUTLOOK AND ENERGY SAVING POTENTIAL IN EAST ASIA 2019\nTable 1.2: Economic Structure and Energy Consumption, 2015\nGDP\n(Billion \n2010 \nUS$)\nShare of \nIndustry\nin GDP, %\nShare of \nServices\nin GDP, %\nShare of \nAgriculture\nin GDP, %\nPrimary \nEnergy \nConsumption \n(Mtoe)\nEnergy \nConsumption \nper Capita \n(toe/person)\nAustralia\n1,355\n25.4\n72.0\n2.6\n125\n5.3\nBrunei Darussalam\n14\n61.4\n37.5\n1.1\n3\n7.8\nCambodia\n16\n29.8\n41.5\n28.6\n7\n0.5\nChina\n8,910\n40.9\n50.2\n8.8\n2,973\n2.2\nIndia\n2,288\n29.6\n52.9\n17.5\n851\n0.6\nIndonesia\n988\n41.3\n44.7\n13.9\n229\n0.9\nJapan\n5,986\n28.9\n70.0\n1.1\n430\n3.4\nKorea, Rep. of\n1,267\n38.3\n59.4\n2.3\n273\n5.3\nLao PDR\n5\n31.0\n49.4\n19.7\n9\n1.4\nMalaysia\n330\n39.1\n52.4\n8.5\n71\n2.3\nMyanmar\n71\n34.5\n38.8\n26.8\n20\n0.4\nNew Zealand\n169\n..\n..\n..\n21\n4.5\nPhilippines\n266\n30.9\n58.8\n10.3\n47\n0.5\nSingapore\n289\n26.1\n73.8\n0.0\n34\n6.1\nThailand\n394\n36.4\n54.9\n8.7\n135\n2.1\nViet Nam\n155\n37.0\n44.2\n18.9\n70\n0.8\nUnited States\n16,598\n20.0\n78.9\n1.1\n2,188\n6.8\nGDP = gross domestic product, Mtoe = million tons of oil equivalent.\nSource: World Bank (2018) World Databank: http://databank.worldbank.org/data/source/world-development-indicators# (accessed 27 May 2018).\n1.2. Objective and Rationale \nThis study aims to analyse the potential impacts of proposed additional energy-saving \ngoals, action plans, and policies in the EAS17 region on energy consumption, by fuel and \nsector, and GHG emissions. The study also provides a platform for energy collaboration and \ncapacity building amongst EAS17 countries on energy modelling and policy development.\nThe study supports the Cebu Declaration (ASEAN Secretariat, 2007), which highlighted \nseveral goals such as:\n• \nimproving the efficiency and environmental performance of fossil fuel use;\n• \nreducing the dependence on conventional fuels through intensified EEC programmes, \nincreased share of hydropower, expansion of renewable energy systems and biofuel \nproduction/utilisation, and, for interested parties, civilian nuclear power; and \n\n\n5\n• \nmitigating GHG emissions through effective policies and measures, thus contributing \nto global climate change abatement.\nThe Government of Japan asked the Economic Research Institute for ASEAN and East \nAsia (ERIA) to conduct a study on energy saving and CO2 emissions reduction potential in \nthe East Asia region. Japan is the coordinating country of the energy efficiency work stream \nunder the ECTF. As a result, the Working Group for this study on the Analysis of Energy \nSavings Potential was convened. Members from all EAS17 countries are represented in \nthe Working Group to support this study. \n2. Data and Methodology \n2.1. The Scenarios \nThe study continues to examine two scenarios, as in the studies conducted annually from \n2007 to the present: a BAU scenario reflecting each country’s current goals, action plans, \nand policies; and an APS that includes additional goals, action plans, and policies reported \nevery year to the East Asia Energy Ministers Meeting (EAS–EMM). The latest updated \npolicies were reported at the 11th EAS–EMM held on 28 September 2017 in Manila, \nPhilippines.\nOne might be tempted to call the APS a ‘maximum effort’ case, but that would not \nbe accurate. One reason is that goals, action plans, and policies for reducing energy \nconsumption are still relatively new in most countries. Many potential EEC policies and \ntechnological options have not been examined or incorporated in the APS. \nIn 2014, the APS assumptions were grouped into four: (i) more efficient final energy \nconsumption (APS1), (ii) more efficient thermal power generation (APS2), (iii) \nhigher consumption of new and renewable energy (NRE) and biofuels (APS3), and \n(d) introduction or higher utilisation of nuclear energy (APS4). In addition to these \nfour scenarios, the 2018 outlook also compares the APS to the Intended Nationally \nDetermined Contributions (INDC) or Nationally Determined Contributions (NDC) if the \ncountries can achieve their commitment pledged at the COP21.2\n2 \nCOP stands for Conference of the Parties, referring to the countries that have signed up to the 1992 United Nations \nFramework Convention on Climate Change. The COP in Paris is the 21st such conference.\nMain Report\n\n\n6\nENERGY OUTLOOK AND ENERGY SAVING POTENTIAL IN EAST ASIA 2019\nThe energy models can estimate the individual impacts of these assumptions on both \nprimary energy supply and CO2 emissions. The combination of these assumptions \nconstitutes the assumptions of the APS. The main report highlights only the BAU scenario \nand the APS. However, each country report will analyse all the APS from APS1 to APS4. \nDetailed assumptions for each APS are follows:\n• \nThe assumptions in APS1 are the reduction targets in sectoral final energy \nconsumption, assuming more efficient technologies are utilised and energy-saving \npractices are implemented in the industrial, transport, residential, commercial, and \neven the agricultural sectors for some countries. This scenario resulted in less primary \nenergy and CO2 emissions in proportion to the reduction in final energy consumption.\n• \nAPS2 assumes the utilisation of more efficient thermal power plant technologies in \nthe power sector. This assumption resulted in lower primary energy supply and CO2 \nemissions in proportion to the efficiency improvement in generating thermal power. \nThe most efficient coal and natural gas combined–cycle technologies are assumed to \nbe utilised for new power plant construction in this scenario. \n• \nAPS3 assumes higher contributions of NRE for electricity generation and utilisation \nof liquid biofuels in the transport sector. This results in lower CO2 emissions as NRE \nis considered carbon-neutral or would not emit additional CO2 in the atmosphere. \nHowever, primary energy supply may not decrease as NRE, like biomass and \ngeothermal energy, is assumed to have lower efficiencies compared with fossil fuel–\nfired generation when electricity generated from these NRE sources is converted into \ntheir primary energy equivalent.\n• \nAPS4 assumes the introduction of nuclear energy or a higher contribution of nuclear \nenergy in countries already using this energy source. This scenario would produce lower \nCO2 emissions as nuclear energy emits minimal CO2. However, as the assumption of \nthermal efficiency when converting nuclear energy output into primary energy is only \n33%, primary energy supply is not expected to be lower than for the BAU scenario in \nthis scenario.\nAll EAS17 countries are actively developing and implementing EEC goals, action plans, \nand policies, but progress so far has varied widely. Some countries are advanced in their \nefforts, whereas others are just getting started. A few countries already have significant \nenergy-saving goals, action plans, and policies built into the BAU scenario, whereas others \nhave only started to quantify their goals. However, significant potential does exist in these \ncountries at the sectoral and economy-wide levels. \nEvery country still has a great deal to learn from experience on what works and what does \nnot work. It is worthwhile updating this study periodically, as the quality and scope of \nthe national goals, action plans, and policies are likely to improve considerably over time, \nallowing for valuable collaboration across countries. \n \n\n\n7\n2.2. Data \nFor consistency, the historical energy data used in this analysis came from the energy \nbalances of the International Energy Agency (IEA) for Organisation for Economic Co-\noperation and Development (OECD) and non-OECD countries (IEA, 2017a; 2017b), \nexcept for the Lao PDR. Estimations of national energy data from the Lao PDR were made \nusing the same methodology as that of the IEA. The socio-economic data for 17 countries \nwere obtained from the World Bank’s online World Databank – World Development \nIndicators and Global Development Finance; the data of Myanmar were obtained from \nthe United Nations Statistics Division statistical databases. Other data, such as those \nrelating to transportation, buildings, and industrial production indices, were provided by \nthe Working Group members from each EAS17 country where such data were available. \nWhere official data were not available, estimates were obtained from other sources or \ndeveloped by the Institute of Energy Economics, Japan (IEEJ).\n2.3. Methodology \nIn 2007, the primary model used was IEEJ’s World Energy Outlook Model, which was also \nused in preparing the Asia/World Energy Outlook (IEEJ, 2014). In 2014, all 10 ASEAN \nmember countries used their own energy models. The remaining countries provided the \nIEEJ their key assumptions on population and GDP growth; electric generation fuel mixes; \nand EEC goals, action plans, and policies. The IEEJ models were then used to develop \nenergy projections for these countries. The next section briefly describes the energy \nmodels in this study. \nASEAN countries. The energy models of ASEAN countries were developed using the \nLong-range Energy Alternative Planning System (LEAP) software, an accounting system \nused to develop projections of energy balance tables based on final energy consumption \nand energy input/output in the transformation sector. Final energy consumption is \nforecast using energy demand equations by energy and sector and future macroeconomic \nassumptions. For this study, all 10 member countries used the LEAP model. \nOther countries. Other countries used the IEEJ model, which has a macroeconomic \nmodule that calculates coefficients for various explanatory variables based on exogenously \nspecified GDP growth rates. The macroeconomic module also projects prices for natural \ngas and coal based on exogenously specified oil price assumptions. Demand equations \nare econometrically calculated in another module using historical data, and future \nparameters are projected using the explanatory variables from the macroeconomic \nmodule. An econometric approach means that future demand and supply will be heavily \nMain Report\n\n\n8\nENERGY OUTLOOK AND ENERGY SAVING POTENTIAL IN EAST ASIA 2019\ninfluenced by historical trends. However, the supply of energy and new technologies are \ntreated exogenously. For electricity generation, the Working Group members were asked \nto specify assumptions about the future electricity generation mix in their respective \ncountries by energy source. These assumptions were used to determine the future \nelectricity generation mix. \n3. Assumptions of the Study\nGrowth in energy consumption and GHG emissions is driven by various socio-economic \nfactors. In the EAS17 region, these factors – including increasing population, sustained \neconomic growth, increasing vehicle ownership, and increasing access to electricity – will \ntend to increase energy demand. Together they create what might be called a huge growth \n‘headwind’ that works against efforts to limit energy consumption. Understanding the \nnature and size of this ‘headwind’ is critical for any analysis of energy demand in the region. \nHowever, an increase in consumption of energy services is fundamental for achieving a \nrange of socio-economic development goals. \nThis section discusses the assumptions on key socio-economic indicators and energy \npolicies for the EAS17 countries until 2040.\n3.1. Population \nIn the models used for this study, changes in population to 2040 are set exogenously. \nNo difference in population between the BAU scenario and the APS is assumed. The \nEAS17 countries, except China, submitted assumed changes in population based on the \npopulation projections from the United Nations. \nIn 2015, the total population in the EAS17 region was about 3.84 billion. Based on the \nforecasts, it is projected to increase at an average annual rate of about 0.5%, reaching \nabout 4.36 billion in 2040. Figure 1.1 shows the 2015 and projected 2040 population by \ncountry. \nBrunei Darussalam is generally assumed to have the fastest population growth rate, \nalthough the country has high per capita income (Figure 1.2). Except Brunei, the fastest \ngrowth rate is assumed to be in developing countries. China and Thailand are notable and \nsignificant exceptions, as they are expected to have relatively modest population growth. \nNevertheless, by 2040, India and China are assumed to account for around 70% of the \n\n\n9\ntotal population in the EAS17 region, with populations of around 1.39 billion for China \nand 1.61 billion for India. \nCountries with more mature economies tend to have slower population growth. New \nZealand, the US, and Singapore are assumed to have low, but still significant, population \ngrowth. That of Korea is assumed to be roughly stable. Japan’s population is assumed to \ndecline slowly throughout the projection period as the population continues to age.\nFigure 1.1: Assumed Population in the EAS17 Region, 2015 and 2040\nAUS = Australia, BRN = Brunei, EAS = East Asia Summit, KHM = Cambodia, CHN = China, IND = India, INA = Indonesia, JPN = Japan, \n \nKOR = Korea, LAO = Lao PDR, MAS = Malaysia, MMR = Myanmar, NZL = New Zealand, PHI = Philippines, SIN = Singapore, THA = Thailand, \nVNM = Viet Nam, USA = United States of America)\nSource: World Bank (2018).\n2015\n2040\n1800\n1600\n1400\n1200\n1000\n800\n600\n400\n200\n0\nAUS\nBRN\nKHM\nCHN\nIND\nINA\nJPN\nKOR\nLAO\nMAS\nMMR\nNZL\nPHI\nSIN\nTHA\nVNM\nUSA\nPopulation (Million)\n24\n0.4\n16\n258\n127\n114\n51\n7\n31\n52\n9\n40\n52\n5\n6\n66\n66\n92\n107\n321\n376\n102\n5\n7\n148\n63\n31\n0.7\n23\n317\n1,371\n1,311\n1,391\n1,608\nMain Report\n\n\n10\nENERGY OUTLOOK AND ENERGY SAVING POTENTIAL IN EAST ASIA 2019\nFigure 1.2: Assumed Average Annual Growth in Population, 2015–2040\nAUS = Australia, BRN = Brunei, EAS = East Asia Summit, KHM = Cambodia, CHN = China, IND = India, INA = Indonesia, JPN = Japan, \n \nKOR = Korea, LAO = Lao PDR, MAS = Malaysia, MMR = Myanmar, NZL = New Zealand, PHI = Philippines, SIN = Singapore, THA = Thailand, \nVNM = Viet Nam, USA = United States of America)\nSource: World Bank (2018).\n2.5\n2.0\n1.5\n1.0\n0.5\n0.0\n-0.5\n-1.0\nAUS\nBRN\nKHM\nCHN\nIND\nINA\nJPN\nKOR\nLAO\nMAS\nMMR\nNZL\nPHI\nSIN\nTHA\nVNM\nUSA\nTotal\nPopulation Growth Rate (%/year)\n1.0\n0.1\n0.1\n0.0\n0.8\n0.8\n0.8\n0.7\n0.7\n0.6\n0.6\n0.5\n1.3\n1.0\n-0.4\n2.3\n1.5\n1.5\n3.2. Economic Activity \nIn the models used for this study, assumed changes in economic output to 2040 were \nset exogenously. GDP data (in 2010 US$) were obtained from the World Development \nIndicators of the World Bank (2018). Assumed GDP growth rates to 2040 were submitted \nby all EAS17 countries. In general, these assumptions considered actual GDP growth \nrates from 2005 to 2015, which already reflect the economic recession and recovery in \nthe US and other countries. No difference in growth rates was assumed between BAU \nand the APS. \nIn 2015, the total GDP in the EAS17 region was about US$39 trillion in 2010 US$ constant \nprice, accounting for about 51% of global GDP. The GDP of the region is assumed to grow \nat an average annual rate of about 3.5% from 2015 to 2040. This implies that, by 2040, \ntotal regional GDP will reach about US$91.5 trillion in 2010 US$ constant price. \n\n\n11\nChina is projected to be the largest economy in terms of real GDP (2010 US$ constant \nprice) of about US$31.1 trillion, followed by the US of about US$27.7 trillion by 2040. \nIndia and Japan are also projected to be the next largest economies with projected GDPs \nof about US$11.5 trillion and $7.7 trillion, respectively, at 2010 US$ constant price by \n2040 (Figure 1.3).\nLong-term economic growth rates are assumed to be quite high in the developing \ncountries, with the highest growth rates in India, Myanmar, Lao PDR, Philippines, Viet \nNam, and Cambodia (Figure 1.4). Economic growth in other developing countries is also \nassumed to be relatively rapid. Brunei is expected to also have high GDP annual growth \nrate. For developed countries in EAS17, the US, Japan, Korea, New Zealand, and Australia \nare expected to have moderate annual GDP growth rate. Due to their large economies, \nthe rapid growth in China, India, and Indonesia, together with the US, are likely to be \nespecially significant for energy demand. \nFigure 1.3: Assumed Economic Activity in the EAS17 Region, 2015 and 2040\n35,000\n30,000\n25,000\n20,000\n15,000\n10,000\n5,000\n0\nAUS\nBRN\nKHM\nCHN\nIND\nINA\nJPN\nKOR\nLAO\nMAS\nMMR\nNZL\nPHI\nSIN\nTHA\nVNM\nUSA\nReal GDP (Billion US$ in 2000 Prices)\n2015\n2040\n1,355\n2,510\n8,910\n11,486\n2,288\n4,052\n5,986\n1,267\n2,272\n7,705\n988\n31,116\n14\n55\n16\n5\n330\n71\n169\n289\n155\n394\n266\n61\n23\n775\n316\n276\n511\n663\n16,598\n27, 667\n999\n1,147\nAUS = Australia, BRN = Brunei, KHM = Cambodia, CHN = China, EAS = East Asia Summit, GDP = gross domestic product, IND = India, \n \nINA = Indonesia, JPN = Japan, KOR = Korea, LAO = Lao PDR, MAS = Malaysia, MMR = Myanmar, NZL = New Zealand, PHI = Philippines, \nSIN = Singapore, THA = Thailand, VNM = Viet Nam, USA = United States of America.\nSource: World Bank (2018).\nMain Report\n\n\n12\nENERGY OUTLOOK AND ENERGY SAVING POTENTIAL IN EAST ASIA 2019\nFigure 1.4: Assumed Average Annual Growth in GDP, 2015–2040\nAUS = Australia, BRN = Brunei, KHM = Cambodia, CHN = China, GDP = gross domestic product, IND = India, INA = Indonesia, JPN = Japan, \nKOR = Korea, LAO = Lao PDR, MAS = Malaysia, MMR = Myanmar, NZL = New Zealand, PHI = Philippines, SIN = Singapore, THA = Thailand, \nVNM = Viet Nam, USA = United States of America.\nSource: World Bank (2018).\n11.0\n10.0\n9.0\n8.0\n7,0\n6.0\n5.0\n4.0\n3.0\n2.0\n1.0\n0\nAUS\nBRN\nKHM\nCHN\nIND\nINA\nJPN\nKOR\nLAO\nMAS\nMMR\nNZL\nPHI\nSIN\nTHA\nVNM\nUSA\nTotal\nReal GDP Growth Rate (%/year)\n 2.5 \n0.1\n2.4\n3.8\n6.7\n 5.8 \n 2.3 \n 6.2 \n 6.0 \n 2.0 \n 6.0 \n2.1\n3.5\n 6.2 \n 3.5 \n1.0\n 5.5 \n 5.1 \n 5.6 \nThe average real GDP (2010 US$ constant) per capita in the EAS17 region is assumed to \nincrease from about US$10,186 in 2015 to about US$21,016 in 2040. However, there \nare, and will continue to be, significant differences in GDP per capita amongst EAS17 \ncountries (Figure 1.5). In 2015, per capita GDP (constant price US$ 2010) ranged from \nabout US$1,025 in Cambodia to over US$50,000 in Australia, the US, and Singapore. In \n2040, per capita GDP is assumed to range from about US$2,495 in the Lao PDR to over \nUS$80,000 in Australia.\n\n\n13\n3.3. Electricity Generation \n3.3.1. \n Electricity generation thermal efficiency\nThe thermal efficiency of electricity generation reflects the amount of fuel required to \ngenerate a unit of electricity. Thermal efficiency was another exogenous assumption \nused in this study. Base year 2015 thermal efficiencies by fuel type (coal, gas, and oil) \nwere derived from fossil fuel input and fuel output as electricity production. Thermal \nefficiencies by fuel (coal, gas, and oil) were projected by the following countries: Brunei \nDarussalam, Cambodia, Indonesia, Lao PDR, Malaysia, Myanmar, Philippines, Singapore, \nThailand, and Viet Nam, and growth rates in thermal efficiency were derived from these \nprojections. For the remaining countries, assumptions about the potential changes in \nthermal efficiency were based on IEEJ’s Asia/World Energy Outlook 2017.\nFigure 1.5: Real GDP per Capita, 2015 and 2040\nAUS = Australia, BRN = Brunei, KHM = Cambodia, CHN = China, EAS = East Asia Summit, GDP = gross domestic product, IND = India, \n \nINA = Indonesia, JPN = Japan, KOR = Korea, LAO = Lao PDR, MAS = Malaysia, MMR = Myanmar, NZL = New Zealand, PHI = Philippines, \nSIN = Singapore, THA = Thailand, VNM = Viet Nam, USA = United States of America.\nSource: World Bank (2018).\nAUS\nBRN\nKHM CHN\nIND\nINA\nJPN\nKOR\nLAO\nMAS MMR\nNZL\nPHI\nSIN\nTHA\nVNM\nUSA\nTotal\nReal GDP per Capita (US$ in 2000 Prices/Person)\n2015\n2040\n56,935\n81,610\n74,919\n33,344\n1,025\n2,694\n6,498\n22,361\n1,745\n7,144\n3,828\n12,779\n47,150\n67,413\n24,801\n43,534\n1,566\n2,495\n10,740\n19,582\n1,346\n2,616\n5,989\n1,685\n5,050\n7,771\n15,076\n51,638\n73,646\n21,018\n10,186\n6,194\n36,801\n52,245\n50,361\n75,843\n90,000\n80,000\n70,000\n60,000\n50,000\n40,000\n30,000\n20,000\n10,000\n0\nMain Report\n\n\n14\nENERGY OUTLOOK AND ENERGY SAVING POTENTIAL IN EAST ASIA 2019\nThermal efficiencies may differ significantly amongst countries due to differences in \ntechnological availability, age, cost of technology, temperatures, and the cost and \navailability of fuel inputs. Thermal efficiency in the EAS17 countries is expected to improve \nconsiderably over time in the BAU scenario as more advanced generation technologies, \nsuch as natural gas combined-cycle and supercritical coal-fired power plants, become \navailable. In many countries, there are also assumed to be additional improvements in the \nAPS (Figures 1.6 and 1.7).\nFigure 1.6: Thermal Efficiencies of Gas Electricity Generation\nAPS = Alternative Policy Scenario, AUS = Australia, BAU = Business-As-Usual, BRN = Brunei, KHM = Cambodia, CHN = China, IND = India, \nINA = Indonesia, JPN = Japan, KOR = Korea, LAO = Lao PDR, MAS = Malaysia, MMR = Myanmar, NZL = New Zealand, PHI = Philippines, \nSIN = Singapore, THA = Thailand, VNM = Viet Nam, USA = United States of America.\nSource: Long-range Energy Alternatives Planning System (LEAP)’s database.\nAUS\nBRN\nKHM\nCHN\nIND\nINA\nJPN\nKOR\nLAO\nMAS\nMMR\nNZL\nPHI\nSIN\nTHA\nVNM\nUSA\nGas Thermal Efficiency (%)\n38\n28\n-\n-\n- -\n37\n37\n48\n48\n48\n48\n50\n52\n49\n57\n59\n60\n43\n44\n38\n40\n49\n49\n52\n52\n51\n51\n55\n55\n55\n61\n60\n49\n56\n56\n57\n57\n40\n28\n40\n50\n45\n55\n51\n49\n52\n45\n48\n70\n60\n50\n40\n30\n20\n10\n0\nBAU\n2015\n2040\nAPS\nBAU\n2015\n2040\nAPS\nBAU\n2015\n2040\nAPS\nBAU\n2015\n2040\nAPS\nBAU\n2015\n2040\nAPS\nBAU\n2015\n2040\nAPS\nBAU\n2015\n2040\nAPS\nBAU\n2015\n2040\nAPS\nBAU\n2015\n2040\nAPS\nBAU\n2015\n2040\nAPS\nBAU\n2015\n2040\nAPS\nBAU\n2015\n2040\nAPS\nBAU\n2015\n2040\nAPS\nBAU\n2015\n2040\nAPS\nBAU\n2015\n2040\nAPS\nBAU\n2015\n2040\nAPS\nBAU\n2015\n2040\nAPS\n48\n48\n\n\n15\nFigure 1.7: Thermal Efficiencies of Coal Electricity Generation\nAPS = Alternative Policy Scenario, AUS = Australia, BAU = Business-As-Usual scenario, BRN = Brunei, KHM = Cambodia, CHN = China, IND = India, \nINA = Indonesia, JPN = Japan, KOR = Korea, LAO = Lao PDR, MAS = Malaysia, MMR = Myanmar, NZL = New Zealand, PHI = Philippines, \nSIN = Singapore, THA = Thailand, VNM = Viet Nam, USA = United States of America.\nSource: Long-range Energy Alternatives Planning System (LEAP)’s database.\nAUS\nBRN\nKHM\nCHN\nIND\nINA\nJPN\nKOR\nLAO\nMAS\nMMR\nNZL\nPHI\nSIN\nTHA\nVNM\nUSA\nCoal Thermal Efficiency (%)\n35\n-\n45\n45\n38\n32\n38\n39\n34\n37\n37\n35\n38\n37\n42\n43\n40\n35\n35\n35\n35\n39\n30\n34\n42\n42\n42\n20\n20\n47\n36\n34\n34\n37\n20\n49\n40\n42\n35\n38\n45\n36\n45\n46\n42\n43\n38\n40\n50\n45\n40\n35\n30\n25\n20\n15\n10\n5\n0\nBAU\n2015\n2040\nAPS\nBAU\n2015\n2040\nAPS\nBAU\n2015\n2040\nAPS\nBAU\n2015\n2040\nAPS\nBAU\n2015\n2040\nAPS\nBAU\n2015\n2040\nAPS\nBAU\n2015\n2040\nAPS\nBAU\n2015\n2040\nAPS\nBAU\n2015\n2040\nAPS\nBAU\n2015\n2040\nAPS\nBAU\n2015\n2040\nAPS\nBAU\n2015\n2040\nAPS\nBAU\n2015\n2040\nAPS\nBAU\n2015\n2040\nAPS\nBAU\n2015\n2040\nAPS\nBAU\n2015\n2040\nAPS\nBAU\n2015\n2040\nAPS\n-\n- -\n3.4.1. \n Electricity generation fuel mix\nThe combination of fuels used in electricity generation differs amongst countries, \nreflecting both historical and current conditions, including access to and cost of resources \nand technology. It was, therefore, an exogenous input to the model. It is an important \ninput not only because it is a key driver of demand for primary fuels, but also because the \nfuel mix used can have important implications for GHG emissions. Figure 1.8 shows the \nprojected electricity generation mix.\nMain Report\n\n\n16\nENERGY OUTLOOK AND ENERGY SAVING POTENTIAL IN EAST ASIA 2019\nFigure 1.8: Share of Fuel Type in the Electricity Generation Mix in the EAS17 Region\nAPS = Alternative Policy Scenario, AUS = Australia, BAU = Business-As-Usual, BRN = Brunei, KHM = Cambodia, CHN = China, \n \nEAS = East Asia Summit, IND = India, INA = Indonesia, JPN = Japan, KOR = Korea, LAO = Lao PDR, MAS = Malaysia, MMR = Myanmar, \n \nNZL = New Zealand, PHI = Philippines, SIN = Singapore, THA = Thailand, VNM = Viet Nam, USA = United States of America.\nSource: Country Energy Saving Potential Report, sub-report of this main report (2016).\nAUS\nBRN\nKHM\nCHN\nIND\nINA\nJPN\nKOR\nLAO\nMAS\nMMR\nNZL\nPHI\nSIN\nTHA\nVNM\nUSA\n100%\n90%\n80%\n70%\n60%\n50%\n40%\n30%\n20%\n10%\n0%\nBAU\n2015\n2040\nAPS\nBAU\n2015\n2040\nAPS\nBAU\n2015\n2040\nAPS\nBAU\n2015\n2040\nAPS\nBAU\n2015\n2040\nAPS\nBAU\n2015\n2040\nAPS\nBAU\n2015\n2040\nAPS\nBAU\n2015\n2040\nAPS\nBAU\n2015\n2040\nAPS\nBAU\n2015\n2040\nAPS\nBAU\n2015\n2040\nAPS\nBAU\n2015\n2040\nAPS\nBAU\n2015\n2040\nAPS\nBAU\n2015\n2040\nAPS\nBAU\n2015\n2040\nAPS\nBAU\n2015\n2040\nAPS\nBAU\n2015\n2040\nAPS\nOthers\nCoal\nOil\nNatural Gas\nNuclear\nHydro\nGeothermal\nCoal is projected to remain the dominant source of electricity generation in the EAS17 \nregion in both the BAU scenario and the APS. However, the share of coal in electricity \ngeneration in the region is projected to decline from about 48% in BAU to about 35.8% in \nthe APS by 2040, as countries are assumed to implement policies designed to reduce the \nemissions intensity of electricity generation. In the APS, the share of lower emission fuels \nsuch as hydro, nuclear, and non-hydro renewable energy are expected to be higher than in \nthe BAU scenario on average. The use of oil in generating electricity is assumed to decline \nto almost negligible levels across the region. \n3.4.2 Access to electricity\nMany households in developing countries lack access to electricity, and resolving this \nproblem is a major development goal. At the Working Group meetings, several developing \ncountries reported on initiatives to significantly expand access to electricity in their \ncountries by 2040. Although this increasing access to electricity is one of the drivers \nof increasing energy demand in the EAS17 region, it is not explicitly represented in the \nmodel used for this study. Nevertheless, the impact of increasing access to electricity \non electricity demand should be largely reflected through the increased demand for \n\n\n17\nelectricity because of the relatively rapid GDP growth that is assumed to be experienced \nin these same countries.\nTable 1.3 shows electricity access in EAS17. It also informs the progress of access \nto electricity in urban versus rural areas in 1990–2012, and a national data on energy \naccess in 2016. Whereas tremendous progress of 100% energy access has been observed \nin Brunei Darussalam, Malaysia, Singapore, Thailand, Viet Nam, China, Korea, Japan, \nAustralia, the US, and New Zealand, some Southeast Asian countries have struggled to \nimprove energy access for their population.\nTable 1.3: Access to Electricity, %\n1990\n2000\n2012\n2016\nRural \nUrban National\nRural \nUrban\nNational\nRural \nUrban National National\nCambodia\n5.0\n36.6\n19.2\n9.0\n49.9\n16.6\n18.8\n91.3\n31.1\n49.8\nMyanmar\n.\n.\n.\n.\n.\n.\n.\n.\n32*\n57.0\nLao PDR\n39.7\n100.0\n51.5\n40.0\n68.7\n46.3\n54.8\n97.9\n70.0\n87.1\nBrunei Darussalam\n56.4\n70.5\n65.7\n61.2\n72.7\n69.4\n67.1\n79.0\n76.2\n100.0\nIndia\n38.7\n86.5\n50.9\n48.4\n98.6\n62.3\n69.7\n98.2\n78.7\n84.5\nIndonesia\n.\n.\n66.9\n.\n.\n.\n.\n.\n74**\n97.6\nViet Nam\n84.5\n100.0\n87.9\n86.6\n96.9\n89.1\n97.7\n100.0\n99.0\n100.0\nPhilippines\n46.4\n85.5\n65.4\n51.9\n92.3\n71.3\n81.5\n93.7\n87.5\n91.0\nMalaysia\n89.2\n97.3\n93.2\n93.0\n98.5\n96.4\n100.0\n100.0\n100.0\n100.0\nSingapore\n99.0\n100.0\n100.0\n99.0\n100.0\n100.0\n99.0\n100.0\n100.0\n100.0\nThailand\n82.0\n75.2\n80.0\n87.0\n72.6\n82.5\n99.8\n100.0\n100.0\n100.0\nAustralia\n100.0\n100.0\n100.0\n100.0\n100.0\n100.0\n100.0\n100.0\n100.0\n100.0\nChina\n92.0\n100.0\n94.2\n95.3\n100.0\n98.0\n100.0\n100.0\n100.0\n100.0\nKorea, Rep. of\n92.0\n95.0\n94.2\n95.3\n98.7\n98.0\n100.0\n100.0\n100.0\n100.0\nJapan\n100.0\n100.0\n100.0\n100.0\n100.0\n100.0\n100.0\n100.0\n100.0\n100.0\nNew Zealand\n100.0\n100.0\n100.0\n100.0\n100.0\n100.0\n100.0\n100.0\n100.0\n100.0\nUnited States\n100.0\n100.0\n100.0\n100.0\n100.0\n100.0\n100.0\n100.0\n100.0\n100.0\n. = missing value. \n* The number was taken from a 2014 presentation by Khin Seint Wint.\n** The number was taken from ACE, 2013.\nSource: World Bank (2018).\nMain Report\n\n\n18\nENERGY OUTLOOK AND ENERGY SAVING POTENTIAL IN EAST ASIA 2019\n3.4. Use of Biofuels \nWorking Group members from each country were asked to include information on the \npotential use of biofuels in the BAU scenario and the APS. Some, but not all, countries \nin the EAS17 region plan to increase the contribution of biofuels in the transport fuel \nmix to enhance energy security or meet other policy objectives. For China and Japan, \nthe assumptions on the use of biofuels were based on IEEJ’s Asia/World Energy Outlook \n2017. Table 1.4 summarises the assumptions regarding the use of biofuels. \nTable 1.4: Assumptions on Biofuels – Summary by Country\nCountry\nPeriod\nAssumptions\nAustralia\nNo targets on biofuels\nBrunei Darussalam\nNo targets on biofuels\nCambodia\nNo targets on biofuels\nChina\n2030\nBAU: 20 billion litres; APS: 60 billion litres\nIndia\n2017\n20% blending of biofuels, both for biodiesel and bioethanol\nIndonesia\n2025\nBioethanol: 15% blend from 3% to 7% in 2010\nBiodiesel: 20% blend from 1% to 5% in 2010\nJapan\n2005–2030\nNo biofuel targets submitted\nKorea, Rep. of\n2012\nReplace 1.4% of diesel with biodiesel\n2020\nReplace 6.7% of diesel with biodiesel\n2030\nReplace 11.4% of diesel with biodiesel\nLao PDR\n2030\nUtilise biofuels equivalent to 10% of road transport fuels\nMalaysia\n2030\nReplace 5% of diesel in road transport with biodiesel\nMyanmar\n2020\nReplace 8% of transport diesel with biodiesel\nNew Zealand\n2012–2030\nMandatory biofuels sales obligation of 3.4% by 2012 \nPhilippines\n2025–2035\nBAU: The Biofuels Law requires 10% bioethanol/gasoline blend and 2% \nbiodiesel/diesel blend 2 years from enactment of the law (roughly 2009)\nAPS: Displace 20% of diesel and gasoline with biofuels by 2025\nThailand\nBiofuels to displace 12.2% of transport energy demand\nUnited States\n2011–2022\nRenewable Fuels Standard – The US Environmental Protection Agency \noversees the world’s most ambitious programme to promote ethanol. \nThe Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS2), created by the 2007 Energy \nIndependence and Security Act , requires adding continually increasing \nvolumes of renewable sources into the country’s fuel supply – growing \nfrom nearly 49 billion litres (13 billion gallons) in 2011 up to 136 billion litres \n(36 billion gallons) by 2022.\nViet Nam \n2020\n10 % ethanol blend in gasoline for road transport\nAPS = Alternative Policy Scenario, BAU = Business-As-Usual.\nSource: Country Energy Saving Potential Report, sub-report of this main report (2018).\n\n\n19\nThe largest increases in biofuel consumption in the APS are expected in the US, India, and \nChina. In all countries, biofuels are expected to meet only a small portion of the transport \nfuel demand by 2040. \n3.5. Crude Oil Price\nFigure 1.9 depicts the oil price assumptions used in the modelling. In the Reference \nScenario, the crude oil prices were US$286/tons of oil equivalent (toe) in 2016; these \nwill rise gradually to US$653/toe by 2030 and to US$791/toe in 2040. The increase in \nthe oil price in 2030 and 2040 are due to combined factors such as robust demand growth \nin non-OECD countries, new emerging geopolitical risks and financial factors, oil supply \nconstraints reflecting rising depletion rates for oil fields, etc.\nFigure 1.9: Real Oil, Natural Gas, and Coal Imported Price Assumptions \n(Real prices in 2016 US$) \ntoe = tons of oil equivalent. \nNote: Crude oil price assumptions start from 2016 onwards.\nSource: IEEJ’s oil price assumptions (2017). \n900\n800\n700\n600\n500\n400\n300\n200\n100\n0\n1990\n2000\n2010\n2020\n2030\n2040\n$/toe\nOil\nNatural Gas\nCoal\nMain Report\n\n\n20\nENERGY OUTLOOK AND ENERGY SAVING POTENTIAL IN EAST ASIA 2019\n3.6. Assumptions of Fossil Fuel Production Outlook\n3.6.1. \n Analytical method\nThe fossil fuel production outlook is generated through the ‘expert’s judgment’ of \nthe Delphi process. First, a historical data set of production volume is collected from \nBritish Petroleum and IEA statistics. The data are used to understand the transition \nof production volume in each country. Second, reference was made to the IEA World \nEnergy Outlook 2017 and the IEEJ Asia-World Energy Outlook 2016 to understand the \nfuture direction of changes in production volume. The estimated fossil fuel outlook also \nutilises supplementary information such as the national plans and targets provided by \neach Working Group member and the country analyses issued by the Energy Information \nAgency (Table 1.5).\n3.6.2. \n Results of the fossil fuel production outlook \nTables 1.6 to 1.8 present the assumption of fossil fuel production outlook. The results \nindicated that the following:\nTable 1.5: Reference Materials and their Estimation\nIEA WEO 2017\nIEEJ AWEO 2017\nOil\n• Employ the New Policies Scenario, amongst the \nCurrent Policies Scenario, 450 Scenario, Low Oil \nPrice Scenario.\n• Production increase until 2020 and decline after \nthat time.\n• Employ the Advanced Technologies Case, \namongst the Reference Case, Advanced \nTechnologies Case, Low Oil Price Case.\n• Production is estimated to decrease in \nmany Asian countries.\nNatural gas\n• Employ the New Policies Scenario.\n• Production steadily increases towards 2040.\n• Employ the Advanced Technologies Case.\n• Production is estimated to increase in line \nwith IEA WEO 2017.\nCoal\n• Employ the New Policies Scenario.\n• Production increase in major producing \ncountries, except China where demand for \npower generation and industry sectors are \nestimated to decrease.\n• Employ the Advanced Technologies Case.\n• Production is estimated to decrease as \ndemand declines.\nAWEO = Asia/World Energy Outlook, IEA = International Energy Agency; \n \n \n \n \n \nIEEJ = Institute of Energy Economics, Japan; WEO = World Energy Outlook.\nSource: Working Group of the study (2016) and IEA (2017b).\n\n\n21\n• \nFor crude oil, many countries will not able to maintain recent production levels except \nin some cases such as Australia, the Philippines, and the US where oil production \namount surpasses that of 2014. In most countries, oil reserves are estimated to be \ndepleted in the future, an estimate based on the sie of a country’s oil reservoir (ERIA, \n2015). Although some countries have untapped oil resources, their size seems too \nsmall to maintain current production amounts. In addition, insufficient investment in \nexploring new fields will hamper increasing production amounts. Furthermore, some \nfields may be too costly to exploit due to their geographical condition, such as deep \nsea and mountainous areas. However, the oil production of the US is the largest in \nthe EAS17 region; it can provide more oil into the market and ease the tension of oil \nshortage if any political tension occurs in some Middle East and African countries.\n• \nFor natural gas, production is estimated to increase in almost all gas-producing \ncountries. Overall, the region is relatively rich in natural gas resources compared to \noil. Therefore, many countries are promoting the production of indigenous natural \ngas. Australia, China, and the US, which are richly endowed with conventional and \nunconventional gas resources, are expected to increase production, with Australia \nand the US aiming to export and China, for domestic supply. Some countries, such \nas Viet Nam, put natural gas at the centre of their energy mix, so they are boosting \nproduction activities.\n• \nCoal (thermal + coking) production is estimated to decrease in China, the major coal-\nproducing country, whereas India, the second-largest coal consumer, will increase \nproduction. Indonesia is also expected to increase production by 2040. The energy \npolicies are different amongst China, the US, India, and Indonesia, the largest coal \nproducers and consumers in the region. China and the US have changed their policies \nto pursue cleaner energy use; so they intend to curb coal consumption. Indonesia and \nIndia, however, intend to ensure energy supply at an affordable price, and thus plan to \nincrease domestically available cheap energy sources such as coal. Australia, a major \ncoal exporter, is estimated to decrease production as global coal demand declines \ndue to the gradual shift to a low-carbon society. Japan and the Republic of Korea as \nconsumers are likely to use coal for energy security although they intend to diversify \nthe energy mix, gradually reducing coal consumption in the future.\nMain Report\n\n\n22\nENERGY OUTLOOK AND ENERGY SAVING POTENTIAL IN EAST ASIA 2019\nTable 1.6: Production Outlook of Oil\nOil Production (1,000b/d)\n2014\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\nAustralia\n448 \n600 \n650 \n650 \n600 \n600 \nBrunei\n138 \n140 \n130 \n130 \n120 \n120 \nChina\n4,341 \n4,300 \n4,250 \n4,200 \n4,100 \n4,000 \nIndia\n895 \n740 \n680 \n680 \n700 \n720 \nIndonesia\n852 \n830 \n820 \n800 \n780 \n770 \nJapan \n17 \n15 \n15 \n15 \n15 \n15 \nKorea, Rep. of \n20 \n15 \n15 \n15 \n15 \n15 \nMalaysia\n666 \n650 \n620 \n600 \n600 \n600 \nMyanmar \n20 \n20 \n20 \n20 \n20 \n20 \nPhilippines \n24 \n39 \n35 \n30 \n30 \n30 \nNew Zealand\n47 \n27 \n10 \n3 \n1 \n1 \nThailand\n453 \n480 \n470 \n460 \n450 \n440 \nUnited States \n8,900* \n10,700 \n11,380 \n11,700 \n11,850 \n11,900 \nViet Nam\n365 \n360 \n350 \n330 \n320 \n320 \nTotal EAS\n17,186\n18,916 \n19,445 \n19,633 \n19,601 \n19,551 \n*The number is in year 2016, b/d = barrel/day. \nSource: IEA (2017b).\nTable 1.7: Production Outlook of Gas\nGas Production (bcm)\n2014\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\nAustralia\n58.8 \n133.0 \n144.5 \n165.5 \n175.5 \n174.0 \nBrunei\n11.9 \n12.5 \n12.5 \n12.5 \n12.5 \n12.5 \nChina\n134.5 \n172.0 \n212.0 \n255.0 \n299.0 \n342.0 \nIndia\n31.7 \n38.0 \n45.0 \n55.0 \n69.0 \n89.0 \nIndonesia\n73.4 \n80.0 \n82.0 \n83.0 \n84.0 \n85.0 \nJapan \n3.9 \n3.5 \n3.0 \n3.0 \n3.0 \n2.5 \nKorea, Rep. of \n0.5 \n0.5 \n0.5 \n0.5 \n0.5 \n0.5 \nMalaysia\n66.4 \n68.0 \n70.0 \n67.0 \n65.0 \n65.0 \nMyanmar \n16.8 \n17.5 \n18.5 \n18.5 \n18.5 \n18.5 \nPhilippines \n3.4 \n3.0 \n4.0 \n7.0 \n7.0 \n8.0 \nNew Zealand\n5.4 \n4.0 \n3.0 \n2.0 \n1.0 \n1.0 \nThailand\n42.1 \n42.0 \n41.0 \n40.0 \n40.0 \n40.0 \nUnited States \n27,000*\n32,700\n35,800\n37,900\n38,800\n40,200\nViet Nam\n11.1 \n11.0 \n15.0 \n18.0 \n22.0 \n25.0 \nTotal EAS\n27,460\n33,285\n36,451\n38,627\n39,597\n41,063\n*The number is in year 2016, bcm = billion cubic metre. \nSource: IEA (2017b).\n\n\n23\nTable 1.8: Production Outlook of Coal\nCoal Production (Mton)\n2014\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\nAustralia\n431 \n437 \n421 \n412 \n411 \n405 \nChina\n3,532 \n3,548 \n3,383 \n3,286 \n3,132 \n2,944 \nIndia\n604 \n627 \n650 \n624 \n652 \n683 \nIndonesia\n444 \n471 \n476 \n478 \n478 \n480 \nKorea, Rep. of \n2.09 \n1.76 \n1.20 \n0.63 \n0.07 \n0 \nLao PDR\n0.5 \n0.7 \n0.7 \n0.7 \n0.7 \n0.7 \nMalaysia\n3.0 \n3.2 \n3.6 \n4.0 \n4.0 \n4.0 \nMyanmar \n0.8 \n0.6 \n0.8 \n0.9 \n1.0 \n1.0 \nPhilippines \n7.3 \n7.1 \n7.9 \n9 \n9 \n9 \nNew Zealand\n4.9 \n4.1 \n4.0 \n3.9 \n3.8 \n3.7 \nThailand\n18 \n19 \n18 \n14 \n10 \n7 \nViet Nam\n42 \n42 \n41 \n42 \n49 \n53 \nUnited States \n741* \n731 \n738 \n750 \n736 \n746 \nTotal EAS\n5,831 \n5,892 \n5,745 \n5,625 \n5,488 \n5,337 \n*The number is in year 2016, Mton = million tons.\nSource: IEA (2017b).\n3.7. Energy-Saving Goals\nCollected from each Working Group member from the EAS17 countries was information \nabout the potential energy savings achievable under specific policy initiatives to increase \nenergy efficiency and reduce energy consumption. Each member specified which policies \nexist and should be applied to the BAU scenario, and which are proposed and should \nbe applied only to the APS. Quantitative energy savings were estimated based on the \ncountries’ own assumptions and modelling results. Table 1.9 summarises energy-saving \ngoals, action plans, and policies collected from each EAS Working Group member in 2017.\nMain Report\n\n\n24\nENERGY OUTLOOK AND ENERGY SAVING POTENTIAL IN EAST ASIA 2019\nTable 1.9: Summary of Energy Saving Goals, Action Plans, and Policies Collected \nfrom Each EAS17 Working Group Member \nIndicator\nGoals\nAustralia\nCarbon pollution\nAustralia’s emissions reduction target of 26%–28% below 2005 \nlevel by 2030\nBrunei Darussalam\nEnergy intensity\n45% improvement by 2035 from 2005 level\nCambodia \nCarbon pollution\nReduce 3,100 Gg CO2 equivalent (approximately 1.8 Mt CO2e.) \ncompared to baseline emission 11,600 Gg Co2e by 2030\nChina\nEnergy intensity\nBy 2020, energy consumption per unit of GDP will drop by 15% \nfrom 2016\nIndia\nNot submitted\nIndonesia\nEnergy intensity\nReduce by 1% per year until 2025\nJapan\nEnergy intensity\n30% improvement in energy intensity in 2030 from 2003 level\nKorea, Rep. of\nEnergy intensity\n46.7% reduction by 2030 from 2006 level\nLao PDR\nFinal energy consumption • 10% reduction from BAU by 2030\n• 5% energy intensity reduction by 2030, from 2015.\nMalaysia\nFinal energy consumption 8.6% reduction from BAU by 2020\nMyanmar\nTPES\n• 5% reduction from BAU by 2020\n• 10% reduction from BAU by 2030\n(Final energy consumption: 5% by 2020 and 8% by 2030).\nNew Zealand\nEnergy intensity\n1.3% per year improvement from 2011 to 2016\nPhilippines\nFinal energy consumption 10% savings from BAU by 2030\nSingapore\nEnergy intensity\n• 20% reduction by 2020 from 2005 level\n• 35% reduction by 2030 from 2005 level\nThailand\nEnergy intensity\n• 15% reduction by 2020 from 2005 level\n• 25% reduction by 2030 from 2005 level\nViet Nam \nFinal energy consumption • 3%–5% savings from BAU until 2015\n• 5%–8% savings from BAU after 2015\nUnited States\nThis Vision for the \nNational Action Plan \nfor Energy Efficiency \ntargets achieving all \ncost-effective energy \nefficiency by 2025\n• The action plan presents 10 implementation goals for states, \nutilities, and other stakeholders to consider achieving this goal; \ndescribes what 2025 might look like if the goal is achieved; and \nprovides a means for measuring progress. It is a framework for \nimplementing the five policy recommendations of the Action \nPlan, announced in July 2006, which can be modified and \nimproved over time.\nBAU = Business-As-Usual, EAS = East Asia Summit, Gg CO2 = greenhouse gas emissions, TPES = total primary energy supply. \nSource: EAS Energy Outlook and Saving Potential Working Group Members (2017).\n3.8. Economic Growth and Climate Change Mitigation\nEconomic growth in the EAS countries is needed to provide for the region’s growing \npopulation and improving living standards. Economic growth is assumed to exceed \npopulation growth in 2015–2040. This relatively strong economic growth and rising per \ncapita incomes in the EAS countries could mean significant reductions in poverty and \nsignificant increases in living standards for hundreds of millions of people. \nWith economic growth will come increasing access to, and demand for, electricity and \nrising levels of vehicle ownership. The continued reliance on fossil fuels to meet the \nincreases in energy demand may be associated with increased GHG emissions and climate \n\n\n25\nchange challenges unless low-emission technologies are used. Even if fossil fuel resources \nare enough, most of the fuel will likely be imported from other regions, and no assurance \ncan be given that they will be secure or affordable. \nFossil fuel consumption using today’s technologies will lead to considerable increases in \ngreenhouse gas emissions, potentially creating new longer-term threats to the region’s \nliving standards and economic vitality. Growing adverse health impacts throughout the \nregion are also likely because of particulate emissions.\nGiven this, considerable improvements in energy efficiency and greater uptake of cleaner \nenergy technologies and renewable energy are required to address a range of energy, \nenvironmental, and economic challenges. Yet, efforts to limit energy consumption and \nGHGs will be very challenging given such strong growth. However, as will be discussed \nin Section 4.3, sharp reductions in GHGs are being called for by scientists. This huge \n‘headwind’ working against EEC and emission reductions poses a challenge to the EAS \nregion that needs to be addressed.\n4. \n Energy Outlook for the EAS Region\n4.1. Business-As-Usual Scenario\n4.1.1. \n Final energy consumption\nBetween 2015 and 2040, total final energy consumption3 in the EAS17 countries is \nprojected to grow at an average annual rate of 1.6%, reflecting the assumed 3.5% annual \nGDP growth and 0.5% population growth. Final energy consumption is projected to \nincrease from 5,020 Mtoe in 2015 to 7,410 Mtoe in 2040. By sector, transport energy \ndemand is projected to grow moderately about 1.7% per year, and its energy consumption \nshare is projected to be 26.1% by 2040. For the industry sector, its annual growth rate in \n2015–2040 is just about 1.6% per year, but its energy consumption share is projected to \nbe the largest at about 34.1% by 2040. The demand of the commercial and residential \n(‘others’) sector will grow at a lower rate of 1.3% per year, slower than that of the industry \nsector. However, its energy consumption share is projected to be 29.4%, the second-\nlargest share after the industry sector. Figure 1.10 shows final energy consumption by \nsector under the BAU scenario in EAS17 from 1990 to 2040. Figure 1.11 shows details of \nsectoral shares in final energy consumption.\n3 \nRefers to energy in the form in which it is consumed, i.e. including electricity, but not including the fuels and/or \nenergy sources used to generate electricity.\nMain Report\n\n\n26\nENERGY OUTLOOK AND ENERGY SAVING POTENTIAL IN EAST ASIA 2019\nFigure 1.10: Final Energy Consumption by Sector, BAU (1990–2040) \nBAU = Business-As-Usual, Mtoe = million tons of oil equivalent.\nSource: Authors’ calculation.\n8,000\n7,000\n6,000\n5,000\n4,000\n3,000\n2,000\n1,000\n0\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2030\n2040\nMtoe\nIndustry\nTransport\nOthers\nNon-energy\nSource: Authors’ calculation.\nFigure 1.11: Final Energy Consumption Share by Sector (1990–2040)\n100%\n90%\n80%\n70%\n60%\n50%\n40%\n30%\n20%\n10%\n0%\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2030\n2040\nIndustry\nTransport\nOthers\nNon-energy\n\n\n27\nFigures 1.12 and 1.13 show final energy consumption and shares by fuel type in the EAS17 \nunder the BAU scenario from 1990 to 2040. By energy source, electricity and natural \ngas demand in the BAU scenario are projected to show the fastest growth, increasing \nby 2.3% and 2.1% per year, respectively, but their share will just be 25.1% for electricity \nand 13.2% for natural gas. Although oil will retain the largest share at 37.5% of total final \nenergy consumption, it is projected to grow at a lower rate of 1.5% per year in 2015–2040, \nreaching 2,779 Mtoe in 2040. Generally, oil share slightly dropped from 37.7% in 2015 to \n37.5% in 2040. Coal demand will grow at a slower rate of 1.2% per year on average from \n2015 to 2040, reaching 1,218 Mtoe in 2040. The share of other fuels such as biomass \nwill decline from 9.9% in 2015 to 6.2% in 2040. This slow growth is due to the gradual shift \nfrom non-commercial biomass to conventional fuels like liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) \nand electricity in the residential sector.\nFigure 1.12: Final Energy Consumption by Fuel Type (1990–2040) \nMtoe = million tons of oil equivalent.\nSource: Authors’ calculation.\nCoal\nOil\nNatural gas\nElectricity\nHeat\nOthers\n8,000.0\n7,000.0\n6,000.0\n5,000.0\n4,000.0\n3,000.0\n2,000.0\n1,000.0\n-\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2030\n2040\nMtoe\nMain Report\n\n\n28\nENERGY OUTLOOK AND ENERGY SAVING POTENTIAL IN EAST ASIA 2019\nFigure 1.13: Final Energy Consumption Share by Fuel Type (1990–2040)\nCoal\nOil\nNatural gas\nElectricity\nHeat\nOthers\nSource: Authors’ calculation.\n100%\n90%\n80%\n70%\n60%\n50%\n40%\n30%\n20%\n10%\n0%\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2030\n2040\n4.1.2. \n Primary energy supply\nFigure 1.14 shows primary energy supply in EAS17 from 1990 to 2040. Primary energy \nsupply4 in the region is projected to grow at a slightly slower pace, of 1.5% per year, as final \nenergy consumption grows at 1.6% per year. EAS17 primary energy supply is projected to \nincrease from 7,488 Mtoe in 2015 to 10,943 Mtoe in 2040. Coal will still comprise the \nlargest share of primary energy supply, but its growth is expected to be slower, increasing \nat 1.3% per year. Consequently, the share of coal in total primary energy supply (TPES) is \nforecast to decline from 41.4% in 2015 to 38.9% in 2040. \n4 \nRefers to energy in its raw form, before any transformations, most significantly, the generation of electricity. \n\n\n29\nAmongst fossil sources of energy, natural gas is projected to see moderate growth in 2015–\n2040, increasing at an annual average rate of 2.2% Its share in the total will consequently \nincrease from 15.4% (equivalent to 1,155 Mtoe) in 2015 to 18% (equivalent to 1,972 \nMtoe) in 2040. Nuclear energy is projected to increase at a similar rate of natural gas rate \nof 2.2% per year on average. Its share will grow from 4.2% in 2015 to 5% in 2040. This is \ndue to the assumed resumption of nuclear power generation in Japan and the expansion \nof nuclear power generation capacity in China and India. Geothermal is projected to grow \nthe fastest at 3.1% per year during 2015–2040. However, its share is projected to be \nrelatively small, about 0.9% by 2040, increasing from 0.6% in 2015.\nAmongst the energy sources, others – which is made up of solar, wind, and solid and liquid \nbiofuels – will see the slowest growth rate of 1.3% Consequently, the share of these other \nsources of energy will decrease from 8.4% in 2015 to 8.1% in 2040. The growth of hydro \nwill also be low at 1.3% per year and its share will remain low, at around 1.9% by 2040. \nFigure 1.15 shows the shares of each energy source in the total primary energy mix in \n1990–2040.\nFigure 1.14: Primary Energy Supply in EAS17 (1990–2040)\nEAS = East Asia Summit , Mtoe = million tons of oil equivalent.\nSource: Authors’ calculation.\n12,000.0\n10,000.0\n8,000.0\n6,000.0\n4,000.0\n2,000.0\n-\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2030\n2040\nMtoe\nCoal\nOil\nNatural gas\nNuclear\nHydro\nGeothermal\nOthers\nMain Report\n\n\n30\nENERGY OUTLOOK AND ENERGY SAVING POTENTIAL IN EAST ASIA 2019\nFigure 1.15: Share of Primary Energy Mix by Source (1990–2040)\nCoal\nOil\nNatural gas\nNuclear\nHydro\nGeothermal\nOthers\nSource: Authors’ calculation.\n100%\n90%\n80%\n70%\n60%\n50%\n40%\n30%\n20%\n10%\n0%\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2030\n2040\n4.1.3. \n Power generation in EAS17\nFigure 1.16 shows the power generation output in the EAS region. Total power generation \nis projected to grow at 2.3% per year on average, from 2015 (equivalent to 14,290 \nterawatt-hours [TWh]) to 2040 (equivalent to 25,030 TWh). However, the growth rate \nin 1990–2015 was 3.9%, nearly twice as high as the projected growth rate in 2015–2040.\n\n\n31\nFigure 1.17 shows the share of each energy source in electricity generation from 1990 to \n2040. The share of coal-fired generation is projected to continue to be the largest and will \nbe about 48% in 2040, a drop from the 53.8% share in 2015. The share of natural gas is \nprojected to increase from 17.8% in 2015 to 19.4% in 2040. Nuclear share (8.5% in 2015) \nis forecast to decrease to 8.3% in 2040. The share of geothermal (0.4% in 2015) and other \n(wind, solar, biomass, etc.) sources at 5.7% will also increase to 0.5% and 13.7% in 2040, \nrespectively. The share of oil and hydro are projected to decrease, from 1.6% to 0.4% and \nfrom 12.3% to 9.7% respectively, over the same period.\nFigure 1.16: Power Generation in EAS17 (1990–2040)\nEAS = East Asia Summit, TWh = terawatt-hour.\nSource: Authors’ calculation.\n30,000.0\n25,000.0\n20,000.0\n15,000.0\n10,000.0\n5,000.0\n-\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2030\n2040\nTWh\nCoal\nOil\nNatural gas\nNuclear\nHydro\nGeothermal\nOthers\nMain Report\n\n\n32\nENERGY OUTLOOK AND ENERGY SAVING POTENTIAL IN EAST ASIA 2019\nFigure 1.17: Share of Power Generation Mix in EAS17 (1990–2040)\nCoal\nOil\nNatural gas\nNuclear\nHydro\nGeothermal\nOthers\nEAS = East Asia Summit.\nSource: Authors’ calculation.\n100%\n90%\n80%\n70%\n60%\n50%\n40%\n30%\n20%\n10%\n0%\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2030\n2040\nFigure 1.18 shows the thermal efficiency of coal-, oil-, and natural gas–fired power \nplants from 1990 to 2040. Thermal efficiency is projected to grow in EAS17 from 2015 \nto 2040 due to improvement in electricity generation technologies like combined-cycle \ngas turbines and advanced coal power plant technologies. The efficiency of coal thermal \npower plants, which is a mix of old and new power plants, will increase slightly, from 37.5% \nin 2015 to 40.1% in 2040. The efficiency of natural gas power plants will also increase, \nfrom 47.9% in 2015 to 51.3% in 2040. Oil power plants, which will not be used very much \nin the future, will deteriorate in efficiency, slightly increasing from 36.3% in 2015 to 37.7% \nin 2040.\n\n\n33\n4.1.4. \n Primary energy intensity and per capita energy demand\nFigure 1.19 shows the energy intensity and energy per capita from 1990 to 2040. For the \nBAU scenario, energy intensity in the EAS is projected to decline by 38%, from 192 toe/\nmillion US$ (constant 2010) in 2015 to 120 toe/million US$ in 2040. The improvement \nin energy intensity is also reflected in the improvement in CO2 intensity at a similar pace. \nIn contrast to energy intensity, energy demand per capita is projected to increase by 28.7%, \nfrom 1.95 toe per person in 2015 to 2.51 toe per person in 2040. This could be attributed \nto the projected continuing economic growth in the region, which will bring about a more \nenergy-intensive lifestyle as people are able to purchase vehicles, household appliances, \nand other energy-consuming devices due to increases in disposable income. As energy \ndemand per capita increases, CO2 per capita is projected to increase at a similar rate.\nFigure 1.18: Thermal Efficiency by Fuel Type, BAU (1990–2040) \nBAU = Business-As-Usual.\nSource: Authors’ calculation.\n55\n50\n45\n30\n35\n30\n25\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n%\nCoal\nOil\nNatural Gas\nMain Report\n\n\n34\nENERGY OUTLOOK AND ENERGY SAVING POTENTIAL IN EAST ASIA 2019\nEAS = East Asia Summit, CO2 = carbon dioxide.\nSource: Authors’ calculation.\nEnergy Intensity\nEnergy per Capita\nCO2 per Energy\nCO2 Intensity\nCO2 per Capita\nFigure 1.19: Energy Indicators in EAS17 \n250\n200\n150\n100\n50\n0\n1990 = 100\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2030\n2040\n4.2. Comparison of BAU and APS \n4.2.1. \n Total final energy consumption, BAU vs APS \nIn the APS, final energy consumption is projected to rise from 5,020 Mtoe in 2015 to \n6,615 Mtoe. Comparing the BAU scenario and the APS, final energy consumption is \nprojected to be 795 Mtoe or 10.8% lower than in the BAU scenario in 2040. This is due \nto the various energy efficiency plans and programmes, presented in Section 3, on both \nthe supply and demand sides that are to be implemented by EAS17 countries. Figure 1.20 \nshows the evolution of final energy consumption in 1990–2040 in both the BAU scenario \nand APS.\n\n\n35\n4.2.2. \n Final energy consumption by sector – BAU vs APS \nFigure 1.21 shows the composition of final energy consumption by sector in both the BAU \nscenario and the APS. Final energy consumption in most sectors is significantly reduced \nin the APS compared with the BAU scenario. In percentage terms, the reduction is largest \nin the transportation sector (14.6%), followed by the industry sector (11.4%), the ‘others’ \nsector (10.2%); non-energy demand will be the same as the BAU scenario.\nFigure 1.20: Total Final Energy Consumption, BAU and APS\nAPS = Alternative Policy Scenario, BAU = Business-As-Usual, Mtoe = million tons of oil eqivalent.\nSource: Authors’ calculation.\n8,000\n7,000\n6,000\n5,000\n4,000\n3,000\n2,000\n1,000\n0\n1990\n10.8%\n2015\n2040\nMtoe\nBAU\nAPS\nMain Report\n\n\n36\nENERGY OUTLOOK AND ENERGY SAVING POTENTIAL IN EAST ASIA 2019\nFigure 1.21: Final Energy Consumption by Sector, BAU vs APS\nAPS = Alternative Policy Scenario , BAU = Business-As-Usual .\nSource: Authors’ calculation.\n3,000\n2,500\n2,000\n1,500\n1,000\n500\n0\n–11.4%\n–14.6%\n–10.2%\n0.0%\nMtoe\nBAU\n2015\n2040\nIndustry\nAPS\nBAU\n2015\n2040\nTransport\nAPS\nBAU\n2015\n2040\nOthers\nAPS\nBAU\n2015\n2040\nNon-energy\nAPS\n4.2.3. \n Primary energy supply by sources – BAU vs APS \nFigure 1.22 shows primary energy supply by fuel source. In the APS, growth in primary \nenergy supply for fossil fuels is lower compared with the BAU scenario. The growth rate \nin primary energy supply of the APS is projected to be 1% per year on average from 2015 \nto 2040. This rate is lower than the BAU scenario in which the growth rate is projected to \nbe 1.5%. In absolute terms, the largest reduction will be in coal demand, by 1,154 Mtoe or \n27.1% from the BAU scenario’s 4,254 Mtoe to 3,100 Mtoe in the APS. The savings potential \nfor other fuels are projected to be 408 Mtoe for oil (equivalent to a 13.7% reduction from \nthe BAU scenario), and 355 Mtoe for gas (equivalent to a 17.9% reduction from the BAU \nscenario). Due to increased renewable energy in the primary supply, renewable energy \nsupply including biomass is projected to increase by 30.1% from the BAU scenario to the \nAPS for the aggressive policy scenario of including more renewables into the supply mix.\n\n\n37\n4.2.4. \n Total primary energy supply – BAU vs APS\nFigure 1.23 shows the TPES in both the BAU scenario and the APS. The total savings \npotential in the TPES is expected to be 1,431 Mtoe, a consumption reduction from 10,943 \nMtoe in the BAU scenario to 9,512 Mtoe in the APS. This savings potential represents a \n13.1% reduction from the BAU scenario to the APS. \nThe energy savings potential is brought about by improvements both in the transformation \nsector, particularly power generation, and the final energy consumption sector where \nefficiencies of household appliances and more efficient building designs are expected. \nThe ‘others’ sector has an expected increase of renewable energy in the energy supply, \nwhich is projected to be a 31.1% increase from the BAU scenario to the APS.\nFigure 1.22: Primary Energy Supply by Source, BAU and APS\nAPS = Alternative Policy Scenario, BAU = Business-As-Usual, Mtoe = million tons of oil equivalent..\nSource: Authors’ calculation.\n4,500\n4,000\n3,500\n3,000\n2,500\n2,000\n1,500\n1,000\n500\n0\n-13.7%\nMtoe\nBAU\n2015\n2040\nCoal\nAPS\nBAU\n2015\n2040\nOil\nAPS\nBAU\n2015\n2040\nGas\nAPS\nBAU\n2015\n2040\nOthers\nAPS\n-27.1%\n-17.9%\n30.1%\nMain Report\n\n\n38\nENERGY OUTLOOK AND ENERGY SAVING POTENTIAL IN EAST ASIA 2019\nFigure 1.23: Total Primary Energy Supply – BAU and APS\nAPS = Alternative Policy Scenario, BAU = Business-As-Usual, Mtoe = million tons of oil equivalent.\nSource: Authors’ calculation.\n12,000\n10,000\n8,000\n6,000\n4,000\n2,000\n0\nMtoe\nBAU\n2015\n2040\nAPS\n1431.17 Mtoe, –13.1%\n4.3. CO2 Emissions from Energy Consumption\n4.3.1. \n CO2 emissions\nCO2 emissions from energy consumption in the BAU scenario are projected to increase \nfrom 5,660 million tons of carbon (Mt-C) in 2015 to 8,189 Mt-C in 2040, implying an \naverage annual growth rate of 1.5% (Figure 1.24). This is the same growth rate of TPES of \n1.5% per year. In the APS, CO2 emissions are projected to be 6,207 Mt-C in 2040, 24.2% \nlower than the BAU scenario.\nAt the Paris climate conference (COP21) in December 2015, 195 countries adopted the \nfirst-ever universal, legally binding global climate deal. The agreement sets out a global \naction plan to put the world on track to avoid dangerous climate change by limiting global \nwarming to well below 2°C. The Paris Agreement could be a bridge between today’s \npolicies and climate-neutrality before the end of the century. \nAlthough the emission reductions under the APS are significant, CO2 emissions from \nenergy demand in the APS in 2040 will still be above 2015 levels and more than two times \nhigher than 1990 levels. Scientific evidence suggests that these reductions will not be \nadequate to prevent severe climate change impacts. Analysis by the Intergovernmental \nPanel on Climate Change suggests that to keep the increase in global mean temperature \n\n\n39\nto not more than 2°C compared with pre-industrial levels, global CO2 emissions need to \npeak between 2000 and 2015.\nIn the adopted version of the Paris Agreement, the parties will also ‘pursue efforts’ to \nlimit the temperature increase to 1.5°C, which will require zero emissions between 2030 \nand 2050, according to scientists. However, this study shows that even in the APS, the \nemissions will be about 6,207 Mt-C. It is supposed to be at zero emissions for the efforts \nto limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C to be successful.\n4.4. NDC/INDC Scenario\nThis working group also assessed reducing the effect of CO2 emissions brought by NDC/\nINDC targets that countries submit to the United Nations Framework Convention on \nClimate Change following the Paris Agreement (Table 1.10). The results clearly show that \nINDC/NDC targets of the following ASEAN countries and Australia are more ambitious \nthan the EAS targets.\nFigure 1.24 Total CO2 Emissions – BAU and APS\nAPS = Alternative Policy Scenario, BAU = Business-As-Usual, CO2 = carbon dioxide, Mtoe = million tons of oil equivalent.\nSource: Authors’ calculation.\n9,000 \n8,000\n7,000\n6,000\n5,000\n4,000\n3,000\n2,000\n1,000\n0\nMillion Tons of Carbon\nBAU\n2015\n2040\nAPS\n1981.93 Mt-C, -24.2%\nMain Report\n\n\n40\nENERGY OUTLOOK AND ENERGY SAVING POTENTIAL IN EAST ASIA 2019\nTable 1.10: Comparison of CO2 Emissions amongst the Scenarios in 2040, Mt-C \nCountry\nBAU\nAPS\nINDC/NDC\nMalaysia\n116\n90\n78\nPhilippines\n271\n191\n87\nThailand\n410\n252\n220\nAustralia\n100\n80\n50\nAPS = Alternative Policy Scenario, BAU = Business-As-Usual, INDC = Intended Nationally Determined Contributions, \n \n \nNDC = Nationally Determined Contributions.\nSource: Authors.\nCambodia, the Lao PDR, Myanmar, Singapore, and Viet Nam were not assessed due to \ntheir technical problems. Other countries such as Brunei Darussalam, Indonesia, and \nChina could already achieve their INDC/NDC targets with their APS targets.\nTo achieve the INDC/NDC targets, additional efforts need to be made to reduce emissions \nin the APS to reach INDC/NDC in some countries. For example, CO2 emissions reduction \ntarget rate from APS to INDC/NDC are 13% for Malaysia, 54% for the Philippines, 13% for \nThailand, and 38% for Australia. The INDC/NDC targets of the Philippines and Australia \nseem to be too ambitious; these countries should review their INDC/NDC targets from \nthe scientific viewpoint.\n4.5. Necessary Investment Cost\n4.5.1 Power infrastructure\nBased on the energy outlook results for the BAU scenario and the APS, the Working Group \nestimated the necessary investment in the power sector, especially for power generation \nfacilities, comprising coal, gas, nuclear, hydro, geothermal, solar PV, wind, and biomass \npower generation plants. The Working Group drew from several sources of information to \nobtain the current capital cost of each power plant, but it did not forecast future capital cost \ndue to its uncertainty. For all EAS17 countries taken together, the amount of investment \nneeds to meet electricity demand would be US$3.5 trillion for the BAU scenario and \nUS$4 trillion for the APS. This investment cost considers the reduction of upfront cost of \neach technology due to a fast drop of unit cost of each technology, especially renewables. \nFigures 1.25 and 1.26 show the investment shares by power generation type for the BAU \nscenario and the APS in the region. The Increment of electricity demand from 2015 \nto 2040 of the BAU scenario will be 13,361 TWh. On the other hand, its APS will be \n\n\n41\n12,641 TWh. But the APS will shift to renewables and nuclear energy. In the case of the \nhigh share of renewables in the power generation mix, the total expected power capacity \nwill be 3,119 GW in the APS, which is 2,875 GW higher than the BAU scenario due to \nthe lower operation (or lower efficiency) rate of renewable energy. Consequently, the \nAPS will be higher than the BAU scenario in terms of necessary investment for power \ngeneration, and the share of power generation sources will be different between the BAU \nscenario and the APS.\nFigure 1.25: Investment Share by Power Source (EAS17-BAU)\nBAU = Business-As-Usual, EAS = East Asia Summit, PV = photovoltaic. \nSource: Authors’ calculation.\nWind\nCoal\nGas\nNuclear\nHydro\nGeothermal\nSolar PV\n31%\n31%\n8%\n14%\n5%\n2%\n9%\nFigure 1.26: Investment Share by Power Sources (EAS17-APS)\nAPS = Alternative Policy Scenario, EAS = East Asia Summit, PV = photovoltaic.\nSource: Authors’ calculation.\n3%\n4%\nWind\nCoal\nGas\nNuclear\nHydro\nGeothermal\nSolar PV\n15%\n23%\n9%\n3%\n43%\nMain Report\n\n\n42\nENERGY OUTLOOK AND ENERGY SAVING POTENTIAL IN EAST ASIA 2019\nFigure 1.27 shows the investment needs of the 10 ASEAN Member States. ASEAN would \naccount for about US$432 billion for the BAU scenario, and about US$440 billion in the \nAPS. The investment shares by power generation source are different between the BAU \nscenario and the APS. Investment in coal and gas power are the dominant shares in the \nASEAN–BAU case, while investment in the APS is more towards clean energy such as \nhydro, geothermal, wind, solar PV, and possibly nuclear as well (Figure 1.28). In other \nwords, ASEAN will seek for a more balanced energy mix for power generation to increase \nenergy security and mitigate CO2 emissions.\nFigure 1.27: Investment Share by Power Source (ASEAN–BAU)\nASEAN = Association of Southeast Asian Nations, BAU = Business-As-Usual, PV = photovoltaic. \nSource: Authors’ calculation.\n1%\nWind\nCoal\nGas\nHydro\nGeothermal\nSolar PV\n4%\n7%\n66%\n14%\n8%\nFigure 1.28: Investment Share by Power Source (ASEAN–APS)\nAPS = Alternative Policy Scenario, ASEAN = Association of Southeast Asian Nations, PV = photovoltaic.\nSource: Authors’ calculation.\n8%\nWind\nCoal\nGas\nNuclear\nHydro\nGeothermal\nSolar PV\n22%\n33%\n9%\n7%\n12%\n9%\n\n\n43\n4.5.2 Other energy infrastructure\nThere are many necessary investments in energy infrastructure in the future, but here \nwe focus on necessary investment cost for refineries and liquefied natural gas (LNG)–\nreceiving terminals. Natural gas will have a higher growth rate until 2040 but its supply \nto EAS17 will shift from domestic production to countries outside EAS17. In this regard, \nLNG-receiving terminals will also be essential. The investment for refineries and LNG-\nreceiving terminals in EAS17 will be estimated at US$367 billion and US$132 billion, \nrespectively, in the BAU scenario. The investments in the APS are reduced to US$60 \nbillion for refineries, and US$75 billion for LNG-receiving terminals due to promotion \nof energy efficiency. However, these investment costs will be much lower than power \ngeneration. The share of investment cost of refineries and LNG-receiving terminals to \npower generation facilities will be 13% of the BAU scenario and 3% of the APS, respectively. \nThese results seem to indicate energy transition from fossil fuel to more advanced energy \ntechnologies such as renewable energy (Figure 1.29). \nFigure 1.29: Energy Infrastructure Investment (EAS17, BAU–APS)\nAPS = Alternative Policy Scenario, BAU = Business-As-Usual, EAS = East Asia Summit, LNG = liquefied natural gas.\nSource: Authors’ calculation.\nPower Generation\nLNG (receiving terminal)\nRefinery\n4,500 \n4,000\n3,500\n3,000\n2,500\n2,000\n1,500\n1,000\n500\n0\nInvestment Cost ($US Billion)\n2040 BAU\n2040 APS\nMain Report\n\n\n44\nENERGY OUTLOOK AND ENERGY SAVING POTENTIAL IN EAST ASIA 2019\nThe investments for refineries and LNG-receiving terminals in ASEAN are estimated at \nUS$226 billion and US$28 billion, respectively, in the BAU scenario. The investments \nin ASEAN in the APS are reduced to US$149 billion for refineries and US$16 billion for \nLNG-receiving terminals. The share of investment cost of refineries and LNG-receiving \nterminals to power generation facilities will be 59% of the BAU scenario and 17% of the \nAPS. ASEAN will still need fossil fuel for its economic and social activities. The total \ninvestment cost for power generation, refineries, and LNG-receiving terminals of the \nAPS will be lower than the BAU scenario. This indicates that the EEC in the final energy \nconsumption sector and natural gas power plants will be crucial (Figure 1.30).\nFigure 1.30: Energy Infrastructure Investment (ASEAN, BAU-APS)\nAPS = Alternative Policy Scenario, ASEAN = Association of Southeast Asian Nations, BAU = Business-As-Usual, LNG = liquefied natural gas.\nSource: Authors’ calculation.\nPower Generation\nLNG (receiving terminal)\nRefinery\n800\n700\n600\n500\n400\n300\n200\n100\n0\nInvestment Cost ($US Billion)\n2040 BAU\n2040 APS\n\n\n45\n5. Conclusions and Recommendations \nAt the third Working Group meeting, the members discussed the key findings and \nimplications of the analysis based on the two energy outlook scenarios – the BAU scenario \nand the APS.\n5.1. Key Findings\nBased on projected changes in socio-economic factors, energy consumption, and CO2 \nemissions in the BAU scenario and the APS, the Working Group members identified \nseveral key findings:\n1) Sustained population and economic growth in the EAS region will lead to significant \nincreases in energy demand. Total final energy consumption in 2040 will increase by \nalmost 50%, reflecting actual annual growth rate of 1.6% per year between 2015 and \n2040. By sector, transport energy demand is projected to grow moderately at about \n1.7% per year, and its energy consumption share is projected to be 26.1% by 2040. \nThe annual growth rate of the industry sector in 2015–2040 is just about 1.6% per \nyear, but its energy consumption share is projected to be the largest, about 34.1% \nby 2040. Demand of the commercial and residential (‘others’) sectors will grow at a \nlower rate of 1.3% per year, slower than that of the industry and the transport sectors. \nHowever, its energy consumption share is projected to be 29.4%, the second-largest \nshare after the industry sector. \n2) The total EAS17 power generation is projected to grow at 2.3% per year on average, \nfrom 2015 (equivalent to 14,290 TWh) to 2040 (equivalent to 25,030 TWh), \nreflecting an increase of 1.8 times during the period. The share of coal-fired generation \nis projected to continue to be the largest and will be about 48% in 2040, a drop from \nthe 53.8% share in 2015. The share of natural gas is projected to increase from 17.8% \nin 2015 to 19.4% in 2040. The nuclear share (8.5% in 2015) is forecast to decrease \nto 8.3% in 2040. Geothermal (0.4% in 2015) and other (wind, solar, biomass, etc.) \nsources at 5.7% share will also increase to 0.5% and 13.7% in 2040, respectively. The \nshares of oil and hydro are projected to decrease, from 1.6% to 0.4%, and from 12.3% \nto 9.7%, respectively, over the same period.\nMain Report\n\n\n46\nENERGY OUTLOOK AND ENERGY SAVING POTENTIAL IN EAST ASIA 2019\n3) The total EAS17 primary energy supply is projected to increase from 7,488 Mtoe in \n2015 to 10,943 Mtoe in 2040. Coal will still comprise the largest share of primary \nenergy supply, but its growth is expected to be slower, increasing at 1.3% per year. \nConsequently, the share of coal in the TPES is forecast to decline from 41.4% in 2015 \nto 38.9% in 2040. Amongst fossil sources of energy, natural gas is projected to see a \nmoderate annual average growth rate of 2.2%. Its share in the total will consequently \nincrease from 15.4% (equivalent to 1,155 Mtoe) in 2015 to 18% (equivalent to 1,972 \nMtoe) in 2040. Nuclear energy is projected to increase at a similar rate as natural \ngas at 2.2% per year on average; its share will grow from 4.2% in 2015 to 5% in 2040. \nThis is due to the assumed resumption of nuclear power generation in Japan, and \nthe expansion of nuclear power generation capacity in China and India. Geothermal \nis projected to grow fastest at 3.1% per year in 2015–2040. However, its share is \nprojected to be relatively small, about 0.9% by 2040, increasing from 0.6% in 2015.\n4) The continuing reliance on fossil fuels to meet increasing energy demand will also \nbe associated with significant increases in CO2 emissions. The CO2 emissions from \nenergy consumption in the BAU scenario are projected to increase from 5,660 Mt-C \nin 2015 to 8,189 Mt-C in 2040, implying an average annual growth rate of 1.5%. In \nthe APS, CO2 emissions are projected to be 6,207 Mt-C in 2040, 24.2% lower than in \nthe BAU scenario. Although the emissions reductions under the APS are significant, \nCO2 emissions from energy demand in the APS in 2040 will still be above 2015 levels \nand more than two times higher than 1990 levels. \n5) However, the EEC in EAS17 provides strong hope for the region to reduce energy \ndemand and CO2 emissions. The results of this analysis indicate that, by 2040, the \nimplementation of currently proposed energy efficiency goals, action plans, and \npolicies across the region could lead to the following reductions:\no \n13.1% in primary energy supply,\no \n38% in energy intensity, and\no \n24.2% in energy-derived CO2 emissions.\n6) According to assessment results of INDC/NDC targets based on comparison of CO2 \nemissions in the BAU scenario, APS, and INDC/NDC scenarios, the APS of many \nEAS17 countries clearly shows lower CO2 emissions than their INDC/NDC targets. \nBut several countries show much lower CO2 emissions compared to the APS. It is \nsuggested that those countries review them from a scientific viewpoint. \n\n\n47\n7) Based on the key findings, the necessary investment cost of combined power \ngeneration, refineries, and LNG-receiving terminals in EAS17 is estimated to \nbe US$4.0 trillion in the BAU scenario by 2040, and US$4.2 trillion in the APS. \nInvestments in refineries and LNG-receiving terminals in EAS17 are estimated to cost \nUS$67 billion and US$131 billion, respectively, in the BAU scenario. Investments \nin the APS are reduced to US$60 billion for refineries and US$75 billion for LNG-\nreceiving terminals. In the APS, although electricity demand is lower due to the \nimplementation of efficiency measures, the estimated investment cost of power \ngeneration will be larger (US$4.0 trillion in the APS from US$3.5 trillion in the BAU \nscenario) mainly because of the increased share of renewables imposed under the \nAPS in addition to the EEC measures. The largest share of total investment will be \nfor additional capacity of NRE plants, such as hydro, geothermal, solar PV, wind, and \nbiomass.\n5.2. Policy Implications\nBased on the above key findings, the Working Group members identified several policy \nimplications, aggregated into five major categories. The identified policy implications are \nbased on a shared desire to enhance action plans in specific sectors, prepare appropriate \nenergy efficiency policies, shift from fossil energy to non-fossil energy, rationalise \nenergy pricing mechanisms, and a need for accurate energy consumption statistics. \nThe implications identified by the Working Group are listed below. It should be noted \nthat appropriate policies will differ between countries based on differences in country \ncircumstances, policy objectives, and market structures, and that not all members \nnecessarily agreed to all recommendations.\n \n1) Energy efficiency action plans in final consumption sectors. The industry sector \nwill be a major source of energy savings because it will still be the largest energy-\nconsuming sector by 2040, followed by transport especially road and residential/\ncommercial sectors. Several EEC action plans will be implemented, which include \nbuilding design and replacement of existing facilities and equipment with more \nefficient ones. Those policies are listed by area/sector: \n• \nThe building sector would need both passive and active design policies such as\no \nsetting up and enforcing building codes and rewards for green building,\no \nsupporting energy service companies regulated by governments, and\no \nexploring and establishing a good and practical green building business model \nto meet the context and situation.\nMain Report\n\n\n48\nENERGY OUTLOOK AND ENERGY SAVING POTENTIAL IN EAST ASIA 2019\n• \nThe road transport sector will need to consider measures to reduce energy \nconsumption per unit of transport activities such as\no \nimproving fuel economy of internal combustion engine and hybrid vehicles;\no \nshifting from personal to mass transportation mode;\no \nshifting to more low-emission fuels, such as biofuels and compressed natural \ngas vehicles;\no \nshifting to next-generation vehicle technologies, such as electric vehicles, \nplug-in hybrid vehicles, and fuel cell vehicles;\n• \nOther sectors will need to consider measures to improve energy efficiency such \nas\no \napplying standards and labelling systems;\no \nusing demand management systems such as household energy management \nsystems and factory energy management systems;\no \ngrowing energy managers and energy service companies;\no \nimproving thermal efficiency in the power generation sector by constructing \nor replacing existing facilities with new and more efficient generation \ntechnologies.\n \n2) Renewable energy policies. Low-carbon fuels need to be increased. This could be \nattained by increasing the share of NRE and nuclear energy in the energy mix of each \ncountry. Several policies and actions should be considered:\n• \nRenewable technologies are not as competitive as thermal power generation \ntechnologies using fossil fuel in terms of their costs. Supportive renewable \nenergy policies such as feed-in tariffs (FiT), renewable portfolio standards, and \nnet metering are suggested. In addition, international financing schemes, which \ninclude clean development mechanisms and joint credit mechanisms, are also \npenetrating renewable energy. The key to incentivise private investment in \nrenewable energy is to lower the risks related to renewable energy projects and \nimprove profitability prospects.\n• \nThe intermittent nature of renewable energy sources poses significant challenges \nin integrating renewable-energy generation with existing electricity grids. Thus, \nelectricity storage technologies, combined with solar and wind power, will be very \nimportant, but the combination cost is still high.\n3) Technology development policies. Environmental technologies will need to be \nconsidered to curb the increasing CO2 emissions:\n• \nThe development of carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology will be very \nimportant in controlling the release of GHGs into the atmosphere. Continued \nresearch and development will be important to ensure the future economic \nviability of deploying CCS technology. \n\n\n49\n• \nHydrogen could be extracted from fossil fuels, such as oil and natural gas, and \nthrough electrolysis using renewable energy. But its cost is still higher than existing \nfuels. Hydrogen fuel development is very promising and could be commercialised \nin the future. Continued research and development in fuel cells and hydrogen \npower generation will be important for future clean fuel use. \n• \nTechnological cooperation and technology diffusion need to be accelerated in \nthe ASEAN region.\n4) Energy supply security policies. The region will largely depend on imported oil and \ngas. Thus, measures to secure the supply of energy will be very important for the \nregion. Several measures are identified:\n• \nPromote regional energy connectivity such as the trans-ASEAN gas pipeline and \nthe ASEAN Power Grid.\n• \nDiversify sources of import.\n• \nStrengthen energy infrastructure, including the construction of LNG-receiving \nterminals and re-gasification plants.\n• \nIncrease domestic energy such as renewable energy share.\n• \nASEAN may need to look into the strategic reserve or stockpiling requirement on \nboth public and private bases in the near future.\n \n5.3. Recommendations\n \nBased on this study, energy consumption in the EAS region will increase remarkably due \nto stable economic and population growth. It will continue to depend largely on fossil fuel \nenergy, such as coal, oil, and gas, until 2040 (the BAU scenario) even though a higher \ncrude oil assumption (about US$120 per barrel in 2040 at 2016 constant price) reflects \nthe current market situation. But if EAS17 countries dedicate themselves to implementing \ntheir EEC policies and increase low-carbon energy technologies, such as nuclear power \ngeneration and solar PV/wind (APS), the region could achieve remarkable energy savings \nin the APS, especially through fossil fuel savings, and significantly reduce CO2 emissions. \nThe APS of many EAS17 countries is appropriate because their expected CO2 emissions \nreduction is the same or larger than the countries’ INDC/NDC targets. Therefore, EAS17 \ncountries need to apply the plan-do-check-act cycle approach in promoting their EEC \nand renewable energy policies (energy-saving targets and action plans) according to their \nrespective timetables.\nNatural gas will grow the highest up to 2040 amongst fossil fuels and will be an important \nfuel as transition to a new energy system in the future occurs because of lower price than \ncrude oil, various import sources, and lower carbon emissions compared to oil and coal. To \nMain Report\n\n\n50\nENERGY OUTLOOK AND ENERGY SAVING POTENTIAL IN EAST ASIA 2019\nrealise this increase, the establishment of a transparent LNG market in Asia, the removal \nof destination clause, and consumers’ participation in LNG development, and others are \nrecommended.\n \nThis energy outlook study also shows that a lot of energy savings, especially on oil and \nelectricity consumption by final users, will come from energy efficiency activities. \nSo, the following EEC policies (specified by energy-saving targets and action plans) of \nEAS17 countries are recommended: (i) standards and labelling systems for appliances \nand energy facilities such as boilers and compressors; (ii) energy service companies; (iii) \nincrease of next-generation vehicles including hybrid vehicles, electric vehicles, plug-in \nhybrid vehicles, and fuel cell vehicles; (iv) green building index; (v) and advanced energy \nmanagement system.\nIncreasing the share of renewable energy – such as hydro, geothermal, solar PV, wind, and \nbiomass – will contribute to reduced fossil fuel consumption and mitigate CO2 emissions, \nand thus contribute to INDC/NDC and SDGs. It will require appropriate government \npolicies such as renewable targets, legal approaches such as FiT/Renewable Portfolio \nStandards (RPS), and revised FiT to include bidding and tendering processes. \nEnergy supply security in the EAS17 region is a top priority energy issue. EEC and \nrenewable energy contribute to maintaining regional energy security by reducing fossil \nfuel consumption and increasing the use of domestic energy. Moreover, energy supply \nsources can be diversified through regional energy networks such as the Trans-ASEAN \nGas Pipeline, including LNG transportation as virtual pipeline, and the ASEAN Power Grid \n(APG) with region-wide electricity trade market. The Lao PDR, Thailand, and Myanmar \nare a starting point of the APG. Oil stockpiling and nuclear power generation are other \noptions to secure energy supply in the region.\nAccording to the energy outlook’s results, as coal power generation will still be dominant \nin the EAS region in 2040, the greater use of clean coal technology and development of \nCCS technology are critical because they will make coal-fired power plants in the region \ncarbon free. Hydrogen technology also has a key role as an alternative to fossil fuels, as it \ncan be applied across sectors, such as the power generation, industry, and road transport \nsectors.\n\n\n51\nThis energy outlook also estimates the necessary investment cost for combined energy \ninfrastructure such as power generation, LNG-receiving terminals, and refineries. \nThe EAS17 region will need around US$4 trillion for the construction of power plants, \nrefineries, and LNG-receiving terminals in the BAU scenario, but power generation plants \nwill be the largest share estimated at US$3.5 trillion. ASEAN needs about US$686 billion \nin the BAU scenario for the total energy infrastructure of combined power generation, \nrefineries, and LNG-receiving terminals, and US$605 billion in the APS. The difference \ncomes from refineries and LNG-receiving terminals due to savings in oil and gas \nconsumption. In the BAU scenario, a lot of money will be allocated to coal-fired power \nplants (clean coal technology), whereas under the APS, more money will be allocated \nto low-carbon energy electricity, such as nuclear, geothermal hydropower, solar PV/\nwind, and biomass. Consequently, financing schemes to develop energy infrastructure \nsuch as public–private partnership, public financing of international/regional banks, clean \ndevelopment mechanism, and/or joint credit mechanism, etc. will be essential.\nReferences\nASEAN Centre for Energy (ACE) (2013), ASEAN Guideline on Off-grid Rural \nElectrification Approaches, Jakarta: ACE.\nASEAN Secretariat (2007), Cebu Declaration on East Asian Energy Security 2007. \nJakarta: ASEAN Secretariat. http://www.aseansec.org/19319.htm (accessed 27 \nFebruary 2008).\nEnergy Department, Prime Minister’s Office (2015), Brunei Darussalam Energy White \nPaper, Bandar Seri Begawan.\nERIA (2015), Scenario Analysis of Energy Security in the East Asia Summit Region. \nJakarta: ERIA. http://www.eria.org/publications/research_project_reports/FY2014/\nNo.35.html\nIEA (2017a), Energy Balances of OECD Countries 2014. Paris: OECD Publishing.\nIEA (2017b), Energy Balances of Non-OECD Countries 2015. Paris: OECD Publishing.\nIEA (2017c), World Energy Outlook 2017. Paris: International Energy Agency. https://\nwebstore.iea.org/world-energy-outlook-2017\nMain Report\n\n\n52\nENERGY OUTLOOK AND ENERGY SAVING POTENTIAL IN EAST ASIA 2019\nThe Institute of Energy Economics, Japan (IEEJ) (2014), Asia/World Energy Outlook \n2014. Tokyo, Japan. https://eneken.ieej.or.jp/data/5875.pdf (accessed 20 February \n2018).\nThe Institute of Energy Economics, Japan (IEEJ) (2016), Asia/World Energy Outlook \n2016. Tokyo, Japan. https://eneken.ieej.or.jp/data/7199.pdf (accessed 20 February \n2018).\nIPCC (2007), ‘Summary for Policymakers in Climate Change 2007: Mitigation,’ In B. \nMetz, O.R. Davidson, P.R. Bosch, R. Dave, L.A. Meyer (eds.), Contribution of Working \nGroup III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate \nChange. Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York: Cambridge University Press. \nMinistry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI) (2007), ‘EAS Cooperation on Energy \nEfficiency and Conservation’. Paper Submitted to the 3rd ECTF Meeting in Tokyo in June \n2007.\nWorld Bank (2018), World Databank – World Development Indicators (WDI) and Global \nDevelopment Finance (GDF). Washington, DC: The World Bank. http://databank.\nworldbank.org/ddp/home.do (accessed June 2016).\n\n\n53\nAUSTRALIA COUNTRY REPORT\nShamim Ahmad, Department of the Environment and Energy, \nAustralia \nLu Zheng, The Institute of Energy Economics, Japan\n1. Introduction\nAustralia is the largest country in Oceania, and the sixth-largest country in the world \nby total area. It has a land area of around 7.7 million square kilometres, and is diverse \nin geography and climate. It has six states and two territories. Over the past 25 years, \nAustralia’s population grew at an average annual rate of 1.3%, from 17.1 million in 1990 \nto 23.8 million in 2015. \nAustralia’s gross domestic product (GDP) increased at an average annual rate of 3.1%, from \nUS$636 billion in 1990 to US$1.36 trillion in 2015 (constant 2010 US$ values), which \ntranslates the increase of Australia’s per capita income from around US$37,300 in 1990 \nto US$56,950 in 2015. Economic activities are focused on the eastern and southeastern \nseaboard, where most of the population lives. For example, in 2016, only three states – \nNew South Wales, Victoria, and Queensland – generated 73% of Australia’s GDP, while \nthese states represent 32%, 25%, and 20% of the national population, respectively (Carr \net al., 2017).\n1.1. Energy Situation\nAustralia has abundant, high-quality, and diverse non-renewable and renewable energy \nresources. Its non-renewable energy resources include fossil fuels (coal, gas, and oil) and \nnuclear energy fuels (uranium and potentially thorium). Australia has 1.27 million tons \nof economic demonstrated resources of uranium, which is equivalent to 16,984 million \ntons of oil equivalent (Mtoe) or 711,076 petajoules (Geoscience Australia, 2018). This \namount is more than one-third of the world’s uranium resources. Australia also has a major \nshare of the world’s thorium resources, and thorium could be an alternative to uranium as \na nuclear fuel in the future.\nCHAPTER 2\n\n\n54\nENERGY OUTLOOK AND ENERGY SAVING POTENTIAL IN EAST ASIA 2019\nThe country has 70,927 million tons of recoverable black coal resources, which is 10% \nof the world’s black coal resources. It has a further 76,508 million tons of brown coal \nresources, about 24% of the world’s brown coal reserves (Geoscience Australia, 2017). \nAustralia’s substantial conventional and unconventional gas resources account for almost \n2% of the world’s gas resources, and it has a relatively small share (0.2%) of crude oil \nresources (BP, 2017). The amount of recoverable resources is expected to grow with \nfurther exploration, and these resources are expected to last for many more decades, \neven if production increases. \nAustralia also has large, widely distributed wind, solar, geothermal, hydroelectricity, \nocean energy, and bioenergy resources. Wind energy technology is relatively mature, \nand its uptake is growing faster in the country. Generation capacity of solar electricity \nis also increasing rapidly due to the rapid reductions of solar technology costs. Australia \nhas the highest solar radiation per square metre in the world. No substantial expansion of \ntraditional hydropower will likely occur due to the dry climate and low water runoff over \nmost of Australia. Pumped hydro for electricity storage is being examined at existing hydro \ninstallations and new sites.\nAustralia’s energy resources play a significant role in the country’s economic prosperity. \nCoal and gas resources support not only domestic consumption but also significant export \nearnings. In 2015, Australia was the world’s eighth-largest energy producer (381.3 Mtoe), \naccounting for 2.8% of global primary energy supply. It was the world’s 21st-largest energy \nconsumer, accounting for 0.9% (125.3 Mtoe) of world primary energy supply (IEA, 2017). \nPrimary energy supply is largely based on fossil fuels. In 2015, coal contributed about \n34% of primary energy supply; oil, 33%; and natural gas, 26%. Renewables contributed the \nremaining 7%, consisting of hydro (1%), solar and wind (2%), and biofuel and waste (4%) \n(IEA, 2017).\nAustralia plays a prominent role in meeting the increasing energy demand of the Asia-\nPacific region and the world. In 2015, Australia was the world’s fourth-largest energy \nexporter; it exported 78% of its energy production, consisting largely of coal and liquefied \nnatural gas. It is the world’s largest exporter of metallurgical coal and the second-largest \nexporter of thermal coal (IEA, 2017). It is also a large exporter of uranium. With limited \ncrude oil resources, Australia is a net importer of crude oil and petroleum products; it is \nincreasingly reliant on imports for its transport fuels.\n\n\n55\nOver the past 25 years, Australia’s gross electricity generation has increased at an average \nannual rate of 2% from 154 terawatt-hours (TWh) in 1990 to 252 TWh in 2015. In 2015, \ncoal accounted for almost two-thirds (63%) of total electricity generation; followed by \nnatural gas, 21%; hydro, 5%; oil, 3%; and others (non-hydro renewables), 8%. Coal still \ndominates Australia’s electricity generation mix, though its share has fallen from 79% in \n1990 to 63% in 2015. The share of natural gas and non-hydro renewables in the generation \nmix has increased significantly over this period. \n2. Modelling Assumptions \nAustralia’s GDP is assumed to grow at an average annual rate of 2.5% between 2015 to \n2040, compared with the average annual growth rate of 3.1% between 1990 and 2015. \nThe Australian economy will gradually shift from energy-intensive industries towards less \nenergy-intensive ones. Its GDP growth will gradually decrease towards the end of the \nprojection period. Australia’s population is assumed to grow at an average annual rate of \n1% between 2015 to 2040, which is marginally slower than the average annual growth rate \nof about 1.3% from 1990 to 2015.\nFossil fuels will remain the dominant energy source in Australia’s primary energy mix due \nto their relative abundance and costs. In electricity generation, no new coal plants will \nbe installed, and the share of coal-fired electricity generation will decrease due to the \nscheduled closure and/or retirement of a few coal-fired electricity plants. Gas-fired \nelectricity and non-hydro renewable electricity generation is assumed to rise to meet the \nincreasing demand over the projection period.\nThe Alternative Policy Scenario (APS) assumes the implementation of improved efficiency \nof final energy consumption in the end-use sectors. The APS will see more efficient \nthermal power generation, and a higher contribution of renewable energy to the total \nsupply. Combined effects of these measures are assumed to provide maximum energy \nsavings over the projection period. Energy savings in the industry sector are assumed \nto be achieved from improvements in large energy-intensive industries, and closure of \ninefficient small plants. Structural changes are assumed to gradually shift the economy \naway from energy-intensive industries. In the residential and commercial sectors, efficient \nend-use technologies and energy management systems are assumed to further achieve \nenergy savings. The transport sector is assumed to be more energy efficient through \nimproved vehicle standards and fuel economy. Rapid uptake of energy-efficient electric \nvehicles for private and public transport is assumed to occur during the second half of the \nprojection period. \nAustralia Country Report\n\n\n56\nENERGY OUTLOOK AND ENERGY SAVING POTENTIAL IN EAST ASIA 2019\nThis study further attempts to develop a Nationally Determined Contributions (NDC) \nscenario to analyse Australia’s emissions reduction target for 2030. This scenario in this \nstudy is designed to meet Australia’s emissions reduction target of 26%–28% below the \n2005 level by 2030.\n3. Outlook Results \n3.1. Business-As-Usual Scenario \n3.1.1. \n Final energy consumption\nUnder the BAU scenario, total final energy consumption in Australia is projected to \nincrease from 81.3 Mtoe in 2015 to 94.1 Mtoe in 2040, a rise of about 15.7% over the \nprojection period and an average annual rate of increase at 0.6% (Figure 2.1). The strongest \ngrowth is projected to occur in the ‘others’ sector (e.g. residential and services sectors), \nincreasing at 1.3% per year between 2015 and 2040. The growth of energy consumption \nin the transport sector is projected to remain slow (0.1% per year) over the projection \nperiod, though it saw relatively strong growth (1.7% per year) in the past 25 years.\nFigure 2.1: Final Energy Consumption by Sector, BAU Scenario\nBAU = Business-As-Usual, Mtoe = million tons of oil equivalent.\nSource: Authors’ calculation.\nOthers\nTransportation\nIndustry\nNon-energy\n100\n90\n80\n70\n60\n50\n40\n30\n20\n10\n0\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2030\n2040\nMtoe\n57\n70\n81\n84\n90\n94\n\n\n57\nElectricity consumption is projected to have the fastest growth at an average annual rate \nof 1.7% per year between 2015 and 2040 (Figure 2.2). Natural gas is projected to increase \nat the second highest rate of 0.7% per year. Petroleum products are projected to see a \nslower growth rate, with an average rate of 0.1% per year. Coal consumption is expected \nto decline at an average rate of 0.9% per year.\n3.1.2. \n Primary energy supply\nUnder the BAU scenario, Australia’s primary energy supply is projected to increase from \n125.3 Mtoe in 2015 to 140.1 Mtoe in 2040 at an average annual rate of 0.4% (Figure 2.3). \nCoal consumption is expected to decline at an annual average rate of 0.8% during this \nperiod, and growth in oil consumption is projected to remain flat. Natural gas will increase \nat 1.5% per year between 2015 and 2040, where its share in the primary energy mix is \nexpected to increase from about 26% in 2015 to 34% in 2040. The overall share of fossil \nfuel in Australia’s primary energy supply will decline from 94% in 2015 to 89% in 2040.\nFigure 2.2: Final Energy Consumption by Fuel Type, BAU\nBAU = Business-As-Usual, Mtoe = million tons of oil equivalent.\nSource: Authors’ calculation.\nNatural Gas\nOil\nCoal\nElectricity\nHeat\nOthers\n100\n90\n80\n70\n60\n50\n40\n30\n20\n10\n0\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2030\n2040\nMtoe\n57\n70\n81\n84\n90\n94\nAustralia Country Report\n\n\n58\nENERGY OUTLOOK AND ENERGY SAVING POTENTIAL IN EAST ASIA 2019\nFigure 2.3: Primary Energy Supply by Fuel Type\nMtoe = million tons of oil equivalent.\nSource: Authors’ calculation.\nNatural Gas\nNuclear\nOil\nCoal\nHydro\nGeothermal\nOthers\n160\n140\n120\n100\n80\n60\n40\n20\n0\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2030\n2040\nMtoe\n86\n103\n125\n129\n137\n140\n ‘Others’ (including non-hydro renewables) is projected to increase by 2.7% a year over \nthe projection period. The share of ‘others’ is expected to increase from 5.7% in 2015 to \nabout 10% in 2040, where the major contribution to this increase would come from solar \nand wind followed by biofuels and biomass. Solar, wind, and ocean energy together are \nexpected to grow at an average annual rate of 5.9% between 2015 and 2040.\n3.1.3. \n Power generation \nElectricity generation in Australia, under the BAU scenario, is projected to increase from \n252.3 TWh in 2015 to 373.7 TWh in 2040 at an average rate of 1.6% per year (Figure \n2-4). The share of coal in Australia’s power generation mix is projected to fall from 63% in \n2015 to 38% in 2040, which will still maintain its largest share in the generation mix under \nthe BAU scenario. Coal share will decline due to the scheduled closure and retirement of \nsome old coal-fired generation plants. Generation from oil is also projected to decline at \nan average rate of 0.1% per year, and the share of oil in the generation mix will decline from \n2.7% in 2015 to 1.8% in 2040. In contrast, the share of natural gas–fired generation will \nincrease from 21% in 2015 to 32% in 2040, and natural gas use in electricity generation is \nprojected to grow at an average rate of 3.3% per year over the period.\n\n\n59\n3.2. Energy Saving and CO2 Reduction Potential \n3.2.1. \n Final energy consumption\nUnder the APS, final energy consumption is projected to increase at a slower rate of \n0.2% per year from 81.3 Mtoe in 2015 to 84.5 Mtoe in 2040 (Figure 2.5). This shows \nenergy savings of 9.6 Mtoe, or 10.2%, under the APS in 2040, compared to that of the \nBAU scenario in 2040. The slower growth in demand is expected to occur across all end-\nuse sectors, excluding the non-energy sector. The transport sector is projected to see the \nhighest energy savings followed by the ‘others’ (residential and commercial) sector. These \nreflect the improvements in vehicle fuel efficiency and end-use technologies. \nIn 2040, under the APS, estimated savings are 2.0 Mtoe (7.3%) in the industry sector, 4.5 \nMtoe (13.4%) in the transport sector, and 3.0 Mtoe (10.6%) in the ‘others’ sector (Figure \n2.5).\nHydro’s share in Australia’s power generation mix is expected to decline slightly from 5.3% \nin 2015 to 4.7% by 2040. Electricity generation from ‘others’ (non-hydro renewables) \nis expected to grow faster at an average rate of 6% per year between 2015 and 2040. \nDeclining costs of wind and solar technology would partly contribute to the faster growth \nof electricity generation from ‘others’ (including wind and solar) in Australia.\nFigure 2.4: Power Generation under BAU\nBAU = Business-As-Usual, TWh = terawatt-hour.\nSource: Authors’ calculation.\nNatural Gas\nNuclear\nOil\nCoal\nHydro\nGeothermal\nOthers\n400\n350\n300\n250\n200\n150\n100\n50\n0\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2030\n2040\nTWh\n154\n210\n252\n275\n325\n374\nAustralia Country Report\n\n\n60\nENERGY OUTLOOK AND ENERGY SAVING POTENTIAL IN EAST ASIA 2019\nFigure 2.5: Final Energy Consumption by Sector, BAU and APS\nBAU = Business-As-Usual, APS = Alternative Policy Scenario, Mtoe = million tons of oil equivalent. \nSource: Authors’ calculation.\n40.0\n35.0\n30.0\n25.0\n20.0\n15.0\n10.0\n5.0\n0\n–13.4%\n–10.6%\n0.0%\nMtoe\nBAU\n2015\n2040\nIndustry\nAPS\nBAU\n2015\n2040\nTransport\nAPS\nBAU\n2015\n2040\nOthers\nAPS\nBAU\n2015\n2040\nNon-energy\nAPS\n–7.3%\nUnder the NDC scenario, final energy consumption is forecast to decrease at a rate \nof 0.6% per year from 81.3 Mtoe in 2015 to 70.5 Mtoe in 2040. Therefore, the NDC \nscenario shows further savings of 14 Mtoe final energy compared to the savings under \nthe APS. The highest contribution to final energy savings would come from the transport \nsector, followed by ‘others’ (i.e. residential and services) in this scenario. \n3.2.2. \n Primary energy supply \nUnder the APS, Australia’s primary energy supply is projected to decrease at a rate of 0.2% \nper year from 125.3 Mtoe in 2015 to 119.9 Mtoe in 2040. This implies that in 2040, under \nthe APS, savings of primary energy supply will be around 20.1 Mtoe or 14.4% compared \nto BAU (Figure 2.6).\n\n\n61\nFigure 2.6: Total Primary Energy Supply, BAU and APS\nAPS = Alternative Policy Scenario, BAU = Business-As-Usual, Mtoe = million tons of oil equivalent.\nSource: Authors’ calculation.\n145.0\n140.0\n135.0\n130.0\n125.0\n120.0\n115.0\n110.0\n105.0\nMtoe\nBAU\n2015\n2040\nAPS\n20.13 Mtoe, –14.4%\nFigure 2.7: Primary Energy Supply by Fuel Type, BAU and APS\nAPS = Alternative Policy Scenario, BAU = Business-As-Usual, Mtoe = million tons of oil equivalent.\nSource: Authors’ calculation.\n50.0\n45.0\n40.0\n35.0\n30.0\n25.0\n20.0\n15.0\n10.0\n5.0\n0\nMtoe\nBAU\n2015\n2040\nCoal\nAPS\nBAU\n2015\n2040\nOil\nAPS\nBAU\n2015\n2040\nGas\nAPS\nBAU\n2015\n2040\nOthers\nAPS\n–23.3%\n–18.0%\n24.0%\n–16.8%\nAustralia Country Report\n\n\n62\nENERGY OUTLOOK AND ENERGY SAVING POTENTIAL IN EAST ASIA 2019\nPrimary energy supply in the APS is expected to decline for coal at 1.8% per year \n(compared to a decline of 0.8% per year in the BAU scenario) over the projection period. \nThis will result in a saving of coal consumption by about 8.3 Mtoe in 2040 compared \nto the BAU scenario. Similarly, the negative growth of oil demand (0.7% per year) will \nsave oil consumption of about 7.1 Mtoe in 2040. With an average annual growth of \n0.7%, savings on natural gas consumption will be about 8.4 Mtoe compared to the BAU \nscenario. However, the demand for ‘others’ (renewables) is expected to increase by about \n3.7 Mtoe, or 24%, compared to the BAU scenario in 2040 (Figure 2.7).\nPrimary energy supply under the NDC scenario is projected to decline at a rate of 1.3% per \nyear, from 125.3 Mtoe in 2015 to 89.3 Mtoe in 2040. Therefore, this scenario provides \nadditional savings of 31 Mtoe of primary energy compared to the APS in 2040. The share \nof renewables in the primary energy mix needs to increase from 11% in 2015 to about 27% \nin 2040 under the NDC scenario.\n3.3. CO2 Emissions \nCO2 emissions from energy consumption under the BAU scenario are projected to increase \nby 0.1% per year from 98.8 million tons of carbon (Mt-C) in 2015 to 100.3 Mt-C in 2040 \n(Figure 2.8). The growth in emissions appears to be less than the projected growth in \nprimary energy supply, reflecting increased use of fewer carbon-intensive energy sources \nover the period. \nIn the APS, CO2 emissions are projected to decrease at an average annual rate of 0.8% \nfrom 98.8 Mt-C in 2015 to 80.0 Mt-C in 2040. Emissions savings in the APS will be about \n20% compared to the BAU scenario in 2040. The lower growth rate for the APS indicates \nthat the energy-saving options are effective in reducing CO2 emissions in Australia. \nReduced demand for coal in power generation and in final demand, including reduced oil \nconsumption in the transport sector, will contribute the most to the expected reduction \nof CO2 emissions in the APS.\n\n\n63\nCO2 emissions under the NDC scenario will decline at an average annual rate of 2.6% \nfrom 100.3 Mt-C to 50.5 Mt-C in 2040. This is about 50% reduction of CO2 emissions \ncompared to the BAU scenario in 2040. \nIn 2005, energy-related CO2 emissions in Australia were 94.1 Mt-C. In 2030, such \nemissions are projected to be 101.9 Mt-C in the BAU scenario, 88.8 Mt-C in the APS, and \n69.5 Mt-C in the NDC scenario. It appears that the energy-related emissions reduction \ntarget of 26%–28% below the 2005 level by 2030 will not be achieved under the APS. \nThe NDC scenario in this study is designed to meet Australia’s emissions reduction target \nof 26% below the 2005 level by 2030, by further enhancing the assumptions of energy \nefficiency and renewable energy.\nFigure 2.8: CO2 Emissions from Energy Combustion, BAU and APS\nAPS = Alternative Policy Scenario, BAU = Business-As-Usual.\nSource: Authors’ calculation.\n120.0\n100.0\n80.0\n60.0\n40.0\n20.0\n0\nMillion Tons of Carbon\nBAU\n2015\n2040\nAPS\nAustralia Country Report\n\n\n64\nENERGY OUTLOOK AND ENERGY SAVING POTENTIAL IN EAST ASIA 2019\n4. \n Implications \n• \nFossil fuels – namely, coal, oil, and gas – will continue to dominate the energy mix in \nboth the BAU scenario and the APS.\n• \nCoal will continue to dominate Australia’s electricity generation mix over the period up \nto 2040; however, the share of coal in the power mix is projected to decline. Advance \ntechnologies for power generation would be necessary to enhance efficiency, energy \nsavings, and emissions reduction. \n• \nAustralia has substantial reserves and a secure supply of coal. Coal prices are \nexpected to remain much lower over the long term. Coal-fired generation is likely \nto remain cheaper than other energy sources. However, global attempts to curb \nemissions would put pressure on Australia to adopt low-emission technologies for \npower generation. The use of efficient and clean coal technologies will be necessary. \nResearch, development, and deployment of clean energy technologies will play a key \nrole.\n• \nSubstantial expansion of traditional hydropower will likely not occur due to the dry \nclimate and low water runoff in much of Australia. While wind and solar technology \ncosts are going to fall more quickly over the next 25 years, the growth of renewable \nenergy will likely come from large-scale adoption of wind and solar energy supported \nby energy storage. Better integration of variable renewable energy sources into \nAustralia’s energy systems will be necessary.\n• \nEnergy efficiency and demand-side management are important. The implementation \nof improved and efficient end-use technologies will reduce final energy consumption \nin the end-use sectors. Energy savings in the industry sector will come from the \nimproved efficiency of large energy-intensive industries.\n• \nOil will continue to supply Australia’s transport fuel needs. Improved vehicle fuel \nefficiency and uptake of electric vehicles would reduce oil demand in the transport \nsector. Investment in new petroleum refinery plants may be necessary to reduce \nimport dependence of transport fuel. \n\n\n65\nReferences\nBP (2017), BP Statistical Review of World Energy June 2017, 66th ed. London: BP, \nhttps://www.bp.com/content/dam/bp-country/de_ch/PDF/bp-statistical-review-\nof-world-energy-2017-full-report.pdf (accessed 17 May 2018).\nCarr, T., K. Fernandes, and T. Rosewall (2017), ‘The Recent Economic Performance of \nthe States’, RBA Bulletin, March Quarter 2017, pp.1–12.\nGeoscience Australia (2017), Australia’s Identified Mineral Resources 2017. Canberra: \nGeoscience Australia, http://www.ga.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/58874/\nAustralias-Identified-Mineral-Resources-2017.pdf (accessed 17 May 2018).\nGeoscience Australia (2018), Australian Energy Resources Assessment 2018. Canberra: \nGeoscience Australia, http://aera.ga.gov.au/ (accessed 17 May 2018).\nIEA (2017), World Energy Balances (2017 ed.). Paris: International Energy Agency.\nAustralia Country Report\n\n\n66\nENERGY OUTLOOK AND ENERGY SAVING POTENTIAL IN EAST ASIA 2019\nBRUNEI DARUSSALAM COUNTRY \nREPORT\nMinistry of Energy and Industry, Brunei Darussalam\n1. Background\nBrunei Darussalam (Brunei) is a small nation on the northwest coast of the island of \nBorneo. It is located in Southeast Asia and has a coastline of 161 kilometres along the \nSouth China Sea in the north. The East Malaysian state of Sarawak completely surrounds \nBrunei on all other sides. The country has a total land area of only 5,765 square kilometres \nand comprises four main districts: Belait, Tutong, Temburong, and Brunei-Muara. Its \ncapital city is Bandar Seri Begawan located in the Brunei-Muara district. Because of its \nproximity to the equator, the country experiences a hot and wet climate throughout the \nyear.\nBrunei Darussalam is an economy with great economic potential. Its gross domestic \nproduct (GDP) in 2015 was US$13.9 billion at constant year 2010. With a population of \n416,500, Brunei’s GDP per capita was US$33,340 at constant year 2010. About 60% of \nBrunei’s GDP is generated by the energy sector. This reflects the significant contribution \nof this sector to the country’s economy. The energy sector also dominates Brunei’s export \nvalue as crude oil, natural gas (in the form of liquefied natural gas), and methanol exports \naccount for more than 90% of its total exports, which are primarily destined to Japan, the \nRepublic of Korea, India, China, and (ASEAN) countries.\nTo drive the economy into a sustainable future, the country supports the implementation \nof three strategic goals set out in the Brunei Darussalam’s Energy White Paper launched \nin March 2014. The White Paper sets out strategic goal 2, which is specifically for energy \nsupply and demand, i.e. to ensure a safe, secure, reliable, and efficient supply of energy \nin Brunei Darussalam. Strategic goal 1 focuses on strengthening oil and gas upstream and \ndownstream activities while goal 3 focuses on maximising economic spin-off from the \nenergy sector. \nCHAPTER 3\n\n\n67\n2. Energy Supply and Consumption in 2015\nOil and natural gas remain the main sources of energy for Brunei Darussalam. In 2015, \nthe total primary energy supply (TPES) of the country for both energy sources was 3.26 \nmillion tons of oil equivalent (Mtoe) in total, with 3.07 Mtoe or 94.3% from natural gas \n(Table 3.1). \nBrunei Darussalam has 922 MW of installed capacity in power generation of public \nutilities, including a solar photovoltaic (PV) at 1.2 MW. Electricity production from the \npublic utilities in 2015 was 3.78 terawatt-hours (TWh). In the same year, the installed \ncapacity of auto producers was 116.99 MW, which produced 0.39 TWh of electricity.\nThe total final energy consumption (TFEC) of Brunei Darussalam in 2015 was 0.81 Mtoe, \nwith the transport sector having the highest energy demand at 0.31 Mtoe or 38.27% of \nthe TFEC. This is followed by the ‘others’ sector (34.57%), industry sector (24.69%), and \nnon-energy use (2.47%). In terms of energy source, oil accounted for 65.43% of final \nenergy consumption, followed by electricity at 32.10% and gas at 2.47%.\nTable 3.1: Energy Supply and Consumption 2015 (Mtoe)\nSupply and Consumption\nOil\nNatural Gas\nElectricity\nTotal\nPrimary energy supply\nIndigenous production\n8.88\n11.19\n-\n20.07\nNet import and others\n-8.69\n-8.12\n-\n-16.81\nTotal primary energy supply\n0.19\n3.07\n-\n3.26\nFinal energy consumption\nIndustry sector\n0.18\n-\n0.02\n0.20\nTransport sector\n0.31\n-\n-\n0.31\nOthers sectora\n0.02\n0.02\n0.24\n0.28\nNon-energy\n0.02\n-\n-\n0.02\nTotal final energy consumption\n0.53\n0.02\n0.26\n0.81\nMtoe = million tons of oil equivalent.\naThe ‘others’ sector includes the residential and commercial sectors.\nSource: Author’s calculation.\nBrunei Darussalam Country Report\n\n\n68\nENERGY OUTLOOK AND ENERGY SAVING POTENTIAL IN EAST ASIA 2019\n3. Energy Policies \n3.1. Supply \nBrunei seeks to expand exploration areas to increase reserves and ensure long-term \nsustainability and conservation of oil and gas reserves. A core focus as well is to rejuvenate \nthe current producing assets to enhance recovery from the field and maximise production, \nwhich are aligned with the national vision, Wawasan Brunei 2035. The country is also \nmaximising its potential for economic spin-off from upstream production and assets. In \nthis regard, Brunei Darussalam has set strategies to strengthen and grow the upstream and \ndownstream activities of oil and gas, with the targets set as follows:\n1) To sustain a reserve replacement ratio of greater than 1 also means ensuring that \nBrunei continues to benefit from production in the energy sector in the long term;\n2) To increase production of oil and gas to 650,000 barrels of oil equivalent per day by \n2035;\n3) To grow revenue from domestic downstream industries and reach at least B$5 billion \nby 2035 through the development of infrastructure and facilities, including chemical \nand petrochemical plants and a refinery.\nDespite its aspiration to increase oil and gas production to 650 kboe per day by 2035, \nthe country acknowledges the importance of reducing energy intensity by 45% by 2035 \nin line with its commitment to the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation. Brunei has also \ntargeted to increase the share of its power generation mix from renewable energy to at \nleast 10% by 2035. It has considered and started to develop renewable energy, particularly \nsolar PV and waste-to-energy, which are deemed feasible at this stage. To support the \ndevelopment of renewable energy sources, the government plans to introduce renewable \nenergy policies and regulatory frameworks that will stimulate investment from both the \npublic and the private sectors in developing and deploying renewable energy.\n3.2. Consumption \nBrunei has been actively improving energy efficiency and conservation (EEC) to reduce \nenergy intensity by 2035. In achieving the energy intensity target, relevant government \nagencies and industries have been collaborating to set up legislation and to introduce \nfinancial and fiscal policy measures that promote energy efficiency and low energy-\nintensive industries. Industries’ roles include identification of technical levers that may \nassist the reduction of energy use over time while individuals shift consumption behaviour \ntowards energy efficiency that include making choices on highly energy-efficient \nappliances.\n\n\n69\nBrunei Darussalam Country Report\nEfforts towards achieving EEC targets were through power generation efficiency, standard \nand labelling, fuel economy regulation, EEC building guidelines, street lighting alternate \nswitching off, and LED-fitting lighting for street lights.\nThe Department of Electrical Services and Berakas power management company play \nmajor roles in setting out plans to increase power generation efficiency. The plan will \nemphasise the implementation of combined-cycle turbine and cogeneration power plants, \nreduction of partial load operation, and improvement of transmission and distribution \nlosses.\n4. \n Outlook Result\n4.1. Final Energy Consumption\nBusiness-As-Usual Scenario\nUnder the Business-As-Usual (BAU) scenario, the projected TFEC in the year 2040 is \n4.78 Mtoe. The increase of projected TFEC is linked to the GDP growth rate which, in \nthe model, is set at a constant rate of 5.6% per year over the projection period. The high \nGDP growth rate is supported by the country’s aspiration to strengthen its economic \nstructure to develop the commercial, services, and industry sectors. For instance, as per \nprojection from the BAU scenario, industry TFEC in 2040 is expected to grow to 1.13 \nMtoe, compared with 0.20 Mtoe in 2015. \nIn 2040, the share of oil in the country’s total demand will be 65%, mainly to be consumed \nas transportation fuel. In 2015, the TFEC of oil was 0.52 Mtoe and is projected to increase \nto 1.75 Mtoe in 2040. The model also predicts that the demand for electricity will increase \nat an average of 6.6% per year, from 0.26 Mtoe in 2015 to 1.26 Mtoe in 2040 (Figure 3.1).\n\n\n70\nENERGY OUTLOOK AND ENERGY SAVING POTENTIAL IN EAST ASIA 2019\nAlternative Policy Scenario\nAn Alternative Policy Scenario (APS) was developed as a basis to estimate the energy \nsaving potential for Brunei Darussalam to achieve the energy intensity reduction targets \nthrough the deployment of advanced technologies for energy saving and enforcement of \nrelevant initiatives. Under the APS, the overall TFEC in 2040 will be 3.86 Mtoe. In 2040, \nthe ‘others’ sector will require about 14.8% of energy demand, followed by the transport \nsector at 15.5% and the industry sector at 24.4%. Demand of the non-energy sector will \nbe at 45.1%. \nThe improvement in vehicle fuel efficiency in the future due to proposed fuel economy \nregulations would be the main factor for the declining growth rate of demand in the \ntransport sector. For the period 2015–2040, the TFEC will grow at 2.7% per year on \naverage. Referring to the results of the LEAP1 model for energy outlook, the TFEC under \nthe APS will be reduced by 19.2% compared to the BAU scenario. The ‘others’ sector \n(residential and commercial sectors) will decrease by 39.4%; transport, by 37.5%; and \nindustry, by 16.9% from the BAU scenario. Meanwhile, non-energy use will also decline \nby 0.3% (Figure 3.2).\nFigure 3.1: Final Energy Consumption by Sector, BAU\nBAU = Business-As-Usual.\nSource: Authors’ calculation.\n6.0\n5.0\n4.0\n3.0\n2.0\n1.0\n-\n2015\n2020\n2030\n2040\nMtoe\nIndustry\nTransport\nOthers\nNon-energy\n1 \nLEAP stands for Long-range Energy Alternative Planning System.\n\n\n71\nBrunei Darussalam Country Report\nFigure 3.2: Final Energy Consumption by Sector, BAU and APS (2015 and 2040)\nAPS = Alternative Policy Scenario, BAU = Business-As-Usual, Mtoe = million tons of oil equivalent.\nSource: Authors’ calculation.\n2.0\n1.8\n1.6\n1.4\n1.2\n1.0\n0.8\n0.6\n0.4\n0.2\n0\n–37.5%\nMtoe\nBAU\n2015\n2040\nIndustry\nAPS\nBAU\n2015\n2040\nTransport\nAPS\nBAU\n2015\n2040\nOthers\nAPS\nBAU\n2015\n2040\nNon-energy\nAPS\n–16.9%\n–39.4%\n–0.3%\n4.2 Primary Energy Supply\nBusiness-As-Usual Scenario\nUnder the BAU scenario, the TPES of Brunei is projected to reach 9.39 Mtoe in 2040, \nincreasing at 4.3% per year from 3.26 Mtoe in 2015. Its TPES was dominated by natural \ngas at 94.2% in 2015, while oil share was about 5.8%. \nThe TPES for natural gas is expected to increase at 3.3% per year from 3.07 Mtoe in 2015 \nto 6.86 Mtoe in 2040. The country will continue to be a net exporter of energy in the \nfuture.\n\n\n72\nENERGY OUTLOOK AND ENERGY SAVING POTENTIAL IN EAST ASIA 2019\nAlternative Policy Scenario\nA significant decrease in the TPES for oil and natural gas is projected between the BAU \nscenario and the APS in 2040. In 2040, oil supply under the APS will be 1.25 Mtoe against \nthe BAU scenario at 1.84 Mtoe, or 32.1% lower. Natural gas supply under the APS is also \npredicted to be lower by 9.3% compared to the BAU scenario. However, supply from \nrenewable energy, particularly from solar and waste-to-energy sources, will significantly \nincrease (Figure 3.3).\n4.3 Power Generation\nIn Brunei Darussalam, power generation capacity from public utilities is dominated by \nnatural gas. From 806.2 MW of installed capacity (including 1.2 MW solar PV), diesel \ncontributes only 12 MW. In addition to the public utilities capacity, autoproducers’ \ncapacity in 2015 was 116.9 MW. Based on the model projection under BAU, about 17.74 \nTWh of electricity will be generated in 2040 from both public utilities and autoproducers, \nincluding from renewable energy of 0.05 TWh. Under the APS, electricity generation in \n2040 is projected at about 13.08 TWh, a decrease of 26.3% in electricity generation from \nthe BAU scenario, which includes renewable energy at 0.9 TWh. The decrease is due to \nthe decommissioning of the diesel power plants in Temburong in 2021. As planned in the \nFigure 3.3: Primary Energy Supply by Source, BAU and APS (2015 and 2040)\nAPS = Alternative Policy Scenario, BAU = Business-As-Usual, Mtoe = million tons of oil equivalent.\nSource: Authors’ calculation.\n8.0\n7.0\n6.0\n5.0\n4.0\n3.0\n2.0\n1.0\n0\n–32.1%\nMtoe\nBAU\n2015\n2040\nCoal\nAPS\nBAU\n2015\n2040\nOil\nAPS\nBAU\n2015\n2040\nGas\nAPS\nBAU\n2015\n2040\nOthers\nAPS\n–76.9%\n–9.3%\n519%\n\n\n73\nBrunei Darussalam Country Report\nAPS, all thermal power plants in Brunei Darussalam will be combined-cycle gas turbines \n(with improved efficiency of 45%) and cogeneration power plants.\n4.4 Projected Energy Savings2\nThe energy saving potential that could be achieved through the implementation of \nlegislative measures on EEC, as well as the development of renewable energy in Brunei \nDarussalam, is about 1.76 Mtoe of the TPES, or equivalent to a reduction of 18.7% from \nthe BAU scenario in 2040. \n4.5 Carbon Dioxide Emissions\nBusiness-As-Usual Scenario\nThe percentage increase in carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions correlates to the increase \nin the TPES. This is expected because the energy mix for Brunei Darussalam is 99% \ndependent on fossil fuels. In 2015, the LEAP model shows 6.7 million tons of carbon \n(Mt-C). An increase of 3.6% per year is expected with an eventual value of 16.0 Mt-C in \n2040 (Figure 3.5).\n2 \nThe difference between primary energy consumption in BAU and the APS.\nFigure 3.4: Reduction of Primary Energy Supply, BAU and APS (2015 and 2040)\nAPS = Alternative Policy Scenario, BAU = Business-As-Usual, Mtoe = million tons of oil equivalent.\nSource: Authors’ calculation.\n10.0\n9.0\n8.0\n7.0\n6.0\n5.0\n4.0\n3.0\n2.0\n1.0\n0\nMtoe\nBAU\n2015\n2040\nAPS\n1.76 Mtoe, -18.7%\n\n\n74\nENERGY OUTLOOK AND ENERGY SAVING POTENTIAL IN EAST ASIA 2019\nAlternative Policy Scenario\nAs of this writing, Brunei Darussalam is still finalising the Nationally Determined \nContributions (NDC) target, which will be reported before 2020. Therefore, the current \nAPS is equal to the target of the NDC. In the APS, CO2 emissions could decrease by 27.9% \nin 2040 compared to the BAU scenario. The results of the model show that a total of 10.6 \nMt-C will be emitted by 2040. The decrease in CO2 is significantly attributed to improved \nefficiencies of power generation plants (Figure 3.5). \n5. Policy Implications\nBased on Brunei’s second national communication submitted to the United Nations \nFramework Convention on Climate Change in November 2017, major mitigation efforts \nof the energy sector mainly focused on the following:\na) Setting Sustainable Development Targets for the Energy Sector\ni) The energy sector aims to reduce energy intensity by 45% in 2035 from the \nbaseline year of 2005. Energy intensity can be reduced through energy efficiency \nimprovements and energy conservation as well as by diversifying the economy to \nhigh value-added but less energy-intensive industries.\nFigure 3.5: CO2 Emissions from Energy Consumption, BAU and APS (2015 and 2040)\nAPS = Alternative Policy Scenario, BAU = Business-As-Usual, Mtoe = million tons of oil equivalent.\nSource: Authors’ calculation.\n18.0\n16.0\n14.0\n12.0\n10.0\n8.0\n6.0\n4.0\n2.0\n0\nMillion Tons of Oil Carbon\nBAU\n2015\n2040\nAPS\n4.45 Mtoe, 27.9%\n\n\n75\nBrunei Darussalam Country Report\nii) Deployment of renewable energy technologies is targeted to increase by 10% by \n2035. This could be achieved by both public and private sector investments on \nthese technologies. At present, policy frameworks that incentivise private sector \ninvestments are being prepared.\nb) Promoting EEC\ni) Improving supply-side efficiency. The government is pursuing a strategy to \nimprove efficiency of existing open-cycle gas turbines through the installation of \nheat recovery steam generators while more efficient combined-cycle gas turbines \nare being used for new capacity expansion.\nii) Managing electricity demand. Demand management is one strategy to reduce the \nuse of fossil fuels in electricity generation. This could be achieved by improving \nenergy efficiency of the stock of energy technologies and increasing the efficiency \nof the use of existing technologies.\n• \nEEC building guidelines and standards and labelling scheme. The Building \nGuidelines and the soon-to-be implemented standards and labelling order \nfor electrical appliances are regulatory frameworks that allow only efficient \ntechnologies to be used in new buildings, and only efficient electrical \nappliances to be sold in the market.\n• \nEnergy management. The planned energy management scheme will ensure \nthat existing equipment and technologies are operating at efficiency levels \nconsistent with industry’s best practices.\n• \nTariff reforms. The progressive electricity tariff structure, which was \nintroduced in 2012, is an economic tool to manage efficient use of energy by \nproviding a financial disincentive to higher energy consumption.\niii) Managing transport energy demand. Among the end-use sectors, the \ncontribution of the transport sector in the overall emissions is significant. Road \ntransport energy demand management is key to reducing fossil fuel consumption \nof the sector. The strategies outlined in the Land Transport Master Plan could be \ncategorised as follows:\n• \nEfficient transport technologies. Promoting the deployment of efficient and \nless-polluting vehicles and fuel technologies is outlined in the 4th strategy of \nthe Land Transport Master Plan. The implementation of measures under this \nstrategy will improve the overall efficiency of the road transport fleet.\n• \nImproving fuel economy through traffic flow improvement. Vehicles often \nreach their optimal fuel economy at specific speeds. Vehicles have lower \nfuel economy at slower speeds. Managing traffic volume and reducing road \ncongestion would improve fuel economy of the vehicle fleet.\n\n\n76\nENERGY OUTLOOK AND ENERGY SAVING POTENTIAL IN EAST ASIA 2019\n• \n Managing private transport demand. The strategy to reduce car dependency \nthrough the development of public transport systems would eventually reduce \nindividual transport demand and consequently reduce fuel consumption. \nIn addition, strengthening the management of the transport infrastructure \nand services would further encourage a shift from individual travel towards a \nmass transport system.\nAlong with economic development to achieve the objectives of Wawasan Brunei 2035, a \nsignificant increase in the activity level of all economic sectors, including the energy sector, \nis expected. Despite the increased focus on EEC, energy demand of Brunei Darussalam \nis projected to increase steadily. In meeting the growing domestic energy demand, fossil \nfuels will remain as the primary source of supply for the country. \nThe results of the model used by this study show the improvement in energy efficiency, \nwhen coupled with the implementation of appropriate legislative measures and \ndevelopment of renewable energy, contributing to the reduction in the TPES and the \nTFEC at 18.7% and 19.2%, respectively. The model also shows that improvement in \nenergy efficiency will help reduce CO2 emissions by 27.9%.\n\n\n77\nCAMBODIA COUNTRY REPORT\nChiphong Sarasy, Ministry of Mines and Energy, Cambodia\n1. Background\nThe Kingdom of Cambodia is located in the lower Mekong region of Southeast Asia. The \ncountry has an area of 181,035 square kilometres; with an 800 kilometre border with \nThailand in the west, Lao People’s Democratic Republic in the north, and Viet Nam in the \neast. The physical landscape is dominated by lowland plains around the Mekong River and \nTonle Sap Lake. About 2.5 million hectares are arable land and over 0.5 million hectares \nare pastureland. \nThe real gross domestic product (GDP) in 2015 was almost US$1 15.9 billion (World \nBank, 2017), comprising agriculture (29%), industry (26.18%), and services (39.43%). \nCambodia’s economy maintained high economic growth exceeding 7% since 2011. The \nMinistry of Economy and Finance predicted that the GDP growth rate will be maintained \nat the 7% range.\nThe population census of Cambodia 2008 revealed 13,388,910 people, 56% of whom \nwere under 24 years old (NIS, 2009). Cambodia’s population in 2015 was 15.5 million. As \nmigration into urban areas has been continuous, the urban population can be more than \n15% of the national population. The population density is about 75 people per square \nkilometres. About 85%–90% reside in rural areas. Phnom Penh, the capital city, has about \n2 million people, and Siem Reap Province has about 100,000.\nCambodia’s power generation facility by fuel type is shown in Table 4.1. The installed capacity \nof hydropower occupied around 55% of the total. The generated energy by hydropower in \n2016 was around 1.2 times as much as in 2015. Cambodia’s hydropower energy potential \nwas estimated with the theoretical potential of about 10,000 megawatts (MW), of which \n50% is in the Mekong mainstream, 40% in its tributaries, and the remaining 10% is in the \nsouthwestern coastal area outside the Mekong River Basin. Hydropower capacity will be \ndeveloped up to 4,000 MW by 2030. Coal-fired power generation will have a capacity of \n403 MW by 2015.\nCHAPTER 4\n1 \nAll US$ in this report are in constant 2010 values unless specified.\n\n\n78\nENERGY OUTLOOK AND ENERGY SAVING POTENTIAL IN EAST ASIA 2019\nTable 4.1: Power Generation Facility by Fuel Type\nNo\nType of Generation\nInstalled Capacity (MW)\nProportion in %\nfor 2016\n2015\n2016\n1\nHydro\n 929.7\n 930.0\n55.3\n2\nDiesel/heavy fuel oil\n 304.6\n 304.2\n18.1\n3\nBiomass \n 19.9\n 17.6\n1.1\n4\nCoal\n 403.0\n 429.2\n25.5\n5\nSolar\n 0.0\n 0.0\n0.00\nTotal\n1,657.2\n1,689.0\n100.00\nMW = megawatt.\nSource: EAC (2017).\nCambodia’s total primary energy supply in 2015 stood at 7 million tons of oil equivalent \n(Mtoe). Renewable energy (mostly biomass) represented the first-largest share of the \ntotal primary energy supply at 62.4% while oil was the second-largest share at 27.4%, \nfollowed by coal at 8.3%. The remaining share is the electricity import (1.9%).\nTotal final energy consumption was about 6 million tons of oil equivalent (Mtoe) in 2015. \nIt is dependent on imports of petroleum products, having no crude oil production or \noil refining facilities. Its electricity supply is dominated by hydro at 45.5% with oil, coal, \nbiomass, and imports accounting for the rest. \n2. Modelling Assumptions\n2.1. GDP and Population\nForecasting energy demand to 2040 assumes that the GDP of Cambodia will grow at an \nannual rate of 5.5%. Its population, on the other hand, is projected to grow at 1.5% per \nyear resulting in a growth rate of GDP per capita of 3.9% per year up to 2040 (Table 4.2).\nTable 4.2: Updated Cambodia Energy Information\nYear\n2015\n2020\n2030\n2040\nAAGR (%) \n2015–2040\nGDP\n15.9\n20.8\n35.5\n60.6\n5.5\nPopulation\n15.5\n16.7\n19.4\n22.5\n1.5\nAAGR = aggregate annual growth rate, GDP = gross domestic product.\nSource: Author’s assumptions based on various consultations.\n\n\n79\n2.2. Electricity Generation\nOn future electricity supply, hydro is expected to dominate Cambodia’s fuel mix in 2040, \nfollowed by coal. This is a big change from the current oil-dominated electricity generation. \nAccording to the Electricity Supply Development Master Plan for 2010–2020, Cambodia \nwill have a total additional installed electricity generation capacity of 3,536 MW, of which \n1,050 MW will come from coal-fired power plants to be installed from 2010 to 2018. \nHydro will make up 2,606 MW of the total. From 2020 to 2040, hydro will meet the \nadditional electricity generation capacity requirements (Tables 4.3 and 4.4). \nTable 4.3: BAU Installed Capacity\nTechnology\nInstalled Capacity (MW)\n2017\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\nCoal\n535\n785\n1,385\n1,985\n2,185\n2,485\nOil\n264\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\nNatural gas\n0\n0\n0\n900\n900\n1500\nHydro\n979\n1,379\n2,523\n3,819\n4,019\n4,619\nOther\nBiomass\n74\n74\n74\n74\n74\n74\nSolar, wind\n10\n10\n10\n10\n300\n300\nBiofuel\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\nElectricity\n416\n416\n416\n416\n416\n416\nTotal\n2,278\n2,664\n4,408\n7,204\n7,894\n9,394\nBAU = Business-As-Usual.\nSource: Author’s assumptions based on administrative data of various agencies.\nTable 4.4: APS Installed Capacity\nTechnology\nInstalled Capacity (MW)\n2017\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\nCoal\n535\n535\n535\n535\n535\n535\nOil\n264\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\nNatural gas\n0\n300\n300\n300\n300\n300\nHydro\n979\n2,000\n2,800\n3,600\n4,800\n5,600\nOther\nBiomass\n74\n150\n200\n300\n400\n500\nSolar, wind\n10\n100\n400\n600\n800\n1,000\nBiofuel\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\nElectricity\n416\n650\n900\n1,200\n1,500\n1,800\nTotal\n2,278\n3,735\n5,135\n6,535\n8,335\n9,735\nAPS = Alternative Policy Scenario, MW = megawatt.\nSource: Author’s assumptions based on administrative data of various agencies.\nCambodia Country Report\n\n\n80\nENERGY OUTLOOK AND ENERGY SAVING POTENTIAL IN EAST ASIA 2019\n2.3. Energy Efficiency and Conservation Policies\nCambodia’s energy efficiency and conservation (EEC) policies aim to achieve an integrated \nand sustainable programme that will facilitate improvements in energy efficiency in the \nmajor energy-consuming sectors and help prevent wasteful fuel consumption. To achieve \nthese aims, the country realises the need to transform the market towards more efficient \nenergy use, increased access to energy efficiency project financing, and the establishment \nof energy efficiency regulatory frameworks. As a start, Cambodia is implementing the \nfollowing pilot projects:\n• \nImproving the efficiency of the overall supply chain for home lighting in rural areas by \nproviding decentralised rural energy services through a new generation of rural energy \nentrepreneurs.\n• \nAssisting in market transformation for home and office electrical appliances through \nbulk purchases and dissemination of high-performance lamps, showcasing of energy-\nefficient products, support to competent organisations for testing and certification \nof energy-efficient products, and establishment of ‘green learning rooms’ in selected \nschools to impart life-long education on the relevance of EEC.\n• \nImproving energy efficiency in buildings and public facilities.\n• \nImproving energy efficiency in industries in cooperation with the United Nations \nIndustrial Development Organization and the Ministry of Industry, Mines and Energy \n(now changed to Ministry of Mines and Energy) to be implemented in the following \nsectors: rice mill, brick kiln, rubber refinery, and garment.\nCambodia has also started preparing an action plan for EEC in cooperation with the Energy \nEfficiency Design sub-working group. Specific actions plans are being drafted for the \nindustry, transport, and ‘others’ sectors. The initial estimates of sector demand reduction \nof existing consumers from these actions plans are 10% by 2015 and 15% by 2035 relative \nto the BAU scenario. These initial estimates were used in forecasting the energy demand \nin the Alternative Policy Scenario (APS).\nThe previous Ministry of Industry, Mines and Energy, in close consultation with the \nEuropean Union Energy Initiative Partnership Dialogue Facility , agreed to launch a project \nto support the Royal Government of Cambodia in the elaboration of the National Energy \nEfficiency Policy, Strategy and Action Plan (MIME, 2013). The inception phase of the \nproject began in August 2012; the project was concluded in April 2013 through a final \nworkshop, which elaborated the recommendations and conclusion in the plan.\n\n\n81\nThe National Energy Efficiency Policy, Strategy and Action Plan targets energy efficiency \nin the following priority areas: industry, end-user products, buildings, rural electricity \ngeneration and distribution, and use of biomass resources for residential and industrial \npurposes.\nThe energy efficiency assumptions in the Long-range Energy Alternatives Planning \nSystem, or LEAP model, are based on the assessment of the energy efficiency potential \nfor buildings, industry, and transport. The overarching target of the National Energy \nEfficiency Policy is to reduce energy demand by 20% in 2035 relative to the BAU scenario. \n2.4. Cambodia’s Intended Nationally Determined Contributions \n \n \n (INDC)\nCambodia’s intended greenhouse gas (GHG) mitigation contribution for the non- \nLULUCF2 sectors, conditional upon the availability of support from the international \ncommunity, will be a reduction of 3,100 total greenhouse gas emissions (Gg CO2e) \ncompared to the baseline emissions of 11,600 Gg CO2e by 2030. This amounts to 27% \nreduction of GHG emissions by 2030 (Table 4.5).\n2 \nLand use, land-use change, and forestry. \nTable 4.5: Cambodia’s INDC Targets\nSector\nPriority Action\nReduction as Gg \nCO2eq and % in \n2030 Compared to \nthe Baseline \nEnergy industry\n• National grid connected renewable energy generation \n(solar energy, hydropower, biomass, and biogas) and \nconnecting decentralised renewable generation to the grid \n• Off-grid electricity such as solar home systems, hydro (pico, \nmini, and micro) \n• Promoting energy efficiency by end users \n1,800 (16%)\nManufacturing \nindustries\nPromoting use of renewable energy and adopting energy \nefficiency for garment factories, rice mills, and brick kilns. \n727 (7%)\nTransport\n• Promoting mass public transport \n• Improving operation and maintenance of vehicles through \nmotor vehicle inspection and eco-driving, and the increased \nuse of hybrid cars, electric vehicles, and bicycles \n390 (3%)\nOther\n• Promoting energy efficiency for buildings and more efficient \ncook stoves \n• Reducing emissions from waste through use of biodigesters \nand water filters \n• Using of renewable energy for irrigation and solar lamps \n155 (1%)\nTotal Savings\n3,100 (27%)\nGg CO2e - total greenhouse gas emissions, INDC = Intended Nationally Determined Contributions. \nSource: Kingdom of Cambodia (2015).\nCambodia Country Report\n\n\n82\nENERGY OUTLOOK AND ENERGY SAVING POTENTIAL IN EAST ASIA 2019\n3. Outlook Results \n3.1. Business-As-Usual Scenario \n3.1.1. \n Final energy consumption\nPrimary energy consumption in Cambodia grew at 4.6% per year, which is a slightly faster \nrate than final energy demand from 2.84 Mtoe in 1995 to 7.04 Mtoe in 2015. Amongst \nthe major energy sources, oil grew the fastest. Oil consumption grew at an average annual \nrate of 6.9% between 1995 and 2015 (Figure 4.1).\nIn the BAU scenario, Cambodia’s primary energy consumption is projected to increase \nat an annual rate of 3.1% per year or 2.2 times, from 7.04 Mtoe in 2015 to 15.24 Mtoe \nin 2040. The fastest growth is expected in hydro, increasing at an annual average rate of \n9.1% between 2015 and 2040, followed by coal (6.7%) and oil (3.7%). The share of hydro \nis projected to increase from 2.4% in 2015 to 9.9% in 2040. This growth in the share is due \nto the huge potential of water reserves available in Cambodia. The share of oil is projected \nto increase from 27.4% in 2015 to 31.2% in 2040 due to the growth of the number of cars \nand motorbikes.\nFigure 4.1: Primary Energy Supply by Source, BAU\nBAU = Business-As-Usual, Mtoe = miilion tons of oil equivalent. \nSource: Author’s calculation.\nNatural Gas\nNuclear\nOil\nCoal\nHydro\nGeothermal\nOthers\n16\n14\n12\n10\n8\n6\n4\n2\n0\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2030\n2040\nMtoe\n\n\n83\nThe strongest growth in demand is projected to occur in the transport sector at an average \nannual rate of 3.9% per year or 2.6 times, from 1.39 Mtoe in 2015 to 3.59 Mtoe in 2040. \nIn addition, the industry sector is projected to grow at an annual rate of 3.5% or 2.3 times, \nfrom 1.03 Mtoe in 2015 to 2.41 Mtoe in 2040, followed by the non-energy sector at 3.2% \n(from 0.05 Mtoe in 2015 to 0.10 Mtoe in 2040) and the ‘others’ sector at 2% (from 3.45 \nMtoe in 2015 to 5.67 Mtoe in 2040).\n3.1.2. \n Final energy demand\n3.1.2.1. By sector\nCambodia’s final energy demand grew at an average annual rate of 4.3% per year, from \n2.54 Mtoe in 1995 to 5.93 Mtoe in 2015.\n \nIn the BAU scenario, driven by assumed strong economic growth and an increasing \npopulation, final energy demand is projected to increase at an average annual rate of 2.8% \nor around 2 times, from 5.93 Mtoe in 2015 to 11.77 Mtoe in 2040 (Figure 4.2).\nFigure 4.2: Final Energy Consumption by Sector, BAU\nBAU = Business-As-Usual, Mtoe = miilion tons of oil equivalent.\nSource: Author’s calculation.\n14\n12\n10\n8\n6\n4\n2\n0\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2030\n2040\nMtoe\nOthers\nTransportation\nIndustry\nNon-energy\nCambodia Country Report\n\n\n84\nENERGY OUTLOOK AND ENERGY SAVING POTENTIAL IN EAST ASIA 2019\n3.1.2.2. By fuel type\nElectricity is projected to exhibit the fastest growth in final energy demand at 8.4% per \nyear, or 7.6 times, from 0.43 Mtoe in 2015 to 3.24 Mtoe in 2040. Oil is projected to have \nthe second-highest growth rate of 3.8% per year or 2.5 times, from 1.87 Mtoe in 2015 to \n4.75 Mtoe in 2040. ‘Others’, which mainly include solid and liquid biofuels, will increase \nat 0.2% per year from 3.62 Mtoe in 2015 to 3.76 Mtoe in 2040 (Figure 4.3).\nFigure 4.3: Final Energy Consumption by Fuel Type, BAU\nBAU = Business-As-Usual, Mtoe = miilion tons of oil equivalent.\nSource: Authors’ calculation.\n14\n12\n10\n8\n6\n4\n2\n0\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2030\n2040\nMtoe\nNatural Gas\nOil\nCoal\nElectricity\nHeat\nOthers\n3.1.3. \n Electricity generation\n \nElectricity generation in Cambodia increased at 16.8% per year from 0.20 TWh in 1995 to \n4.40 TWh in 2015. From 1995 to 2000, electricity was 100% generated by oil-powered \npower plants. By 2015, three other types of power plants had contributed in electricity \ngeneration in Cambodia. Coal-fired power plants have a share of 48.4%, hydro with a \n45.5% share, and ‘others’ with a 0.9% share.\n\n\n85\n3.1.4. \n CO2 emissions\nCO2 emissions from energy consumption are projected to increase by 5.4% per year from \n2.02 million tons of carbon (Mt-C) in 2015 to 7.60 Mt-C in 2040 under the BAU scenario.\nOil is the largest source of carbon emissions; it will increase from 1.39 Mt-C in 2015 to \n3.55 Mt-C in 2040. Emissions from coal would grow the fastest at 6.8% per year, from \n0.63 Mt-C in 2015 to 3.24 Mt-C in 2040 (Figure 4.5).\nIn the BAU scenario, to meet the demand for electricity, power generation is projected to \nincrease at an average rate of 9% per year between 2015 and 2040. The fastest growth in \nelectricity generation will be in ‘others’ (11.7% per year), followed by hydro (9.1% per year) \nand coal (7.5% per year) (Figure 4.4). Generation from oil-fired power plants will decrease \nconsiderably due to high fuel costs.\nFigure 4.4: Power Generation by Fuel Type, BAU\nBAU = Business-As-Usual, TWh = terawatt-hour.\nSource: Author’s calculation.\n45\n40\n35\n30\n25\n20\n15\n10\n5\n0\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2030\n2040\nTWh\nNatural Gas\nNuclear\nOil\nCoal\nHydro\nGeothermal\nOthers\nCambodia Country Report\n\n\n86\nENERGY OUTLOOK AND ENERGY SAVING POTENTIAL IN EAST ASIA 2019\nFigure 4.5: CO2 Emissions from Energy Consumption, BAU\nBAU = Business-As-Usual.\nSource: Author’s calculation.\n8\n7\n6\n5\n4\n3\n2\n1\n0\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2030\n2040\nMillion Tons of Carbon\nNatural Gas\nOil\nCoal\n3.1.5. \n Energy indicators\nPrimary energy intensity had a decreasing trend from US$775 toe/million in 1995 to US$ \n442 toe/million in 2015. In the BAU scenario, energy intensity will further decrease to \nUS$ 251 toe/million in 2040. This indicates that energy will be used more efficiently in \neconomic development. Such is mainly due to the dominance of conventional biomass \nuse in the rural areas of the country, and its future growth will be slower than GDP growth.\nPrimary energy per capita had been increasing from 0.3 toe per person in 1995 to 0.5 \ntoe per person in 2015. In the BAU scenario, energy per capita will further increase to \n0.68 toe per person in 2040. This indicates that living standards of people are improving, \nresulting in increasing energy demand per capita. Figure 4.6 shows various indicators for \nenergy consumption.\n\n\n87\nCO2 per primary energy in the BAU scenario is projected to increase from 0.3 metric tons \nof carbon per toe (t-C/toe) in 2015 to 0.50 t-C/toe in 2040, implying faster growth of \nfossil fuels in total energy consumption. However, CO2 intensity had been increasing from \n108 t-C/million US$ in 1995 to 127 t-C/million US$ in 2015. It will drop to 125 t-C/\nmillion US$ in 2040.\n4. \n Scenario Analysis\n4.1. Alternative Policy Scenario \nThe APS consists of scenarios such as the EEC scenario (APS1), improvement of energy \nefficiency in power generation (APS2), and development of renewable energy (APS3). \nThe scenarios were individually modelled to determine the impact of each on reduction \nof energy consumption and CO2 emissions. Below are the assumptions in each scenario:\nSource: Author’s calculation.\nEnergy Intensity\nEnergy per Capita\nCO2 per Energy\nCO2 Intensity\nCO2 per Capita\nFigure 4.6: Energy and CO2 Indicators \n800\n700\n600\n500\n400\n300\n200\n100\n0\n1990 = 100\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2030\n2040\nCambodia Country Report\n\n\n88\nENERGY OUTLOOK AND ENERGY SAVING POTENTIAL IN EAST ASIA 2019\n• \nAPS1: focus on EEC on the demand side, such as\n- \nenergy demand in all sectors to be equal in numbers in 2015 and reduced by 20% \nby the year 2040 relative to the BAU scenario\n- \nusing efficient motorbikes and hybrid car in road transport\n- \nreplacing inefficient devices with efficient ones in the commercial and residential \nsectors, such as in cooking, lighting, refrigeration, air conditioning. \n• \nAPS2: improvement of energy efficiency in thermal power plants. Energy efficiency of \ncoal and fuel oil thermal power plants is assumed to stay constant at 32% until 2040 \nin the BAU scenario. In the APS, new coal fired power plants are assumed to have \nthermal efficiencies of 39%.\n• \nAPS3: Maximum capacity of 5,000 MW for hydro power plants by 2040 is assumed \nin this scenario.\n• \nAPS5 or APS: combination of APS1 to APS3.\nThe assumptions in the APS were analysed separately to determine the individual impacts \nof each assumption in APS1, APS2, APS3, and APS5. Figure 4.7 shows the changes \nin primary energy supply in all scenarios. APS1 and APS5 have the largest reduction in \nprimary energy supply in 2040 due to the energy efficiency assumptions on the demand \nside. Energy efficiency assumptions in APS1 could reduce primary energy supply in the \nBAU scenario by as much as 12.2 Mtoe or 20%. For APS5, the reduction will be slower, \namounting to 13 Mtoe or 14.4%.\nFigure 4.7: Comparison of Scenarios to Total Primary Energy Supply by 2040\nAPS = Alternative Policy Scenario, BAU = Business-As-Usual, Mtoe = millions of oil equivalent.\nSource: Author’s calculation.\nAPS5\n16\n14\n12\n10\n8\n6\n4\n2\n0\nBAU\nAPS1\nAPS2\nAPS3\nMtoe\nNatural Gas\nNuclear\nOil\nCoal\nHydro\nGeothermal\nOthers\n\n\n89\nFigure 4.8 shows the total electricity generation in 2040 in all scenarios. In APS1, due to \nthe lower electricity demand, the fossil fuel–fired electricity generation will be lower than \n19% compared to the BAU scenario. In APS2, the share is the same as that of the BAU \nscenario. In APS3, due to the assumption of more renewable energy, the fossil fuel–fired \ngeneration will only be 14%. In APS5, where all scenarios are combined, the reduction in \nthe share of fossil energy–based generation will be significant at almost 32.6% lower than \nthe BAU scenario.\nFigure 4.9 compares scenarios of CO2 emissions in 2040. In terms of CO2 emission \nreduction, the energy efficiency assumption in APS1 could reduce emissions by 21.2% \nin 2040 compared with the BAU scenario. In APS2, the installation of more efficient \nnew power plants is projected to reduce emissions by 16.8%. Higher contributions from \nrenewable energy could reduce emissions by 36.9%. All these assumptions combined \n(APS5) could reduce the BAU scenario CO2 emissions by 34.5% in 2040. \nFigure 4.8: Comparison of Scenarios of Electricity Generation by 2040\nSource: Author’s calculation.\n45\n40\n35\n30\n25\n20\n15\n10\n5\n0\nBAU\nAPS1\nAPS2\nAPS3\nTWh\nNatural Gas\nNuclear\nOil\nCoal\nHydro\nGeothermal\nOthers\nAPS5\nCambodia Country Report\n\n\n90\nENERGY OUTLOOK AND ENERGY SAVING POTENTIAL IN EAST ASIA 2019\nFigure 4.9: Comparison of Scenarios to CO2 Emissions, 2040\nAPS = Alternative Policy Scenario, BAU = Business-As-Usual, TWh = terawatt-hour.\nSource: Author’s calculation.\n45\n40\n35\n30\n25\n20\n15\n10\n5\n0\nBAU\nAPS1\nAPS2\nAPS3\nTWh\nNatural Gas\nNuclear\nOil\nCoal\nHydro\nGeothermal\nOthers\nAPS5\n4.2. Energy Saving Potential and CO2 Emissions Reduction\n4.2.2. \n Final energy demand\nIn the APS, final energy demand is projected to increase at a slower rate of 2.8% (compared \nwith 2.8% in the BAU scenario), from 5.93 Mtoe in 2015 to 10.02 Mtoe in 2040 because \nof EEC measures assumed in APS1 in the industry, transport, and ‘others’ (residential and \ncommercial) sectors.\nThe APS final energy demand is 1.8 Mtoe lower than the BAU scenario, indicating that \nthe APS includes savings up to 1.8 Mtoe. The bulk of the savings are expected to occur \nin the ‘others’ sector (0.9 Mtoe), followed by the transport sector (0.5 Mtoe), and the \nindustry sector (0.4 Mtoe).\nAn improvement in end-user technologies and the introduction of energy management \nsystems are expected to contribute to the slower growth rate of consumption, particularly \nin the ‘others’ (residential and commercial), industry, and transport sectors (Figure 4.10).\n\n\n91\n4.2.3. \n Primary energy consumption\nIn the APS, primary energy consumption is projected to have a slower increase rate of \n2.5% per year, from 7.04 Mtoe in 2015 to 13.04 Mtoe in 2040. The savings could mostly \nbe derived from the EEC scenarios on the demand side and development of renewable \nenergy technology (APS3).\nIn the APS, hydro is projected to grow at an average annual rate of 7.0% compared with \nthe 9.1% annual growth in the BAU scenario, followed by coal with a 5.9% annual growth \nrate compared with 6.7% in the BAU scenario, and oil with 3.3% compared with 3.7% in the \nBAU scenario over the same period.\nThe total savings amount to 2.2 Mtoe, which is equivalent to 21.5% of Cambodia’s primary \nenergy consumption in 2040 (Figure 4.11).\nFigure 4.10: Final Energy Consumption by Sector, BAU vs APS\nAPS = Alternative Policy Scenario, BAU = Business-As-Usual, Mtoe = millions of oil equivalent.\nSource: Author’s calculation.\n6.0\n5.0\n4.0\n3.0\n2.0\n1.0\n0\n–14.9%\n–15.0%\n0.0%\nMtoe\nBAU\n2015\n2040\nIndustry\nAPS\nBAU\n2015\n2040\nTransport\nAPS\nBAU\n2015\n2040\nOthers\nAPS\nBAU\n2015\n2040\nNon-energy\nAPS\n–15.0%\nCambodia Country Report\n\n\n92\nENERGY OUTLOOK AND ENERGY SAVING POTENTIAL IN EAST ASIA 2019\nFigure 4.11: Primary Energy Supply by Fuel, BAU and APS\nAPS = Alternative Policy Scenario, BAU = Business-As-Usual, Mtoe - million tons of oil equivalent.\nSource: Authors’ calculation.\n16\n14\n12\n10\n8\n6\n4\n2\n0\nMtoe\nBAU\n2015\n2040\nAPS\n2.19 Mtoe, –14,4%\nThe reduction in consumption, relative to the BAU scenario, comes from EEC measures \non the demand side (APS1), more aggressive uptake of energy efficiency in thermal power \nplants (APS2), and adoption of renewable energy (APS3) on the supply side. Accordingly, \nthe energy saving potential from gas energy sources would be 85.1%, followed by coal at \n16.3%, oil at 8.4%, and ‘others’ at 3.9% (Figure 4.12).\nFigure 4.12: Total Primary Energy Saving Potential by Fuel Type, BAU vs APS\nAPS = Alternative Policy Scenario, BAU = Business-As-Usual, Mtoe = million tons of oil equivalent.\nSource: Author’s calculation.\n7\n6\n5\n4\n3\n2\n1\n0\nMtoe\nBAU\n2015\n2040\nCoal\nAPS\nBAU\n2015\n2040\nOil\nAPS\nBAU\n2015\n2040\nGas\nAPS\nBAU\n2015\n2040\nOthers\nAPS\n–16.3%\n–85.1%\n–8.4%\n–3.9%\n\n\n93\n4.2.4. \n CO2 emissions\nCO2 emissions from energy consumption under the BAU scenario are projected to \nincrease by 5.4% per year from 2.02 (Mt-C) in 2015 to 7.60 Mt-C in 2040. Under the \nAPS, the annual increase in CO2 emissions is projected to be 3.7% per year between 2015 \nand 2040, which represents a 34.5% reduction from the BAU scenario.\nThe CO2 emissions reduction would be mostly derived from EEC measures on the demand \nside (APS1). Improvement of energy efficiency in thermal power plants (APS2) and \ndevelopment of renewable energy technologies (APS3) can also contribute significantly \nto CO2 reduction (Figure 4.13).\n4.2.5. \n Intended Nationally Determined Contributions/Nationally \n \n \n Determined Contributions\nCO2 emissions from energy consumption under the BAU scenario are projected to \nincrease by 5.4% per year from 7.41 Mt-CO2e in 2015 to 27.8 Mt-CO2e in 2040. Under \nthe APS, the annual increase in CO2 emissions is projected to be 3.7% per year between \n2015 and 2040. The APS emission in 2030 will be 3.9 Mt-CO2e lower than BAU, which \nis in line with Cambodia’s INDC.\nFigure 4.13: CO2 Emissions by Fuel Type, BAU and APS\nAPS = Alternative Policy Scenario, BAU = Business-As-Usual, Mtoe = millions of oil equivalent.\nSource: Authors’ calculation.\n8\n7\n6\n5\n4\n3\n2\n1\n0\nMillion Tons of Carbon\nBAU\n2015\n2040\nAPS\n2.62 Mtoe, –34.5%\nCambodia Country Report\n\n\n94\nENERGY OUTLOOK AND ENERGY SAVING POTENTIAL IN EAST ASIA 2019\nScenarios\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\nAAGR (%) \n2015-40\nReference (BAU)\n 7.41 \n 12.00 \n 14.27 \n 17.51 \n 21.56 \n 27.83 \n54357.3%\nEnergy Efficiency (APS1)\n 7.41 \n 11.35 \n 14.48 \n 14.92 \n 15.63 \n 21.93 \n4.4%\nEfficient Supply (APS2)\n 7.41 \n 12.00 \n 13.49 \n 16.21 \n 19.84 \n 23.15 \n4.7%\nRenewable Energy (APS3)\n 7.41 \n 10.57 \n 11.61 \n 12.94 \n 14.79 \n 17.57 \n3.5%\nAPS (Combined APS)\n 7.41 \n 10.80 \n 13.15 \n 13.63 \n 14.29 \n 18.22 \n3.7%\nTable 4.6: Results of CO2 Emissions by Scenario (Million Tons CO2)\nAAGR = average annual growth rate, Alternative Policy Scenario, BAU = Business-As-Usual.\nSource: Author’s calculation.\n5. Key Findings and Policy Implications \nThe above analysis on energy saving potential yields the following key findings:\n• \nEnergy demand in Cambodia is expected to continue to grow significantly, driven by \nrobust economic growth, industrialisation, urbanisation, and population growth. EEC \nis the ‘new source’ of energy, and measures reflected in the APS are estimated to have \nsignificant potential to help meet future demand in a sustainable manner.\n• \nCambodia’s energy intensity will be further reduced due to efficient use of energy.\n• \nThe annual growth of energy demand in the transport sector is projected to be the \nhighest at 3.9% in the BAU scenario and its share will increase continuously from \n23.5% in 2015 to 30.5% in 2040. This shows that the transport sector has a large \nenergy saving potential.\n• \nElectricity demand is increasing at the highest annual growth rate of 8.4% in the BAU \nscenario and is projected to be a slightly lower at 7.7% in the APS. \n• \nHydropower plants will be the major power generation source in Cambodia. Their \nshare in the total power generation output is increasing slightly from 5.5% in 2015, \nleading up to 45.8% in 2040. \n• \nCoal thermal plants will be the second major source of power generation in Cambodia. \nIts share in the total power generation output would decrease continuously from \n48.4% in 2015 to 34.1% in 2040. \n\n\n95\nFrom the findings above and to be able to implement EEC activities in Cambodia \neffectively, the following actions are recommended:\n• \nPromotion of the establishment of targets and road map for EEC implementation. The \ntargets for EEC in Cambodia should be set up for the short, medium, and long term \nand focused on the building and industry sectors. The long-term plan should be set \nup based on an assessment of energy saving potential for all energy sectors, including \nthe residential and commercial sectors, which have a large potential on energy saving \nuntil 2040. Moreover, some activities can promote EEC in Cambodia. Examples \nare (i) support for the development of professionals in the energy conservation \nfield to be responsible persons for energy management and operation, verification \nand monitoring, consultancy, and engineering services provision and the planning, \nsupervision, and promotion of the implementation of energy conservation measures; \n(ii) support for the development of institutional capability of agencies/organisations \nin the public and private sectors responsible for the planning, supervision, and \npromotion of the implementation of energy conservation measures; (iii) support for \nthe operation of energy-saving companies to alleviate technical and financial risks \nof entrepreneurs wishing to implement energy conservation measures; (iv) public \nrelations and provision of knowledge on energy conservation to the general public via \nthe teaching/learning process in educational institutions, fostering youth awareness.\n• \nCompulsory energy labelling for electrical appliances. The annual growth of electricity \ndemand in the residential and commercial sectors is projected to be substantial \ncompared to the other sectors. Compulsory energy labelling for electrical appliances \ncould be an effective management measure to generate energy savings.\n• \nPriority for the development of advanced hydro and coal thermal power technology. Hydro \nand coal thermal power plants will be the major power generation in Cambodia up \nto 2040. Therefore, advanced technologies for both types of resources should be \nprioritised for development from the project design stage.\n• \nPriority for renewable energy development. Renewable energy is an important resource \nfor energy independence, energy security, and GHG emissions abatement. It is \nnecessary to build up the strategy and mechanisms to support renewable energy \ndevelopment.\nCambodia Country Report\n\n\n96\nENERGY OUTLOOK AND ENERGY SAVING POTENTIAL IN EAST ASIA 2019\nReferences \nElectric Authority of Cambodia (EAC) (2017), Report on Power Sector of the Kingdom of \nCambodia. Phnom Penh: EAC. \nKingdom of Cambodia (2015), ‘Cambodia’s Intended Nationally Determined \nContribution’. \nhttps://www4.unfccc.int/sites/submissions/INDC/Published%20\nDocuments/Cambodia/1/Cambodia’s%20INDC%20to%20the%20UNFCCC.pdf \n(accessed 7 September 2017).\nMinistry of Industry, Mines and Energy (MIME) (2013), National Policy, Strategy And \nAction Plan On Energy Efficiency In Cambodia. Phnom Penh: MIME.\nNational Institute of Statistics (NIS) (2009), General Population Census of Cambodia \n2008. National Report on Final Census Results. Phnom Penh, NIS, Ministry of Planning.\nWorld Bank (2017), World Development Index (WDI), Update September 2017. \nWashington, DC: World Bank (accessed 10 October 2017).\n\n\n97\nCHINA COUNTRY REPORT\nYu Hao and Mingyuan Zhao, Center for Energy and Environmental \nPolicy Research, Beijing Institute of Technology, China\n1. Background\n1.1 Natural Conditions and History\nChina (officially known as the People’s Republic of China, the PRC) has a land area of \n9.6 million square kilometres (km2) and is situated in eastern Asia on the western shores \nof the Pacific Ocean. China’s continental coastline extends for about 18,000 kilometres, \nand its vast sea surface is studded with more than 5,000 islands. Due to its size, China’s \nclimate is diverse, ranging from an unbearable 48ºC in the northwest during summer to an \nequally unbearable –40oC in the far north in winter.\nChina has more than 5,000 years of history. The PRC was founded on 1 October 1949. \nChina has been implementing reforms and opening up its economy for 40 years and \nhas established a socialist market economy, thereby charting the course for socialist \nmodernisation with Chinese characteristics. \n1.2 Economy and Population\nChina’s gross domestic product (GDP) in 2017 was around US$12,225 trillion, which \ntranslates into a per capita GDP of around US$8,848.0 (in 2017 US$ terms). China \nis currently the world’s most populous country, with about 1.39 billion people in \n2017 (National Bureau of Statistics, 2017). To mitigate population growth, China has \nimplemented a family planning policy since the 1970s. However, in 2015, the ‘one child’ \npolicy ended, and couples that satisfy the conditions can have two children. China has \nbeen experiencing fast urbanisation at the annual growth rate of about 1% since 1978 \nwhen China’s reform and opening up started. At the end of 2017, around 58.5% of the \npopulation lived in urban areas.\nCHAPTER 5\n\n\n98\nENERGY OUTLOOK AND ENERGY SAVING POTENTIAL IN EAST ASIA 2019\n1.3 Energy Situation\nIn terms of energy resources, China is endowed with coal, oil, and gas reserves and \ntremendous hydropower potential. China is the world’s largest coal producer and has the \nthird-largest coal reserves, with recoverable reserves of 114.5 billion tons. In 2015, the \ncountry produced 3.75 billion tons of raw coal. China is still a major crude oil producer, \nwith output of 214.6 million tons of crude oil in 2015. However, driven by very fast \nincreases in oil demand, China became an oil importer in the 1990s. In 2014, the amount \nof net imported oil reached 328 million tons with a growth rate of 6.4% and a dependence \nlevel of more than 60%. China is also a large producer and exporter of energy-intensive \nitems. In 2015, it produced 2.36 billion tons of cement and 1.12 billion tons of finished \nsteel, of which 112 million tons were exported (National Bureau of Statistics and China \nEnergy Statistics Yearbook).\nChina’s per capita energy reserves are considerably lower than those of the world average. \nThe per capita average of both coal and hydropower resources is only about 50% of the \nworld average, while the per capita average of both oil and natural gas reserves is only \nabout one-fifteenth of the world average. The per capita average of arable land is less than \n30% of the world average, which hinders the development of biomass energy.\nSince 1990, coal has dominated primary energy consumption, at 60.6%, while oil, natural \ngas, and hydro consumption accounted for 13.6%, 1.5%, and 1.3%, respectively. However, \nbiomass consumption represented 23%, which is only lower than that of coal consumption. \nIn 2015, coal was still a major fuel, with a higher share of about 66.7%. The share of other \nenergy sources increased from 1990 levels to 18.0% for oil, 5.3% for gas, and 3.2% for \nhydro, but the share of biomass decreased to 3.5%. Primary energy consumption in China \nincreased at an average annual rate of around 5% from 870.7 million tons of oil equivalent \n(Mtoe) in 1990 to 2,973.3 Mtoe in 2015. Energy intensity (primary energy demand per \nunit of GDP) declined from 1,050 tons of oil equivalent per million US$ in 1990 to 344 \ntons of oil equivalent per million US$ in 2015.\nFinal energy consumption in China increased at a lower average annual rate of 4.4%, from \n664.2 Mtoe in 1990 to 1,905.7 Mtoe in 2015. Coal accounted for 47.9% of final energy \nconsumption in 1990 and 36.8% in 2015. In 1990, oil consumption accounted for 12.7% \nof total final energy consumption and had increased rapidly at 7.4% per year between \n1990 and 2015, significantly increasing its share to 25.2% in 2015. Both electricity and \nnatural gas consumption grew sharply at 16.0% and 5.5% per year, respectively, between \n1990 and 2015. It makes the shares of electricity and natural gas consumption increase \nfrom 5.9% and 1.3% in 1990 to 21.9% and 5.5% in 2015. In 2015, the share of electricity \nconsumption had almost reached the same as that of oil consumption.\n\n\n99\nIndustry is the major energy-consuming sector in China, followed by the residential and \ncommercial (‘others’) sectors. The share of industry consumption increased from 36.7% \nin 1990 to 50.7% in 2015. Conversely, the share of energy consumption in the ‘others’ \nsector declined from 51.8% in 1990 to 25.4% in 2015 because of relatively faster growth \nin the industry and transport sectors.\nPower in China is mainly generated from coal-fired power plants, whose electricity \ngeneration accounted for around 71% of the total amount in 1990. By 2015, this share \nincreased to 78.2%. The share of hydro was 20.4% in 1990 but declined to 16.4% in 2015. \nGas and oil, collectively, accounted for about 2.7% of total generation in 2015. The share \nof nuclear power increased to about 2.9% in 2015.\nThe Chinese government is pushing for the development of a modern energy industry. \nResource conservation and environmental protection are two basic state policies, giving \nprominence to building a resource-conserving and environment-friendly society in the \ncourse of its industrialisation and modernisation.\n2. Modelling Assumptions\n2.1. Population and Gross Domestic Product\nThe model results for China have been developed by the Institute of Energy Economics, \nJapan and were taken from modelling of the Business-As-Usual (BAU) scenario and the \nAlternative Policy Scenarios (APS).\nChina’s population increased from 1.135 billion in 1990 to 1.375 billion in 2015. It is \nassumed to increase at an average rate of 0.2% per year in 2015–2040, the projection \nperiod. The population will peak at 1.450 billion around 2030 and reach 1.428 billion by \n2040.\nChina’s economy grew at an average annual rate of 10.2% from US$530.6 billion in 1990 \nto about US$4.913 trillion in 2013 (in 2005 US$ terms). In this study, GDP is assumed \nto grow at a slower rate of 6.5% per year from 2015 to 2020 because of the ‘new normal’ \nstate of China’s economy, 5.3% per year in 2020–2030, and 4.2% per year in 2030–2040. \nThe average annual growth rate of GDP in 2015–2040 is 5.1%. It is calculated to reach \nUS$31.116 trillion by 2040. Given GDP and population assumptions, GDP per capita in \nChina is assumed to increase from around US$6,500 per capita in 2015 to US$22,400 \nper capita in 2040.\nChina Country Report\n\n\n100\nENERGY OUTLOOK AND ENERGY SAVING POTENTIAL IN EAST ASIA 2019\n2.2. Energy and Climate Change Policies and their Performance\nAlthough China is still a developing country and its GDP per capita is around one-seventh \nthat of the United States (according to nominal exchange rate) in 2015, the government \nhas set ambitious goals of reducing energy intensity and addressing climate change issues. \nAccording to the data from relevant official departments, in the last 5 years, China has \nachieved significant energy conservation and remarkable progress in environmental \nprotection and climate change mitigation.\nChina’s Outline of the 13th Five-Year Plan (2016–2020) for the National Economic and \nSocial Development stipulates that, by 2020, energy consumption per unit of GDP will \ndrop by 15% from 2016. To achieve this goal, the government has already implemented \nadministrative, market-based, and legal measures to promote energy conservation. \nEnergy intensity reduction goals are assigned to provincial governments and progress is \nannounced publicly every year. During the 12th Five-Year Plan (2011–2015), energy \nconsumption grew at the rate of 3.6% and GDP increased at the rate of 7.8%. Accordingly, \nenergy intensity decreased by 18.2%, successfully achieving the target of 16%. Energy \nconsumption per unit of GDP in 2015 decreased by 5.6% compared with that of 2014.\nIn addition to energy intensity targets, controlling the total amount of energy consumption \nis proposed. According to the Energy Development Strategic Action Plan (2014–2020), \nChina’s coal consumption (primary energy consumption) would be controlled at 2,940 \nMtoe in 2020 and primary energy consumption would be controlled at 3,362 Mtoe in \n2020. According to the 13th Five-Year Plan of Energy Development, by 2020, the ratio \nof coal consumption to total energy consumption should be lowered to at most 60%, and \nnatural gas consumption should account for 10% of the total amount. In addition, the \namount of new energy vehicles will reach 2 million.\nChina announced its goal of reducing CO2 emissions per GDP (carbon intensity) by \n40%–45% by 2020 and 60%–65% by 2030 from the 2005 level. Apart from the carbon \nintensity target, China also declared that the CO2 emissions will reach their peak at around \n2030. To meet the target, China has implemented ambitious energy efficiency and fuel-\nswitching policies. For instance, the government proclaimed its goal of cultivating 40 \nmillion hectares of forested land to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions. In 2014, China’s \nCO2 emissions per unit of GDP dropped by 9.1% compared to the level of 2013. \n\n\n101\nChina also exerted great effort to develop non-fossil fuels and accelerate the development \nof renewable energy. The National People’s Congress passed the Renewable Energy \nDevelopment Law of China in 2005 to support renewable energy development in the \ncountry. The government also announced the target of increasing the share of non-fossil \nenergy to about 15% by 2020 (measured in coal-equivalent) and about 20% in 2030. \nSubsidisation policies have also been developed to encourage the development of wind \npower, solar photovoltaic (PV), and biomass. In 2015, China invested US$102.9 billion \non renewable energy, accounting for 36% of the total amount in the world. By the end of \n2015, power generation capacity had reached 1,508 gigawatts (GW). Within this, the \ncapacity of hydropower, which ranked first globally, reached 319 GW, increasing at a \ngrowth rate of 4.9%; the capacity of nuclear power plants was 26.08 GW; on-grid wind \npower capacity, which was the largest in the world, amounted to 129.34 GW, increasing \n33.5% year on year; on-grid solar power reached 43.18 GW, growing 73.7% from a year \nearlier. The installed electricity capacity of non-fossil fuel such as hydro, nuclear, wind, \nand solar energy – in 2015 took up 34.3% of the whole, 1.5% higher than that of 2014. \nThe electricity generated from non-fossil fuels accounted for 25.1% of the total on-grid \nelectricity in 2015. China’s current installed capacity, under-construction capacity, and \ngeneration of hydropower, the accumulative installed capacity of PV solar power, and \nthe capacity of under-construction nuclear power all rank first in the world, which have \npositively contributed to addressing the problem of global climate change.\nAfter the evaluation in 2015, China phased out the backward production capacity in the \nfollowing industries: small thermal power units (4.23 GW), cement (50 million tons), \nand steel (30 million tons). To consume the surplus production capacity, from 2016 no \nnew coal mine projects will be approved for 3 years, and steel production capacity will \ndecrease by between 100 million and 150 million tons over 5 years.\nThe 2015 scenario analyses set five APSs: APS1 – energy efficiency and conservation \n(EEC) in the final consumption sectors; APS2 – EEC in thermal efficiency in coal, oil- \nand gas-fired power generation; APS3 – increase of hydro, geothermal, and new and \nrenewable energy; APS4 – increase in nuclear energy; APS5 – implement APS1 to APS4. \nIf not specifically declared, all results shown in this chapter under the APS refer to APS5.\nChina Country Report\n\n\n102\nENERGY OUTLOOK AND ENERGY SAVING POTENTIAL IN EAST ASIA 2019\n3. Outlook Results\n3.1. Total Final Energy Consumption\nBetween 2015 and 2040, China’s final energy consumption is projected to grow slowly, \nreflecting lower assumed economic and population growth. \nBusiness-As-Usual Scenario\nFinal energy consumption is projected to increase at an average rate of 1.3% per year \nbetween 2015 and 2040. Transport sector consumption is projected to grow the fastest, \nincreasing by 2.7% a year, followed by the non-energy sector of 1.9%. Energy consumption \nin the industry sector is projected to grow at an average annual rate of 0.2%. Figure 5.1 \nshows China’s final energy consumption by sector under the BAU scenario.\nAmongst energy sources, natural gas consumption in the BAU scenario, which is \nprojected to exhibit the fastest growth, will increase by 5.2% per year, from 158.5 Mtoe in \n2015 to 556.5 Mtoe in 2040. Though coal is still a large portion in the whole final energy \nconsumption, it is projected to increase at such a lower growth rate, -0.1% per year, \nachieving 1938.6 Mtoe in 2040, compared with -0.7% per year over the last 2 decades. \nConsumption of electricity and heat is projected to increase at an average annual rate of \n2.3% and 0.8%, respectively, over the same period, achieving 737.6 Mtoe and 110.0 Mtoe \nin 2040. Oil is projected to grow by 1.9% annually to around 853.4 Mtoe in 2040. Figure \n5.2 shows China’s final energy consumption by fuel type under the BAU scenario.\nFigure 5.1: Final Energy Consumption by Sector, BAU\nBAU = Business-As-Usual, Mtoe = million tons of oil equivalent.\nSource: Authors’ calculation.\n3,000\n2,500\n2,000\n1,500\n1,000\n500\n0\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2030\n2040\nMtoe\nOthers\nTransport\nIndustry\nNon-energy\n654\n781\n1,906\n2,134\n2,421\n2,602\n\n\n103\nAlternative Policy Scenario \nIn the APS, final energy consumption is projected to increase by 0.6% per year, from \n2,973.3 Mtoe in 2015 to 3,494.9 Mtoe in 2040, as a result of EEC programmes. An \nimprovement in end-use technologies and the introduction of energy management \nsystems are expected to contribute to slower energy growth in all sectors, particularly \nin the commercial, residential, and transport sectors. Figure 5.3 shows the final energy \nconsumption in China in 2015 and 2040 in both the BAU scenario and the APS.\nFigure 5.2: Final Energy Consumption by Fuel Type, BAU (1990–2040)\nBAU = Business-As-Usual, Mtoe = million tons of oil equivalent.\nSource: Authors’ calculation.\n3,000\n2,500\n2,000\n1,500\n1,000\n500\n0\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2030\n2040\nMtoe\n654\n781\n1,906\n 2,134\n2,421\n2,602\nNatural Gas\nOil\nCoal\nElectricity\nHeat\nOthers\nFigure 5.3: Final Energy Consumption, BAU and APS (2015 and 2040)\nAPS = Alternative Policy Scenario, BAU = Business-As-Usual, Mtoe = million tons of oil equivalent.\nSource: Authors’ calculation.\n1200\n1000\n800\n600\n400\n200\n0\nMtoe\nBAU\n2015\n2040\nIndustry\nAPS\nBAU\n2015\n2040\nTransport\nAPS\nBAU\n2015\n2040\nOthers\nAPS\nBAU\n2015\n2040\nNon-energy\nAPS\nChina Country Report\n\n\n104\nENERGY OUTLOOK AND ENERGY SAVING POTENTIAL IN EAST ASIA 2019\n3.2. Primary Energy Supply\nPrimary energy supply in China is projected to grow at a slower pace than in the past years. \nGrowth in primary energy supply is also expected to be slightly slower than final energy \nconsumption because of improved efficiency in the energy transformation sector.\nBusiness-As-Usual Scenario\nIn the BAU scenario, China’s primary energy supply is projected to increase at an average \nannual rate of 1.2% per year to 4,014.9 Mtoe in 2040. Coal will still constitute the largest \nshare in total primary energy, but its growth is expected to be slower and decreasing \nby -0.1% a year on average. Consequently, the share of coal in total primary energy is \nprojected to decline from 66.7% in 2015 to 48.3% in 2040.\nNuclear energy is projected to exhibit the fastest growth between 2015 and 2040, \nincreasing at an annual average rate of 7.2%, followed by natural gas at 5.2%. Oil and hydro \nare projected to grow at lower rates of 1.9% and 1.1% per year, respectively. The share of \nnatural gas is projected to increase from 5.3% in 2015 to 13.9% in 2040, whereas the share \nof nuclear will increase from 1.5% to 6.3%. The share of oil is projected to increase from \n18% in 2015 to 21.3% in 2040, and hydro is projected to decrease from 3.2% in 2015 to \n3.1% in 2040. Figure 5.4 shows China’s primary energy supply by energy type under the \nBAU scenario.\nBAU = Business-As-Usual, Mtoe = million tons of oil equivalent.\nSource: Authors’ calculation.\nFigure 5.4: Primary Energy Supply by Energy Type, BAU (1990–2040)\n4,500\n4,000\n3,500\n3,000\n2,500\n2,000\n1,500\n1,000\n500\n0\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2030\n2040\nMtoe\n871\n1,130\n2,973\n3,294\n3,735\n4,015\nCoal\nOil\nNatural gas\nNuclear\nHydro\nGeothermal\nOthers\n\n\n105\nAlternative Policy Scenario \nIn the APS, primary energy consumption is projected to increase by 0.6% per year between \n2015 and 2040, reaching 3,494.9 Mtoe by 2040. The growth in primary energy supply \nis projected to be slower under the APS than the BAU scenario (Figure 5.5). Coal is \nprojected to decrease by -1.1% a year, oil by 1.4% a year, and natural gas by 4.1% a year. For \nnuclear, the average annual growth rate will be higher than the BAU scenario, increasing \nby 8.7% a year between 2015 and 2040. The growth rate of hydro in the APS is expected \nto be higher than that of the BAU scenario, increasing by 1.3% per year. The consumption \nmitigated in the APS is achieved through EEC measures on the demand side.\n3.3. Projected Energy Savings\nThe implementation of EEC goals and action plans in China could reduce primary energy \nsupply in 2040 by about 267.3 Mtoe under the APS relative to the BAU scenario. In \nthe APS, China’s primary energy demand is around 10.3% lower than the BAU scenario \n(Figure 5.6).\nIn terms of final energy consumption, there are estimated savings of 110.6 Mtoe in the \nindustry sector, 71.5 Mtoe in the transport sector, and 85 Mtoe in the ‘others’ sector in \n2040 under the APS.\nFigure 5.5: Primary Energy Supply by Source, BAU and APS (2015 and 2040)\nAPS = Alternative Policy Scenario, BAU = Business-As-Usual, Mtoe = million tons of oil equivalent.\nSource: Authors’ calculation.\n2,500\n2,000\n1,500\n1,000\n500\n0\n–11.9%\nMtoe\nBAU\n2015\n2040\nCoal\nAPS\nBAU\n2015\n2040\nOil\nAPS\nBAU\n2015\n2040\nGas\nAPS\nBAU\n2015\n2040\nOthers\nAPS\n–22.5%\n–21.8%\n20.8%\nChina Country Report\n\n\n106\nENERGY OUTLOOK AND ENERGY SAVING POTENTIAL IN EAST ASIA 2019\nFigure 5.6: Total Primary Energy Supply, BAU and APS (2015 and 2040)\nAPS = Alternative Policy Scenario, BAU = Business-As-Usual, Mtoe = million tons of oil equivalent.\nSource: Authors’ calculation.\n4,500\n4,000\n3,500\n3,000\n2,500\n2,000\n1,500\n1,000\n500\n0\nMtoe\nBAU\n2015\n2040\nAPS\n3.4. CO2 Emissions from Energy Consumption\nCO2 emissions from energy consumption are projected to increase by 0.6% per year, from \n2,545.4 million tons of carbon (Mt-C) in 2015 to 2930.9 Mt-C in 2040, under the BAU \nscenario. This percentage increase is lower than that in primary energy supply (1.3%) over \nthe same period, indicating improved emissions intensity in China’s economy.\nIn the APS, the annual increase in CO2 emissions between 2015 and 2040 is projected \nto be -0.4%. This rate is also lower than the average annual growth rate in primary energy \nsupply over the same period. The difference between the APS and the BAU scenario CO2 \nemissions growth rates indicates that the energy-saving goals and action plans of China \nare effective in reducing CO2 emissions (Figure 5.7).\n\n\n107\n3.5. Power Generation\nPower generation in China is projected to grow more slowly between 2015 and 2040 than \nin the last decade. \nBusiness-As-Usual Scenario\nIn the BAU scenario, power generation in China is projected to grow at a slower pace, \nby 2.5% per year from 5,844.2 terawatt-hour (TWh) in 2015 to 10,054.5 TWh in 2040 \n(Figure 5.8).\nThe share of coal power under the BAU scenario is projected to experience a decreasing \ntrend from 70.3% in 2015 to 48.6% in 2040. Conversely, the share of natural gas and \nnuclear are both projected to grow because of cleanness, from 2.5% and 2.9% in 2015 to \n11.3% and 9.6% in 2040, respectively. The share of oil is projected to decrease slightly. \nIn addition, other methods of power generation are projected to be increasing. The fast \ndevelopment of PV power generation in China is a typical example reflecting the country’s \nclean power generation tendency. China’s thermal efficiency by fuel under the BAU \nscenario is projected to increase between 2015 and 2040 (Figure 5.9).\nFigure 5.7: CO2 Emissions from Energy Consumption, BAU and APS (2015 and 2040)\nBAU = Business-As-Usual, Mtoe = million tons of oil equivalent.\nSource: Authors’ calculation.\n3,500\n3,000\n2,500\n2,000\n1,500\n1,000\n500\n0\nMillion Tons of Carbon\nBAU\n2015\n2040\nAPS\nChina Country Report\n\n\n108\nENERGY OUTLOOK AND ENERGY SAVING POTENTIAL IN EAST ASIA 2019\nFigure 5.8: Power Generation, BAU (1990–2040)\nBAU = business as usual, TWh = terawatt-hour.\nSource: Authors’ calculation.\n12,000\n10,000\n8,000\n6,000\n4,000\n2,000\n0\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2030\n2040\nTWh\nNatura Gas\nNuclear\nOil\nCoal\nHydro\nGeothermal\nOthers\n621\n1,356\n5,844\n6,891\n8,638\n10,054\nFigure 5.9: Thermal Efficiency by Fuel, BAU \nBAU = Business-As-Usual.\nSource: Authors’ calculation.\n140\n120\n100\n80\n60\n40\n20\n0\n%\n%\n1990\n2000\n2013\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n Natural Gas\n38.9\n38.9\n38.9\n39.8\n42.2\n44.5\n46.8\n49.1\n51.4\n Oil\n35.0\n35.0\n35.0\n35.6\n36.0\n36.3\n36.7\n37.0\n37.4\n Coal\n28.8\n32.0\n38.0\n38.1\n38.2\n38.4\n38.6\n38.8\n38.9\n\n\n109\nAlternative Policy Scenario\nIn the APS, total power generation will increase by 2.2% per year between 2015 and \n2040. By 2040, total power generation output is projected to reach 10,054.5 TWh. \nExcept for coal-fired power, oil power, and natural gas power, the annual growth rate per \nyear between 2015 and 2040 of all other fuels under the APS is projected to grow faster \nthan in the BAU scenario. In 2040, nuclear power, hydro power, geothermal power, and \n‘others’ are projected to increase under the APS by 7.2%, 1.1%, 5.1%, 7.0% in 2015–2040, \nrespectively.\n3.6. Energy Intensity\nAccording to the assumed economic and population data, along with the projected \nenergy information of China, energy intensity defined as total primary energy supply/GDP \n(TPES/GDP) and energy per capita are accounted and illustrated in Figure 5.10, along \nwith other vital energy indicators under the BAU scenario. From 1990 to 2015, China’s \nenergy intensity experienced a remarkable drop through efforts on energy efficiency. In \n2040, it is projected to drop to about 257 toe per million (in 2005 US$ terms). With \nimproved living standards in China, energy per capita under the BAU scenario is projected \nto reach 3.18 toe per person in 2040. Compared with the energy intensity in the BAU \nscenario, that in the APS is projected to show a faster decreasing rate of 3.6% from 2015 \nto 2040.\nBAU = Business-As-Usual.\nSource: Authors’ calculation.\nFigure 5.10: Energy Indicators, BAU (1990–2040)\nEnergy Intensity\nEnergy per Capita\nCO2 per Energy\nCO2 Intensity\nCO2 per Capita\n400\n350\n300\n250\n200\n150\n100\n50\n0\n1990 = 100\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2030\n2040\nChina Country Report\n\n\n110\nENERGY OUTLOOK AND ENERGY SAVING POTENTIAL IN EAST ASIA 2019\n4. \n Implications and Policy Recommendations\nFor China, which is the world’s largest developing country, eliminating poverty and \nimproving the quality of life have always been paramount tasks. In recent years, China has \nwitnessed fast growth in its economy, but the urbanisation rate is still low, with 58.5% in \n2017. \nOn the other hand, being the world’s biggest energy consumer and CO2 emitter, China \nalso faces great pressure to save energy and reduce CO2. Since the1990s, China has \nmade great efforts and set ambitious targets on energy conservation and climate change \nmitigation. During the 2014 Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summits, China and the \nUnited States issued a joint announcement on climate change, in which China vowed \nto decrease CO2 emissions from its peak and increase the share of non-fossil fuels in \nprimary energy consumption to around 20% by 2030. In April 2016, China signed the \nParis Agreement, which includes the above commitments in addition to the provision \nthat China cut its carbon emissions per unit of GDP by 60%–65% by 2030 from the 2005 \nlevels. In the 13th Five-Year Plan (2016–2020), China plans to control the total energy \nconsumption within 41 billion tons of standard coal and decrease its CO2 emissions per \nunit of GDP by 18% compared with 2015 levels.\nAs China’s GDP keeps growing, albeit at a slower pace compared with that of the last \n20 years, its energy demand and CO2 emissions will increase in the foreseeable future \naccordingly. However, energy intensity (energy demand per unit of GDP) and emissions \nintensity (CO2 emissions per unit of GDP) are required to decrease considering China’s \ntargets. According to the model results, if sound energy efficiency and conservation \npolicies could be implemented, China could reduce its total primary energy consumption \nby around 13.0% and CO2 emissions by about 21.6% by 2040. \nCoal consumption has decreased since 2014; it decreased by 3.7% in 2015. It is projected \nto be cut by 22.5% in the APS compared with the BAU scenario. To improve urban air \nquality, Chinese metropolises, such as Beijing and Shanghai, have shown great ambitions \nin controlling the use of coal, so the relatively low growth rate of coal consumption may \npersist in the following years. Therefore, clean and low-carbon energies are encouraged \nto develop, especially renewable and nuclear energy in the power generation sector. To \noptimise the energy structure, policies such as on energy and carbon taxes should be \ncarried out, to limit the energy- and pollution-intensive industries. On the other hand, \nmore market-based measures, for instance, electricity market reform, energy pricing \nreform, and green certificate trade, are needed to make energy more market-oriented and \nto motivate more enterprises to act.\n\n\n111\nThe energy efficiency improvement in APS5 has the largest potential to reduce CO2 \nemissions. Based on our calculation of 2015 scenario, within the APS5, the industry \nsector can potentially reduce energy consumption by 10.9% based on the APS5 results. \nMeasures such as the closure of small and inefficient power plants, coal mines, and \nsmall energy-intensive plants in industries like cement and steel, and stricter approval \nrequirements for energy-intensive industries are necessarily implemented. Moreover, \nthe change in industrial structure (heavy to light industries or industry to services) is also \nneeded. Furthermore, since China has entered the ‘new normal’ state of economy, in \nwhich economic growth rate would be moderately high, and the GDP of the tertiary sector \nhas accounted for half of the total amount, in the long run, it is more important to enhance \nenergy efficiency in the residential, commercial, and transport sectors for energy saving \nand CO2 reduction. Moreover, the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) proposed by President Xi \nin 2013 is also a good chance to further save energy and reduce emissions. The countries \nalong the route of BRI contribute to 50% of global energy consumption and more than \n60% of global carbon emissions. Thus, establishing a BRI low-carbon community is greatly \nsignificant to the improvement of energy structure and emissions reduction in both China \nand the world.\nReference\nNational Bureau of Statistics (2017), China Statistical Yearbook 2017 (Chinese-English \nEdition). Beijing: China Statistics Press.\nChina Country Report\n\n\n112\nENERGY OUTLOOK AND ENERGY SAVING POTENTIAL IN EAST ASIA 2019\nINDIA COUNTRY REPORT\na,b\n1. Country Brief\nIndia, also called the Republic of India, is a country in South Asia and occupies an area \nof around 3.1 million square kilometres. It is the seventh-largest country by area, the \nsecond-most populous country (with over 1.2 billion people), and the most populous \ndemocracy in the world. It is bounded by the Indian Ocean in the south, the Arabian \nSea in the southwest, and the Bay of Bengal in the southeast. It shares land borders with \nPakistan to the west; China, Nepal, and Bhutan to the northeast; and Bangladesh and \nMyanmar to the east. \nIts climate comprises a wide range of weather conditions across a vast geographic scale and \nvaried topography, making generalisations difficult. Based on the Köppen system, India \nhosts six major climatic subtypes, ranging from arid desert in the west, alpine tundra and \nglaciers in the north, and humid tropical regions supporting rainforests in the southwest \nand the island territories. Many regions have starkly different microclimates.\nAccording to the International Monetary Fund (IMF, 2018), India’s economy in 2017 was \nnominally worth US$2.611 trillion. It is the sixth-largest economy by market exchange \nrate, and the third-largest by purchasing power parity (PPP) at US$9.459 trillion. With its \naverage annual gross domestic product (GDP) growth rate of 5.8% over the past 2 decades \nand reaching 6.1% in 2011–2012, India is one of the world’s fastest-growing economies. \nHowever, the country ranks 140th in the world in nominal GDP per capita and 129th in \nGDP per capita at PPP. Despite economic growth during recent decades, India continues \nto face socio-economic challenges, such as poverty and modern energy access. \nCHAPTER 6\nAtul Kumar and Michael O. Dioha, TERI School of Advanced Studies, \nIndia \nLu Zheng, The Institute of Energy Economics, Japan\na \nBased on model run and broad assumptions by The Institute of Energy Economics, Japan, with inputs provided by \nTERI School of Advanced Studies. \nb \nUnless otherwise specified, the information in figures come from the results of the model run. \n\n\n113\n2. Energy Situation\nEnergy systems in India have evolved over the last 6 decades along with the country’s \neconomic development, supporting the aspiration of 1.2 billion people within the \nframework of democratic polity, a globally integrated economy, and an environmentally \nsensitive regime. The ever-increasing demand of energy has posed tremendous pressure \non its limited resources and has necessitated optimum use of its resources. India has \npursued a reformed development agenda since 1991. Significant effort has gone into \nimproving energy availability to support the country’s development initiatives. \nIndia is fuelled by primary (coal and lignite, natural gas), secondary (electricity and \npetroleum products), and renewable energy sources. India’s energy mix is dominated by \ncoal. Coal forms the largest source of primary energy in India, accounting for around 50% \nof the total primary energy supply (GoI, 2017). Coal production has witnessed an upward \ntrend. It was about 430.83 million tons (MTs) in 2006–2007, and increased to 639.23 \nMTs in 2015–2016 with a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 4.02%. Production of \ncrude petroleum increased from 33.99 MTs in 2006–2007 to 36.95 MTs in 2015–2016, \na CAGR of about 0.84%. \nCrude oil imports increased by 10 MT, although the value of imports fell for the second \nyear in a row. The total share of imported crude oil in India’s total supply was 84.3% in \n2015/16. India’s refining capacity increased to 230 MT per annum (MMTPA) owing to \nthe commissioning of the Paradip refinery in Odisha, with a capacity of 15 MMTPA. The \nproduction of natural gas declined for the fifth year in a row to 32.2 billion cubic metres \nin 2015/16. Imports of liquefied natural gas grew to 19.95 MT in 2015/16. Import \ndependency of natural gas stands at 46%.\nAs of 31 January 2017, the total installed capacity of the power sector in India was 330 \ngigwatts (GW), with thermal power having the largest share of 67% in total installed \ncapacity (Figure 6.1).\nIndia Country Report\n\n\n114\nENERGY OUTLOOK AND ENERGY SAVING POTENTIAL IN EAST ASIA 2019\nThe all-India gross electricity generation from utilities, excluding that from captive \ngenerating plants, was 670,654 gigawatt-hours (GWh) in 2006–2007. It rose to \n1,116,850 GWh in 2014–2015 (CSO, 2017). During 2015–2016, the production of \nelectricity from utilities has further increased to 1,167,584 GWh, registering an annual \ngrowth rate of about 4.54%. Total electricity generation in the country from utilities and \nnon-utilities in 2015–2016 was 1,335,956 GWh. Out of the total electricity generated \nthrough utilities, 943,013 GWh was generated from thermal, 121,377 GWh was from \nhydro, and 37,414 GWh was generated from nuclear sources. Total output from non-\nutilities was 168,372 GWh.\nAs of June 2017, the cumulative installed capacity from renewable sources was 58.3 \nGW in India, which was 17% of the total installed capacity of 330 GW. Currently, India \nranks sixth worldwide in renewable energy capacity (REN21, 2017). The current installed \nnuclear power capacity of the country is 5,780 MW, and it is expected to increase to \n10,080 MW by 2019. India is ranked 12th in terms of power generation from nuclear \nsources as per data published in May 2015 by the Power Reactor Information System of \nthe International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). India has signed nuclear agreements with \nthe United States (US), France, Russia, Namibia, Mongolia, Republic of Korea, Argentine \nRepublic, United Kingdom, Republic of Kazakhstan, Canada, Sri Lanka, and Australia \n(PIB, 2015). India’s installed capacity of hydro was 44,189.43 MW as of 31 January 2017 \n(CEA, 2017b). Of the all-India target of 10,897 MW under the Twelfth Five-Year Plan, \n3,311.02 MW of hydro capacity has been achieved (as of August 2015).\nFigure 6.1: Grid Power Sources (GW) and their Percentage Shares up to June 2017\nGW = gigawatt.\nSources: CEA (2017a), MNRE (2017).\nSolar 13.1 GW (22%)\nWind 32.5 GW (56%)\nSmall Hydro 4.4 GW (8%)\nBio Power 8.2 GW (14%)\nWaste-to-power 0.1 GW (0.2%)\nThermal\nNuclear\nLarge Hydro\nRenewable\n220,6 GW \n(67%)\n44,6 GW \n(14%)\n6,8 GW \n(2%)\n58,3 GW \n(17%)\n\n\n115\nIndia Country Report\nIndia’s final energy consumption has increased more than seven times since 1980, with \nthe industry sector consuming the largest amount of energy. In 2015–2016, the industry \nsector accounted for about 52% of final energy consumption. This is followed by the \ntransport sector (24%), and then the residential and commercial sectors (17%). The \nagriculture sector accounts for the least share of final commercial energy demand during \nthe same period. \n3. Modelling Assumptions\nIndia’s GDP is assumed to grow from US$ 2.29 trillion of 2010 in 2015 to around US$ \n11.49 trillion of 2010 in 2040, equivalent to 6.5% and 6.7% average annual growth rates \nin 2015 and 2040, respectively. The population is assumed to grow at an average annual \nrate of 0.9% from 1.31 billion persons in 2015 to around 1.61 billion persons in 2040. \nRegarding future electricity supply, coal share in electricity generation will continue to \nbe the largest. Meanwhile, nuclear power plants and others, especially wind and solar, \nare projected to increase to 2040. On the other hand, the shares of oil and hydro are \nexpected to decrease. \nThe implementation of energy efficiency programmes in power generation and energy \nend-use sectors are expected to attain India’s energy-saving goals. Improvements in \nhighly energy-intensive industries and in inefficient small plants are some of the measures \nto ensure energy savings in the industry sector. In the residential and commercial sectors, \nsignificant savings can be induced through efficient end-use technologies and energy \nmanagement systems. In the transport sector, improved vehicle fuel economy and more \neffective traffic management are important measures to improve efficiency. \n4. \n Outlook Results\n4.1. Business-As-Usual (BAU) Scenario\nThis section describes the current trend of energy production and utilisation in the country, \nwithout any policy intervention, aimed at reducing energy demand or CO2 emissions.\n\n\n116\nENERGY OUTLOOK AND ENERGY SAVING POTENTIAL IN EAST ASIA 2019\n4.1.1. \n Total final energy consumption\nUnder the BAU scenario, with assumed strong economic growth and a rising population, \nIndia’s final energy demand is projected to increase at an average rate of 4.1% per year, from \n578 million tons of oil equivalent (Mtoe) in 2015 to 1,560 Mtoe in 2040 (Figure 6.2). The \nstrong growth is projected to occur in the transport and the industry sectors, increasing \nat 5.1% a year between 2015 and 2040. Strong growth is also expected in non-energy \nconsumption (4.8% a year). Due to the large share of non-commercial energy in the final \nenergy consumption, the growth rate of the ‘others’ sector that includes residential and \ncommercial sectors is projected to be modest at 2.3% per year. However, in the residential \nand commercial sectors, the consumption of commercial energy, especially electricity, \nwill increase rapidly.\nThe share of ‘others’ which is the largest at 43% in 2015, will drop to 28.3% in 2040. \nMeanwhile, the share of industry will increase to 43.1% in 2040 from 33.7% in 2015, and \nthat of transport will reach 19% in 2040, from 14.9% in 2015.\nIn the final energy consumption by source, natural gas will have the fastest growth, \nincreasing by 6.1% per year over the period 2015–2040 (Figure 6.3). Coal demand will \nhave the second highest increase of 5.8% a year, followed by electricity (5.4% per year) \nand then oil (4.7% per year).\nFigure 6.2: Final Energy Consumption by Sector, BAU (1990–2040)\n BAU = Business-As-Usual, Mtoe = million tons of oil equivalent.\nSource: Model results.\n1,800\n1,600\n1,400\n1,200\n1,000\n800\n600\n400\n200\n0\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2030\n2040\nMtoe\nOthers\nTransportation\nIndustry\nNon-energy\n243\n315\n578\n720\n1,082\n1,560\n\n\n117\nFigure 6.3: Final Energy Consumption by Fuel Type (1990–2040)\nMtoe = million tons of oil equivalent.\nSource: Model results.\n1,800\n1,600\n1,400\n1,200\n1,000\n800\n600\n400\n200\n0\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2030\n2040\nMtoe\n243\n315\n1,082\n1,560\nNatural Gas\nOil\nCoal\nElectricity\nOthers\n578\n720\n4.1.2. \n Primary energy supply\nUnder the BAU scenario, India’s primary energy supply will increase at an average annual \nrate of 4.1% to 2,312 Mtoe in 2040 from 851 Mtoe in 2015. Coal demand, driven by the \ndemand of power generation, will grow at 5% per year and reach 1,290 Mtoe in 2040, from \n379 Mtoe in 2015, maintaining the largest share at 56% in 2040 (45% in 2015). Due to \nrapid motorisation, oil will increase to 592 Mtoe and will have the second-largest share \nat 26% in 2040. The average annual growth rate for oil demand in 2015–2040 would be \n4.3%. Natural gas consumption is expected to increase by 5.8% per year between 2015 \nand 2040. Its share will be 7.6% in 2040, 2.5 percentage points up from 5.1% in 2015. \nFigure 6.4 shows the projected primary energy supply in India from 1990 to 2040 under \nthe BAU scenario.\nWithin ‘others’, solar and wind will increase significantly. However, due to the negative \ngrowth of non-commercial biomass, which has the largest portion, ‘others’ is projected to \ndecrease by 0.5% a year through to 2040. Its share will drop to 7.7% from 23.4% in 2015.\nIndia Country Report\n\n\n118\nENERGY OUTLOOK AND ENERGY SAVING POTENTIAL IN EAST ASIA 2019\n4.1.3. \n Power generation\nIn 2015, power generation in India was 1,383 terawatt-hours (TWh). Under the BAU \nscenario, it will be increasing at the rate of 5.1% per year to 4,809 TWh in 2040. Coal will \ncontinue to dominate India’s power generation mix; however, the share will slightly drop \nfrom 75.3% in 2015 to 74.8% in 2040. Hydro’s share in India’s power generation mix will \ndecline from 10% in 2015 to 6.7% in 2040, and oil’s share will decline from 1.7% in 2015 \nto 0% in 2040. In contrast, the share of nuclear power will increase from 2.7% to 3.9%, \nand ‘others’, including wind and solar power, will increase from 5.4% to 9.8%. The share \nof natural gas will be 4.7% in 2040, and the average growth rate during 2015–2040 will be \n5% per year. Figure 6.5 shows the projected power generation in India from 1990 to 2040 \nunder the BAU scenario.\nFigure 6.4: Primary Energy Supply by Source, BAU (1990–2040)\nBAU = Business-As-Usual, Mtoe = million tons of oil equivalent.\nSource: Model results.\n2,500\n2,000\n1,500\n1,000\n500\n0\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2030\n2040\nMtoe\n306\n441\n851\n1,069\n1,624\n2,312\nNatural Gas\nNuclear\nOil\nCoal\nHydro\nOthers\n\n\n119\nFigure 6.5: Electricity Generation, BAU (1990–2040)\nBAU = Business-As-Usual, TWH = terawatt-hour.\nSource: Model results.\n6,000\n5,000\n4,000\n3,000\n2,000\n1,000\n0\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2030\n2040\nTWh\nNatural Gas\nNuclear\nOil\nCoal\nHydro\nGeothermal\nOthers\n293\n570\n1,383\n1,926\n3,255\n4,809\n4.1.4. \n CO2 emissions\nIn 2015, CO2 emissions from India’s energy sector were 575 million tons of carbon (Mt-\nC). Under the BAU scenario, CO2 emissions will be increasing at an annual rate of 4.9% \nto 1,894 Mt-C in 2040. Coal is the main source of CO2 emissions in India. CO2 emissions \nfrom coal will rise at an annual rate of 5% from 409 Mt-C in 2015 to about 1,393 Mt-C in \n2040. CO2 emissions from oil will increase by 4.4% annually, from 151 Mt-C in 2015 to \n441 Mt-C in 2040, while emissions from natural gas will increase at a rate of 5.6% from \n15 Mt-C to 59 Mt-C during the same period. In 2040, coal will account for around 73.5% \nof total energy CO2 emissions, followed by oil with a share of 23.3%; the remaining 3.2% \ncomes from natural gas. Figure 6.6 shows the projected energy-related CO2 emissions in \nIndia from 1990 to 2040 under the BAU scenario.\nIndia Country Report\n\n\n120\nENERGY OUTLOOK AND ENERGY SAVING POTENTIAL IN EAST ASIA 2019\n4.2. Energy Saving and CO2 Reduction Potential\nThis section describes the energy saving and CO2 mitigation potential of different energy \npolicies. Five alternative policy scenarios (APS) are considered and have been tagged as \nAPS1, APS2, APS3, APS4, and APS5. APS1 is a scenario of improved efficiency in final \nenergy demand. APS2 deals with more efficient thermal power generation. APS3 assumes \na high contribution of renewable energy to total supply. APS4 involves the use of nuclear \nenergy in the total supply, and APS5 is a combined effect of APS1, APS2, APS3, and \nAPS4.\n4.2.1 Final energy demand \nTotal final energy consumption by 2040 in APS1, APS2, APS3, APS4, and APS5 will be \n1400, 1560, 1560, 3121, and 1400 Mtoe, respectively. This implies that only APS1 and \nAPS5 can potentially reduce energy demand. (Figure 6.7). It may be observed that the \nfinal energy demand of APS2 and APS3 are the same with the BAU scenario.\nFigure 6.6: CO2 Emissions under BAU (1990–2040)\nBAU = Business-As-Usual.\nSource: Model results.\nNatural Gas\nOil\nCoal\n2,000\n1,800\n1,600\n1,400\n1,200\n1,000\n800\n600\n400\n200\n0\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2030\n2040\nMillion Tons of Carbon\n148\n245\n575\n752\n1,252\n1,894\n\n\n121\nFigure 6.7: Final Energy Consumption under APSs\nAPS = Alternative Policy Scenario, BAU = Business-As-Usual, Mtoe = million tons of oil equivalent.\nSource: Model results.\nOthers\nTransport\nIndustry\nNon-energy\n1,800\n1,600\n1,400\n1,200\n1,000\n800\n600\n400\n200\n0\nBAU\nAPS1\nAPS2\nAPS3\nAPS4\nAPS5\nMtoe\nUnder APS5, final energy demand is projected to decrease by 10.3% in 2040 compared to \nthe BAU scenario. The reduction in energy demand is expected to occur across all end-\nuse sectors, reflecting improvements in end-use technologies and the introduction of \nenergy management systems (Figure 6.8).\n \nIn 2040, under APS5 relative to the BAU scenario, are estimated savings of 82 Mtoe \n(12.2%) in the industry sector, 40 Mtoe (13.4%) in the transport sector, and 38 Mtoe \n(8.5%) in the ‘others’ sector.\nIndia Country Report\n\n\n122\nENERGY OUTLOOK AND ENERGY SAVING POTENTIAL IN EAST ASIA 2019\n4.2.2 Primary energy demand\nBy 2040, primary energy demand in APS1, APS2, APS3, APS4, and APS5 will be 2057, \n2245, 2276, 2115, and 1973 Mtoe, respectively (Figure 6.9). The results indicate that \nprimary energy supply in 2040 will reduce in APS1, APS2, APS3, and APS5 compared to \nthe BAU scenario. Analysis shows that primary energy demand in APS4 will be higher than \nthe BAU scenario.\nFigure 6.8: Final Energy Consumption, BAU vs APS5 (2015 and 2040)\nAPS = Alternative Policy Scenario, BAU = Business-As-Usual, Mtoe = million tons of oil equivalent.\nSource: Model results.\n800\n700\n600\n500\n400\n300\n200\n100\n0\nMtoe\nBAU\n2015\n2040\nIndustry\nAPS5\nBAU\n2015\n2040\nTransport\nAPS5\nBAU\n2015\n2040\nOthers\nAPS5\nBAU\n2015\n2040\nNon-energy\nAPS5\nFigure 6.9: Primary Energy Supply by Sectors, BAU vs APS5\nAPS = Alternative Policy Scenario, BAU = Business-As-Usual, Mtoe = million tons of oil equivalent.\nSource: Model results.\nOthers\nTransport\nIndustry\nNon-energy\n1,800\n1,600\n1,400\n1,200\n1,000\n800\n600\n400\n200\n0\nBAU\nAPS1\nAPS2\nAPS3\nAPS4\nAPS5\nMtoe\n\n\n123\nUnder APS5 relative to the BAU scenario, India’s primary energy demand is projected to \ndecrease by 339 Mtoe or 14.7% (Figure 6.10).\nFigure 6.10: Total Primary Energy Supply, BAU vs APS5 (2015 and 2040)\nAPS = Alternative Policy Scenario, BAU = Business-As-Usual, Mtoe = million tons of oil equivalent.\nSource: Model results.\n2,500\n2,000\n1,500\n1,000\n500\n0\nMtoe\nBAU\n2015\n2040\nAPS\nIn APS5 in 2040 (Figure 6.11), coal consumption will decrease by 308 Mtoe or 23.9% \nwhile oil demand will drop by 66 Mtoe or 11.1%. The demand for natural gas is seen to \nfall by 26 Mtoe (14.8%). However, the demand for ‘others’, driven by strong demand for \nrenewables (wind and solar), is observed to rise by 59.4% or 61 Mtoe.\nFigure 6.11: Total Primary Energy Supply by Fuel Type, BAU vs APS5 (2015 and 2040)\nAPS = Alternative Policy Scenario, BAU = Business-As-Usual, Mtoe = million tons of oil equivalent.\nSource: Model results.\n–23.9%\n1,400\n1,200\n1,000\n800\n600\n400\n200\n0\nMtoe\nBAU\n2015\n2040\nCoal\nAPS5\nBAU\n2015\n2040\nOil\nAPS5\nBAU\n2015\n2040\nGas\nAPS5\nBAU\n2015\n2040\nOthers\nAPS5\n–14.8%\n–11.1%\n24.0%\nIndia Country Report\n\n\n124\nENERGY OUTLOOK AND ENERGY SAVING POTENTIAL IN EAST ASIA 2019\nIn APS5, CO2 emissions in 2040 will be 1,489 Mt-C, 21% lower than in the BAU scenario. \nLess demand of coal in final demand and in power generation and of oil in the transport \nsector will contribute most to reduced CO2 emissions. Emissions from coal, oil, and \nnatural gas in 2040 will decrease by 333 (24% reduction), 55.3 (13% reduction), and 16.7 \n(28% reduction) Mt-C compared to the BAU scenario. Figure 6.13 shows CO2 emissions \nin 2040 under the BAU scenario versus APS5 in this energy outlook.\n4.2.3. \n CO2 emissions from energy consumption\nBy 2040, CO2 emissions in APS1, APS2, APS3, APS4, and APS5 will be 1646, 1824, 1807, \n1874, and 1489 Mt-C, respectively, compared to 1,984 Mt-C in the BAU scenario. The \nresults indicate that CO2 emissions in 2040 will decrease by 405 Mt-C in APS5 compared \nto the BAU scenario (Figure 6.12).\nFigure 6.12: CO2 Emissions from Energy Combustion, BAU vs APSs\nAPS = Alternative Policy Scenario, BAU = Business-As-Usual.\nSource: Model results.\n2,000\n1,800\n1,600\n1,400\n1,200\n1,000\n800\n600\n400\n200\n0\nBAU\nAPS1\nAPS2\nAPS3\nAPS4\nAPS5\nMillion Tons of Carbon\nNatural Gas\nOil\nCoal\n\n\n125\nFigure 6.13: CO2 Emissions from Energy Combustion, \nBAU and APS5 (2015 and 2040)\nAPS = Alternative Policy Scenario, BAU = Business-As-Usual, Mt-C = million tons of carbon.\nSource: Model results.\n2,000\n1,800\n1,600\n1,400\n1,200\n1,000\n800\n600\n400\n200\n0\nMillion Tons of Carbon\nBAU\n2015\n2040\nAPS5\n405Mt-C,-21.4%\n4.2.4. \n Implications\n• \nEnergy security and access to energy are key challenges to India. Enhanced domestic \nproduction of energy is necessary to address these challenges. \n• \nHydrocarbons, particularly coal and oil, will continue to dominate the energy mix in \nboth the BAU scenario and the APS. Use of domestic coal to secure supply as well as \nmore efficient coal technologies such as ultra-supercritical, etc. would be necessary. \nIn the long and medium terms, research and development on cleaner energy \ndevelopment will play a key role.\n• \nNatural gas can play an important role in energy supply and environment issues. \nTo fully utilise the increasing global natural gas production, the infrastructure for \nimportation, domestic transportation, and utilisation needs to be enhanced.\n• \nThe Government of India announced ambitious targets for renewable energy, but the \ncost and infrastructure will be the bottlenecks. Developing domestic manufacturing \ncapacity can play an important role.\nIndia Country Report\n\n\n126\nENERGY OUTLOOK AND ENERGY SAVING POTENTIAL IN EAST ASIA 2019\n• \nEnergy efficiency and demand-side management are important. New power plants, \nnew factories, new buildings, new appliances, and new cars should be more efficient. \nThe Minimum Energy Performance Standard and mandatory energy labels should be \nexpanded to more equipment.\no \nThe power sector has huge potential savings. Advance technologies for power \ngeneration should be used as much as possible. \no \nIndustry will account for 43% of the incremental energy use to 2040; energy \nefficiency programmes should be focused on this sector. Broadening the scope \nof the Perform, Achieve, Trade scheme will be an important way to achieve this. \no \nGrowth of energy consumption in the transport sector should be curtailed.\no \nLosses in electricity distribution should be minimised by using better technologies. \n \n• \nRationalising energy prices across fuels and sectors is necessary. \n• \nIn its Nationally Determined Contributions (NDC), India pledged to reduce the \nemissions intensity of its GDP by 33% to 35% by 2030 from the 2005 level. This can \nbe achieved between APS2 to APS5. This implies that India is on course to achieve \nits NDC and make more climate commitments in the future when significant progress \nhas been made towards achieving the NDC.\n\n\n127\nReferences\nCEA (2014), All-India Electricity Statistics: General Review 2014. New Delhi: Central \nElectricity Authority, Government of India.\nCEA (2017a), ‘Power Sector June 2017’, http://www.cea.nic.in/reports/monthly/\nexecutivesummary/2017/exe_summary-06.pdf (accessed 22 February 2018).\nCEA (2017b), ‘Power Sector Jan 2017’, http://www.cea.nic.in/reports/monthly/\nexecutivesummary/2017/exe_summary-01.pdf (accessed 24 February 2018).\nCSO \n(2017), \n‘Energy \nStatistics,’ \nhttp://www.mospi.nic.in/sites/default/files/\npublication_reports/Energy_Statistics_2017r.pdf.pdf (accessed 20 February 2018).\nGoI (2017), ‘Coal Directory of India 2015-16: Coal Statistics,’ http://www.coalcontroller.\ngov.in/writereaddata/files/Coal Directory of India 2015-16.pdf (accessed 1 March \n2018).\nIMF (2018), ‘World Economic Outlook Database – Report for Selected Countries and \nSubjects,’ \nhttp://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2018/01/weodata/weorept.\naspx?pr.x=48&pr.y=6&sy=2017&ey=2018&scsm=1&ssd=1&sort=country&ds=.&br=1\n&c=534&s=NGDPD%2CPPPGDP%2CNGDPDPC%2CPPPPC&grp=0&a= (accessed 26 \nMay 2018).\nMNRE (2017), ‘Initiatives and Achievements’, http://mnre.gov.in/mission-and-\nvision-2/achievements (accessed 24 February 2018). \nPIB (2015), ‘India Ranks at 12th Position in Terms of Power Generation from Nuclear \nSource as per data Published in May 2015 by PRIS of IAEA,’ http://pib.nic.in/newsite/\nPrintRelease.aspx?relid=123553 (accessed 24 February 2018).\nREN21 (2017), Renewables 2017: Global Status Report, Paris: REN21 Secretariat.\nIndia Country Report\n\n\n128\nENERGY OUTLOOK AND ENERGY SAVING POTENTIAL IN EAST ASIA 2019\nINDONESIA COUNTRY REPORT \nCecilya Laksmiwati Malik, Energy Policy Planning Expert \n(Independent Consultant), Indonesia\n1. Background\nIndonesia is the largest archipelagic state in Southeast Asia comprising 17,504 islands \nscattered over both sides of the equator. The five largest islands are Java, Sumatra, \nKalimantan (the Indonesian part of Borneo), New Guinea (shared with Papua New \nGuinea), and Sulawesi. The country shares land borders with Papua New Guinea, Timor-\nLeste, and Malaysia. Other neighbouring countries include Singapore, the Philippines, \nAustralia, and the Indian territories of Andaman and Nicobar Islands.\nIndonesia covers an area of 1.913 million square kilometres and is the world’s 16th largest \ncountry in terms of land area. The 2010 population census showed that Indonesia’s \npopulation reached 238 million people with an average population density of 124 people \nper square kilometre. It increased to 258 million people in 2015 and, by the end of 2016, \nreached 261 million people (World Bank, 2017).\nIndonesia’s gross domestic product (GDP) was US$988 billion (constant 2010 US$) in \n2015, increasing at an average rate of 4.9% from 2014. This growth rate was the lowest \nexperienced by the country since 2010. In 2016, real GDP increased slightly faster at \n5.02%, reaching US$1,038 billion (constant 2010 US$). From 1990, GDP grew at an \naverage rate of 4.7% per year to 2015. GDP per capita in 2015 was almost US$4,000 \n(constant 2010 US$) while it was only US$1,700 in 1990 (constant 2010 US$).\nIndonesia is richly endowed with natural resources. The country's vast oil and gas reserves \nhave made Indonesia a significant player in the international oil and gas industry. As of \nJanuary 2017, its crude oil proven reserves were 3.17 billion barrels while natural gas \nproven reserves were 100.4 trillion cubic feet (TCF) or 2.8 trillion cubic metres (TCM) \n(Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources, 2017). Indonesia is also a coal exporter with \nproven coal reserves of around 29.9 billion tons. In addition to fossil energy resources, \nIndonesia’s non-fossil energy resources include hydro, geothermal, biomass, and other \nCHAPTER 7\n\n\n129\nrenewables such as solar and wind. For hydro, the estimated potential is around 75 \ngigawatts (GW) while the estimated geothermal potential is more than 28 GW. In total, \nrenewable energy potential in Indonesia is around 441.7 GW. Out of this, only 2%, or \naround 9 GW, has been utilised.\n2. Modelling Assumptions\nIndonesia’s real GDP growth was 5.03% in 2016 and 5.07% in 2017 (Indrawati, 2018). The \nexpected real GDP growth for 2018 is 5.4%. For 2019, the proposed state budget (APBN) \n2019 targeted the real GDP growth in the range of 5.4%–5.8%. The National Energy Policy \n(KEN) of 2014 assumed an average annual growth rate (AAGR) of 8% from 2015 to 2025 \nand will slow down to 7.25% in 2035 and 6.5% in 2050. \nSince the current real GDP growth is slower than that assumed in KEN, this study \nassumes that real GDP would grow at an AAGR of 5.8% in 2015–2040. This was based \non the economic projections of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. For \npopulation, the growth assumption will be 0.8% per year over 2015–2040 period, based \non the revised population projection of the Central Bureau of Statistics (2013). \nThe scenarios are like the previous EOSP reports (since 2013); i.e. Business-As-Usual \n(BAU) scenario and the five Alternative Policy Scenarios (APSs). These APSs reflected \nthe additional policy interventions likely to be implemented. These are energy efficiency \nand conservation (EEC) targets and action plans; efficiency improvement in power \ngeneration plants; more aggressive adoption of renewable energy; and introduction of \nnuclear energy, etc. For Indonesia, the five APSs considered are as follows:\n1) More efficient final energy consumption (APS1), with specific energy saving targets by \nsector (Figure 7.1). In addition, Article 9 of the 2014 KEN states that energy elasticity \nwill be less than 1 by 2025 and that final energy intensity will also be decreasing at 1% \nper year. These goals and targets were also the energy saving targets for this year’s \nstudy.\nIndonesia Country Report\n\n\n130\nENERGY OUTLOOK AND ENERGY SAVING POTENTIAL IN EAST ASIA 2019\n2) More efficient thermal power generation (APS2), where higher improvement of \nexisting coal-fired power plants and the introduction of cleaner coal technologies, \nwere considered in the analysis. Also considered for this scenario are most efficient \nnatural gas combined–cycle technologies. \n3) Higher contribution of new and renewable energy (NRE) and biofuels (APS3) – In \nthis case, higher penetration of NRE for electricity generation and utilisation of liquid \nbiofuels in the transport sector is assumed compared to the BAU scenario. \n4) Introduction or higher utilisation of nuclear energy (APS4), an assumption that it will \nbe in operation after 2020. This is in line with the current plan where two units will be \nconstructed after 2020, each with a capacity of 1,000 megawatts (MW). \n5) The combination of APS1 to APS4 constitutes the assumptions of the APS (APS5).\n3. Outlook Results\n3.1. Business-As Usual (BAU) Scenario\n3.1.1. \n Final energy consumption\nIndonesia’s total final energy consumption (TFEC) increased at an average annual rate of \n2.9% between 1990 and 2015, increasing from 80 million tons of oil equivalent (Mtoe) \nto 163 Mtoe. Given the assumed economic and population growth, the growth in the \nTFEC will continue but at a faster rate of 4.4% per year in 2015–2040 in the BAU scenario \n(Figure 7.2).\n-\n2015\n2040\nFigure 7.1: Energy Efficiency and Conservation Assumptions \nSource: Author’s assumptions.\n0.80\n0.80\n0.70\n0.90\n0.90\n0.90\nPower\nOthers\nCommercial\nResidential\nTransport\nIndustrial\n1,00\n0,80\n0,60\n0,40\n0,20\n\n\n131\nIndonesia Country Report\nThis growth stems from the rapid increase of the energy consumed in the transport and \nindustry sectors. The transport sector is still heavily dependent on oil. In the past, the final \nenergy consumption of the transport sector grew at an average rate of 5.8% per year over \n1990–2015. This growth is expected to continue up to 2040 for the BAU scenario at a \nfaster rate of 6.1% per year.\nFinal energy consumption in the industry sector grew at a slower rate than the transport \nsector in 1990–2015 (3.4% per year). It will still grow slower than the transport sector for \nthe period 2015–2040 at an average rate of 5.3% per year.\nFinal energy consumption of the ‘others’ sector (mainly consisting of residential and \ncommercial) grew at an average rate of 1.9% per year in 1990–2015. The final energy \nconsumption of this sector is projected to experience a similar growth rate for the period \n2015–2040.\nThe ‘others’ sector had the highest share in the TFEC in 1990–2015 because of the high \nconsumption of biomass mainly in the residential sector. The share, however, decreased \nfrom around 55% in 1990 to 43% in 2015. This is mainly due to the rapid increase of the \nfuel consumption of the transport sector. The share will continue to decline in the future \nas household appliances become more efficient and households use more alternatives, \nsuch as natural gas and liquefied petroleum gas or LPG. The sector’s share in the TFEC \nwill decrease to 23% in 2040.\n100\n200\n300\n400\n500\n600\n-\nMtoe\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2030\n2040\nNon-energy\nOthers\nTransport\nIndustry\nNon-energy\nOthers\nTransport\nIndustry\nFigure 7.2: Final Energy Consumption by Sector (1990–2040)\nMtoe = million tons of oil equivalent.\nSource: Author’s calculations.\n100%\n90%\n80%\n70%\n60%\n50%\n40%\n30%\n20%\n10%\n0%\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2030\n2040\n\n\n132\nENERGY OUTLOOK AND ENERGY SAVING POTENTIAL IN EAST ASIA 2019\nThe share of the transport sector in the TFEC had increased from around 13% in 1990 to \n27% in 2015. This share will continue to increase, reaching 41% in 2040. The combined \nshare of oil and alternative fuels for transport will contribute more to the increase of the \ntransport’s share in the TFEC.\nThe industry sector’s share in the TFEC was 23% in 1990–2015. This share is expected to \nincrease to 32% by 2040 in line with the growth in industrial activities.\nBy fuel type, electricity experienced the fastest growth in 1990–2015, at an average \nrate of 8.1% per year. This rapid growth of electricity demand was due to the significant \nincrease in the consumption of the industry and residential sectors, from 2.4 Mtoe in \n1990 to 17.2 Mtoe in 2015. Coal is also increasing significantly over the same period as \nindustry expands, particularly the cement industries. Total coal demand increased from \n2 Mtoe in 1990 to almost 10 Mtoe in 2015, growing at an average rate of 6.2% per year. \nAs for natural gas and oil, the average annual growth of these fuels in 1990–2015 was \n5.7% and 2.9%, respectively. Demand for other fuels (mostly biomass for households) \nincreased by 13.5 Mtoe, at an average rate of 1.1% per year.\nIn the future, the demand for all fuels will continue to increase. For coal, demand will \nincrease the fastest at an average rate of 6.4% per year to 45.6 Mtoe in 2040. Electricity \nis also expected to grow but at a slower rate than in the past. The AAGR for electricity \ndemand would be 6.2% per year over the 2015–2040 period.\nNatural gas and oil demand will grow at an average rate of 4.0% per year and 5.6% per year, \nrespectively, between 2015 and 2040. Demand for other fuels will increase the slowest \nover the same period, at an average growth rate of 0.9% per year. This is mainly due to the \ndecrease in the growth rate of biomass consumption of the residential sector.\n\n\n133\n100\n200\n300\n400\n500\n600\n-\nMtoe\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2030\n2040\nCoal\nElectricity\nOil\nHeat\nNatural gas\nOthers\nCoal\nElectricity\nOil\nHeat\nNatural gas\nOthers\nFigure 7.3: Final Energy Consumption by Energy Type, BAU (1990–2040)\nBAU = Business-As-Usual, Mtoe = million tons of oil equivalent.\nSource: Author’s calculations. \n100%\n90%\n80%\n70%\n60%\n50%\n40%\n30%\n20%\n10%\n0%\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2030\n2040\nOil will still play a major role in the country’s final energy consumption although more \nalternative fuels will be consumed by the end-use sectors. The share of oil is expected to \nbe around 46% in 2040, increasing from 34.5% in 2015. The remaining share will be that \nof coal (9.6%), natural gas (13.5%), electricity (16.3%), and others (14.6%). \n3.1.2. \n Primary Energy Supply\nTotal primary energy supply (TPES) in Indonesia grew faster than the final energy \nconsumption at about 3.4% per year, from 98.6 Mtoe in 1990 to 229.5 Mtoe in 2015. \nAmongst the major energy sources, the fastest-growing fuels 1990–2015 were coal and \ngeothermal energy. Coal supply grew at an average annual rate of 10.8% while geothermal \nenergy grew at 9.2% a year. Gas supply increased at a slower rate of 3.8% per year while oil \ngrew slightly slower at 2.9% per year.\nIn the BAU scenario, Indonesia’s TPES is projected to increase at an average annual rate \nof 4.4%, reaching 671.4 Mtoe in 2040. Coal is projected to continue growing but at a \nslower rate of 6.4% per year. Geothermal energy is also expected to increase over the \nsame period. The new price structure for generating electricity from renewable energy will \nstimulate the development of geothermal energy, amongst others. The projected growth \nrate of geothermal energy until 2040 is 2.6% per year. \nIndonesia Country Report\n\n\n134\nENERGY OUTLOOK AND ENERGY SAVING POTENTIAL IN EAST ASIA 2019\nHydro, including mini and small hydro, will also increase at the same rate of geothermal in \n2015–2040. Consideration is being given to building more run-of-river-type hydro rather \nthan reservoir type. \nOil is projected to increase at an average annual rate of 5.1% in 2015–2040. At the same \ntime, natural gas supply will also increase but slower than oil at an average rate of 4.2% per \nyear. \nNo uptake of nuclear energy is assumed in the BAU scenario. Thus, renewable energy \nwill have a significant role in the future primary energy supply mix as the uptake of cleaner \nalternatives to oil increases. Other renewable energy resources include solar, wind, \nbiofuels, and biomass.\nOil constituted the largest fossil fuel share in the TPES, but the share had declined slightly \nfrom 33.8% in 1990 to 29.5% in 2015. The share of natural gas in the total mix slightly \nincreased from 16% in 1990 to 17.5% in 2015. \nSince both coal and geothermal rapidly grew in 1990–2015, the shares of these energy \nsources in the TPES have increased significantly. Coal share in the TPES increased from \naround 4% to 20% while geothermal share increased from 2% to 7.5%. Hydro’s share remains \nthe same at 0.5% over the same period. Since others, which include biomass, solar, wind, \n100\n300\n200\n400\n500\n600\n700\n800\n-\nMtoe\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2030\n2040\nCoal\nCoal\nNuclear\nNuclear\nOil\nOil\nHydro\nHydro\nNatural gas\nNatural gas\nGeothermal\nGeothermal\nOthers\nOthers\nFigure 7.4: Primary Energy Supply, BAU (1990–2040)\nBAU = Business-As-Usual, Mtoe = million tons of oil equivalent.\nSource: Author’s calculations. \n100%\n90%\n80%\n70%\n60%\n50%\n40%\n30%\n20%\n10%\n0%\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2030\n2040\n\n\n135\nocean, biofuels, and electricity, grew slower than the other fuels, its share declined from \n44.1% in 1990 to 24.7% in 2015.\nIn the BAU scenario, oil’s share will still be dominant throughout the 2015–2040 period, \nand its share in the TPES will reach 35% in 2040. Natural gas share will decrease slightly to \n16.6% by the end of 2040, while coal share will increase to 32.5%.\nSince the supply of hydro, geothermal, and ‘others’ is growing slower than fossil fuel \nsources, the shares will be declining over 2015–2040. Hydro’s share in the TPES will \ndecrease to 0.3% by 2040 and geothermal share, to 4.9%. The share of ‘others’ will reach \n10.8% in 2040, from 24.7% in 2015\n3.1.3. \n Power generation\nPower generation output increased at an average rate of 8.2% per year over the past 2 \ndecades, from around 33 TWh in 1990 to 233 TWh in 2015. The fastest growth occurred \nin the production of electricity from natural gas plants at 19.2% per year. This is due to the \nincrease in gas turbine and combined cycle capacities as natural gas became increasingly \navailable.\nIn the BAU scenario, to meet electricity demand, power generation is projected to \nincrease at a slower rate of 5.9% per year reaching almost 969 TWh in 2040. By type of \nfuel, generation from ‘others’ will grow the fastest at an average rate of 10.9% per year. The \nmain reason for this very rapid growth is that generation from these other sources was very \nsmall in 2015 but is expected to increase significantly as a result of the government’s policy \nof increasing the use of NRE sources, including solar PV, wind, biomass, etc., classified as \n‘others’.\nGeneration from geothermal and hydro is also growing, but much slower than ’others’, \nboth at 2.6%.\nIndonesia Country Report\n\n\n136\nENERGY OUTLOOK AND ENERGY SAVING POTENTIAL IN EAST ASIA 2019\nPower generation from natural gas will continue to increase but at a much slower rate of \n5.4% per year while coal-based power generation will be growing at an average annual rate \nof 6.8%. No nuclear plant is considered under the BAU scenario.\nThe share of coal will remain dominant in the total power generation of the country. Its \nshare in total power generation was lower than oil in 1990 (30%). The share increased \nover time as more coal-fired power plants were constructed. In 2015, the share increased \nto almost 56%, higher than that of oil. This share is expected to continue to increase in the \nfuture, reaching around 70% in 2040.\nOil had the largest share in power generation in 1990 (47%). By 2015, the share of oil \ndeclined to around 8.4% as production from coal and natural gas plants increased rapidly. \nNatural gas share in 2015 reached 25.2% and declined to 22.7% by 2040 under the BAU \nscenario.\nHydro’s share in the total electricity production of the country was 17.5% in 1990. The \nshare declined to 5.9% in 2015. Under the BAU scenario, hydro's share is expected to \ncontinue to decline and reach 2.7% in 2040.\nThe share of geothermal and other renewables constituted about 4.5% of the power \ngeneration in 2015. The share of these renewables declined to 2.7% by 2040 under the \nBAU scenario. \n200\n400\n600\n800\n1,000\n1,200\n-\nTWh\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2030\n2040\nCoal\nNuclear\nOil\nHydro\nNatural gas\nGeothermal\nOthers\nCoal\nNuclear\nOil\nHydro\nNatural gas\nGeothermal\nOthers\nFigure 7.5: Power Generation by Fuel Type (TWh) (1990–2040)\nTWh = terawatt-hour.\nSource: Author’s calculations. \n100%\n90%\n80%\n70%\n60%\n50%\n40%\n30%\n20%\n10%\n0%\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2030\n2040\n\n\n137\nThe average thermal efficiency of fossil fuel–based power plants was around 32% in 2015. \nthe BAU scenario assumes a slight improvement in the efficiency of coal and natural gas \npower plants causing the thermal efficiency of fossil fuel plants to increase to almost 35% \nin 2040.\nBy fuel, the thermal efficiency of coal-fired power plants will increase from 30% in 2015 to \n34% in 2040 while natural gas is assumed to increase from 38% to 40%. Oil will remain less \nthan 31% over the 2015–2040 period (Figure 7.6).\n3.1.4. \n Energy indicators\nIndonesia’s primary energy intensity (TPES/GDP) had been increasing until 2000. Since \nthen, the intensity declined and reached a level of 232 toe/million 2010 US$ in 2015. The \nfinal energy intensity had been declining and reached a level of 165 toe/million 2010 US$ \nin 2015. These indicate that energy producers and consumers have started to effectively \nuse energy by implementing energy conservation measures and greater utilisation of \nenergy-efficient technologies. \nIn the BAU scenario, primary and final energy intensity is projected to decline at an average \nannual rate of 1.3% in 2015–2040. Primary energy intensity in 2040 will be around 166 \ntoe/million 2010 US$ while final energy intensity will be 118 toe/million 2010 US$. \nFigure 7.6: Thermal Efficiency, BAU (2015–2040)\nSource: Author’s assumptions.\n25\n27\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n29\n31\n33\n35\n39\n37\n41\nPercent\nCoal\nOil\nNatural Gas\nIndonesia Country Report\n\n\n138\nENERGY OUTLOOK AND ENERGY SAVING POTENTIAL IN EAST ASIA 2019\nThus, the energy intensity ratio (primary and final) is expected to improve by almost 29% \nin 2040 compared to 2015.\nPer capita energy consumption, measured as the ratio of TPES to the total population, had \nbeen increasing since 1990, from 0.5 to 0.9 in 2015. This level of energy consumption \nper capita indicates improving energy access of society, which can be reflected by the \nelectrification ratio. In 2015, the electrification ratio was around 88.5% and reached 94.8% \nin 2017. The government expected all households to have access to electricity by 2020. \nUnder the BAU scenario, energy consumption per capita will continue to increase and will \nreach 2.1 toe per person in 2040. This result is in accordance with the existing national \nenergy policy (2014), which targeted a level of 1.4 toe in 2025 and 3.2 toe in 2050.\nIn the BAU scenario, the elasticity of final energy consumption is expected to continue \ndeclining and will reach 0.8 in 2040. Elasticity lesser than 1 indicates that growth in final \nenergy consumption will be slower than growth in GDP over the period 2015–2040. \n3.2. Energy Savings and CO2 Reduction Potential \nThe assumptions in the APS were analysed separately to determine the individual impact \nof each assumption in APS1, APS2, APS3, APS4, and the combination of all these \nassumptions, APS5. Figure 7.8 shows the changes in the TPES for all the scenarios.\nFigure 7.7: Energy Intensity and Other Energy Indicators (1990=100)\n Source: Author’s calculations.\n0\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2030\n2040\n600\n500\n400\n300\n200\n100\n700\n%\nEnergy Intensity\nEnergy per Capita\nCO2 per Energy\nCO2 per Intensity\nCO2 per Capita\n\n\n139\nFigure 7.8: Comparison of Scenarios of Total Primary Energy Supply by 2040\n Mtoe = million tons of oil equivalent.\nSource: Author’s calculations.\n100\n200\n300\n400\n500\n600\n700\n800\n-\nMtoe\nBAU\nAPS1\nAPS2\nAPS3\nAPS4\nAPS5\nCoal\nOil\nNatural Gas\nNuclear\nHydro\nGeothermal\nOthers\nFigure 7.8 illustrates that APS1 and APS5 have the largest reduction in primary energy \nsupply in 2040 due to the energy efficiency assumptions on the demand side. Energy \nefficiency assumptions in APS1 could reduce the TPES in the BAU scenario by as much as \n118 Mtoe or 17.6%. For APS5, the reduction will amount to 104 Mtoe or 15.5%.\nAPS2, which assumes higher efficiency in thermal electricity generation, will also reduce \nthe TPES in 2040 by 42 Mtoe or 6.2% compared to the BAU scenario. Since APS2 does \nnot assume efficiency measures for the final sector, it will have a lower impact than APS1. \nTherefore, the reduction is due mainly to the use of more efficient power generation while \nsome conventional plants ceased operation after reaching their technical lifetime. \nFor APS3, the TPES increased slightly as more renewable energy for power generation \nstarted operation and more biofuels were being consumed by the transport sector. The \ndifference between APS3 and the BAU scenario for 2040 is only around 11.5 Mtoe or \n1.7%. \nThe introduction of nuclear power generation after 2020 (APS4) will also increase the \ntotal primary energy mix of 2040 by only 1.4 Mtoe or 0.2% compared to the BAU scenario. \nThe result indicates that the introduction of nuclear plants will reduce the consumption \nof fossil fuels (coal, oil, gas) in generating power. However, since the efficiency of nuclear \nplants is slightly lower than the average thermal efficiency of fossil fuel plants, then there \ncan be no savings relative to the BAU scenario results.\nIndonesia Country Report\n\n\n140\nENERGY OUTLOOK AND ENERGY SAVING POTENTIAL IN EAST ASIA 2019\nFigure 7.9 shows the total electricity generation in 2040 in all scenarios. In APS1, due to \nthe lower electricity demand, the shares of fossil-fired electricity generation will be lower \nthan in the BAU scenario, 93% compared to 95%. In APS2, the share is the same as that of \nthe BAU scenario. In APS3, due to the assumption of more renewable energy, the shares \nof fossil fuel–fired generation could be reduced by 5% while in APS4, nuclear energy could \nreduce fossil fuel share by almost 2%. In APS5, where all scenarios were combined, the \nreduction in the shares of fossil energy–based generation will be significant; i.e. almost \n22% lower than the BAU scenario.\nIn terms of CO2 emissions reduction, energy efficiency assumptions in APS1 could reduce \nemissions by 22% in 2040 compared to the BAU scenario. In APS2, the installation of \nmore efficient new power plants could reduce emissions by 9%. Higher contributions \nfrom renewable energy could reduce emissions by 6% while nuclear energy could reduce \nemissions by 1%. All these assumptions combined (APS5) could reduce BAU scenario \nCO2 emissions by 36% in 2040.\nFigure 7.9: Comparison of Scenarios to Electricity Generation by 2040\nAPS = Alternative Policy Scenario, BAU = Business-As-Usual, Mtoe = million tons of oil equivalent.\nSource: Author’s calculations.\n200\n400\n600\n800\n1,000\n1,200\n-\nMtoe\nBAU\nAPS1\nAPS2\nAPS3\nAPS4\nAPS5\nCoal\nOil\nNatural Gas\nNuclear\nHydro\nGeothermal\nOthers\n\n\n141\nFigure 7.10: Comparison of Scenarios to CO2 Emissions by 2040\nAPS = Alternative Policy Scenario, BAU = Business-As-Usual, Mt-C = million tons carbon.\nSource: Author’s calculations. \n250\n200\n150\n100\n50\n300\n350\n400\n450\n500\n-\nMt-C\nBAU\nAPS1\nAPS2\nAPS3\nAPS4\nAPS5\nCoal\nOil\nNatural Gas\n3.2.1. \n Final energy consumption\nIn the combined APS (APS5), the TFEC is projected to increase at a slower rate than \nin the BAU scenario, increasing at an average rate of 3.5% per year from 162 Mtoe in \n2015 to 388 Mtoe in 2040. Slower growth under the APS, relative to the BAU scenario, is \nprojected across all sectors as a result of the government’s EEC programme, particularly in \nthe transport sector. The growth rate of energy demand in the transport sector is projected \nto increase by 4.8% per year compared with 6.1% per year in the BAU scenario. Figure 7.11 \nshows the TFEC by sector in 2015 and 2040 in both the BAU scenario and the APS.\nFinal energy consumption savings are estimated to be 27 Mtoe in the industry sector, 52 \nMtoe in the transport sector, and 9.3 Mtoe in the residential/commercial (‘others’) sector \nby 2040 under the APS, relative to the BAU scenario.\nIndonesia Country Report\n\n\n142\nENERGY OUTLOOK AND ENERGY SAVING POTENTIAL IN EAST ASIA 2019\n3.2.2. \n Primary energy supply\nIn the combined APS (APS5), the TPES is projected to increase at a slower rate, relative to \nthe BAU scenario, 3.7% per year to 567 Mtoe in 2040. All energy sources are projected to \nexperience positive AAGRs. However, some will be slower than in the BAU scenario. The \nlower TPES relative to the BAU scenario reflects EEC measures on the demand and supply \nsides, with the use of more efficient technology for power generation.\nIn terms of fuel type, there are estimated savings of almost 111 Mtoe for coal, 50 Mtoe \nfor oil, and 18 Mtoe for natural gas by 2040 under the APS, relative to the BAU scenario. \nIn case of other resources (new and renewable resources, nuclear, and ‘others’), the TPES \nin the APS in 2040 is 159 Mtoe higher than that in the BAU scenario.\nFigure 7.11: Final Energy Consumption by Sector, BAU and APS (2015 and 2040)\nAPS = Alternative Policy Scenario, BAU = Business-As-Usual, Mtoe = million tons of oil equivalent.\nSource: Author’s calculation.\n100\n50\n150\n200\n250\n-\n–18.1%\n–26.9%\n–8.4%\nBAU\n2015\n2040\nIndustry\nAPS\nBAU\n2015\n2040\nTransport\nAPS\nBAU\n2015\n2040\nOthers\nAPS\nBAU\n2015\n2040\nNon-energy\nAPS\nMtoe\n0.0%\n\n\n143\nBAU\n2015\n2040\nIndustry\nAPS\nBAU\n2015\n2040\nTransport\nAPS\nBAU\n2015\n2040\nOthers\nAPS\nBAU\n2015\n2040\nNon-energy\nAPS\nMtoe\nFigure 7.12: Primary Energy Supply by Source, BAU and APS (2015 and 2040)\nAPS = Alternative Policy Scenario, BAU = Business-As-Usual, Mtoe = million tons of oil equivalent.\nSource: Author’s calculations.\n150\n100\n50\n250\n200\n300\n350\n-\n147.9%\n–50.9%\n–21.6%\n–15.9%\n3.2.3. \n Projected energy savings\nTotal energy savings (the difference between the TPES in the BAU scenario and the APS) \nare 104 Mtoe in 2040. These could be achieved through the implementation of EEC and \nrenewable energy targets and action plans of Indonesia, improved power plant efficiency, \nand introduction of nuclear energy. These are more than half of Indonesia’s TPES in 2015, \nwhich is around 230 Mtoe.\nMtoe\nBAU\n2015\n2040\nAPS\n104.13 Mtoe, –15.5%\nFigure 7.13: Total Primary Energy Supply, BAU and APS (2015 and 2040)\nAPS = Alternative Policy Scenario, BAU = Business-As-Usual, Mtoe = million tons of oil equivalent.\nSource: Author’s calculation.\n500\n400\n300\n200\n100\n600\n700\n800\n-\nIndonesia Country Report\n\n\n144\nENERGY OUTLOOK AND ENERGY SAVING POTENTIAL IN EAST ASIA 2019\n3.2.4. \n Energy intensities\nThe 2014 National Energy Policy emphasised the target of 1% per year reduction in final \nenergy intensity up to 2025. Under the BAU scenario, the final energy intensity has \nbeen (and will be) on the decline at an average rate of 1.3 per year over 2015–2040. \nImplementation of the sectoral EEC targets under the APS will result in a faster declining \nrate for the final energy intensity, 2% per year over the projection period.\nIn terms of primary energy intensity, the annual reduction will be similar, 1.3% under the \nBAU scenario. In the APS, the annual reduction in primary energy intensity will also be 2% \nunder extensive implementation of the sectoral EEC targets.\n3.2.5. \n CO2 emissions from energy consumption\nCO2 emissions from energy consumption are projected to increase at an average annual \nrate of 5.6% from around 122 million tons of carbon (Mt-C) in 2015 to 476 Mt-C in \n2040 in the BAU scenario. This is driven by the increasing use of carbon-intensive fuels, \nparticularly the use of coal for power generation and industry, as well as oil in the transport \nsector.\nAPS = Alternative Policy Scenario, BAU = Business-As-Usual, toe = tons of oil equivalent. \nSource: Author’s calculations.\nFinal Energy Intensity\ntoe/million US$\ntoe/million US$\nPrimary Energy Intensity\nFigure 7.14: Energy Intensity, BAU and APS (1990–2040)\n-\n1990\n2000 2015 2020 2025 2030\n2035 2040\n250\n200\n150\n100\n50\n300\nBAU\nAPS\n-\n1990\n2000 2015 2020 2025 2030\n2035 2040\n300\n200\n250\n150\n100\n50\n350\n400\nBAU\nAPS\n\n\n145\nFigure 7.15: CO2 Emissions from Energy Consumption, BAU and APS (2015–2040)\nAPS = Alternative Policy Scenario, BAU = Business-As-Usual, Mtoe = million tons of oil equivalent.\nSource: Authors’ calculation.\n300\n200\n100\n400\n500\n-\nMillion Tons of Oil Carbon\nBAU\n2015\n2040\nAPS\n171.32 Mtoe, –36%\nIn the combined APS (APS5), the CO2 emissions in 2015–2040 are expected to be 36% \nlower than in the BAU scenario. The inclusion of more energy conservation measures, \nhigher efficiency, elevated renewable targets, and the inclusion of nuclear energy after \n2020 would contribute to the reduced emissions. The government has committed \nto reduce CO2 emissions in 2030 by 29% without international assistance, and 41% \nwith international assistance. This study’s result, which is 36% reduction, is above the \ncommitted target of 29%. However, to achieve the committed CO2 reduction target of \n41%, the combined target and action plan specified under APS5 must be more aggressive. \n3.2.6. \n Review of Indonesia’s Nationally Determined Contributions and APS \n \n \n results\nRegarding climate change, Indonesia ratified the Paris Agreement through Law Number \n16, year of 2016, which was submitted to the United Nations Framework Convention on \nClimate Change on 6 November 2016. This is a commitment amongst countries across \nthe globe to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The commitment in Indonesia’s \nNDC was to unconditionally reduce 29% of GHG emissions by 2030, and conditionally \nreduce up to 41% through international support. The percentage value is the sectors' \nreduction compared to the total BAU value of 2030. Table 7.1 shows the GHG emissions \nreduction target under the NDC. The CM1 is the countermeasure under the unconditional \nmitigation scenario, and CM2 is the countermeasure under the conditional mitigation \nscenario.\nIndonesia Country Report\n\n\n146\nENERGY OUTLOOK AND ENERGY SAVING POTENTIAL IN EAST ASIA 2019\nBased on the NDC, the energy sector is projected to emit GHG almost four times the \n2010 level by 2030 if no countermeasures are taken (CM1). The sources of emissions \nare fuel combustion and fugitive emissions from fuel production. The industry and power \ngeneration will be the major emitters of GHG emissions in 2030. These sectors are the \nmajor consumers of coal in the country. \nBased on the NDC emissions reduction target, the estimated GHG emissions reduction \nfrom energy (fuel combustion and including fugitive) will be 314 Mt-CO2e under the CM1 \ncondition (unconditional) and 398 Mt-CO2e under the CM2 condition (conditional). \nThis will be around 19% reduction and 23% reduction, respectively, from the BAU scenario \nemissions of the sector.\nThe CO2 emissions in the current outlook will also increase almost four times over the \nplanning period, from around 122 Mt-C (447 Mt-CO2) in 2015 to 476 Mt-C (1,745 \nMt-CO2) in 2040 under the BAU scenario. Although slightly higher, the trend is like the \nNDC projection for 2010 to 2030. The CO2 emissions under the APS for 2040 will be \n1,117 Mt-CO2, which is 12% lower than the projected level for the CM2 in the NDC. \nCompared to BAU, the APS will reduce the CO2 emission by 628 Mt-CO2, or 36% (Table \n7.2). By implementing the efforts assumed under the APS (which is a combination of \nAPS1, APS2, APS3, and APS4), the reduction in CO2 emissions will be higher than the \nNDC target. These are promoting energy efficiency efforts in all final sectors, improving \nthermal efficiency of fossil power plants, increasing renewable shares in the transport and \npower sectors, and installing two units of 1,100 MW nuclear plants by 2040.\nTable 7.1: NDC Emissions Reduction Targets for GHG\nNo\nSector\nGHG\nEmissions Level\n2010*\nGHG Emissions Level \n2030, (MtCO2e)\nGHG Emissions Reduction\nMtCO2e\n(MtCO2e)\n% of Total BAU\nBAU\nCM1\nCM2\nCM1\nCM2\nCM1\nCM2\n1\nEnergy*\n453.2\n1,669\n1,355\n1,271\n314\n398\n11.0%\n13.9%\n2\nWaste\n88.0\n296\n285\n270\n11\n26\n0.4%\n0.9%\n3\nIPPU\n36.0\n70\n67\n66\n3\n3\n0.1%\n0.1%\n4\nAgriculture\n110.5\n120\n110\n116\n9\n4\n0.3%\n0.1%\n5\nForestry**\n647.0\n714\n217\n64\n497\n650\n17.2%\n23.0%\nTOTAL\n1,334.0\n2,869\n2,034\n1,787\n834\n1,081\n29.0%\n38.0%\nBAU = Business-As-Usual, CM = countermeasure, GHG = greenhouse gases, IPPU = Industrial Processes and Product Use, \n \nMtCO2e = metric tons of equivalent carbon dioxide, NDC = Nationally Determined Contributions.\n*Including fugitive, ** including peat fire\nSource: Indonesia NDC and the Way Forward, Webinar NDC on 20 July 2017.\n\n\n147\nTable 7.2: CO2 Emissions in 2030 and 2040 for BAU and APS\nFuel Type\nGHG Emissions Level (Mt-CO2)\nGHG Emissions Reduction\n2015\n2030\nBAU\n2030\nAPS\n2040\nBAU\n2040\nAPS\n2030 \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n(Mt-\nCO2)\n2040 \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n(Mt-\nCO2)\n2030 \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n(%)\n2040 \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n(%)\nCoal\n181 \n553 \n261 \n850 \n418 \n292\n432 \n52.9\n50.9\nGas\n87 \n137 \n119 \n237\n194 \n18\n43\n13.3\n18.1\nOil\n179\n540\n411\n658 \n505\n129\n153\n23.9\n23.2\nTOTAL\n447\n1,230\n790\n1,745\n1,117\n440 \n628\n35.8\n36.0\nBAU = Business-As-Usual, CM = countermeasure, GHG = greenhouse gases, Mt-CO2 = metric tons of carbon dioxide.\nSource: Author’s calculation.\nIn 2030, the total CO2 emission under the BAU scenario is around 1,230 Mt-CO2, which \nis slightly below the CM2 level of the NDC. Thus, under the current outlook, the CO2 \nemission level assumed for the CM2 will be achievable in 2030 under the BAU scenario \nassumption which are economic growth on average at 5.8% per year, average population \ngrowth of 0.8% per year, and implementation of the current energy policy which already \nassumed 1.3% reduction in energy intensity, and increased share of renewables including \nbiofuels both in the transport and the power sectors as outlined in the biofuel road map.\nThe CO2 emissions reduction is highest in the case of coal compared to oil and gas. \nOil is mostly consumed by the transport sector and will remain dominant, despite the \nintroduction of other alternatives to oil. Coal is mainly used in the power sector. The \nincreasing share of NRE as outlined in the current energy policy will reduce the coal \nshare significantly. Figure 7.16 shows the share of the different sources of energy in total \nelectricity generation in 2040. The figure shows that the growth of electricity production \nfrom coal-fired power plants in the APS is slower than that of the NRE- and gas-based \npower plants. In the case of NRE-based power plants, solar- and biomass-based power \ngeneration will grow fastest, considering it was very small in 2015.\nIndonesia Country Report\n\n\n148\nENERGY OUTLOOK AND ENERGY SAVING POTENTIAL IN EAST ASIA 2019\n4. \n Implications and Policy Recommendations\nIndonesia’s primary energy intensity (TPES/GDP) and final energy intensity (TFEC/GDP) \nhave been declining as a result of greater utilisation of efficient energy technologies by both \nenergy producers and consumers. Under the BAU scenario, the primary energy intensity \ndeclined at 1.3% per year over the projection period. Further adaptation of the sectoral \ntarget combined with the renewables’ portfolio, efficient power plant technology, and \nintroduction of nuclear energy, will enable the country’s energy intensity to decline even \nmore at 2.1% per year. The elasticity of primary energy supply is also projected to decrease \nto below 1.0 under the BAU scenario (0.8) and furthermore to 0.6 under the assumptions \nthat the sectoral saving target and the other policy interventions under APS2, APS3, and \nAPS4 are implemented fully as indicated in the combined APS (APS5) scenario.\nThe primary energy supply per capita is in the range of 1.7 to 2.2 toe/person for all \nscenarios by 2040. This is still below that of neighbouring countries like Thailand and \nMalaysia. The development of energy infrastructure, particularly in the remote and small \nisland areas, will improve the electrification ratio and, hence, increase accessibility to \nenergy.\nOil will still have the largest share in the total primary energy mix. The 2014 National \nEnergy Policy sets the target of less than 25% in 2025, and of less than 20% in 2050. \nThe transport sector, which is the main consumer of oil in the country, will be crucial \nFigure 7.16: Power Generation Mix, BAU and APS (2015 and 2040)\nAPS = Alternative Policy Scenario, BAU = Business-As-Usual, NRE = new and renewable energy.\nSource: Author’s calculation.\n60%\n40%\n20%\n80%\n100%\n0%\n2015\n2040-BAU\n2040-APS\n10.40%\n5.38%\n26.87%\n26.59%\n3.12%\n43.42%\n22.71%\n1.59%\n70.33%\n25.24%\n8.24%\n55.93%\nNRE\nOil\nCoal\nGas\n\n\n149\nfor achieving these energy-saving targets. Government should further encourage the \ntransport sector programme by improving the public transport system and promoting the \nuse of alternative fuels and more efficient vehicles.\nThe current analysis which assumed increased use of alternative fuels and more efficient \nvehicles in the transport sector and efficient boilers in the industries resulted in oil \nconsumption savings between the BAU scenario and the APS of as high as 23% in 2040. \nThe combined APSs (APS5) assumed implementation of programmes to achieve the \nsectoral energy-saving targets such as\n• \nPromoting industrial energy efficiency through mandatory energy management for \nindustries consuming more than 6,000 toe as mandated by Government Regulation \nno. 70/2009, through a system optimisation approach, and by adapting the \nISO50001 as the reference for the national competent standard on energy managers. \n• \nSaving 10% of electricity consumption through national campaigns and through \nregulations in the case of government buildings.\n• \nImplementing ‘Green Building’ in existing and new buildings by formulating stricter \nlegislation to improve the environment quality of buildings , and encouraging green \nbuildings by adopting the standards in Regulation No. 02/PRT/M/2015 on Green \nBuilding issued by the Minister of Public Works and Public Housing. Both the governor \nof DKI Jakarta and the mayor of Bandung had already issued regulations on green \nbuildings, Regulation No. 38/2012 and Regulation no. 1023/2016, respectively.\n• \nPromoting the labelling and performance standards on electrical appliances in the \nresidential sector through regulations that mandate energy efficiency labelling and \nminimum energy performance standards (MEPS) for appliances. Regulations are \nin place for compact fluorescent lamps or CFL and for air conditioning. MEPS and \nlabelling for refrigerators, rice cookers, washing machines, water pumps, and LED \nlights will soon be finalised.\n• \nFormulating funding mechanisms (private, public, or a combination of both) to \npromote efficient technologies and equipment. The main issue is the lack of financial \nsupport from commercial banks and other financial institutions. Provision of policies \nthat will increase investment amounts and reduce strict collateral requirements of \nbanks and other financial institutions is currently ongoing. In addition, policies and \nregulations to facilitate and support the establishment of energy-saving companies \nwill also support funding for EEC projects. \nPursuing EEC programmes is one measure of reducing CO2 emissions to achieve the \ncommitted target in the NDC of 29% (without international support) and 41% (with \ninternational support). Increasing the share of renewable energy sources in the supply \nmix, increased thermal efficiency of fossil fuel plants, and the introduction of nuclear \nIndonesia Country Report\n\n\n150\nENERGY OUTLOOK AND ENERGY SAVING POTENTIAL IN EAST ASIA 2019\nenergy, as implied in the APS, would further reduce CO2 emissions. The assumptions in \nthe APS will slow down CO2 emissions compared to the BAU scenario. The reduction \nlevel is more than that targeted in the NDC for the energy sector; i.e. more than 440 Mt-\nCO2 in 2030 compared to 392 Mt-CO2 under CM2 of the NDC. Most of the reductions \nwill come from reducing the use of coal, particularly in the power sector, and replacing it \nwith renewable energy such as solar, hydro, and geothermal.\nBoth the BAU scenario and the combined APS (APS5) projected that renewable energy \nwill play a major role in the country’s energy mix. The government has implemented \nprogrammes and issued regulations to accelerate the development of renewable energy \nin Indonesia. The recent Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources (MEMR) Regulation \nNo. 50 Year 2017 provide more opportunities for the private sector to enhance the \ndevelopment of hydro, geothermal, PV, wind, municipal waste, biomass (agriculture \nestates), biogas, and ocean energy for on-grid electricity. MEMR Regulation no. 38 of \n2016 provides opportunities for the private sector and local state-owned companies to \ndevelop small-scale power supply (off-grid/mini-grid) from renewable energy (mini/\nmicro hydro, PV, etc.) to accelerate electrification in undeveloped rural, remote, border, \nand populated small island areas.\nThrough the Biodiesel Mandatory Roadmap (MEMR Regulation No. 12 of 2015), the \ngovernment promotes biofuel use for non-electricity purposes, such as in the transport \nsector, as alternative for diesel fuel. Indonesia started Biodiesel Blending in 2008 with \nB2.5 then gradually increased to B5, B10, B15, and reached B20 in 2016. This mandate \nopens opportunities for the private sector to produce cleaner biofuel.\nFurther measures still need to be undertaken to attract increased private sector \ninvolvement. Examples are improving the transparency and awareness of government \nsupport mechanisms, enhancing financial institutions to participate in renewable energy \nprojects, improving the mechanism for providing incentives to promote NRE sources, \nfurther collaborating with developed countries to promote low-carbon technologies, etc.\n\n\n151\nReferences\nBank Indonesia (n.d.), ‘Indonesian Financial Statistics (SEKI), Real Sector, Table 7_2 \non Gross Domestic Product by Industrial Origin at 2010 Constant Prices.’ http://www.\nbi.go.id/en/statistik/seki/terkini/riil/Contents/Default.aspx.(accessed 3 April 2017).\nCentral Bureau of Statistic (2013), ‘Proyeksi Penduduk Indonesia (Indonesia Population \nProjection) 2010–2035.’ BPS in cooperation with the Indonesian Ministry of National \nDevelopment Planning (Bappenas) and United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA). \nhttps://www.bps.go.id/index.php/publikasi/16 (accessed 6 January 2015).\nDirectorate General of Electricity (2016), ‘Statistik Ketenagalistrikan (Electricity Statistic) \n2015.’ https://www.djk.esdm.go.id/index.php/statistik-ketenagalistrikan. (accessed 5 \nMay 2017).\nHutapea, M. (2018), ‘The Experiences of Renewable Energy Development in Indonesia,’ \nPresentation material at the 1st Working Meeting of the Basic Energy Plan for Cambodia, \nPhnom Penh, Cambodia, 4–6 May 2018 (unpublished). \nIndrawati, S.M. (2018), ‘Indonesia Outlook. Striking the Right Balance Between Reform \nand Growth,’ Paper presented at the Mandiri Investor Forum, Hotel Fairmont Senayan, \nJakarta, Indonesia, 7 February 2018. http://perbanas.org/file/CP180208007_file2018-\n02-08_11-10-10.pdf. (accessed 22 June 2016). \nMasripatin, N. (2017), 'Indonesia NDC and the Way Forward,' Webinar NDC on 20 July \n2017. https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/09_indonesia_webinar_ndc_20jul2017.\npdf (accessed 7 September 2017).\nMinistry of Energy and Mineral Resources (2017), ‘Handbook of Energy and Economic \nStatistics of Indonesia 2017.’ http://www.esdm.go.id/publikasi/statistik/handbook.\nhtml (accessed 3 November 2017).\nIndonesia Country Report\n\n\n152\nENERGY OUTLOOK AND ENERGY SAVING POTENTIAL IN EAST ASIA 2019\nRepublic of Indonesia (2015), ‘Intended National Determined Contribution Republic of \nIndonesia’, \nhttp://www4.unfccc.int/submissions/INDC/Published%20Documents/\nIndonesia/ 1/INDC_REPUBLIC%20OF%20INDONESIA.pdf (accessed 7 September \n2017).\nRepublic of Indonesia (2014), ‘National Energy Policy 2014, Government Regulation No. \n79 year 2014.’ http://www.den.go.id/.(accessed 10 October 2017).\nWorld Bank (2017), World Development Index (WDI) Update, September 2017. \nWashington, DC: World Bank.\n\n\n153\nJAPAN COUNTRY REPORT\n1. Background\nJapan is a small island-nation in Eastern Asia. It consists of several thousand islands \nspanning a land area of approximately 377,960 square kilometres; most of its land area is \nmountainous and thickly forested. Until 2009, it was the world’s second-largest economy \nafter the United States. In 2010, however, China surpassed Japan as the world’s second-\nlargest economy. Japan’s real gross domestic product (GDP) in 2015 was about US$5,986 \nbillion (constant 2010 prices) (World Bank, 2017), and the population is currently about \n127 million.\n1.1. Energy Situation\nJapan possesses limited indigenous energy resources and imports almost all its crude \noil, coal, and natural gas requirements to sustain economic activity. In 2015, Japan’s \nprimary energy supply was 429.8 million tons of oil equivalent (Mtoe). By energy type, oil \nrepresented the largest share at 43.0%, coal was second at 27.3%, followed by natural gas \nat 23.3%. Nuclear energy accounted for 0.6%. Others, such as hydro, geothermal, wind, \nand solar, represented the remainder of 5.8%. In 2015, net imports of energy accounted \nfor about 99% of net primary energy supply. With limited indigenous energy sources, \nJapan imported almost 100% of oil and coal, and 98% of gas.\nJapan is a large importer of coal: steam coal for power generation, pulp and paper, and \ncement production; and coking coal for steel production. Domestic demand for natural \ngas is met almost entirely by imports of liquefied natural gas. Natural gas is mainly used \nfor electricity generation, followed by reticulated city gas and industrial fuels. In 2015, \nprimary natural gas consumption was 100 Mtoe.\nCHAPTER 8\nSeiya Endo, The Institute of Energy Economics, Japan\n\n\n154\nENERGY OUTLOOK AND ENERGY SAVING POTENTIAL IN EAST ASIA 2019\nJapan’s final energy consumption experienced a slight growth of 0.1% per year from 287.0 \nMtoe in 1990 to 291.4 Mtoe in 2015. The residential/commercial (‘others’) sector had \nthe highest growth rate during this period at 1.1% per year, followed by the transport \nsector with 0.2%. Consumption in the industry sector decreased at a rate of 1.1% per year \non average over the period 1990–2015. Oil was the most-consumed product, having a \nshare of 59.5% in 1990; it decreased to 52.3% in 2015. Electricity was the second most-\nconsumed product. \nJapan’s primary energy supply decreased at the rate of 0.1% per year from 438.6 Mtoe \nin 1990 to 429.8 Mtoe in 2015. Amongst the major energy sources, the fastest-growing \nfuels were natural gas and coal. Natural gas and coal consumption grew at an average \nannual rate of 3.3% and 1.7%, respectively, while nuclear energy declined at 11.5% in \n1990–2015 due to the Great East Japan earthquake. Oil consumption declined by 1.2% \nper year over the same period.\nIn Japan, 292 gigawatts (GW) of power generation capacity was installed and generated \nabout 1,035 terawatt-hours (TWh) of electricity in 2015. The generation by energy type \nis broken down as thermal (coal, natural gas, and oil) at 82.6%; nuclear, 0.9%; hydro, 8.2%; \nand geothermal, solar, and wind taking up the remaining 8.0%.\n2. Modelling Assumptions\nIn this outlook, Japan’s real GDP is assumed to grow at an average annual rate of 1% \nfrom 2015 to 2040. With the maturing of Japanese society and economy, the industry \nstructure will become increasingly oriented towards the service industry. \nPopulation growth, on the other hand, will decline by about 0.4% per year from 2015 to \n2040 due to the decreasing birth rate. Japan’s population is projected to decrease from \n127 million in 2013 to 114 million in 2040. Figure 8.1 shows the assumptions of GDP and \npopulation growth in this study.\nThe development of Japan’s infrastructure and the expansion of its manufacturing industry \nwill be saturated over the outlook period, and production of crude steel, cement, and \nethylene will gradually decline. The number of automobiles will decline as the population \nshrinks.\n\n\n155\nJapan Country Report\n%\nFigure 8.1: Annual Growth Rate of GDP and Population\nGDP = gross domestic product.\nSource: Author’s assumption.\n-0.5\n-1.0\n0.0\n1990-2015\n2015-2020\n2020-2030\n2030-2040\n0.5\n1.0\n1.5\nGDP\nPopulation\nThe New Strategic Energy Plan was approved by the Cabinet in April 2014. Based on \nthis plan, the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI) approved the Long-term \nEnergy Supply and Demand Outlook in July 2015. According to the Outlook, the share of \nnuclear power will be reduced from about 30% before the Great East Japan Earthquake to \nabout 20%–22% in 2030. The share of renewable energy will be about 22% to 24% in 2030, \nwhich was 11% before the earthquake. Also, the share of baseload power (hydropower, \ncoal-fired thermal power, nuclear power, etc.) will be approximately 56%.\nJapan’s energy savings goal will be attained through the implementation of national \nenergy efficiency programmes in all energy-consuming sectors. For the industry sector, \nenergy savings are expected from improvements in manufacturing technologies. In the \nresidential/commercial sector, the ‘Top Runner Programme’1 is projected to induce huge \nsavings in addition to programmes on energy management systems, improvements in \nadiabatic efficiency, lighting systems, and heat pump systems. In the transport sector, \nefficiency improvements will be achieved from improvements in vehicle fuel efficiency, \nincluding increases in the stock of hybrid vehicles and structural changes in vehicles. Figure \n8.2 shows the assumed thermal efficiencies of thermal power plants in the Business-As-\nUsual (BAU) scenario.\n1 \nThis is Japan’s energy efficiency programme that aims to improve the energy efficiency of household and office \nappliances as well as vehicles. It sets the end-use energy performance of the best technology available in the market \nas the standard for each product category.\n\n\n156\nENERGY OUTLOOK AND ENERGY SAVING POTENTIAL IN EAST ASIA 2019\n3. Simulation Results\n3.1. Business-As-Usual Scenario \n3.1.1. \n Final Energy Consumption\nWith the projected relatively low economic growth and declining population, Japan’s final \nenergy demand from 2015 to 2040 is projected to decline at an average rate of 0.4% per \nyear in the BAU scenario. This is also driven by improved energy efficiency in the transport \nsector. The final energy consumption of the transport sector is projected to decrease at an \nannual average rate of 1.3% from 2015 to 2040. This is mainly due to improvements in the \nfuel economy of conventional internal combustion engine vehicles, and the penetration \nof hybrid vehicles. Figure 8.3 shows the projected final energy consumption by sector \nfrom 1990 to 2040 under the BAU scenario.\nFigure 8.2: Thermal Efficiency, BAU\nBAU= Business-As-Usual.\nSource: Author’s calculation.\n30\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n35\n40\n45\n50\n55\n%\nCoal\nOil\nNatural Gas\n\n\n157\nFigure 8.3: Final Energy Consumption by Sector, BAU\nAPS = Alternative Policy Scenario, BAU = Business-As-Usual, Mtoe = million tons of oil equivalent.\nSource: Author’s calculation.\n50\n100\n150\n200\n250\n300\n350\n0\nBAU\nAPS1\nAPS2\nAPS3\nAPS4\nAPS5\nIndustry\nTransportation\nOthers\nNon-Energy\nMtoe\nBy fuel type, the consumption of coal and oil is projected to decrease at an average \nannual rate of 0.4% and 1.1%, respectively, between 2015 and 2040. On the other \nhand, consumption of natural gas and electricity is projected to increase at 0.6% and \n0.4% per year, respectively, over the period. Figure 8.4 shows the projected final energy \nconsumption by source from 1990 to 2040 under the BAU scenario.\nMtoe\nFigure 8.4: Final Energy Consumption by Source, BAU\nBAU = Business-As-Usual, Mtoe = million tons of oil equivalent.\nSource: Author’s calculation.\n100\n200\n300\n400\n-\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2030\n2040\nCoal\nOil\nNatural Gas\nElectricity\nHeat\nOthers\nJapan Country Report\n\n\n158\nENERGY OUTLOOK AND ENERGY SAVING POTENTIAL IN EAST ASIA 2019\n3.1.2. \n Primary energy supply\nUnder the BAU scenario, Japan’s net primary energy supply is projected to decrease \nat an average annual rate of 0.1% per year from 429.8 Mtoe in 2015 to 414.3 Mtoe in \n2040 (Figure 8.5). This decrease is due mainly to the decreasing use of oil at an average \nannual growth rate (AAGR) of 1.5% between 2015 and 2040. On the other hand, nuclear \nand renewable energy including hydro will have increased AAGRs of 10.9% and 1.7%, \nrespectively. The share of nuclear between 2015 and 2040 is projected to increase from \n0.6% to 7.9%. The self-sufficiency rate of primary energy will reach 26.3% in 2040, from \n7.0% in 2015, after the restart of nuclear power plants and penetration of renewable \nenergy.\n3.1.3. Energy indicators\nThe energy consumption per capita towards 2040 will increase during the projection \nperiod. Income elasticity2 between 2015 and 2040 is expected to decline because the \ngrowth rate in energy consumption will be negative while the GDP growth rate is assumed \nto be positive.\nExcept for energy consumption per capita, all other energy indicators will exhibit decreases \nfrom the 2015 levels by 2040. CO2 intensity carbonisation rate (CO2 emissions per unit \nof energy consumption) will be about 46% lower than the 1990 levels and about 44% \nlower than the 2015 levels. Figure 8.6 shows the evolution of several kinds of indicators of \nenergy consumption in Japan from 1990 to 2040 under the BAU scenario.\nFigure 8.5: Primary Energy Supply, BAU\nAPS = Alternative Policy Scenario, BAU = Business-As-Usual, Mtoe = million tons of oil equivalent.\nSource: Author’s calculation.\n100.00\n200.00\n300.00\n400.00\n500.00\n600.00\n-\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2030\n2040\nCoal\nOil\nNatural Gas\nNuclear\nHydro\nGeothermal\nOthers\nMtoe\n2 \nGrowth rate of energy consumption divided by growth rate of GDP. \n\n\n159\n3.2. Energy Savings and CO2 Reduction Potential\n3.2.1. \n Final energy consumption\nIn the Alternative Policy Scenario (APS), final energy consumption is projected to decline \nat the faster rate of 0.6% per year, from 291.4 Mtoe in 2015 to 248.8 Mtoe in 2040. \nIn all final sectors (industry, transport, ‘others’), energy consumption will continue to \ndecrease due to improved energy efficiency. The transport sector especially will achieve a \nremarkable savings of 1.3% per year due to the Top Runner Programme and more aggressive \nenergy management systems. Japan will implement continuous efforts to improve energy \nefficiency, especially regarding the penetration of energy-efficient automobiles, such as \nhybrid vehicles, electric vehicles, and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles. \nThe industry and services sectors will also make efforts to improve their energy efficiency \nalthough it will be difficult for these sectors to do so drastically because energy efficiency \nand conservation actions in those sectors have already been done so far. Figure 8.7 shows \nthe final energy consumption by sector in the BAU scenario and the APS.\nFigure 8.6: Indices of Energy and CO2 Intensities, Energy per \nCapita, and Carbonisation Rate, BAU (1990–2040)\nBAU = Business-As-Usual.\nSource: Author’s calculation.\nEnergy Intensity\nEnergy per Capita\nCO2 per Energy\nCO2 per Intensity\nCO2 per Capita\n0\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2030\n2040\n120\n100\n80\n60\n40\n20\n140\n1990=100\nJapan Country Report\n\n\n160\nENERGY OUTLOOK AND ENERGY SAVING POTENTIAL IN EAST ASIA 2019\nFigure 8.7: Final Energy Consumption by Sectors, BAU and APS (2015 and 2040)\nAPS = Alternative Policy Scenario, BAU = Business-As-Usual, Mtoe = million tons of oil equivalent.\nSource: Author’s calculation.\n80\n60\n40\n20\n100\n120\n0\n–17.9%\n–7.3%\n0.0%\nMtoe\nBAU\n2015\n2040\nIndustry\nAPS\nBAU\n2015\n2040\nTransport\nAPS\nBAU\n2015\n2040\nOthers\nAPS\nBAU\n2015\n2040\nNon-energy\nAPS\n–1.2%\n3.2.2. \n Primary energy supply\nIn the APS, the projected primary energy supply of Japan will decline at a rate of 0.3% per \nyear to 394.1 Mtoe in 2040, 35.7 Mtoe lower than that in 2015. Coal, oil, and natural gas \nwill have decreasing AAGRs of 1.1%, 1.8%, and 0.7%, respectively. Nuclear and biomass \nwill partially substitute fossil fuels. Figure 8.8 shows the primary energy supply by source \nunder the BAU scenario and the APS.\nAPS = Alternative Policy Scenario, BAU = Business-As-Usual, Mtoe = million tons of oil equivalent.\nSource: Author’s calculation.\nBAU\n2015\n2040\nCoal\nAPS\nBAU\n2015\n2040\nOil\nAPS\nBAU\n2015\n2040\nGas\nAPS\nBAU\n2015\n2040\nOthers\nAPS\nMtoe\n+42.8%\n–18.3%\n–10.9%\n–16.0%\nFigure 8.8: Primary Energy Supply by Source, BAU and APS (2015 and 2040)\n100\n50\n150\n200\n0\n\n\n161\n3.2.3. \n Projected energy savings\nEnergy savings that could be derived from action plans of Japan amount to 20.15 Mtoe, \nthe difference between the primary energy demand of the BAU scenario and the APS \n(Figure 8.9). This is equivalent to 4.9% reduction of Japan’s consumption under the BAU \nscenario in 2040. \nEstimated savings in final energy consumption in the residential/commercial sector will \namount to 7.11 Mtoe and 9.25 Mtoe in the transport sector in 2040 in the APS. The \nprojected decreases in the consumption of the transport sector in 2015–2040 are 25.3 \nMtoe in the BAU scenario and 42.6 Mtoe in the APS. This is attributable to the increase \nof more efficient vehicles.\n3.2.4. \n CO2 emissions from energy consumption\nUnder the BAU scenario, CO2 emissions from energy consumption are projected to \ndecrease at an average annual rate of 0.7% from 312.9 million tons of carbon (Mt-C) in \n2015 to 219.2 Mt-C in 2040 (Figure 8.10). Under the APS, CO2 emissions are projected \nto decline at average annual rate of 1.4% between 2015 and 2040.\nFigure 8.9: Total Primary Energy Supply, BAU and APS (1990, 2015, and 2040)\nAPS = Alternative Policy Scenario, BAU = Business-As-Usual, Mtoe = million tons of oil equivalent.\nSource: Author’s calculation.\n420.0\n410.0\n400.0\n390.0\n380.0\n430.0\n440.0\n450.0\n370.0\nMtoe\nBAU\n2015\n1990\n2040\nAPS\n20.15 Mtoe,-4.9%\nJapan Country Report\n\n\n162\nENERGY OUTLOOK AND ENERGY SAVING POTENTIAL IN EAST ASIA 2019\nAPS = Alternative Policy Scenario, BAU = Business-As-Usual, Mt-C = million tons of carbon.\nSource: Author’s calculation.\nMillion Tons of Carbon\nBAU\n2015\n1990\n2040\nAPS\nFigure 8.10: CO2 Emissions from Fossil Fuel Combustion, BAU and APS\n420.0\n410.0\n400.0\n390.0\n380.0\n430.0\n440.0\n370.0\n44.11 Mt-C,-16.7%\n4. \n Japan’s Intended Nationally Determined \n Contributions\nJapan’s Intended Nationally Determined Contributions towards reduced greenhouse \ngas emissions after 2020 is 26.6% by fiscal year (FY) 2030, compared to that of FY2013 \n(25.4% reduction compared to FY2005, approximately 1.042 billion tons of carbon \ndioxide equivalent (t-CO2e). That target is consistent with METI’s Long-term Energy \nSupply and Demand Outlook of Japan’s quantitative policy target for energy mix in 2030. \nJapan is expected to achieve this target in the APS.\n5. Implications and Policy Recommendations\nJapan’s primary energy intensity has been declining since 1980, and it is the lowest \nworldwide. This could be due to the enormous improvements in energy efficiencies in \nboth supply- and demand-side technologies that have been developed and implemented \nin the country. The fact that Japan imports most of its energy requirements is another \nreason the country is very aggressive in improving energy efficiency. \nThe Cabinet approved the Strategic Energy Plan in April 2014 (Government of Japan, \n2014). The plan was the basis for METI’s approval in July 2015 of the Long-term Energy \nSupply and Demand Outlook (METI, 2015), which presents the ideal structure of energy \nsupply and demand. This can be realised if appropriate measures are taken based on the \n\n\n163\nfundamental direction of energy policies. Japan’s objectives are safety, energy security, \neconomic efficiency, and environment, which are the basic concepts of the policies. \nCO2 emissions in 2040 are projected to be much lower than those of the 1990 level in the \nAPS, based on METI’s Outlook, and even in the BAU scenario. However, to achieve the \n26% reduction target for 2030, Japan should effectively implement its policies on low-\ncarbon technology, including energy efficiency and zero emissions energy.\nFor energy efficiency, the APS requires a 1% improvement per year for companies that \nconsume large amounts of energy, and a target of 50% share in sales for hybrid vehicles. \nRenewable and nuclear energy play a key role in decarbonising power generation. \nTo achieve intensive renewable energy penetration, like in the APS, it is necessary to \nsignificantly reduce the capital cost, invest in grids to cope with fluctuations of power \nfrom photovoltaic and wind, and implement effective grid rules. As for nuclear energy, \nmature safety measures and sufficient communication with local communities for restart \nare required.\nIn addition, as the leader in energy efficiency, Japan’s government and companies should \nshare best practices of policies, services, and products with other countries. By doing this, \nJapan can contribute to reducing world energy consumption. This is beneficial to Japan as \nwell since such activity helps with the global expansion of its market. \nReferences\nGovernment of Japan (2014), Strategic Energy Plan. Tokyo: Government of Japan.\nInternational Energy Agency (IEA) (2017), World Energy Balances. Paris: IEA.\nMinistry of Economy Trade and Industry Japan (METI) (2015), Long-term Energy Supply \nand Demand Outlook. Tokyo: METI.\nWorld Bank (2017), World Develop Indicators. Washington, DC: World Bank.\nJapan Country Report\n\n\n164\nENERGY OUTLOOK AND ENERGY SAVING POTENTIAL IN EAST ASIA 2019\nREPUBLIC OF KOREA COUNTRY \nREPORT\n1. Background\nThe Republic of Korea (henceforth, Korea) is in the southern half of the Korean Peninsula \nand shares a 238-kilometre border with the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea \n(North Korea). It occupies 100,188 square kilometres and includes about 3,000 mostly \nsmall, uninhabited islands. Korea is a mountainous country with lowlands accounting for \nonly 30% of the total land area. The climate is temperate, with heavy rainfall in summer. As \nof 2015, Korea had a population of 51.069 million, over 90% of whom live in urban areas. \nKorea has recorded tremendous economic growth over the past half century, overcoming \nthe Asian financial crisis in 1998 and the global economic crisis in 2008. However, due to \nthe global financial crisis of 2007–2008, growth has slowed down. The Korean economy \nis dominated by manufacturing, particularly electronic products, passenger vehicles, and \npetrochemicals.\nKorea has no domestic oil resources and has produced only a small amount of anthracite \ncoal, but imports most of its coal, which is bituminous coal. Consequently, Korea must \nimport nearly all of its needed energy and is the fifth-largest oil importer and the second-\nlargest importer of liquefied natural gas (LNG) in the world. The total primary consumption \nin 2015 was 272.7 million tons of oil equivalent (Mtoe), increasing by 4.4% a year since \n1990. Although primary energy consumption is dominated by oil and coal, nuclear power \nand LNG also supply a significant share of the country’s primary energy. The strongest \ngrowth occurred in natural gas (11.3% per year), followed by renewable energy (9.1% per \nyear), coal (4.7% per year), and nuclear (4.7% per year). Oil has increased at a relatively \nslower 2.9% per year.\nThe total final energy consumption in 2015 was 174.2 Mtoe, increasing at an average \nannual rate of 4% from that in 1990. The industry sector accounted for 28.2% of final \nenergy consumption in 2015, followed by non-energy (27.2%) and transport (19.2%). \nCHAPTER 9\nKyung-Jin Boo, Seoul National University, Republic of Korea \n\n\n165\nWhile consumption of coal and oil has gradually decreased, natural gas in the final energy \nconsumption rapidly grew at a rate of 14.9% per year between 1990 and 2015.\nIn 2015, electric power generation in Korea amounted to 549.2 terawatt-hours (TWh), \nwith coal and nuclear combined providing nearly three-fourths of the country’s electricity, \nfollowed by natural gas, sharing 22.4% of generation. Total electricity consumption has \ngrown at an average annual growth rate (AAGR) of 6.8% between 1990 and 2015. When \nbroken down by fuel, coal, natural gas, and nuclear grew by an average annual rate of \n10.9%, 10.7%, and 4.7%, respectively, between 1990 and 2015. Over the same period, \noil and hydro, however, recorded negative annual growth rates of -1.6% and -4.3%, \nrespectively. Meanwhile, other energy sources such as new and renewable energy (NRE) \nrapidly grew at an annual rate of 44.7%.\nSince the 1990s, the Korean government has established five, Basic Plans for Rational \nEnergy Use, which are being revised every 5 years and contain various policy tools and \nprogrammes developed and implemented under the auspices of the Ministry of Trade, \nIndustry, and Energy. Several energy savings measures were announced to encourage \nthe public to voluntarily conserve energy. As part of the measures, voluntary energy \nconservation campaigns were launched to reduce heating and fuel consumption. \nFurthermore, the government urged energy-intensive industries to enhance the energy \nefficiency of their products. In addition, the Ministry of Trade, Industry, and Energy and \nthe Board of Audit and Inspection of Korea formed a task force to examine 660 public and \nprivate organisations to measure their progress in implementing voluntary energy saving \nplans.\nThe current ‘Fifth Basic Plan for Rational Energy Use (2013–2017)’ encompasses various \nkey policy tools and programmes to attain the country’s energy savings target. Amongst \nthem are voluntary agreements, energy audits, energy service companies, appliance \nlabelling and standards, fuel economy, and public transit and mode shifting. These policy \ntools have played and will continue to play important roles in energy savings.\n2. Modelling Assumptions\nKorea’s GDP grew at an average annual rate of 5% between 1990 and 2015. In this report, \nKorea’s GDP is assumed to grow at an AAGR of 2.4% from 2015 to 2040 as shown in figure \n9.1. Affected by the 2008–2009 global economic slowdown, the Korean economy has \nbeen a bit shaken. However, the economy is still in good shape and its economic growth \nis expected to recover to 2.9% per year from 2015 to 2020, slowing down to 2.2% per year \nbetween 2020 and 2040. \nRepublic of Korea Country Report\n\n\n166\nENERGY OUTLOOK AND ENERGY SAVING POTENTIAL IN EAST ASIA 2019\nKorea is expected to continue to rely heavily on coal and nuclear energy for power \ngeneration to meet the baseload. Gas-fired power generation is projected to increase \nfrom 2013 to 2040, while oil-fired generation is projected to decline. Generation from \nhydro sources is projected to remain relatively stable. Also projected is a strong growth \nin electricity generation from wind power and solar photovoltaics driven by renewable \nportfolio standards, which were launched in January 2012.\nKorea’s energy-saving goals can be attained by implementing energy efficiency \nimprovement programmes in all energy sectors. In the industry sector, energy savings are \nexpected from the expansion of voluntary agreements, the highly efficient equipment \nprogramme, and the development of alternative energy and improvements in efficient \ntechnologies. The transport sector aims to save energy by enhancing the efficiency of the \nlogistics system, expanding public transport, and improving the fuel economy of vehicles. \nIn the residential/commercial (‘others’) sector, the minimum energy efficiency standards \nprogramme is projected to induce huge savings in addition to ‘e-Standby Korea 2010.’1 \nFigure 9.1: Assumptions for GDP and Population (1990–2040)\nGDP = gross domestic product.\nSource: Author.\n0\n0\n500\n20\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2030\n2040\n1,000\n30\n1,500\n40\n2,000\n50\n2, 500\n60\nPopulation\nGDP\nUS$ billion 2010\nmillion persons\n1 \nThe Korea Energy Agency introduced the ‘E-Standby Korea’ programme, which urges the manufacturers to minimise \nstandby power and select sleep mode during the standby. It is a voluntary agreement. \n\n\n167\nRepublic of Korea Country Report\n3. Outlook Results\n3.1. Final Energy Consumption\nKorea’s final energy consumption grew 4.4% per year, from 64.9 Mtoe in 1990 to 174.2 \nMtoe in 2015.2 The non-energy sector had the highest growth rate during this period \nat 8.1% per year, followed by the industry sector with 4.0%. Energy consumption in the \nresidential/commercial/public (‘others’) sector had grown at a relatively slow pace \nof 2.4% per year. Oil was the most consumed product, with a share of 67.3% in 1990, \ndeclining to 51.8% in 2015. The share of coal in the final energy consumption declined by \n11.3% between 1990 and 2015 whereas the energy share of electricity had doubled to be \nthe second-largest consumed product.\nBusiness-As-Usual Scenario\nWith an assumption of low economic and population growth, final energy consumption in \nKorea is projected to increase at a low average rate of 0.7% a year between 2015 and 2040 \nunder the Business-As-Usual (BAU) scenario as shown in figure 9.2. This is largely due \nto the negative growth in energy consumption in the transport sector, which is projected \nto decrease at an AAGR of -0.01% between 2015 and 2040. The growth in final energy \nconsumption is expected to be led by the ‘others’ and industry sectors up to 2020 at 1.4% \nand 1.2% per year, respectively, then be taken over by the non-energy sectors such as the \nresidential/commercial, and public sectors at 1.0% thereafter up to 2040. Nevertheless, \nall sectors are expected to slow down at a rate less than 0.8%, or a negative average growth \nrate per year except for the ‘others’ sectors.\n2 \nEnergy consumption is calculated based on the net calorific values as converted by The Institute of Energy \nEconomics, Japan from original data submitted by the Republic of Korea.\n\n\n168\nENERGY OUTLOOK AND ENERGY SAVING POTENTIAL IN EAST ASIA 2019\nFinal energy consumption by energy type is expected to be patterned after energy \nconsumption by sector as shown in figure 9.3. The AAGR shows -0.1% for coal, 0.3% for \noil, 1.3% for natural gas, 1.2% for electricity, and 0.3% for heat over the 2015–2040 period. \nCoal and oil consumption is expected to peak around 2020, then gradually decrease \nthereafter, showing a negative growth rate. Heat energy consumption is anticipated to \nfollow the same pattern as oil because of the expected decrease in population and the \nchanging lifestyle oriented towards using more electricity for heating. The case of oil is \nmore like due to the decreasing energy consumption in the transport sector caused by an \nincreasing deployment of electrical vehicles. Other energy types, including NRE, show \na growth rate of 1.8% a year, faster than natural gas, electricity, and heat. The use of \nrenewable energy, in addition to natural gas, will increase as clean and green energy will \nconsiderably contribute to reduced CO2 emissions.\nFigure 9.2: Final Energy Consumption by Sector, BAU (1990–2040)\nBAU = Business-As-Usual, Mtoe = million tons of oil equivalent.\nSource: Author’s calculation.\n50\n100\n150\n200\n250\n-\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2030\n2040\n174\n185\n200\n206\n127\n65\nNon-energy\nOthers\nTransport\nIndustry\nMtoe\n\n\n169\nFigure 9.3: Final Energy Consumption by Energy Type, BAU (1990–2040)\nBAU = Business-As-Usual, Mtoe = million tons of oil equivalent.\nSource: Author’s calculation.\n50\n100\n150\n200\n250\n-\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2030\n2040\n174\n185\n200\n206\n127\n65\nMtoe\nNatural Gas\nOil\nCoal\nElectricity\nHeat\nOthers\nAlternative Policy Scenarios \nThis section discusses the five alternative scenarios developed based on the focus of \npolicy options: (i) improved efficiency of final energy demand (APS1), (ii) more efficient \nthermal power generation (APS2), (iii) higher contribution of renewable energy to \ntotal supply (APS3), (iv) contribution of nuclear energy to total supply (APS4), and (v) \ncombined effects of APS1 to APS4 (APS5). \nFigure 9.4 shows final energy demand by sector in each APS. Total final energy demand is \nto be reduced in the case of APS1 (improved efficiency) and APS5 (combined effects of \nAPS1 to APS 4) at 192.6 Mtoe, 13.1 Mtoe or 5.2% lower than that in BAU. APS2, APS3, \nand APS4 show 205.7 Mtoe. The total amount and share of final energy demand by sector \nare the same as those of the BAU scenario. Accordingly, APS5 which is a combination of \nall APSs shows 192.6 Mtoe, 19.7 Mtoe or 9.5% lower than in the BAU scenario, the same \nas in APS1.\nRepublic of Korea Country Report\n\n\n170\nENERGY OUTLOOK AND ENERGY SAVING POTENTIAL IN EAST ASIA 2019\nFinal energy demand by energy type is shown in Figure 9.5. In APS1 (improved efficiency), \noil accounts for 5.9 Mtoe of energy savings, the largest energy savings, followed by \nelectricity (4.8 Mtoe) and natural gas (1.7 Mtoe). In terms of percentage, electricity \nshows the largest (8.3%), followed by oil and natural gas, both at 6.0%. APS2, APS3, and \nAPS4 are identical in terms of energy demand by energy source, and APS1 and APS5 are \nidentical in terms of total energy demand, share of energy demand by sector, and energy \nsource.\nIn APS5, final energy consumption is projected to increase at an AAGR of 0.4%, from \n174.2 Mtoe in 2015 to 192.6 Mtoe in 2040. Energy demand in the transport sector is \nprojected to decrease at an AAGR of -2.7% over the same period, whereas other sectors \nhave increased energy consumption over the same period. The rate of growth is much \nslower across all sectors, except for the industry sector, compared to the BAU scenario \n(Figure 9.6). The non-energy sector shows an AAGR of 1.0%, followed by the ‘others’ \nsector at 0.4%, and the industry sector at 0.3%.\nFigure 9.4: Final Energy Consumption by Sector, BAU and APS\nAPS = Alternative Policy Scenario, BAU = Business-As-Usual, Mtoe = million tons of oil equivalent.\nSource: Author’s calculation.\n50\n100\n150\n200\n250\n0\nBAU\nAPS1\nAPS2\nAPS3\nAPS4\nAPS5\n205.7\n205.7\n205.7\n192.6\n192.6\n205.7\n61.3\n61.3\n61.3\n61.3\n61.3\n61.3\n49.2\n49.2\n28.9\n28.9\n53.2\n53.2\n53.8\n53.8\n53.8\n53.8\n33.5\n33.5\n33.5\n33.5\n57.1\n57.1\n57.1\n57.1\nNon-energy\nOthers\nTransport\nIndustry\nMtoe\n\n\n171\nFigure 9.5: Final Energy Consumption by Energy, BAU and APS\nAPS = Alternative Policy Scenario, BAU = Business-As-Usual, Mtoe = million tons of oil equivalent.\nSource: Author’s calculation.\n50\n100\n150\n200\n250\n0\nBAU\nAPS1\nAPS2\nAPS3\nAPS4\nAPS5\n53.0\n53.0\n4.4\n4.4\n5.6\n5.6\n5.5\n5.5\n5.5\n5.5\n57.8\n2%\n8.3%\n6.0%\n6.0%\n4.4%\n57.8\n57.8\n57.8\n26.7\n26.7\n92.0\n92.0\n28.4\n28.4\n28.4\n28.4\n97.9\n97.9\n97.9\n97.9\n11.4\n10.9\n10.9\n11.4\n11.4\n11.4\n4.7\n4.7\n4.7\n4.7\nElectricity\nNatural Gas\nOil\nCoal\nHeat\nOthers\nMtoe\nFigure 9.6: Final Energy Consumption by Sector, BAU and APS (2015 and 2040)\nAPS = Alternative Policy Scenario, BAU = Business-As-Usual, Mtoe = million tons of oil equivalent.\nSource: Author’s calculation.\n50\n40\n30\n20\n10\n60\n70\n0\n–13.5%\n–8.5%\n0.0%\nMtoe\nBAU\n2015\n2040\nIndustry\nAPS\nBAU\n2015\n2040\nTransport\nAPS\nBAU\n2015\n2040\nOthers\nAPS\nBAU\n2015\n2040\nNon-energy\nAPS\n–7%\nRepublic of Korea Country Report\n\n\n172\nENERGY OUTLOOK AND ENERGY SAVING POTENTIAL IN EAST ASIA 2019\n3.2. Primary Energy Demand\nThe primary energy demand in Korea had increased at an average rate of 4.4%, from 92.9 \nMtoe in 1990 to 272.7 Mtoe in 2015. Amongst the major energy sources, natural gas grew \nthe fastest at an average annual rate of 11.3%. The next was coal (4.7%), followed by oil \n(29%) and nuclear (4.7%) over the same period. Other energy sources, mainly renewable \nenergy such as solar, wind, biomass, and ocean energy, have been rapidly growing at a \nrate of 9.1% over the same period. This indicates that the Korean government has been \nsuccessfully implementing its ‘Low Carbon Green Growth’ and, Energy New Industry’ \npolicies initiated by previous administrations.\nBusiness-As-Usual Scenario\nIn the BAU scenario, the primary energy demand in Korea is projected to increase at an \naverage annual rate of 0.4%, from 272.7 Mtoe in 2015 to 303.5 Mtoe in 2040. Growth in \nall energy sources is projected to slow down. While the consumption of natural gas shows \nthe fastest growth with a rate of 2.2% per year, coal and oil show much slower AAGRs of \n0.5% and 0.2%, respectively, over the period 2015–2040. The growth in natural gas will \nlargely be at the expense of nuclear, with the share of nuclear declining from 15.7% in \n2015 to 6.2% in 2040.\nFigure 9.7: Primary Energy Supply by Energy Type, BAU and APS (1990–2040)\nAPS = Alternative Policy Scenario, BAU = Business-As-Usual, Mtoe = million tons of oil equivalent.\nSource: Author’s calculation.\n50\n100\n150\n200\n250\n300\n350\n-\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2030\n2040\nCoal\nOil\nNatural Gas\nNuclear\nGeothermal\nOthers\n93\n188\n273\n287\n304\n304\nMtoe\n\n\n173\nAlternative Policy Scenario\nBased on the projection and analysis in the final energy demand by sector and by energy \nsource, primary energy demand is projected in figure 9.8 for all five scenarios. Unlike in final \nenergy demand, each APS has a different amount and share by energy source depending \non a specific policy focus of each APS. Except for APS4 (contribution of nuclear energy \nto total supply), APS1, APS2, and APS3 have primary energy demand less than the BAU \nscenario. Amongst those APSs, APS1 (improved efficiency of final energy demand) is the \nlowest, 281.8 Mtoe, 7.1% lower than that in the BAU scenario, APS3 (higher contribution \nof renewable energy to total supply) follows at 298.6 Mtoe; and APS2 (more efficient \nthermal power generation), at 299.4 Mtoe. In APS1, the largest reduction is in the demand \nfor coal, 9.9%, followed by natural gas (8.9%), and oil (6.0%). Nuclear is to be the same as \nin the BAU scenario, but others (renewable energy) are to increase by 6.6%.\nIn APS5, which combines APS1 to APS4, primary energy demand is projected to increase \nat a lower rate of 0.1% per year, from 272.7 Mtoe in 2015 to 279.3 Mtoe in 2040. The \nconsumption of fossil fuels, such as coal and oil, will gradually decrease in 2015–2040 \nwhereas that of clean energy such as natural gas, nuclear, and others (NRE) will increase \nby 1.1%, 0.2%, and 4.4% per year, respectively, over the projection period (Figure 9.7). \nAggressive implementation of energy efficiency and conservation measures on the \ndemand side, along with a larger uptake of renewable energy on the supply side, will be \nthe main contributors to reduced consumption of fossil fuels.\nFigure 9.8: Total Primary Energy Supply, BAU and APS\nAPS = Alternative Policy Scenario, BAU = Business-As-Usual, Mtoe = million tons of oil equivalent.\nSource: Author’s calculation.\n50\n100\n150\n200\n250\n300\n350\n0,0\nBAU\nAPS1\nAPS2\nAPS3\nAPS4\nAPS5\nCoal\nOil\nNatural Gas\nNuclear\nHydro\nGeothermal\nOthers\n303.5\n15.2\n18.8\n18.8\n18.8\n18.8\n44.6\n44.6\n15.3\n15.2\n19.1\n18.9\n67.6\n61.6\n66.5\n64.7\n60.8\n51.2\n102.5\n109.1\n109.1\n109.0\n108.9\n102.2\n92.3\n83.2\n89.3\n86.6\n78.6\n61.8\n281.8\n299.4\n298.6\n308.6\n279.3\nvs BAU\n25.7%\n137.2%\n24.3%\n33.0%\n6.3%\nMtoe\n15.2\nRepublic of Korea Country Report\n\n\n174\nENERGY OUTLOOK AND ENERGY SAVING POTENTIAL IN EAST ASIA 2019\nProjected Energy Savings\nMajor energy policy approaches to reduce energy demand in Korea are as follows: \n1. Shift of energy policy from a supply-oriented approach to a demand-oriented one. \nMore than anything else, reform in energy pricing and energy taxation is a most \npressing issue. In this context, market mechanisms should be introduced in energy \npricing where rational energy use is induced by sharing information on the full cost of \nenergy production and consumption. \n2. Transformation of industrial structure into a less energy-intensive one, currently under \nway, should be accelerated towards knowledge-based, service, and green industries, \nwhich consume less and clean energies. \n3. Application of energy efficiency standards and codes in product design and production \nprocesses as well as in designing and constructing a system such as factories, buildings, \nand plants. Under these policy directions, the Korean government should develop \nand implement an action plan that contains milestones and strategies with specific \nand cost-effective policy tools.\nThe energy savings that could be derived from the energy saving targets, action plans, \nand policy tools in Korea briefly mentioned in the previous paragraph is 24.19 Mtoe, the \ndifference between primary energy demand in the BAU scenario and the APS in 2040 \n(Figure 9.9). This is equivalent to only 2.4% increase compared to the primary energy \nconsumption in 2015. Figure 9.10 shows the energy savings potential by energy source. \nAmongst energy sources, coal has the largest reduction in energy demand, -33.1%, \nfollowed by natural gas (-24.3%) and oil (-6.4%). In contrast, other energy sources, such \nas nuclear and renewable energy, will increase by 86.2% than in the BAU scenario, whose \nmajor contributor is renewable energy.\n\n\n175\nFigure 9.9: Total Primary Energy Supply, BAU and APS (2015 and 2040)\nAPS = Alternative Policy Scenario, BAU = Business-As-Usual, Mtoe = million tons of oil equivalent.\nSource: Author’s calculation.\n295\n290\n285\n280\n275\n270\n265\n260\n300\n305\n310\n255\nMtoe\nBAU\n2015\n2040\nAPS\n24.19 Mtoe, –8%\nFigure 9.10: Primary Energy Supply by Source, BAU and APS (2015 and 2040)\nAPS = Alternative Policy Scenario, BAU = Business-As-Usual, Mtoe = million tons of oil equivalent.\nSource: Author’s calculation.\n60\n40\n20\n100\n80\n120\n0\nBAU\n2015\n2040\nCoal\nAPS\nBAU\n2015\n2040\nOil\nAPS\nBAU\n2015\n2040\nGas\nAPS\nBAU\n2015\n2040\nOthers\nAPS\nMtoe\n+86.2%\n–33.1%\n–6.4%\n–24.3%\nRepublic of Korea Country Report\n\n\n176\nENERGY OUTLOOK AND ENERGY SAVING POTENTIAL IN EAST ASIA 2019\n3.3. CO2 Emissions from Energy Consumption\nCarbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from energy consumption are projected to increase at \nan AAGR of 0.4%, from 158.7 million tons of carbon (Mt-C) in 2015 to 176.7 Mt-C in \n2040 based on the BAU scenario. Such a growth rate is slower than that in primary energy \nconsumption. This indicates that Korea will be using less carbon-intensive fuels – such as \nnuclear, natural gas, and renewable energy – and employing more energy-efficient green \ntechnologies.\nIn the APS, CO2 emissions are projected to decline at an AAGR of -0.7% between 2015 \nand 2040. The difference in CO2 emissions between the BAU scenario and the APS is \n49.31 Mt-C or -27.0% (Figure 9.11). To attain such an ambitious target, the government \nmust develop and implement cost-effective and consensus-based action plans to save \nenergy and reduce CO2 emissions. \nFigure 9.11: CO2 Emissions from Energy Consumption, \nBAU and APS (2015 and 2040)\nAPS = Alternative Policy Scenario, BAU = Business-As-Usual, Mt-C = million tons of carbon. \nSource: Author’s calculation.\n140\n120\n100\n80\n60\n40\n20\n160\n180\n200\n0\nMillion Tons of Oil Carbon\nBAU\n2015\n2040\nAPS\n–49.31Mt-C, –27,0%\n\n\n177\n3.4. Energy and Carbon Intensity\nAs a result of energy savings, the energy intensity of GDP is projected to improve (Figure \n9.12). In the BAU scenario, energy consumption per unit of GDP (toe/thousand \n2010 US$) is projected to be reduced from 0.197 down to 0.123, indicating a 37.7% \nimprovement. In the APS, it was accelerated by 42.8%. Energy intensity in the APS is 8.2% \nbelow that in the BAU scenario. Carbon intensity is also projected to improve in both the \nBAU scenario and the APS mainly due to the reduction in primary energy consumption \nin terms of energy intensity. Improvement in carbon intensity, CO2 emissions per unit \nof GDP (t-C/thousand 2010 US$), is more salient than that in energy intensity. It is \nprojected to be reduced from 0.113 down to 0.080 and 0.059 t-C/thousand 2010 US$ \nfor the BAU scenario and APS, 36.0% and 52.8%, respectively. Carbon intensity in the \nAPS is 26.3% below that in the BAU scenario.\nFigure 9.12: Energy and Carbon Intensities (1990–2040)\nAPS = Alternative Policy Scenario, BAU = Business-As-Usual.\nSource: Author’s calculation.\n0\n1990\n1990\n2000\n2000\n2015\n2015\n2020\n2020\n2025\n2025\n2030\n2030\n2035\n2035\n2040\n2040\n0.25\n0.2\n0.15\n0.1\n0.05\n0.3\n0.2\n0.18\n0.16\n0.14\n0.12\n0.1\n0.08\n0.06\n0.04\n0.02\n0\nToe/thousand US$ 2010\nT-C/thousand US$ 2010\nBAU\nAPS\nBAU\nAPS\n8.2%\n26.3%\n0.246\n0.265\n0.215\n0.173\n0.166\n0.125\n0.105\n0.084\n0.074\n0.064\n0.059\n0.113\n0.101\n0.090 0.085\n0.080\n0.197\n0.177\n0.160\n0.146\n0.134\n0.194\n0.172\n0.152\n0.137\n0.123\nRepublic of Korea Country Report\n\n\n178\nENERGY OUTLOOK AND ENERGY SAVING POTENTIAL IN EAST ASIA 2019\n4. \n Implications and Policy Recommendations\nWithout any domestic energy resources economically available, Korea has been importing \n97% of the energy needed for economic growth. Thus, Korea’s top policy agenda on energy \nis energy security, that is, how to maintain a stable energy supply to keep the economy \ngoing. However, on entering the 21st century, the Korean government shifted its energy \npolicy into a sustainable, efficient, and energy-saving approach, which was to some extent \nreflected in the first (2009) and second (2014) National Energy Basic Plan. \nKorea’s total primary and final energy consumption in the 1990s had rapidly increased at a \nrate faster than that of GDP whose growth was driven by energy-intensive industries, such \nas the petrochemical, steel, and cement industries. Since 1997, the contribution of these \nindustries to Korea’s GDP has gradually declined, resulting in reduced energy intensity. \nHowever, the shift to a less energy-intensive industrial structure takes time, indicating \nthat energy-intensive industries will prevail in the short to medium term. However, Korea \nwill and must transform its industrial structure into a less energy-intensive one in the \nlonger term.\nThe Second National Energy Basic Plan3 released in 2014 sets the policy approach of \ncompletely shifting the industrial structure from a supply-oriented into a demand-oriented \none. Its basic policy direction consists of six major agendas with demand-oriented energy \npolicy as a priority. Five other key agendas are to build a distributed generation system, \nan improved sustainable energy policy, to strengthen energy security, an enhanced stable \nenergy supply, and to implement an energy policy with people’s support.\nAs regards the priority of an energy policy shift to a demand-oriented approach, the target \nis to save 13% of the total primary energy consumption along with 15% of electric power \nconsumption. Under this agenda, four policy tasks are proposed: (i) reform of energy-\nrelated taxation, (ii) reform of energy pricing, (iii) information and communications \ntechnology–based demand management, and (iv) strengthen programmes by sector. \nThe reform of energy-related taxation as well as energy pricing are intended to induce \na rational use of electricity by coordinating relative prices between electricity and non-\nelectricity energy. Additionally, it was proposed that social costs such as nuclear safety, \nreinforcement of transmission lines, and a reduction in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions \nshould be reflected. \n3 \nThe Korean government worked on the Second National Energy Basic Plan in 2013, releasing its report in early 2014.\n\n\n179\nAnother policy agenda includes an approach from the environmental side, namely, setting \na target of for reduced GHG emissions in response to global climate change. The Korean \ngovernment announced an ambitious, aggressive target to reduce its GHG emissions by \n37% from that of the BAU scenario (850.6 MtCO2e) by 2030 across all economic sectors. \nOut of this target of 37%, 25.7% will be met by domestic activities and the rest, 11.3%, will \nbe attained by emissions trade in the international market. It is a proactive response to and \na fulfilment of its international responsibility for the new climate regime established as a \nfollow-up action to the Paris Agreement in December 2015.\nThroughout the past 3 decades, the Korean government has been mostly concerned \nwith energy security, energy efficiency, and environmental preservation. The energy \nsecurity issue has been dealt with by promoting foreign resource development imports \nand renewable energy development. Energy efficiency improvement has been addressed \nthrough programmes supported by a series of the Five-Year Basic Plans of Rational Energy \nUse. Relevant offices of the Ministry of Environment have approached the environmental \nissue caused by the consumption of fossil fuels and nuclear energy. Now is the time for \nKorea to synergise those efforts exerted so far by the selection and concentration of \npolicy tools and programmes through coordination amongst relevant ministries, as clearly \nspecified in the Second National Energy Basic Plan.\nIn 2017, the new government led by President Moon Jae-In proposed reforms to the \ncurrent energy policy, announcing a new energy policy direction, ‘Energy Transition’, \nwhich has completely shaken up the existing national energy policy. Energy Transition \nrests on two major energy policy agendas: (i) step-wise reduction of nuclear power plants \nand coal-fired plants (‘de-nuclearisation’ and ‘de-coalisation’ policies), and (ii) expansion \nof renewable energy with the share of renewable electricity raised to 20% by 2030 (RE \n3020). These policy agendas will be reflected in subsequent energy plans: the Eighth \nElectricity Demand and Supply Basic Plan (completed and announced) and the Third \nNational Energy Master Plan (under way).\nIf successfully implemented, Energy Transition will result in a complete turnaround \nfrom traditional energy based on coal and nuclear power to a sustainable energy system \nbased on renewable energy and gas-fired power generation. This change in energy mix, \nnevertheless, does not necessarily signify the end for the nuclear industry in Korea. Recent \npolling suggests that the public is marginally in favour of continued investment in nuclear \npower. In 2017, five nuclear reactor units were being constructed. Keeping nuclear power \nin the energy mix, along with a larger uptake of renewable energy, will give Korea more \noptions to meet its Paris Agreement targets which were set by Nationally Determined \nContributions (NDC).\nRepublic of Korea Country Report\n\n\n180\nENERGY OUTLOOK AND ENERGY SAVING POTENTIAL IN EAST ASIA 2019\nThe impacts and implications of the reform in the energy mix remain to be seen. Such \nreform calls for a vast amount of investment in rebuilding infrastructure, hardware, \nand software, along with institutional arrangements. It also entails a change not only in \nthe energy sector per se but also in the cultural, political, and social domains. Having \nsuccessfully gone through several energy transitions in the past, the Korean government \nis highly confident to go ahead with the current policy goals of transforming into a less \nenergy-intensive, greener economic structure and implementing major policy agendas and \ntheir corresponding policy tools and programmes. Such nationwide efforts and campaigns \nwould eventually transform the Korean economy into a less energy-intensive and greener \none in terms of energy savings and reduced CO2 emissions. Such an achievement will \nposition Korea as one of the leading global nations in terms of low-carbon green growth.\n\n\n181\nLAO PDR COUNTRY REPORT\nKhamso Kouphokham, Ministry of Energy and Mines, Lao People’s \nDemocratic Republic\n1. Background\n1.1. Socio-economic Situation\nThe Lao People’s Democratic Republic (Lao PDR) is in the middle of the Southeast Asian \npeninsula. It is bounded by five countries: China in the north, Viet Nam in the east, \nCambodia in the south, and Thailand and Myanmar in the west. The Lao PDR has a total \narea of 236,800 square kilometres (km2), about 70% of which is covered by mountains. In \n2015, the country had a population of 6,663,967, with an average population density of \n27 persons/km2. It comprises 18 provinces, with Vientiane as the capital.\nSince the country shifted to an open-door economic policy in 1986, its economy has been \nprogressing and expanding rapidly. Gross domestic product (GDP) in 2015 increased \n7.56% from the previous year (Lao Statistics Bureau, 2015), increasing to KN 39,647 \nbillion at 2002 constant prices. This is equivalent to US$140,814 million, bringing the per \ncapita income to US$1,628. The economy has been gradually changing from agriculture-\noriented activities to a wider range of activities such as services and industry. For example, \nin 2013, the services sector had a share of 37.9% of the total GDP, while the agriculture \nsector had only 23.5%. The share of the industry sector to GDP was 33.2% in 2013; it \nis expected to have a bigger share in the coming years due to large investments in the \nmineral and hydropower sectors. \n1.2. Energy Supply–Demand Situation\nThe Lao PDR is well endowed with renewable energy resources, especially hydropower \nand biomass. Since 1990 hydropower resources are being intensively developed to \nprovide electricity for the requirements of the country and its neighbours. Every year \nthe Lao PDR receives a significant amount of hard currencies from those power exports, \nwidely considered as a driving force to boost socio-economic development and the energy \nsecurity of the country. \nCHAPTER 10\n\n\n182\nENERGY OUTLOOK AND ENERGY SAVING POTENTIAL IN EAST ASIA 2019\nLao PDR’s total primary energy consumption (TPEC) in 2013 was 2.47 Mtoe. The energy \nmix consisted of hydro, oil, coal, and biomass. Many power plants in the country generate \nelectricity for export, with the export figure reaching 11,548 gigawatt-hours (GWh) in \n2013, equivalent to 1.18 million tons of oil equivalent (Mtoe), and accounting for more \nthan half of the total power consumed in the country and 73.2% of total hydropower \ngeneration. Biomass continues to be an important energy source, and is mostly consumed \nin the country. In places where modern energy is inaccessible, Lao people use it as a main \nsource for cooking, heating, and many other activities because it is abundant, obtainable \neverywhere, and free. In 2015, 1.30 Mtoe of biomass, representing 13.7% of the TPEC, \nwas used. Consumption of oil products was the second largest after biomass. The Lao PDR \ndoes not have oil refineries; thus, the supply of all oil products has been met by imports \nfrom Thailand and Viet Nam. In 2015, the Lao PDR imported 0.99 Mtoe of oil products \nto supply the demand of the transport and the residential/commercial (‘others’) sectors. \nIn the same year, 6.49 Mtoe of coal was consumed, mainly by the industry sector, i.e. the \nHongsa Thermal Power Plant, which is the first and largest coal-fired power plant that \nstarted operation in 2015. Therefore, from 2015 onwards, coal demand is expected to \nincrease sharply. \nDue to its geographic advantage and its many rivers, the Lao PDR is a rich country in terms \nof hydropower resources. According to the Mekong River Commission Study in 1995, \nthe potential of the country’s hydropower resources is 26,000 megawatt-hours (MW). \nHowever, until 2015, only 3,894 MW (Department of Energy Policy and Planning, 2015) \nor 15% of total potential had been realised. In 2015, it produced around 16,501 GWh \nof electricity (Department of Energy Policy and Planning, 2015). Out of this, 65.7% \n(equivalent to 10,842 GWh) was exported to Thailand, Viet Nam, and Cambodia; the \nremaining was consumed domestically. Power exports are projected to increase sharply \nbecause of the government’s agreements with neighbouring countries that, by 2020, \nthe Lao PDR should export 7,000 MW to Thailand and 5,000 MW to Viet Nam. The \npower sources for export are mainly from hydropower. However, one thermal power \nplant, the Hongsa Thermal Power Plant, which has 1,878 MW of installed capacity and \nthree hydropower projects in 2018 are being constructed for export purposes. All projects \nfor export purposes are being developed by foreign private investors through the built-\noperate-transfer scheme. \nThe power sector plays a major role in the energy sector, as well as in the country’s \neconomy, as it generates substantial revenues for the country. The revenues may not be \nsignificant in the short to medium terms, but for the long term, they will be high or will \nincrease manyfold because the ownership of private power plants will be transferred to \nthe government. The electrification ratio in the Lao PDR is 88.94% in 2015 (Department \nof Energy Policy and Planning, 2015). The government plans to raise the country’s \n\n\n183\nelectrification ratio to 90% by 2020. This plan is amongst the government priorities to \neradicate poverty in the country. Considering the increase of electricity demand in the Lao \nPDR and power production for export, optimisation of the power sector will be necessary \nfor future electricity supply. \n1.3. Energy Policies\nSince the establishment of the Ministry of Energy and Mines in 2006, energy infrastructure \nand legislation have been developed and expanded. Also, the energy policies are developing \nand gaining public attention and support. The policies gradually evolved from just the \npower sector policy to broader energy policies towards the development of a sustainable \nand environment-friendly energy sector. The improvement of the energy policies could be \ncredited to the strong support from the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) \nand other international organisations, especially the Economic Research Institute for \nASEAN and East Asia for its continuous cooperation and support on energy policies of \nCambodia, the Lao PDR, Myanmar, and Viet Nam to catch up with other ASEAN countries. \nThe Lao PDR is a landlocked country in the middle of the Mekong subregion. It is \nsurrounded by the three big economies of China, Thailand, and Viet Nam and the two \nmedium economies of Myanmar and Cambodia. Thus, the Lao PDR can promote itself \nas a land-linked country to take advantage of its geography. Based on the energy policies \nexchanged in the platform of ASEAN+31 energy cooperation, evidence shows that those \ncountries have high energy demand and support the energy trade and power integration in \nthis region because it can raise regional energy security and sustainable development. At \nthe same time, the Lao PDR has been trading electricity with Thailand for many decades; \nnow it expands this policy to other neighbouring countries to support regional energy \ncooperation. Particularly, the country will increase power exports to 15,000 MW by 2030 \n– 10,000 MW to Thailand and 5,000 MW to Viet Nam, Cambodia, and Myanmar.\nApart from international cooperation, the Lao PDR also aims to: \n• \nIncrease access to electricity by grid extensions and off-grid rural electrification. \n• \nMaintain an affordable tariff to promote economic and social development.\n• \nIncrease electrification ratio to more than 95% by 2020.\n• \nPromote energy efficiency and conservation.\n• \nMake modern energy more affordable and accessible for every Lao citizen even in \nremote areas.\n• \nIncrease the share of renewable energy in total energy supply by 30% in 2030, including \nto blend 10% of biofuels in the oil supply for the transport sector. \nLao PDR Country Report\n1 \nASEAN countries plus China, Japan, and the Republic of Korea.\n\n\n184\nENERGY OUTLOOK AND ENERGY SAVING POTENTIAL IN EAST ASIA 2019\n2. Modelling Assumptions\nThis study aims to forecast the Lao PDR’s energy growth and demand from a base year of \n2015 to 2040 and to see its energy saving and CO2 emissions reduction potential if it uses \nor implements some Alternative Policy Scenarios (APSs). This study, therefore, uses four \nscenarios as described below: \n• \nBusiness-As-Usual (BAU) – a scenario calculated based on the assuming growth of \nGDP, population, and oil price (Table 10.1);\n• \nAPS 1 – a scenario in which the Lao PDR is implementing energy saving and \nconservation programmes, i. e. reducing energy consumption by 10% during the study \nperiod (2015–2040);\n• \nAPS 3 – a scenario in which the Lao PDR is implementing the biofuel programme, \n \ni. e. blending 10% of biofuel with all oil to be consumed in the country during the study \nperiod;\n• \nAPS 5 – a scenario that combines APS 1 and APS 3 into one scenario.\n3. Outlook Results\n3.1 Business-As-Usual Scenario \n3.1.1 Final energy demand\nIn the Lao PDR, final energy consists of coal, oil, electricity, and others. Its total final \nenergy consumption (TFEC) increased at an average annual rate of 8.6%, from 1.09 Mtoe \nin 1990 to 9.12 Mtoe in 2015 (Figure 10.1). The growth will continue at a faster rate of 3% \nper year and 6.9% per year in 2015–2020 and 2020–2030, respectively. Then after 2040, \nthe TFEC will grow at a slower rate of 4.8% per year.\nTable 10.1: Assumption of Annual Average Growth of GDP and Population\nProjection Period\nGDP Growth, %\nPopulation Growth, %\n2015–2020\n7.0 \n1.5 \n2020–2030\n6.5 \n1.3 \n2030–2040\n6.0\n1.2 \n2013–2040\n6.0 \n1.2 \nGDP = gross domestic product.\nSource: Author’s assumptions based on consultation with relevant ministries;\n\n\n185\nFor the final energy consumption by sector, the Lao PDR, like other Southeast Asian \ncountries, has four sectors that use energy: industry, transport, ‘others’, and non-\nenergy. The ‘others’ sector covers sub-sectors like residential, agriculture, services, and \ncommerce. Between 1990 and 2015, the industry sector registered the highest energy \nuse at 22.9% per year, followed by the transport sector which grew at 7.5% per year, while \nthe ‘others’ sector grew at the lowest rate of 1.9% per year. The highest growth rate of \nthe industry sector continues until 2040. In 1990-2040, the transport sector grew at an \naverage annual rate of 2.2%, followed by the ‘others’ (21%) and non-energy (0.9%) sectors. \nThe share of final energy consumption by sectors is shown in Figure 10.2.\nFigure 10.1: Final Energy Consumption by Sector (1990–2040)\nMtoe = million tons of oil equivalent.\nSource: Author’s calculation.\n5.00\n10.00\n15.00\n20.00\n25.00\n30.00\n35.00\n-\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2030\n2040\nNon-energy\nOthers\nTransport\nIndustry\nMtoe\n30%\n20%\n10%\n40%\n50%\n60%\n70%\n80%\n100%\n90%\n0%\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2030\n2040\nNon-energy\nOthers\nTransport\nIndustry\nFigure 10.2: Sectors’ Share in Final Energy Consumption (1990–2040)\nSource: Author’s calculation.\nLao PDR Country Report\n\n\n186\nENERGY OUTLOOK AND ENERGY SAVING POTENTIAL IN EAST ASIA 2019\nIn terms of energy type, coal was mostly used in 2015; it stood at 6.49 Mtoe and shared \n71.1% in the total final energy demand. It is expected to have more than 71% share until the \nend of the study period. For example, coal’s share in the TFEC will be 74.5% in 2020, 78.5% \nin 2025, 76.9% in 2030, 75.0% in 2035, and 85.3% in 2040 (Figure 10.3 and Figure 10.4). \nThe year 2015 was a turning point for the TFEC of the Lao PDR. In 1990–2000, Others \nincluded the residential and commercial sectors and always had the biggest share, 83.8% in \n1990 and 78.2% in 2000. However, in 2015, coal had the biggest share because the Hongsa \nThermal Power Plant started operation. Other coal-fired power plants are also expected to \nbe developed after 2025. From 1990 to 2000, the ‘others’ sector used biomass, which \nconsists of fuelwood and charcoal, the most because a majority of Lao people still live in \nrural areas and rely on fuelwood as a main fuel for their cooking. Although using fuelwood \nis inconvenient compared to other energy types like electricity and liquefied petroleum gas, \nwhich are mostly used for cooking in urban areas, fuelwood costs less. \nFigure 10.3: Fuels’ Share in Total Final Energy Consumption\nSource: Author’s calculation.\n40%\n30%\n20%\n10%\n50%\n60%\n70%\n80%\n90%\n100%\n0%\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2030\n2040\nOthers\nElectricity\nOil\nCoal\nFigure 10.4: Final Energy Consumption by Fuel Type (1990–2040)\nMtoe = million tons of oil equivalent.\nSource: Author’s calculation.\n5.00\n10.00\n15.00\n20.00\n25.00\n30.00\n35.00\n-\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2030\n2040\nOthers\nElecticity\nOil\nCoal\nMtoe\n\n\n187\nOil is an important energy source for the Lao PDR because the whole transport sector relies \nsolely on this fuel. The oil price directly affects the country’s socio-economic development \nbecause it is part of living and of doing business in the country. However, unlike electricity \nand coal, oil is the only energy that is not produced domestically; it is imported either \nfrom Thailand or Viet Nam. Therefore, it is worthwhile to closely observe and monitor \nits trend during this study. In 2015, 0.99 Mtoe was consumed and it is projected to grow \nat an average annual rate of 2.1% in 2015–2040. Oil demand is expected to rise from \n0.99 Mtoe in 2015 to 1.09 Mtoe in 2020, 1.21 Mtoe in 2025, 1.35 Mtoe in 2030, 1.50 \nMtoe in 2035, and 1.68 Mtoe in 2040. In terms of average annual growth rate (AAGR), \noil is projected to increase at a rate of 2.0% in 2015–2020, 2.1% in 2020–2030, 2.2% in \n2030–2040, and 2.1% in 2015–2040. Compared with coal, electricity, and biomass, coal \nwill rank third in 2015–2040. \n3.1.2 Primary energy supply\nThe country’s primary energy supply consists of coal, oil, hydro, and others. Others \ncover biomass, biofuels, and exported electricity. The Lao PDR’s total primary energy \nconsumption (TPEC) increased at an average annual rate of 8.6%, from 1.20 Mtoe in 1990 \nto 9.49 Mtoe in 2015 (Figure 10.5). The growth is expected to continue at a faster rate \nof 7.2% per year in 2015–2020 because a big amount of coal has been used since 2015 \nfor a thermal power plant. The TPEC growth rate is then projected to continue at a slower \nrate of 3.3% per year during 2020–2030 and at a faster rate again of 7.1% in 2030–2040. \nHowever, primary energy is forecasted to grow at a rate of 5.6% per year in 2015–2040.\nIn 2015, coal was the energy used the most (7.04 Mtoe), followed by hydro (1.33 Mtoe) \nand biomass (1.3 Mtoe). The reason for coal being used the most is the beginning of \nthe operation of the Hongsa Thermal Power Plant. This plant will also increase coal \nconsumption at a high rate of 10.6% in 2015–2020, and its share in the TPEC will increase \nfrom 74.3% in 2015 to 86.8% in 2020. Coal’s share is projected to continuously have a \nhigher percentage of more than 86% until 2040. \nIn 2015, 1.33 Mtoe of hydro with a 14.1% share in the TPEC was used; it is expected to \nincrease to 2.42 Mtoe at 18% TPEC share in 2020. Its AAGR is forecast to reach 2.2% \nin between 2015 and 2040, so hydro demand will increase to 2.30 Mtoe by 2040. The \nincrease in hydro is due to the country’s intensive development of hydropower projects \nto meet increasing domestic demand and to export 7,000 MW to Thailand by 2025 and \n5,000 MW to Viet Nam by 2030 per agreement.\nLao PDR Country Report\n\n\n188\nENERGY OUTLOOK AND ENERGY SAVING POTENTIAL IN EAST ASIA 2019\nBiomass is also used a lot in the Lao PDR because it is a cheaper fuel for cooking and is \nthe main fuel for most rural people. In 1990, 1.01 Mtoe of biomass was used and this \nincreased to 1.30 Mtoe in 2015. It is projected to increase to 1.39 Mtoe in 2020, 1.48 \nMtoe in 2025, 1.56 Mtoe in 2030, 1.66 Mtoe in 2035, and 1.75 Mtoe in 2040. In terms \nof its growth rate, like the projection of biomass in final energy, it is also estimated to grow \nat 1.2% between 2015 and 2040.\nThe demand for oil has been experiencing a high growth in the Lao PDR. Many people \ncan afford to buy private cars for their daily commute, thus, significantly increasing the \nnumber of vehicles. Until 2015, the country did not have any refinery, and all oil products \nwere imported. More than 20 oil companies did business in the Lao PDR, and they were \nauthorised to import and sell oil in the country. In 1990, only 0.16 Mtoe of oil was used. Oil \nusage increased at an AAGR of 7.5% in 1990–2015 and with a 13.6% share in the TPEC in \n1990. It increased from 0.28 Mtoe in 2000 to 0.99 Mtoe in 2015. Its share in the TPEC \nalso went down from 17.2% in 2000 to 10.4% in 2015; it is projected to have shares of \n8.1% in 2020, 6.7% in 2025, 7.3% in 2030, 7.9% in 2035, and 4.6% in 2040 (Figure 10.6). \nHowever, in terms of the AAGR, oil, being the fourth energy source, is expected to have a \nrate of 2.1% per year after those of coal, electricity (exported), and hydro between 2015 \nand 2040.\nApart from the primary energy described above that are related to those that could be \nproduced domestically and imported from its neighbours, the Lao PDR still exports a \nsignificant amount of electricity to Viet Nam, Cambodia, and mostly to Thailand. Figure \n10.5 shows that ‘others’ show negative signs from 1990 onwards because the exported \nelectricity is greater than biomass. The Lao PDR has been exporting power to Thailand \nsince Nam Ngum Dam started operation in 1971; later, many power plants followed suit. \nThe exported figures increased from 0.05 Mtoe in 1990 to 1.18 Mtoe in 2015. Exported \nelectricity is also projected to increase to 3.12 Mtoe in 2020, 2.38 Mtoe in 2025, 3.02 \nMtoe in 2030, 2.88 Mtoe in 2035, and 5.24 Mtoe in 2040. Although the AAGR of \nelectricity for export showed a high rate of 21.4% per year in 1990–2020, it is forecasted \nto grow only at a rate of 6.1% per year in 2015–2020.\n\n\n189\nFigure 10.5: Primary Energy Supply by Source\nMtoe = million tons of oil equivalent.\nSource: Author’s calculation\n20.00\n10.00\n(10,00)\n30.00\n40.00\n50.00\n-\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2030\n2040\nOthers\nHydro\nOil\nCoal\nMtoe\nFigure 10.6: Fuels’ Share in Primary Energy Supply\nSource: Author’s calculation.\n40%\n20%\n–20%\n60%\n80%\n100%\n0%\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2030\n2040\nOthers\nHydro\nOil\nCoal\n3.1.3 Power generation\nThe history of Lao PDR’s power generation can be divided into periods. The first period is \n1970–2015, during which all power is generated from one source like hydropower. The \nsecond period is after 2015, during which the country has both hydro and thermal power \nplants because the Hongsa Lignite Power Plant started operation in 2015. In 1990, the \nLao PDR produced only 0.82 TWh of electricity, then increased to 3.44 TWh in 2000 and \nto 17.76 TWh in 2015. Its generation is forecasted to increase to 41.12 TWh in 2020. \nThe outputs of power generation are estimated to go up dramatically from 2015 to 2040; \nthey are forecasted to reach 33.63 TWh in 2025, 42.32 TWh in 2030, 42.32 TWh in \n2035, and 71.86 TWh in 2040 (Figure 10.7). All power generated before 2015 was from \nLao PDR Country Report\n\n\n190\nENERGY OUTLOOK AND ENERGY SAVING POTENTIAL IN EAST ASIA 2019\nhydropower sources. Over that period, power generation grew at an AAGR of 13.1%. This \nrate is then expected to be greater than 18.3% in 2015–2020, at 0.3% in 2020–2030, and \nat 5.4% in 2030–2040. Because of the first thermal power plant being put into operation \nin 2015, the power generation mix in the Lao PDR has changed since 2015 (Figures 10.7 \nand 10.8). For example, in 2015, out of the output of power generation, hydropower \nplants are projected to share 87.3%, while the thermal power plant will share 12.7% of \ntotal generation. Hydropower plants are forecasted to continue to have the bigger share \nover the thermal power plant until 2020.\nFigure 10.7: Electricity Generation in 2040\nTWh = terawatt-hour.\nSource: Author’s calculation\n30.00\n10.00\n20.00\n40.00\n50.00\n60.00\n70.00\n80.00\n-\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2030\n2040\nHydro\nCoal\nTWh\nFigure 10.8: Technologies’ Share in Electricity Generation (1990–2040)\nSource: Author’s calculation.\n40%\n30%\n20%\n10%\n50%\n60%\n70%\n80%\n90%\n100%\n0%\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2030\n2040\nHydro\nCoal\n\n\n191\n3.2 Energy Saving and CO2 Reduction Potential (APS)\nFor this study, the Lao PDR uses three APSs for its energy saving and CO2 reduction \npotential: (i) EEC scenario (APS1), (ii) development of renewable energy (APS3), and \n(iii) APS5 that combines APS1 and APS3. These three APSs yield the following changes. \nFirst, the TPEC of APS1 amounting to 2.76 Mtoe has decreased; compared with the BAU \nscenario, it declined from 35.055 Mtoe in the BAU scenario to 32.289 Mtoe in APS1. \nSecond, there is no change in primary energy consumption of APS3. Third, primary \nenergy consumption of APS5 has been reduced to the same amount as APS1. The 10% \nreduction in the TPEC mainly comes from the implementation of EEC programmes. All \nexisting primary energies such as coal, oil, hydro, and others are reduced (Figure 10.10).\n3.1.4 Energy indicators\nIn 2020, the Lao PDR’s primary energy intensity (TPES/GDP) will reach the highest level \nof 1,872 toe/million 2010 US$ and is expected to decline to 1,076 toe/million 2010 \nUS$ in 2035 (Figure 10.9). Similarly, final energy intensity will decline even lower; from \n1,791 toe/million 2010 US$ in 2020, it will decrease to 888 toe/million 2010 US$ \nin 2035. This indicates that energy consumers are implementing energy efficiency and \nconservation (EEC) programmes. \nFigure 10.9: Energy Intensity and Other Energy Indicators (1990–2040)\nSource: Author’s calculations.\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2030\n2040\n0\n9,000\n6,000\n7,000\n8,000\n5,000\n4,000\n3,000\n2,000\n1,000\n10,000\n1990=100\nEnergy Intensity\nEnergy per Capita\nCO2 per Energy\nCO2 per Intensity\nCO2 per Capita\nLao PDR Country Report\n\n\n192\nENERGY OUTLOOK AND ENERGY SAVING POTENTIAL IN EAST ASIA 2019\nFigure 10.10: Comparison of Scenarios to Total Primary Energy Supply in 2040\nAPS = Alternative Policy Scenario, BAU = Business-As-Usual, Mtoe = million tons of oil equivalent.\nSource: Author’s calculation.\n20.0\n10.0\n0.0\n30.0\n40.0\n50.0\n-10.0\nMtoe\nBAU\nAPS1\nAPS3\nAPS5\nCoal\nHydro\nOthers\nOil\nFigure 10.11 shows no change in power generation from the BAU scenario to APS1, APS3, \nand APS5.\nFigure 10.12 illustrates energy saving potential amounting to 2.797 million tons of carbon \n(Mt-C) in APS1 and APS5. CO2 emissions declined from 40.943 Mt-C in the BAU \nscenario to 38.146 Mt-C in APS1 and to 38.146 Mt-C in APS5. This reduction is a result \nof the EEC programmes.\nFigure 10.11: Comparison of Scenarios to Electricity Generation in 2040\nAPS = Alternative Policy Scenario, BAU = Business-As-Usual, TWh = terawatt-hour.\nSource: Author’s calculation\n30.0\n10.0\n20.0\n40.0\n50.0\n60.0\n70.0\n80.0\n0.0\nBAU\nAPS1\nAPS3\nAPS5\nHydro\nCoal\nTWh\n\n\n193\n3.2.1 Final energy consumption\nFor trends of final energy demand of the BAU scenario and the APS in each sector, \nthe model shows that, in APS1, final energy demand is expected to increase from 9.19 \nMtoe in 2015 to 26.65 Mtoe in 2040. Industry demonstrates the highest trends both in \nconsumption and share in the TFEC in 2015–2040. This dominance of industry in the \nTFEC is due to the high use of coal in the Hongsa Thermal Power Plant and other coal-\nfired power plants that have operated since 2015. In APS1, industry consumed 6.70 \nMtoe of energy in 2015, and is forecast to consume 7.80 Mtoe in 2020, 10.72 Mtoe in \n2025, 10.76 Mtoe in 2030, 10.78 Mtoe in 2035, and 22.94 Mtoe in 2040. Likewise, it \nalways keeps larger shares throughout the study period, i.e. 73.5% in 2015, 76.4% in 2020, \n80.0% in 2025, 78.3% in 2030, 76.5% in 2035, and 86.1% in 2040. Industry also shows \nthe highest growth rate per year in 2015–2040 during which it is expected to grow at 5% \nper year. After industry, the ‘others’ sector is forecast to use the most energy for the study \nperiod: 1.44 Mtoe in 2020, 1.59 Mtoe in 2025, 1.76 Mtoe in 2030, 1.96 Mtoe in 2035, \nand 2.20 Mtoe in 2040 (Figure 10.13).\nFor the AAGR, APS1 is expected to grow more slowly than in the BAU scenario in 2015–\n2040. The growth rate is forecast to be 4.8% per year in the BAU scenario and 4.4% in APS1.\nFor final energy demand by fuel, similar to the BAU scenario, in APS1 coal also showed a \nmajority share of 71.1% in 2015. It is forecast to increase gradually to 78.4% in 2025, decline \ngradually to 76.8% in 2030 and to 74.9% in 2035, then go up again to 85.2% in 2040.\nFigure 10.13 shows that, in 2040, the final energy demand in industry is expected to be \nreduced from the BAU scenario to the APS at 10.0%; in transport, 9.0%; ‘others’, 10.0%; \nand non-energy, 4.6%.\nFigure 10.12: Comparison of Scenarios to Carbon Emissions in 2040\nAPS = Alternative Policy Scenario, BAU = Business-As-Usual, Mt-C = million tons of carbon.\nSource: Author’s calculation.\n37.0\n35.0\n36.0\n38.0\n39.0\n40.0\n41.0\n42.0\n34.0\nBAU\nAPS1\nAPS3\nAPS5\nOil\nCoal\nMt-C\nLao PDR Country Report\n\n\n194\nENERGY OUTLOOK AND ENERGY SAVING POTENTIAL IN EAST ASIA 2019\nFigure 10.13: Final Energy Consumption by Sector, BAU and APS (2015 and 2040)\nAPS = Alternative Policy Scenario, BAU = Business-As-Usual, Mtoe = million tons of oil equivalent.\nSource: Author’s calculation.\n60.0\n40.0\n20.0\n100.0\n80.0\n120.0\n0.0\n–9.0%\n–10.0%\nMtoe\n–4.6%\nBAU\n2015\n2040\nIndustry\nAPS\nBAU\n2015\n2040\nTransport\nAPS\nBAU\n2015\n2040\nOthers\nAPS\nBAU\n2015\n2040\nNon-energy\nAPS\n–10.0%\n3.2.2 Primary energy consumption\nIn APS1, 9.49 Mtoe of primary energy was consumed in 2015; it is expected to increase \nto 12.30 Mtoe in 2020, 17.05 Mtoe in 2030, and 33.87 Mtoe in 2040. In terms of the \nAAGR, primary energy grew at 8.6% per year between 1990 and 2015. It is expected to \ngrow at 5.3% in 2015–2020, 3.3% in 2020–2030, and 7.1% in 2030–2040. But for 2015–\n2040, primary energy is expected to increase at 5.2%.\nFigure 10.14 shows that, by comparing the BAU scenario and the APS in 2040, coal and \noil are expected to decrease by 6.9% and 9.0, respectively. However, ‘others’ is forecast to \nincrease by 9.7% because of the increase in power exports to Lao PDR’s neighbours.\n\n\n195\n3.2.3 Projected energy savings\nFigure 10.15 shows that, in 2040, primary energy is expected to decrease from the \nBAU scenario to the APS by 2.34 Mtoe or 6.3%. This decrease in the TPEC is due to \nimplementation of the 10% reduction in energy consumption from 2015 to 2030.\nFigure 10.14: Primary Energy Demand by Source, BAU and APS (2015 and 2040)\nAPS = Alternative Policy Scenario, BAU = Business-As-Usual, Mtoe = million tons of oil equivalent.\nSource: Author’s calculation.\n25.0\n20.0\n15.0\n10.0\n5.0\n-5.0\n-10.0\n35.0\n30.0\n40.0\n0.0\nBAU\n2015\n2040\nCoal\nAPS\nBAU\n2015\n2040\nOil\nAPS\nBAU\n2015\n2040\nOthers\nAPS\nMtoe\n–9.7%\n–6.9%\n–9.0%\nFigure 10.15: Total Primary Energy Supply, BAU and APS (2015 and 2040)\nAPS = Alternative Policy Scenario, BAU = Business-As-Usual, Mtoe = million tons of oil equivalent.\nSource: Author’s calculation.\n25.0\n20.0\n15.0\n10.0\n5.0\n30.0\n35.0\n40.0\n0.0\nMtoe\nBAU\n2015\n2040\nAPS\n2.34 Mtoe,-6.3%\nLao PDR Country Report\n\n\n196\nENERGY OUTLOOK AND ENERGY SAVING POTENTIAL IN EAST ASIA 2019\n3.2.4 Energy intensities\nAs the Lao PDR endeavours to move towards an efficient and competitive economy and \npromote sustainable development, energy intensity for both final and primary energy has \nbeen reduced significantly. Final energy intensity is projected to decrease from 1,791 \ntoe/million 2010 US$ in 2015 to 1,279.2 toe/million 2010 US$ in 2040. Primary energy \nintensity is expected to decline from 1,862.1 toe/million 2010 US$ in 2015 to 1,591.7 \ntoe/million 2010 US$ in 2040. Figures 10.16 and 10.17 show that energy intensity in \nAPS5 is less than that in the BAU scenario. This is due to the implementation of the 10% \nenergy saving from 2015 to 2030. However, Figure 10.17 shows an increase in energy \nintensity between 2035 and 2040 because of the end of the energy savings programme.\nFigure 10.16: Final Energy Intensity, BAU and APS (1990–2040)\nAPS = Alternative Policy Scenario, BAU = Business-As-Usual, toe = tons of oil.\nSource: Author’s calculation.\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n-\n1,800\n1,600\n1,400\n1,200\n1,000\n800\n600\n400\n200\n2,000\ntoe/million 2010 US$\nBAU\nAPS5\n\n\n197\n3.2.5 CO2 emissions from energy consumption\nBy reducing energy consumption by 10%, the Lao PDR can reduce CO2 emissions by 2.8 \nMt-C (or 6.8%) in the APS in 2040 (Figure 10.18 ).\nFigure 10.17: Primary Energy Intensity, BAU and APS (1990–2040)\nAPS = Alternative Policy Scenario, BAU = Business-As-Usual, toe = tons of oil.\nSource: Author’s calculation.\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n-\n1,800\n1,600\n1,400\n1,200\n1,000\n800\n600\n400\n200\n2,000\ntoe/million 2010 US$\nBAU\nAPS5\nFigure 10.18: CO2 Emissions from Energy Combustion, BAU vs. APS (2015 and 2040)\nAPS = Alternative Policy Scenario, BAU = Business-As-Usual, Mtoe = million tons of oil equivalent.\nSource: Author’s calculation.\n30.0\n25.0\n20.0\n15.0\n10.0\n5.0\n35.0\n40.0\n45.0\n0.0\nMillion Tons of Oil Carbon\nBAU\n2015\n2040\nAPS\n2.8 Mtoe,-6.8%\nLao PDR Country Report\n\n\n198\nENERGY OUTLOOK AND ENERGY SAVING POTENTIAL IN EAST ASIA 2019\n4. \n Implications and Policy Recommendations\nIn this study, the Lao PDR will achieve energy savings mainly through the implementation \nof the government’s renewable EEC programmes. The programmes consist of an increase \nof the renewable energy share in total energy supply by 30% by 2025, 10% of biofuels in \noil supply for the transport sector, and the reduction of 10% in energy consumption in all \nsectors.\nTo reduce both the TPEC and the TFEC, as well as CO2 emissions, the Lao PDR should \nextend the implementation of the renewable EEC programmes until 2040. As these \nprogrammes are most important in reducing energy, these should be proposed as a \nnational policy. At the same time, it should implement sound projects and programmes. \nThe industry sector should implement an energy management system, develop and \nimplement its own energy saving or reduction plans, cooperate with the government \non energy security, and regularly conduct seminars on energy-saving measures. The \ntransport sector should increase public transport in big cities and conduct campaigns to \npromote the use of public transport. The ‘others’ sector should raise public awareness in \nenergy conservation and implement energy management systems in the building sector. \nIn addition, a study on the correlation between GDP and energy consumption should be \ncarried out and energy statistics should be improved accordingly. The government should \nalso consider the following:\n1. Implement EEC programmes in all sectors.\n2. Establish an EEC fund (like that of Thailand) to support EEC programmes and energy-\nsaving companies. \n3. Increase public transport and use electric vehicles (including public buses and tuk-\ntuks) to reduce oil imports, CO2 emissions, and worsening traffic congestion.\n4. Reform electricity tariff to encourage more EEC activities, e.g. time of use pricing.\n5. Increase the share of coal thermal power generation in the power generation mix by \nusing local coal and clean coal technology to stabilise electricity supply.\n6. Promote power trade within ASEAN.\nReferences\nDepartment of Energy Policy and Planning (2015), Electricity Statistics Yearbook. Ministry \nof Energy and Mines.\nLao Statistics Bureau (2015), Statistical Yearbook 2015, Vientiane: Lao Statistics Bureau, \nMinistry of Planning and Investment, Lao PDR. www.lsb.gov.la.\n\n\n199\nMALAYSIA COUNTRY REPORT\n1. Introduction\nMalaysia is in Southeast Asia. Its 329,847 square kilometres of territory comprise \nPeninsular Malaysia and the Sabah and Sarawak States on the island of Borneo. Malaysia \nhas a tropical, humid climate with temperatures averaging 30oC. Its gross domestic \nproduct (GDP) grew steadily over the last 26 years, growing at an average of 5.7% per year \nfrom 1990 to 2016, except for sluggish growth in 1998 due to the Asian financial crisis \nand in 2001 due to slow growth of export demand for electronic products. The country \nalso experienced the latest downward economy trend in 2009 due to the world economic \ncrisis.\nMalaysia is well endowed with conventional energy resources such as oil, gas, and coal, as \nwell as renewables such as hydro, biomass, and solar energy. Crude oil and condensates \nreserves in the country stood at 5.03 billion barrels or 21 years of lifespan as of 1 January \n2016, supported by the rising reserves from the deep-water discoveries in offshore Sabah. \nMeanwhile, natural gas reserves are at 87.76 trillion standard cubic feet (Tscf), enough to \ncover 37 years of gas output at current production levels. As of January 2015, reserves of \ncoal stood at 1,983.37 million tons. In terms of energy equivalent, Malaysia’s gas reserves \nare four times the size of its crude oil reserves. Natural gas reserves off the east coast of \nPeninsular Malaysia are dedicated for domestic consumption while those in Sarawak are \nallocated as revenue earner in the form of liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports. Malaysia \nis a net energy exporter. \nDuring the last 10 years, some of the barriers to the uptake of energy efficiency and \nrenewable energy have been removed. But there is room for further improvement and \nprogress. The challenge would be to give renewable energy the necessary lift to greater \nheights in the next 5 years. Efforts to promote energy efficiency should be intensified. \nIn addition, climate change, which is inextricably linked with energy use, has become \nincreasingly important, as people begin to appreciate the implications of an increased risk \nof unpredictable, severe weather and rapid changes to the ecosystem. Thus, the need to \nCHAPTER 11\nZaharin Zulkifli, Energy Commission of Malaysia\n\n\n200\nENERGY OUTLOOK AND ENERGY SAVING POTENTIAL IN EAST ASIA 2019\nwork towards a truly sustainable energy future becomes more compelling. A sustainable \nenergy system is central to meeting the economic goals of Malaysia. Malaysia’s levels \nof energy use per unit of production (intensity) are high compared to other nations. A \nnational strategy aimed at reducing energy intensity must be drawn up. Energy planning \nmust recognise that the place to begin is not only with supply but also the management \nof demand for energy services, by increasing energy efficiency and the use of renewable \nenergy sources to meet any remaining demand. To pursue the green growth stated in the \nEleventh Malaysia Plan, KeTTHA1 launched the Green Technology Master Plan (GTMP) \nin 2017 to earmark green growth as one of the six game changers that would alter the \ntrajectory of the economy’s growth. The GTMP creates a framework for facilitating the \nmainstreaming of green technology into the planned development of Malaysia while \nencompassing the four pillars set out in the plan. \nThroughout the years, the government of Malaysia has formulated some policies and \nprogrammes on energy to ensure the long-term reliability and security of energy supply \nfor sustainable socio-economic development in the country. The major energy policies \nimplemented in the country are:\n• \nPetroleum Development Act (1974)\n• \nNational Petroleum Policy (1975)\n• \nNational Energy Policy (1979)\n• \nNational Depletion Policy (1980)\n• \nFour-Fuel Diversification Policy (1981)\n• \nFifth Fuel Policy (2000)\n• \nBiofuel Policy (2006)\n• \nNational Green Technology Policy (2009)\n• \nNational Renewable Energy Policy and Action Plan (2010)\n• \nNew Energy Policy and 10th Malaysia Plan (2010)\n• \nEleventh Malaysia Plan (2015) \n• \nGreen Technology Master Plan (2017)\n2. Modelling Assumptions\nThe energy demand projections up to 2040 were estimated using the econometric \napproach. Historical energy demand data were taken from the National Energy Balance \npublished by the Energy Commission of Malaysia. The economic indicators used in \n1 \nFormerly the Ministry of Energy, Green Technology and Water. Now it is the Ministry of Energy, Science, Technology, \nEnvironment and Climate Change (MESTECC).\n\n\n201\nMalaysia Country Report\nenergy modelling such as GDP were taken from the World Bank’s World Development \nIndicators. Energy modelling involved the estimation of final energy consumption and \nthe corresponding primary energy requirements or supply. Figure 11.1 shows the model \nstructure for final energy demand projection and estimation of transformation inputs to \narrive at the primary energy requirements.\nThe econometric approach is the method applied in forecasting final energy demand. \nThe historical correlation between energy demand as well as macroeconomic and activity \nindicators were derived by regression analysis using Microfit. Microfit is an interactive \nsoftware package written for microcomputers and is designed especially for the \neconometric modelling of time series data. It has powerful features for data processing, \nfile management, graphic display, estimation, hypothesis testing, and forecasting under \nvarious univariate and multivariate model specifications. \nThe future energy demand for various energy sources were estimated using assumed \nvalues of the macroeconomic and activity indicators. Future values of these indicators \nwere also derived using historical data depending on the sufficiency for such analysis. In \nthe model structure, energy demand is modelled as a function of activity such as income, \nindustrial production, number of vehicles, number of households, number of appliances, \nfloor area of buildings, etc. In the residential sector, for example, the demand for electricity \nFigure 11.1: Modelling Structure\nMacroeconomic Assumptions\nFinal Consumption\nPrimary Energy\nGDP, Crude Oil Prices, Exchange Rate, Population, GDP Deflator, Index of Industrial \nProduction, etc.\nIndustry\nTransport\nPower \nGeneration\nAgriculture\nResidential & \nCommercial\nOil Refinery\nNon-Energy\nGDP = gross domestic product.\nSource: Author.\n\n\n202\nENERGY OUTLOOK AND ENERGY SAVING POTENTIAL IN EAST ASIA 2019\ncould be a function of the number of households, disposable income, and penetration \nrate of electrical appliances. In the commercial sector, energy consumption could be \ndriven by building floor arrears, private consumption, and other factors that encourage \ncommercial activities. However, due to unavailable information on the activity indicators, \nmacroeconomic data, which is GDP, was the best variable to search for the relationship \nwith the energy demand trend. GDP information was broken down into industry GDP, \ncommercial GDP, agriculture GDP, and manufacturing GDP. These macroeconomic \nindicators were mainly used to generate the model equations. In some cases, where \nregression analysis is not applicable due to insufficiency of data or there is failure to derive \na statistically sound equation, other methods such as share of percentage approach are \nused.\nOne of the main drivers of the modelling assumption is GDP growth rates. The GDP \ngrowth rates assumption forecast was based on IHS2 data from a study conducted by \nthe Economic Planning Unit (EPU) of Malaysia (IHS Energy Insight, 2014). Most of the \nenergy demand equations for Malaysia use GDP as the key factor in determining future \nprojections. This is due to the high correlation between energy demand and GDP. Table \n11.1 shows the assumptions of GDP growth rates by sector.\n2 \nIHS Markit Ltd is a London-based global information provider that was formed in 2016 when IHS Inc. and Markit Ltd. \nmerged.\nTable 11.1: GDP Growth Assumptions by Sector to 2040 (% per year)\nGDP Growth Rate, \n%\n2016–2020\n2021–2025\n2026–2030\n2031–2035\n2036–2040\nAgriculture\n2.16\n2.26\n2.09\n1.91\n1.74\nMining & Quarrying\n0.01\n1.01\n3.03\n3.74\n5.17\nManufacturing\n3.55\n3.16\n2.77\n2.47\n2.3\nConstruction\n3.44\n3.01\n2.54\n2.26\n2.09\nServices\n4.41\n4.42\n3.67\n3.07\n2.67\nTotal GDP\n3.88\n3.77\n3.19\n2.74\n2.43\nGDP = gross domestic product.\nSource: IHS data from Economic Planning Unit (EPU) (2016).\n\n\n203\nBesides future GDP growth rates, the annual average population growth was also a key \ndriver for future energy growth. In 2015, Malaysia’s population was 31.0 million; it is \nprojected to increase by 10.5 million (33.9%) to 41.5 million in 2040. However, annual \npopulation growth rate would be decreasing from 1.15% in 2016–2020 to 1.02% in \n2021–2025, 0.87% in 2026–2030, 0.74% in 2031–2035, and 0.63% in 2036–2040. This \nsituation is in tandem with the targeted decline in fertility rate and international migration. \nThe assumption of future growth rates of population was obtained from the Department \nof Statistics Malaysia (Table 11.2).\nIn accelerating its socio-economic development, supported by its current position as a net \nenergy exporter, Malaysia subsidises energy use for various users. The energy subsidies \noffered to various energy users in the country have been growing from year to year, \ncorresponding with the volatility of global energy prices and growing demand for energy. \nThe subsidies have reached a worrisome level that the government expenditure capacity \nhas been stretched beyond its ability and has taken the share of other developmental \nbudget allocations. This situation has prompted the Malaysian government to review its \npolicies related to energy subsidies and to act to mitigate growing energy subsidies. In \nthis regard, energy efficiency offers a sound solution to mitigate the effects of the gradual \nremoval of energy subsidies.\nIn promoting energy efficiency, the Ministry of Energy, Green Technology and Water \n(MEGTW) had enacted several legal instruments. The main legal instrument on energy \nefficiency promotion is the Electricity Supply Act (Amendment) 2001, or Act A1116. \nThis empowers the MEGTW, under Sections 23A to 23C, to promote efficient use of \nelectricity in the country. Deriving from Act 1116, the MEGTW issued the Efficient \nManagement of Electrical Energy Regulation 2008. Under this regulation, all installations \nthat consume or generate 3 million kilowatt-hours (KWh) or more of electricity over 6 \nmonths will be required to engage an electrical energy manager who shall, amongst \nothers, be responsible to analyse the total consumption of electrical energy, advise on \nthe development and implementation of measures to ensure efficient management \nTable 11.2: Population Growth Assumption to 2040\n2016–2020\n2021–2025\n2026–2030\n2031–2035\n2036–2040\nPopulation (million)\n33.8\n36.0\n38.1\n39.9\n41.5\nPopulation growth \n(%)\n1.15\n1.02\n0.87\n0.74\n0.63\nSource: Department of Statistics (2016).\nMalaysia Country Report\n\n\n204\nENERGY OUTLOOK AND ENERGY SAVING POTENTIAL IN EAST ASIA 2019\nof electrical energy, and monitor the effectiveness of the measures taken. The Energy \nCommission is empowered to enforce the energy efficiency regulations.\nA lack of holistic and long-term policy for demand-side management (DSM) has been \nidentified as a main barrier in implementing energy efficiency initiatives in Malaysia, \neven though it is an important element in the country’s energy plan and policy. Energy \nefficiency initiatives are set to receive renewed attention under the Eleventh Malaysia \nPlan through a reinvigoration of the DSM. This is intended to be achieved by formulating \na comprehensive DSM master plan. The EPU will initiate a study on DSM, which covers \nthe whole spectrum of the energy sector.\nMalaysia has developed a reasonably well-designed renewable support mechanism that \nincludes a set of legislation: published feed-in tariffs (FiT) with annual digression rates from \n2013 onwards, quota mechanisms, a Renewable Energy Master Plan, and an implementing \nagency (the Sustainable Energy Development Authority or SEDA). Malaysia has opted for \nFiT to drive the development of renewable capacity. FiT is guaranteed by the Renewable \nEnergy Act 2011 and the levels are set by SEDA. The scheme is intended to provide a \nreasonable level of return for investors over a fixed period to give a level of certainty. FiTs \nare available for biogas, biomass, solar photovoltaic (PV), and small hydro. Support of \n16 years is given for biomass and biogas and 21 years for small hydropower and solar PV. \nA capacity quota system is in place to manage the new capacity added to the system. \nThis mechanism enables Malaysia to shape the amount of new capacity to be added to \nthe system from the different technologies and make it economically sustainable. Similar \nsystems have been applied, for example, for solar PV in deregulated markets, including \nItaly and Spain, in response to a rush for new installations. FiT levels adjust to the cost of \nthe technology. Except for small hydro, FiTs have been revised every year per different \ndigression rates from 2013 onwards. This system is used in countries like Germany to \nadjust the level of remuneration to technology cost evolutions. However, these digression \nrates must be correctly calculated to avoid a slowdown in capacity buildup. Such a \nmechanism has proven to work well only in relatively experienced markets, with more \ntrack records and know-how.\nTo complement the current FiT mechanism, a new instrument termed net energy \nmetering (NEM) will be implemented in the Eleventh Malaysia Plan. NEM aims to \npromote and encourage more solar PV generation by prioritising internal consumption \nbefore any excess electricity generated is fed to the grid. NEM is expected to encourage \nmanufacturing facilities and the public to generate clean electricity. This will further \nassist the government’s effort to increase the contribution of renewable energy in the \ngeneration mix. NEM, which was started on 1 November 2016, is regulated by the Energy \n\n\n205\nCommission and implemented by SEDA. The total quota allocated for the 5-year period \n(2016–2020) is 500 megawatts (MW).3\nThe new NEM scheme is only applicable to Peninsular Malaysia and applicants must \nbe a registered TNB customers. NEM is executed by the Ministry of Energy, Science, \nTechnology, Environment and Climate Change (MESTECC), regulated by the Energy \nCommission (EC), with Sustainable Energy Development Authority (SEDA) Malaysia as \nthe implementing agency.\nAs a continuation of the government’s effort to boost solar PV market in the economy, \nthe EC has been tasked with implementing the large-scale solar (LSS) programme, which \nis based on a bidding process. The total quota allocated for the LSS from 2017 to 2020 is \n1,250 MW. Of this, 250 MW was granted direct award under the fast-track programme. \nAs of 2018, there are 91.5 MW solar operated from five LSS projects from an open bidding \nexercise. While in Sabah, there are 50 MW solar operated from direct award projects. \nThe remaining 1,000 MW fall under the bidding mechanism. In August 2017, the Energy \nCommission announced the bid open price for LSS PV plants for 2019–2020. The bid \nwas divided into three categories based on capacity: 1 MW–5.99 MW; 6.00 MW–9.99 \nMW; and 10 MW–30 MW. The results showed that the lowest bid received was in the 10 \nMW–30.00 MW category, with a tariff of RM0.3398/kWh (US$0.079/kWh).\nThe implementation of the Nuclear Power Infrastructure Development Plan and the \nNuclear Power Regulatory Infrastructure Development Plan would be an important \nstep in developing nuclear power to supply electricity in the future. This will support \nthe multiple goals of improving energy security, spurring economic development, and \nreducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. A new independent atomic energy regulatory \ncommission will be established. The 10-Year Comprehensive Communication Plan and \nStrategies on Nuclear Power for electricity will be continued to increase awareness and \npublic acceptance.\n3 \nThe Ministry has introduced several solar PV initiatives to encourage Malaysia’s renewable energy (RE) uptake. From \nthe RE townhall held on 12 July 2018, one of the key issues highlighted by the PV industry is the need to change \nthe concept of NEM from the existing net billing to true net energy metering. This is will help improve the return of \ninvestment of solar PV under NEM.\n \nEffective from 1 January 2019, NEM will be improved by adopting the true net energy metering concept and this will \nallow excess solar PV generated energy to be exported back to the grid on a ‘one-on-one’ offset basis. This means \nthat every 1kWh exported to the grid will be offset against 1kWh consumed from the grid, instead of at the Displaced \nCost previously.\n \nThe quota allocation for NEM is 500 MW up to year 2020. Quota allocation will be divided into domestic and non-\ndomestic category. Agriculture will be a new category to be added to the NEM scheme. The NEM category has been \ndivided into four categories – Residential, Commercial, Industrial, and Agriculture.\nMalaysia Country Report\n\n\n206\nENERGY OUTLOOK AND ENERGY SAVING POTENTIAL IN EAST ASIA 2019\nIn setting up the scenarios for this project, several assumptions or scenarios have been \nidentified (Table 11.3).\n3. Outlook Results\n3.1. Business-As-Usual Scenario\nTotal primary energy consumption (TPEC) in the Business-As-Usual (BAU) scenario \nregistered a growth at 5.2% per year from 1990 until 2015. The outlook results showed \nthat the TPEC is projected to increase by 3.6% per year from 2015 until 2040. Hydro \nwill increase from 1.22 million tons of oil equivalent (Mtoe) in 2015 to 2.05 Mtoe with \naverage annual growth rate (AAGR) of 2.1%. Oil supply will increase at 3.5% per year in \n2015–2040. The supply of coal consumed mainly by the power sector is expected to \nincrease by 3.3% per year in 2015–2040. Natural gas will experience an increase from \n24.60 Mtoe in 2015 to 66.11 Mtoe in 2040, or an AAGR of 4%. Biomass for power \ngeneration will increase at an average annual rate of 8% in 2015–2040 while biofuel use \nfor land transportation will increase at 1% per year (Figure 11.2).\nTable 11.3: Potential Mitigation Scenarios\nScenario\nMitigation Actions\nEnergy Efficiency \nand Conservation\n1. Improve final energy consumption of all energy types by 8% in 2016 and \nreach 16% by 2040. \nRenewable Energy\n1. Implement renewable energy in the power sector by 2036:\na. Hydro: 8,543 MW\nb. Solar: 2,679 MW\nc. Biomass: 916 MW\nd. Biogas: 194 MW\ne. MSW: 39 MW\nTotal: 12,372 MW\n2. Increase the share of biodiesel from 5% to 7% from 2020\nEnergy Efficiency in \nthe Power Sector\n(EEP)\n1. Improve the efficiency of power plants:\na. Natural gas at 55% by 2040\nb. Coal at 45% by 2040\nNuclear (NUC)\nCommission 2,000 MW of nuclear in 2036\nAlternative Policy \nScenario\nCombination of all scenarios:\nAPS = EEC + RE + EEP + NUC\nMSW = Municipal Sold Waste, MW = megawatt.\nSource: Author’s assumptions.\n\n\n207\nIn terms of share by fuel type, oil share will decrease from 38.7% in 2015 to 37.2% in 2040. \nHowever, the share of natural gas will increase from 34.9% in 2015 to 38.3% in 2040. Coal \nwill have a decreasing share over the projection period, from 24.6% in 2015 to 22.6% in \n2040. The share of hydro will decrease from 1.7% in 2015 to 1.2% in 2040 (Figure 11.3).\nTotal final energy demand in the BAU scenario will increase from 49.52 Mtoe in 2015 to \n125.14 Mtoe in 2040, illustrating an AAGR of 3.8% per year. Final demand of natural gas \nand electricity will experience the highest AAGR of 4.6% and 3.7% per year, from 2015 \nto 2040, respectively. Oil demand will grow from 26.39 Mtoe in 2015 to 62.52 Mtoe in \n2040, or 3.5% per year. Coal demand will increase 3.5% per year from 2015 until 2040 \nand other fuels will grow from 0.39 Mtoe in 2015 to 0.50 Mtoe in 2040, or 1% per year \n(Figure 11.4)\nFigure 11.2: Primary Energy Consumption by Fuel Type, BAU (1990–2040)\nBAU = Business-As-Usual, Mtoe = million tons of oil equivalent.\nSource: Author’s calculation.\n80\n60\n40\n20\n100\n120\n140\n160\n180\n-\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2030\n2040\nCoal\nOil\nNatural Gas\nNuclear\nHydro\nGeothermal\nOthers\nMtoe\nFigure 11.3: Share of Primary Energy Supply by Fuel Type, BAU (1990–2040)\nBAU = Business-As-Usual.\nSource: Author’s calculation.\n60\n40\n20\n80\n100\n-\n%\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2030\n2040\nCoal\nOil\nNatural Gas\nHydro\nOthers\nMalaysia Country Report\n\n\n208\nENERGY OUTLOOK AND ENERGY SAVING POTENTIAL IN EAST ASIA 2019\nFigure 11.4: Final Energy Consumption by Fuel Type, BAU (1990–2040)\nBAU = Business-As-Usual, Mtoe = million tons of oil equivalent.\nSource: Author’s calculation.\nCoal\nOil\nNatural Gas\nElectricity\nHeat\nOthers\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2030\n2040\n-\n20\n40\n60\n80\n100\n120\n140\nMtoe\nAnalysis by share showed that oil, with 50%, will still dominate in 2040, slightly lower than \nthat in 2015 (53.3%). This will be followed by natural gas (23.4%) and electricity (22.8%) \nin 2040. Share of coal will decrease from 3.6% in 2015 to 3.4% in 2040 (Figure 11.5).\nFinal energy demand by sector showed that the non-energy use sector will lead the growth \nwith 4.2% per year from 2015 until 2040. This will be followed by the ‘others’ sector \ngrowing from 8.53 Mtoe in 2015 until 22.29 Mtoe in 2040 or 3.9% per year. The transport \nsector is expected to increase from 21.10 Mtoe in 2015 to 53.03 Mtoe in 2040, or 3.8% \nper year. The industry sector will have an average annual growth of 3.5% per year from \n2015 until 2040 (Figure 11.6).\nFigure 11.5: Share of Final Energy Consumption by Fuel Type, BAU (1990–2040)\nBAU = Business-As-Usual, Mtoe = million tons of oil equivalent.\nSource: Author’s calculation.\n60\n40\n20\n80\n100\n-\n%\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2030\n2040\nCoal\nOil\nNatural Gas\nElectricity\nOthers\n\n\n209\nAnalysis by share showed that the transport sector will still dominate energy use in 2040, \nwith 42.4% compared to 42.6% in 2015. This will be followed by the industry sector with \n26.6% share in 2040 compared to 28.2% in 2015. The share of non-energy use is 13.2% \nof total final energy demand in 2040, to increase in 2015 at 12%. The share of the ‘others’ \nsector is expected to be at 17.8% in 2040 (Figure 11.7).\nIn the BAU scenario, total power generation is expected to grow around 3.6% per year \nfrom 2015 until 2040, reaching 368.13 terawatt-hours (TWh). Power generation from \nother types of fuel (others) will have the fastest growth at 7% per year during the same \nperiod. Power generation from natural gas is projected to increase to 191.40 TWh in 2040 \nfrom 69.96 TWh in 2015. Power generation from coal will grow 3.4% per year from 63.47 \nTWh in 2015 to 145.83 TWh in 2040. Electricity generation from hydro will increase by \n2.1% per year during the same period. Power generation from oil is expected to decline \nby 0.3% per year to register at 1.60 TWh in 2040 compared to 1.74 TWh in 2015 (Figure \n11.8). \nFigure 11.6: Final Energy Consumption by Sector, BAU (1990–2040)\nBAU = Business-As-Usual, Mtoe = million tons of oil equivalent.\nSource: Author’s calculation.\n60\n40\n20\n80\n100\n120\n140\n-\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2030\n2040\nNon-Energy\nOthers\nTransport\nIndustry\nMtoe\nFigure 11.7: Share of Final Energy Consumption by Sectors, BAU (1990–2040)\nBAU = Business-As-Usual.\nSource: Author’s calculation.\n40\n30\n20\n10\n50\n60\n70\n80\n90\n100\n-\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2030\n2040\nNon-Energy\nOthers\nTransport\nIndustry\n%\nMalaysia Country Report\n\n\n210\nENERGY OUTLOOK AND ENERGY SAVING POTENTIAL IN EAST ASIA 2019\nFigure 11.8: Power Generation by Fuel Type, BAU (1990–2040)\nBAU = Business-As-Usual, TWh = terawatt-hour.\nSource: Author’s calculation.\n200\n150\n100\n50\n250\n300\n350\n400\n-\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2030\n2040\nTWh\nCoal\nOil\nNatural Gas\nNuclear\nHydro\nGeothermal\nOthers\nIn terms of share, power generation mix will be dominated by natural gas and coal in 2040 \nwith share of 52.0% and 39.6%, respectively, followed by hydro with a share of 6.5% in 2040 \ncompared to 9.4% in 2015. Share of others will be at 1.5% of the total power generation in \n2040. Oil share will be at 0.4% in 2040 compared to 1.2% share in 2015.\nIn the BAU scenario, the thermal efficiency of coal power plants is expected to improve \nto 36.1% in 2040 from 35.0% in 2015. That of oil power plants is projected to remain the \nsame over the same period at around 33%. Thermal efficiency of natural gas power plants \nwill further improve to almost 44.8% by 2040 from the 2015 level of 40.0% (Figure 11.10).\nFigure 11.9: Share of Power Generation by Fuel Type, BAU (1990–2040)\nBAU = Business-As-Usual.\nSource: Author’s calculation.\n40\n30\n20\n10\n50\n60\n70\n80\n90\n100\n-\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2030\n2040\n%\nCoal\nOil\nNatural Gas\nHydro\nOthers\n\n\n211\nMalaysia’s primary energy intensity is expected to increase to 223 toe/million US$ in 2040 \nfrom 214 toe/million US$ in 2015, while final energy intensity is expected to increase to \n161 toe/million US$ in 2040 compared to 150 toe/million US$ in 2015. Primary energy \nper capita is projected to increase to 4.37 toe/person in 2040 compared to 2.30 toe/\nperson in 2015.\nCarbon dioxide (CO2) intensity is expected to decrease to 150 t-C/million US$ in 2040 \nfrom 157 t-C/million US$ in 2015. CO2 per primary energy would slightly decrease in \n2040 at 0.67 t-C/toe from 0.74 t-C/toe in 2015.\nFigure 11.10: Thermal Efficiency by Fuel Type, BAU (1990–2040)\nBAU = Business-As-Usual.\nSource: Author’s calculation.\n1990\n2015\n2025\n2035\n2040\n-\n50\n40\n30\n20\n10\n%\nCoal\nOil\nNatural Gas\nFigure 11.11: Energy Indicators, BAU (1990–2040)\nBAU = Business-As-Usual.\nSource: Author’s calculation.\n1990\n2015\n2025\n2035\n2040\n-\n300\n350\n400\n450\n250\n150\n200\n100\n50\n1990=100\nMalaysia Country Report\n\n\n212\nENERGY OUTLOOK AND ENERGY SAVING POTENTIAL IN EAST ASIA 2019\n3.2. Alternative Policy Scenario \nIn the Alternative Policy Scenario (APS), growth in final energy demand will be at 3.5% from \n2015 until 2040, slightly lower than that of the BAU scenario. The slower rate of increase \nin the APS is projected to be the result of improvements in manufacturing technologies \nas well as efforts to improve energy efficiency, particularly in the industry and the ‘others’ \nsectors. Thus, savings of 16% in the industry sector in 2040 could be expected. In the \n‘others’ sector, the growth rate of energy consumption is projected to be slower than \nthe BAU scenario at 3.2% per year compared to 3.9% per year in the BAU scenario. The \npotential saving of 16% in 2040 can be achieved through the implementation of energy \nefficiency measures (Figure 11.12).\nIn the APS, primary energy consumption is projected to increase at a slower rate than in \nthe BAU scenario at 2.9% per year from 70.58 Mtoe in 2015 to 145.21 Mtoe in 2040 \n(Figure 11.13). Solar and biomass will be growing the fastest at average rates of 12.1% per \nyear and 8.7% per year, respectively. This is due to the implementation of FiT, NEM, and \nLSS in power generation that largely impact on primary energy consumption in 2040 as \nmore renewable energy for power generation is expected to be commissioned. Hydro will \nalso increase fast but at a slower rate of 2.4% per year between 2015 and 2040. Oil will \nhave slower growth rates of 3.3% per year in 2015–2040 from the BAU scenario. Natural \ngas and coal are projected to increase at 3.0% per year and 1.5% per year, respectively. \nNuclear power as a future energy option will be introduced after 2036 (Figure 11.13).\nFigure 11.12: Final Energy Consumption by Sector, BAU and APS (2015 and 2040)\n30\n20\n10\n50\n40\n60\n0\nAPS = Alternative Policy Scenario, BAU = Business-As-Usual, Mtoe = million tons of oil equivalent.\nSource: Author’s calculation.\n0.0%\n0.0%\nMtoe\nBAU\n2015\n2040\nIndustry\nAPS\nBAU\n2015\n2040\nTransport\nAPS\nBAU\n2015\n2040\nOthers\nAPS\nBAU\n2015\n2040\nNon-energy\nAPS\n–16%\n–16%\n\n\n213\n3.3. Projected Energy Savings\nThe energy savings that could be achieved under the APS because of energy efficiency \nefforts in the industry and the ‘others’ sectors, more efficient thermal power supply, and \nhigher contribution from renewable energy are estimated at 27.53 Mtoe in 2040 or 15.9% \n(Figure 11.14).\nFigure 11.13: Primary Energy Supply by Source, BAU and APS (2015 and 2040)\nAPS = Alternative Policy Scenario, BAU = Business-As-Usual, Mtoe = million tons of oil equivalent.\nSource: Author’s calculation.\n40,0\n30,0\n20,0\n10,0\n60,0\n50,0\n70,0\n0,0\nBAU\n2015\n2040\nCoal\nAPS\nBAU\n2015\n2040\nOil\nAPS\nBAU\n2015\n2040\nGas\nAPS\nBAU\n2015\n2040\nOthers\nAPS\nMtoe\n190.4%\n–35.1%\n–4.5%\n–22.8%\nFigure 11.14: Total Primary Energy Supply, BAU and APS (2015 and 2040)\nAPS = Alternative Policy Scenario, BAU = Business-As-Usual, Mtoe = million tons of oil equivalent.\nSource: Author’s calculation.\n120\n140\n100\n80\n60\n40\n20\n160\n200\n180\n0\nMtoe\nBAU\n2015\n2040\nAPS\n27.53 Mtoe,-15.9%\nMalaysia Country Report\n\n\n214\nENERGY OUTLOOK AND ENERGY SAVING POTENTIAL IN EAST ASIA 2019\nMajor savings can be achieved by switching from coal or natural gas to renewable energy \nand nuclear power. While for final energy demand, savings of 8.9 Mtoe – comprising \nsavings of 5.3 Mtoe in the industry sector and 3.6 Mtoe in the ‘others’ sector – can be \nachieved in 2040.\n3.4. CO2 Emissions from Energy Consumption\nIn the BAU scenario, total CO2 emissions from energy consumption are projected to \nincrease by 3.3% per year in 2015–2040. In 2015, the CO2 level was at 52.0 million tons \nof carbon (Mt-C) and was expected to increase to 116.3 Mt-C in 2040 under the BAU \nscenario. \nIn the APS, the annual increase in CO2 emissions from 2015 to 2040 will be lower than \nin the BAU scenario at 2.2% per year, which is consistent with the growth in primary \nenergy consumption. Reduced CO2 emissions in the APS of 25.94 Mt-C or 22.3% relative \nto the BAU scenario is also due to a significant decrease in coal consumption for power \ngeneration in the APS. This is because coal consumption is being replaced by natural \ngas and other clean energy sources such as nuclear and renewable energy. Furthermore, \nthe lower energy usage in the industry and the ‘others’ sectors has also contributed to \nthe reduction. This indicates that Malaysia’s energy-saving efforts and renewable energy \naction plan would be effective in reducing CO2 emissions (Figure 11.15).\nFigure 11.15: CO2 Emissions from Energy Combustion, \nBAU and APS (2015 and 2040)\nAPS = Alternative Policy Scenario, BAU = Business-As-Usual, Mtoe = million tons of oil equivalent.\nSource: Author’s calculation.\n100\n80\n60\n40\n20\n120\n140\n0\nMillion Tons of Oil Carbon\nBAU\n2015\n2040\nAPS\n25.94 Mtoe,-22.3%\n\n\n215\n3.5. Review of Intended Nationally Determined Contributions \n \n \n of Malaysia\nIn 2013, parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change \n(UNFCCC) were invited to initiate domestic preparations for and submit their Intended \nNationally Determined Contributions (INDC) by 2015. The INDC submission aimed \nto facilitate the UNFCCC negotiations for adopting relevant instruments under the \nconvention that are applicable to all parties towards achieving the objectives of the \nconvention as per Article 2. Countries were expected to outline in their INDC the post-\n2020 climate actions they intend to take under an international agreement. During the \n21st Conference of the Parties (COP21) of the UNFCCC in Paris in December 2015, the \nparties adopted the Paris Agreement, a historic international climate agreement aimed to \nkeep the global average temperature to well below 2°C. It also aimed to pursue efforts to \nlimit the increase to 1.5°C, and to achieve net zero emissions in the second half of this \ncentury.\nMalaysia submitted its INDC to the UNFCCC in November 2015. Its INDC stipulates \nthat Malaysia intends to reduce its GHG emissions intensity of GDP by 45% by 2030 \nrelative to that in 2005. This consists of 35% on an unconditional basis and a further 10% \nconditional upon receipt of climate finance, technology transfer, and capacity building \nfrom developed countries. Malaysia’s INDC was developed by a participatory process \nthrough an inter-ministerial and government agencies working group. A stakeholders’ \nworkshop was conducted in 2015 to obtain inputs on possible measures to reduce GHG \nemissions.\nBased on results calculated from the APS, Malaysia already achieved its unconditional \ntarget of 35% of GHG emissions intensity of GDP by 2030 relative to that in 2005 by \n40.8% (Table 11.4).\nTable 11.4: Current Results of Key Indicators from APS\n2016–2020\n2021–2025\nGDP (billions of 2010 US$)\n204.862\n582.879\nCO2 emissions (Mt-C)\n42.400\n71.391\nCarbon intensity\n0.207\n0.122\nTotal reduction (%)\n(40.82)\nAPS = Alternative Policy Scenario, GDP = gross domestic product, Mt-C = million tons of carbon.\nSource: Author.\nMalaysia Country Report\n\n\n216\nENERGY OUTLOOK AND ENERGY SAVING POTENTIAL IN EAST ASIA 2019\nTo achieve the 45% conditional target upon receipt of climate finance, technology transfer, \nand capacity building from developed countries, Malaysia needs to exert further efforts to \nreduce its carbon emissions. New targets under the EEC scenario have been identified as \nthe best solution to achieve this target (Table 11-5).\nTable 11.5 shows that the new target for EEC is improvement of final energy consumption \nin all energy types by 8% in 2016 and reach 17% by 2040. The old target of 16% under the \nAPS will be reached by 2040. Table 11.6 shows the INDC results.\nTable 11.5: Newly Proposed Mitigation Scenario\nScenario\nMitigation Actions\nEnergy Efficiency \nand Conservation \n(EEC)\n1. Improve final energy consumption of all energy types by 8% in 2016 and \nreach 17% by 2040. \nRenewable Energy \n(RE)\n1. Implement RE in the power sector by 2036:\na. Hydro: 8,543 MW\nb. Solar: 2,679 MW\nc. Biomass: 916 MW\nd. Biogas: 194 MW\ne. MSW: 39 MW\nTotal: 12,372 MW\n2. Increase the share of biodiesel from 5% to 7% from 2020\nEnergy Efficiency \nin the Power Sector \n(EEP)\n1. Improve the efficiency of power plants:\na. Natural gas at 55% by 2040\nb. Coal at 45% by 2040\nNuclear (NUC)\nCommission 2,000 MW of nuclear in 2036\nAlternative Policy \nScenario (APS)\nCombination of all scenarios:\nAPS = EEC + RE + EEP + NUC\nMSW = Municipal Sold Waste, MW = megawatt.\nSource: Author.\nTable 11.6: Results for INDC Scenario\n2005\n2030\nGDP (billions of 2010 US$)\n204.862 \n582.879 \nCO2 emissions (Mt-C)\n 42.400 \n63.800 \nCarbon intensity\n0.207 \n0.109 \nTotal Reduction (%)\n(47.11)\nGDP = gross domestic product, INDC = Intended Nationally Determined Contributions.\nSource: Malaysia INDC Report.\n\n\n217\n4. \n Conclusions\nThe TPEC in the BAU scenario registered a growth at 5.2% per year from 1990 until 2015. \nThe outlook results showed that the TPEC is projected to increase by 3.6% per year from \n2015 until 2040. In the APS, primary energy consumption is projected to increase at a \nslower rate than in the BAU scenario at 2.9% per year, from 70.58 Mtoe in 2015 to 145.21 \nMtoe in 2040. Total final energy demand in the BAU scenario will increase from 49.52 \nMtoe in 2015 to 125.14 Mtoe in 2040. This illustrates an AAGR of 3.8% per year. In the \nAPS, growth in final energy demand will be at 3.5% in 2015–2040, slightly lower compared \nto that of the BAU scenario. The slower rate of increase in the APS is projected to be the \nresult of improvements in manufacturing technologies as well as efforts to improve energy \nefficiency, particularly in the industry and the ‘others’ sectors.\nThere is still room for improvement in reducing energy in Malaysia. The potential of \nreducing energy in the industry sector should consider not only electricity but also other \nfuels, such as oil and gas, especially for heating purposes. Potential saving or target for the \ntransport sector in Malaysia still cannot be quantified due to lack of information. Malaysia \nneeds to collect energy data on the transport sector to identify accurate potential savings. \nIt also needs to develop a comprehensive policy study to identify potential energy savings \nin the transport sector. The power sector should continuously use renewable energy to \nminimise carbon emissions. Introduction of new technology that can generate electricity \nmore efficiently can contribute to potential savings. Nuclear power is a possible energy \noption in Malaysia. \nClear action plans and targets for each sector will help formulate energy potential savings \nin Malaysia. Government policy in terms of laws and regulations is needed to ensure that \nall related initiatives in reducing energy is moving forward. Furthermore, financial support \nfrom developed countries will speed up the whole process in meeting the target of reducing \nenergy. Since climate change has become a global issue, identifying the potential energy \nsaving will be very important. This effort needs cooperation from all stakeholders such as \npolicymakers, the private sector, and others. \nMalaysia Country Report\n\n\n218\nENERGY OUTLOOK AND ENERGY SAVING POTENTIAL IN EAST ASIA 2019\nReferences\nDepartment of Statistics (2016), Population Projections (Revised) Malaysia 2010–2040, \nhttps://newss.statistics.gov.my/newss-portalx/ep/epFreeDownloadContentSearch.\nseam?cid=74634 (accessed 19 January 2018).\nEconomic Planning Unit (EPU) (2015), Eleventh Malaysia Plan 2016–2020, http://epu.\ngov.my/en/rmk/eleventh-malaysia-plan-2016-2020 (accessed 19 January 2018)\nIHS Energy Insight (2014), A Study to Formulate an Energy Policy for Malaysia (2013–\n2050), Putrajaya: Economic Planning Unit.\nMinistry of Natural Resources and Environment (2015), ‘Malaysia INDC Report’, \nPutrajaya.\nWorld Bank (n.d.), ‘World Development Indicators’, https://datacatalog.worldbank.\norg/dataset/world-development-indicators (accessed 19 January 2018).\n\n\n219\nMYANMAR COUNTRY REPORT\nTin Zaw Myint, Planning and Statistics Branch, Ministry of Electricity \nand Energy, Myanmar\n1. Background\n1.1. Country Profile \nMyanmar is the largest country in mainland Southeast Asia. It covers 676,577 square \nkilometres (km) and shares a border of 5,858 km with Bangladesh and India to the \nnorthwest, China to the northeast, and Thailand to the southeast. About 48% of the total \nland area is covered with forest, and most of the land is used for agriculture. Myanmar had \na population of 52.4 million in 2015, with an average annual growth rate (AAGR) of 1% \nper year from 1990 to 2015. \nMyanmar is located in Southeast Asia and has three distinct seasons. It enjoys 3 to 4 \nmonths of heavy monsoon and abundant sunshine all year round, which makes it ideal \nfor accumulating water for hydropower and for agriculture. Its topographic features \nfavour the existence of numerous rivers, mountain ranges, and sedimentary basins where \nmineral deposits and energy resources have abundantly accumulated. The delta regions \nwhere the two major river systems (N’mail and Mali rivers) enter the Bay of Bengal and the \n2,832 km coastal strip along the southern part are also a good area for the development of \nmarine ecosystems and an abundant source for marine products and chemicals.\nMyanmar is endowed with rich natural resources for the production of commercial energy. \nIts current sources of energy are crude oil, natural gas, hydroelectricity, biomass, and coal. \nBesides these, wind, solar, geothermal, bioethanol, biodiesel, and biogas are potential \nenergy sources found in the country. \nMyanmar’s proven energy reserves in 2017 comprised 105 million barrels of oil, 6.58 \ntrillion cubic feet of gas, and 542.56 million metric tons of coal. The country is a net \nexporter of energy, exporting substantial amounts of natural gas and coal to neighbouring \ncountries. However, it imports around 90% of its total oil requirements.\nCHAPTER 12\n\n\n220\nENERGY OUTLOOK AND ENERGY SAVING POTENTIAL IN EAST ASIA 2019\n1 \nAll US$ in this report are in constant 2010 values unless specified.\n1.2. Socio-economic Status\nThe population of Myanmar grew at 1% per year between 1990 and 2015 to 52.4 million in \n2015. Myanmar’s gross domestic product (GDP) was US$1 70.5 billion (constant 2010) \nin 2015, and its GDP per capita grew from around US$200 in 1990 to US$1,300 in 2015. \nAiming to enhance economic development, Myanmar formulated and implemented \n5-year short-term plans in 1992 to 2013. The first (1992–1995), second (1996–2000), \nthird (2001–2005), and fourth plans (2006–2010) achieved AAGRs in GDP of 7.5%, \n8.5%, 12.8%, and 12.0%, respectively. The last 5-year plan (2011–2016) was formulated \nto achieve an AAGR of 7% in GDP.\n1.3. Energy Consumption in the Base Year\nMyanmar’s total primary energy supply was 19.8 million tons of oil equivalent (Mtoe) \nin 2015. Natural gas is mainly used to generate electricity and in industry. Currently, \nMyanmar has 5,235 megawatts (MW) of installed generation capacity and produced \nalmost 16 terawatt-hours (TWh) of electricity in 2015 (Table 12.1). During the same \nyear, thermal (coal, natural gas, and oil) and hydro accounted for 41% and 59% of total \nelectricity generation, respectively.\nTable 12.1: Installed Capacity and Power Generation by Fuel Type (2015–2016)\nNo.\nType of Fuel\n2015-2016\nInstalled (MW)\nGeneration (GWh)\n1\nHydro\n3,215\n9,399\n2\nGas + Steam\n1,695\n6,511\n3\nCoal\n120\n4\nDiesel\n95\n55\nTotal Reduction (%)\n5,125\n15,965\nGWh = gigwatt-hour, MW = megawatt.\nSource: Myanmar Ministry of Electricity and Energy (2018a).\n\n\n221\nMyanmar Country Report\n2. Modelling Assumptions\n2.1. GDP and Population Growth\nIn this publication, Myanmar’s GDP is assumed to grow at an average annual rate of around \n6.2% from 2015 to 2040, slowing from the 9.1% growth of 1990–2015. The population \nis assumed to increase by about 0.71% per year from 2015 to 2040. The assumption is \nbased on data from the Ministry of Labour, Immigration and Population.\n2.2. Energy Consumption and Electricity Generation\nHydro and natural gas dominated electricity generation in Myanmar. Other fuels such as \noil and coal also contributed to the country’s generation mix but was only less than 13% in \ntotal in 1990. The government’s plan is to increase further the share of natural gas, coal, \nhydro, and other renewables in the total generation mix and decrease oil share. Myanmar \nalso has plans to export electricity to neighbouring countries, such as Thailand and China, \nfrom its hydropower plants.\nBased on the yearly plan for the construction of power plants in 2018–2022 (Table \n12.2), majority of the projects are gas-based power plants, including liquefied natural gas \n(LNG). Others are hydro and solar power plants. The yearly plan excludes coal-based \npower plants, currently at 120 MW installed capacity.\nIn this masterplan, the shares between scenarios differ. The lowest is the Power Resource \nBalance scenario (Scenario 3), under which total installed capacity will reach 23,594 MW \nby 2030 with hydro share amounting to 38%; coal, 33%; gas, 20%; and the remaining which \nare renewables (solar, wind, etc.), 8%. Both installed capacity in the yearly plan and the \npower supply scenario 3 are included in the current outlook model under the Reference \nscenario.\n\n\n222\nENERGY OUTLOOK AND ENERGY SAVING POTENTIAL IN EAST ASIA 2019\nTable 12.2: Yearly Plan for the Construction of Power Plant Projects (MW)\nNo\nProject Name\n2018\n2019\n2020\n2021\n2022\nTotal\n1\nThahtone CCGT (World \nBank)\n118\n \n \n \n \n \n2\nMyinGyan CCGT \n(Sembcorp)\n225\n \n \n \n \n \n3\nMinbu Solar (Green Earth)\n \n40\n40\n40\n50\n \n4\nBaelin Gas Engine (Rental)\n \n135\n \n \n \n \n5\nMyinGyan Gas Engine\n \n90\n \n \n \n \n6\nMyanaung Gas Engine \n(Japan Grant)\n \n \n20\n \n \n \n7\nPahtoelon CCGT (JICA)\n \n \n12\n \n \n \n8\nAhlon LNG to Power (Toyo \nThai)\n \n \n356\n \n \n \n9\nKyaukPhyu CCGT \n(Sinohydro)\n \n \n135\n \n \n \n10\nMelaungGyaing (LNG) LNG \nto Power (Zhefu)\n \n \n \n1390\n \n \n11\nKanbauk LNG to Power \n(Total & Siemens)\n \n \n \n820\n410\n \n12\nYwama (W.B.) (Gas)\n \n \n \n150\n75\n \n13\nUpper KyaingTaung (Hydro)\n \n \n \n51\n \n \n14\nUpper Yeywa (Hydro)\n \n \n \n280\n \n \n15\nMiddle PaungLaung \n(Energize)\n \n \n \n \n152\n \n16\nDee Dote (Andritz)\n \n \n \n \n60\n \nTotal\n343\n265\n563\n2731\n747\n4649\nMW = megawatt.\nSource: Department of Electric Power Planning, Myanmar Ministry of Electricity and Energy (2018b).\nTable 12.3: Installed Capacity and Power Supply in Scenarios for 2030\nNo\nScenario 1\nScenario 2\nScenario 3\n(Domestic Energy Consumption)\n(Least Cost)\n(Power Resources \nBalance)\nEnergy Resources\nInstalled Capacity\nInstalled Capacity\nInstalled Capacity\n(MW)\n%\n(MW)\n%\n(MW)\n%\n1\nHydro (large)\n12,147\n42\n12147\n43\n1412\n6\n2\nHydro (small and medium)\n6,891\n24\n6,891\n24\n7,484\n32\n3\nGas\n4,986\n17\n2,484\n9\n4,758\n20\n4\nCoal\n2,760\n10\n5,030\n18\n7,940\n34\n5\nRenewable\n2,000\n7\n2,000\n7\n2,000\n8\nTotal\n28,784\n28,552\n23,594\nMW = megawatt.\nSource: Myanmar Energy Master Plan (2015).\nThe Energy Masterplan of Myanmar considers three scenarios (Table 12.3).\n\n\n223\n2.3. Energy and Climate Change/Environmental Policies\nMyanmar’s energy policy in general strives to maintain energy independence by increasing \nindigenous production of available primary energy resources through intensive exploration \nand development activities. It also addresses electric power as the main driving power \nsource for economic development and the need to generate and distribute in terms of \nvolume, density, and reliability. It also advocates the use of water resources, a renewable \nenergy resource for generating electricity to save non-renewable sources of energy such \nas fossil fuels for alternative and future use. It also emphasises energy efficiency and \nconservation (EEC) to save energy through effective energy management and to reduce \nenergy consumption to minimise harmful environmental impacts. It further encourages \nthe use of new and renewable energy (NRE) sources, especially solar and wind which are \nabundant under Myanmar’s climatic condition. It also recognises that traditional energy \nsources, such as fuelwood and charcoal, still need to be used. Regulations and anticipatory \nactions are necessary for the sustained harvesting of this primary energy source.\nSavings in Myanmar’s energy consumption can be attained through the implementation \nof energy efficiency programmes in all energy-consuming sectors. In the industry \nsector, energy savings of at least 14% from Business-As-Usual (BAU) scenario levels are \nexpected by 2020 from improved manufacturing technologies. In the residential and \ncommercial (‘others’) sectors, efficient end-use technologies and energy management \nsystems are also projected to induce significant savings. In the transport sector, efficiency \nimprovements will be achieved by improved vehicle fuel economy and more effective \ntraffic management.\nMyanmar still lacks a national strategy and action plan for mitigating and adapting to climate \nchange, but several ministries have been implementing sector-specific initiatives relevant \nto climate change. The government is encouraging the use of biofuel in the transport and \nagriculture sectors to reduce oil dependency and curb carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. \nThese efforts are already in place, although the amount of biofuel used in the country \nis still small for the time being. The government, through the Ministry of Electricity and \nEnergy, has initiated the Clean Fuel Programme to reduce CO2 emissions by increasing \nthe use of natural gas in the industry sector for power generation. This includes converting \ngasoline, diesel, and liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) vehicles to compressed natural gas \nvehicles.\nMyanmar Country Report\n\n\n224\nENERGY OUTLOOK AND ENERGY SAVING POTENTIAL IN EAST ASIA 2019\nThe Ministry of Natural Resources and Environmental Conservation (MONREC), the \ndesignated national authority for clean development mechanism, has submitted one \nhydropower project to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change \nfor consideration. The National Environmental Conservation Committee was formed in \n2004 and re-formed in April 2011, replacing the National Commission for Environmental \nAffairs, and now serves as the focal organisation for environmental matters. It is chaired by \nMONREC, formerly the Ministry of Forestry, and its members come from 19 ministries. \nThe Environmental Conservation Law was enacted in March 2012. The law provides \nthe legal basis for implementing a range of enhanced environmental management \nmeasures. Simultaneously, the draft Environmental Conservation Rule, which embodies \nregulations and technical guidelines and creates the enabling conditions for their effective \nimplementation, is being drawn up and submitted to the authorised body.\n2.4. The National Efficiency Policy\nThe National Energy Efficiency and Conservation Policy, Strategy and Roadmap for \nMyanmar (ADB, 2015) mandates the following:\n \nThe National Energy Efficiency and Conservation Policy, Strategy and Roadmap \nfor Myanmar 2015 was supported by the Asian Development Bank and the Japan \nFund for Poverty Reduction. Based on the calculated potential energy savings, the \nNational Energy Efficiency Policy targets the following objectives by 2020, using 2012 \nas a baseline: (i) to reduce national electricity demand by 12%, (ii) to reduce biomass \nconsumption by 2.3%, and (iii) to reduce national carbon dioxide emissions by 78,690 \ntonnes. To reach the overall energy efficiency objective, it is necessary to develop a \nstrategy to save energy for all important energy-intensive sectors such as the industry, \ntransport, commercial, and residential sectors.\nSpecifically, the following strategies could achieve the goals:\nFor the residential sector: (i) introduction of energy efficiency performance standards \nand labelling for appliances, (ii) establishment of testing and certification facilities for \nappliances, (iii) introduction of incentives for energy-efficient equipment, (iv) phasing \nout of inefficient appliances from the market, (v) promotion of efficient biomass cook \nstoves, (vi) increasing consumer awareness on the benefits of LPG for cooking, (vii) \nintroduction of energy efficiency labelling scheme for LPG cook stoves, and (viii) conduct \nof regular energy efficiency awareness campaigns in national media.\n\n\n225\nFor the commercial sector: (i) conduct of energy audits; (ii) formulation of energy \nperformance standards (for appliances); (iii) incorporation of energy efficiency in new \nbuilding design, energy building code, and refurbishments; and (iv) preparation of energy \nefficiency guidelines for commercial buildings.\nAction Plan 2018–2021 provides for a step-by-step implementation of activities to \nharmonise energy efficiency performance standards for air conditioning and lighting.\nIn addition, the following measures are considered important in achieving the goals:\n• \nResidential: high efficiency lighting and refrigeration, LPG cooking \n• \nIndustry: cogeneration, energy efficiency (boiler, kilns, motor), waste heat recovery\n• \nCommercial: high efficiency lighting and air conditioning, LPG cooking, solar water \nheating, standard labelling equipment of appliances, LED\n2.5. Intended Nationally Determined Contributions/Nationally \n \n \nDetermined Contributions (INDC/NDC) \nMitigation actions and policies in the energy sector:\n• \nEnergy – 30% renewable in rural electrification (mini hydropower; biomass; solar, \nwind, and solar mini-grid technologies)\n• \nClean cooking and heating – distribute approximately 260,000 energy-efficient \ncooking stoves between 2016 and 2031\n• \nRenewable energy (hydropower) – 9.4 GW hydroelectric generation by 2030\n• \nEnergy efficiency – 20% electricity-saving potential of the total forecast electricity \nconsumption by 2030.\nGovernment plans to achieve by 2030 a 27% share of renewable energy to the national \nenergy mix. To fulfil this goal, the share of these four types of renewable energy sources \nshould be allocated as follows: hydropower (1.3%), solar (on-grid, 17.8%) (off-gird, 3.7%), \nbiomass (1%), bio-gasification (0.02%), and biofuel (5%).This higher share of renewable \ntargets in the energy mix could be achieved if the government has clear policy support \nto scale up renewables such as feed-in-tariff or any other policy to attract investment in \nrenewable power generation. \nMyanmar Country Report\n\n\n226\nENERGY OUTLOOK AND ENERGY SAVING POTENTIAL IN EAST ASIA 2019\n2.6. Alternative Policy Scenarios \nIn previous studies, two scenarios were formulated to analyse the impact of policy \ninterventions to the energy sector. The BAU scenario serves as the reference case to \nproject energy demand and CO2 emissions, and the Alternative Policy Scenario (APS), to \nevaluate the impacts of policy interventions in the development and utilisation of energy \nresources in the country. The APS as such can include policies to increase EEC targets, \nexpedite penetration of NRE and introduction of cleaner technology, including options for \na nuclear power plant. To understand further the impact of individual policy interventions, \nthis year’s study formulated five APSs as follows:\n• \nAPS1 – Improved energy efficiency of final energy demand\n• \nAPS2 – Higher efficiency of thermal electricity generation \n• \nAPS3 – Higher contribution of NRE (here, NRE for electricity generation and biofuels \nin the transport sector are assumed) \n• \nAPS4 – Introduction or higher contribution of nuclear energy \n• \nAPS5 – Combined impact of scenarios APS1 to APS4 \nMyanmar does not have an existing plan to introduce nuclear energy for power generation. \nAs such, APS4 has not been considered in the analysis. Thus, APS5 would consist only of \nAPS1, APS2, and APS3.\nAPS3 includes more renewables in the power generation mix of Myanmar. As such, for \nAPS3, the additional installed capacity for coal-based and gas-based power plant for \n2030 is replaced by renewable energy capacity, including hydro plants.\nBeside the APS, this 2018 study also considers the emissions plan and target of East Asia \nSummit member countries under the INDC/NDC of the energy sector. \n3. Outlook Results\n3.1. Business-As-Usual Scenario\nFinal Energy Consumption\nThe total final energy consumption in Myanmar increased by about 2.6% per year, from \n9.4 Mtoe in 1990 to 17.73 Mtoe in 2015.The transport sector was the fastest-growing \nsector with an average annual growth of 8.6% in 1990–2015. Consequently, the share of \n\n\n227\nthis sector in the total final energy demand increased from around 4.7% in 1990 to almost \n19.9% in 2015. The industry sector was the second-fastest growing sector with an AAGR \nof 7.1% over the same period; the share of this sector in the total final energy demand \nincreased from 4.2% in 1990 to 12.3% in 2015.\nThe ‘others’ sector, which comprises the commercial, residential, and agriculture sectors, \nwas the major contributor to total final energy consumption. The shares of this sector, \nhowever, has been declining from 90.1% in 1990 to 66.3% in 2015. This indicates that the \nannual growth of demand for this sector was slower than that of the industry and transport \nsectors. The AAGR of the demand of the ‘others’ sector was 1.3% in 1990–2015. Non-\nenergy consumption grew gradually at an average annual rate of 4.2% over the same \nperiod, from almost 0.09 Mtoe in 1990 to 0.27 Mtoe in 2015. Although the share of this \nsector demand was only 1.0% in 1990, it increased slightly to 1.5% in 2015.\nUsing the socio-economic assumptions stated above, final energy demand in Myanmar is \nprojected to grow at an annual rate of 2.8% under the BAU scenario, reaching 35.29 Mtoe \nin 2040. The transport sector will still experience the fastest growth in final energy demand \nin 2015–2040. Its growth rate, however, is lower than that of 1990–2015. Final energy \ndemand of the transport sector will increase at an average rate of 5.3% per year while that \nof the industry sector will grow at 4.8% per year. Final energy demand of the ‘others’ sector \n(mainly the residential and commercial sectors) is projected to grow at an annual average \nrate of 0.9%, slower than in the past. This is mainly because of the reduction in biomass \ndemand, which represents majority of the fuel consumed by the sector. Figure 12.1 shows \nthe final energy demand by sector to 2040 under the BAU scenario.\nFigure 12.1: Final Energy Demand by Sector, BAU (1990-2040)\nBAU = Business-As-Usual, Mtoe = million tons of oil equivalent.\nSource: Study outcome.\n40.00\n35.00\n30.00\n25.00\n20.00\n15.00\n10.00\n5.00\n0\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2030\n2040\nMtoe\nOthers\nIndustry\nTransport\nNon-energy\nMyanmar Country Report\n\n\n228\nENERGY OUTLOOK AND ENERGY SAVING POTENTIAL IN EAST ASIA 2019\nThe growth of the respective sectors under BAU will result in a continuous increase of the \ntransport, industry, and non-energy sector shares in the total final energy demand and a \ndecline in the share of the ‘others’ sector. The share of the transport, industry, and non-\nenergy sectors is projected to increase to 36.4%, 19.9 %, and 2.0%, respectively, in 2040. \nThat of the ‘others’ sector will decline to around 41.7% from 66.3 % in 2015.\nBy fuel type, others, which are mostly biomass, were the most consumed fuel in 1990 with \na share of 89.2% in the country’s total final energy demand. Its share decreased to 56.8% in \n2015 due to the higher growth of other fuels. The demand of natural gas increased from \n0.23 Mtoe in 1990 to 0.71 Mtoe in 2015 while that for oil increased from 0.59 Mtoe to \n5.43 Mtoe over the same period. Oil demand grew the fastest at an average rate of 9.3% \nper year in 1990–2015.\nUnder the BAU scenario, the share of other fuels will decline to 31.7% in 2040, indicating \nthat its future use will grow slower than the other fuels. In contrast, oil share will continue \nto increase and will reach 44.9% in 2040 from 30.6% in 2015 with an average growth of \n4.4% per year. This is due to the rapid increase of transport sector activities in 2015-2040. \nFigure 12.2 shows the final energy demand by fuel type to 2040 under the BAU scenario.\nCoal is projected to have an AAGR of 3.2% in 2015–2040, still slower than natural gas \n(5.2%). Electricity demand will still grow the fastest at an AAGR of 6% per year during the \nsame period. Its share will increase from 6.5% in 2015 to 14.0% in 2040.\nFigure 12.2: Final Energy Consumption by Fuel Type, BAU (1990-2040)\nMtoe\nBAU = Business-As-Usual, Mtoe = million tons of oil equivalent.\nSource: Study outcome.\n40\n35\n30\n25\n20\n15\n10\n5\n0\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2030\n2040\nElectricity\nNatural Gas\nCoal\nOil\nOthers\n\n\n229\nFigure 12.3: Primary Energy Supply by Source, BAU (1990-2040)\nBAU = Business-As-Usual, Mtoe = million tons of oil equivalent.\nSource: Study outcome.\n45\n40\n35\n30\n25\n20\n15\n10\n5\n0\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2030\n2040\nMtoe\nHydro\nNatural Gas\nCoal\nOil\nOthers\nMyanmar Country Report\nPrimary Energy Consumption\nThe primary energy consumption in Myanmar grew at an average annual rate of 2.5%, \nfrom 10.68 Mtoe in 1990 to 19.85 Mtoe in 2015 (Figure 12.3). Amongst the major \nenergy sources, hydro and oil grew the fastest, with AAGRs of 8.6% and 8.4%, respectively. \nNatural gas consumption grew at an average annual rate of 5.8% over the same period. \nCoal consumption increased at 7.1% per year on the average over the same period. \nOthers, such as biomass, dominate the primary energy consumption mix in 2015, with a \n50.9% share. Oil (27.6%) and natural gas (15.5%) had the next largest shares amongst the \nmajor fuels over the same period.\nIn the BAU scenario, Myanmar’s primary energy consumption is projected to increase at \nan annual average rate of 3% per year to 41.79 Mtoe in 2040. Hydro and natural gas are \nexpected to grow at average annual rates of 2.7% and 2.5%, respectively. Coal will grow \nfastest at 12.3% over the period 2015–2040. Oil will grow at 4.4% per year.\nThe share of oil and hydro in the total primary energy mix of Myanmar will increase to \n38.3% and 3.8%, respectively, in 2040. Coal share will also increase from 1.9% in 2015 \nto 16.4% in 2040. Natural gas shares will increase to 13.8% over the projection period. \nNotably, the share of biomass will decrease due to its slow growth that is driven just by \nthe growth of the rural population. From 50.9% in 2015, its share will decline to 27.6% in \n2040.\n\n\n230\nENERGY OUTLOOK AND ENERGY SAVING POTENTIAL IN EAST ASIA 2019\nPower Generation\nHydro and natural gas dominated the power sector fuel mix in Myanmar (Figure 12.4). \nIn 2015, the share of hydro in the power generation mix reached 58.9%, while that of \nnatural gas was 40.8%. The remaining fuel (coal and oil) accounted for only 0.3% of the \ntotal generation mix.\nUnder the BAU scenario, oil-based power plants will cease operation by 2030 while hydro \nand natural gas still have shares in the power sector mix of Myanmar in 2040. The share, \nhowever, has changed. Hydro-based power plants will have a 29.1% share while that of \nnatural gas will be 21.8%. \nThe remaining fuel will have an increasing role in the future. Coal-based power generation \nshare in the total fuel mix will increase to 42.2% in 2040, becoming the dominant power \ngeneration sector while other renewable shares (solar, wind, and biomass) will reach 6.8%.\nTotal electricity generation from the different plants will grow at an average annual rate of \n5.6% in 2015–2040, with natural gas–based power plants growing at an average annual \nrate of 3.0%. Hydropower generation will increase but at a slower average annual rate of \n2.7% during the same period. \nFigure 12.4: Power Generation Mix, BAU (1990-2040)\nBAU = Business-As-Usual, TWh = terawatt-hour.\nSource: Study outcome.\n70\n60\n50\n40\n30\n20\n10\n0\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2030\n2040\nTWh\nHydro\nNatural Gas\nCoal\nOil\nOthers\n\n\n231\n3.2. Energy Savings Potential (APS)\nThe APS was analysed separately to determine the individual impacts of the policy \ninterventions assumed in APS1, APS2, and APS3. The combination of all these policy \ninterventions was further analysed in APS5. Figure 12.6 shows the changes in total primary \nenergy consumption (TPEC) in all scenarios.\nEnergy Intensity, Energy per Capita, and Energy Elasticity\nMyanmar’s primary energy intensity (TPES/GDP) has been declining since 1990. In \n2015, the primary energy intensity was 281 toe/million 2010 US$, lower than what it was \nin 1990 which was 1,333 toe/million 2010 US$. The intensity is projected to continue to \ndecrease to 132 toe/million 2010 US$ by 2040 at an average rate of 3% per year. Energy \nconsumption per capita grew from 0.3 toe in 1990 to 0.4 toe in 2015 and will increase to \n0.67 toe by 2040, at an AAGR of 2.3%. CO2 intensity was 140t-C/million 2010 US$ in \n1990 and decreased to 93t-C/million 2010 US$ in 2015. CO2 intensity is projected to \ncontinue to decrease to 74 t-C/million 2010 US$ in 2040 at an AAGR of 0.9%. Figure \n12.5 shows the evolution of these energy indicators from 1990 to 2040.\nCO2 = carbon dioxide.\nSource: Study outcome.\nFigure 12.5: Energy Intensity, CO2 Intensity, and Energy per Capita (1990–2040)\nEnergy Intensity\nEnergy per Capita\nCO2 per Energy\nCO2 Intensity\nCO2 per Capita\n1,600\n1,400\n1,200\n1,000\n800\n600\n400\n200\n0\n1990 = 100\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2030\n2040\nMyanmar Country Report\n\n\n232\nENERGY OUTLOOK AND ENERGY SAVING POTENTIAL IN EAST ASIA 2019\nFigure 12.6: Comparison of Scenarios to Total Primary Energy Supply in 2040\nAPS = Alternative Policy Scenario, BAU = Business-As-Usual, Mtoe = million tons of oil equivalent.\nSource: Study outcome.\n45\n40\n35\n30\n25\n20\n15\n10\n5\n0\nBAU\nAPS1\nAPS2\nAPS3\nAPS5\nMtoe\nHydro\nNatural Gas\nCoal\nOil\nOthers\nFigure 12.6 shows that APS5 has the largest reduction in the TPEC due to the \nimplementation of EEC action plans, improvement of thermal efficiency of fossil-fuelled \npower plants, and higher penetration of NRE in the country’s supply mix. The AAGR \nof the TPEC under APS5 will be around 2.1% over the projection period. In 2040, the \nreduction of primary energy consumption in APS5 compared to the BAU scenario will \nbe 8.64 Mtoe or 20.7%. Individually, implementation of energy efficiency targets and \nmasterplan as defined in APS1 will reduce the TPEC of Myanmar by 5.49 Mtoe or 13.1% \nin 2040 compared to the BAU scenario. The AAGR of primary energy consumption in \nAPS1 will be 2.4%, slightly higher than APS5. APS2, which assumes higher efficiency in \nthermal electricity generation, will reduce the TPES by 1.53 Mtoe or 3.7% compared to \nthe BAU scenario. The country’s TPES under APS2 will grow at an annual average rate \nof 2.9%, slightly slower than the BAU scenario. Since no final energy demand efficiency \nmeasures were assumed for APS2, the impact on primary energy supply will be lower than \nAPS1 or APS5. Of all the fossil fuels considered, implementation of this higher efficiency \nin thermal power generation policy intervention will reduce the use of coal and natural gas \nfor power generation. A highly efficient power generation could lead to higher reduction \nin coal use by almost 14% in 2040. \nIf a policy for higher penetration of NRE is implemented, then the TPEC will decrease, \ncompared to the BAU scenario, by 2.63 Mtoe or 6.3%. By fuel type, coal consumption will \ndecrease but the use of renewable energy will increase by 12% (1.60 Mtoe).\n\n\n233\nThe impact of implementing policy interventions will also be reflected in the power \ngeneration of the country. Figure 12.7 shows total electricity generation in 2040 in all \nscenarios. In both APS1 and APS5, due to lower electricity demand, power generation will \nbe reduced by 11.47 Mtoe or 20% compared to the BAU scenario. The reduction in power \ngeneration will be from natural gas, coal, and hydro plants; highest reduction will be in coal \npower plants (5.32 Mtoe in APS1 and 26.1 Mtoe in APS5).\nUnder APS2 and APS3, the total amount of electricity generated will be similar to the \nBAU scenario because no efficiency measures were imposed on the final sector. The \ndifferences, however, lie in the fuel mix for power generation under APS3. More ‘others’ \nrenewable power plants such as solar, wind, biomass, etc. will be in operation over \nthe projection period, replacing coal-based power plants, which are supposed to be in \noperation up to 2040.\nFigure 12.7: Comparison of Scenarios of Electricity Generation in 2040\nAPS = Alternative Policy Scenario, BAU = Business-As-Usual, TWh = terawatt-hour.\nSource: Study outcome.\n70\n60\n50\n40\n30\n20\n10\n0\nBAU\nAPS1\nAPS2\nAPS3\nAPS5\nTWh\nHydro\nNatural Gas\nCoal\nOthers\nIn terms of CO2 emissions reduction, the energy efficiency assumption in APS5 is expected \nto reduce emissions at the largest by around 8.9 million metric tons of carbon (Mt-C) \nor 38% lower than the BAU scenario. The decrease in CO2 indicates that the energy-\nsaving goals, action plans, and policies in the promotion of programmes, and switching \nto less carbon-intensive technologies such as renewable sources in the supply mix will be \neffective in reducing CO2 emissions. Figure 12.8 shows the projected CO2 emissions in \n2040 in all scenarios.\nMyanmar Country Report\n\n\n234\nENERGY OUTLOOK AND ENERGY SAVING POTENTIAL IN EAST ASIA 2019\nFigure 12.8: Comparison of Scenarios to CO2 Emissions in 2040\nAPS = Alternative Policy Scenario, BAU = Business-As-Usual.\nSource: Study outcome.\nNatural Gas\nOil\nCoal\n25\n20\n15\n10\n5\n0\nBAU\nAPS1\nAPS2\nAPS3\nAPS5\nMillion Tons of Carbon\nIn APS1, total final energy demand will be lower so that CO2 emissions from energy \nconsumption will also be lower, reaching 19.50 Mt-C. This is a reduction of CO2 emissions \nby around 3.9 Mt-C, which is about 17% lower than the BAU scenario. In APS3, higher \ncontributions from renewable energy could reduce emissions by 21% compared to the \nBAU scenario. Total CO2 emissions under APS3 will be around 18.6 Mt-C. The decrease \nin CO2 indicates that increasing renewable energy shares in the total supply will reduce \nfurther CO2 emissions.\n3.2.1 Final energy consumption in the APS\nIn APS5, the growth in final energy demand is projected to grow at a lower average annual \nrate of 2.3% compared to the 2.8% annual growth in the BAU scenario. The reason for the \nslower growth rate is the result of technological improvement in manufacturing processes \nand the reduction of final energy demand of electricity and oil in the residential and \ncommercial (‘others’) sectors. Figure 12.9 shows the differences in final energy demand \nin 2040 by sector in the BAU scenario and the APS.\n\n\n235\nPrimary Energy Supply\nIn the APS, Myanmar’s primary energy supply is projected to increase at a slightly lower \nrate than the BAU scenario’s at 2.1% per year, from 19.85 Mtoe in 2015 to 33.15 Mtoe \nin 2040. Hydro will be the fastest growing at 4.3% per year, followed by oil at 3.7% per \nyear in 2015–2040. Coal is expected to grow at an average annual rate of 3.1% over the \nsame period and natural gas, at 1.9% per year. Figure 12.10 shows the primary energy \nconsumption by source in 2040 under the BAU scenario and the APS.\nFigure 12.9: Final Energy Consumption by Sector, BAU and APS (2015–2040)\nAPS = Alternative Policy Scenario, BAU = Business-As-Usual, Mtoe = million tons of oil equivalent.\nSource: Study outcome.\n16\n14\n12\n10\n8\n6\n4\n2\n0\nMtoe\nBAU\n2015\n2040\nIndustry\nAPS\nBAU\n2015\n2040\nTransport\nAPS\nBAU\n2015\n2040\nOthers\nAPS\nBAU\n2015\n2040\nNon-energy\nAPS\n–14.6%\n–8.6%\n0.0%\n–15.9%\nMyanmar Country Report\n\n\n236\nENERGY OUTLOOK AND ENERGY SAVING POTENTIAL IN EAST ASIA 2019\nFigure 12.10: Primary Energy Supply by Source, BAU and APS (2015 and 2040)\nAPS = Alternative Policy Scenario, BAU = Business-As-Usual, Mtoe = million tons of oil equivalent.\nSource: Study outcome.\n18\n16\n14\n12\n10\n8\n6\n4\n2\n0\nMtoe\nBAU\n2015\n2040\nCoal\nAPS\nBAU\n2015\n2040\nOil\nAPS\nBAU\n2015\n2040\nGas\nAPS\nBAU\n2015\n2040\nOthers\nAPS\n–14.3%\n–15.2%\n–88.3%\n4.4%\nProjected Energy Savings\nIn Myanmar, commercial energy consumption is projected based on the energy \nrequirements of the major sectors (industry, transport, agriculture, and households). \nThe choice of fuel type is determined by available supply, since energy demand must be \nmet mainly by domestic sources. Obviously, there is a gap between demand and supply, \nbut the demand is much higher than the actual requirement. Due to these constraints, \ncoefficients, derived by time series regression, have been applied to allocate energy. These \nallocations are made according to the priority of state organisations and enterprises. For \nthe private sector, allocations are made according to the registered licensed capacity of \nthe firm.\nFuture savings in energy could be due to savings in primary energy consumption in the \nresidential, commercial, transport, and industry sectors. In this regard, Myanmar has \nimplemented a range of EEC goals and action plans which target energy savings in all \nsectors of the economy and in cooperation with the private and the public sectors. There \nis an estimated saving of 8.64 Mtoe in 2040 in the APS relative to the BAU scenario. \nThis is equivalent to 20.7% saving of the primary energy consumption in 2040 of the BAU \nscenario (Figure 12.11). Myanmar has plans to decrease the growth in primary energy \nconsumption by implementing a range of EEC measures on the demand side.\n\n\n237\nCO2 Reduction Potential\nIn the APS, the energy efficiency policy of Myanmar is projected to reduce growth in CO2 \nemissions from energy consumption. In 2040, in the APS, CO2 emissions from energy \nconsumption are projected to reach about 14.4 million tons of carbon (Mt-C) which is \nabout 38% below the the BAU scenario level (Figure 12.12).\nFigure 12.11: Evolution of Primary Energy Supply, BAU and APS (2015 and 2040)\nAPS = Alternative Policy Scenario, BAU = Business-As-Usual scenario, Mtoe = million tons of oil equivalent.\nSource: Study outcome.\n25\n20\n15\n10\n5\n0\nMtoe\nBAU\n2015\n2040\nAPS \n8.64Mtoe,-20.7%\nFigure 12.12: CO2 Emissions from Energy Consumption, \nBAU and APS (2015 and 2040)\nAPS = Alternative Policy Scenario, BAU = Business-As-Usual, Mtoe = million tons of oil equivalent.\nSource: Study outcome.\n25\n20\n15\n10\n5\n0\nMillion Tons of Carbon\nBAU\n2015\n2040\nAPS \n8.95Mtoe,-38.3%\nMyanmar Country Report\n\n\n238\nENERGY OUTLOOK AND ENERGY SAVING POTENTIAL IN EAST ASIA 2019\n3.3. Intended Nationally Determined Contributions/Nationally \n \n \n Determined Contributions \nThe current energy outlook model considered the Mitigation Actions and Policies of \nMyanmar in the Energy Sector as specified above in section 2.5 on INDC/NDC. These are \nthe 20% electricity saving potential by 2030 and the 9.4 GW hydroelectricity generation \nby 2030. The 30% renewable in rural electrification (mini hydropower; biomass; solar, \nwind, and solar mini-grid technologies) is considered in the share of renewable in the total \npower supply mix of Myanmar.\nThe energy sector mitigation actions and policies are represented in the APS scenario \nsince the scenario includes:\n• \nEnergy savings (APS1) in the different final sectors (industry, transport, residential, \ncommercial, and others) as a result of introducing more efficient technologies. The \nassumptions were:\n− \nElectricity: 20% reduction of demand compared to the BAU scenario \n− \nOil: 15% saving from the BAU scenario\n− \nOthers (biomass): 5% reduction compared to the BAU scenario \n• \nIntroduction of highly efficient technologies for fossil fuel use in the power sector \n(APS2)\n• \nIncreasing renewable energy share in the electricity-generating capacity (APS3):\n− \nHydro-installed capacity of 9.4 GW by 2030 (including mini- and micro-hydro)\n− \nOther renewables such as wind, solar, and biomass with total capacity of 3 GW \nby 2030.\nElectricity demand reached 36 TWh in 2030 under the BAU scenario. Under the APS, \nelectricity demand was expected to be reduced by 20% compared to the BAU scenario. As \na result, electricity demand in the APS will be only 29 TWh in 2030. The electricity saving \nof 20% has been assumed to continue to 2040 as no additional target is available after \n2030. Figure 12.13 shows the electricity demand of the final sectors over the projection \nperiod. ‘Others’ comprises the residential, commercial, agriculture, construction, and \nother sectors. Electricity demand in the transport sector has been excluded in the current \noutlook.\n\n\n239\nFigure 12.13: Electricity Demand, BAU and APS (2015 and 2040)\nAPS = Alternative Policy Scenario, BAU = Business-As-Usual, TWh = terawatt-hour.\nSources: Study outcome.\nOther Sectors\nIndustry\n60\n50\n40\n30\n20\n10\n0\nTWh\n2015\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2030\n2040\nBAU\nAPS\nBAU\nAPS\nBAU\nAPS\nBAU\nAPS\nBAU\nAPS\nBAU\nAPS\n-6.0%\n-13.0%\n-20.0%\n-20.0%\n-20.0%\nThe APS generation capacity will be more towards renewable energy compared to the \nBAU scenario (Figure 12.14). As explained earlier in the modelling assumption, the APS \nexcludes some of the additional capacity for the coal-based and natural gas capacity \nafter 2025. More capacity will be made available from renewable energy sources. Hydro \nresources will reach the 9.4 GW capacity by 2030 as stipulated in the mitigation actions \nand policies for the energy sector of Myanmar. These include not only the large hydro but \nalso the mini- and micro-hydro plants. Hydro share reached 52% under the APS compared \nto 38% under the BAU scenario while other renewable sources such as solar, wind, and \nbiomass will also have increasing share compared to the BAU scenario (22% compared to \n8%).\nMyanmar Country Report\n\n\n240\nENERGY OUTLOOK AND ENERGY SAVING POTENTIAL IN EAST ASIA 2019\nConsidering lower final energy demand and more renewable share under the APS, the \nimpact of the APS to the environment would be a lower CO2 emissions. The total CO2 \nemissions under the BAU scenario in 2030 will be 55.2 Mt-CO2e (or 15.1 Mt-C). Under \nthe APS, CO2 emissions will be around 36.4 Mt-CO2e (or 9.9 Mt-C) in 2030. This is a \nreduction of CO2 emissions by 18.8 Mt-CO2e (or 5.1 Mt-C) compared to the BAU \nscenario, which is approximately around 34%.\nAs previously shown, the CO2 emission reductions in the APS will be 38% by 2040, which \nis around 32.8 Mt-CO2e (or 8.9 Mt-C).\n4. \n Conclusions and Policy Implications\nAlthough energy intensity will decline, energy consumption will still increase due to \neconomic, population, and vehicle growth. Myanmar should increase adoption of energy-\nefficient technologies to mitigate growth in energy consumption; it should also diversify \nenergy availability. The energy-saving programme will target the residential, commercial, \ntransport, and industry sectors.\nThe current energy supply has been kept below its potential due to the scarcity of technical \nand financial resources needed first to reverse the decline and then to accelerate natural \ngas and oil development and production.\nFigure 12.14: Power Generation Capacity in 2030, BAU and APS\nAPS = Alternative Policy Scenario, BAU = Business-As-Usual scenario, ORNW = other renewable sources.\nSource: Study outcome.\nHydro\nGas\nCoal\nORNW\n100\n90\n80\n70\n60\n50\n40\n30\n20\n10\n0\nBAU\nAPS\n34%\n20%\n38%\n8%\n22%\n52%\n20%\n6%\n%\n\n\n241\nThe country has been experiencing serious energy shortages, which will become more \nacute in the absence of further energy sector investment. First, there should be more \naggressive exploration of the upstream energy sector and more financial and technical \nassistance in each energy subsector to secure the national energy supply.\nTo increase electricity production, Myanmar should rehabilitate existing electricity \ntransmission and distribution, expand rural electrification, build coal- or gas-fired power \nplants, and promote renewable energy in the country’s fuel mix as secure energy sources. \nThe framework should list all potential renewable energy projects in the area, outlining \npriorities and sequencing, along with funding requirements which would be based on \ncompleted studies.\nIn this regard, the following actions are proposed to be considered:\n• \nThe Ministry of Electricity and Energy should formulate an integrated national energy \npolicy, including on energy efficiency. \n• \nAdopt a coordination mechanism and institutional arrangement and legal framework. \n• \nImprove energy statistics for better analysis of energy saving potential in Myanmar.\n• \nConduct a demand-side survey for energy consumption, which can be done by \ncombining this survey with existing ones.\n• \nDue to the continuous dominance of the transport sector in final energy consumption, \nset an energy efficiency target for the transport sector in addition to those that have \nbeen calculated for the industry, commercial, and household sectors.\n• \nCreate a detailed policy mechanism for the renewable energy sector to implement \npotential programmes and projects. This mechanism should be developed and \nplanned in conjunction with external stakeholders, who offer experiences, advanced \ntechnologies, new markets, and investment. \n• \nImprove energy management practices of the industrial and commercial sectors.\n• \nEstablish a dedicated energy efficiency body to oversee the energy efficiency \nprogramme of Myanmar.\n• \nRefine the current energy efficiency target to include the numerical targets and \ndetailed action plans of all sectors.\n• \nEstablish a comprehensive integrated energy plan to guide the development of \nthe sector, including an energy efficiency labelling programme for energy service \ncompanies and appliances.\n• \nSince the electrification rate is still low, formulate schemes to enhance private \nparticipation, including foreign companies, to accelerate power sector development, \nincluding transmission and distribution system to ensure reliable electricity supply to \nthe consumers.\nMyanmar Country Report\n\n\n242\nENERGY OUTLOOK AND ENERGY SAVING POTENTIAL IN EAST ASIA 2019\n• \nThe Ministry of Industry should set specific targets for each sector on energy efficiency \nand government should implement to achieve these targets.\n• \nConsider the import of LNG in floating terminals in the short term to meet the \nprojected rapid growth of electricity demand while exploration of new domestic \nnatural gas resources is still being undertaken.\n• \nConsider civilian nuclear energy policy and exploration of geothermal energy potential \nto generate electricity.\n• \nRemove taxes in LPG and kerosene to reduce biomass consumption, which is \nincreasing continuously, in the residential sector.\n• \nEncourage private companies to invest in new refinery capacities to meet domestic \npetroleum products demand.\nReferences\nADB (2015), TA 8356-MYA Final Report: National Energy Efficiency and Conservation \nPolicy, Strategy and Roadmap for Myanmar, Manila: ADB.\nGovernment of Myanmar, National Energy Management Committee (2015), Myanmar \nEnergy Master Plan. Nay Pyi Taw.\nMyanmar Ministry of Electricity and Energy (2018a), Database of Oil and Gas Planning \nDepartment, Nay Pyi Taw.\nMyanmar Ministry of Electricity and Energy (2018b), Database of Oil and Gas Planning \nDepartment. Data obtained from the Department of Electric Power Planning, Nay Pyi \nTaw.\n\n\n243\nNEW ZEALAND COUNTRY REPORT\nHien Dieu Thi Dang, Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority, \nNew Zealand\nSeiya Endo, The Institute of Energy Economics, Japan\n1. Background\nNew Zealand is an island country in the southwestern Pacific Ocean. It is located some \n1,500 kilometres (km) east of Australia and consists of three main islands (the North \nIsland, the South Island, and Stewart Island), and several smaller, mostly uninhabited \nouter islands. The land area is approximately 269,000 km2, making it smaller than Japan \nor Italy, but larger than the United Kingdom. Most of New Zealand is hilly or mountainous \nand has a mild temperate climate. The population was about 4.6 million at the end of \n2015. Although there are some light and heavy industries, foreign trade is heavily \ndependent on agriculture, tourism, forestry, and fishing. In 2015, New Zealand had a \nnominal gross domestic product (GDP) of about US$169.1 billion, or about US$36,800 \nper capita. Although the latter figure is near the average of countries of the Organisation \nfor Economic Co-operation and Development, New Zealand tends to be ranked highly in \ninternational quality-of-life surveys.\nThe country possesses significant indigenous energy resources, including hydro, \ngeothermal, wind, natural gas, and coal. New Zealand is self-sufficient in natural gas and \nelectricity and is a net exporter of coal. It has locally produced crude oil, which is generally \nexported because of its high quality and, therefore, has a high value on the international \nmarket. To meet its oil demand, over half of all imported oil to New Zealand in 2015 was \nproduced in the Middle East. Remaining energy reserves as of 1 January 2018 include \n71.1 million barrels of oil (2P1) and 50.1 billion cubic metres of natural gas, as well as \nin-ground resources of over 15 billion tons of coal, 80% of which are South Island lignite.\n \nCHAPTER 13\n1 \n2P values may be totalled safely using arithmetic summation since they are the midpoint of the probability \ndistribution.\n\n\n244\nENERGY OUTLOOK AND ENERGY SAVING POTENTIAL IN EAST ASIA 2019\nIn 2015, New Zealand’s total primary energy supply (TPES) was around 20.6 million \ntons of oil equivalent (Mtoe). By source, oil represented the largest share at about 33%. \nNatural gas and geothermal energy were second largest, contributing around 20% and \n24%, respectively. The remainder of the primary energy supply were hydro (10%), coal \n(7%), biomass (5%), and a smaller percentage of other renewables such as wind, solar \nphotovoltaic (PV), and biofuels.\nFinal energy consumption was about 14.1 Mtoe in 2015. By sector, transport accounted \nfor the largest share at around 34% because New Zealand heavily depends on private road \nvehicles, road freight, and air transport. The share of the industry sector was the second \nlargest at about 31%, whereas the total of agricultural, residential, and commercial sectors \nwas 25%. The non-energy sector consumes the balance of 10%.\nTotal gross power generation output in 2015 was about 44.2 terawatt-hours (TWh). Hydro \naccounted for about 56% as the most utilised source, whereas geothermal represented \nthe second most utilised source at about 18%, followed by natural gas (15%), coal (4%), \nand other renewables (7%). Oil is used in electricity generation only as a minor source for \npeaking and emergency supply (IEA, 2017).\n2. Modelling Assumptions\nIn this outlook, New Zealand’s GDP is assumed to grow at an average annual rate of 2% \nbetween 2015 and 2040. Its population will increase by about 19% to 5.5 million by 2040, \nfrom 4.6 million in 2015 (Figure 13.1).\nIn the Business-As-Usual (BAU) scenario, hydro use in power generation will remain \nconstant, as most hydro sites have already been developed. Generation from natural \ngas-based plants is projected to increase slightly, at an annual average rate of 1.1%. \nGeothermal power generation will increase at an average annual growth rate of 2.6% and \nwind generation will continue to grow, but it will contribute only a small share of New \nZealand’s electricity by 2040. In contrast, coal-fired power generation will disappear \n(Figure 13.2). Thermal efficiency of gas- and oil-fired power plants may not increase so \nmuch in the future because new large fossil fuel–based plants are not planned. Moreover, \nGenesis Energy (New Zealand’s largest energy company) has decided to decommission \nits coal-fired power plants by 2023.\n\n\n245\nNew Zealand Country Report\nIn terms of primary energy consumption, the overall energy intensity of the economy \nimproved in real terms at an annual average rate of 0.9% in 1990–2015.\nFigure 13.1: GDP and Population (1990–2040)\nGDP = gross domestic product at 2010 constant prices.\nSource: Authors’ calculations.\n0\n50\n100\n150\n200\n250\n300\nPopulation\nGDP\nbillion 2010 US$\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2030\n2040\n0\n1\n2\n3\n4\n5\n6\nmillion persons\nFigure 13.2: Power Generation by Fuel Type, BAU (1990–2040)\nBAU = Business-As-Usual, TWh = terawatt-hour.\nSource: Authors’ calculations.\n0\n10\n20\n30\n40\n50\n60\nTWh\n1990\nCoal\nOil\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2030\n2040\nNatural gas\nNuclear\nHydro\nGeothermal\nOthers\n\n\n246\nENERGY OUTLOOK AND ENERGY SAVING POTENTIAL IN EAST ASIA 2019\nThe government implemented an emissions trading scheme in 2010 and is currently \nreviewing that scheme to determine how it can best support the country in meeting its \nclimate change targets and transitioning to a low-emissions economy. New Zealand, \nthrough its Energy and Energy Efficiency and Conservation Strategies, has also set a target \nfor 90% of electricity to be generated from renewable sources by 2025. The government \nalso maintains a range of programmes to promote energy efficiency at home, at work, \nand in transport, as well as the development and deployment of sustainable energy \ntechnologies.\n3. Outlook Results\n3.1. Final Energy Consumption\nNew Zealand’s final energy consumption grew by 1.5% per year from 9.7 Mtoe in 1990 \nto 14.1 Mtoe in 2015. During the same period, oil increased from 4.0 Mtoe to 6.2 Mtoe; \nelectricity, from 2.4 Mtoe to 3.4 Mtoe; and natural gas, from 1.8 Mtoe to 2.7 Mtoe. On \nthe other hand, coal declined from 0.7 Mtoe to 0.6 Mtoe.\n \n3.1.1. \n Business-As-Usual scenario \nIn the BAU scenario, final energy consumption in 2015–2040 is projected to grow by 0.6 \nMtoe at an average rate of 0.2% per year. The ‘others’ sector (agricultural, residential, and \ncommercial) will have the largest increase of 0.6 Mtoe during this period, growing at an \naverage annual rate of 0.6%. Transport sector consumption is projected to decrease by 0.1 \nMtoe at an annual rate of 0.1%, but that of the industry sector is projected to increase by \n0.2 Mtoe in 2040. Non-energy sector consumption will remain constant in 2015–2040 \n(Figure 13.3).\n\n\n247\nFigure 13.3: Final Energy Consumption by Sector, BAU (1990–2040)\nBAU = Business-As-Usual, Mtoe = million tons of oil equivalent.\nNote: The ‘others’ sector includes the agricultural, residential, and commercial sectors.\nSource: Authors’ calculations.\n0\n2\n4\nMtoe\n6\n8\n10\n12\n14\n16\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2030\n2040\nIndustry\nTransport\nOthers\nNon-energy\nBy source, final demand of electricity will steadily increase by 1.0 Mtoe between 2015 \nand 2040 at an average rate of 1.1% per year. Final demand of other renewable energy \n– which includes geothermal, solar, biogas, and woody biomass used for direct-use heat \napplications – will increase slightly in 2015–2040 at an average rate of 0.1% per year. \nBy 2040, final demand for oil will decrease by 0.3 Mtoe at an average rate of 0.2%; coal \ndemand, by 0.1 Mtoe at an average rate of 0.4%; and natural gas, by 0.1 Mtoe at an average \nrate of 0.1% per year (Figure 13.4).\nFigure 13.4: Final Energy Consumption by Fuel Type, BAU (1990–2040)\nBAU = Business-As-Usual, Mtoe = million tons of oil equivalent.\nNote: The ‘others’ sector includes geothermal, solar, biogas, and woody biomass.\nSource: Authors’ calculations.\n0\n2\n4\nMtoe\n6\n8\n10\n12\n14\n16\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2030\n2040\nCoal\nOil\nNatural Gas\nElectricity\nHeat\nOthers\nNew Zealand Country Report\n\n\n248\nENERGY OUTLOOK AND ENERGY SAVING POTENTIAL IN EAST ASIA 2019\n3.1.2. \n Alternative Policy Scenario \nIn the Alternative Policy Scenario (APS), final energy consumption will be slightly lower \nat 0.9 Mtoe between 2015 and 2040. Energy use in the ‘others’ sector will increase at \nan average rate of 0.2% per year, reflecting increasing use of efficient appliances in the \nresidential and commercial sectors. Energy use in the industry sector is projected to \ndecrease at an annual average rate of 0.2%. Energy use in the transport sector will decrease \nslightly, reflecting a shift to more energy-efficient vehicles, particularly electric vehicles. \nThe sectoral final energy consumption in 2015 and 2040 in the BAU scenario and the \nAPS is shown in Figure 13.5.\n3.2. Primary Energy Supply\nPrimary energy supply in New Zealand grew at a rate of 1.9% per year, from 12.8 Mtoe in \n1990 to 20.6 Mtoe in 2015. The fastest-growing primary fuel in absolute terms was oil, \nrising from 3.5 Mtoe in 1990 to 6.8 Mtoe in 2015. The increase in oil consumption was \ndue to the rapid growth in transport energy demand.\nFigure 13.5: Final Energy Consumption by Sector, BAU and APS (2015 and 2040)\nMtoe\n5.0\n6.0\n3.0\n4.0\n1.0\n2.0\n0.0\nAPS = Alternative Policy Scenario, BAU = Business-As-Usual, Mtoe = million tons of oil equivalent. \nSource: Authors’ calculations.\n–18.1%\n–8.5%\n0.0%\nBAU\n2015\n2040\nIndustry\nAPS\nBAU\n2015\n2040\nTransport\nAPS\nBAU\n2015\n2040\nOthers\nAPS\nBAU\n2015\n2040\nNon-energy\nAPS\n–7.3%\n\n\n249\nBetween 1990 and 2015, natural gas and coal consumption increased at an annual \naverage rate of 0.2% and 0.6%, respectively. Geothermal energy use grew from 1.5 Mtoe \nin 1990 to 4.9 Mtoe in 2015 at an annual rate of 4.9% for electricity generation, while \nhydro demand for electricity production slightly increased from 2.0 Mtoe in 1990 to 2.1 \nMtoe in 2015. ‘Other’ energy sources, which include biomass, solar, wind, liquid biofuels, \nand biogas, increased by 2.3% per year.\n3.2.1. \nBusiness-As-Usual scenario\nIn the BAU scenario, New Zealand’s primary energy supply will grow at an average \nannual rate of 0.7% to 24.6 Mtoe in 2040 from 20.6 Mtoe in 2015. Geothermal energy is \nprojected to contribute most to the incremental growth of primary energy supply between \n2015 and 2040 and will account for 37% of total primary energy supply in 2040. Primary \nenergy of ‘others’ will grow by 1% per year, reflecting mainly the expected growth in wind \npower. The share of ‘others’ will account for 7.4% of total primary energy supply in 2040. \nIn contrast, primary fossil fuel will slightly decrease at an average rate of 0.2%. Its share of \nthe total will account for 46.7% in 2040, down from 59.3% in 2015. The remaining 8.9% \nof the total share in 2040 will be hydro for electricity generation, increasing at an average \nannual growth rate of 0.2% (Figure 13.6).\nFigure 13.6: Primary Energy Supply by Fuel Type, BAU (1990–2040)\nBAU = Business-As-Usual, Mtoe = million tons of oil equivalent. \nSource: Authors’ calculations.\n0\n5\n10\n15\n20\nMtoe\n25\n30\nCoal\nOil\nNatural gas\nNuclear\nHydro\nGeothermal\nOthers\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2030\n2040\nNew Zealand Country Report\n\n\n250\nENERGY OUTLOOK AND ENERGY SAVING POTENTIAL IN EAST ASIA 2019\nThe lower growth of primary energy supply relative to GDP growth will result in lower \nenergy intensity in the future. From 122 toe/million US$ in 2015, energy intensity will \nimprove to 89 toe/million US$ in 2040. Primary energy supply per capita will remain \nconstant at 4.5 toe per person in 2015–2040. Figure 13.7 shows primary energy intensity \nand energy per capita as indicators.\n3.2.1. \n Alternative Policy Scenario (APS)\nIn the APS, primary energy supply is projected to grow at a lower rate of 0.5% per year to \n23.2 Mtoe in 2040. Coal, oil, and gas are expected to show significant declines of 3.2%, \n1.0%, and 0.7% per year, respectively. Geothermal primary energy is expected to grow \nby 2.9% per year. ‘Others’ primary energy, which includes biomass, solar, wind, liquid \nbiofuels, and biogas, is expected to grow by 1.3% per year (Figure 13.8).\nBAU = Business-As-Usual, GDP = gross domestic product, toe = tons of oil equivalent.\nSource: Authors’ calculations.\nFigure 13.7: Primary Energy Intensity and Energy per Capita Indicator,\nBAU (1990–2040)\n0\n50\n100\n150\n200\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2030\n2040\ntoe/ million 2010 $US\ntoe/ person\n0\n1\n2\n3\n4\n5\nPrimary energy consumption per unit of GDP (toe/million 2010 US Dollars)\nPrimary energy consumption per capita (toe/person)\n\n\n251\nMtoe\nFigure 13.8: Primary Energy Supply by Fuel Type, BAU and APS (2015 and 2040)\nAPS = Alternative Policy Scenario, BAU = Business-As-Usual, Mtoe = million tons of oil equivalent.\nNote: The ‘others’ sector includes biomass, solar, wind, liquid biofuels, biogas, hydro, and geothermal.\nSource: Authors’ calculations.\n0\n20\n30\n10\n40\n50\n60\n70\n80\n90\n100\nBAU\n2015\n2040\nCoal\nAPS\nBAU\n2015\n2040\nOil\nAPS\nBAU\n2015\n2040\nGas\nAPS\nBAU\n2015\n2040\nOthers\nAPS\n522.1%\n–7.0%\n–19.3%\n–21.5%\n3.3. Projected Energy Savings\nUnder the APS, energy savings could amount to 1.35 Mtoe or 5.5% less than under the \nBAU scenario in 2040. Energy savings is the difference between the primary energy supply \nin the BAU scenario and the APS (Figure 13.9).\nFigure 13.9: Total Primary Energy Supply, BAU and APS \n(1990, 2015, and 2040)\nAPS = Alternative Policy Scenario, BAU = Business-As-Usual, Mtoe = million tons of oil equivalent.\nSource: Authors’ calculations.\nMtoe\n0\n5\n10\n15\n20\n25\n30\nBAU\n2015\n1990\n2040\nAPS\n1.35Mtoe,-5.5%\nNew Zealand Country Report\n\n\n252\nENERGY OUTLOOK AND ENERGY SAVING POTENTIAL IN EAST ASIA 2019\nThe above savings in primary energy are mainly due to a switch to more efficient vehicles, \nparticularly electric vehicles, in the transport sector, along with improved insulation and \nmore efficient appliances in the residential and commercial sectors.\n3.4. Carbon Dioxide Emissions\nCarbon dioxide (CO2) emissions in the BAU scenario will decrease slightly, from 8.8 \nmillion tons of carbon (Mt-C) in 2015 to 7.9 Mt-C in 2040. In the APS, CO2 emissions \nwill decrease from 2015 to 2040 by 1.4% per year. The decrease reflects the switch to \nrenewable energy in electricity generation, and the switch to electric vehicles in the \ntransport sector. Figure 13.10 shows the difference of CO2 emissions from energy \nconsumption between the BAU scenario and the APS in 2040, compared with 1990 and \n2015, in New Zealand.\n4. \n Implications and Policy Recommendations\nAlthough New Zealand’s primary energy intensity (energy per dollar of GDP) has been \ndeclining since 1990, energy use has continued to grow steadily, reflecting economic \ngrowth, population growth, and increasing numbers of private road vehicles.\nFigure 13.10: CO2 Emissions from Energy Consumption, BAU and APS \n(1990, 2015, and 2040)\nAPS = Alternative Policy Scenario, BAU = Business-As-Usual, Mt-C = million tons of carbon.\nSource: Authors’ calculations.\nMillion Tons of Carbon\n0\n1\n2\n3\n4\n5\n6\n7\n8\n9\n10\nBAU\n2015\n1990\n2040\nAPS\n1.7Mt-C,-21.4%\n\n\n253\nNew Zealand generates a high proportion of its electricity from renewable sources, \nparticularly hydro, although CO2 emissions from this sector have grown with large \ninvestment in fossil fuel–based generation in the 1990s and 2000s.\nTrading of carbon credits will incentivise investment into new renewable generation \ntechnologies, with geothermal and wind as prospective options, provided CO2 trading \nprices rise above the current levels. As the Acting Minister of Energy and Resources \nannounced on 30 August 2011, New Zealand’s ambitious goal is for 90% of electricity \ngeneration to be from renewable sources by 2025. New Zealand’s large base of renewable \ngeneration, however, limits the room for CO2 emissions reduction in the electricity \ngeneration sector. In March 2016, the minister announced that the targets will be \ndeveloped and the New Zealand Energy Efficiency and Conservation Strategy (NZEECS) \n2011–2016 will be replaced by mid-2019. The NZEECS’s successor will have a carbon \nreduction focus.\nNew Zealand has some other opportunities to improve energy efficiency, for example, \nthrough improving the efficiency of vehicles, improving the insulation of buildings, and \nimproving the efficiency of heat production in industry, or switching to lower-carbon fuels.\nThe largest potential energy and carbon savings are in the transport sector. Growth in \nenergy consumption in the transport sector has been slowing in recent years, mainly \nbecause of high fuel prices and a shift to smaller vehicles. Furthermore, reduction in \nemissions from the transport sector is possible through a switch to electric vehicles and \nincreased use of biofuels. Electric vehicles are a good match for New Zealand, given the \nhigh proportion of electricity generated from renewables and the relatively short distances \nof average trips. Also, charging infrastructure already exists in most residential dwellings. \nIn early 2018, the government announced a package of measures designed to encourage \nthe use of electric vehicles. The target is to double the number of electric vehicles every \nyear through to 2021 and to do so by removing barriers that have until now prevented \nhouseholds and businesses from choosing electric cars. Current barriers include the \nlimited selection of models available, a lack of widespread public charging infrastructure, \nand lack of awareness about electric vehicles.\nIn the building sector, the government should consider formulating and implementing \nstronger regulations to enhance the energy efficiency of new and existing buildings in \nthe residential and commercial sectors. New Zealand should also consider a package of \nmeasures (including regulatory instruments) to improve the energy efficiency of industrial \nheat plants.\nNew Zealand Country Report\n\n\n254\nENERGY OUTLOOK AND ENERGY SAVING POTENTIAL IN EAST ASIA 2019\nReferences\nInternational Energy Agency, (2017), World Energy Balances, Paris: IEA.\n\n\n255\nPHILIPPINES COUNTRY REPORT\nDanilo V. Vivar, Department of Energy, Philippines\n1. Background\n1.1. Socio-economic Background\nThe Philippines, officially known as the Republic of the Philippines, is amidst Southeast \nAsia’s main water bodies, namely, the South China Sea on the west, Philippine Sea on \nthe east, and Sulu and Celebes Sea on the southwest. The country comprises more than \n7,000 islands, situated in the western Pacific Ocean, and is composed of three main \ngeographical divisions: Luzon, Visayas, and Mindanao. The country’s capital, officially \nknown as the National Capital Region and commonly known as Metro Manila, is in Luzon. \nIt is composed of 16 cities, namely, Caloocan, Las Piñas, Makati, Malabon, Mandaluyong, \nManila, Marikina, Muntinlupa, Navotas, Parañaque, Pasay, Pasig, Quezon City (the \ncountry’s most populous city), San Juan, Taguig, and Valenzuela.\n In 2015, the Philippine economy sustained its 6.1% growth rate from the previous year. This \nwas largely due to the vigorous economic activities in the industry and the services sectors \nduring the period, which posted an annual growth rate of 6.4% and 6.9%, respectively. The \nincrease in the industry sector was driven by the 5.7% growth in the manufacturing sector, \nas well as the double-digit hike of 11.6% in the construction sector. The increase in the \nservices sector is attributed to the robust domestic trade and services and the boom in real \nestate businesses. Meanwhile, agriculture, hunting, forestry, and fishing posted a small \n0.1% increase during the period, a slowdown from its 1.7% growth registered for 2014. \nGross domestic product (GDP) per capita1 of the country was recorded at US$2,616 per \nperson in 2015. \nCHAPTER 14\n1 \nIn constant 2010 US$ (World Bank ICP database/World Development Indicators).\n\n\n256\nENERGY OUTLOOK AND ENERGY SAVING POTENTIAL IN EAST ASIA 2019\n1.2. Policy \nThe Philippine Department of Energy (DOE) has set forth strategic directions and energy \nagenda to assist President Duterte’s administration in attaining its development goals \nas envisioned in Ambisyon 2040, the blueprint of a long-term, collective vision, and \naspirations of Filipinos, and supported by national economic strategies that will provide \nopportunities for inclusive growth. Within Ambisyon 2040, the Philippine energy sector \nplays a vital role as an indispensable factor for economic growth. Foremost amongst the \nfocus of the DOE is consumer-first policies, reliability of energy supply, and affordability \nof tariffs.\nTo achieve security and reliability of supply, as well as the vision of a low-carbon future, \nthe DOE is adopting a technology-neutral policy in coming up with an optimal energy \nmix, especially for the power sector, for the baseload (70%), mid-merit (20%), and \npeaking (10%) requirements that match the peak demand and the required 25% reserve \nrequirements on a per regional grid basis to meet the 43,765 MW additional capacity \nrequired by 2040. In addition, efforts on the development and promotion of indigenous \nenergy, such as renewable energy (RE) and hydrocarbon fuels (oil, gas, and coal) and \ntapping into clean and smart technologies, have been on the priority list to augment the \ncountry’s long-term energy needs. A Nuclear Energy Implementing Organization, created \nwithin the DOE, has recommended a firm national policy on nuclear. The country’s \nliquefied natural gas (LNG) capacities and capabilities shall be harnessed through the \ndevelopment of the J100 billion2 Batangas integrated LNG by 2020, with an initial 5 \nmillion tons per year throughput and initial reserve capacity of 200 MW. \nThe DOE is also pushing for greater energy access thru a 100% national and regional \nelectrification rate by facilitating the completion of transmission projects, such as the \nVisayas–Mindanao Interconnection Project by 2020 and the Semirara–Mindoro–Panay \nInterconnection, by 2019 in support of our country’s goal of a One-Grid Philippines. \nConsistent with its drive for consumer empowerment, the DOE is implementing a Pro-\nConsumer Distribution Framework for energy affordability, choice, and transparency. On \nthe other hand, the finalisation of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of Executive \nOrder No. 30,3 which President Duterte signed in June 2017, tags energy projects \namounting to at least US$70 million as projects of ‘national significance’, while creating \nthe Energy Investment Coordinating Council mandated to fast-track the permitting \nprocess of such energy projects. Aside from this, the DOE is working towards drafting \nguidelines that will assist energy stakeholders and industry participants in coming up with \n2 \nPhilippine peso.\n3 \nFull title: ‘Creating the Energy Investment Coordinating Council In Order to Streamline the Regulatory Procedures \nAffecting Energy Projects’.\n\n\n257\nPhilippines Country Report\nan Energy Sector Resiliency Compliance Plan (RCP). The RCP shall contain adaptation \nmeasures, both engineering and non-engineering options, to gauge infrastructure and \nhuman resource preparedness during and in the aftermath of disruptive events.\nBelow are some of the highlights of the energy sector’s plans and programmes:\nRenewable Energy \nThe passage of Republic Act (RA) No. 9513, or Renewable Energy Act of 2008, legally \nsupports the policy and programme framework to promote the utilisation of RE resources \nand technologies. On 14 June 2011, the government unveiled the National Renewable \nEnergy Program (NREP) or the ‘Green Energy Roadmap’ of the Philippines. NREP is \nanchored on the DOE’s Energy Reform Agenda, which aims to ensure greater energy \nsupply security for the country. It established the policy and programme framework for \nthe promotion of RE and a road map to guide efforts in realising the market penetration \ntargets of each RE resource in the country. Under the updated RE road map, the target of \n15,304 megawatts (MW) installed RE capacity by 2030 is envisioned to be increased to \n20,000 by 2040. To achieve this, NREP also provides for policy mechanisms to support \nthe implementation of the RE Act. These policy mechanisms include the Renewable \nPortfolio Standards (RPS), feed-in tariffs (FiT), Green Energy Option Program, and Net-\nMetering for Renewable Energy.\nThe RPS sets the minimum percentage of generation from eligible RE resources, provided \nby generators, distribution utilities, and electric suppliers. Initially, an installation target of \n760 megawatts (MW) from RE was set for the first 3 years, from 2013 to 2015, broken \ndown as follows: biomass (250 MW), run-of-river hydro (250 MW), solar (50 MW), \nwind (200 MW), and ocean (10 MW).\nOn the other hand, FiT provides guaranteed payments on a fixed rate per kilowatt-hour \nfor RE generation, excluding generation for own use. Effective October 2015, the Energy \nRegulatory Commission has approved FiT rates, which will apply to generation from RE \nsources, particularly run-of-river hydro, biomass, wind, and solar. Effective October \n2015, the approved FiT rates for biomass, hydropower, solar, and wind are J6.63, J5.90, \nJ8.69, and J7.40 per kilowatt-hour, respectively. Currently, there is no FiT rate for ocean \nenergy since the technology is still for further study and not yet available in the country. \n\n\n258\nENERGY OUTLOOK AND ENERGY SAVING POTENTIAL IN EAST ASIA 2019\nAlternative Fuels\nBiofuels \nThe DOE is aggressively implementing RA 9367, or the Biofuels Act of 2006. The law \nintends to tap the country’s indigenous agricultural resources as potential feedstock \nfor biofuel to contribute to the country’s goal of achieving energy security, as well as \naugmenting farmers’ income, generating rural employment, and reducing greenhouse gas \n(GHG) emissions. \nThe mandatory 1% biodiesel blend in all diesel fuel sold in the country since May 2007 was \nincreased to 2% in February 2009 on a voluntary basis. On the other hand, the country \nnow enjoys an accelerated use of E10 (10%) bioethanol blend as supplied by most gasoline \nretailers. The DOE, together with the National Biofuels Board, is embarking on revisiting \nand/or re-evaluating the blending requirement with due consideration on the availability \nof feedstock and to facilitate the scheduled blending of biofuels in compliance with RA \n9367. \nIn terms of research and development, the DOE initiated a partnership with the academe \nto implement biofuel projects using alternative feedstocks, such as sweet sorghum, \ncassava, and macro-algae. Four projects were implemented in 2016 to introduce and \ndevelop alternative feedstocks of biofuels in the country: \n1. Village Scale Production of MMSU4 Hydrous Ethanol as Feedstock for R&D in Biofuel \nTrials and Anhydrous Ethanol Production, which has been completed. \n2. Establishment of a Community-Based Bioethanol Industry and Continued Research \nand Development on the Feasibility of Hydrous Bioethanol as Biofuel Blend, whose \nimplementation started only in 2015. These projects are being implemented by the \nMariano Marcos State University. \n3. Bioethanol Production from Macro-algae and Socio-ecological Implications, which is \nbeing implemented by the University of the Philippines-Visayas Foundation Inc. \n4. Bioethanol Production Potential of Different Cassava Varieties under Northern \nMindanao Condition and Development of a Pilot-Scale Cassava Bioethanol Plant, \nwhich is being implemented by Xavier University.\n4 \nMariano Marcos State University.\n\n\n259\nCompressed Natural Gas (CNG)\nThe DOE is keen to pursue the implementation of the Natural Gas Vehicle Program \nfor Public Transport by engaging a third party to evaluate the feasibility of its project’s \nimplementation. To date, the DOE is coordinating with the Department of Transportation \n– Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board – on the confirmation of \nfranchise availability for the targeted 200 compressed natural gas (CNG) buses, of which \n176 franchises were declared available for the CNG buses in March 2015. Accordingly, \nthe DOE mandated the Philippine National Oil Company Exploration Corporation to take \nover the operation and maintenance of CNG refilling stations. However, the procurement \nof two modular CNG stations for Biñan, Laguna and Port Area, Batangas City has yet to \nbe finalised; the issue of securing CNG supply and the negative impact of the current \nvolatility of diesel prices on the economic viability of operating the CNG delivery system.\nAutoLPG\nIn terms of using liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) as an alternative fuel for transport, the \ntotal number of commercial autoLPG-fuelled taxis nationwide stood at 9,718 units \ncomplemented by 192 refilling stations in 2015. In 2016, the total number of converted \ntaxi units decreased to about 8,415, but the total number of refilling stations remained \nat 192. The decline of taxi units was brought about by various issues that hampered the \nprogramme’s implementation.\nDespite the setback, the DOE is exerting all efforts within its mandate to make autoLPG \na viable option as a fuel for public transport. To sustain the programme, the DOE, in \ncoordination with concerned national government agencies, promotes the mainstreaming \nof autoLPG in the transport sector through policy recommendations. In June 2016, \nthe interim inter-agency AutoLPG Technical Working Group (TWG) was officially \ninstitutionalised through the adoption of Joint Administrative Order No. 1, Series of 2016, \nentitled ‘Creating the Technical Working Group (TWG) on the Use of AutoLPG as Fuel \nfor Public Transport and for Other Related Purposes’. The TWG is to be created in key \nareas in Luzon, Visayas, and Mindanao to harmonise all autoLPG-related policies, rules, \nand guidelines and develop a mechanism for collaboration, cooperation, and coordination \namongst member national government agencies for the effective implementation of the \nAutoLPG Program (DOE, 2017). \nPhilippines Country Report\n\n\n260\nENERGY OUTLOOK AND ENERGY SAVING POTENTIAL IN EAST ASIA 2019\nE-vehicles \nAs of the end of 2015, 10 new companies were engaged in the manufacture of e-trikes \nand were registered under the Board of Investments’ Investment Priority Projects. This \nhas translated to about J500 million of fresh investments and generated more than 500 \nlocal jobs. For electric and hybrid vehicles, the Government of Japan coordinated with \nthe Department of Foreign Affairs and the DOE for the Japan Non-Project Grant Aid \nfor the Introduction of Japanese Advance Products and its System (Next-Generation \nVehicle Package) for the Philippines. Under the terms of the grant aid, next-generation \nvehicles such as hybrid vehicles, plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, and electric vehicles, \nincluding charging stations, will be procured by the Government of Japan and delivered \nto the Philippines through the DOE for deployment to identified beneficiaries. Target \nbeneficiaries of this grant aid include Philippine National Police stations in Leyte and \nSamar which were devastated by typhoon ‘Yolanda’, government agencies in Region 8 \nthat are instrumental to emergency response operations and rehabilitation. Vehicles were \nalso allocated to non-government agencies that could assist in conducting research, \nperformance testing, and promoting alternative fuel vehicles. \nHousehold Electrification\nThe provision of electricity access is now focused on households throughout the country. \nHousehold electrification levels increased from 89.6% in 2015 to 90.7% in 2016. This \nincrease corresponds to a 3% growth in the number of households energised – from \n19,994,430 in 2015 to 20,597,320 in 2016. It also implies that 20,597,320 out of the \npotential 22,721,430 households are reaping the benefits of electricity access. On a grid \nlevel, Luzon has the highest electrification and this increased from 94.6% in 2015 to 95.5% \nin 2016. Visayas and Mindanao posted electrification levels of 94.0% and 74.1% in 2016, \nrespectively. Aside from these are various grid and off-grid programmes that also aim to \ncontribute to 100% electrification of all targeted and identified households accessible to \nthe grid by 2022. These are embodied in the Household Electrification Development Plan. \n\n\n261\n1.3. Energy \nThe country’s total primary energy supply (TPES) in 2015 reached 51.3 million tons of oil \nequivalent (Mtoe). Oil accounted for the biggest share of 33.6% in the total energy supply, \nfollowed by coal (22.7%) and geothermal (18.5%). Total primary production reached 26.9 \nMtoe, bringing the country’s energy self-sufficiency level at 52.4% during the period.\nMeanwhile, the country’s total electricity generation in 2015 reached 82.4 terawatt-hours \n(TWh). Coal-fired power plants remained the major source for power generation, with \ntotal installed capacity of 5,963 megawatts (MW) during the period. Coal contributed \n44.5% or 36.7 TWh in the total power generation mix of the country. Meanwhile, natural \ngas–fired power plants accounted for 22.9% or 18.9 TWh in the power mix, as the country’s \nthree existing natural gas power plants had a combined installed capacity of 2,862 MW. \nOn the other hand, the combined share of renewable energy in the total power generation \nmix was registered at 25.4% during the period. \n2. Modelling Assumptions \nFive scenarios, aside from the Business-as-Usual (BAU) scenario, were developed \nto assess the energy savings potential of the country. the BAU scenario serves as the \nreference case in the projection of energy demand and carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions \nof the energy sector. the BAU scenario incorporates the energy sector’s existing energy \npolicies, plans, and programmes which are being implemented and will be pursued within \nthe forecast period. \nAlternative Policy Scenario (APS) 1 assessed the impact of possible policy interventions \nin terms of possible utilisation of energy efficiency technologies for future energy use, \ntogether with their corresponding reductions in CO2 emissions. This assumes that the \nenergy saving goals of 10% in 2024, 25% in 2025, and 20% in 2035 from annual final energy \ndemand of the country will be achieved through a range of measures, including intensified \nenergy utilisation management programmes in the commercial and industry sectors as \nwell as the continuous use of alternative fuels and technologies. The Information and \nEducation Campaign Program of the DOE will also contribute to the energy-saving goals of \nthe country. In the residential and commercial sectors, the use of more efficient electrical \nappliances is projected to induce savings. Energy labelling and ratings on major electrical \nappliances will also help consumers choose more efficient electrical products.\nAPS2 assessed the effect of more efficient thermal power generation, particularly for \nfuture coal and natural gas power plant technologies.\nPhilippines Country Report\n\n\n262\nENERGY OUTLOOK AND ENERGY SAVING POTENTIAL IN EAST ASIA 2019\nAPS3 measured the results of combined contribution of renewable energy and alternative \nfuels to the total energy supply. As part of the government’s initiative to ensure security \nof energy supply and, at the same time, to protect the environment and promote green \ntechnology, the targets set under the NREP were incorporated in the model to test their \nimpact on the TPES. The NREP lays down the foundation for developing the country’s \nRE resources, stimulating investments in the RE sector, developing technologies, and \nproviding the impetus for national and local renewable utilisation. It sets out indicative \ninterim targets for the delivery of RE within the time frame. In this scenario, the aggregated \n20 GW RE capacity is assumed in 2040. \nAlthough the Philippines currently has no firm policy direction on the use of nuclear \nenergy in power generation, APS4 considered additional capacity from nuclear power to \ndetermine the impact of possible long-term nuclear option in the country. Lastly, APS5 \nwill focus on the combined effects of the four scenarios: APS1, APS2, APS3, and APS4. \nIn the model, GDP is projected to grow at an annual rate of around 6% between 2015 and \n2040. The population of the country is expected to grow at the rate of 1.5% yearly for the \nsame period. Population growth is based on the adjusted 2000 census-based medium \npopulation projections using the results of the 2010 census of population.\nAdditional scenarios were simulated in the energy outlook model to investigate the \nfeasibility of the 70% Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDC) of the \ncountry as a commitment to international environmental agreements for the planning \nperiod 2010–2030. INDC1 reflects the possibility of reducing CO2 emissions according \nto the level of INDC submission of the country, which is 70% CO2 reduction by 2030 from \nthe BAU scenario level of the same period. The model for INDC1 sets the target of 70% \nCO2 reduction by 2030. On the other hand, INDC2 was simulated to look for a more \nsuitable level of CO2 reduction at the end of the planning period in terms of realistic policy \ninterventions and assumptions.\n\n\n263\n3. Outlook Results\n3.1. Business-As-Usual Scenario \n3.1.1 Total final energy consumption (TFEC)\n3.1.1.1. TFEC by sector \nThe Philippines’ final energy consumption grew from 19.7 Mtoe in 1990 to 29.6 Mtoe \nin 2015 at an average annual growth rate of about 1.7%. During this period, energy \nconsumption in the transport sector grew the fastest at an average annual rate of 3.5%, \nfollowed by the industry sector with 1.9%. The ‘others’ sector (residential and commercial, \nand agriculture, fishery, and forestry) posted a sluggish average annual growth of 0.1% per \nyear.\nFinal energy consumption is expected to grow at an average annual rate of 3.7% in the \nBAU scenario over 2015–2040. The transport sector will grow at an average rate of 3.1% \nper year. On the other hand, the industry and ‘others’ sectors are expected to grow faster \nat an average rate of 4.8% and 3.6% per year, respectively (Figure 14.1).\nFigure 14.1: Final Energy Consumption by Sector, BAU (1990, 2015, and 2040)\n10.0\n1990\n1990\n20.0\nMtoe\nBAU = Business-As-Usual, Mtoe = million tons of oil equivalent.\nSource: Author’s calculations.\n30.0\n40.0\n50.0\n60.0\n70.0\n80.0\n2015\n2015\n2040\n2040\nIndustry\nTransport\nOthers\nNon-energy\n0%\n20%\n40%\n60%\n80%\n100%\nIndustry\nTransport\nOthers\nNon-energy\nPhilippines Country Report\n\n\n264\nENERGY OUTLOOK AND ENERGY SAVING POTENTIAL IN EAST ASIA 2019\nDespite the sluggish growth of the aggregated energy consumption of the ‘others’ (such as \nresidential and commercial) sector in 1990–2015, it continued to account for the biggest \nshare in the total consumption mix for the period – albeit declining from 52.1% in 1990 to \n35.6% by 2015. In the same period, the share of the transport sector in the demand mix \nincreased from its level of 23.0% to 35.8%. However, across the planning period, 2015–\n2040, the share of transport in the demand mix is declining and will drop to 30.9% by \n2040. On the other hand, as the energy requirement in the industry sector is expected to \nincrease the fastest, its share to the demand mix is on a continuous uptrend from 23.7% in \n1990 to 25.1% in 2015 and to 32.5% by 2040. Meanwhile, the combined consumption of \nother sectors will recover from its sluggish growth to sustain its share in the consumption \nmix at an average of 36.3% across the planning horizon. \n3.1.1.2. TFEC by fuel\nBy fuel type, the consumption of natural gas is projected to grow the fastest at an \naverage of 11.5% per year between 2015 and 2040. Increased requirements from \nindustry, particularly in cement and other energy-intensive manufacturing sub-sectors, \nwill contribute to the average hike in coal demand of 6.0% per year, while electricity is \nexpected to maintain its steady pace with an average increment in demand of 4.3% for \nthe next 25 years. On the other hand, demand for oil, mainly from the transport sector, is \nexpected to grow by 3.7% during the period (Figure 14.2).\nFigure 14.2: Final Energy Consumption by Fuel Type, BAU (1990, 2015, and 2040)\nMtoe\n10.0\n20.0\n30.0\n40.0\n50.0\n60.0\n70.0\n80.0\n1990\n2015\n2040\n0%\n10%\n20%\n30%\n40%\n50%\n60%\n70%\n80%\n90%\n100%\n1990\n2015\n2040\nOil\nElectricity\nCoal\nNatural Gas\nOthers\nOil\nElectricity\nCoal\nNatural Gas\nOthers\nBAU = Business-As-Usual, Mtoe = million tons of oil equivalent.\nSource: Author’s calculations.\n-\n\n\n265\nOil will remain as the most-consumed fuel throughout the planning period, with a share \nof 49.7% in 2040 in the total demand mix, slightly lower from its 2015 level of 50.7%. \nElectricity will contribute an average share of 22.7% by 2040, making it the second-most \nconsumed energy source after oil. Coal is expected to increase its share of total demand by \nalmost twice its 2015 share of 7.7% to 13.3% in 2040. On the other hand, the consumption \nof other fuels such as biomass and other RE, despite their projected lacklustre growth of \n1.7% per year, will account for 13.3% of the demand mix in 2040. \n3.1.2. \n Total primary energy supply (TPES) by fuel type\nPrimary energy supply in the Philippines grew at an average annual rate of 2.4%, from 26.0 \nMtoe in 1990 to 47.5 Mtoe in 2015. Amongst the major energy sources, coal grew the \nfastest at 11.5% per year. Geothermal, oil, and hydro each registered average increments \nof 2.9%, 1.7%, and 1.4%, respectively. On the other hand, primary energy supply of other \nfuels went down by 1.3 % per year. \nFor 2015–2040, the country’s primary energy supply is expected to increase by 3.6% \nper year from its 2015 level to 115.8 Mtoe in 2040. Consumption of all major energy \nsources are projected to increase during the period, with coal growing the fastest at 4.9% \nper year. Natural gas is also expected to expand with a growth rate of 4.7% per year, while \noil growth rate is estimated at 3.5% for the period in review. On the other hand, major RE \nconsumption from geothermal and hydro will have an average growth rate of 2.9% and \n2.7%, respectively, for the planning period, while other fuels’ aggregated consumption \nlevel is expected to rise the slowest at 2.1%. \nOil will account for the largest share in the total energy supply of the country at 33.2%, on \naverage, over the planning period. Coal and natural gas, being part of the country’s major \nenergy requirements, are projected to register the shares of 31.5% and 8.2%, respectively, \nby the end of 2040. During the same year, geothermal and hydro, which are mainly used \nfor power generation, will register shares of 15.9% and 1.3%, respectively. Meanwhile, the \nrequirement for other fuels in 2040 will contribute 9.6% to the supply mix (Figure 14.3).\nPhilippines Country Report\n\n\n266\nENERGY OUTLOOK AND ENERGY SAVING POTENTIAL IN EAST ASIA 2019\nOil\nCoal\nNatural Gas\nHydro\nFigure 14.3: Primary Energy Supply by Fuel Type, BAU (1990, 2015, and 2040)\nMtoe\n20.0\n40.0\n60.0\n80.0\n100.0\n120.0\n140.0\n1990\n2015\n2040\nGeothermal\nOthers\n1990\n2015\n2040\n0%\n20%\n40%\n60%\n80%\n100%\nOil\nCoal\nNatural Gas\nHydro\nGeothermal\nOthers\nBAU = Business-As-Usual, Mtoe = million tons of oil equivalent.\nSource: Author’s calculations.\n3.1.3. \n Power generation\nTotal power generation in 2015 reached 82.4 TWh, more than thrice the country’s level \nin 1990. Coal maintains its spot as the major source of power generation, accounting for \na 44.5% share in 2015. With total power generation expected to increase by 3.9% yearly \nto 215.3 TWh by 2040, the share of coal in the generation mix will likewise increase to \n48.7% for the period to reflect an average annual growth rate of 4.3% and reach the level \nof 105.0 TWh by 2040. Natural gas–fired power plants are also expected to follow the \nsame trend as coal, with their generation levels rising by as much as three times its 2015 \nlevel of 18.9 TWh to 55.8 TWh in 2040, about one-fourth of total generation during the \nsame year. Major RE sources, such as hydro and geothermal, are expected to contribute \nan aggregate share of 18.1% (8.2% share for hydro and 9.9% share for geothermal) to the \ncountry’s generation mix in 2040, as output grows at an average annual rate of 2.9% and \n2.7%, respectively. Generation from other energy (solar, wind, and biomass) is expected \nto increase at an average annual rate of 7.7%. Meanwhile, declining use of oil in the power \nsector is evident in its paltry average growth of 0.9% for the planning period (Figure 14.4).\n\n\n267\nThe thermal efficiencies of coal, oil, and natural gas under the BAU scenario are projected \nto be constant for the whole planning period. Coal thermal efficiency is set at 34%, while \noil and natural gas power plant efficiencies are set at around 35% and 55%, respectively \n(Figure 14.5).\nBAU = Business-As-Usual, TWh = terawatt-hour.\nSource: Author’s calculations. \nFigure 14.4: Power Generation by Fuel Type, BAU (1990, 2015, and 2040)\nTWh\n50.0\n100.0\n150.0\n200.0\n250.0\n1990\n2015\n2040\nCoal\nNatural Gas\nGeothermal\nHydro\nOil\nOther\nCoal\nNatural Gas\nGeothermal\nHydro\nOil\nOther\n1990\n2015\n2040\n10%\n20%\n30%\n40%\n50%\n60%\n70%\n80%\n90%\n100%\n0%\n-\nFigure 14.5: Thermal Efficiency by Fuel Type, BAU (1990, 2015, and 2040)\n0.0\n1990\n10.0\n%\n20.0\n30.0\n40.0\n50.0\n60.0\n2015\n2040\nCoal\nOil\nNatural Gas\nBAU = Business-As-Usual.\nSource: Author’s calculations.\nPhilippines Country Report\n\n\n268\nENERGY OUTLOOK AND ENERGY SAVING POTENTIAL IN EAST ASIA 2019\n3.1.4. \n Energy indicators\nUnder the BAU scenario, the energy intensity of the country tends to decrease at a rate \nof 2.3% for the period 2015–2040. Energy intensity is the ratio of total primary energy \nover GDP. The significant reduction of energy intensity is attributable to the government’s \nefforts in promoting energy conservation and efficiency in the different sectors of the \neconomy. Meanwhile, energy per capita has an increasing trend from 0.47 toe/person in \n2015 to 0.78 toe/person in 2040, due to the improvement in the standard of living and \nincome of the people.\nIncome elasticity of energy is the relationship between changes in the primary energy \nsupply and the changes in GDP. The income elasticity for 2015–2040 is expected to be \nat approximately 0.6, indicating that energy demand is rising less than proportionately to \nincome.\n3.2 Alternative Policy Scenario \nAs mentioned, the assumptions in the APS were analysed separately to determine the \nindividual impact of each assumption in APS1, APS2, APS3, APS4, and the combination \nof all these assumptions (APS5).\n \nFigure 14.6: Energy Intensity, Energy Per Capita, and Income \nElasticity of Energy (1990, 2015, and 2040)\n1990\n1990 - 2015\n2040\nEnergy Intensity\nEnergy Per Capita\nTOE/Million 2010 US$\n0\n50\n100\n150\n200\n250\n300\n0.1\n-\n0.2\n0.9\n0.3\n0.4\n0.5\n0.6\nEnergy Elasticity\n0.7\n0.8\nTOE/Person\n0.50\n0.55\n0.60\n0.65\n2015 - 2040\n2015\nSource: Author’s calculations.\n\n\n269\n3.2.1. \n TPES\nFigure 14.7 shows the changes in the TPES in all the scenarios. APS1, which assumes \nimproved efficiency of final energy consumption, is projected to increase at a rate of 3% \nper year as levels reach 98.4 Mtoe by 2040. Compared to the BAU scenario, APS1 is \nlower by 17.4 Mtoe, or 15%, indicating the effectiveness of energy efficiency measures \nimplemented in various sectors of the economy.\nBased on the assumption of more efficient thermal power generation, APS2’s TPES will \nbe lower by 4.7 Mtoe or 4% compared to the BAU scenario as it will reach 111.06 Mtoe \nin 2040. The bulk of the reduction would be from coal as more efficient power plants are \nassumed to be used to generate power in this scenario.\nUnder APS3, where the bulk of the increase in the contribution of RE will be in the form of \nvariable RE (solar and wind), TPES is lower by 3 Mtoe or 2.6% compared to BAU. This is \nmainly due to the slowdown in the use of geothermal energy in power generation vis-à-vis \nhydro and other RE. Under APS3, aggregate generation output from other RE (solar, wind, \nbiomass, etc.) alone is expected to increase by as much as 10.5% per year, outpacing the \n2.4% annual growth in geothermal generation output. This brings the TPES levels under \nAPS3 to 112.8 Mtoe by 2040. \nFigure 14.7: Comparison of Scenarios to Total Primary Energy Supply (2040)\n0.0\n20.0\n40.0\n60.0\n80.0\n100.0\n120.0\n140.0\nMtoe\n38.8\n9.5\n18.4\n11.2\n31.8\n6.8\n16.6\n10.8\n38.8\n8.7\n18.4\n10.7\n38.6\n8.8\n17.1\n11.7\n38.8\n8.7\n18.1\n11.1\n4.1\n31.6\n4.9\n17.1\n3.8\n11.4\nBAU\nAPS1\nAPS2\nAPS3\nAPS4\nAPS5\nCoal\nNatural Gas\nGeothermal\nHydro\nOil\nOthers\nNuclear\nMtoe = million tons of oil equivalent.\nSource: Author’s calculations. \nPhilippines Country Report\n\n\n270\nENERGY OUTLOOK AND ENERGY SAVING POTENTIAL IN EAST ASIA 2019\nWith the entry of nuclear in the energy mix, APS4 is the only scenario where the TPES \nis slightly higher than the BAU scenario by about 0.5 Mtoe, or 0.4%. This is due to the \nassumption that the thermal efficiency of nuclear power plants is 33% lower than the \nefficiencies of natural gas and coal power plants at 35.0% and 55.0%, respectively.\nCombining all scenarios, the country’s TPES under APS5 will grow at an average annual \nrate of 2.8% to reach 95.05 Mtoe in 2040. The combined effects of APS1 to APS4 is \nexpected to yield the biggest reduction of 20.8 Mtoe, making the level of energy supply \nunder APS5 17.9% lower than under the BAU scenario. This indicates the effectiveness of \ncombining various energy assumptions – improved efficiency in the energy demand and \nthermal power generation, as well as higher contribution of RE and entry of nuclear in the \nsupply mix – to achieve the feasible level of the TPES by 2040.\n3.2.2. \n Total electricity generation\nFigure 14.8 shows the total electricity generation in 2040 in all scenarios. Due to the \nefficiency measures resulting in lower electricity demand, APS1’s total generation output \nwas at 172.3 TWh as all fuels register reduced generation output vis-à-vis the BAU \nscenario. This makes APS1’s level at 43.1 TWh or 20% less than 215.3 TWh under the \nBAU scenario, with lower shares for fossil-fired power plants, particularly for natural gas \nand coal.\nFigure 14.8: Comparison of Scenarios to Electricity Generation (2040)\nAPS = Alternative Policy Scenario, BAU = Business-As-Usual, TWh = terawatt-hours.\nSource: Author’s calculations. \n0\n50\n100\n150\n200\n250\nTWh\nBAU\nAPS1\nAPS2\nAPS3\nAPS4\nAPS5\nCoal\nNatural Gas\nGeothermal\nHydro\nOil\nOthers\nNuclear\n105.0\n83.5\n105.0\n97.1\n94.8\n62.2\n6.6\n29.3\n24.2\n19.9\n15.7\n14.4\n7.4\n7.1\n7.3\n56.5\n51.4\n50.8\n17.6\n24.2\n17.5\n21.4\n19.9\n21.1\n7.5\n15.7\n8.0\n15.9\n7.3\n38.4\n16.6\n19.4\n7.1\n7.4\n55.8\n17.6\n21.4\n8.2\n\n\n271\nAPS2, APS3, and APS4 yield the same total generation output with the BAU scenario. \nHowever, under APS2, coal share will increase slightly by less than a TWh compared \nwith the BAU scenario level. This is because of the entry of highly efficient coal-fired \npower plants, which, although operating with higher thermal efficiency by 2% compared \nwith conventional coal plants, will contribute significantly to the generation mix. Power \ngeneration from coal is projected to reach 105.0 TWh level by 2040 for APS2, slightly \nhigher compared with its level in the BAU scenario. This is the same case with the power \ngeneration from natural gas that will also increase slightly in APS2 from the BAU scenario. \nOn the total account, the effect of higher thermal efficiencies of fossil fuel plants is a slight \nreduction on the aggregated variable RE generation output for APS2. On the other hand, \nthe shares of generation from fossil fuels are lower for the two other scenarios, as they are \ndisplaced by RE for APS3 and entry of nuclear in the generation mix for APS4. \nWhile APS5’s total generation output is equal to that of APS1 for 2040 at 172.3 TWh, \nthere is a significant reduction in the aggregate level of fossil fuels’ power output from the \nBAU scenario to APS5 at 41.7 %, or from 168.1 TWh to 98.02 TWh.\n3.2.3. \n Total CO2 emissions\nIn terms of reduction of CO2 emissions, the energy efficiency assumption in APS1 will \ngenerate 222.6 million metric tons of carbon (Mt-C), which is 49.0 Mt-C or 18.0% lower \nthan BAU for 2040. The decrease in CO2 indicates that the energy-saving goals, action \nplans, and policies in the promotion of the energy efficiency and conservation programme \nwill be effective in reducing CO2 emissions (Figure 14.9). \nFigure 14.9: Comparison of Scenarios to CO2 Emissions (2040)\nAPS = Alternative Policy Scenario, BAU = Business-As-Usual, Mt-C = million tons of carbon.\nSource: Author’s calculations. \n0.0\n50.0\n100.0\n150.0\n200.0\n250.0\n300.0\nMt-C\nBAU\nAPS1\nAPS2\nAPS3\nAPS4\nAPS5\n144.6\n104.8\n22.3\n122.9\n83.8\n15.9\n132.2\n104.8\n20.4\n136.6\n104.4\n20.7\n134.4\n104.8\n20.4\n96.0\n83.8\n11.5\nCoal\nNatural Gas\nOil\nPhilippines Country Report\n\n\n272\nENERGY OUTLOOK AND ENERGY SAVING POTENTIAL IN EAST ASIA 2019\nUnder APS2, total CO2 emissions are lower by 14.2 Mt-C or 5.2% relative to the BAU \nscenario’s 271.6 Mt-C. In APS3, the reduction is the least amongst all alternative \nscenarios at 10 Mt-C. In APS4, the reduction will account for the level of 12.1 Mt-C or \n4.4% compared with the BAU scenario.\nCombining all the assumptions in APS1, APS2, APS3, and APS4 (APS5) will give the \naggregate reduction of CO2 emissions from the BAU scenario at 80.3 Mt-C or 29.6%. \n3.2.4. \n Final energy consumption\nFigures 14.10 to 14.12 show the levels of the TFEC in 2040 between the BAU scenario \nand the APS (APS5), by sector and by fuel. Due to the improved economy-wide energy \nefficiency that will yield higher energy savings on the demand side under the APS, final \nenergy demand is at 63.8 Mtoe, which is 10.4 Mtoe or 14% lower than the BAU scenario.\nFigure 14.10: Comparison of Total Final Energy Consumption in 2040, BAU and APS \nMtoe\n19.7\n0\n20\n40\n60\n80\n100\n29.6\n74.2\n63.8\nAPS = Alternative Policy Scenario, BAU = Business-As-Usual, Mt-C = million tons of oil equivalent.\nSource: Author’s calculations.\nBAU\n2015\n1990\n2040\nAPS\n-10.4 Mtoe, -14.0%\nFigure 14.11: Comparison of Final Energy Consumption in 2040, BAU and APS\nMtoe\n7.4\n0.0\n5.0\n10.0\n15.0\n20.0\n30.0\n25.0\n24.1\n22.1\n10.6\n22.9\n18.5\n10.5\n25.2\n21.3\n1.048\n1.991\n1.991\nAPS = Alternative Policy Scenario, BAU = Business-As-Usual, Mt-C = million tons of oil equivalent.\nSource: Author’s calculations.\n–17.9%\n–7.3%\n0.0%\nBAU\n2015\n2040\nIndustry\nAPS\nBAU\n2015\n2040\nTransport\nAPS\nBAU\n2015\n2040\nOthers\nAPS\nBAU\n2015\n2040\nNon-energy\nAPS\n–1.2%\n\n\n273\nAll economic sectors are expected to contribute to the aggregate reduction in energy \ndemand under the APS. The transport sector will cut its demand by as much 19.5% to \nreach 18.5 Mtoe, from 22.9 Mtoe in the BAU scenario. Energy demand from the ‘others’ \nsector (residential, commercial, agriculture, fishery, and forestry) at 21.3 Mtoe is 15.4% \nlower than its BAU level of 25.2 Mtoe. The industry sector will also contribute 8.5% \nreduction – from 24.1 Mtoe under the BAU scenario to 22.1 Mtoe in the APS.\nThe impact of improved efficiency is evident in the 19% and 20% decline in the consumption \nof oil and electricity under the APS (APS5) vis-à-vis BAU (Figure 14.12).\n3.3 Intended Nationally Determined Contributions Scenario\nAside from the assumptions set forth under the APSs, the country’s commitment to \ninternational environmental agreements in terms of its INDC was likewise studied. \nTwo simulations were done for this purpose: INDC1 seeks to determine the effect of \na 70% reduction in CO2 emissions by 2030 from BAU, while INDC2 looks into more \nconsiderable CO2 emissions reduction targets by 2040. In INDC1, to be able to reduce \nCO2 emissions by 70% in 2030, fuel substitution, such as from fossil fuels to electricity \nand biomass, was assumed from 2025 to 2035 in the demand sectors. On the other hand, \nmore considerable assumptions were made in INDC2, such as 25%–30% energy efficiency \ntarget from 2025 to 2035 and 10% electricity use in the transport, industry, and services \nsectors to substitute gasoline and diesel demand. For INDC2 power generation, it was \nFigure 14.12: Comparison of Final Energy Consumption \nby Fuel Type in 2040, BAU and APS \n0.0\n2015\n5.0\nMtoe\n10.0\n15.0\n20.0\n30.0\n25.0\n2040\nCoal\nBAU\nAPS\nAPS = Alternative Policy Scenario, BAU = Business-As-Usual, Mt-C = million tons of oil equivalent.\nSource: Author’s calculations.\n2.3\n35.0\n45.0\n40.0\n50.0\n9.9\n9.9\n2015\n2040\nOil\nBAU\nAPS\n15.0\n36.9\n29.9\n2015\n2040\nNatural Gas\nBAU\nAPS\n0.1\n0.8\n0.8\n2015\n2040\nElectricity\nBAU\nAPS\n5.8\n16.8\n13.5\n2015\n2040\nOthers\nBAU\nAPS\n6.4\n9.8\n9.8\n–19.0%\n–20.0%\nPhilippines Country Report\n\n\n274\nENERGY OUTLOOK AND ENERGY SAVING POTENTIAL IN EAST ASIA 2019\nassumed that all additional capacities from coal and natural gas power plants by 2022 \nuntil 2040 will be of highly efficient technologies and more contribution of RE generation \noutput to compensate for the significant increase in electricity demand. At the end, the \nenergy savings potential of INDC2 at 25.5 Mtoe is higher by 4 percentage points compared \nwith APS5 (20.8 Mtoe) but with much higher CO2 reduction from the BAU scenario by \n38.2% in 2040 compared with APS5 with 29.6% CO2 reduction at the same period. \n3.3.1 TPES \nINDC1 yields a TPES level of 64.5 Mtoe, 44.3% (51.3 Mtoe) less than that of the BAU \nscenario. Under INDC1, supply of fossil fuels will significantly decline by 70.6% from the \nBAU level. On the other hand, the reduction on INDC2 supply level compared with the \nBAU scenario is projected at 22%. Comparing also the supply level between INDC2 and \nthe APS, the difference is only 4.8 Mtoe, with INDC2 lower by 5% at the 90.3 Mtoe level \nof energy supply. Despite the significant reduction in the aggregate supply of fossil fuels in \nINDC2 at 37%, this was compensated by the higher production of RE compared with the \nBAU scenario and APS5. \n0.0\n20.0\nMtoe\n40.0\nFigure 14.13: Comparison of Total Primary Energy \nSupply in 2040 (BAU, INDC, and APS5)\n60.0\n80.0\n100.0\n120.0\n140.0\nINDC1\n12.2\n9.1\nBAU\n36.5\n38.8\n9.5\n1.5\n18.4\n11.2\n3.7\n18.4\n15.5\n3.1\n3.6\nINDC2\n21.5\n26.3\n5.8\n3.8\n2.1\n17.6\n13.1\nAPS5\n24.2\n31.6\n4.9\n3.8\n2.1\n17.1\n11.4\nCoal\nNatural Gas\nHydro\nNuclear\nOil\nGeothermal\nOthers\nAPS = Alternative Policy Scenario, BAU = Business-As-Usual, INDC = Intended Nationally Determined Contributions, \n \nMtoe = million tons of oil equivalent.\nSource: Author’s calculations.\n\n\n275\n3.3.3 Final energy demand\nThe CO2 emissions reduction targets for both INDC1 and INDC2 put a cap on final \nenergy demand, resulting in lower levels compared to APS5. However, energy demand in \ntransport, which has been the primary source of CO2 emissions amongst end-use sectors, \nhas been reduced to 7.4 Mtoe under INDC1, which is considerably lower compared to \nthe sector’s historical consumption levels. This contributes to the halving of final energy \ndemand for INDC1 at 35.4 Mtoe from the BAU scenario’s 74.2 Mtoe. On the other hand, \nthe demand mix of INDC2, which totals 57.6 Mtoe, is almost similar with the levels of \neach end-use sector from that of the BAU scenario and APS5.\n3.3.2 Total CO2 Emissions \nINDC1 will produce the least amount of CO2 emissions at 74.7 Mt-C amongst the \nfour scenarios. This will reflect 70% reduction of CO2 emissions by 2030 and 72.5 CO2 \nemission by 2040 from BAU. On the other hand, INDC2’s CO2 emissions reduction at \n167.9 Mt-C in 2040 is lesser by 55.4% compared with that of INDC1 during the period, \nwhile only 12.2% higher reduction from APS5. The CO2 emissions reduction of INDC1, \nINDC2, and APS5 from the BAU scenario will register at 72.5%, 38.2%, and 29.6%, \nrespectively, by 2040. \nFigure 14.14: Comparison of Total CO2 in 2040 (BAU, INDC, and APS5) \n0.0\n50.0\n100.0\n150.0\n200.0\n250.0\n300.0\nMt-C\nBAU\n144.6\n104.8\n22.3\nINDC1\n48.9\n17.2\n8.7\nINDC2\n86.4\n67.8\n13.7\nINDC2\n96.0\n83.8\n11.5\nAPS = Alternative Policy Scenario, BAU = Business-As-Usual, INDC = Intended Nationally Determined Contributions, Mt-C = million tons of carbon.\nSource: Author’s calculations.\nCoal\nNatural Gas\nOil\nPhilippines Country Report\n\n\n276\nENERGY OUTLOOK AND ENERGY SAVING POTENTIAL IN EAST ASIA 2019\nFigure 14.15: Comparison of Final Energy Consumption \nby Sector in 2040 (BAU, INDC, and APS5)\nMtoe\nBAU\n24.1\n22.9\n25.2\n2.0\n0.0\n10.0\n20.0\n30.0\n40.0\n50.0\n60.0\n70.0\n80.0\n90.0\nINDC1\n14.0\n7.4\n12.0\n2.0\nINDC2\n20.3\n16.0\n19.2\n2.0\nAPS5\n22.1\n18.5\n21.3\n2.0\nAPS = Alternative Policy Scenario, BAU = Business-As-Usual, INDC = Intended Nationally Determined Contributions, \n \n \nMtoe = million tons of oil equivalent.\nSource: Author’s calculations.\nIndustry\nOthers\nTransport\nNon-energy\nIn Figure 14.16, the effect of 70% CO2 reduction in INDC1 will bring down the aggregate \nconsumption of oil and coal by 80.3% from its BAU scenario level. The scenario may not \nbe possible without other fuels to substitute this aggregate level of consumption of oil and \ncoal. In particular, coal consumption in INDC1 will be reduced to a mere 1.4 Mtoe by \n2040 or an almost sevenfold reduction from the BAU scenario, while oil will account for \nan almost fivefold reduction. For INDC2, an assumption to substitute smaller reduction \nof fossil fuels in the demand sectors will bring down the coal and oil demands by 32% to \n33% from the BAU scenario. INDC2’s electricity demand is higher by 6.5% compared with \nthe APS5 level to compensate reduction in fossil-fuel demand. Meanwhile, oil demand in \nINDC2 will be reduced significantly compared with the BAU scenario and APS5 but will \nstill be the most dominant fuel in the demand sector as could also be observed in the BAU \nscenario and APS5.\n\n\n277\n4. \n Implications and Policy Recommendations\nAmongst the fossil fuels under the BAU scenario, coal supply will register the fastest growth \nrate at 4.9% throughout the planning period. This is due to the significant contribution of \ncoal in power generation, which corresponds to the increasing demand for electricity at \n4.3% average annual rate. Towards 2040, coal supply level will almost be at equal level \nwith the country’s most dominant fuel, oil, that is mainly used in the transport sector. The \naggregated share of RE at 26.8% is behind by 14.8% of the projected contribution of coal \nin the supply mix. The result of the study indicates that the significant use of coal during \nthe planning period is inevitable. Given the current policy of the government to fully \nsupport the attainment of its development goals as envisioned in Ambisyon 2040, which \ncovers the country’s industrialisation and urbanisation goal within the framework of the \nlong-term Philippine Development Plan, the DOE is focused on achieving security and \nreliability of energy supply in anticipation of the long-term economic development of the \ncountry. This is to support the vision of a low-carbon future and adopting a technology-\nneutral policy in coming up with an optimal energy mix. At this point, a reliable source \nof energy for power generation such as coal is indispensable; in fact, majority of the \ncommitted capacities from the private power projects are coal power projects (more than \n70% of the committed capacities). Consistent with the results of the study, the share \nFigure 14.16: Comparison of Final Energy Consumption \nby Fuel Type in 2040 (BAU, INDC, and APS5)\nMtoe\nBAU\n0.0\n10.0\n20.0\n30.0\n40.0\n50.0\n60.0\n70.0\n80.0\nINDC1\nINDC2\nAPS5\n36.9\n16.8\nAPS = Alternative Policy Scenario, BAU = Business-As-Usual, INDC = Intended Nationally Determined Contributions, \n \nMtoe = million tons of oil equivalent.\nSource: Authors’ calculations. \nOil\nCoal\nElectricity\nNatural gas\n9.9\n0.8\n9.8\n7.8\n12.1\n1.4\n0.8\n13.3\n24.5\n14.4\n6.7\n0.8\n11.1\n29.9\n13.5\n9.9\n0.8\n9.8\nOthers\nPhilippines Country Report\n\n\n278\nENERGY OUTLOOK AND ENERGY SAVING POTENTIAL IN EAST ASIA 2019\nof coal in power generation by 2040 will account for almost half of the total generation \noutput. Natural gas will comprise one-fourth of the generation output while the remaining \nshares will be sourced from oil and RE. Thus, it is important for the government to push \nfor more diversification of energy sources in a feasible manner to achieve an ideal energy \nmix that would be consistent with the goal of the energy sector on energy security. Coal-\nfired power plants provide reliable baseload capacity given their dominant share in power \ngeneration, while avoiding or controlling their increased capacity in power generation will \nhamper the stability of electricity supply. The government still needs to safeguard the \nenvironment through policy interventions such as promoting the use of highly efficient \nand clean coal technologies in power generation and non-power industries. In fact, coal \ndemand in the industry sector will be the third highest in utilisation level by 2040 after \noil and electricity at 13.3% share of the total demand mix. However, there is an issue in \nimplementing the policy, considering the power sector is a deregulated industry. Under \nthis condition, the government has limited control in choosing the type of power plants \nto be built since the power industry is already deregulated and led by private investment. \nIt can be addressed somehow by formulating a fuel mix policy for power generation to \nguide and inform investors and other key players of the industry on the preferred power \nmix of the country for long-term sustainability of the country’s power sector. This policy \nmight have been in conflict with technology-neutral policies. However, the role of the \ngovernment here is only to provide a check-and-balance on the share of fuel types in the \npower mix. Each fuel should not be more than the required level that it could dictate the \nprice of electricity and disrupt supply that will more likely cause a total power crisis. \nOn the demand side, oil will register the biggest share in the final energy consumption \nby almost half of the demand mix at the end of the planning period. This will happen \ndespite the current effort of the government to promote the energy efficiency and \nconservation programme and alternative fuel and technology development. The results \nof the model indicate that the share of oil in the total demand is constantly at around \n50% across different scenarios. It would be appropriate for the government to focus on \nthe promotion of alternative fuels in the transport sector to substitute partly and directly \nthe use of oil in the sector with the extended implementation of alternative fuels in the \ntransport programme.\nMoreover, the use of alternative technologies and fuels such as electric vehicles, \ncompressed natural gas (CNG), autogas (LPG for transportation), and biofuels for \ntransport will temper the utilisation of oil in the country in the future, thus, reducing the \nnegative impacts of oil price volatility in the world market. The government’s efforts in \nthe promotion of alternative fuels in the transport sector will help not only in reducing \nthe energy requirements but also in lessening GHG emissions that mostly come from the \ntransport sector.\n\n\n279\nOn the other hand, under the APS, energy and CO2 intensity will continue to decline \nfrom 2015 to 2040, although CO2 emissions per energy consumption will increase \ncorresponding to the increased share of fossil fuels. In this regard, the government should \nstrictly implement plans and/or programmes for energy efficiency and conservation \nthat will address volatile oil prices and their inflationary effect on the prices of basic \ncommodities, and change the economic structure of the country to rely more on its \nservices sector rather than on energy-intensive industries. This is also consistent with the \ntarget of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) to reduce its aggregate energy \nintensity (energy demand per unit of GDP) by 45% by 2035, with 2005 as the base year. \nImprovement in the energy intensity of the Philippines is expected to be driven in part \nby the country’s changing economic structure, relying more on its service sector than on \nenergy-intensive industries. \nIn response to the results of this study, the government should pursue its programmes and \nprojects that will further increase and enhance the use of indigenous, clean, and efficient \nalternative fuels. The full implementation of the Renewable Energy Act of 2008 to expand \nthe utilisation and development of indigenous energy, such as geothermal, hydro, solar, \nwind, and other clean energy, will not only promote the use of sustainable energy but will \nalso lessen the country’s need for energy imports. FiT, RPS, and other policy mechanisms \nprovided under the law will boost the use of RE.\n Special attention should also be given to the industry sector since its energy demand is \ngrowing more than the transport sector and could have high potential energy savings. In \nfact, based on the study results, the demand of the industry sector will surpass that of the \ntransport sector as early as 2035 across different scenarios.\nCurrently, the Philippines has a specific quantitative energy-saving requirement as \nprovided under Administrative Order (AO) No. 110, Directing the Institutionalisation of \na Government Energy Management Program. The AO requires the reduction of at least \n10% in the cost of fuel and electricity consumption, amongst others, in the government. \nThis can be duplicated or expanded to other sectors if an existing energy conservation law \nwill require strict regulation and implementation. \nIn addition, there is a need to pass the Energy Conservation Law to realise the targets \nset by the government. The law will institutionalise energy conservation and enhance the \nefficient use of energy in the country.\nMoreover, looking at the integration of all the scenarios, the result is effective in reducing \nthe carbonisation ratio. This indicates that the government should set the enabling \nenvironment to ensure that policies will strictly be implemented.\nPhilippines Country Report\n\n\n280\nENERGY OUTLOOK AND ENERGY SAVING POTENTIAL IN EAST ASIA 2019\nFinally, it is important to ratify commitment to international environmental agreements \nlike the INDC and Nationally Determined Contributions that will direct member countries \nto pursue reduction of CO2 emissions under a certain framework. Based on the results of \nthe study, nearly 35% could be a suitable level of CO2 emissions reduction in the country \nby 2040.\n \nReferences\nCongress of the Philippines (2007), Republic Act No. 9367, Biofuels Act of 2006. \nQuezon City.\nCongress of the Philippines (2008), Republic Act No. 9513, Renewable Energy Act of \n2008. Quezon City. \nDOE (2016a), Energy Sector Accomplishment Report 2016, Taguig: DOE.\nDOE (2016b), 2015 Philippine Energy Situationer, Taguig, Manila: Energy Policy and \nPlanning Bureau–DOE.\nDOE (2016c), 2015 Philippine Energy Supply and Demand Outlook, Taguig, Manila: \nDOE\nDepartment of Energy (DOE) (2017), Philippine Energy Plan 2017 Update, Taguig, \nManila: DOE.\nPhilippine Statistical Authority (PSA) (2016), Philippine Statistical Yearbook. Manila: \nPSA.\nWorld Bank (2015), World Bank ICP database/World Development Indicators, \nWashington, DC: World Bank.\n\n\n281\nSINGAPORE COUNTRY REPORT\nLoi Tian Sheng Allan, Energy Studies Institute, \nNational University of Singapore, Singapore\n1. Background\nSingapore is a small island-state in Southeast Asia, located along the Strait of Malacca \nbetween Malaysia and Indonesia. It is the most urbanised and industrialised country in \nthe Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), with a per capita gross domestic \nproduct (GDP) of $52,200 (in constant 2010 US$) in 2015. Singapore submitted its \nIntended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDC) to the Secretariat of the United \nNations Framework Convention on Climate Change on 3 July 2015 (NCCS, 2015) and has \nsigned off to the Paris Agreement as of 22 April 2016 (Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 2016). \nSingapore’s INDC highlights its intentions to reduce its emissions intensity by 36% from \n2005 levels by 2030. In addition to emissions intensity targets, Singapore also intends to \nstabilise emissions with the aim of peaking around 2030. Under the Copenhagen Accord, \nSingapore also has a voluntary target of reducing carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions by 7%–\n11% below Business-As-Usual (BAU) scenario levels in 2020 (NCCS, 2012), which will \nbe increased to 16% if there is a global agreement on climate change. \n2. Singapore’s Policy Initiatives\nThe Inter-Ministerial Committee on Climate Change was created in 2007 to facilitate a \nwhole-of-government approach to addressing climate change–related issues. Chaired \nby Teo Chee Hean, Deputy Prime Minister and Co-ordinating Minister for National \nSecurity and Minister of Home Affairs, the committee was attended by the ministers for \nthe environment and water resources, finance, foreign affairs, national development, \ntrade and industry, as well as transport, to provide an overarching strategic planning for \nSingapore’s mitigation efforts. \nCHAPTER 15\n\n\n282\nENERGY OUTLOOK AND ENERGY SAVING POTENTIAL IN EAST ASIA 2019\nSwitching to cleaner fuels, energy efficiency improvements and the promotion of \nalternative sources of energy were highlighted as the main tenets of Singapore’s mitigation \npolicies. These policies were developed as part of the country’s national policy framework \nto support its multipronged objectives of achieving economic competitiveness, energy \nsecurity, and environmental sustainability (Ministry of Trade and Industry, 2007) all at \nthe same time.\n2.1. Fuel Switch\nSingapore started switching from oil to natural gas as a source for power generation in \nthe early 2000s. Today, natural gas remains a key component of the country’s power \ngeneration mix. Imports into Singapore increased by 2.4% in 2016 and, in 2017, natural gas \nrepresented 95.2% of the fuel mix for electricity generation in Singapore (Energy Market \nAuthority, 2018). Petroleum products, coal, and others accounted for the remaining \n0.7%, 1.2%, and 2.9%, respectively (Energy Market Authority, 2018). In a consultation \npaper released by the Energy Market Authority in 2015, natural gas is expected to remain \ndominant in Singapore’s power sector in the foreseeable future.\nTo expand the country’s import capability and sourcing options for liquefied natural \ngas (LNG), Singapore has already commenced commercial operations with its newly \nconstructed LNG terminal in May 2013. This currently has a throughput capacity of \n6 million tons per year (Boon, 2013) and 9 million metric tons per annum (Mtpa) \nthereafter in 2017 with a fourth storage tank to be constructed. The current aims are to \nincrease the targeted annual capacity to 11 Mtpa by 2018 (Veras, 2016).\n2.2. Promoting Solar Energy\nSingapore has been active in promoting solar energy as the only alternative renewable \nsource of energy to meet its needs. Although solar technology is not subsidised, there is \npolicy support for the deployment of solar resources in the form of removal of non-market \nbarriers; system support in terms of facilitating system integration of the intermittency \nof solar energy without compromising grid stability; and continued support for research, \ndevelopment, and demonstration efforts aimed at reducing costs and improving \nefficiency of solar modules. As part of the policy objective of accelerating the scale of \nsolar deployment in Singapore, the Housing and Development Board (HDB) awarded in \n2015 a public tender for the installation and management of 76 megawatt-peak (MWp) \nof solar photovoltaic (PV) panels under the SolarNova programme (HDB, 2015a). The \nSolarNova programme, led by the Economic Development Board (EBD), is a government-\n\n\n283\nSingapore Country Report\nled programme that aims to promote solar deployment through aggregating solar demand \nacross the public sector (Ministry of Trade and Industry, 2014). The EDB and the Public \nUtilities Board have also partnered to install floating PV platforms in reservoirs (Channel \nNews Asia, 2015). Future initiatives will involve the installation of solar-ready roofs on all \nHDB flats with at least 400 square metres of open roof space, with the HDB committing to \ninstall at least 220 MWp of solar panels at about 5,500 HDB flats by 2020 (HDB, 2017).\nBeyond these forms of support, Singapore also has a national target of deploying 350 \nMWp of solar PV by 2020 and extending the share of solar PV to 8% of the country’s peak \nelectricity demand by 2030 (NCCS, 2016a). \nIn 2010, Singapore had explored the nuclear option with a nuclear energy pre-feasibility \nstudy. The results of the study, which was confirmed in a 2012 statement from the \nMinistry of Trade and Industry, was that nuclear energy was not suitable for deployment, \ngiven that the high risks associated with the dense urban population of Singapore outweigh \nthe benefits (Ministry of Trade and Industry, 2012). However, Singapore will continue \nto monitor technological developments and may revisit the option in the future. In the \nmeantime, it shall cooperate with international and regional players to actively tackle \nissues regarding nuclear safety and emergency planning. \n2.3. Energy Efficiency Improvements\nEnergy efficiency is another integral part of Singapore’s mitigation effort. An inter-agency \nEnergy Efficiency Programme Office, led by the National Environment Agency and the \nEnergy Market Authority, was established in May 2007 to help promote and facilitate the \nadoption of energy efficiency across sectors in Singapore (Energy Efficiency Programme \nOffice, 2013a). Across the nation, energy efficiency improvements are promoted through \na plethora of standards and regulations, public awareness, and messaging as well as the \nadoption of more efficient appliance stock.\nHouseholds\nHouseholds account for about one-sixth of the electricity consumed in Singapore \n(NCCS, 2016b) and are, thus, a key sector for energy efficiency policies. The Mandatory \nEnergy Labelling Scheme (MELS) and Minimum Energy Performance Standards (MEPS) \nare two pillars of residential energy efficiency policies. The MELS, introduced in 2008, \nimposes compulsory display of energy labels on relevant household appliances. This \nrequirement was imposed on all registrable air conditioners and refrigerators, as well as \nsmaller appliances such as television sets, clothes dryers, and lighting. MELS serves to \ninform consumers and help them identify, and thereby purchase, more energy-efficient \n\n\n284\nENERGY OUTLOOK AND ENERGY SAVING POTENTIAL IN EAST ASIA 2019\nappliances. MEPS is a supply-side policy that complements MELS by prohibiting the sale \nof appliance models that do not meet the minimum specified energy efficiency levels. \nThey help consumers avoid being locked into using inefficient appliances with high \noperating costs and encourage suppliers to import more energy-efficient appliances as \ninnovation progresses over time. Both MELS and MEPS are constantly evaluated and \nrevised to ensure policy efficacy and efficiency. \nIn addition to MELS and MEPS, various public messaging campaigns aimed at targeting \nbehavioural change in households were also introduced. These initiatives target both the \ninitial purchasing decision as well as behaviour at the consumption stage. For example, \nthe Life Cycle Calculator improves consumer awareness during the purchasing stage, \nwhile the Home Energy Auditor motivates energy efficiency behavioural change when \nconsuming electricity at home. Recent public messaging campaigns have also began \ntargeting residential interior design with the Resource Efficiency Guide for New Home \nOwners.\nSince the early 2010s, the relevant ministries are studying the feasibility and cost–benefit \nof utilising smart home technologies, such as the home energy management systems, \nto reduce residential energy consumption. Residents in the Yuhua estate in the west of \nSingapore will be the first as a pilot estate to experience such technologies, where smart \nfeatures will be progressively implemented until 2018 (HDB, 2015b). Subsequently, the \nrollout of full retail contestability, where residential consumers can choose their own \nelectricity supplier in the second half of 2018 (Tang See Kit, 2018), could provide further \nsupport for conservation efforts should consumers become more aware of their own \nelectricity load profiles (Loi, Owen, and Ke, 2017).\nTransport\nEnergy efficiency in the transport sector is governed by three complementary policy \nobjectives: (i) reducing private transport (ii) promoting public transport ridership, and (iii) \npromoting non-motorised transport.\nThe Vehicle Quota System regulates the growth of vehicle population in Singapore. \nUnder this system, anyone who wishes to register or buy a new vehicle in Singapore must \nfirst obtain a certificate of entitlement, which represents a right to vehicle ownership \nfor 10 years (Land Transport Authority, 2014a). In view of the land constraints on road \nexpansion, the annual vehicle population growth rate has decreased to 0% effectively \nfrom February 2018 onwards (Land Transport Authority, 2017a). Since 2012, the Fuel \nEconomy Labelling Scheme has mandated fuel economy labels to be affixed to vehicles \nat the point of sale. This was complemented by the Carbon Emissions-based Vehicle \n\n\n285\nScheme, introduced in 2013 (Land Transport Authority, n.d.), and was in place until \nDecember 2017. This scheme qualified all new cars and imported used cars with low \ncarbon emissions of less than or equal to 135 g carbon emissions per kilometre (CO2/\nkm) for vehicle tax rebates of S$5,000–S$30,000. Cars with high carbon emissions of \nmore than 185g CO2/km also incurred a corresponding registration surcharge between \nS$5,000 and S$20,000. Taxis were imposed higher surcharges to adopt lower emission \nmodels for their fleet (Land Transport Authority, 2015). This scheme was replaced in \nJanuary 2018 by the new Vehicular Emissions Label, which offers rebates and surcharges \nbased on the worst-performing pollutant out of five. These charges range from S$30,000 \n(rebates) to S$30,000 (surcharge), depending on the band category in which the new car \nor taxi is being purchased (Land Transport Authority, 2017b).\nPublic transport is the most energy-efficient mode of travel. Under the Land Transport \nMasterplan, Singapore targets to achieve a 75% public transport modal share during peak \nhours by 2030, up from 66% in 2014. In a nutshell, the promotion of public transport \nridership is achieved by ensuring the efficiency and reliability of public transport services. \nIn addition to constantly upgrading and expanding the current fleet of public transport \nvehicles, actions were also taken to expand existing metro lines and outreach. Mandatory \ngive-way operations also ensure bus priority on the roads. The Park & Ride scheme was \nalso initiated to ensure a seamless switch between private and public transport. \nThe government will create more connections through the construction of two new rail \nlines and three new extensions. By 2030, the rail network would have doubled from the \nexisting 178 km in 2013 to about 360 km, and 8 in 10 homes would be located within \na 10-minute walk from a train station. Public buses would connect commuters to even \nmore places, with new bus routes added to the bus network. Singapore is adding about 80 \nnew bus services under the Bus Service Enhancement Programme. \nTo improve the overall experience of commuters, especially in the first and last miles of \ntheir journeys, the government will also build more than 200 km of sheltered walkways. \nMore integrated transport hubs will also be built to enable commuters to switch between \ndifferent types of transport easily, with convenient access to retail, dining, and other \nlifestyle services. Cycling and walking are also encouraged through public messaging \ncampaigns. Specifically, the intra-town cycling programme launched by the Land \nTransport Authority promotes cycling through designated specialised road cycling paths. \nThe island-wide cycling path network will eventually be well over 700 km in length. In \naddition, the electric vehicle pilot car-sharing programme is in progress, which will see the \nintroduction of possibly 1,000 electric vehicles and charging infrastructure by (2020) to \npromote their use (Land Transport Authority, 2014b).\nSingapore Country Report\n\n\n286\nENERGY OUTLOOK AND ENERGY SAVING POTENTIAL IN EAST ASIA 2019\nBuildings\nAt the design stage, energy efficiency in buildings is governed by the Building and \nConstruction Authority (BCA) of Singapore’s Green Mark Scheme. Launched in January \n2005 to promote environment sustainability in the construction and real estate sectors, \nthe Green Mark Scheme targets environment-friendly designs in buildings, with a focus \non energy efficiency, water efficiency, environmental protection, indoor environmental \nquality, and other green features focusing on landlord’s contributions in ‘going green’ (E2 \nSingapore, 2016). Since April 2008, all new buildings and existing buildings undergoing \nmajor retrofitting works with a gross floor area above 2,000 square metres must meet \nGreen Mark certified standards. The BCA Green Mark Scheme promotes the adoption \nof green building technologies and reduces the use of electricity in the commercial \nsector via efficiency improvements and conservation. Buildings exceeding the minimum \nrequirements are also awarded higher accreditations, such as the Platinum Green Mark, \nwhich serves to promote exceptional performance. Technical and financial support \nmechanisms are also provided to motivate continued energy efficiency upgrades. The \nBuilding Energy Efficiency Roadmap, published jointly by the National Climate Change \nSecretariat and the National Research Foundation in 2014, evaluates existing energy \nefficiency technologies for buildings, hence, providing technical expertise in the area. \nVarious financial support mechanisms, such as Green Mark Incentive Scheme for Existing \nBuildings and Premises and the Building Retrofit Energy Efficiency Financing scheme, \nare available to provide co-financing for retrofitting and energy efficiency upgrades. The \ntarget is for at least 80% of the buildings in Singapore to achieve BCA Green Mark certified \nrating by 2030 (BCA, 2013). The most recent updates for the Green Mark Assessment \nCriteria are in 2016 for residential buildings (BCA, 2016), and an ongoing pilot for non-\nresidential buildings (BCA, 2017).\nSince a 2012 survey by the Development Authority of Singapore revealed that the 10 \nlargest data centre operators in Singapore consumed as much energy as 130,000 \nhouseholds, data centres became a key sector for policymakers. Data centres have been \nincluded in the BCA Green Mark Scheme since 2012. A similar technology roadmap has \nbeen prepared for data centres, which highlights strong growth prospects for improving \nenergy efficiency in the sector. This was in line with estimates from the 2012 survey which \nposited that there is an energy efficiency potential of 20%. The Development Authority \nof Singapore also launched a new Green Data Centre Innovation Programme aimed at \npromoting innovative technological approaches to improving energy efficiency in data \ncentres. \n\n\n287\nSince 2006, the Public Sector Taking the Lead in Environmental Sustainability (PSTLES) \ninitiative has placed the public sector at the front of building energy efficiency. Under \nthe PSTLES, all existing public sector buildings must meet a minimum Gold Mark \nrating, as determined by the type of building. Moreover, the Guaranteed Energy Savings \nPerformance (GESP) contracts initiative was introduced to ensure reaping the expected \nenergy savings. Under the GESP contract structure, the public sector agency is expected \nto engage an accredited energy services company to carry out an energy audit, implement \nthe relevant energy efficiency measures, and guarantee annual energy savings over a 3- \nto 5-year contract period (E2 Singapore, n.d.). The efficacy of this initiative could be \nproved with the average electricity savings of 15% across 14 projects by March 2015 (E2 \nSingapore, 2015a), contributing to annual monetary savings of S$6 million. \nIndustry\nThe industry-focused Energy Efficiency National Partnership is a voluntary programme \nwhich started in 2010 that helps companies put in place energy management systems \nand implement projects to improve energy efficiency. Mandatory energy management \nrequirements for energy-intensive companies in the industry sector were later introduced \nin April 2013 under the Energy Conservation Act . Energy-intensive companies consuming \nmore than 15 GWh (electricity) or 54 terajoules (fuel or steam) each year are required to \nappoint an energy manager, monitor and report energy use and greenhouse gas emissions, \nand submit energy efficiency improvement plans (National Environment Agency, 2014). \nBeside legislation enforcing mandatory energy management practices, policies were also \nintroduced to incentivise energy efficiency investments. The ESCO (energy services \ncompany) Accreditation Scheme supports the Energy Conservation Act by ensuring \nprofessionalism in energy-related services. As of mid-2018, 29 qualified energy services \nspecialists are from 19 accredited ESCOs.\nIncentives and grants, such as the Design for Efficiency Scheme, Energy Efficiency \nImprovement Assistance Scheme, and the Grant for Energy Efficiency Technologies, \nwere also put in place as co-financing schemes to reduce initial costs of energy efficiency \nupgrades. The One-Year Accelerated Depreciation Allowance for Energy Efficient \nEquipment and Technology is another example of a tax incentive to encourage energy \nefficiency upgrades in industries (E2 Singapore, 2015b). Knowledge-sharing is also \npromoted through industry-focused seminars and provision of energy management \ntraining and resources. \nSingapore Country Report\n\n\n288\nENERGY OUTLOOK AND ENERGY SAVING POTENTIAL IN EAST ASIA 2019\n3. Modelling Assumptions\n3.1. Power Generation Sector\nFor the BAU scenario, the generation efficiency of combined-cycle gas turbine plants is \nassumed to improve from 50.5% in 2015 to 52% in 2040, registering an increase of 2.9% \ndue to progression towards a competitive electricity market. Single-cycle thermal plants \nare expected to improve marginally as well from 34.7% to 42% in 2040. The use of solar \ngeneration capacity is assumed to grow from 3% in 2015 to around 9% of aggregate demand \nfor electricity in 2040, as part of public efforts towards promoting renewable energies. \nWith respect to Alternative Policy Scenario (APS2), which considers greater potential for \nefficiency in the power generation sector, combined-cycle gas turbine plants will reach \n60% efficiency by 2040, whilst single-cycle thermal plants could reach 45%. APS3 allows \nfor the share of solar to reach 30% of Singapore total electricity needs in 2040.\n3.2. Transport Sector\nThe demand for gasoline, natural gas, and diesel for Singapore’s road vehicles is assumed \nto be dependent primarily on vehicle growth. Consistent with vehicle quota targets set by \nthe Land Transport Authority, vehicle growth would remain at 0.25% from 2015 to 2017, \nbefore going down to 0% from 2018 thereafter for the BAU scenario. Electricity demand \nfor the mass rapid transit system is mainly driven by the expected expansion of railway \nlength, which will increase from around 200 km in 2015 to 344 km by 2040, an annual \naverage growth rate (AAGR) of 2.2% per year. APS1 is like the BAU scenario here, as no \nfurther vehicle growth reductions or railway efficiency improvements have been assumed.\n3.3. Residential Sector\nIn the BAU scenario, electricity demand growth is assumed to follow an AAGR of 6.9% \nfrom 2015 to 2040. Electricity demand growth can be further reduced to an AAGR of \n6.7% in APS1. Demand for natural gas and oil products remains like the BAU scenario. \n\n\n289\n3.4. Commercial Sector\nIn the BAU scenario, electricity demand is assumed to slow down at an AAGR of 0.8% from \n2015 to 2040, which will eventually end up below the baseline econometric forecasts in \n2040. APS1 will lead to a further reduction in AAGR for electricity demand to -0.9%. No \nreduction is expected from natural gas and oil consumption.\n3.5. Industry/Petrochemicals Sector\nFor industry, the BAU scenario assumes that natural gas, electricity, diesel, kerosene, \nresidual fuel oil, as well as refinery gas demand will grow at an AAGR of 1.2% in 2015–2040. \nThe demand growth will slow further to 1% in APS1, which is also 10% below econometric \nestimates in 2040. the BAU scenario and APS1 remain similar for the other fuels in the \nindustry sector.\nThe production of ethylene is supposedly tied to policy targets to grow linearly to reach \n6 million tons per year by 2020, which translates to 22.2 Mtoe of naphtha produced \n(EDB, 2012) in the BAU scenario. Naphtha is used as an intermediary fuel to produce \npetrochemicals mainly stockpiled for exports from Singapore to other countries. Here, \nwe assume that naphtha demand remains constant at 6,099.53 Mtoe on the observation \nthat production figures remain like 2008, having just recovered from a large decline after \nthe financial recession.\n4. \n Outlook Results\n4.1. Business-As-Usual Scenario\n4.1.1. \n Final energy consumption\nSingapore’s total final energy consumption (TFEC) grew at an annual rate of 5%, from \n5.01 Mtoe in 1990 to 17.07 Mtoe in 2015. During the same period, oil was the dominant \nenergy source, with 3.8 Mtoe and 11.59 Mtoe consumed in 1990 and 2015, respectively. \nAbout 38.8% of the country’s final energy is consumed for non-energy uses in 2015, \nparticularly as feedstock for petrochemical production. In 1990, 27.1% of the TFEC was \nused in the transport sector although its share declined by almost 50%, reaching around \n13.8% only in 2015.\nSingapore Country Report\n\n\n290\nENERGY OUTLOOK AND ENERGY SAVING POTENTIAL IN EAST ASIA 2019\nUnder the BAU scenario, the TFEC is projected to grow by 0.9% a year between 2015 and \n2040. The petrochemical sector is expected to remain stagnant in terms of growth (Figure \n15.1). The industry sector’s consumption will increase on average by 1.2% per year. The \ntransport sector is projected to grow by 0.3% per year while the ‘others’ (residential and \ncommercial) sector is projected to grow by 2.7% per year.\nUnder the BAU scenario, industry and non-energy consumption will be dominant in the \nTFEC. By the end of 2040, non-energy share in the TFEC will decline to 30.9% while the \nindustry sector’s share will increase from 32.7% in 2015 to around 34.7% in 2040.\nThe transport sector’s share in the TFEC in 2015–2040 is expected to decrease to 11.7% \nfrom its 27.1% share in 1990. This decrease stems from the country’s national policies \nadvocating for more efficient automobile technology and the promotion of public \ntransport as the main means of transportation. In addition, the Certificate of Entitlement \nquotas are also expected to remain effective in curbing vehicle growth.\nBy fuel type, natural gas experienced the fastest growth in 1990–2015 at an average \nrate of 12.7% per year. The growth of natural gas was due to the increasing demand in \nits use mainly in the rapidly expanding industry sector. Also, in 1990–2015, electricity \nconsumption grew at an average annual rate of 5.1%.\nFigure 15.1: Final Energy Consumption by Sector, BAU (1990–2040)\nBAU = Business-As-Usual, Mtoe = million tons of oil equivalent.\nSource: Author’s calculation.\nMtoe\n-\n5.00\n1990\n10.00\n15.00\n20.00\n25.00\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2030\n2040\nIndustry\nOthers\nTransportation\nNon-energy\n\n\n291\nUnder the BAU scenario, the demand for natural gas is expected to continue expanding \nbut at a slower average growth of 2% per year until 2040. Meanwhile, electricity demand \nwill be growing at an average rate of 2.5% per year.\nOil is still expected to play a major role in the country’s TFEC. For the past 2 decades, that \nis, from 1990 to 2015, the share of oil fell from 76.1% to around 67.9%. Under the BAU \nscenario, oil’s share to the TFEC will fall to 64.1% in 2020 before falling further to 54.3% in \n2040. This decline is mainly due to the high growth in natural gas use, which will increase \nfrom its share of 7.3% in 2015 to 9.5% in 2040. Meanwhile, the share of electricity in the \nTFEC will increase to around 27.7% starting 2020 before rising further to 35.5% until \n2040. Figure 15.2 shows the final energy consumption by fuel.\n4.1.2. \n Primary energy supply\nTotal primary energy supply (TPES) grew by 4.4% per year, from 11.53 Mtoe in 1990 to \n33.63 Mtoe in 2015. Singapore’s dominant source of energy in 1990 was oil, and its supply \nincreased by 2.9% yearly from 11.44 Mtoe in 1990 to 23.15 Mtoe in 2015. Following the \nconstruction of pipelines for gas-fired power plants – the first of which sourced gas from \nMalaysia in 1991 – and two more recent pipelines from Indonesia, the share of natural \ngas consequently increased. Natural gas consumption increased rapidly from 0.4 Mtoe in \n1992 to 9.39 Mtoe in 2015. \nBAU = Business-As-Usual, Mtoe = million tons of oil equivalent.\nSource: Author’s calculation.\nFigure 15.2: Final Energy Consumption by Fuel Type, BAU (1990–2040)\nMtoe\n-\n5.00\n1990\n10.00\n15.00\n20.00\n25.00\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2030\n2030\nCoal\nNatural Gas\nOil\nElectricity\nHeat\nOthers\nSingapore Country Report\n\n\n292\nENERGY OUTLOOK AND ENERGY SAVING POTENTIAL IN EAST ASIA 2019\nFigure 15.3: Primary Energy Supply, BAU (1990–2040)\nBAU = Business-As-Usual, Mtoe = million tons of oil equivalent.\nSource: Author’s calculation.\nMtoe\n-\n5.00\n1990\n10.00\n15.00\n20.00\n25.00\n30.00\n35.00\n40.00\n45.00\n50.00\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2030\n2040\nCoal\nNatural Gas\nOil\nNuclear\nHydro\nOthers\nGeothermal\nPrimary energy supply in the BAU scenario is projected to grow by 1.1% per year during \n2015–2040 (Figure 15.3). Amongst the energy sources, solar energy is expected to grow \nthe fastest at 3.9% a year, followed by biomass (2.5% per year) and natural gas (2.2% per \nyear). Natural gas demand is expected to grow in line with the expansion of gas-fired \npower plants. \nSingapore’s net generation capacity has already increased by more than 2,000 megawatts \n(MW) or about 20% of current installed capacity with more efficient combined-cycle gas \nturbines (Ministry of Trade and Industry, 2013). Nevertheless, oil is expected to remain \nthe primary energy source, accounting for 58.2% of primary energy supply in 2040, \nfollowed by natural gas at 36.4%. \n4.1.3. \n Power generation\nElectricity generation grew by 4.8% per year from 15.7 terawatt-hours (TWh) to 50.41 \nTWh in 1990–2015. The electricity generation mix has changed significantly over the \npast decade. Natural gas, which accounted for 28% of electricity generation in Singapore \nin 2001, grew rapidly to supply 95% of Singapore’s electricity in 2015. Thermal power \ngeneration from fuel oil was around 0.35 TWh in 2015. In the same period, biomass and \nsolar took up a small proportion of the mix, totalling around 3.1%. \nIn the BAU scenario, power generation is projected to increase at 2.5% per year as well, \nreaching 94.54 TWh in 2040. By type of fuel, generation from others, which comprise \nbiomass and solar power, will have the fastest growth at an average rate of almost 6.6% \n\n\n293\nper year. Power generation of others is expected to increase its share from a minimal share \nof 3.1% in 2015 to 8.1% in 2040. Coal started to be utilised in 2013 as a substitute for \nhydrogen and carbon monoxide as feedstock for the energy and petrochemical sectors. It \nis projected to grow only marginally at 2.5% per year.\nAfter 2015, at least 90% of the country’s power generation mix will come from natural gas \nunder the BAU scenario. Its share of the generation mix will gradually decline over time – \nfrom 95.0% in 2015 to 90.5% in 2040 – as more solar power is utilised. On the other hand, \nthe share of oil will decline to 0.2% over the same period.\nThe average thermal efficiency of Singapore’s fossil-fuelled power plants was around \n30.3% in 1990 and improved to 49.5% in 2015 as more natural gas–fired power plants \noperated. In the BAU scenario, the thermal efficiency of fossil plants is expected to \nimprove further to around 50.9% in 2040. That of natural gas plants will be 52% in 2040, \nand that of oil, 42%.\nCoal\nNatural Gas\nOil\nNuclear\nHydro\nOthers\nGeothermal\nFigure 15.4: Electricity Generation, BAU (1990–2040)\nBAU = Business-As-Usual, TWh = terawatt-hour.\nSource: Author’s calculation.\nTWh\n-\n10.00\n20.00\n30.00\n40.00\n50.00\n60.00\n70.00\n80.00\n90.00\n100.00\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2030\n2040\n4.1.4. \n Energy indicators\nPrimary energy intensity, which is computed as the ratio of primary energy supply over \nGDP, is expected to decrease. Similarly, final energy intensity of Singapore (ratio of \nfinal energy consumption over GDP) will also be declining in 2015–2040. This decrease \nin energy intensity indicates that Singapore is moving towards a highly economically \nproductive country; that is, less energy will be used to produce each unit of output. Energy \nand CO2 per capita increases as population growth is expected to remain lower than fossil \nfuel demand growth (Figure 15.5). \nSingapore Country Report\n\n\n294\nENERGY OUTLOOK AND ENERGY SAVING POTENTIAL IN EAST ASIA 2019\nFigure 15.5: Energy Indicators, BAU (1990–2040)\nBAU = Business-As-Usual, CO2 = carbon dioxide.\nSource: Author’s calculation.\n1990=100\n-\n5.0\n1990\nEnergy Intensity\n10.0\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2030\n2040\n15.0\n20.0\nEnergy per Capita\nCO2 per Energy\nCO2 Intensity\nCO2 per Capita\n4.2. Energy Saving and CO2 Reduction Potential\n4.2.1. \n Final energy consumption\nThe TFEC under APS1 is projected to increase by 0.8% from 2015 to 2040. Like the \nBAU scenario, the non-energy sector grows at 0% per year. The ‘others’ (residential and \ncommercial) sector grows at 2.5%; this is followed by the industry sector at 1.0% and the \ntransport sector at 0.3%. APS2 and APS3 do not include energy conservation policies for \nend-demand and, hence, are like the BAU scenario. APS5, a combination of all APS, will \nhave the same final energy consumption as that of APS1 (Figure 15.6).\nAPS = Alternative Policy Scenario, BAU = Business-As-Usual, Mtoe = million tons of oil equivalent.\nSource: Author’s calculation.\nFigure 15.6: Final Energy Consumption by Sector, BAU and APSs\nMtoe\n1990\n-\n5.00\n10.00\n15.00\n20.00\n25.00\nAPS1\nAPS2\nAPS3\nAPS5\nIndustry\nOthers\nTransport\nNon-energy\n\n\n295\n4.2.2. Primary energy supply\nResults from APS2 show that the primary energy supply for 2015–2040 will increase at an \naverage annual rate of 0.9%, a 1.89 Mtoe decrease from the BAU scenario (Figure 15.7) \nin 2040. This translates to a reduction of 4.2% from the BAU scenario in 2040. APS1 and \nAPS3 will help lower primary energy supply by 1.01 Mtoe and 1.5 Mtoe, respectively, in \n2040. This illustrates that policies targeting end-user energy efficiency and renewables \nstill play only a secondary role to power generation efficiency policies in reducing primary \nenergy supply.\nMost of the reduction in primary energy supply will come from natural gas at 1.89 Mtoe, \nwhich is a drop of 11.7% from the BAU scenario (Figure 15.8). Oil falls only by 0.14% as it \nis limited by the already-declining the BAU scenario consumption for power generation, \nas well as the large consumption in petrochemical non-energy use. Biomass consumption \nwill remain relatively constant, whereas solar power progresses significantly but is still \nsmall in magnitude. Hence, this leads to increased consumption of others by 84.6%.\nFigure 15.7: Total Primary Energy Supply by Fuel Type, BAU and APSs \nAPS = Alternative Policy Scenario, BAU = Business-As-Usual, Mtoe = million tons of oil equivalent.\nSource: Author’s calculation.\nBAU\nAPS1\nAPS2\nAPS3\nAPS5\nMtoe\n0.0\n10.0\n20.0\n30.0\n40.0\n50.0\nCoal\nNatural Gas\nOil\nNuclear\nHydro\nOthers\nGeothermal\nSingapore Country Report\n\n\n296\nENERGY OUTLOOK AND ENERGY SAVING POTENTIAL IN EAST ASIA 2019\nFigure 15.8: Primary Energy Supply by Fuel Type, BAU and APS5 (2015 and 2040) \nAPS = Alternative Policy Scenario, BAU = Business-As-Usual, Mtoe = million tons of oil equivalent. \nSource: Author’s calculation.\nMtoe\n0.0\n5.0\n10.0\n15.0\n20.0\n25.0\n30.0\nBAU\n2015\n2040\nCoal\nAPS\nBAU\n2015\n2040\nOil\nAPS\nBAU\n2015\n2040\nGas\nAPS\nBAU\n2015\n2040\nOthers\nAPS\n84.6%\n–3.5%\n–0.2%\n–32.1%\n4.2.3. \n Power generation\nResults from APS1 and APS5 show decreased electricity generation, registering a drop of \n4.4 TWh or 4.7% from the BAU scenario. APS2 and APS3 assume the same generation as \nthe BAU scenario since these do not have energy-saving measures (Figure 15.9).\nFigure 15.9: Electricity Generation, BAU and APSs\nAPS = Alternative Policy Scenario, BAU = Business-As-Usual, TWh = terawatt-hour. \nSource: Author’s calculation.\nTWh\n0.0\nBAU\n20.0\n40.0\n60.0\n80.0\n100.0\nAPS1\nAPS2\nAPS3\nAPS5\nCoal\nNatural Gas\nOil\nNuclear\nHydro\nOthers\nGeothermal\n\n\n297\n4.2.4. \n CO2 reduction potential\nUnder the BAU scenario, CO2 emissions from energy demand are projected to increase \nat an average annual rate of 1.3%, from 12.4 Mt-C in 2015 to around 17.2 Mt-C in 2040 \n(Figure 15.10). \nCO2 emissions reduction potential comes mainly from improvements in thermal \nefficiency for power generation (APS2), with savings of 1.21 Mt-C in 2040, equivalent \nto a 7.1% decrease from the BAU scenario. Educational policies and incentives that target \nbehavioural changes in end-consumers of energy are also very beneficial, with APS1 \nregistering emissions reduction of 0.59 Mt-C in the same period (a 3.4% reduction from \nthe BAU scenario). Increased use of solar power offers large emissions reduction of 2 \nMt-C (a 11.7% reduction from BAU). Overall, APS5 will contribute to emissions reduction \nof 3.38 Mt-C, which is a 19.7% reduction from the BAU scenario. Under this scenario, \ncarbon emissions will increase at an AAGR of 0.4% from 2015 to 2040, compared with \n1.3% under the BAU scenario. \nFigure 15.10: CO2 Emissions from Energy Supply, BAU and APS5 (2015 and 2040)\nAPS = Alternative Policy Scenario, BAU = Business-As-Usual, Mtoe = million tons of oil equivalent.\nSource: Author’s calculation.\nMillion Tons of Carbon\n0.0\n2.0\n4.0\n6.0\n8.0\n10.0\n12.0\n14.0\n16.0\n18.0\n20.0\nBAU\n2015\n2040\nAPS\n3.38 Mtoe,-19.7%\nSingapore Country Report\n\n\n298\nENERGY OUTLOOK AND ENERGY SAVING POTENTIAL IN EAST ASIA 2019\n5. Implications and Policy Recommendations\nThe Singapore government has been progressively implementing new strategies to help \nincentivise and advocate the adoption of clean energy technologies and conservation \nbehaviour amongst industries and households. These programmes include several funding \nschemes, including the Clean Development Mechanism, Documentation Grant that help \nprovide companies with financial assistance to engage carbon consultancy services, and \nGrant for Energy Efficient Technologies to help encourage industry investments in energy-\nefficient equipment or technologies (Energy Efficiency Programme Office, 2013b). \nZero-Capex (Capital Expenditure) or similar commercial contracts can also be actively \npromoted to increase the involvement of energy service companies to help conserve \nenergy. \nSolar adoption, an electric vehicle car-sharing programme, as well as smart technologies \npave the way to further reduce carbon in industries and households in the future. \nThere is also an initiative to improve the petrochemical industry’s energy efficiency and \ncompetitiveness by way of a ‘heat-integration’ plan (Lim, 2013). \nSingapore has also taken measures to ensure that its energy needs are diversified across \nmore countries for energy imports rather than depending on gas pipeline flows from \nMalaysia and Indonesia as Singapore transits towards using more natural gas to power \nits electricity needs. Currently, Singapore plans to increase LNG import storage facilities, \nand is appointing one or two companies to import LNG for Singapore in the short-term \nfuture. Coal use for co-generation, as well as the greater adoption of solar energy, shows \nefforts made towards fuel mix diversification.\nAs shown in the forecast results for the BAU scenario with 2015 as the base year, \nSingapore is already on track to meet its projected 2020 targets of hitting 77.2 million \ntons of MT-CO2, (NCCS, 2016c) where estimations show the potential to go as low as \n13.42 Mt-C or approximately 50 million tons of MT-CO2 if much greater efforts are taken \nto reduce emissions.\nDespite the limitations posed by its small size and the paucity of renewable energy \nsources, Singapore’s long-term commitment to building a sustainable city will ensure \nthat the efforts of using energy efficiently and in an environmentally viable manner will \ncontinue to receive broad support.\n\n\n299\nNotes\nAPS 1 to APS5 are results from an academic exercise and should not be taken to reflect \nSingapore’s national position for climate policies.\nReferences\nBoon, R. (2013), ‘Singapore’s LNG Terminal Straits Commercial Operations,’ The Straits \nTimes, 7 May.\nBuilding Construction Authority (BCA) (2013), ‘R&D Framework,’ Build Green Magazine, \nIssue 02/13, https://www.bca.gov.sg/greenmark/others/BGreen2013.pdf (accessed \n12 October 2018).\nBuilding Construction Authority (BCA) (2016), ‘GM RB: 2016. Green Mark For \nResidential Buildings: 2016 Criteria,’ https://www.bca.gov.sg/GreenMark/others/\nGM_RB_2016_criteria_final.pdf (accessed 12 October 2018).\nBuilding Construction Authority (BCA) (2017), ‘Media Release: Healthier and Greener \nBuildings in Next Lap of Singapore’s Green Building Journey,’ https://www.bca.gov.\nsg/newsroom/others/Media_Release_SGBW_2017_120917.pdf (accessed 25 June \n2018).\nChannel News Asia (2015), ‘PUB embarks on study to tap into solar energy via reservoirs,’ \nhttp://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/pub-embarks-on-study-\nto/2285544.html (accessed 12 October 2018).\nE2 Singapore (n.d.), ‘Guaranteed Energy Savings Performance (GESP) Contracting \nModel in the Public Sector,’ http://www.e2singapore.gov.sg/DATA/0/docs/GESP%20\nContract/e2singapore%20-GESP%20contract%20overview%20(revised).pdf (accessed \n12 October 2018).\nE2 Singapore (2015a), ‘Public Sector Taking the Lead in Environmental Sustainability \n(PSTLES),’ \nhttp://www.e2singapore.gov.sg/Buildings/BCA_Green_Mark_Scheme/\nPublic_Sector_Taking_the_Lead_in_Environmental_Sustainability.aspx (accessed 12 \nOctober 2018).\nSingapore Country Report\n\n\n300\nENERGY OUTLOOK AND ENERGY SAVING POTENTIAL IN EAST ASIA 2019\nE2 Singapore (2015b), ‘One-Year Accelerated Depreciation Allowance for Energy \nEfficient Equipment and Technology (ADAS),’ http://www.e2singapore.gov.sg/\nIndustry/Designing_a_New_Facility/OneYear_Accelerated_Depreciation_Allowance_\nfor_Energy_Efficient_Equipment_and_Technology.aspx (accessed 12 October 2018)\nE2 Singapore (2016), ‘Buildings,’ http://www.e2singapore.gov.sg/Buildings.aspx \n(accessed 12 October 2018).\nEconomic Development Board (EDB) (2012), http://www.sedb.com/content/edb/sg/\nen_uk/index/news/articles/exxonmobil_s_second.print.html (accessed 12 October \n2018).\nEnergy Efficiency Programme Office (2013a), ‘About E2PO,’ http://app.e2singapore.\ngov.sg/About_Esup2/supPO/Objective_and_Members.aspx (accessed 12 October \n2018).\nEnergy Efficiency Programme Office (2013b), ‘Incentives,’ available at: http://www.\nema.gov.sg/info_directory/id:162/\nEnergy Market Authority (2018), ‘Singapore Energy Statistics 2017,’ https://www.\nema.gov.sg/cmsmedia/Publications_and_Statistics/Publications/SES17/Publication_\nSingapore_Energy_Statistics_2017.pdf (accessed 12 October 2018).\nHousing and Development Board (HDB) (2015a), ‘Singapore’s Largest Solar Panel \nInstallation Awarded To Sunseap Leasing Under SolarNova’s First Tender,’ http://www.\nhdb.gov.sg/cs/infoweb/press-release/singapore-largest-solar-panel-installation-\nawarded-to-sunseap (accessed 12 October 2018).\nHousing and Development Board (HDB) (2015b), ‘Yuhua the First Existing HDB Estate \nto Go Smart,’ http://www.hdb.gov.sg/cs/infoweb/press-release/yuhua-the-first-\nexisting-hdb-estate-to-go-smart (accessed 12 October 2018).\nHousing and Development Board (HDB) (2017), ‘HDB’s Milestones in Driving \nSolar \nInitiatives \nin \nSingapore,’ \nhttp://www.nas.gov.sg/archivesonline/data/\npdfdoc/20171101002/01112017%20Media%20Factsheet%20HDB%20Solar%20\nMilestones%20Nov17.pdf (accessed 12 October 2018).\nLand Transport Authority (n.d.), ‘Fuel Economy Labeling Scheme (FELS),’ http://www.\nonemotoring.com.sg/publish/onemotoring/en/lta_information_guidelines/buy_a_\nnew_vehicle/fuel_economy_.html (accessed 12 October 2018).\n\n\n301\nLand Transport Authority (2014a), ‘Overview of Vehicle Quota System,’ http://www.\nlta.gov.sg/content/ltaweb/en/roads-and-motoring/owning-a-vehicle/vehicle-quota-\nsystem/overview-of-vehicle-quota-system.html (accessed 12 October 2018).\nLand Transport Authority (2014b), ‘Joint News Release by the Land transport Authority \n& EDB on EV phase 2 – Share an Electric Car’, http://www.lta.gov.sg/apps/news/page.\naspx?c=2&id=b1f98bcd-e4fc-4902-9f9d-08bc2309c3df (accessed 12 October 2018).\nLand Transport Authority (2015), ‘Revised Carbon Emissions-based Vehicle Scheme \n(CEVS) from 1 July 2015,’ Press Release, http://www.lta.gov.sg/apps/news/page.\naspx?c=2&id=8aa03b88-409f-4852-b2df-09077e101468 \n(accessed \n12 \nOctober \n2018).\nLand Transport Authority (2017a), ‘Certificate of Entitlement Quota for November 2017 \nto January 2018 and Vehicle Growth Rate from Feb 2018,’ https://www.lta.gov.sg/\napps/news/page.aspx?c=2&id=b010406e-6edf-4224-9cd1-928706cd6fe7 (accessed \n12 October 2018).\nLand Transport Authority (2017b), ‘News Release: New Vehicular Emissions Label \nfrom 1 January 2018,’ http://www.nea.gov.sg/corporate-functions/newsroom/news-\nreleases/new-vehicular-emissions-label-from-1-january-2018 (accessed 12 October \n2018).\nLim, R. (2013), ‘In The Pipeline: Heat Exchange on Jurong Island,’ Business Times, 19 \nDecember.\nLoi, A., A.D. Owen, and C.Q. Ke (2017), ‘Full Retail Contestability in Singapore’s Electricity \nMarket: What to Expect for Residential and Small Business Consumers,’ ESI Policy \nBrief 20, 8 December, http://esi.nus.edu.sg/docs/default-source/esi-policy-briefs/\nfull-retail-contestability-in-singapore-s-electricity-market.pdf?sfvrsn=2 (accessed 12 \nOctober 2018).\nMinistry of Foreign Affairs, (2016), ‘MFA Press Release: National Statement of Singapore \ndelivered by Minister for Foreign Affairs Dr Vivian Balakrishnan at the Signature Ceremony \nof the Paris Agreement in New York, 22 April 2016,’ https://www.mfa.gov.sg/content/\nmfa/media_centre/press_room/pr/2016/201604/press_20160423.html (accessed \n12 October 2018).\nSingapore Country Report\n\n\n302\nENERGY OUTLOOK AND ENERGY SAVING POTENTIAL IN EAST ASIA 2019\nMinistry of Trade and Industry (2014), ‘SolarNova Factsheet,’ https://www.mti.gov.sg/\nMTIInsights/SiteAssets/Pages/Budget-2014/SolarNova.pdf (accessed 12 October \n2018).\nMinistry of Trade and Industry (2013), ‘Speech by Mr S Iswaran’ at the Committee of \nSupply Debate under Head V, 11 March, https://www.mti.gov.sg/NewsRoom/Pages/\nMr-S-Iswaran,-Second-Minister-For-Trade-and-Industry,-During-The-Committee-Of-\nSupply-Debate-Under-Head.aspx (accessed 12 October 2018).\nMinistry of Trade and Industry (2012), ‘Factsheet Nuclear Energy Pre-feasibility Study,’ \nhttps://www.mti.gov.sg/NewsRoom/Documents/Pre-FS%20factsheet.pdf (accessed \n12 October 2018).\nMinistry of Trade and Industry (2007), ‘National Energy Policy Report - Energy for Growth,’ \nhttp://app.mti.gov.sg/data/pages/2546/doc/NEPR.pdf (accessed 12 October 2018).\nNational Climate Change Secretariat (NCCS) (2012), ‘Speech on Climate Change by Mr \nTeo Chee Hean, Deputy Prime Minister, Coordinating Minister for National Security and \nMinister for Home Affairs, at the Committee of Supply Debate,’ http://app.nccs.gov.sg/\nnews_details.aspx?nid=642&pageid=97 (accessed 12 October 2018).\nNational Climate Change Secretariat (NCCS) (2015), ‘Singapore’s Submission to the \nUnited Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC),’ https://www.\nnccs.gov.sg/news/singapore%E2%80%99s-submission-united-nations-framework-\nconvention-climate-change-unfccc (accessed 12 October 2018).\nNational Climate Change Secretariat (NCCS) (2016a), ‘Singapore’s Approach to \nAlternative \nEnergy’, \nhttps://www.nccs.gov.sg/climate-change-and-singapore/\nnational-circumstances/singapores-approach-alternative-energy (accessed 12 October \n2018).\nNational Climate Change Secretariat (NCCS) (2016b), ‘Households,’ https://www.\nnccs.gov.sg/climate-change-and-singapore/domestic-actions/reducing-emissions/\nhouseholds (accessed 12 October 2018).\n\n\n303\nNational Climate Change Secretariat (NCCS) (2016c), ‘Singapore’s Emissions Profile.’ \nhttps://www.nccs.gov.sg/climate-change-and-singapore/national-circumstances/\nsingapores-emissions-profile (accessed 12 October 2018).\nNational Environment Agency (2014), ‘Energy Efficiency National Partnership,’ http://\napp.e2singapore.gov.sg/Programmes/Energy_Efficiency_National_Partnership.aspx \n(accessed 12 October 2018).\nTang See Kit (2018), ‘Sizzling Competition, ‘Encouraging’ Sign-ups as Electricity Market \nOpens Up in Jurong,’ Channel News Asia, 17 May.\nVeras, O. (2016), ‘Singapore aims high as Asia’s LNG trading hub’, The Business Times, \n24 February 2016.\nSingapore Country Report\n\n\n304\nENERGY OUTLOOK AND ENERGY SAVING POTENTIAL IN EAST ASIA 2019\nTHAILAND COUNTRY REPORT\n1. Background\nThailand is in the middle of Southeast Asia, with the Pacific Ocean on the southeast coast \nand the Indian Ocean on the southwest coast. Its land area is approximately 513,115 \nsquare kilometres, with great plains in the centre, mountainous areas in the north, and \nhighlands in the northeast. Its gross domestic product (GDP) in 2015 was about US$393.7 \nbillion (in constant 2010 US$ terms). In 2015, its population was 65.7 million and income \nper capita was around US$5,989.\nThailand is an energy importer, especially of crude oil, because of very limited domestic \nresources. Its indigenous energy resources include natural gas, coal (only lignite), and \nbiomass. In 2015, proven reserves were 0.2 billion barrels (26.1 million cubic metres) of \noil, and 7.3 trillion cubic feet (0.21 trillion cubic metres) of natural gas. Proven reserves of \nlignite amounted to 1,181 million tons but this number was published in 2013. \nThailand’s total primary energy supply (TPES) reached 135 million tons of oil equivalent \n(Mtoe) in 2015. Oil accounted for the largest share at around 38.7%, followed by natural \ngas (28.1%) and coal (12.5%). ‘Others’ accounted for the remaining 20.7%. In 2015, net \nimports of energy accounted for 46.5% of the TPES. Due to very limited indigenous oil \nresources, Thailand imported around 83.6% of its oil and most of its bituminous coal. \nAlthough the country produces large quantities of natural gas, about 29.9% of its use was \nimported from Myanmar and other countries. \nIn Thailand, natural gas is used as a major energy source for power generation. In 2015, \nprimary natural gas supply registered at 37.9 Mtoe; around 75.3% of this level was sourced \nfrom domestic supply and the rest was imported from neighbouring countries. Liquefied \nnatural gas was also sourced from other countries. Coal was mainly consumed in power \ngeneration and industry. It was also heavily used in cement and paper production.\nCHAPTER 16\nSupit Padrem, Energy Policy and Planning Office, Ministry of Energy, \nThailand\n\n\n305\nThailand generated about 165.7 terawatt-hours (TWh) of power in 2015. The majority \nof the country’s power generation used thermal sources (coal, natural gas, and oil), \naccounting for 91.5% of generation. It is followed by hydro at 3.5% while geothermal, solar, \nsmall hydro, and biomass made up the remainder.\n2. Modelling Assumptions\nGDP growth in 1990–2015 was a moderate 4.2% per year. Thailand’s GDP is assumed to \ngrow at an average rate of 3.8% per year in 2015–2040. Population growth is also projected \nto be reasonably slow at around 0.03% per year in 2015–2040, compared with average \ngrowth of about 0.6% per year in 1990–2015.\nNatural gas and coal are projected to be the largest energy sources for power generation. \nConversely, the shares of fuel oil and diesel power plants are projected to remain constant. \nNuclear power and renewable energy are projected to increase their shares in the power \ngeneration mix in the Alternative Policy Scenario (APS). \nThailand expects its energy-saving goals to be achieved through the implementation \nof energy efficiency programmes in all sectors. In the industry sector, improvements \nin technology development in manufacturing processes should help improve energy \nefficiency. In the residential and commercial (‘others’) sectors, large energy savings are \nprojected, driven by programmes to promote public awareness of energy efficiency and \nenergy efficiency labelling. In the transport sector, further developments in the Bangkok \nmetro area railway network will contribute to energy savings. Significant improvements in \nenergy efficiency in passenger vehicles are also expected to be achieved in line with new \ndevelopments in car technologies and the introduction of the next phase of the eco-car \nprogramme phase 2. \nGovernment policies will continue to encourage the increased use of alternative fuels, \nespecially biofuels. Growth of CO2 emissions is also expected to be reduced through \nthe increased adoption of more energy-efficient and lower-emissions technologies. In \nparticular, in the APS, nuclear power and renewable energy sources are expected to help \nreduce CO2 emissions from electricity generation. Gasohol and biodiesel as oil alternatives \nare also expected to help curb CO2 emissions from transportation.\nThailand Country Report\n\n\n306\nENERGY OUTLOOK AND ENERGY SAVING POTENTIAL IN EAST ASIA 2019\n3. Outlook Results\n3.1. Business-As-Usual Scenario\nIn 1990–2015, Thailand’s final energy consumption grew at a high rate of 5% per year, \nfrom 28.9 Mtoe in 1990 to 98.0 Mtoe in 2015. Given moderate economic growth and \nlow population growth rate, final energy consumption is projected to grow moderately at \naround 2.9% per year between 2015 and 2040. \nOil was the dominant energy source in final energy consumption, accounting for 49.3 \nMtoe, or a 50.2% share, in 2015. Electricity was the second-largest energy source, \naccounting for 15 Mtoe, or a 15.3% share, in 2015. \nOil is expected to remain the largest final energy source throughout the projection period. \nIts share is projected to increase from 2015 level to 52% in 2040. In 2040, the shares of \nelectricity will remain the same at the current level, 15.3%, but natural gas and coal in final \nenergy consumption are projected to slightly increase to 10.7% and 8.5%, respectively \n(Figure 16.1).\nFigure 16.1: Final Energy Consumption by Fuel Type, BAU (1990–2040)\nBAU = Business-As-Usual, Mtoe = million tons of oil equivalent. \nSources: 1990–2015 compiled by IEA (2017), 2020–2040 compiled by author.\n2040\n2035\n2030\n2025\n2020\n2015\n2000\n1990\n50\n100\n150\n200\n250\nMtoe\n-\nCoal\nNatural Gas\nOil\nElectricity\nHeat\nOthers\n\n\n307\nThailand Country Report\nThe industry sector has the smallest share, 8.7 Mtoe, in the total final energy in 1990. \nWhile consumption in the sector highly increased at an average rate of 5.2% a year in 1990–\n2015, the share of industry increased from 30.0% in 1990 to 31.2% in 2015, making it the \nlargest consuming sector. The industry sector is projected to remain the largest consumer, \naccounting for 34.1% in the final energy consumption in 2040. In addition, non-energy \nuse, which consists mainly of naphtha, will also increase its consumption like the industry \nsector. As a result, the ‘others’ (residential and commercial) sector, will account for the \nsmallest proportion of final energy consumption at 17.2% in 2040, showing the declining \ntrend of its share as has been observed since 1990. \nPrimary energy supply grew at an average annual rate of 4.7%, from 42.6 Mtoe in 1990 \nto 135.0 Mtoe in 2015, driven largely by fast economic development between 1990 and \n1996 and moderate economic growth after 1997. This growth in primary energy supply \nwas achieved despite the severe economic crisis in 1997–1998 and the world economic \ncrisis in 2008. In 2015, the major sources of primary energy were oil, natural gas, and \ncoal with shares of 38.7% (52.3 Mtoe), 28.1% (37.9 Mtoe), and 12.5% (16.8 Mtoe), \nrespectively. Although oil remained the largest source in 1990–2015, its share in primary \nenergy demand declined a little from 42.1% in 1990 to 38.7% in 2015. Natural gas, which is \nmainly consumed in the power generation sector, became an important source of energy \nwith its share in primary energy demand increasing significantly from 11.7% in 1990 to \n28.1% in 2015. Contrastingly, the share of hydropower declined from 1.0% in 1990 to only \n0.4% in 2015 (Figure 16.2).\nFigure 16.2: Final Energy Consumption by Sector, BAU (1990–2040)\nBAU = Business-As-Usual, Mtoe = million tons of oil equivalent. \nSources: 1990–2015 compiled by IEA (2017), 2020–2040 compiled by author.\n2040\n2035\n2030\n2025\n2020\n2015\n2000\n1990\n50\n100\n-\n150\n200\n250\nMtoe\nIndustry\nOthers\nTransport\nNon-energy\n\n\n308\nENERGY OUTLOOK AND ENERGY SAVING POTENTIAL IN EAST ASIA 2019\nIn the Business-As-Usual (BAU) scenario, primary energy demand is projected to grow \nat about 2.5% per year from 2015 to 2040, reaching 250.8 Mtoe in 2040. The highest \naverage annual growth rate is expected in oil (3%), with consumption expected to reach \n109.1 Mtoe in 2040, followed by coal and natural gas. The growth rate of coal is expected \nto be around 2.8% in 2015–2040. Natural gas growth is expected to be slower than that \nof primary energy demand. Its average growth rate is about 1.4% per year between 2015 \nand 2040.\nIn 1990, total power generation registered at 44.2 TWh and reached 167.7 TWh in 2015 \nwith an average growth rate of 5.4% per year. Figure 16.4 shows that natural gas has been \na major fuel for power generation since 1990. Natural gas power generation grew with a \nrobust rate of 7.8% per year from 17.8 TWh (40.2% share) in 1990 to 117.0 TWh (70.6% \nshare) in 2015. Coal has the second-largest share at 25.0% in 1990, but its share shrank \nto 19.9% in 2015. Power generation by oil was the smallest, with only 1.7 TWh in 2015.\nFigure 16.3: Primary Energy Supply by Fuel Type, BAU (1990–2040)\nBAU = Business-As-Usual, Mtoe = million tons of oil equivalent. \nSources: 1990–2015 compiled by IEA (2017), 2020–2040 compiled by author.\n2040\n2035\n2030\n2025\n2020\n2015\n2000\n1990\n50\n100\n-\n150\n200\n250\nMtoe\n300\nCoal\nOil\nNatural Gas\nNuclear\nHydro\nGeothermal\nOthers\n\n\n309\nFigure 16.4: Power Generation by Fuel Type, BAU (1990–2040)\nBAU = Business-As-Usual, TWh = terawatt-hours.\nSources: 1990–2015 compiled by IEA (2017), 2020–2040 compiled by author.\n2040\n2035\n2030\n2025\n2020\n2015\n2000\n1990\n50\n100\n150\nTWh\n-\n200\n250\n300\n350\nCoal\nOil\nNatural Gas\nNuclear\nHydro\nGeothermal\nOthers\nIn the BAU scenario, power generation is expected to grow at around 2.3% per year in \n2015–2040 and will reach 294.6 TWh in 2040. In 2040, natural gas will remain to be a \ndominant fuel in power generation, with the highest share of 54.6% or 161.0 TWh. Coal \nwill still be the second-largest source of power with 24.4% share, or 71.8 TWh during the \nperiod. Power generation from hydro will increase slightly by 3.8% per year, from 5.8 TWh \nin 2015 to 14.6 TWh in 2040 (Figure 16.4). \nThermal efficiency of natural gas improved the highest improvement as combined cycle \ngas turbines technology was applied. The 40.0% efficiency of natural gas in 1990 jumped \nto 47.9% in 2015 and is expected to remain unchanged until 2040. Coal thermal efficiency \ndeclined almost 4.0% from 1990 to 2015, but the efficiency is also assumed to improve \nfrom 33.9% in 2015 to 37.3% in 2040 (Figure 16.5). \nThailand Country Report\n\n\n310\nENERGY OUTLOOK AND ENERGY SAVING POTENTIAL IN EAST ASIA 2019\nEnergy intensity reached 343 toe/million at 2010 US$ in 2015. In the BAU scenario, \nenergy intensity is projected to decline by 1.2% per year to reach 251 toe/million 2010 \nUS$ in 2040. Energy per capita will move upward from 2.1 toe per person in 2015 to 3.8 \ntoe per person in 2040 (Figure 16.6).\nFigure 16.5: Thermal Efficiency by Fuel Type, BAU (1990–2040)\n2040\nNatural Gas\n2035\n2030\n2025\n2020\n2015\n2000\n1990\n0\n10\n20\n%\n30\n40\n50\n60\nOil\nCoal\nBAU = Business-As-Usual.\nSources: 1990–2015 compiled by IEA (2017), 2020–2040 compiled by author.\nFigure 16.6: Energy Indicators (1990–2040)\n2040\n2035\n2030\n2025\n2020\n2015\n2000\n1990\n0\n100\n200\n1990=100\n300\nCO2 per Capita\n400\n500\n600\nCO2 Intensity\nCO2 per Energy\nEnergy per Capita\nEnergy Intensity\nSources: 1990–2015 compiled by IEA (2017), 2020–2040 compiled by author.\n\n\n311\nEnergy elasticity in 1990–2015 was 1.2, indicating that energy demand rose faster than \neconomic growth. In the BAU scenario, energy elasticity is projected at 0.8 between 2015 \nand 2040. It means that energy demand will grow at a slower rate than economic output. \n3.2 Energy Saving and CO2 Reduction Potential\n \n3.2.1 Final Demand\nIn the APS (APS5), final energy consumption is projected to grow at 1.6% per year, from \n98.0 Mtoe in 2015 to 147.2 Mtoe in 2040. This is lower by 25.8% than the BAU scenario, \nwhich will grow at an average annual rate of 2.9% in 2040. The majority of energy savings \nwill be achieved through energy efficiency improvement programmes implemented in the \nindustry (20.8%) and the transport (69.7%) sectors. Improvements will also be achieved \nin the ‘others’ sector (17%) (Figure 16.7).\nFigure 16.7: Final Energy Consumption by Sector, BAU and APS (2015 and 2040)\nAPS = Alternative Policy Scenario, BAU = Business-As-Usual, Mtoe = million tons of oil equivalent.\nSources: 2015 compiled by IEA (2017), 2040 compiled by author.\nMtoe\n0.0\n10.0\n20.0\n30.0\n40.0\n50.0\n60.0\n70.0\n80.0\n–69.7%\n–17.0%\n0.0%\nBAU\n2015\n2040\nIndustry\nAPS\nBAU\n2015\n2040\nTransport\nAPS\nBAU\n2015\n2040\nOthers\nAPS\nBAU\n2015\n2040\nNon-energy\nAPS\n–20.8%\n3.2.2 Primary Energy Supply\nIn the APS, growth in primary energy supply is projected to be much slower than in BAU, \nincreasing at 1.2% per year (compared with 2.5% in the BAU scenario) to reach 184 Mtoe \nin 2040. Primary energy supply is expected to be about 26.6% lower than in the BAU \nscenario in 2040, an energy saving of about 66.8 Mtoe. \nThailand Country Report\n\n\n312\nENERGY OUTLOOK AND ENERGY SAVING POTENTIAL IN EAST ASIA 2019\nOil and coal are projected to increase at slower average annual rates of 1.7% and 1.3%, \nrespectively (3.0% and 2.8% in the BAU scenario). Natural gas is projected to decrease \nat an average annual rate of -0.4% (1.4% in the BAU scenario) from 53.4 Mtoe in 2015 \nto 34.2 Mtoe in 2040. The lower growth rates compared to the BAU scenario are mainly \nachieved through energy efficiency and conservation measures on the demand side. The \ndifferences in the projections between the two scenarios are shown in Figure 16.8.\n3.3 Projected Energy Savings\nThe difference between primary energy supply in BAU and the APS in 2040 is 66.8 \nMtoe (Figure 16.9 ). This represents the potential energy savings that could be achieved \nif energy efficiency and conservation goals and action plans were implemented. Oil will \ncontribute the largest energy savings at 29.4 Mtoe. Meanwhile, energy savings from \nnatural gas and coal will reach 19.2 Mtoe and 10.1 Mtoe, respectively, in 2040. However, \nthe contribution of non-fossil energy sources will also be 10.6 Mtoe lower than in the BAU \nscenario. \nAPS = Alternative Policy Scenario, BAU = Business-As-Usual, Mtoe = million tons of oil equivalent.\nSources: 2015 compiled by IEA (2017), 2040 compiled by author.\nBAU\n2015\n2040\nCoal\nAPS\nBAU\n2015\n2040\nOil\nAPS\nBAU\n2015\n2040\nGas\nAPS\nBAU\n2015\n2040\nOthers\nAPS\n–30.4%\n–27.0%\n–36.0%\n–14.5%\nFigure 16.8: Primary Energy Demand by Source, BAU and APS (2015 and 2040)\nMtoe\n0.0\n20.0\n40.0\n60.0\n80.0\n100.0\n120.0\n\n\n313\nAPS = Alternative Policy Scenario, BAU = Business-As-Usual, Mtoe = million tons of oil equivalent.\nSources: 1990 and 2015 compiled by IEA (2017), 2040 compiled by author.\nBAU\n2015\n1990\n2040\nAPS\n–66.8 Mtoe, –26.6%\nFigure 16.9: Total Primary Energy Supply, BAU and APS (1990, 2015, and 2040)\n0\n50\n100\n150\n200\n250\n300\nMtoe\nIn final energy consumption, the savings in the APS in 2040 will reach 51.1 Mtoe. The \nlargest savings are expected to be achieved in the transport sector at 31.3 Mtoe. On the \nother hand, the industry and the ‘others’ sectors are expected to save 14.1 Mtoe and 5.8 \nMtoe of energy, respectively. \n3.4 CO2 Emissions from Energy Consumption\nCO2 emissions from energy consumption are projected to increase by 2.5% per year on \naverage, from 220.6 million tons of carbon (Mt-C) in 2015 to 410.1 Mt-C in 2040 under \nthe BAU scenario. \nUnder the APS, the average annual growth in CO2 emissions in 2013–2040 is projected to \nbe 0.5%, with emissions level of 252 Mt-C in 2040. The difference in the CO2 emissions \nbetween the BAU scenario and the APS is 158.2 Mt-C or 38.6%. This reduction in CO2 \nemissions highlights the range of benefits that can be achieved through energy efficiency \nimprovements and savings via action plans as well as shifting to lower carbon energy \n(Figure 16.10).\nThailand Country Report\n\n\n314\nENERGY OUTLOOK AND ENERGY SAVING POTENTIAL IN EAST ASIA 2019\n3.5 Thailand’s Intended Nationally Determined Contributions \n \n \n (INDC)\n3.5.1 Thailand’s INDC in Greenhouse Gases \nThailand submitted its INDC in greenhouse gas to the United Nations Framework \nConvention on Climate Change on 1 October 2015. The target of greenhouse gas \nreduction, according to its INDC, would be 20% off from BAU by 2030; this was forecast \nnationally in 2005. CO2 emissions in the BAU scenario were estimated at 555 Mt-C in \n2030. Consequently, the INDC also targets reduced CO2 of 113 Mt-C in the energy \nsector. \n3.5.2 INDC Achievement and the APS\nUnder the APS, carbon emission reduction in 2030 was estimated at 80 Mt-C, about \n227 Mt-C lower than 307 Mt-C of the BAU scenario (East Asia Summit outlook). This \nreduction amount of 80 Mt-C is equal to 288 Mt-C. In this regard, the APS’s CO2 reduction \ntargets can be achieved through the INDC targets (reduction of 113 Mt-C) in the energy \nsector. Thailand’s policy on energy savings should be satisfied adequately based on the \ntarget of CO2 reduction commitment described in its INDC. \nFigure 16.10: CO2 Emissions from Energy Consumption, \nBAU and APS (1990, 2015, and 2040)\nMillion Tons of Carbon\n0.0\n50.0\n100.0\n150.0\n200.0\n250.0\n300.0\n350.0\n400.0\n450.0\nAPS = Alternative Policy Scenario, BAU = Business-As-Usual, Mt-C = million tons of carbon.\nSources: 1990 and 2015 compiled by IEA (2017), 2040 compiled by author.\nBAU\n2015\n1990\n2040\nAPS\n–158.2 Mt-C, –38.6%\n\n\n315\n4. \n Implications and Policy Recommendations\nStrong economic growth before the 1997 Asian financial crisis contributed to relatively \nhigh energy intensity in Thailand in 1990–2011. However, energy intensity has declined \nsince the economy recovered from the 1997 crisis. Furthermore, Thailand’s energy \nefficiency programmes in a wide range of areas (including the industry, transport, and \nbuilding sectors) and higher oil prices in the world market will contribute to a continued \ndecline in energy intensity.\nImproving energy efficiency will also help Thailand (which is an oil importer) address the \nchallenges posed by high world oil prices. Thailand is committed to reduce the intensity \nof energy consumption, particularly oil consumption, and is looking for more sustainable \nenergy sources and environment-friendly fuels. The more Thailand saves energy, the \nless sensitive it will be to fluctuations in world energy prices and supply. Furthermore, \nThailand has realised that energy savings is important; thus, the country should put more \neffort into it. \nAlthough the country has an alternative policy for the next 23 years, oil will remain a major \nenergy source. Oil is one of the most sensitive energy sources in terms of price and security. \nThailand should focus more on saving oil to be less dependent on this fuel. Furthermore, \nenergy use in the transport sector will become the smallest in the future compared to \nother sectors. Nonetheless, this sector is also less productive than the others. It means \nthat it consumes more energy, but adds less value. The more energy saving effort in the \ntransport sector, the more benefit it will be for the economy as a whole.\nThailand Country Report\n\n\n316\nENERGY OUTLOOK AND ENERGY SAVING POTENTIAL IN EAST ASIA 2019\nVIET NAM COUNTRY REPORT\n1. Background\nViet Nam has a total land area of about 331,111 square kilometres and lies in Southeast \nAsia. In 2015, its population was 91.7 million and its gross domestic product (GDP) was \n$154.5 billion in 2010 US$ terms. The commercial sector contributes the most to Viet \nNam’s GDP (38.3%), followed by the industry sector (34.2%), agriculture (16.1%), and \n‘others’ (11.4%). GDP per capita was US$1,685 in 2015.\nViet Nam possesses considerable indigenous energy resources. It has 3,390 million tons \nof proven recoverable reserves of coal, 460 million cubic metres of crude oil reserves, and \n610 billion cubic metres of gas reserves. \nViet Nam’s total primary energy supply (TPES) was 70.1 million tons of oil equivalent \n(Mtoe) in 2015. Coal represented the largest share of the country’s TPES at 35.9%; oil \nwas second at 22.2%, followed by natural gas (13.7%), hydro (7.8%), and others (20.3%). \nViet Nam is a net exporter of crude oil and coal but is an importer of petroleum products \nbecause of limited capacity at the Dung Quat oil refinery (6.5 million tons a year) that \ncould meet around 45% of domestic demand. \nCoal is mainly used in the industry sector with consumption of 25.2 Mtoe in 2015, while \nnatural gas is largely used to generate electricity. \nViet Nam had around 38.5 gigawatts (GW) of installed generating capacity and produced \n159.8 terawatt-hours (TWh) of electricity in 2015. Most of its electricity generation \ncomes from thermal sources (coal, natural gas, and oil), accounting for 60.2% of total \ngeneration; the remaining is hydro (39.5%) and others (around 0.3%). \nCHAPTER 17\nNguyen Minh Bao, Institute of Energy, Viet Nam\n\n\n317\n2. Modelling Assumptions\nIn this outlook, Viet Nam’s GDP is assumed to grow at an average annual rate of 6.0% from \n2015 to 2040. Growth is projected to be faster in the first outlook period, increasing at 7% \nper year between 2015 and 2020. For the remaining periods of 2020–2030 and 2030–\n2040, the country’s economic growth will moderate to an annual rate of 6.2% and 5.2%, \nrespectively. Population growth is projected to increase at a much slower rate, increasing \nby 0.6% per year between 2015 and 2040. \nThe share of electricity generated from coal-fired power plants is projected to increase \nconsiderably because of the expense of other energy types (natural gas and hydro). Viet \nNam is expected to increase its imports of electricity, particularly from the Lao People’s \nDemocratic Republic and China. \nViet Nam’s energy-saving goals are assumed to be 3%–5% of total energy consumption, \nequivalent to 5 Mtoe, between 2006 and 2010, and 5%–8% of total energy consumption, \nequivalent to 13.1 Mtoe between 2010 and 2015, in line with the national target on \nenergy efficiency and conservation (EEC).\nIn 2010, the Law on Energy Efficiency and Conservation, approved by the National \nAssembly, focused on priority policies, such as (i) increasing the use of renewable energy \nin line with Viet Nam’s potential and conditions, (ii) contributing to energy security \nand environmental protection, and (iii) promoting energy efficiency in production and \nresidential areas through regulations and technological measures on energy efficiency and \nrenewable energy.\nIn November 2015, the Renewable Energy Development Strategy of Viet Nam was \napproved by the Prime Minister’s Decision1 to accelerate the expansion and use of \nrenewable energy sources; gradually increase renewable energy share in national \nenergy production and consumption and ensure less dependence on fossil sources; and \ncontribute to better energy security, mitigating climate change, environmental protection, \nand sustainable socio-economic development. \n1 \nDecision No. 2068/QD-TTg issued on 25 November 2015 to approve the Vietnam Renewable Energy Development \nStrategy to 2030 outlook up to 2050 (in Vietnamese).\nViet Nam Country Report\n\n\n318\nENERGY OUTLOOK AND ENERGY SAVING POTENTIAL IN EAST ASIA 2019\nThe strategic targets are: \n• \nIncrease the share of renewable energy-based electricity to 4.5% in 2020, 15% in \n2030, and 33.1% in 2050.\n• \nIncrease the proportion of households using solar water-heating devices to 12% in \n2020, 26% in 2030, and 50% in 2050.\n• \nScale up the application of biogas technologies with a construction volume of from \nabout 4 million cubic metres (m3) in 2015 to 8 million m3 in 2020, to approximately \n60 million m3 in 2030, and 100 million m3 in 2050.\n• \nIncrease the production of biofuels to meet the transport sector’s fuel demand: 5% in \n2020, 13% in 2030, and 25% in 2050.\nFrom the above analysis, in this study, Alternative Policy Scenarios (APSs) are proposed: \nEEC scenarios (APS1), improvement of energy efficiencies in power generation (APS2), \nand development of renewable energy (APS3).\n• \nAPS1: Develop EEC scenarios in potential sectors on the demand side, including:\no \nIndustry: Improve technologies in making cement, bricks, non-baked bricks, \niron, and steel. For the remaining other industries, EEC measures are assumed to \nbe implemented to reduce energy consumption by around 15% by 2040. \no \nTransport: Implement EEC measures such as passenger transport mode \nshift from private to public, freight transport switch from road, and increased \npenetration of electric vehicles. \no \nResidential: Replace inefficient devices with efficient ones, such as high- \nefficient lamps in lighting, efficient refrigerators, and air conditioners in cooling \nhomes. \no \nCommercial: Use EEC measures in the commercial sector to reduce 12% of \nenergy consumption by 2040.\n• \nAPS2: Improve energy efficiency in thermal power plants\n \nThe efficiency of coal-fired thermal power plants is assumed to increase to 40% by \n2040 compared with 38% in the Business-As-Usual (BAU) scenario, while natural gas \nwith combined cycle gas turbines technologies will increase to 60% by 2040 compared \nwith 52% in the BAU scenario.\n\n\n319\nViet Nam Country Report\n• \nAPS3: Develop renewable energy technologies\n \nInstalled electricity generating capacity from renewable energy is assumed to reach \n40,200 megawatts (MW) in 2040 with solar photovoltaic contributing 20,000 MW; \nwind,10,000 MW; small hydro, 5,000 MW; biomass,5,000 MW; and biogas, 200 MW.\n \nMoreover, the Renewable Energy Development Strategy has set the targets for using \nbiofuels in the transport sector, solar water heaters in the residential sector, and \nbiogas cook stoves in rural areas to reduce dependency on oil and curb CO2 emissions. \nTherefore, it is assumed that by 2040, the share of households using solar water-\nheating devices in urban and rural areas would reach 60% and 25%, respectively, \nbiogas cook stoves in rural areas would reach 15%; and the substitution of ethanol for \ngasoline in the transport sector would reach around 20%. \n• \nAPS5: Combining from APS1 to APS3. \n3. Outlook Results\n3.1. Business-As-Usual Scenario\n3.1.1. \n Total final energy consumption\nViet Nam’s total final energy consumption (TFEC) in 2015 was 56.3 Mtoe, which has \nincreased at 5.1% per year, 3.5 times more than its 1990 level of 16.1 Mtoe. On a per \nsector basis, the fastest growth occurred in the transport sector (8.4% per year), followed \nby the industry sector (6.8%), and the residential/commercial (‘others’) sector (3.0% per \nyear). Non-energy use is expected to grow at 16.3% per year.\nFor 2015–2040, the TFEC is projected to increase at an average rate of 4% per year \nunder the BAU scenario. Growth is driven by strong economic growth, which is assumed \nto be at an average annual growth rate of 6.0%, and the rising population at an average \nannual growth rate of 0.6%. On a per sector basis, the strongest growth in consumption \nis projected to occur in transport, increasing by 5.2% per year. This is followed by the \nindustry sector (4.9% per year) and the residential/commercial (‘others’) sector (1.6% per \nyear). Non-energy use is expected to grow at 5.1% per year. Figure 17.1 shows the final \nenergy consumption by sector from 1990 to 2040.\n\n\n320\nENERGY OUTLOOK AND ENERGY SAVING POTENTIAL IN EAST ASIA 2019\nFigure 17.1: Final Energy Consumption by Sector, BAU (1990–2040)\nBAU = Business-As-Usual, Mtoe = million tons of oil equivalent.\nSource: Author’s calculations.\n20.0\n-\n40.0\n60.0\n80.0\n100.0\n120.0\n140.0\n160.0\nMtoe\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2030\n2040\nIndustry\nTransport\nOthers\nNon-energy\nThe bulk of the country’s energy consumption (around 63% in 1990) comes from the \nresidential/commercial (‘others’) sector, where biomass fuel used for residential cooking \ntakes the dominant share. This share will decrease from 37.2% in 2015 to 20.7% by 2040 \ndue to the substitution of biomass fuels by commercial fuels with higher efficiency. The \ndecreasing share of the sector is due to the growing economy. Economic growth will \ntranslate to improvements in the standard of living, thus, increasing the transition from \nbiomass to modern fuels.\nStarting from 2015 up to 2040, the industry sector will be the largest consuming sector \nin Viet Nam. The share of energy consumption in the industry sector will increase from \n42.0% in 2015 to 51.6% in 2040. The smaller consumer is the transport sector although \nits share will increase slowly from 18.6% in 2015 to 24.9% in 2040. \nMeanwhile, other fuels (mostly biomass) are the most-consumed product, accounting for \n73.9% of the TFEC in 1990; however, this declined to 28.1% in 2015. Oil was the second \nmost-consumed product, accounting for 14.5% of the TFEC in 1990 and increasing to \n25.3% in 2015. The share of coal consumed from 1990 to 2015 increased from 8.3% to \n22.5%. Electricity had a small share of 3.3% in 1990 but increased significantly to 21.6% \nin 2015. \n\n\n321\nOn a per fuel basis under the BAU scenario, natural gas is projected to exhibit the fastest \ngrowth in final energy consumption, increasing at 6.1% per year between 2015 and 2040. \nElectricity and oil are projected to have the second-highest growth rate of 5.3% per year, \nfollowed by coal at 4.5%. Other fuels (mostly biomass) are projected to decrease at an \nannual rate of 1.8% due to the transition from biomass to modern fuels.\nOther fuels (dominated by biomass) had the largest share at 28.1% in 2015 but this share \nwill reduce significantly to 6.7% in 2040. Oil products had the second-largest share of \n25.3% in 2015; this share is projected to increase to 34.3% in 2040. The third-largest share \nof demand is coal, which is projected to increase from 22.5% in 2015 to 25.4% in 2040. \nOn the other hand, electricity and natural gas were used primarily in the industry sector \nwith shares of 21.6% and 2.6% in 2015, respectively. In 2040, the shares of electricity and \nnatural gas will increase up to 29.2% and 4.3%, respectively (Figure 17.2).\nFigure 17.2: Final Energy Consumption by Fuel Type, BAU (1990–2040)\nBAU = Business-As-Usual, Mtoe = million tons of oil equivalent.\nSource: Author’s calculations.\n20.0\n-\n40.0\n60.0\n80.0\n100.0\n120.0\n140.0\n160.0\nMtoe\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2030\n2040\nCoal\nOil\nNatural Gas\nElectricity\nHeat\nOthers\nViet Nam Country Report\n\n\n322\nENERGY OUTLOOK AND ENERGY SAVING POTENTIAL IN EAST ASIA 2019\nCoal accounted for the largest share of 35.9% of the TPES in 2015 and will increase to \n56.2% in 2040. The share of oil was 22.2% in 2015 and will increase to 26.3% in 2040. This \ngrowth is due to the projected decline of natural gas (from 13.7% to 12.1%), hydro (from \n7.8% to 2.3%), and others (from 20.3% to 3.1%).\n3.1.2. \n Total primary energy supply\nViet Nam’s total primary energy supply (TPES) grew at a higher rate than final energy \nconsumption; it increased at 5.6% per year or 3.9 times, from 17.9 Mtoe in 1990 to 70.1 \nMtoe in 2015. Amongst the major energy sources, the fastest-growing were natural gas, \nhydro, coal, and oil. Natural gas consumption grew at an average annual rate of 38.1% \nbetween 1990 and 2015 while hydro, coal, and oil grew at 10.4%, 10.2%, and 7.2% per \nyear, respectively. \nIn the BAU scenario, Viet Nam’s TPES is projected to increase at an annual rate of 4.7% or \n3.1 times, from 70.1 Mtoe in 2015 to 219.9 Mtoe in 2040. The fastest growth is expected \nin coal, increasing at an annual average rate of 6.6% between 2015 and 2040, followed \nby oil (5.4%) and natural gas (4.1%) while hydro and other fuels (mostly biomass) will \ndecrease slightly and strongly at 0.2% and 2.9% per year, respectively. Figure 17.3 shows \nthe primary energy supply by source in 1990–2040.\n50.0\n-\n100.0\n150.0\n200.0\n250.0\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2030\n2040\nMtoe\nFigure 17.3: Primary Energy Supply, BAU (1990–2040)\nBAU = Business-As-Usual, Mtoe = million tons of oil equivalent.\nSource: Author’s calculations.\nCoal\nOil\nNatural Gas\nNuclear\nHydro\nGeothermal\nOthers\n\n\n323\n3.1.3. \n Power generation\nPower generation output increased at 12.4% per year or 18.4 times, from 8.7 TWh in \n1990 to 159.8 TWh in 2015. The fastest growth occurred in natural gas power generation \n(42.9% per year), followed by coal (13.8%) and hydropower (10.4% per year). This fast \ngrowth is due to the 5.8% decrease of oil. \nPower generation is projected to increase at an average rate of 5% per year, or 3.4 times \nbetween 2015 and 2040, to meet electricity demand under the BAU scenario. The fastest \ngrowth will be in coal power generation (8.3% per year), followed by natural gas (3.6% \nper year). This fast growth is due to the decrease of hydro, oil, and other (mostly small \nhydropower). Figure 17.4 shows the power generation output by the type of fuel under \nthe BAU scenario from 1990 to 2040. \nBy the end of 2015, the majority of the country’s power came from hydropower, which \ncomprised about 39.5% of the total power generation mix. The share of coal-fired power \ngeneration was around 31.9% while the rest were from natural gas (28.1%), oil (0.2%), and \nother power generation (around 0.3%).\nIn the BAU scenario, coal will be the major fuel used for power generationbetween 2020 \nand 2040, with its share increasing from 64.0% in 2020 to 68.9% in 2040. On the other \nhand, the share of hydro in the total power generation will decline from 20.4% in 2020 to \naround 11.0% in 2040.\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2030\n2040\nTWh\nFigure 17.4: Power Generation by Fuel Type, BAU (1990–2040)\nBAU = Business-As-Usual, TWh = terawatt-hour.\nSource: Author’s calculations.\n100.0\n-\n200.0\n300.0\n400.0\n500.0\n600.0\nCoal\nOil\nNatural Gas\nNuclear\nHydro\nGeothermal\nOthers\nViet Nam Country Report\n\n\n324\nENERGY OUTLOOK AND ENERGY SAVING POTENTIAL IN EAST ASIA 2019\n3.1.4. \n Energy indicators \nFrom 1990 to 2015, Viet Nam’s energy intensity showed a decreasing trend. Both primary \nand final energy intensities of the country decreased from 1,006 toe/million and 905 toe/\nmillion 2010 US$ in 1990 to 453 toe/million and 364 toe/million 2010 US$ in 2015. \nThis was due to the high economic growth, which significantly reduced the use of biomass \nfuels in the residential sector, although the energy requirement in the industry and the \ntransport sectors had been increasing in recent years. The final energy intensity under \nthe BAU scenario is estimated to continue the decreasing trend from 364 toe/million to \n228toe/million 2010 US$ by 2040. This decreasing trend indicates that energy will be used \nefficiently for economic development.\nMeanwhile, the primary energy per capita increased from 0.27 toe/person in 1990 to 0.76 \ntoe/person in 2015; it will continue to increase to 2.06 toe/person by 2040. This indicates \nthat, in the future, living standards and people’s incomes will increase, resulting in rising \ntotal primary energy consumption (TPEC) per capita.\nRegarding greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, CO2 intensity and CO2 per energy increased \nfrom 265 t-C/million 2010 US$ and 0.26 t-C/toe in 1990 to 317 t-C/million 2010 US$ \nand 0.7 t-C/toe in 2015, respectively. In the BAU scenario, CO2 intensity and CO2 per \nenergy will also slightly increase by 2020 at 417 t-C/million 2010 US$ and 0.84 t-C/toe. \nBeyond 2020, CO2 intensity will decline until 2040 at 295 t-C/million 2010 US$, while CO2 \nper energy will slightly increase at around 0.89 t-C/toe. CO2 per capita will continuously \nincrease due to energy demand rising faster than population growth. (Figure 17.5).\nFigure 17.5: Energy Indicators (1990–2040)\nSource: Author’s calculations.\n1990=100\n0\n500\n1000\n1500\n2000\n2500\n3000\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2030\n2040\nEnergy Intensity\nEnergy per capita\nCO2 per Energy\nCO2 Intensity\nCO2 per Capita\n\n\n325\n3.2. Energy Savings and CO2 Reduction Potential\n3.2.1. \n Total final energy consumption\nIn the Alternative Policy Scenario (or APS5, the TFEC is projected to increase at a slower \nrate of 3.4% per year (compared with 4.0% in the BAU scenario), from 56.3 Mtoe in 2015 \nto 130.2 Mtoe in 2040 because of EEC measures (APS1) in the industry, transport, and \n‘others’ sectors. The total final consumption by sector in APSs compared to the BAU \nscenario is presented in Figure 17.6.\nThe bulk of the savings are expected to occur in the industry sector with 13.7 Mtoe \n(equivalent to 17.5% reduction), followed by the transport sector with 4.3 Mtoe \n(equivalent to 11.5% reduction), and the ‘others’ sector with 2.8 Mtoe (equivalent to 9.0% \nreduction).\nAn improvement in end-use technologies and the introduction of energy management \nsystems are expected to contribute to the slower rate of consumption growth, particularly \nin the industry, transport, and ‘others’ sectors (Figure 17.7).\nFigure 17.6: Total Final Energy Consumption by Sector in BAU and APSs\nAPS = Alternative Policy Scenario, BAU = Business-As-Usual, Mtoe = million tons of oil equivalent.\nSource: Author’s calculations.\n0.0\n20.0\n40.0\n60.0\n80.0\n100.0\n120.0\n140.0\n160.0\nMtoe\nBAU\nAPS1\nAPS2\nAPS3\nAPS5\nIndustry\nTransport\nOthers\nNon-energy\nViet Nam Country Report\n\n\n326\nENERGY OUTLOOK AND ENERGY SAVING POTENTIAL IN EAST ASIA 2019\n3.2.2. \n Total primary energy supply\nIn APS5, the TPES is projected to increase at a slower rate of 3.9% per year, from 70.1 \nMtoe in 2015 to 183.7 Mtoe in 2040. Coal is projected to grow at the highest average \nannual rate of 5.2% compared with 6.6% in the BAU scenario. This is followed by oil (4.8%) \nand natural gas (3.6%), compared with 5.4% and 4.1% in the BAU scenario, respectively, \nover the same period. \nThe slower growth in consumption, compared to the BAU scenario, stems from EEC \nmeasures on the demand side (APS1), and the more aggressive uptake of energy efficiency \nin thermal power plants (APS2) and renewables (APS3) on the supply side. Coal has \nthe highest energy savings potential with 28.2%, followed by oil (13.9%) and natural gas \n(11.9%). Figure 17.8 shows the primary energy saving potential by fuel under the BAU \nscenario and APS.\nFigure 17.7: Final Energy Consumption, BAU vs APS (2015 and 2040)\nAPS = Alternative Policy Scenario, BAU = Business-As-Usual, Mtoe = million tons of oil equivalent.\nSource: Author’s calculations.\n0.0\n10.0\n20.0\n30.0\n40.0\n50.0\n60.0\n70.0\n80.0\n90.0\nMtoe\n0.0%\nBAU\n2015\n2040\nIndustry\nAPS\nBAU\n2015\n2040\nTransport\nAPS\nBAU\n2015\n2040\nOthers\nAPS\nBAU\n2015\n2040\nNon-energy\nAPS\n–17.5%\n–9.0%\n–11.5%\n\n\n327\nFigure 17.8: Primary Energy Saving Potential by Fuel \nType, BAU and APS (2015 and 2040)\nAPS = Alternative Policy Scenario, BAU = Business-As-Usual, Mtoe = million tons of oil equivalent.\nSource: Author’s calculations.\n0.0\n20.0\n40.0\n60.0\n80.0\n100.0\n120.0\n140.0\nMtoe\nBAU\n2015\n2040\nCoal\nAPS\nBAU\n2015\n2040\nOil\nAPS\nBAU\n2015\n2040\nGas\nAPS\nBAU\n2015\n2040\nOthers\nAPS\n81.8%\n–28.2%\n–13.9%\n–11.9%\nThe total savings amount to 36.3 Mtoe, equivalent to 16.5% of Viet Nam’s TPEC in 2040. \n(see Figure 17.9).\nFigure 17.9: Evolution of Primary Energy Supply, \nBAU and APS (1990, 2015, and 2040)\nAPS = Alternative Policy Scenario, BAU = Business-As-Usual, Mtoe = million tons of oil equivalent.\nSource: Author’s calculations.\nMtoe\n0.0\n50.0\n100.0\n150.0\n200.0\n250.0\nBAU\n2015\n1990\n2040\nAPS\n36Mtoe,-16.5%\nViet Nam Country Report\n\n\n328\nENERGY OUTLOOK AND ENERGY SAVING POTENTIAL IN EAST ASIA 2019\n3.2.3. \n CO2 reduction potential\nCO2 emissions from energy consumption under the BAU scenario are projected to increase \nby 5.7% per year from 49.0 million metric tons of carbon (Mt-C) in 2015 to 195.2 Mt-C in \n2040. Meanwhile, under APS5, the annual increase in CO2 emissions between 2015 and \n2040 is projected to be 4.6% yearly, which is 1.1 percentage points lower than the BAU \nscenario. \nReduced CO2 emissions are mostly derived from EEC measures on the demand side \n(APS1). Moreover, improvement of energy efficiency in thermal power plants (APS2) and \ndevelopment of renewable energy technologies (APS3) also contributed significantly to \nCO2 reduction (Figure 17.10). \nImprovements on CO2 emissions under the APSs will be around 45.3 Mt-C lower, equal \nto 23.2% reduction in 2040. This indicates that the energy saving goals and action plans of \nViet Nam are effective in reducing CO2 emissions (see Figure 17.11).\nFigure 17.10: CO2 Emissions by Fuel Type, BAU and APSs\nAPS = Alternative Policy Scenario, BAU = Business-As-Usual, Mt-c = million tons of carbon.\nSource: Author’s calculations.\n0.0\n50.0\n100.0\n150.0\n200.0\n250.0\nMt-C\nBAU\nAPS1\nAPS2\nAPS3\nAPS5\nCoal\nOil\nNatural Gas\n\n\n329\nFigure 17.11: Evolution of CO2 Emissions, \nBAU and APS (1990, 2015, and 2040)\nAPS = Alternative Policy Scenario, BAU = Business-As-Usual, Mt-c = million tons of carbon.\nSource: Author’s calculations.\nMt-C\n0.0\n50.0\n100.0\n150.0\n200.0\n250.0\nBAU\n2015\n1990\n2040\nAPS\n45.3Mt-C,-23.2%\n4. \n Review of Viet Nam’s INDC and APS5 Results \nIn September 2015, Viet Nam submitted its Intended Nationally Determined \nContributions (INDC) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. \nViet Nam’s INDC includes mitigation and adaptation components and covers the entire \neconomy, including the energy; agriculture; land use, land use change, and forestry; and \nwaste sectors. The mitigation component includes both unconditional and conditional \ncontributions. Unconditional contributions are measures implemented using domestic \nresources, while conditional contributions are those that could be implemented if new \nand additional international financial support, technology transfer, and capacity building \nare received.\nWith domestic resources, by 2030, Viet Nam will reduce GHG emissions by 8% compared \nto the BAU scenario, equal to around 63 million tons of carbon dioxide equivalent \n(tCO2e). The contribution of the energy sector on GHG emissions reduction by 2030 \nwill be 29.5 million tCO2e, accounting for 46.8% of total GHG emissions reduction under \nunconditional contribution.\nViet Nam Country Report\n\n\n330\nENERGY OUTLOOK AND ENERGY SAVING POTENTIAL IN EAST ASIA 2019\nThe above-mentioned 8% contribution could be increased to 25%, with international \nsupport, equal to around 197 million tCO2e. The contribution of the energy sector on \nGHG emissions reduction by 2030 will be 65.9 million tCO2e, accounting for 33.5% of \ntotal GHG emissions reduction under conditional contribution. \nGHG mitigation goals in the energy sector are expected to be attained through the \npotential mitigation options in the industry, transport, and ‘others’ sectors on the demand \nside and the development of renewable energy technologies, particularly solar, wind, and \nbiomass for power generation, on the supply side. \nThese options were proposed and selected based on the following criteria: government \nprioritisation, GHG reduction potential, cost-effectiveness, and the maturity of technology \ndevelopment, which can be classified by unconditional and conditional contributions as \nfollows: \n• \nPrioritised mitigation options: GHG reduction potential, alignment with government \npolicies, cost-effectiveness, and maturity of technologies\n• \nUnconditional: low abatement costs, already implemented in Viet Nam, aligned with \nsectoral plans for 2021–2030\n• \nConditional: higher abatement costs and new technologies currently implemented in \ndeveloped countries.\nTo evaluate and compare GHG emissions reduction potential and targets with Viet Nam’s \nINDC, the author classified the mitigation technologies in APS5 and based on the above \ncriteria to compare APS5 of this study with INDC on GHG emissions reduction.\nUnder APS5, with domestic resources, Viet Nam will reduce by 2030 33.7 million tCO2e \n(or 6.3% reduction) compared to 29.5 million tCO2e (or 5.5% reduction) in the INDC. \nThese GHG emissions will further decrease to 76.9 million tCO2e (or 14.4% reduction) \ncompared to 65.9 million tCO2e (or 12.3% reduction) in the INDC under conditional \ncontribution with international support.\n\n\n331\nIn both the INDC and APS5, the power generation and industry sectors have high \npotential in reducing GHG. Compared to Viet Nam’s INDC on GHG emissions reduction \ntargets, those in APS5 look similar but seem to be more ambitious due to new policies and \ntechnologies being updated. These also prove that if APS5 were implemented, Viet Nam’s \nINDC would be achieved. \n5. Key Findings and Policy Implications\nThe following are some key findings from the above analysis on energy savings potential:\n• \nEnergy demand in Viet Nam is expected to continue to grow significantly, driven \nby robust economic growth, industrialisation, urbanisation, and population growth. \nEEC measures can potentially contribute to meeting higher demand in a sustainable \nmanner. \n• \nViet Nam’s energy intensity, which is amongst the highest in the world, indicates high \nsavings potential. \n• \nElectricity demand is increasing with highest annual growth rate of 5.3% in the BAU \nscenario and is projected to decline to 4.7% in the APS. This decline proves that the \nEEC measures are effective in electricity demand. \nAPS = Alternative Policy Scenario, BAU = Business-As-Usual Scenario, GHG = greenhouse gases, \n \n \n \nINDC = Intended Nationally Determined Contributions, Mt-CO2 = million tons of carbon dioxide equivalent.\nSource: Author’s calculations.\nMtCO2e\n0.0\n100.0\n200.0\n300.0\n400.0\n500.0\n600.0\nBAU\nUn-Con INDC\nCon INDC\nUn-Con APS5\nCon APS5\nIndustry\nSupply side\nTransport\nOthers\n29.5 Mt-CO2,–5.5%\n65.9 Mt-CO2,–12.3%\n33.7 Mt-CO2,–6.3%\n76.9 Mt-CO2,–14.4%\nFigure 17.12: GHG Reduction Targets, APS5 vs INDC\nViet Nam Country Report\n\n\n332\nENERGY OUTLOOK AND ENERGY SAVING POTENTIAL IN EAST ASIA 2019\n• \nEEC scenarios on the demand side are most effective compared with other proposed \nscenarios, which are APS2 and APS3. \n• \nCoal-fired thermal power plants will be the major power source in Viet Nam in \nthe coming years. Their share in the total power generation output is increasing \ncontinuously from 31.9% in 2015 to 68.9% in 2040 in the BAU scenario. This is the \narea with the largest energy savings and GHG mitigation potential in both Viet Nam’s \nINDC and APS5. \n• \nGHG mitigation technologies in APS5 will be developed to conform with Viet Nam’s \nINDC and government policies.\nThe following policies are recommended to effectively implement EEC activities in Viet \nNam:\n• \nEstablishment of new targets and a roadmap for EEC implementation: Energy \ndemand in Viet Nam in the BAU scenario is expected to continue to grow significantly \nin the coming years. EEC scenarios on the demand side are most effective compared \nto other proposed scenarios (APS2 and APS3). Therefore, Viet Nam needs to \nstrengthen EEC activities by updating and setting new targets globally and specifically \nin each sector for the next periods and by preparing specific road maps or action plans \nto achieve these targets. \n• \nCompulsory energy standards and labelling for electrical appliances: The annual \ngrowth of electricity demand, especially in the ‘others’ sector, is projected to be the \nsecond highest (5.3%) in the BAU scenario. Therefore, compulsory energy standards \nand labelling for electrical appliances is an effective management measure in energy \nsavings. \n• \nPriority for development of advanced coal-fired thermal power technology: \nCoal-fired thermal power plants will be the major source of power generation in Viet \nNam up to 2040. Therefore, Viet Nam needs to retrofit the existing thermal power \nplants to improve the efficiency of power generation and to prioritise energy-effective \ntechnologies (clean coal technologies) for the development of new coal-fired thermal \npower plants. \n• \nPriority for renewable energy development: Coal-fired power generation is \nprojected to have a dominant share in the future, which will result in the country’s \nreliance on coal imports for power generation. The development of renewable energy \ntechnologies to replace coal for power generation is an important factor for energy \nindependence, energy security, and GHG abatement. This is necessary in setting up \npolicy support and mechanisms to promote renewable energy development.\n\n\n333\nReferences\nGovernment of Viet Nam (2006), Decision 79/2006/QD-TTg dated 14 April 2006 \nof the Prime Minister Approving the National Target Program on Energy Savings and \nConservation. Ha Noi.\nGovernment of Viet Nam (2007), Decision 177/2007/QD-TTg dated 20 November \n2007 of the Prime Minister Approving the Master Plan on Biofuel Development Until \n2015 with Perspective of 2025. Ha Noi.\nGovernment of Viet Nam (2015), Decision No. 2068/QD-TTg dated 2 November 2015 \nof the Prime Minister Approving ‘The Vietnam Renewable Energy Development Strategy \nto 2030, Outlook Up to 2050. Ha Noi.\nGeneral Statistics Office, Government of Viet Nam (2011), Viet Nam Population \nForecasts 2009–2049. Ha Noi. \nGeneral Statistics Office, Government of Viet Nam (2015), Statistical Yearbook of Viet \nNam. Ha Noi. \nInstitute of Energy, Ministry of Industry and Trade, Government of Viet Nam (2015), \nRevised Power Development Plan for the Period of 2011–2020 with Perspective to 2030. \nHa Noi. \nMinistry of Natural Resource and Environment (2015), Technical Report. Viet Nam's \nIntended Nationally Determined Contribution, Ha Noi: Ministry of Natural Resource and \nEnvironment.\nThe National Assembly of Viet Nam (2010), Law on Energy Savings and Conservation \n(2010). Ha Noi: The National Assembly of Viet Nam.\nViet Nam Country Report\n\n\n334\nENERGY OUTLOOK AND ENERGY SAVING POTENTIAL IN EAST ASIA 2019\nUNITED STATES COUNTRY \nREPORT\n1. Introduction\nThe United States (US) is the fourth-largest country in the world by total area and the \nthird largest by population. Since 1990, its population has grown at an average annual \nrate of 2.4%, reaching approximately 321 million in 2015.1 As of 2018, 82.3% of its total \npopulation lives in urban areas, with the trend towards increased urbanisation expected \nto continue at an average annual rate of change of 0.95% throughout the current 2015–\n2020 period (CIA, 2018). \nThe US is also the world’s second-largest economy, with a gross domestic product (GDP) \nof $16.9 trillion and per capita income of $51,640 in 2015 (both in constant 2010 US$ \nvalues). By sector of origin, 80.2% of its GDP can be linked to services, while 18.9% is \nlinked to industrial output, including motor vehicles, aerospace, chemicals, and consumer \ngoods. Agriculture, including wheat, corn, beef, dairy, and forest products, makes up the \nremaining 0.9% (CIA, 2018). International trade also plays a crucial role in the overall \nstrength and health of the US economy. As one measure of this, studies have suggested \nthat in numerous areas of the country, more than one-quarter of state-level GDP can \nbe attributed to international trade, including in Washington, Michigan, Louisiana, Texas, \nand New Jersey (Perry, 2018). \nCHAPTER 18\nClara Gillispie, The National Bureau of Asia Research \nSeiya Endo, The Institute of Energy Economics, Japan\n1 \nUnless otherwise cited, all data in this report can be attributed to economic modelling results for the United States of \nThe Institute of Energy Economics, Japan, which are included in full as an annex to this publication. \n\n\n335\n1.1. Energy Situation\nThe US is the world’s second-largest consumer of energy and the second-largest emitter \nof CO2, though by per capita measures, it ranks first in both categories. In 1990, its final \nenergy consumption was 1,294 million tons of oil equivalent (Mtoe). Over the following \ndecade, consumption increased to 1,546 Mtoe in 2000, and then experienced a modest \noverall decline in 2000 to 2015 so that consumption was 1,520 Mtoe as of the end of \n2015. Different studies have contested whether this indicates that US consumption has \npeaked, or if a gradual recovery in economic activity following the 2007–2008 global \neconomic crisis may have ultimately reversed this trend. Periodically cited as evidence is \nthat between 1990 and 2015, only industry sector consumption declined overall (though \nnon-energy sector consumption has also declined in the period since 2000). Meanwhile, \nenergy consumption in the ‘others’ (residential/commercial/public) sector and transport \ngrew steadily. \nDuring this period, coal consumption also declined sharply from 56 Mtoe to 20 Mtoe, but \ngrowth in consumption of natural gas and renewables more than offset this decline. A key \ncontributor to this is the major shift under way in the US’s domestic energy supply outlook. \nWhile the country has long had abundant, diverse resource potential – including substantial \nnatural endowments in fossil fuels such as coal, shale oil, and natural gas; geothermal \nand hydroelectric potential; and favourable conditions for wind and solar energy – up \nuntil recently, significant portions of this potential were not considered technically or \neconomically viable. However, since the 2000s, breakthroughs in technology, declining \nproduction costs, and favourable environments for development and investment have \ncontributed to a growing abundance in accessible domestic resource potential. Between \n2008 and 2013, the incremental increase alone of US daily oil production was equivalent \nto the total daily oil production of Iraq in 2010 (Richardson-Barlow et al., 2014). The \nInternational Energy Agency estimates that the US will be the world’s largest oil producer \nby 2023. Natural gas production also increased twelvefold during a similar period, resulting \nin the US becoming a top producer of natural gas (Richardson-Barlow et al., 2014). \nAs has been well documented, such developments are now having a crucial, transformative \nimpact on reshaping US energy outlooks. Rises in production levels of oil and natural gas \nare contributing to reducing or backing out of import requirements from Canada and other \ncountry sources. Combined with other market and policy factors, energy independence \nis also contributing to accelerating trends in transforming the US power generation mix. \nIn 2014, for the first time ever, natural gas surpassed coal as the single largest share of \nUS power generation. Meanwhile, increasingly favourable economics, coupled with \nUnited States Country Report\n\n\n336\nENERGY OUTLOOK AND ENERGY SAVING POTENTIAL IN EAST ASIA 2019\nsupportive domestic policy environments, also contributed to significant increases in \nconsumption levels for wind and solar, which grew at the largest rates of increase of any \nfuel source in between 1990 and 2015. In some states of the US, including Texas and \nIowa, wind energy is considered cost competitive with traditional fuel sources, which may \nfurther incentivise further consumption (Gillespie, Johnson, and Schwartz, 2017). \nExpanded production and reduced requirements for domestic consumption (particularly \nof abundant, high-quality indigenous coal resources) have also opened the door for the \nUS to play an increasingly important role as a key exporter to the Asia-Pacific region. To \ndate, US liquefied natural gas exports have been delivered to several major economies in \nAsia, including Japan, Taiwan, India, the Republic of Korea, and China, and frequency \nand volumes are anticipated to grow exponentially in the coming decades (EIA, 2018a). \nThe US is also becoming an increasingly important supplier of crude oil to Asia. It is \nalso an important global exporter of coal, with India, the Republic of Korea, and Japan \nrepresenting three of the top five recipients of US steam coal exports in 2017 (EIA, 2018b). \nGoing forward, while each of these fuel sources may potentially contribute immensely to \nstrengthening regional energy security outlooks, factors such as overall competitiveness \nof US supplies, social licence considerations in both the US and Asian countries, and the \nneed to overcome current bottlenecks in US transport infrastructure may limit the overall \npotential of US export growth. \n2. Modelling Assumptions \nOver this study’s outlook period of 2015–2040, both overall GDP and population counts \nare projected to grow, though at markedly different rates – resulting in a trend of an overall \nrising per capita GDP (Figures 18.1 and 18.2). While US birth rates are projected to remain \nbelow replacement levels during the outlook window, its population continues to grow \noverall due to sustained immigration and improvements in life expectancies. However, at \n0.6% per year, population growth rate for the outlook period is still at a notably slower pace \nthan the 1% of the previous 25-year period (CIA, 2018).\n\n\n337\nUnited States Country Report\nFigure 18.1: GDP and Population (1990–2040)\nGDP = gross domestic product.\nSource: Authors’ assumptions.\n0\n0\n50\n100\n150\n200\n250\n300\n350\n400\n5,000\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2030\n2040\n10,000\n15,000\n20,000\n25,000\n30,000\nPopulation\nGDP\nbilllion 2010 US$\nmillion person\n0\n10\n20\n30\n40\n50\n60\n70\n80\nthousand 2010 US$/person\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2030\n2040\n36\n45\n52\n55\n64\n74\nFigure 18.2: Per Capita GDP (1990–2040)\nGDP = gross domestic product.\nSource: Calculation based on authors’ assumptions.\nBetween 1990 and 2015, US GDP grew at an average annual rate of 2.4%. Despite \nsignificant disruption in this overarching trend during the 2007–2008 global economic \ncrisis, the US economic outlook appears to have now recovered dramatically by several \nmeasures. However, ongoing questions about job creation rates and challenges in \nincreasing productivity remain looming challenges to realising new gains in GDP growth. \nThis model projects that GDP growth rates will re-stabilise over the outlook period at \nrates comparable, though modestly lower, than the prior 25 years. Between 2015 and \n2040, average annual growth will continue at 2.1% per year, and each decade snapshot \nwill relatively closely mirror this overall trend (with the 2030–2040 period being the \nsole outlier at the slightly slower pace of 2%). This estimate aligns with expectations of \ncontinued efficiency and productivity gains alongside the above modest but sustained \n\n\n338\nENERGY OUTLOOK AND ENERGY SAVING POTENTIAL IN EAST ASIA 2019\npopulation growth, as well as continued US leadership and commitment to innovation in \nemerging fields. \nIn terms of overall total final energy consumption (TFEC), oil is anticipated to retain its \ndominance through the outlook period, reflecting that by sector, transport also remains \nthe single largest driver of the TFEC. In electricity generation, while coal, nuclear energy, \nand hydropower are each anticipated to remain critical components of the overall US mix, \neach of these sources is anticipated to decline in terms of their overall share between \n2015 and 2040. This is primarily due to unfavourable economics and domestic policy and \nsocial licence factors when compared with the outlooks for non-hydro renewables and \nnatural gas. Investments in cleaner consumption technologies as well as the retirement of \nageing coal-fired power fleets are also anticipated to boost overall efficiency of generation. \nHowever, uncertainties about the pace and scale of retirement of existing nuclear power \nplants weigh on the overall trajectory for reducing CO2 emissions. \nThe Alternative Policy Scenarios (APSs) assume progress towards the full implementation \nand realisation of a range of established efforts to strengthen a country’s energy-saving \npotential. For the US, these include efforts to strengthen efficiency of final energy demand, \nimprove efficient thermal power generation, sustain a robust role for nuclear energy as a \nsource of baseload power generation, and realise a higher contribution from renewable \nenergy in total supply. Calculations are modelled based on a review and assessment of \ncurrent laws and policies in place at the national and state levels. This study then reviews \nthe results of the APSs to determine cumulative impact in promoting CO2 emissions \nreductions and encouraging energy savings beyond business-as-usual. \n3. Outlook Results\n3.1. Business-As-Usual Scenario \n3.1.1. \n Final energy consumption\nUnder the Business-As-Usual (BAU) scenario, the TFEC is anticipated to decline slightly \nbetween 2015 and 2040, though at 1,515 Mtoe, it remains well above 1990 levels (Figure \n18.3). The transport sector is the only sector whose consumption is anticipated to decline, \nwith efficiency improvements and other structural changes within the sector offsetting \nprospects for additional consumption despite continued growth in vehicle ownership. \nMeanwhile, consumption by industry, non-energy, and ‘others’ (residential/commercial) \nsector grows. The largest growth is experienced in the ‘others’ sector, though non-energy \nsector consumption grows at the fastest rate. \n\n\n339\n200\n400\n600\n800\n1,000\n1,200\n1,400\n1,600\n1,800\n-\nMtoe\n284\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2030\n2040\n332\n262\n629\n506\n123\n1,520\n259\n613\n516\n127\n1,515\n264\n584\n537\n137\n1,522\n265\n559\n549\n142\n1,5,15\n588\n473\n153\n1,546\n488\n403\n119\n1,294\nNon-energy\nOthers\nTransport\nIndustry\nFigure 18.3: Final Energy Consumption by Sector, BAU (1990–2040)\nBAU = Business-As-Usual, Mtoe = million tons of oil equivalent.\nSource: Authors’ calculation.\nDuring this same period, electricity consumption is anticipated to grow from 325 Mtoe to \n376 Mtoe. Non-hydropower renewables, primarily wind and solar but also geothermal, \nwill experience the most dramatic growth during this period. Natural gas consumption \nremains relatively stable up to 2030 but is anticipated to modestly decline through the \nend of the outlook period. Coal consumption declines throughout the entire 2015–2040 \nperiod, although at a much slower pace than in the previous 25 years. Oil consumption \nexperiences the most dramatic decline, given robust expectations for continued efficiency \ngains as well as switching in the transport sector to natural gas, biofuels, and other sources \nas well as increased deployment of electric vehicles (Figure 18.4).\nUnited States Country Report\n\n\n340\nENERGY OUTLOOK AND ENERGY SAVING POTENTIAL IN EAST ASIA 2019\n3.1.2. Primary energy consumption\nUnder the BAU scenario, total primary energy consumption is anticipated to decline from \n2,188.3 Mtoe in 2015 to 2,143 Mtoe in 2040, with an average annual rate of decline of \n0.1%. Of note, much of this overall decline is also anticipated to already have occurred \nby 2020. Coal consumption is anticipated to decline at a rate of 1.0% during this period, \nwhile nuclear declines by 0.5%. In contrast, non-hydropower renewables experience the \nlargest growth in consumption during this period at 5.3%, closely followed by geothermal \nat 4.4% (Figure 18.5).\nBAU = Business-As-Usual, Mtoe = million tons of oil equivalent.\nSource: Authors’ calculation.\n-150\n-100\n-50\n50\n100\n150\n0\nCoal\nOil\nNatural gas\nElectricity\nHeat\nOthers\nMtoe\n2015–2040\n1990–2015\nFigure 18.4: Changes in Final Energy Consumption by Fuel Type, BAU\n\n\n341\nFigure 18.5: Final Energy Consumption by Fuel Type, BAU (1990–2040)\nBAU = Business-As-Usual, Mtoe = million tons of oil equivalent.\nSource: Authors’ calculation.\n500\n1,000\n1,500\n2,000\n2,500\n-\nMtoe\n1990\n460\n757\n438\n159\n63\n1,915\n2000\n534\n871\n548\n208\n78\n2,273\n2015\n374\n794\n646\n216\n127\n2,188\n2020\n335\n766\n664\n210\n152\n2,165\n2030\n311\n719\n702\n209\n180\n2,167\n2040\n289\n677\n725\n191\n209\n2,143\nCoal\nOil\nNatural Gas\nNuclear\nHydro\nGeothermal\nOthers\n3.1.3. \n Power generation\nFigure 18.6: Power Generation under BAU (1990–2040)\nBAU = Business-As-Usual, TWh = terawatt-hour.\nSource: Authors’ calculation.\nCoal\nOil\nNatural Gas\nNuclear\nHydro\nGeothermal\nOthers\n1,000\n2,000\n3,000\n4,000\n5,000\n6,000\n-\n1990\n3,203\n1,700\n382\n612\n2000\n2,129\n634\n798\n2015\n1,471\n1,373\n830\n2020\n1,316\n1,512\n806\n2030\n1,303\n1,672\n801\n2040\n1,279\n1,854\n732\n273\n253\n4,026\n251\n315\n4,297\n291\n495\n4,462\n295\n705\n4,831\n298\n943\n5,174\nTWh\nUnited States Country Report\n\n\n342\nENERGY OUTLOOK AND ENERGY SAVING POTENTIAL IN EAST ASIA 2019\nElectricity generation in the US, under the BAU scenario, is projected to increase over \nthe outlook period, though at a comparatively slower pace than in the previous 25 years. \nGeneration output increases from 4,297.0 terawatt hours (TWh) to 5,173.8 TWh \nbetween 2015 and 2040, for an average annual growth rate of 0.7%. \nAfter surpassing coal as the single largest share of the US’s power generation mix in \n2014, natural gas retains its number one rank through 2040, representing 35.8% of the \noverall mix. The largest average annual growth rates are seen in non-hydro renewables, \nmost prominently solar and wind, as well as potentially geothermal. Improved economics \nalongside other considerations could also contribute to incentivising higher levels \nof consumption of wind and solar though, as aptly noted by the Energy Information \nAdministration, many existing tax credits will begin to expire in the early 2020s, potentially \nraising questions for the road ahead (Figure 18.6). \nThe retirement of older, less-efficient coal-fired plants and ongoing technological \nimprovements promoting more efficient consumption are assumed to play important roles \nin shaping this outlook alongside broader market and policy forces that may incentivise \nswitching. Coal continues its decline at 0.6% a year, though it is still anticipated to account \nfor roughly one-quarter of all US power generation in 2040. Uncertainties in investments \nand progress towards strengthening existing, ageing grid infrastructure may also challenge \nefforts to bring new generation online in ways that promote energy savings and CO2 \nreductions (Figure 18.7). \nFigure 18.7: Share of Power Generation Mix under BAU (1990–2040)\nBAU = Business-As-Usual.\nSource: Authors’ calculation.\n0%\n10%\n20%\n30%\n40%\n50%\n60%\n70%\n80%\n90%\n100%\n1990\n53%\n53%\n6%\n4%\n9%\n2000\n2015\n34%\n32%\n6%\n7%\n2020\n29%\n34%\n7%\n11%\n2030\n27%\n35%\n6%\n15%\n2040\n25%\n36%\n6%\n18%\nCoal\nOil\nNatural Gas\nNuclear\nHydro\nGeothermal\nOthers\n\n\n343\n3.2 Energy Savings in the APS and CO2 Reduction Potential \n3.2.1. \n Final energy consumption\nUnder the APS, this study projects that early signs of declining TFEC in the US will be \naffirmed and that the overall rate of decline will also be accelerated. Under the APS, this \nstudy anticipates that in 2015–2040, consumption will decline from 1,520 Mtoe to 1,379 \nMtoe. When compared with the BAU scenario, this shows an energy savings of 135.8 Mtoe \nor 9% during the period. Transportation realises a savings of 57.6 Mtoe (10.3%); industry, \n21.8 Mtoe (8.2%); and residential and commercial, 56.4 Mtoe (10.3%). Meanwhile, in \ncontrast to expectations under the BAU scenario, all sectors save for non-energy now \nrealise some level of declining overall consumption (Figure 18.8).\nFigure 18.8: Final Energy Consumption by Sector in BAU vs. APS\nAPS = Alternative Policy Scenario, BAU = Business-As-Usual, Mtoe = million tons of oil equivalent.\nSource: Authors’ calculation.\n0.0\n100.0\n200.0\n300.0\n400.0\n500.0\n600.0\n700.0\nMtoe\nBAU\n2015\n2040\nIndustry\nAPS\nBAU\n2015\n2040\nTransport\nAPS\nBAU\n2015\n2040\nOthers\nAPS\nBAU\n2015\n2040\nNon-energy\nAPS\nUnited States Country Report\n\n\n344\nENERGY OUTLOOK AND ENERGY SAVING POTENTIAL IN EAST ASIA 2019\nUnder the APS, US primary energy consumption is anticipated to decrease from 2,188.3 \nMtoe in 2015 from 1,910.2 Mtoe in 2050. This implies that, in 2040, under the APS, \nsavings of primary energy consumption will be around 232.73 Mtoe or 10.9% lower \ncompared with the BAU scenario (Figure 18.9).\nCoal in the primary energy demand in the APS is expected to decline to 129.7 Mtoe. This \nrepresents a total energy saving of 159.6 Mtoe in 2040 compared with the BAU scenario. \nOil consumption is also anticipated to decline compared to the BAU scenario, with a \npotential saving of 109.3 Mtoe (or 16.1%) by 2040, while natural gas is also anticipated to \nsee a similar level of decline. In contrast, the demand for others (renewables) is anticipated \nto increase to about 270.35 Mtoe (40.9%) compared to the BAU scenario in 2040 (Figure \n18.10).\n3.2.2. \n Primary energy supply \nFigure 18.9: Total Primary Energy Supply in BAU vs APS (2015 and 2040)\nAPS = Alternative Policy Scenario, BAU = Business-As-Usual, Mtoe = million tons of oil equivalent.\nSource: Authors’ calculation.\n1750.0\n1800.0\n1900.0\n2000.0\n2050.0\n2100.0\n2150.0\n2200.0\n2250.0\n1850.0\n1950.0\nMtoe\nBAU\n2015\n2040\nAPS\n\n\n345\nFigure 18.10: Total Primary Energy Supply by Fuel in BAU vs APS (2015 and 2040)\nAPS = Alternative Policy Scenario, BAU = Business-As-Usual, Mtoe = million tons of oil equivalent.\nSource: Authors’ calculation.\n0.0\n100.0\n200.0\n300.0\n400.0\n500.0\n600.0\n700.0\n800.0\n900.0\n1000.0\nMtoe\nBAU\n2015\n2040\nCoal\nAPS\nBAU\n2015\n2040\nOil\nAPS\nBAU\n2015\n2040\nGas\nAPS\nBAU\n2015\n2040\nOthers\nAPS\n+40.9%\n–55.2%\n–16.1%\n–13.5%\n3.3. CO2 Emissions \nCO2 emissions from energy consumption, under the BAU scenario, are anticipated to \ndecline modestly – from 1,382.9 million tons of carbon (Mt-C) in 2015 to 1,228.9 Mt-C \nin 2040. This is equivalent to a decrease in average annual rate of 0.5%. Key drivers of \nthis shift is due to continued fuel switching in the electricity mix of the US. Decreased \nconsumption of coal and oil and increased consumption of natural gas and non-fossil \nsources contribute to modest improvements in the country’s overall emissions profile.\nIn the APS, CO2 emissions are projected to decrease at an average annual rate of 1.7%, \nfrom 1,382.9 Mt-C in 2015 to 902.2 Mt-C in 2040. Emissions savings in the APS are thus \n26.6% compared to the BAU scenario in 2040. The most dramatic shifts in primary energy \nconsumption between the BAU scenario and the APS are linked to the acceleration of \ntrends in reducing coal – a difference of 55.2% by 2040 – while oil consumption is reduced \nby an additional 16.1% and gas by an additional 13.5% (Figure 18.11). \nIn the official submission of its Intended Nationally Determined Contribution (INDC), the \nUS pledged to reduce CO2 emissions from their 2005 levels by 26%–28% by 2025. While \nthe current US (Trump) administration has raised the prospects of revising or abandoning \nits current INDC pledge, this study suggests that the US has already made substantial \nprogress towards this goal. However, even under the APS, more robust actions may be \nnecessary to achieve this target by 2025. \nUnited States Country Report\n\n\n346\nENERGY OUTLOOK AND ENERGY SAVING POTENTIAL IN EAST ASIA 2019\n4. \n Policy Implications \nBased on the results and discussions presented above, the following policy implications \ncould be derived:\n• \nCoal, oil, and natural gas will continue to dominate the US energy mix in both the \nBAU scenario and the APS. \n• \nNatural gas will remain as the single greatest share of the US electricity generation mix \nin 2015–2040, although non-hydro renewables such as wind and solar are anticipated \nto experience the largest growth rates. \n• \nImproved economics alongside sustained breakthroughs in renewable energy \ntechnologies could also contribute to incentivising higher levels of consumption in \nways that further accelerate CO2 emissions and promote energy savings. However, \nas the Energy Information Administration notes, substantial uncertainties lie ahead, \nincluding determining the implications and desirable responses to expiring tax credits \nand fiscal incentives for renewable energy in the 2020s. \n• \nContinued efforts to strengthen the transport sector are being envisioned as a critical \nopportunity to save energy under both the BAU scenario and the APS. In addition to \naccelerated deployment of electric vehicles, greater attention to fuel efficiency and \ntechnologies for overall cleaner consumption will be critical, given expectations of a \ncontinued prominent role for oil. \nFigure 18.11: CO2 Emissions Trends under APS (1990–2040)\nSource: Authors’ calculation.\n1990=100\n0\n20\n40\n60\n80\n100\n120\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2030\n2040\nEnergy Intensity\nEnergy per Capita\nCO2 per Energy\nCO2 Intensity\nCO2 per Capita\n\n\n347\n• \nGrowing potential for US energy exports to Asia could contribute immensely to \nstrengthening regional energy security outlooks. However, factors such as overall \ncompetitiveness, social licence considerations on both sides of the Pacific, and the \nneed to overcome current bottlenecks in US transport infrastructure may limit overall \nUS export growth potential. \nReferences\nGillispie, C., A. Johnson, and L. Schwartz (2017), Sustainable Futures: Energy and \nEnvironmental Security in Times of Transition, National Bureau of Asian Research, \nhttp://nbr.org/downloads/pdfs/eta/PES_2016_report.pdf (accessed 15 June 2018). \nPerry, M.J. (2018), ‘How Important is International Trade to each US State’s Economy? \nPretty Important for most US States,’ Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute, \nhttp://www.aei.org/publication/how-important-is-international-trade-to-each-us-\nstates-economy-pretty-important-for-most-us-states/ (accessed 15 June 2018). \nRichardson-Barlow, C., H. Kincaide, and L. Schwartz with V.A.V. Murthy (2014), New \nFrontiers in Trans-Pacific Energy Trade, National Bureau of Asian Research, Seattle, \nhttp://nbr.org/downloads/pdfs/ETA/PEF_2014_report.pdf (accessed 15 June 2018).\nUS Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) (2018), The World Factbook – United States, \nWashington, DC: US CIA, https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-\nfactbook/geos/us.html (accessed 15 June 2018). \nUS Energy Information Administration (EIA) (2018a), ‘U.S. Natural Gas Exports and Re-\nExports by Country,’ Washington, DC: EIA, https://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/ng_move_\nexpc_s1_a.htm (accessed 15 June 2018).\nUS Energy Information Administration (EIA) (2018b), ‘U.S. Coal Exports Increased by \n61% in 2017 as Exports to Asia More than Doubled,’ Washington, DC: EIA, https://www.\neia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=35852 (accessed 15 June 2018).\nUnited States Country Report\n\n\n348\nENERGY OUTLOOK AND ENERGY SAVING POTENTIAL IN EAST ASIA 2019\n\n\n349\nResults Summary Tables\nRESULTS \nSUMMARY \nTABLES\nANNEX\n\n\n350\nENERGY OUTLOOK AND ENERGY SAVING POTENTIAL IN EAST ASIA 2019\nAAGR(%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nGDP (billions of 2010 US dollars)\n16,861\n23,941\n39,023\n46,476\n55,279\n65,967\n78,166\n91,534\n3.4\n3.6\n3.6\n3.3\n3.5\nPopulation (millions of people)\n2,881\n3,313\n3,839\n3,987\n4,114\n4,218\n4,298\n4,357\n1.2\n0.8\n0.6\n0.3\n0.5\nGDP per capita (thousands of 2010 US$/person)\n 5.85 \n 7.23 \n 10.17 \n 11.66 \n 13.4 \n 15.6 \n 18.2 \n 21.0 \n2.2\n2.8\n3.0\n3.0\n2.9\nPrimary energy consumption per capita (toe/person)\n 1.37 \n 1.52 \n 1.95 \n 2.07 \n 2.17 \n 2.27 \n 2.39 \n 2.51 \n1.4\n1.2\n1.0\n1.0\n1.0\nPrimary energy consumption per unit of GDP (toe/million \n2010 US dollars)\n 235 \n 211 \n 192 \n 177 \n 162 \n 145 \n 131 \n 120 \n-0.8\n-1.5\n-2.0\n-1.9\n-1.9\nFinal energy consumption per unit of GDP (toe/million 2010 \nUS dollars)\n 165 \n 144 \n 129 \n 120 \n 109 \n 98 \n 89 \n 81 \n-1.0\n-1.4\n-2.0\n-1.9\n-1.8\nCO2 emissions per unit of GDP (t-C/million 2010 US dollars)\n 164 \n 148 \n 145 \n 132 \n 119 \n 108 \n 98 \n 89 \n-0.5\n-1.9\n-2.0\n-1.8\n-1.9\nCO2 emissions per unit of primary energy consumption \n(t-C/toe)\n 0.70 \n 0.70 \n 0.76 \n 0.74 \n 0.74 \n 0.74 \n 0.74 \n 0.75 \n0.3\n-0.3\n0.0\n0.1\n0.0\nMtoe\nShare, %\nAAGR (%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nTotal\n3,955\n5,049\n7,488\n8,249\n8,928\n9,595\n10,255\n10,943\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n2.6\n2.0\n1.5\n1.3\n1.5\nCoal\n1,230\n1,558\n3,103\n3,297\n3,511\n3,754\n4,002\n4,254\n31.1\n30.9\n41.4\n40.0\n39.3\n39.1\n39.0\n38.9\n3.8\n1.2\n1.3\n1.3\n1.3\nOil\n1,361\n1,751\n2,082\n2,320\n2,488\n2,652\n2,801\n2,981\n34.4\n34.7\n27.8\n28.1\n27.9\n27.6\n27.3\n27.2\n1.7\n2.2\n1.3\n1.2\n1.4\nNatural gas\n557\n772\n1,155\n1,296\n1,444\n1,607\n1,785\n1,972\n14.1\n15.3\n15.4\n15.7\n16.2\n16.8\n17.4\n18.0\n3.0\n2.3\n2.2\n2.1\n2.2\nNuclear\n227\n329\n316\n404\n473\n520\n526\n543\n5.8\n6.5\n4.2\n4.9\n5.3\n5.4\n5.1\n5.0\n1.3\n5.0\n2.5\n0.4\n2.2\nHydro\n54\n63\n151\n172\n183\n193\n202\n209\n1.4\n1.2\n2.0\n2.1\n2.1\n2.0\n2.0\n1.9\n4.2\n2.6\n1.1\n0.8\n1.3\nGeothermal\n24\n38\n48\n50\n66\n72\n94\n103\n0.6\n0.8\n0.6\n0.6\n0.7\n0.7\n0.9\n0.9\n2.9\n0.6\n3.7\n3.7\n3.1\nOthers\n501\n537\n632\n710\n762\n798\n845\n881\n12.7\n10.6\n8.4\n8.6\n8.5\n8.3\n8.2\n8.1\n0.9\n2.4\n1.2\n1.0\n1.3\nBiomass\n497\n523\n498\n511\n504\n489\n477\n464\n12.6\n10.4\n6.7\n6.2\n5.6\n5.1\n4.6\n4.2\n0.0\n0.5\n-0.4\n-0.5\n-0.3\nSolar, Wind, \nOcean\n2\n4\n75\n130\n176\n224\n269\n314\n0.0\n0.1\n1.0\n1.6\n2.0\n2.3\n2.6\n2.9\n15.9\n11.6\n5.5\n3.4\n5.9\nBiofuels\n1\n7\n54\n66\n76\n80\n91\n96\n0.0\n0.1\n0.7\n0.8\n0.9\n0.8\n0.9\n0.9\n18.2\n4.1\n1.9\n1.9\n2.4\nElectricity\n0\n2\n5\n4\n5\n6\n9\n7\n0.0\n0.0\n0.1\n0.0\n0.1\n0.1\n0.1\n0.1\n10.1\n-4.8\n5.3\n0.5\n1.3\nTWh\nShare, %\nAAGR (%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nTotal\n5,436\n7,948\n14,290\n16,499\n18,573\n20,752\n22,912\n25,030\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n3.9\n2.9\n2.3\n1.9\n2.3\nCoal\n2,618\n4,180\n7,681\n8,379\n9,159\n10,094\n11,095\n12,024\n48.2\n52.6\n53.8\n50.8\n49.3\n48.6\n48.4\n48.0\n4.4\n1.8\n1.9\n1.8\n1.8\nOil\n566\n482\n223\n171\n152\n130\n108\n94\n10.4\n6.1\n1.6\n1.0\n0.8\n0.6\n0.5\n0.4\n-3.7\n-5.2\n-2.7\n-3.2\n-3.4\nNatural gas\n621\n1,157\n2,546\n2,916\n3,296\n3,748\n4,289\n4,846\n11.4\n14.6\n17.8\n17.7\n17.7\n18.1\n18.7\n19.4\n5.8\n2.8\n2.5\n2.6\n2.6\nNuclear\n873\n1,262\n1,213\n1,550\n1,816\n1,994\n2,019\n2,084\n16.1\n15.9\n8.5\n9.4\n9.8\n9.6\n8.8\n8.3\n1.3\n5.0\n2.5\n0.4\n2.2\nHydro\n630\n731\n1,761\n2,004\n2,133\n2,240\n2,344\n2,425\n11.6\n9.2\n12.3\n12.1\n11.5\n10.8\n10.2\n9.7\n4.2\n2.6\n1.1\n0.8\n1.3\nGeothermal\n27\n37\n50\n61\n82\n91\n110\n120\n0.5\n0.5\n0.4\n0.4\n0.4\n0.4\n0.5\n0.5\n2.6\n3.8\n4.1\n2.8\n3.5\nOthers\n101\n98\n815\n1,418\n1,935\n2,455\n2,948\n3,436\n1.9\n1.2\n5.7\n8.6\n10.4\n11.8\n12.9\n13.7\n8.7\n11.7\n5.6\n3.4\n5.9\nMtoe\nShare, %\nAAGR (%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nTotal\n910\n1,377\n2,274\n2,440\n2,643\n2,884\n3,150\n3,412\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n3.7\n1.4\n1.7\n1.7\n1.6\nCoal\n643\n1,024\n1,764\n1,890\n2,038\n2,216\n2,403\n2,577\n70.7\n74.3\n77.6\n77.5\n77.1\n76.8\n76.3\n75.5\n4.1\n1.4\n1.6\n1.5\n1.5\nOil\n126\n112\n53\n41\n36\n30\n24\n21\n13.8\n8.1\n2.3\n1.7\n1.4\n1.1\n0.8\n0.6\n-3.4\n-5.2\n-2.8\n-3.5\n-3.5\nNatural gas\n141\n241\n457\n510\n569\n637\n722\n813\n15.5\n17.5\n20.1\n20.9\n21.5\n22.1\n22.9\n23.8\n4.8\n2.2\n2.3\n2.5\n2.3\nMt-C\nShare, %\nAAGR (%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nTotal\n2,762\n3,534\n5,660\n6,132\n6,604\n7,108\n7,621\n8,189\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n2.9\n1.6\n1.5\n1.4\n1.5\nCoal\n1,349\n1,719\n3,369\n3,577\n3,824\n4,096\n4,378\n4,673\n48.8\n48.6\n59.5\n58.3\n57.9\n57.6\n57.4\n57.1\n3.7\n1.2\n1.4\n1.3\n1.3\nOil\n1,033\n1,306\n1,514\n1,645\n1,751\n1,866\n1,987\n2,140\n37.4\n36.9\n26.7\n26.8\n26.5\n26.2\n26.1\n26.1\n1.5\n1.7\n1.3\n1.4\n1.4\nNatural gas\n380\n509\n776\n910\n1,029\n1,147\n1,257\n1,377\n13.8\n14.4\n13.7\n14.8\n15.6\n16.1\n16.5\n16.8\n2.9\n3.2\n2.3\n1.8\n2.3\n%\nAAGR (%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nTotal\n36.0\n36.3\n39.5\n40.4\n41.0\n41.7\n42.3\n42.8\n0.4\n0.4\n0.3\n0.3\n0.3\nCoal\n35.0\n35.1\n37.5\n38.1\n38.7\n39.2\n39.7\n40.1\n0.3\n0.4\n0.3\n0.2\n0.3\nOil\n38.7\n37.0\n36.3\n36.3\n36.1\n36.8\n38.0\n37.7\n-0.3\n0.0\n0.1\n0.3\n0.2\nNatural gas\n37.9\n41.2\n47.9\n49.2\n49.8\n50.6\n51.0\n51.3\n0.9\n0.5\n0.3\n0.1\n0.3\nMtoe\nShare, %\nAAGR (%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nTotal\n2,785\n3,453\n5,020\n5,565\n6,025\n6,479\n6,926\n7,410\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n2.4\n2.1\n1.5\n1.4\n1.6\nIndustry\n779\n957\n1,717\n1,865\n2,011\n2,165\n2,333\n2,529\n28.0\n27.7\n34.2\n33.5\n33.4\n33.4\n33.7\n34.1\n3.2\n1.7\n1.5\n1.6\n1.6\nTransportation\n681\n910\n1,275\n1,466\n1,596\n1,712\n1,817\n1,936\n24.5\n26.4\n25.4\n26.3\n26.5\n26.4\n26.2\n26.1\n2.5\n2.8\n1.6\n1.2\n1.7\nOthers\n1,093\n1,253\n1,557\n1,697\n1,825\n1,950\n2,068\n2,177\n39.3\n36.3\n31.0\n30.5\n30.3\n30.1\n29.9\n29.4\n1.4\n1.7\n1.4\n1.1\n1.3\nNon-energy\n231\n333\n471\n538\n593\n652\n708\n768\n8.3\n9.7\n9.4\n9.7\n9.8\n10.1\n10.2\n10.4\n2.9\n2.7\n1.9\n1.7\n2.0\nTotal\n2,785\n3,453\n5,020\n5,565\n6,025\n6,479\n6,926\n7,410\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n2.4\n2.1\n1.5\n1.4\n1.6\nCoal\n456\n393\n908\n963\n1,024\n1,083\n1,141\n1,218\n16.4\n11.4\n18.1\n17.3\n17.0\n16.7\n16.5\n16.4\n2.8\n1.2\n1.2\n1.2\n1.2\nOil\n1,132\n1,506\n1,894\n2,128\n2,295\n2,458\n2,605\n2,779\n40.7\n43.6\n37.7\n38.2\n38.1\n37.9\n37.6\n37.5\n2.1\n2.4\n1.5\n1.2\n1.5\nNatural gas\n351\n446\n581\n658\n733\n814\n893\n976\n12.6\n12.9\n11.6\n11.8\n12.2\n12.6\n12.9\n13.2\n2.0\n2.5\n2.1\n1.8\n2.1\nElectricity\n383\n574\n1,047\n1,206\n1,359\n1,524\n1,693\n1,858\n13.8\n16.6\n20.8\n21.7\n22.6\n23.5\n24.4\n25.1\n4.1\n2.9\n2.4\n2.0\n2.3\nHeat\n16\n35\n94\n101\n107\n113\n118\n122\n0.6\n1.0\n1.9\n1.8\n1.8\n1.7\n1.7\n1.6\n7.4\n1.6\n1.1\n0.7\n1.1\nOthers\n446\n499\n497\n509\n505\n487\n475\n458\n16.0\n14.5\n9.9\n9.2\n8.4\n7.5\n6.9\n6.2\n0.4\n0.5\n-0.5\n-0.6\n-0.3\nPrimary energy supply\nPower generation output\nPower generation input\nCO2 Emissions \nEnergy and economic indicators\nThermal efficiency\nFinal energy consumption\nEAS17 (BAU)\n\n\n351\nResults Summary Tables\nAAGR(%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nGDP (billions of 2010 US dollars)\n16,861\n23,941\n39,023\n46,477\n55,281\n65,971\n78,168\n91,534\n3.4\n3.6\n3.6\n3.3\n3.5\nPopulation (millions of people)\n2,881\n3,313\n3,839\n3,990\n4,117\n4,222\n4,303\n4,360\n1.2\n0.8\n0.6\n0.3\n0.5\nGDP per capita (thousands of 2010 US$/person)\n 5.85 \n 7.23 \n 10.17 \n 11.65 \n 13.4 \n 15.6 \n 18.2 \n 21.0 \n2.2\n2.8\n3.0\n3.0\n2.9\nPrimary energy consumption per capita (toe/person)\n 1.37 \n 1.52 \n 1.95 \n 2.02 \n 2.06 \n 2.10 \n 2.13 \n 2.18 \n1.4\n0.7\n0.4\n0.4\n0.4\nPrimary energy consumption per unit of GDP (toe/million \n2010 US dollars)\n 235 \n 211 \n 192 \n 174 \n 154 \n 134 \n 117 \n 104 \n-0.8\n-2.0\n-2.5\n-2.5\n-2.4\nFinal energy consumption per unit of GDP (toe/million 2010 \nUS dollars)\n 165 \n 144 \n 129 \n 117 \n 104 \n 92 \n 81 \n 72 \n-1.0\n-1.8\n-2.4\n-2.4\n-2.3\nCO2 emissions per unit of GDP (t-C/million 2010 US dollars)\n 164 \n 148 \n 145 \n 127 \n 108 \n 92 \n 78 \n 68 \n-0.5\n-2.7\n-3.1\n-3.0\n-3.0\nCO2 emissions per unit of primary energy consumption \n(t-C/toe)\n 0.70 \n 0.70 \n 0.76 \n 0.73 \n 0.70 \n 0.69 \n 0.67 \n 0.65 \n0.3\n-0.7\n-0.6\n-0.5\n-0.6\nMtoe\nShare, %\nAAGR (%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nTotal\n3,955\n5,049\n7,487\n8,072\n8,486\n8,857\n9,182\n9,512\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n2.6\n1.5\n0.9\n0.7\n1.0\nCoal\n1,230\n1,558\n3,103\n3,149\n3,138\n3,144\n3,115\n3,100\n31.1\n30.9\n41.4\n39.0\n37.0\n35.5\n33.9\n32.6\n3.8\n0.3\n0.0\n-0.1\n0.0\nOil\n1,361\n1,751\n2,082\n2,285\n2,372\n2,439\n2,492\n2,573\n34.4\n34.7\n27.8\n28.3\n27.9\n27.5\n27.1\n27.0\n1.7\n1.9\n0.7\n0.5\n0.9\nNatural gas\n557\n772\n1,155\n1,252\n1,343\n1,441\n1,531\n1,620\n14.1\n15.3\n15.4\n15.5\n15.8\n16.3\n16.7\n17.0\n3.0\n1.6\n1.4\n1.2\n1.4\nNuclear\n227\n329\n316\n416\n522\n603\n677\n752\n5.8\n6.5\n4.2\n5.2\n6.2\n6.8\n7.4\n7.9\n1.3\n5.6\n3.8\n2.2\n3.5\nHydro\n54\n63\n151\n175\n188\n201\n212\n222\n1.4\n1.2\n2.0\n2.2\n2.2\n2.3\n2.3\n2.3\n4.2\n2.9\n1.4\n1.0\n1.5\nGeothermal\n24\n38\n48\n72\n109\n144\n165\n166\n0.6\n0.8\n0.6\n0.9\n1.3\n1.6\n1.8\n1.7\n2.9\n8.3\n7.2\n1.5\n5.1\nOthers\n501\n537\n632\n724\n814\n886\n990\n1,078\n12.7\n10.6\n8.4\n9.0\n9.6\n10.0\n10.8\n11.3\n0.9\n2.8\n2.0\n2.0\n2.2\nBiomass\n497\n523\n498\n514\n509\n495\n497\n486\n12.6\n10.4\n6.7\n6.4\n6.0\n5.6\n5.4\n5.1\n0.0\n0.6\n-0.4\n-0.2\n-0.1\nSolar, Wind, \nOcean\n2\n4\n75\n139\n212\n282\n364\n445\n0.0\n0.1\n1.0\n1.7\n2.5\n3.2\n4.0\n4.7\n15.9\n13.0\n7.3\n4.7\n7.4\nBiofuels\n1\n7\n54\n68\n89\n104\n123\n142\n0.0\n0.1\n0.7\n0.8\n1.1\n1.2\n1.3\n1.5\n18.2\n4.8\n4.3\n3.2\n4.0\nElectricity\n0\n2\n5\n4\n5\n6\n7\n5\n0.0\n0.0\n0.1\n0.0\n0.1\n0.1\n0.1\n0.1\n10.1\n-5.1\n3.9\n-0.6\n0.2\nTWh\nShare, %\nAAGR (%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nTotal\n5,436\n7,948\n14,289\n16,176\n17,811\n19,498\n21,144\n22,709\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n3.9\n2.5\n1.9\n1.5\n1.9\nCoal\n2,618\n4,180\n7,681\n7,915\n7,947\n8,086\n8,111\n8,126\n48.2\n52.6\n53.8\n48.9\n44.6\n41.5\n38.4\n35.8\n4.4\n0.6\n0.2\n0.0\n0.2\nOil\n566\n482\n223\n196\n163\n134\n103\n89\n10.4\n6.1\n1.6\n1.2\n0.9\n0.7\n0.5\n0.4\n-3.7\n-2.6\n-3.7\n-4.0\n-3.6\nNatural gas\n621\n1,157\n2,546\n2,790\n3,013\n3,293\n3,561\n3,802\n11.4\n14.6\n17.8\n17.2\n16.9\n16.9\n16.8\n16.7\n5.8\n1.8\n1.7\n1.4\n1.6\nNuclear\n873\n1,262\n1,213\n1,596\n2,003\n2,314\n2,598\n2,885\n16.1\n15.9\n8.5\n9.9\n11.2\n11.9\n12.3\n12.7\n1.3\n5.6\n3.8\n2.2\n3.5\nHydro\n630\n731\n1,761\n2,034\n2,181\n2,332\n2,468\n2,586\n11.6\n9.2\n12.3\n12.6\n12.2\n12.0\n11.7\n11.4\n4.2\n2.9\n1.4\n1.0\n1.5\nGeothermal\n27\n37\n50\n75\n121\n154\n175\n185\n0.5\n0.5\n0.4\n0.5\n0.7\n0.8\n0.8\n0.8\n2.6\n8.3\n7.5\n1.8\n5.3\nOthers\n101\n98\n815\n1,569\n2,384\n3,183\n4,128\n5,036\n1.9\n1.2\n5.7\n9.7\n13.4\n16.3\n19.5\n22.2\n8.7\n14.0\n7.3\n4.7\n7.6\nMtoe\nShare, %\nAAGR (%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nTotal\n910\n1,377\n2,274\n2,300\n2,278\n2,285\n2,269\n2,260\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n3.7\n0.2\n-0.1\n-0.1\n0.0\nCoal\n643\n1,024\n1,764\n1,771\n1,731\n1,714\n1,675\n1,640\n70.7\n74.3\n77.6\n77.0\n76.0\n75.0\n73.8\n72.6\n4.1\n0.1\n-0.3\n-0.4\n-0.3\nOil\n126\n112\n53\n47\n39\n32\n24\n21\n13.8\n8.1\n2.3\n2.1\n1.7\n1.4\n1.0\n0.9\n-3.4\n-2.1\n-3.9\n-4.2\n-3.7\nNatural gas\n141\n241\n457\n481\n508\n540\n570\n599\n15.5\n17.5\n20.1\n20.9\n22.3\n23.6\n25.1\n26.5\n4.8\n1.0\n1.2\n1.1\n1.1\nMt-C\nShare, %\nAAGR (%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nTotal\n2,762\n3,534\n5,660\n5,884\n5,963\n6,067\n6,118\n6,207\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n2.9\n0.8\n0.3\n0.2\n0.4\nCoal\n1,349\n1,719\n3,369\n3,406\n3,388\n3,401\n3,379\n3,365\n48.8\n48.6\n59.5\n57.9\n56.8\n56.1\n55.2\n54.2\n3.7\n0.2\n0.0\n-0.1\n0.0\nOil\n1,033\n1,306\n1,514\n1,615\n1,644\n1,672\n1,695\n1,748\n37.4\n36.9\n26.8\n27.5\n27.6\n27.6\n27.7\n28.2\n1.5\n1.3\n0.3\n0.4\n0.6\nNatural gas\n380\n509\n776\n863\n931\n995\n1,044\n1,094\n13.8\n14.4\n13.7\n14.7\n15.6\n16.4\n17.1\n17.6\n2.9\n2.1\n1.4\n1.0\n1.4\n%\nAAGR (%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nTotal\n36.0\n36.3\n39.5\n40.8\n42.0\n43.3\n44.6\n45.7\n0.4\n0.6\n0.6\n0.5\n0.6\nCoal\n35.0\n35.1\n37.5\n38.4\n39.5\n40.6\n41.6\n42.6\n0.3\n0.5\n0.5\n0.5\n0.5\nOil\n38.7\n37.0\n36.3\n35.5\n35.8\n36.4\n37.5\n37.2\n-0.3\n-0.4\n0.3\n0.2\n0.1\nNatural gas\n37.9\n41.2\n47.9\n49.9\n51.0\n52.5\n53.7\n54.6\n0.9\n0.8\n0.5\n0.4\n0.5\nMtoe\nShare, %\nAAGR (%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nTotal\n2,785\n3,453\n5,020\n5,457\n5,775\n6,058\n6,324\n6,615\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n2.4\n1.7\n1.1\n0.9\n1.1\nIndustry\n779\n957\n1,717\n1,821\n1,922\n2,024\n2,127\n2,240\n28.0\n27.7\n34.2\n33.4\n33.3\n33.4\n33.6\n33.9\n3.2\n1.2\n1.1\n1.0\n1.1\nTransportation\n681\n910\n1,275\n1,427\n1,504\n1,552\n1,594\n1,653\n24.5\n26.4\n25.4\n26.2\n26.0\n25.6\n25.2\n25.0\n2.5\n2.3\n0.8\n0.6\n1.0\nOthers\n1,093\n1,253\n1,557\n1,670\n1,756\n1,830\n1,896\n1,954\n39.3\n36.3\n31.0\n30.6\n30.4\n30.2\n30.0\n29.5\n1.4\n1.4\n0.9\n0.7\n0.9\nNon-energy\n231\n333\n471\n538\n593\n652\n708\n768\n8.3\n9.7\n9.4\n9.9\n10.3\n10.8\n11.2\n11.6\n2.9\n2.7\n1.9\n1.7\n2.0\nTotal\n2,785\n3,453\n5,020\n5,457\n5,775\n6,058\n6,324\n6,615\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n2.4\n1.7\n1.1\n0.9\n1.1\nCoal\n456\n393\n908\n947\n991\n1,029\n1,060\n1,102\n16.4\n11.4\n18.1\n17.3\n17.2\n17.0\n16.8\n16.7\n2.8\n0.8\n0.8\n0.7\n0.8\nOil\n1,132\n1,506\n1,894\n2,087\n2,180\n2,252\n2,311\n2,391\n40.7\n43.6\n37.7\n38.2\n37.8\n37.2\n36.5\n36.1\n2.1\n2.0\n0.8\n0.6\n0.9\nNatural gas\n351\n446\n581\n645\n703\n761\n816\n871\n12.6\n12.9\n11.6\n11.8\n12.2\n12.6\n12.9\n13.2\n2.0\n2.1\n1.7\n1.4\n1.6\nElectricity\n383\n574\n1,047\n1,182\n1,304\n1,433\n1,563\n1,688\n13.8\n16.6\n20.8\n21.7\n22.6\n23.7\n24.7\n25.5\n4.1\n2.5\n1.9\n1.7\n1.9\nHeat\n16\n35\n94\n99\n102\n106\n108\n108\n0.6\n1.0\n1.9\n1.8\n1.8\n1.7\n1.7\n1.6\n7.4\n1.1\n0.7\n0.2\n0.6\nOthers\n446\n499\n497\n497\n495\n478\n466\n455\n16.0\n14.5\n9.9\n9.1\n8.6\n7.9\n7.4\n6.9\n0.4\n0.0\n-0.4\n-0.5\n-0.3\nPrimary energy supply\nPower generation output\nPower generation input\nCO2 Emissions \nEnergy and economic indicators\nThermal efficiency\nFinal energy consumption\nEAS17 (APS)\n\n\n352\nENERGY OUTLOOK AND ENERGY SAVING POTENTIAL IN EAST ASIA 2019\nAAGR(%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nGDP (billions of 2010 US dollars)\n636\n881\n1,355\n1,561\n1,782\n2,016\n2,260\n2,510\n3.1\n2.9\n2.6\n2.2\n2.5\nPopulation (millions of people)\n17\n19\n24\n25\n27\n28\n30\n31\n1.3\n1.3\n1.1\n0.9\n1.0\nGDP per capita (thousands of 2010 US$/person)\n 37.30 \n 46.01 \n 56.95 \n 61.49 \n 66.4 \n 71.4 \n 76.6 \n 81.6 \n1.7\n1.5\n1.5\n1.3\n1.4\nPrimary energy consumption per capita (toe/person)\n 5.06 \n 5.38 \n 5.27 \n 5.07 \n 4.97 \n 4.84 \n 4.70 \n 4.55 \n0.2\n-0.8\n-0.5\n-0.6\n-0.6\nPrimary energy consumption per unit of GDP (toe/million \n2010 US dollars)\n 136 \n 117 \n 92 \n 82 \n 75 \n 68 \n 61 \n 56 \n-1.5\n-2.3\n-1.9\n-1.9\n-2.0\nFinal energy consumption per unit of GDP (toe/million 2010 \nUS dollars)\n 89 \n 79 \n 60 \n 54 \n 49 \n 44 \n 41 \n 37 \n-1.6\n-2.1\n-1.9\n-1.7\n-1.9\nCO2 emissions per unit of GDP (t-C/million 2010 US dollars)\n 110 \n 95 \n 73 \n 63 \n 57 \n 51 \n 45 \n 40 \n-1.6\n-2.7\n-2.3\n-2.3\n-2.4\nCO2 emissions per unit of primary energy consumption \n(t-C/toe)\n 0.81 \n 0.81 \n 0.79 \n 0.77 \n 0.76 \n 0.75 \n 0.73 \n 0.72 \n-0.1\n-0.5\n-0.3\n-0.4\n-0.4\nAutomobile ownership volume (millions of vehicles)\n 10 \n 12 \n 17 \n 19 \n 20 \n 22 \n 23 \n 24 \n2.3\n1.7\n1.4\n1.2\n1.4\nAutomobile ownership volume per capita (vehicles per \nperson)\n 0.573 \n 0.642 \n 0.721 \n 0.734 \n 0.748 \n 0.762 \n 0.776 \n 0.789 \n0.9\n0.4\n0.4\n0.3\n0.4\nMtoe\nShare, %\nAAGR (%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nTotal\n86.4\n103.1\n125.3\n128.7\n133.5\n136.7\n138.7\n140.1\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n1.5\n0.5\n0.6\n0.2\n0.4\nCoal\n35.1\n43.1\n42.9\n41.0\n40.7\n39.5\n37.6\n35.4\n40.7\n41.8\n34.2\n31.8\n30.5\n28.9\n27.1\n25.3\n0.8\n-0.9\n-0.4\n-1.1\n-0.8\nOil\n31.2\n34.2\n41.9\n42.6\n42.8\n42.8\n42.7\n42.3\n36.1\n33.1\n33.4\n33.1\n32.1\n31.4\n30.8\n30.2\n1.2\n0.4\n0.0\n-0.1\n0.0\nNatural gas\n14.8\n19.3\n32.2\n35.1\n38.8\n41.8\n44.5\n46.9\n17.1\n18.7\n25.7\n27.2\n29.0\n30.6\n32.1\n33.5\n3.2\n1.7\n1.8\n1.1\n1.5\nNuclear\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\nHydro\n1.2\n1.4\n1.1\n1.5\n1.5\n1.5\n1.5\n1.5\n1.4\n1.4\n0.9\n1.2\n1.1\n1.1\n1.1\n1.1\n-0.2\n5.8\n0.0\n0.0\n1.1\nGeothermal\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n-\n111.9\n1.1\n1.0\n17.2\nOthers\n4.0\n5.1\n7.1\n8.5\n9.7\n11.0\n12.4\n13.8\n4.7\n5.0\n5.7\n6.6\n7.3\n8.0\n9.0\n9.9\n2.3\n3.5\n2.6\n2.4\n2.7\nBiomass\n4.0\n4.9\n4.6\n4.8\n4.9\n5.0\n5.1\n5.1\n4.6\n4.7\n3.7\n3.7\n3.7\n3.7\n3.7\n3.7\n0.6\n0.9\n0.4\n0.2\n0.4\nSolar, Wind, \nOcean\n0.1\n0.1\n1.9\n2.9\n4.0\n5.1\n6.4\n7.8\n0.1\n0.1\n1.5\n2.3\n3.0\n3.7\n4.6\n5.6\n13.3\n9.5\n5.7\n4.4\n5.9\nBiofuels\n0.0\n0.1\n0.7\n0.8\n0.8\n0.9\n0.9\n0.9\n0.0\n0.1\n0.6\n0.6\n0.6\n0.6\n0.6\n0.7\n-\n1.9\n1.0\n0.9\n1.1\nElectricity\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\nTWh\nShare, %\nAAGR (%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nTotal\n154.3\n209.9\n252.3\n274.9\n299.7\n325.1\n350.0\n373.7\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n2.0\n1.7\n1.7\n1.4\n1.6\nCoal\n121.5\n174.2\n158.6\n154.1\n153.2\n151.8\n147.3\n141.4\n78.7\n83.0\n62.9\n56.0\n51.1\n46.7\n42.1\n37.8\n1.1\n-0.6\n-0.1\n-0.7\n-0.5\nOil\n3.6\n1.8\n6.8\n6.7\n6.8\n6.8\n6.7\n6.6\n2.3\n0.9\n2.7\n2.4\n2.3\n2.1\n1.9\n1.8\n2.6\n-0.3\n0.2\n-0.3\n-0.1\nNatural gas\n14.4\n16.2\n52.5\n63.0\n76.1\n90.5\n104.4\n118.6\n9.3\n7.7\n20.8\n22.9\n25.4\n27.8\n29.8\n31.7\n5.3\n3.7\n3.7\n2.7\n3.3\nNuclear\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\nHydro\n14.1\n16.4\n13.4\n17.7\n17.7\n17.7\n17.7\n17.7\n9.2\n7.8\n5.3\n6.4\n5.9\n5.4\n5.1\n4.7\n-0.2\n5.8\n0.0\n0.0\n1.1\nGeothermal\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.1\n0.1\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n-\n111.9\n1.1\n1.0\n17.2\nOthers\n0.8\n1.2\n21.0\n33.4\n45.8\n58.2\n73.8\n89.4\n0.5\n0.6\n8.3\n12.2\n15.3\n17.9\n21.1\n23.9\n14.3\n9.7\n5.7\n4.4\n6.0\nMtoe\nShare, %\nAAGR (%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nTotal\n33.3\n45.8\n52.0\n52.2\n54.8\n56.0\n56.2\n56.0\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n1.8\n0.1\n0.7\n0.0\n0.3\nCoal\n28.9\n41.2\n38.8\n36.9\n36.7\n35.6\n33.9\n31.9\n86.8\n90.0\n74.5\n70.8\n66.9\n63.6\n60.3\n56.9\n1.2\n-1.0\n-0.4\n-1.1\n-0.8\nOil\n0.9\n0.5\n1.4\n1.5\n1.6\n1.6\n1.6\n1.6\n2.8\n1.1\n2.6\n2.9\n2.8\n2.8\n2.8\n2.8\n1.5\n2.4\n0.3\n-0.1\n0.5\nNatural gas\n3.5\n4.1\n11.9\n13.7\n16.6\n18.8\n20.7\n22.6\n10.4\n8.9\n22.9\n26.3\n30.2\n33.5\n36.9\n40.3\n5.0\n2.9\n3.2\n1.8\n2.6\nMt-C\nShare, %\nAAGR (%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nTotal\n70.3\n83.9\n98.8\n99.1\n101.2\n101.9\n101.3\n100.3\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n1.4\n0.1\n0.3\n-0.2\n0.1\nCoal\n37.9\n46.6\n46.3\n44.3\n43.9\n42.6\n40.6\n38.3\n54.0\n55.5\n46.9\n44.7\n43.4\n41.8\n40.0\n38.2\n0.8\n-0.9\n-0.4\n-1.1\n-0.8\nOil\n23.2\n25.2\n32.3\n32.9\n33.0\n33.0\n32.9\n32.6\n33.0\n30.0\n32.7\n33.2\n32.6\n32.4\n32.4\n32.5\n1.3\n0.4\n0.0\n-0.1\n0.0\nNatural gas\n9.2\n12.1\n20.1\n21.9\n24.3\n26.2\n27.9\n29.4\n13.1\n14.5\n20.4\n22.1\n24.0\n25.7\n27.5\n29.3\n3.2\n1.7\n1.8\n1.2\n1.5\n%\nAAGR (%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nTotal\n36.0\n36.1\n36.0\n36.9\n37.0\n38.3\n39.6\n40.9\n0.0\n0.5\n0.4\n0.7\n0.5\nCoal\n36.1\n36.4\n35.2\n35.9\n35.9\n36.7\n37.4\n38.1\n-0.1\n0.4\n0.2\n0.4\n0.3\nOil\n32.3\n29.2\n42.9\n37.5\n37.2\n36.9\n36.6\n36.3\n1.1\n-2.7\n-0.1\n-0.2\n-0.7\nNatural gas\n35.6\n34.4\n38.0\n39.5\n39.5\n41.4\n43.3\n45.2\n0.3\n0.8\n0.5\n0.9\n0.7\nMtoe\nShare, %\nAAGR (%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nTotal\n56.7\n69.6\n81.3\n84.4\n87.1\n89.7\n92.0\n94.1\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n1.5\n0.8\n0.6\n0.5\n0.6\nIndustry\n19.3\n23.8\n24.0\n25.1\n25.8\n26.5\n27.0\n27.5\n34.1\n34.2\n29.5\n29.7\n29.6\n29.5\n29.4\n29.2\n0.9\n0.9\n0.6\n0.4\n0.5\nTransportation\n21.1\n25.7\n32.5\n33.0\n33.1\n33.3\n33.4\n33.5\n37.3\n36.9\n40.0\n39.1\n38.1\n37.1\n36.3\n35.6\n1.7\n0.3\n0.1\n0.1\n0.1\nOthers\n12.3\n15.7\n20.7\n22.2\n23.9\n25.6\n27.2\n28.7\n21.7\n22.6\n25.5\n26.3\n27.5\n28.6\n29.6\n30.5\n2.1\n1.4\n1.4\n1.1\n1.3\nNon-energy\n4.0\n4.4\n4.1\n4.2\n4.2\n4.3\n4.4\n4.4\n7.0\n6.4\n5.0\n4.9\n4.9\n4.8\n4.7\n4.7\n0.1\n0.5\n0.3\n0.2\n0.3\nTotal\n56.7\n69.6\n81.3\n84.4\n87.1\n89.7\n92.0\n94.1\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n1.5\n0.8\n0.6\n0.5\n0.6\nCoal\n4.6\n4.2\n2.3\n2.3\n2.2\n2.1\n2.0\n1.9\n8.0\n6.0\n2.9\n2.7\n2.5\n2.3\n2.1\n2.0\n-2.6\n-0.5\n-0.9\n-1.2\n-0.9\nOil\n29.0\n34.7\n42.6\n43.2\n43.4\n43.5\n43.4\n43.2\n51.2\n49.9\n52.4\n51.2\n49.8\n48.5\n47.2\n46.0\n1.5\n0.3\n0.1\n-0.1\n0.1\nNatural gas\n8.7\n11.4\n13.5\n14.2\n14.7\n15.3\n15.7\n16.1\n15.3\n16.4\n16.6\n16.8\n16.9\n17.0\n17.1\n17.1\n1.8\n1.0\n0.8\n0.5\n0.7\nElectricity\n11.1\n14.9\n18.2\n19.8\n21.7\n23.6\n25.6\n27.5\n19.6\n21.4\n22.4\n23.5\n24.9\n26.3\n27.8\n29.2\n2.0\n1.8\n1.8\n1.5\n1.7\nHeat\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\nOthers\n3.3\n4.4\n4.7\n4.9\n5.1\n5.2\n5.3\n5.4\n5.9\n6.4\n5.8\n5.9\n5.8\n5.8\n5.8\n5.7\n1.4\n1.0\n0.6\n0.3\n0.6\nPrimary energy consumption\nPower generation output\nPower generation input\nCO2 Emissions \nEnergy and economic indicators\nThermal efficiency\nFinal energy demand\nAustralia (BAU)\n\n\n353\nResults Summary Tables\nAAGR(%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nGDP (billions of 2010 US dollars)\n636\n881\n1,355\n1,561\n1,782\n2,016\n2,260\n2,510\n3.1\n2.9\n2.6\n2.2\n2.5\nPopulation (millions of people)\n17\n19\n24\n25\n27\n28\n30\n31\n1.3\n1.3\n1.1\n0.9\n1.0\nGDP per capita (thousands of 2010 US$/person)\n 37.30 \n 46.01 \n 56.95 \n 61.49 \n 66.4 \n 71.4 \n 76.6 \n 81.6 \n1.7\n1.5\n1.5\n1.3\n1.4\nPrimary energy consumption per capita (toe/person)\n 5.06 \n 5.38 \n 5.27 \n 4.94 \n 4.66 \n 4.40 \n 4.14 \n 3.90 \n0.2\n-1.3\n-1.2\n-1.2\n-1.2\nPrimary energy consumption per unit of GDP (toe/million \n2010 US dollars)\n 136 \n 117 \n 92 \n 80 \n 70 \n 62 \n 54 \n 48 \n-1.5\n-2.8\n-2.6\n-2.5\n-2.6\nFinal energy consumption per unit of GDP (toe/million 2010 \nUS dollars)\n 89 \n 79 \n 60 \n 54 \n 47 \n 42 \n 38 \n 34 \n-1.6\n-2.3\n-2.4\n-2.2\n-2.3\nCO2 emissions per unit of GDP (t-C/million 2010 US dollars)\n 110 \n 95 \n 73 \n 61 \n 52 \n 44 \n 37 \n 32 \n-1.6\n-3.5\n-3.2\n-3.2\n-3.3\nCO2 emissions per unit of primary energy consumption \n(t-C/toe)\n 0.81 \n 0.81 \n 0.79 \n 0.76 \n 0.74 \n 0.72 \n 0.69 \n 0.67 \n-0.1\n-0.7\n-0.6\n-0.7\n-0.7\nAutomobile ownership volume (millions of vehicles)\n 10 \n 12 \n 17 \n 19 \n 20 \n 22 \n 23 \n 24 \n2.3\n1.7\n1.4\n1.2\n1.4\nAutomobile ownership volume per capita (vehicles per \nperson)\n 0.573 \n 0.642 \n 0.721 \n 0.734 \n 0.748 \n 0.762 \n 0.776 \n 0.789 \n0.9\n0.4\n0.4\n0.3\n0.4\nMtoe\nShare, %\nAAGR (%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nTotal\n86.4\n103.1\n125.3\n125.5\n125.0\n124.1\n122.3\n119.9\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n1.5\n0.0\n-0.1\n-0.3\n-0.2\nCoal\n35.1\n43.1\n42.9\n38.8\n35.9\n33.2\n30.2\n27.2\n40.7\n41.8\n34.2\n30.9\n28.7\n26.7\n24.7\n22.7\n0.8\n-2.0\n-1.6\n-2.0\n-1.8\nOil\n31.2\n34.2\n41.9\n41.8\n40.7\n39.1\n37.2\n35.2\n36.1\n33.1\n33.4\n33.3\n32.6\n31.5\n30.4\n29.4\n1.2\n0.0\n-0.7\n-1.0\n-0.7\nNatural gas\n14.8\n19.3\n32.2\n33.9\n35.4\n36.9\n37.9\n38.5\n17.1\n18.7\n25.7\n27.0\n28.3\n29.7\n31.0\n32.1\n3.2\n1.0\n0.8\n0.4\n0.7\nNuclear\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\nHydro\n1.2\n1.4\n1.1\n1.5\n1.5\n1.5\n1.5\n1.5\n1.4\n1.4\n0.9\n1.2\n1.2\n1.2\n1.2\n1.3\n-0.2\n5.8\n0.0\n0.0\n1.1\nGeothermal\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n-\n112.6\n3.0\n1.1\n18.2\nOthers\n4.0\n5.1\n7.1\n9.4\n11.4\n13.4\n15.5\n17.5\n4.7\n5.0\n5.7\n7.5\n9.1\n10.8\n12.7\n14.6\n2.3\n5.6\n3.6\n2.7\n3.7\nBiomass\n4.0\n4.9\n4.6\n4.9\n5.0\n5.0\n5.0\n5.0\n4.6\n4.7\n3.7\n3.9\n4.0\n4.0\n4.1\n4.1\n0.6\n1.2\n0.2\n-0.1\n0.3\nSolar, Wind, \nOcean\n0.1\n0.1\n1.9\n3.5\n5.1\n6.7\n8.5\n10.3\n0.1\n0.1\n1.5\n2.8\n4.1\n5.4\n7.0\n8.6\n13.3\n13.5\n6.8\n4.3\n7.1\nBiofuels\n0.0\n0.1\n0.7\n1.0\n1.3\n1.6\n2.0\n2.3\n0.0\n0.1\n0.6\n0.8\n1.1\n1.3\n1.6\n1.9\n-\n7.6\n4.8\n3.5\n4.8\nElectricity\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\nTWh\nShare, %\nAAGR (%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nTotal\n154.3\n209.9\n252.3\n272.0\n292.6\n313.5\n333.7\n352.2\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n2.0\n1.5\n1.4\n1.2\n1.3\nCoal\n121.5\n174.2\n158.6\n146.8\n139.3\n131.9\n122.9\n113.0\n78.7\n83.0\n62.9\n54.0\n47.6\n42.1\n36.8\n32.1\n1.1\n-1.5\n-1.1\n-1.5\n-1.3\nOil\n3.6\n1.8\n6.8\n6.4\n6.1\n5.9\n5.6\n5.3\n2.3\n0.9\n2.7\n2.3\n2.1\n1.9\n1.7\n1.5\n2.6\n-1.3\n-0.7\n-1.1\n-1.0\nNatural gas\n14.4\n16.2\n52.5\n60.0\n69.2\n78.6\n87.1\n94.8\n9.3\n7.7\n20.8\n22.1\n23.7\n25.1\n26.1\n26.9\n5.3\n2.7\n2.7\n1.9\n2.4\nNuclear\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\nHydro\n14.1\n16.4\n13.4\n17.7\n17.7\n17.7\n17.7\n17.7\n9.2\n7.8\n5.3\n6.5\n6.0\n5.6\n5.3\n5.0\n-0.2\n5.8\n0.0\n0.0\n1.1\nGeothermal\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.1\n0.1\n0.1\n0.1\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n-\n112.6\n3.0\n1.1\n18.2\nOthers\n0.8\n1.2\n21.0\n41.1\n60.2\n79.2\n100.3\n121.4\n0.5\n0.6\n8.3\n15.1\n20.6\n25.3\n30.1\n34.5\n14.3\n14.3\n6.8\n4.4\n7.3\nMtoe\nShare, %\nAAGR (%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nTotal\n33.3\n45.8\n52.0\n49.1\n47.7\n46.3\n44.4\n42.3\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n1.8\n-1.2\n-0.6\n-0.9\n-0.8\nCoal\n28.9\n41.2\n38.8\n34.9\n32.2\n29.7\n27.0\n24.2\n86.8\n90.0\n74.5\n71.1\n67.6\n64.1\n60.7\n57.2\n1.2\n-2.1\n-1.6\n-2.0\n-1.9\nOil\n0.9\n0.5\n1.4\n1.3\n1.2\n1.2\n1.1\n1.1\n2.8\n1.1\n2.6\n2.6\n2.6\n2.6\n2.5\n2.5\n1.5\n-1.3\n-0.7\n-1.1\n-1.0\nNatural gas\n3.5\n4.1\n11.9\n12.9\n14.2\n15.4\n16.3\n17.0\n10.4\n8.9\n22.9\n26.3\n29.8\n33.3\n36.8\n40.3\n5.0\n1.7\n1.8\n1.0\n1.5\nMt-C\nShare, %\nAAGR (%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nTotal\n70.3\n83.9\n98.8\n95.4\n92.2\n88.8\n84.6\n80.0\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n1.4\n-0.7\n-0.7\n-1.0\n-0.8\nCoal\n37.9\n46.6\n46.3\n41.9\n38.8\n35.8\n32.6\n29.3\n54.0\n55.5\n46.9\n44.0\n42.1\n40.4\n38.6\n36.7\n0.8\n-2.0\n-1.6\n-2.0\n-1.8\nOil\n23.2\n25.2\n32.3\n32.3\n31.3\n29.9\n28.3\n26.6\n33.0\n30.0\n32.7\n33.8\n33.9\n33.7\n33.4\n33.3\n1.3\n-0.1\n-0.8\n-1.1\n-0.8\nNatural gas\n9.2\n12.1\n20.1\n21.2\n22.1\n23.0\n23.6\n24.0\n13.1\n14.5\n20.4\n22.2\n24.0\n25.9\n28.0\n30.0\n3.2\n1.0\n0.8\n0.4\n0.7\n%\nAAGR (%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nTotal\n36.0\n36.1\n36.0\n37.4\n38.7\n40.2\n41.7\n43.3\n0.0\n0.7\n0.7\n0.8\n0.7\nCoal\n36.1\n36.4\n35.2\n36.2\n37.2\n38.2\n39.2\n40.2\n-0.1\n0.6\n0.5\n0.5\n0.5\nOil\n32.3\n29.2\n42.9\n42.9\n42.9\n42.9\n42.9\n42.9\n1.1\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\nNatural gas\n35.6\n34.4\n38.0\n39.9\n41.9\n43.9\n45.8\n47.8\n0.3\n1.0\n0.9\n0.9\n0.9\nMtoe\nShare, %\nAAGR (%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nTotal\n56.7\n69.6\n81.3\n83.6\n84.6\n85.0\n84.8\n84.5\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n1.5\n0.6\n0.2\n-0.1\n0.2\nIndustry\n19.3\n23.8\n24.0\n24.9\n25.3\n25.6\n25.7\n25.5\n34.1\n34.2\n29.5\n29.8\n30.0\n30.2\n30.3\n30.2\n0.9\n0.7\n0.3\n-0.1\n0.2\nTransportation\n21.1\n25.7\n32.5\n32.7\n32.0\n31.0\n29.9\n29.0\n37.3\n36.9\n40.0\n39.1\n37.8\n36.5\n35.3\n34.3\n1.7\n0.1\n-0.5\n-0.7\n-0.5\nOthers\n12.3\n15.7\n20.7\n21.8\n23.0\n24.0\n24.9\n25.6\n21.7\n22.6\n25.5\n26.1\n27.2\n28.3\n29.4\n30.3\n2.1\n1.1\n1.0\n0.6\n0.9\nNon-energy\n4.0\n4.4\n4.1\n4.2\n4.2\n4.3\n4.4\n4.4\n7.0\n6.4\n5.0\n5.0\n5.0\n5.1\n5.1\n5.2\n0.1\n0.5\n0.3\n0.2\n0.3\nTotal\n56.7\n69.6\n81.3\n83.6\n84.6\n85.0\n84.8\n84.5\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n1.5\n0.6\n0.2\n-0.1\n0.2\nCoal\n4.6\n4.2\n2.3\n2.3\n2.1\n2.0\n1.9\n1.7\n8.0\n6.0\n2.9\n2.7\n2.5\n2.4\n2.2\n2.0\n-2.6\n-0.6\n-1.2\n-1.7\n-1.3\nOil\n29.0\n34.7\n42.6\n42.6\n41.6\n39.9\n38.1\n36.2\n51.2\n49.9\n52.4\n51.0\n49.1\n47.0\n44.9\n42.8\n1.5\n0.0\n-0.7\n-1.0\n-0.6\nNatural gas\n8.7\n11.4\n13.5\n14.0\n14.4\n14.6\n14.7\n14.7\n15.3\n16.4\n16.6\n16.8\n17.0\n17.2\n17.3\n17.4\n1.8\n0.8\n0.4\n0.0\n0.3\nElectricity\n11.1\n14.9\n18.2\n19.6\n21.2\n22.8\n24.4\n25.9\n19.6\n21.4\n22.4\n23.5\n25.0\n26.8\n28.7\n30.6\n2.0\n1.5\n1.5\n1.3\n1.4\nHeat\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\nOthers\n3.3\n4.4\n4.7\n5.0\n5.4\n5.6\n5.9\n6.0\n5.9\n6.4\n5.8\n6.0\n6.3\n6.6\n6.9\n7.2\n1.4\n1.4\n1.1\n0.7\n1.0\nPrimary energy consumption\nPower generation output\nPower generation input\nCO2 Emissions \nEnergy and economic indicators\nThermal efficiency\nFinal energy demand\nAustralia (APS)\n\n\n354\nENERGY OUTLOOK AND ENERGY SAVING POTENTIAL IN EAST ASIA 2019\nAAGR(%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nGDP (billions of 2010 US dollars)\n6.9\n8.6\n13.9\n17.6\n25.5\n36.4\n51.8\n54.5\n2.8\n4.9\n7.5\n4.1\n5.6\nPopulation (millions of people)\n0.3\n0.3\n0.4\n0.5\n0.5\n0.6\n0.6\n0.7\n1.3\n2.1\n2.3\n2.3\n2.3\nGDP per capita (thousands of 2010 US$/person)\n 23.0 \n 28.7 \n 33.3 \n 38.09 \n 49.3 \n 62.7 \n 79.7 \n 74.9 \n1.5\n2.7\n5.1\n1.8\n3.3\nPrimary energy consumption per capita (toe/person)\n 5.7 \n 8.0 \n 7.8 \n 13.35 \n 14.13 \n 13.79 \n 13.86 \n 12.90 \n1.3\n11.3\n0.3\n-0.7\n2.0\nPrimary energy consumption per unit of GDP (toe/million \n2010 US dollars)\n 246 \n 279 \n 235 \n 350 \n 287 \n 220 \n 174 \n 172 \n-0.2\n8.4\n-4.5\n-2.4\n-1.2\nFinal energy consumption per unit of GDP (toe/million 2010 \nUS dollars)\n 52 \n 65 \n 58 \n 179 \n 143 \n 111 \n 89 \n 88 \n0.4\n25.3\n-4.6\n-2.4\n1.7\nCO2 emissions per unit of GDP (t-C/million 2010 US dollars)\n 130 \n 163 \n 480 \n 535 \n 427 \n 346 \n 291 \n 293 \n5.4\n2.2\n-4.3\n-1.7\n-2.0\nCO2 emissions per unit of primary energy consumption \n(t-C/toe)\n 0.5 \n 0.6 \n 2.0 \n 1.53 \n 1.49 \n 1.57 \n 1.67 \n 1.70 \n5.6\n-5.7\n0.3\n0.8\n-0.7\nAutomobile ownership volume (millions of vehicles)\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\nAutomobile ownership volume per capita (vehicles per \nperson)\n - \n - \n - \n - \n - \n - \n - \n - \n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\nMtoe\nShare, %\nAAGR (%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nTotal\n1.70\n2.40\n3.26\n6.18\n7.32\n8.00\n9.01\n9.39\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n2.6\n13.7\n2.6\n1.6\n4.3\nCoal\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.16\n0.70\n0.70\n0.70\n0.70\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n2.6\n9.5\n8.7\n7.7\n7.4\n-\n-\n15.8\n0.0\n-\nOil\n0.00\n0.50\n0.19\n0.97\n1.16\n1.43\n1.83\n1.84\n0.0\n20.8\n5.7\n15.8\n15.8\n17.9\n20.4\n19.6\n-\n39.2\n3.9\n2.5\n9.6\nNatural gas\n1.70\n1.90\n3.07\n5.04\n5.47\n5.87\n6.48\n6.86\n100.0\n79.2\n94.3\n81.6\n74.7\n73.4\n71.9\n73.0\n2.4\n10.4\n1.5\n1.6\n3.3\nNuclear\n0.00\n0.00\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\nHydro\n0.00\n0.00\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\nGeothermal\n0.00\n0.00\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\nOthers\n0.00\n0.00\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\nBiomass\n0.00\n0.00\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\nSolar, Wind, \nOcean\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n-\n10.2\n0.0\n0.0\n2.0\nBiofuels\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\nElectricity\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\nTWh\nShare, %\nAAGR (%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nTotal\n1.17\n2.54\n3.78\n5.83\n10.98\n12.93\n15.94\n17.74\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n4.8\n9.1\n8.3\n3.2\n6.4\nCoal\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.84\n3.64\n3.64\n3.64\n3.64\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n14.4\n33.2\n28.2\n22.9\n20.5\n-\n-\n15.8\n0.0\n-\nOil\n0.01\n0.02\n0.04\n0.03\n0.03\n0.03\n0.03\n0.03\n0.9\n0.8\n1.0\n0.5\n0.2\n0.2\n0.2\n0.2\n5.5\n-5.9\n-0.6\n0.6\n-1.2\nNatural gas\n1.16\n2.52\n3.74\n4.96\n7.31\n9.26\n12.26\n14.06\n99.1\n99.2\n99.0\n85.1\n66.6\n71.6\n77.0\n79.3\n4.8\n5.8\n6.4\n4.3\n5.4\nNuclear\n0.00\n0.00\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\nHydro\n0.00\n0.00\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\nGeothermal\n0.00\n0.00\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\nOthers\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n-\n10.2\n0.0\n0.0\n2.0\nMtoe\nShare, %\nAAGR (%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nTotal\n0.46\n0.87\n1.23\n1.68\n2.63\n3.01\n3.59\n3.96\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n4.0\n6.5\n6.0\n2.8\n4.8\nCoal\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.16\n0.70\n0.70\n0.70\n0.70\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n9.5\n26.5\n23.1\n19.4\n17.6\n-\n-\n15.8\n0.0\n-\nOil\n0.00\n0.01\n0.01\n0.01\n0.01\n0.01\n0.01\n0.01\n0.0\n1.1\n0.9\n0.5\n0.3\n0.3\n0.2\n0.2\n-\n-5.9\n-0.6\n0.6\n-1.2\nNatural gas\n0.46\n0.86\n1.22\n1.51\n1.92\n2.31\n2.89\n3.26\n100.0\n98.9\n99.1\n90.0\n73.2\n76.7\n80.4\n82.2\n4.0\n4.5\n4.3\n3.5\n4.0\nMt-C\nShare, %\nAAGR (%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nTotal\n0.9\n1.4\n6.7\n9.4\n10.9\n12.6\n15.0\n16.0\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n8.3\n7.2\n2.9\n2.4\n3.6\nCoal\n0.0\n0.6\n0.6\n0.6\n0.6\n0.6\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n6.9\n5.9\n5.1\n4.3\n4.1\n-\n-\n0.0\n0.0\n-\nOil\n0.2\n0.5\n1.6\n3.0\n3.5\n4.3\n5.3\n5.3\n22.2\n35.7\n23.6\n32.2\n32.3\n33.8\n35.3\n33.4\n8.6\n14.1\n3.4\n2.3\n5.0\nNatural gas\n0.7\n0.9\n5.1\n5.8\n6.7\n7.7\n9.1\n10.0\n77.8\n64.3\n76.4\n60.9\n61.8\n61.0\n60.4\n62.5\n8.3\n2.4\n2.9\n2.6\n2.7\n%\nAAGR (%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nTotal\n22\n25\n26\n30\n36\n37\n38\n39\n0.8\n2.4\n2.2\n0.4\n1.5\nCoal\n-\n-\n-\n45\n45\n45\n45\n45\n-\n-\n0.0\n0.0\n-\nOil\n-\n17\n30\n30\n30\n30\n30\n30\n-\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\nNatural gas\n22\n25\n26\n28\n33\n34\n36\n37\n0.8\n1.3\n2.0\n0.7\n1.4\nMtoe\nShare, %\nAAGR (%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nTotal\n0.36\n0.56\n0.80\n3.15\n3.65\n4.04\n4.62\n4.78\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n3.3\n31.4\n2.5\n1.7\n7.4\nIndustry\n0.06\n0.07\n0.20\n0.32\n0.66\n0.84\n1.13\n1.13\n16.7\n12.5\n25.1\n10.0\n18.1\n20.8\n24.5\n23.7\n5.0\n9.3\n10.3\n3.0\n7.1\nTransportation\n0.19\n0.26\n0.31\n0.76\n0.82\n0.89\n0.96\n0.96\n52.8\n46.4\n38.2\n24.2\n22.5\n21.9\n20.7\n20.1\n1.9\n19.9\n1.5\n0.8\n4.7\nOthers\n0.09\n0.21\n0.28\n0.33\n0.43\n0.57\n0.79\n0.94\n25.0\n37.5\n34.3\n10.6\n11.7\n14.1\n17.1\n19.7\n4.6\n3.8\n5.6\n5.1\n5.0\nNon-energy\n0.02\n0.02\n0.02\n1.74\n1.74\n1.74\n1.74\n1.75\n5.6\n3.6\n2.4\n55.3\n47.8\n43.1\n37.7\n36.5\n-0.2\n146.8\n0.0\n0.0\n19.8\nTotal\n0.35\n0.57\n0.80\n3.15\n3.65\n4.04\n4.62\n4.78\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n3.4\n31.4\n2.5\n1.7\n7.4\nCoal\n0.00\n0.00\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\nOil\n0.26\n0.36\n0.52\n1.00\n1.16\n1.40\n1.74\n1.75\n74.3\n63.2\n64.5\n31.7\n31.7\n34.5\n37.6\n36.5\n2.8\n14.0\n3.4\n2.3\n5.0\nNatural gas\n0.00\n0.00\n0.03\n1.74\n1.75\n1.75\n1.76\n1.77\n0.0\n0.0\n3.6\n55.4\n48.0\n43.4\n38.1\n37.0\n-\n127.3\n0.1\n0.1\n17.9\nElectricity\n0.09\n0.21\n0.26\n0.41\n0.74\n0.89\n1.12\n1.26\n25.7\n36.8\n31.9\n12.9\n20.3\n22.1\n24.3\n26.5\n4.3\n9.6\n8.2\n3.6\n6.6\nHeat\n0.00\n0.00\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\nOthers\n0.00\n0.00\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\nPrimary energy supply\nPower generation output\nPower generation input\nCO2 Emissions \nEnergy and economic indicators\nThermal efficiency\nFinal energy consumption\nBrunei Darussalam (BAU)\n\n\n355\nResults Summary Tables\nAAGR(%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nGDP (billions of 2010 US dollars)\n6.9\n8.6\n13.9\n17.6\n25.5\n36.4\n51.8\n54.5\n2.8\n4.9\n7.5\n4.1\n5.6\nPopulation (millions of people)\n0.3\n0.3\n0.4\n0.5\n0.5\n0.6\n0.6\n0.7\n1.3\n2.1\n2.3\n2.3\n2.3\nGDP per capita (thousands of 2010 US$/person)\n 23.0 \n 28.7 \n 33.3 \n 38.09 \n 49.3 \n 62.7 \n 79.7 \n 74.9 \n1.5\n2.7\n5.1\n1.8\n3.3\nPrimary energy consumption per capita (toe/person)\n 5.7 \n 8.0 \n 7.8 \n 12.75 \n 13.26 \n 12.22 \n 11.12 \n 10.49 \n1.3\n10.3\n-0.4\n-1.5\n1.2\nPrimary energy consumption per unit of GDP (toe/million \n2010 US dollars)\n 246 \n 279 \n 235 \n 335 \n 269 \n 195 \n 140 \n 140 \n-0.2\n7.4\n-5.3\n-3.3\n-2.0\nFinal energy consumption per unit of GDP (toe/million 2010 \nUS dollars)\n 52 \n 65 \n 58 \n 174 \n 134 \n 97 \n 72 \n 71 \n0.4\n24.6\n-5.6\n-3.1\n0.8\nCO2 emissions per unit of GDP (t-C/million 2010 US dollars)\n 130 \n 163 \n 480 \n 497 \n 382 \n 282 \n 204 \n 211 \n5.4\n0.7\n-5.5\n-2.8\n-3.2\nCO2 emissions per unit of primary energy consumption \n(t-C/toe)\n 0.5 \n 0.6 \n 2.0 \n 1.49 \n 1.42 \n 1.44 \n 1.46 \n 1.51 \n5.6\n-6.2\n-0.3\n0.4\n-1.2\nAutomobile ownership volume (millions of vehicles)\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\nAutomobile ownership volume per capita (vehicles per \nperson)\n - \n - \n - \n - \n - \n - \n - \n - \n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\nMtoe\nShare, %\nAAGR (%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nTotal\n1.70\n2.40\n3.26\n5.90\n6.87\n7.09\n7.23\n7.63\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n2.6\n12.6\n1.9\n0.7\n3.5\nCoal\n0.0\n0.0\n0.00\n0.16\n0.16\n0.16\n0.16\n0.16\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n2.7\n2.3\n2.3\n2.2\n2.1\n-\n-\n0.0\n0.0\n-\nOil\n0.0\n0.5\n0.19\n0.93\n0.99\n1.06\n1.25\n1.25\n0.0\n20.8\n5.7\n15.7\n14.4\n15.0\n17.3\n16.4\n-\n37.8\n1.4\n1.7\n7.9\nNatural gas\n1.7\n1.9\n3.07\n4.81\n5.73\n5.87\n5.82\n6.22\n100.0\n79.2\n94.3\n81.6\n83.3\n82.8\n80.5\n81.5\n2.4\n9.4\n2.0\n0.6\n2.9\nNuclear\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\nHydro\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\nGeothermal\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\nOthers\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\nBiomass\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\nSolar, Wind, \nOcean\n0.0\n0.0\n0.00\n0.02\n0.03\n0.05\n0.07\n0.07\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.3\n0.5\n0.6\n1.0\n1.0\n-\n194.7\n8.8\n5.1\n30.9\nBiofuels\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\nElectricity\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\nTWh\nShare, %\nAAGR (%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nTotal\n1.17\n2.54\n3.78\n5.37\n10.28\n11.10\n11.28\n13.08\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n4.8\n7.3\n7.5\n1.7\n5.1\nCoal\n0.0\n0.0\n0.00\n0.84\n0.84\n0.84\n0.84\n0.84\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n15.7\n8.2\n7.6\n7.5\n6.4\n-\n-\n0.0\n0.0\n-\nOil\n0.0\n0.0\n0.04\n0.02\n0.02\n0.02\n0.02\n0.02\n0.9\n0.8\n1.0\n0.4\n0.2\n0.2\n0.2\n0.2\n5.5\n-10.6\n0.8\n0.2\n-1.8\nNatural gas\n1.2\n2.5\n3.74\n4.29\n9.07\n9.71\n9.57\n11.36\n99.1\n99.2\n99.0\n79.8\n88.2\n87.5\n84.8\n86.8\n4.8\n2.8\n8.5\n1.6\n4.5\nNuclear\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\nHydro\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\nGeothermal\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\nOthers\n0.0\n0.0\n0.00\n0.22\n0.35\n0.52\n0.85\n0.86\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n4.2\n3.4\n4.7\n7.5\n6.6\n-\n193.6\n8.7\n5.2\n30.9\nMtoe\nShare, %\nAAGR (%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nTotal\n0.46\n0.87\n1.23\n1.46\n2.36\n2.49\n2.43\n2.81\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n4.0\n3.5\n5.5\n1.2\n3.4\nCoal\n0.0\n0.0\n0.00\n0.16\n0.16\n0.16\n0.16\n0.16\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n11.0\n6.8\n6.5\n6.6\n5.7\n-\n-\n0.0\n0.0\n-\nOil\n0.0\n0.0\n0.01\n0.01\n0.01\n0.01\n0.01\n0.01\n0.0\n1.1\n0.9\n0.4\n0.3\n0.3\n0.3\n0.2\n-\n-10.6\n0.8\n0.2\n-1.8\nNatural gas\n0.5\n0.9\n1.22\n1.29\n2.19\n2.32\n2.26\n2.64\n100.0\n98.9\n99.1\n88.5\n92.9\n93.3\n93.1\n94.0\n4.0\n1.2\n6.0\n1.3\n3.1\nMt-C\nShare, %\nAAGR (%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nTotal\n0.9\n1.4\n6.7\n8.8\n9.8\n10.2\n10.6\n11.5\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n8.3\n5.6\n1.6\n1.2\n2.2\nCoal\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.6\n0.6\n0.6\n0.6\n0.6\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n7.4\n6.6\n6.3\n6.1\n5.6\n-\n-\n0.0\n0.0\n-\nOil\n0.2\n0.5\n1.6\n2.9\n3.0\n3.2\n3.6\n3.6\n22.2\n35.7\n23.6\n33.1\n31.0\n31.0\n34.4\n31.7\n8.6\n13.0\n0.9\n1.4\n3.4\nNatural gas\n0.7\n0.9\n5.1\n5.2\n6.1\n6.4\n6.3\n7.2\n77.8\n64.3\n76.4\n59.5\n62.4\n62.6\n59.5\n62.7\n8.3\n0.5\n2.1\n1.2\n1.4\n%\nAAGR (%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nTotal\n21.9\n25.1\n26.5\n30.4\n36.3\n36.6\n37.0\n37.4\n0.8\n2.8\n1.9\n0.2\n1.4\nCoal\n-\n-\n-\n45.0\n45.0\n45.0\n45.0\n45.0\n-\n-\n0.0\n0.0\n-\nOil\n-\n17.2\n30.0\n30.0\n30.0\n30.0\n30.0\n30.0\n-\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\nNatural gas\n21.7\n25.2\n26.4\n28.6\n35.6\n36.0\n36.4\n37.0\n0.8\n1.6\n2.3\n0.3\n1.4\nMtoe\nShare, %\nAAGR (%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nTotal\n0.36\n0.56\n0.80\n3.06\n3.42\n3.54\n3.71\n3.86\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n3.3\n30.7\n1.5\n0.9\n6.5\nIndustry\n0.1\n0.1\n0.20\n0.29\n0.63\n0.76\n0.94\n0.94\n16.7\n12.5\n25.1\n9.5\n18.3\n21.6\n25.3\n24.3\n5.0\n7.7\n10.1\n2.1\n6.3\nTransportation\n0.2\n0.3\n0.31\n0.74\n0.69\n0.61\n0.60\n0.60\n52.8\n46.4\n38.2\n24.2\n20.2\n17.3\n16.3\n15.7\n1.9\n19.3\n-1.9\n-0.2\n2.7\nOthers\n0.1\n0.2\n0.28\n0.29\n0.36\n0.42\n0.42\n0.57\n25.0\n37.5\n34.3\n9.4\n10.6\n11.9\n11.3\n14.8\n4.6\n0.9\n3.8\n3.1\n3.0\nNon-energy\n0.0\n0.0\n0.02\n1.74\n1.74\n1.74\n1.74\n1.74\n5.6\n3.6\n2.4\n56.8\n50.9\n49.2\n47.0\n45.2\n-0.2\n146.8\n0.0\n0.0\n19.8\nTotal\n0.35\n0.57\n0.80\n3.06\n3.42\n3.54\n3.71\n3.86\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n3.4\n30.7\n1.5\n0.9\n6.5\nCoal\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\nOil\n0.3\n0.4\n0.52\n0.96\n1.00\n1.04\n1.19\n1.20\n74.3\n63.2\n64.5\n31.2\n29.1\n29.5\n32.1\n31.0\n2.8\n13.0\n0.9\n1.4\n3.4\nNatural gas\n0.0\n0.0\n0.03\n1.74\n1.75\n1.75\n1.76\n1.77\n0.0\n0.0\n3.6\n57.0\n51.1\n49.6\n47.5\n45.8\n-\n127.3\n0.1\n0.1\n17.9\nElectricity\n0.1\n0.2\n0.26\n0.36\n0.68\n0.74\n0.75\n0.89\n25.7\n36.8\n31.9\n11.8\n19.8\n20.9\n20.4\n23.2\n4.3\n7.2\n7.4\n1.9\n5.1\nHeat\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\nOthers\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\nPrimary energy supply\nPower generation output\nPower generation input\nCO2 Emissions \nEnergy and economic indicators\nThermal efficiency\nFinal energy consumption\nBrunei Darussalam (APS )\n\n\n356\nENERGY OUTLOOK AND ENERGY SAVING POTENTIAL IN EAST ASIA 2019\nAAGR(%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nGDP (billions of 2010 US dollars)\n4\n5\n15.9\n20.8\n27.2\n35.5\n46.4\n60.6\n7.6\n5.5\n5.5\n5.5\n5.5\nPopulation (millions of people)\n9\n12\n15.5\n16.7\n18.0\n19.4\n20.9\n22.5\n2.8\n1.5\n1.5\n1.5\n1.5\nGDP per capita (thousands of 2010 US$/person)\n 0.4 \n 0.4 \n 1.0 \n 1.24 \n 1.5 \n 1.8 \n 2.2 \n 2.7 \n4.7\n3.9\n3.9\n3.9\n3.9\nPrimary energy consumption per capita (toe/person)\n 0.3 \n 0.3 \n 0.5 \n 0.53 \n 0.55 \n 0.58 \n 0.62 \n 0.68 \n1.8\n3.4\n0.8\n1.6\n1.6\nPrimary energy consumption per unit of GDP (toe/million \n2010 US dollars)\n 775 \n 657 \n 442 \n 430 \n 364 \n 316 \n 277 \n 251 \n-2.8\n-0.6\n-3.0\n-2.3\n-2.2\nFinal energy consumption per unit of GDP (toe/million 2010 \nUS dollars)\n 695 \n 567 \n 373 \n 354 \n 302 \n 257 \n 221 \n 194 \n-3.1\n-1.0\n-3.1\n-2.8\n-2.6\nCO2 emissions per unit of GDP (t-C/million 2010 US dollars)\n 108 \n 96 \n 127 \n 158 \n 143 \n 135 \n 127 \n 125 \n0.8\n4.4\n-1.6\n-0.7\n-0.1\nCO2 emissions per unit of primary energy consumption \n(t-C/toe)\n 0.1 \n 0.1 \n 0.3 \n 0.37 \n 0.39 \n 0.43 \n 0.46 \n 0.50 \n3.7\n5.0\n1.5\n1.6\n2.2\nAutomobile ownership volume (millions of vehicles)\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\nAutomobile ownership volume per capita (vehicles per \nperson)\n - \n - \n - \n - \n - \n - \n - \n - \n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\nMtoe\nShare, %\nAAGR (%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nTotal\n2.84\n3.42\n7.04\n8.94\n9.90\n11.24\n12.86\n15.24\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n3.7\n4.9\n2.3\n3.1\n3.1\nCoal\n0.00\n0.00\n0.59\n1.23\n1.44\n1.66\n2.24\n2.97\n0.0\n0.0\n8.3\n13.7\n14.5\n14.8\n17.4\n19.5\n-\n16.0\n3.0\n6.0\n6.7\nOil\n0.51\n0.70\n1.93\n2.65\n3.17\n3.64\n4.14\n4.75\n18.0\n20.5\n27.4\n29.7\n32.0\n32.4\n32.2\n31.2\n5.4\n6.6\n3.2\n2.7\n3.7\nNatural gas\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.43\n0.56\n1.25\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n3.9\n4.4\n8.2\n-\n-\n-\n11.2\n-\nNuclear\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\nHydro\n0.00\n0.00\n0.17\n0.49\n0.67\n0.82\n1.12\n1.51\n0.0\n0.0\n2.4\n5.5\n6.8\n7.3\n8.7\n9.9\n-\n23.5\n5.2\n6.2\n9.1\nGeothermal\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\nOthers\n2.33\n2.72\n4.35\n4.57\n4.62\n4.69\n4.80\n4.76\n82.0\n79.5\n61.8\n51.1\n46.7\n41.7\n37.3\n31.2\n2.5\n1.0\n0.3\n0.2\n0.4\nBiomass\n2.33\n2.72\n4.22\n4.41\n4.46\n4.53\n4.62\n4.57\n82.0\n79.5\n60.0\n49.3\n45.1\n40.3\n35.9\n30.0\n2.4\n0.9\n0.3\n0.1\n0.3\nSolar, Wind, \nOcean\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.03\n0.03\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.2\n0.2\n-\n33.7\n-5.0\n46.5\n21.0\nBiofuels\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\nElectricity\n0.00\n0.00\n0.13\n0.16\n0.16\n0.16\n0.16\n0.16\n0.0\n0.0\n1.9\n1.8\n1.6\n1.4\n1.2\n1.0\n-\n3.6\n0.0\n0.0\n0.7\nTWh\nShare, %\nAAGR (%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nTotal\n0.20\n0.45\n4.40\n10.61\n14.03\n19.05\n26.57\n38.20\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n13.2\n19.3\n6.0\n7.2\n9.0\nCoal\n0.00\n0.00\n2.13\n4.52\n5.95\n6.87\n9.82\n13.04\n0.0\n0.0\n48.4\n42.6\n42.4\n36.1\n37.0\n34.1\n-\n16.3\n4.3\n6.6\n7.5\nOil\n0.20\n0.45\n0.23\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n100.0\n100.0\n5.2\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.6\n-100.0\n-\n-\n-100.0\nNatural gas\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n2.42\n3.15\n7.00\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n12.7\n11.8\n18.3\n-\n-\n-\n11.2\n-\nNuclear\n0.00\n0.00\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\nHydro\n0.00\n0.00\n2.00\n5.74\n7.83\n9.55\n13.05\n17.51\n0.0\n0.0\n45.5\n54.1\n55.8\n50.1\n49.1\n45.8\n-\n23.5\n5.2\n6.2\n9.1\nGeothermal\n0.00\n0.00\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\nOthers\n0.00\n0.00\n0.04\n0.34\n0.26\n0.21\n0.56\n0.65\n0.0\n0.0\n0.9\n3.2\n1.8\n1.1\n2.1\n1.7\n-\n53.1\n-5.0\n12.2\n11.7\nMtoe\nShare, %\nAAGR (%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nTotal\n0.10\n0.09\n0.63\n1.22\n1.42\n2.08\n2.79\n4.20\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n7.7\n13.9\n5.5\n7.3\n7.9\nCoal\n0.00\n0.00\n0.57\n1.22\n1.42\n1.64\n2.22\n2.95\n0.0\n0.0\n90.5\n100.0\n100.0\n79.1\n79.8\n70.2\n-\n16.2\n3.1\n6.0\n6.8\nOil\n0.10\n0.09\n0.06\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n100.0\n100.0\n9.5\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n-2.0\n-100.0\n-\n-\n-100.0\nNatural gas\n-\n-\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.43\n0.56\n1.25\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n20.9\n20.2\n29.8\n-\n-\n-\n11.2\n-\nMt-C\nShare, %\nAAGR (%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nTotal\n0.40\n0.50\n2.02\n3.27\n3.90\n4.78\n5.89\n7.60\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n6.7\n10.1\n3.9\n4.7\n5.4\nCoal\n0.00\n0.00\n0.63\n1.33\n1.56\n1.80\n2.44\n3.24\n0.0\n0.0\n31.2\n40.8\n40.0\n37.7\n41.5\n42.7\n-\n16.2\n3.1\n6.0\n6.8\nOil\n0.40\n0.50\n1.39\n1.94\n2.34\n2.70\n3.08\n3.55\n100.0\n100.0\n68.8\n59.2\n60.0\n56.5\n52.4\n46.8\n5.1\n6.9\n3.4\n2.8\n3.8\nNatural gas\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.28\n0.36\n0.80\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n5.8\n6.1\n10.6\n-\n-\n-\n11.2\n-\n%\nAAGR (%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nTotal\n17.2\n43.0\n31.9\n32.0\n36.0\n38.5\n40.0\n41.0\n2.5\n0.0\n1.9\n0.6\n1.0\nCoal\n-\n-\n31.9\n32.0\n36.0\n36.0\n38.0\n38.0\n-\n0.1\n1.2\n0.5\n0.7\nOil\n17.2\n43.0\n32.5\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n2.6\n-\n-\n-\n-\nNatural gas\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n48.0\n48.0\n48.0\n-\n-\n-\n0.0\n-\nMtoe\nShare, %\nAAGR (%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nTotal\n2.543\n2.950\n5.925\n7.350\n8.196\n9.123\n10.272\n11.770\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n3.4\n4.4\n2.2\n2.6\n2.8\nIndustry\n0.44\n0.61\n1.03\n1.14\n1.25\n1.45\n1.80\n2.41\n17.2\n20.7\n17.4\n15.5\n15.3\n15.9\n17.5\n20.5\n3.5\n2.0\n2.5\n5.2\n3.5\nTransportation\n0.38\n0.43\n1.39\n1.91\n2.29\n2.66\n3.08\n3.59\n15.0\n14.6\n23.5\n26.0\n27.9\n29.2\n29.9\n30.5\n5.3\n6.5\n3.4\n3.0\n3.9\nOthers\n1.72\n1.90\n3.45\n4.25\n4.59\n4.94\n5.32\n5.67\n67.5\n64.4\n58.3\n57.8\n56.1\n54.2\n51.8\n48.1\n2.8\n4.2\n1.5\n1.4\n2.0\nNon-energy\n0.01\n0.01\n0.05\n0.05\n0.06\n0.07\n0.08\n0.10\n0.3\n0.3\n0.8\n0.7\n0.7\n0.7\n0.8\n0.9\n7.8\n3.3\n2.3\n4.0\n3.2\nTotal\n2.54\n2.95\n5.93\n7.35\n8.20\n9.12\n10.27\n11.77\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n3.4\n4.4\n2.2\n2.6\n2.8\nCoal\n0.00\n0.00\n0.01\n0.01\n0.01\n0.02\n0.02\n0.02\n0.0\n0.0\n0.2\n0.2\n0.2\n0.2\n0.2\n0.2\n-\n2.0\n2.0\n2.0\n2.0\nOil\n0.44\n0.54\n1.87\n2.65\n3.17\n3.64\n4.14\n4.75\n17.3\n18.1\n31.5\n36.1\n38.6\n39.9\n40.3\n40.3\n6.0\n7.3\n3.2\n2.7\n3.8\nNatural gas\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\nElectricity\n0.01\n0.03\n0.43\n1.01\n1.29\n1.70\n2.30\n3.24\n0.4\n1.0\n7.2\n13.8\n15.7\n18.6\n22.4\n27.6\n15.8\n18.8\n5.3\n6.7\n8.4\nHeat\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\nOthers\n2.09\n2.39\n3.62\n3.67\n3.72\n3.77\n3.81\n3.76\n82.3\n80.8\n61.1\n50.0\n45.4\n41.3\n37.1\n31.9\n2.2\n0.3\n0.3\n0.0\n0.2\nPrimary energy supply \nPower generation output\nPower generation input\nCO2 Emissions \nEnergy and economic indicators\nThermal efficiency\nFinal energy consumption\nCambodia (BAU)\n\n\n357\nResults Summary Tables\nAAGR(%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nGDP (billions of 2010 US dollars)\n3.7\n5.2\n15.9\n20.8\n27.2\n35.5\n46.4\n60.6\n7.6\n5.5\n5.5\n5.5\n5.5\nPopulation (millions of people)\n9.0\n12.2\n15.5\n16.7\n18.0\n19.4\n20.9\n22.5\n2.8\n1.5\n1.5\n1.5\n1.5\nGDP per capita (thousands of 2010 US$/person)\n 0.4 \n 0.4 \n 1.0 \n 1.24 \n 1.5 \n 1.8 \n 2.2 \n 2.7 \n4.7\n3.9\n3.9\n3.9\n3.9\nPrimary energy consumption per capita (toe/person)\n 0.3 \n 0.3 \n 0.5 \n 0.51 \n 0.53 \n 0.52 \n 0.51 \n 0.58 \n1.8\n2.4\n0.2\n1.1\n1.0\nPrimary energy consumption per unit of GDP (toe/million \n2010 US dollars)\n 775 \n 657 \n 442 \n 411 \n 352 \n 284 \n 232 \n 215 \n-2.8\n-1.5\n-3.6\n-2.7\n-2.8\nFinal energy consumption per unit of GDP (toe/million 2010 \nUS dollars)\n 695 \n 567 \n 373 \n 340 \n 279 \n 228 \n 188 \n 165 \n-3.1\n-1.8\n-3.9\n-3.2\n-3.2\nCO2 emissions per unit of GDP (t-C/million 2010 US dollars)\n 108 \n 96 \n 127 \n 142 \n 132 \n 105 \n 84 \n 82 \n0.8\n2.2\n-3.0\n-2.4\n-1.7\nCO2 emissions per unit of primary energy consumption \n(t-C/toe)\n 0.1 \n 0.1 \n 0.3 \n 0.35 \n 0.38 \n 0.37 \n 0.36 \n 0.38 \n3.7\n3.7\n0.7\n0.3\n1.1\nAutomobile ownership volume (millions of vehicles)\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\nAutomobile ownership volume per capita (vehicles per \nperson)\n - \n - \n - \n - \n - \n - \n - \n - \n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\nMtoe\nShare, %\nAAGR (%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nTotal\n2.84\n3.42\n7.04\n8.54\n9.55\n10.08\n10.76\n13.04\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n3.7\n4.0\n1.7\n2.6\n2.5\nCoal\n0.00\n0.00\n0.59\n0.88\n1.22\n1.14\n1.10\n2.49\n0.0\n0.0\n8.3\n10.3\n12.7\n11.3\n10.2\n19.1\n-\n8.6\n2.6\n8.1\n5.9\nOil\n0.51\n0.70\n1.93\n2.55\n3.23\n3.54\n3.83\n4.35\n18.0\n20.5\n27.4\n29.9\n33.9\n35.1\n35.6\n33.4\n5.4\n5.8\n3.3\n2.1\n3.3\nNatural gas\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.20\n0.17\n0.14\n0.15\n0.19\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n2.3\n1.8\n1.4\n1.4\n1.4\n-\n-\n-3.2\n2.8\n-\nNuclear\n0.00\n0.00\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\nHydro\n0.00\n0.00\n0.17\n0.35\n0.31\n0.53\n0.83\n0.93\n0.0\n0.0\n2.4\n4.1\n3.3\n5.3\n7.7\n7.1\n-\n15.5\n4.2\n5.7\n7.0\nGeothermal\n0.00\n0.00\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\nOthers\n2.33\n2.72\n4.35\n4.55\n4.62\n4.73\n4.86\n5.09\n82.0\n79.5\n61.8\n53.3\n48.3\n46.9\n45.1\n39.0\n2.5\n0.9\n0.4\n0.7\n0.6\nBiomass\n2.33\n2.72\n4.22\n4.30\n4.24\n4.23\n4.23\n4.32\n82.0\n79.5\n60.0\n50.3\n44.4\n42.0\n39.3\n33.1\n2.4\n0.4\n-0.2\n0.2\n0.1\nSolar, Wind, \nOcean\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.01\n0.03\n0.05\n0.07\n0.09\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.1\n0.4\n0.5\n0.6\n0.7\n-\n107.2\n17.3\n6.7\n26.6\nBiofuels\n0.00\n0.00\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\nElectricity\n0.00\n0.00\n0.13\n0.24\n0.34\n0.45\n0.56\n0.68\n0.0\n0.0\n1.9\n2.9\n3.5\n4.5\n5.2\n5.2\n-\n13.3\n6.3\n4.1\n6.8\nTWh\nShare, %\nAAGR (%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nTotal\n0.20\n0.45\n4.40\n9.05\n10.58\n13.04\n17.24\n25.73\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n13.2\n15.5\n3.7\n7.0\n7.3\nCoal\n0.00\n0.00\n2.13\n3.24\n5.03\n4.70\n4.86\n11.29\n0.0\n0.0\n48.4\n35.8\n47.5\n36.1\n28.2\n43.9\n-\n8.8\n3.8\n9.2\n6.9\nOil\n0.20\n0.45\n0.23\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n100.0\n100.0\n5.2\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.6\n-100.0\n-\n-\n-100.0\nNatural gas\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n1.10\n0.97\n0.79\n0.82\n1.04\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n12.2\n9.2\n6.1\n4.8\n4.1\n-\n-\n-3.2\n2.8\n-\nNuclear\n0.00\n0.00\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\nHydro\n0.00\n0.00\n2.00\n4.11\n3.61\n6.19\n9.69\n10.79\n0.0\n0.0\n45.5\n45.4\n34.2\n47.4\n56.2\n41.9\n-\n15.5\n4.2\n5.7\n7.0\nGeothermal\n0.00\n0.00\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\nOthers\n0.00\n0.00\n0.04\n0.60\n0.97\n1.36\n1.87\n2.61\n0.0\n0.0\n0.9\n6.6\n9.2\n10.4\n10.9\n10.1\n-\n70.8\n8.6\n6.7\n18.1\nMtoe\nShare, %\nAAGR (%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nTotal\n0.10\n0.09\n0.63\n1.07\n1.37\n1.27\n1.22\n2.65\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n7.7\n11.0\n1.7\n7.7\n5.9\nCoal\n0.00\n0.00\n0.57\n0.87\n1.20\n1.12\n1.08\n2.47\n0.0\n0.0\n90.5\n81.5\n87.4\n88.8\n88.0\n93.0\n-\n8.7\n2.6\n8.2\n6.0\nOil\n0.10\n0.09\n0.06\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n100.0\n100.0\n9.5\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n-2.0\n-100.0\n-\n-\n-100.0\nNatural gas\n-\n-\n0.00\n0.20\n0.17\n0.14\n0.15\n0.19\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n18.5\n12.6\n11.2\n12.0\n7.0\n-\n-\n-3.2\n2.8\n-\nMt-C\nShare, %\nAAGR (%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nTotal\n0.4\n0.5\n2.0\n2.9\n3.6\n3.7\n3.9\n5.0\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n6.7\n7.8\n2.3\n2.9\n3.7\nCoal\n0.0\n0.0\n0.63\n0.96\n1.32\n1.23\n1.18\n1.83\n0.0\n0.0\n31.2\n32.4\n36.7\n33.2\n30.4\n36.9\n-\n8.7\n2.6\n4.0\n4.4\nOil\n0.4\n0.5\n1.39\n1.87\n2.16\n2.39\n2.62\n3.02\n100.0\n100.0\n68.8\n63.3\n60.2\n64.4\n67.2\n60.7\n5.1\n6.0\n2.5\n2.3\n3.1\nNatural gas\n0.0\n0.0\n0.00\n0.13\n0.11\n0.09\n0.09\n0.12\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n4.3\n3.1\n2.4\n2.4\n2.4\n-\n-\n-3.2\n2.8\n-\n%\nAAGR (%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nTotal\n17.2\n43.0\n31.9\n35.0\n37.5\n37.4\n39.9\n40.0\n2.5\n1.8\n0.7\n0.7\n0.9\nCoal\n-\n-\n31.9\n32.0\n36.0\n36.0\n38.8\n39.4\n-\n0.1\n1.2\n0.9\n0.8\nOil\n17.2\n43.0\n32.5\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n2.6\n-\n-\n-\n-\nNatural gas\n-\n-\n-\n48.0\n48.0\n48.0\n48.0\n48.0\n-\n-\n0.0\n0.0\n-\nMtoe\nShare, %\nAAGR (%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nTotal\n2.54\n2.95\n5.93\n7.08\n7.59\n8.11\n8.75\n10.02\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n3.4\n3.6\n1.4\n2.1\n2.1\nIndustry\n0.44\n0.61\n1.03\n1.10\n1.16\n1.29\n1.53\n2.05\n17.2\n20.7\n17.4\n15.5\n15.3\n15.9\n17.5\n20.5\n3.5\n1.2\n1.6\n4.8\n2.8\nTransportation\n0.38\n0.43\n1.39\n1.84\n2.12\n2.36\n2.61\n3.05\n15.0\n14.6\n23.5\n26.0\n27.9\n29.2\n29.9\n30.4\n5.3\n5.7\n2.5\n2.6\n3.2\nOthers\n1.72\n1.90\n3.45\n4.09\n4.25\n4.39\n4.52\n4.82\n67.5\n64.4\n58.3\n57.7\n56.0\n54.1\n51.7\n48.1\n2.8\n3.4\n0.7\n0.9\n1.3\nNon-energy\n0.01\n0.01\n0.05\n0.05\n0.06\n0.07\n0.08\n0.10\n0.3\n0.3\n0.8\n0.8\n0.8\n0.8\n0.9\n1.0\n7.8\n3.3\n2.3\n4.0\n3.2\nTotal\n2.54\n2.95\n5.93\n7.08\n7.59\n8.11\n8.75\n10.02\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n3.4\n3.6\n1.4\n2.1\n2.1\nCoal\n0.00\n0.00\n0.01\n0.01\n0.01\n0.02\n0.02\n0.02\n0.0\n0.0\n0.2\n0.2\n0.2\n0.2\n0.2\n0.2\n-\n2.0\n2.0\n2.0\n2.0\nOil\n0.44\n0.54\n1.87\n2.55\n2.93\n3.24\n3.53\n4.05\n17.3\n18.1\n31.5\n36.1\n38.7\n39.9\n40.3\n40.4\n6.0\n6.5\n2.4\n2.3\n3.1\nNatural gas\n0.00\n0.00\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\nElectricity\n0.01\n0.03\n0.43\n0.98\n1.19\n1.51\n1.96\n2.76\n0.4\n1.0\n7.2\n13.8\n15.7\n18.6\n22.4\n27.5\n15.8\n17.9\n4.4\n6.2\n7.7\nHeat\n0.00\n0.00\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\nOthers\n2.09\n2.39\n3.62\n3.53\n3.44\n3.35\n3.24\n3.19\n82.3\n80.8\n61.1\n49.9\n45.4\n41.3\n37.1\n31.9\n2.2\n-0.5\n-0.5\n-0.5\n-0.5\nPrimary energy supply \nPower generation output\nPower generation input\nCO2 Emissions \nEnergy and economic indicators\nThermal efficiency\nFinal energy consumption\nCambodia (APS)\n\n\n358\nENERGY OUTLOOK AND ENERGY SAVING POTENTIAL IN EAST ASIA 2019\nAAGR(%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nGDP (billions of 2010 US dollars)\n830\n2,237\n8,910\n12,206\n16,005\n20,546\n25,701\n31,116\n10.0\n6.5\n5.3\n4.2\n5.1\nPopulation (millions of people)\n1,135\n1,263\n1,371\n1,398\n1,412\n1,415\n1,407\n1,391\n0.8\n0.4\n0.1\n-0.2\n0.1\nGDP per capita (thousands of 2010 US$/person)\n 0.73 \n 1.77 \n 6.50 \n 8.73 \n 11.3 \n 14.5 \n 18.3 \n 22.4 \n9.1\n6.1\n5.2\n4.4\n5.1\nPrimary energy consumption per capita (toe/person)\n 0.77 \n 0.89 \n 2.17 \n 2.36 \n 2.50 \n 2.64 \n 2.77 \n 2.89 \n4.2\n1.7\n1.1\n0.9\n1.1\nPrimary energy consumption per unit of GDP (toe/million \n2010 US dollars)\n 1,050 \n 505 \n 334 \n 270 \n 220 \n 182 \n 152 \n 129 \n-4.5\n-4.2\n-3.9\n-3.4\n-3.7\nFinal energy consumption per unit of GDP (toe/million 2010 \nUS dollars)\n 789 \n 349 \n 214 \n 175 \n 143 \n 118 \n 98 \n 84 \n-5.1\n-4.0\n-3.9\n-3.4\n-3.7\nCO2 emissions per unit of GDP (t-C/million 2010 US dollars)\n 769 \n 386 \n 286 \n 221 \n 175 \n 140 \n 114 \n 94 \n-3.9\n-5.0\n-4.5\n-3.9\n-4.3\nCO2 emissions per unit of primary energy consumption \n(t-C/toe)\n 0.73 \n 0.76 \n 0.86 \n 0.82 \n 0.80 \n 0.77 \n 0.75 \n 0.73 \n0.6\n-0.9\n-0.6\n-0.5\n-0.6\nAutomobile ownership volume (millions of vehicles)\n 5 \n 16 \n 163 \n 250 \n 312 \n 366 \n 405 \n 438 \n14.7\n8.9\n3.9\n1.8\n4.0\nAutomobile ownership volume per capita (vehicles per \nperson)\n 0.005 \n 0.012 \n 0.119 \n 0.179 \n 0.221 \n 0.258 \n 0.288 \n 0.315 \n13.8\n8.5\n3.8\n2.0\n4.0\nMtoe\nShare, %\nAAGR (%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nTotal\n870.7\n1,129.8 2,973.3 3,293.5 3,525.8 3,734.5 3,899.2 4,014.9\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n5.0\n2.1\n1.3\n0.7\n1.2\nCoal\n527.6\n664.7\n1,982.0 2,005.6 2,013.0 2,006.6\n1,992.1\n1,938.6\n60.6\n58.8\n66.7\n60.9\n57.1\n53.7\n51.1\n48.3\n5.4\n0.2\n0.0\n-0.3\n-0.1\nOil\n118.8\n220.8\n533.7\n652.6\n729.2\n788.9\n825.5\n853.4\n13.6\n19.5\n18.0\n19.8\n20.7\n21.1\n21.2\n21.3\n6.2\n4.1\n1.9\n0.8\n1.9\nNatural gas\n12.8\n20.8\n158.5\n236.2\n313.1\n392.7\n475.2\n556.5\n1.5\n1.8\n5.3\n7.2\n8.9\n10.5\n12.2\n13.9\n10.6\n8.3\n5.2\n3.5\n5.2\nNuclear\n0.0\n4.4\n44.5\n106.2\n151.9\n197.5\n224.9\n252.3\n0.0\n0.4\n1.5\n3.2\n4.3\n5.3\n5.8\n6.3\n-\n19.0\n6.4\n2.5\n7.2\nHydro\n10.9\n19.1\n95.8\n107.9\n113.5\n118.5\n123.0\n125.6\n1.3\n1.7\n3.2\n3.3\n3.2\n3.2\n3.2\n3.1\n9.1\n2.4\n0.9\n0.6\n1.1\nGeothermal\n0.0\n1.7\n5.1\n6.0\n6.6\n7.3\n8.0\n8.6\n0.0\n0.1\n0.2\n0.2\n0.2\n0.2\n0.2\n0.2\n-\n3.3\n2.1\n1.6\n2.1\nOthers\n200.6\n198.4\n153.6\n179.0\n198.5\n222.9\n250.5\n280.0\n23.0\n17.6\n5.2\n5.4\n5.6\n6.0\n6.4\n7.0\n-1.1\n3.1\n2.2\n2.3\n2.4\nBiomass\n200.4\n197.0\n104.0\n101.3\n93.7\n90.2\n93.6\n98.9\n23.0\n17.4\n3.5\n3.1\n2.7\n2.4\n2.4\n2.5\n-2.6\n-0.5\n-1.2\n0.9\n-0.2\nSolar, Wind, \nOcean\n0.0\n1.0\n41.2\n66.9\n92.2\n118.0\n139.6\n161.1\n0.0\n0.1\n1.4\n2.0\n2.6\n3.2\n3.6\n4.0\n33.0\n10.2\n5.8\n3.2\n5.6\nBiofuels\n0.0\n1.1\n9.5\n11.7\n13.6\n15.8\n18.2\n21.0\n0.0\n0.1\n0.3\n0.4\n0.4\n0.4\n0.5\n0.5\n-\n4.3\n3.0\n2.9\n3.2\nElectricity\n0.2\n-0.7\n-1.1\n-1.0\n-1.0\n-1.0\n-1.0\n-1.0\n0.0\n-0.1\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n-207.9\n-1.7\n0.0\n0.0\n-0.3\nTWh\nShare, %\nAAGR (%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nTotal\n621.3\n1,355.7 5,844.2 6,890.9 7,781.0 8,638.0 9,427.9 10,054.5\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n9.4\n3.4\n2.3\n1.5\n2.2\nCoal\n441.3\n1,060.4 4,109.0 4,345.4\n4,540.1 4,690.2 4,858.6 4,889.0\n71.0\n78.2\n70.3\n63.1\n58.3\n54.3\n51.5\n48.6\n9.3\n1.1\n0.8\n0.4\n0.7\nOil\n50.4\n47.3\n9.7\n9.6\n9.3\n8.8\n8.2\n7.2\n8.1\n3.5\n0.2\n0.1\n0.1\n0.1\n0.1\n0.1\n-6.4\n-0.2\n-0.9\n-1.9\n-1.1\nNatural gas\n2.8\n5.8\n145.3\n302.9\n482.9\n682.9\n912.1\n1,139.3\n0.4\n0.4\n2.5\n4.4\n6.2\n7.9\n9.7\n11.3\n17.2\n15.8\n8.5\n5.3\n8.6\nNuclear\n0.0\n16.7\n170.8\n407.5\n582.7\n758.0\n863.2\n968.3\n0.0\n1.2\n2.9\n5.9\n7.5\n8.8\n9.2\n9.6\n-\n19.0\n6.4\n2.5\n7.2\nHydro\n126.7\n222.4\n1,114.5\n1,254.3\n1,320.3\n1,378.0\n1,430.7\n1,460.2\n20.4\n16.4\n19.1\n18.2\n17.0\n16.0\n15.2\n14.5\n9.1\n2.4\n0.9\n0.6\n1.1\nGeothermal\n0.1\n0.1\n0.1\n0.2\n0.3\n0.4\n0.4\n0.4\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n3.2\n14.3\n4.5\n1.4\n5.1\nOthers\n0.0\n3.1\n294.8\n571.1\n845.4\n1,119.7\n1,354.8\n1,590.0\n0.0\n0.2\n5.0\n8.3\n10.9\n13.0\n14.4\n15.8\n50.4\n14.1\n7.0\n3.6\n7.0\nMtoe\nShare, %\nAAGR (%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nTotal\n144.7\n297.2\n948.5\n1,000.1 1,061.7\n1,116.2\n1,178.9\n1,211.7\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n7.8\n1.1\n1.1\n0.8\n1.0\nCoal\n131.7\n284.3\n920.1\n943.7\n973.7\n993.5\n1,016.6\n1,010.7\n91.0\n95.7\n97.0\n94.4\n91.7\n89.0\n86.2\n83.4\n8.1\n0.5\n0.5\n0.2\n0.4\nOil\n12.4\n11.6\n2.4\n2.4\n2.3\n2.2\n2.0\n1.8\n8.5\n3.9\n0.3\n0.2\n0.2\n0.2\n0.2\n0.1\n-6.4\n-0.2\n-0.9\n-1.9\n-1.1\nNatural gas\n0.6\n1.3\n26.1\n54.0\n85.7\n120.6\n160.3\n199.2\n0.4\n0.4\n2.7\n5.4\n8.1\n10.8\n13.6\n16.4\n16.2\n15.7\n8.4\n5.1\n8.5\nMt-C\nShare, %\nAAGR (%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nTotal\n637.8\n862.8\n2,545.4 2,699.1 2,803.8 2,879.4 2,931.4 2,930.9\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n5.7\n1.2\n0.6\n0.2\n0.6\nCoal\n549.0\n700.9\n2,080.5 2,094.7 2,092.8 2,075.8\n2,051.3\n1,984.0\n86.1\n81.2\n81.7\n77.6\n74.6\n72.1\n70.0\n67.7\n5.5\n0.1\n-0.1\n-0.5\n-0.2\nOil\n83.5\n151.7\n369.7\n459.9\n517.5\n559.5\n583.5\n598.7\n13.1\n17.6\n14.5\n17.0\n18.5\n19.4\n19.9\n20.4\n6.1\n4.5\n2.0\n0.7\n1.9\nNatural gas\n5.3\n10.2\n95.2\n144.5\n193.5\n244.1\n296.7\n348.2\n0.8\n1.2\n3.7\n5.4\n6.9\n8.5\n10.1\n11.9\n12.3\n8.7\n5.4\n3.6\n5.3\n%\nAAGR (%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nTotal\n29.4\n32.2\n38.7\n40.1\n40.8\n41.5\n42.2\n42.8\n1.1\n0.7\n0.3\n0.3\n0.4\nCoal\n28.8\n32.1\n38.4\n39.6\n40.1\n40.6\n41.1\n41.6\n1.2\n0.6\n0.2\n0.2\n0.3\nOil\n35.0\n35.0\n35.0\n35.0\n35.0\n35.0\n35.0\n35.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\nNatural gas\n39.0\n39.0\n47.9\n48.2\n48.4\n48.7\n48.9\n49.2\n0.8\n0.1\n0.1\n0.1\n0.1\nMtoe\nShare, %\nAAGR (%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nTotal\n654.3\n781.2\n1,905.7 2,133.7 2,286.6 2,421.5 2,524.1 2,602.0\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n4.4\n2.3\n1.3\n0.7\n1.3\nIndustry\n233.9\n299.0\n966.1\n1,001.9\n1,016.9\n1,026.8\n1,027.1\n1,016.6\n35.7\n38.3\n50.7\n47.0\n44.5\n42.4\n40.7\n39.1\n5.8\n0.7\n0.2\n-0.1\n0.2\nTransportation\n33.5\n87.3\n298.6\n403.4\n473.0\n524.1\n556.6\n581.1\n5.1\n11.2\n15.7\n18.9\n20.7\n21.6\n22.1\n22.3\n9.2\n6.2\n2.7\n1.0\n2.7\nOthers\n344.1\n334.7\n483.2\n548.2\n599.2\n653.5\n706.7\n751.2\n52.6\n42.8\n25.4\n25.7\n26.2\n27.0\n28.0\n28.9\n1.4\n2.6\n1.8\n1.4\n1.8\nNon-energy\n42.9\n60.2\n157.7\n180.2\n197.5\n217.1\n233.7\n253.0\n6.6\n7.7\n8.3\n8.4\n8.6\n9.0\n9.3\n9.7\n5.3\n2.7\n1.9\n1.5\n1.9\nTotal\n654.3\n781.2\n1,905.7 2,133.7 2,286.6 2,421.5 2,524.1 2,602.0\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n4.4\n2.3\n1.3\n0.7\n1.3\nCoal\n308.2\n274.5\n700.8\n697.6\n678.3\n656.7\n625.9\n588.0\n47.1\n35.1\n36.8\n32.7\n29.7\n27.1\n24.8\n22.6\n3.3\n-0.1\n-0.6\n-1.1\n-0.7\nOil\n84.6\n180.4\n480.4\n592.1\n667.6\n723.8\n759.0\n786.6\n12.9\n23.1\n25.2\n27.8\n29.2\n29.9\n30.1\n30.2\n7.2\n4.3\n2.0\n0.8\n2.0\nNatural gas\n8.9\n12.4\n105.4\n144.0\n178.6\n212.7\n245.2\n277.2\n1.4\n1.6\n5.5\n6.7\n7.8\n8.8\n9.7\n10.7\n10.4\n6.4\n4.0\n2.7\n3.9\nElectricity\n39.0\n89.1\n419.4\n495.4\n561.1\n625.8\n687.1\n737.6\n6.0\n11.4\n22.0\n23.2\n24.5\n25.8\n27.2\n28.3\n10.0\n3.4\n2.4\n1.7\n2.3\nHeat\n13.2\n25.5\n83.3\n90.4\n95.9\n101.4\n106.2\n110.0\n2.0\n3.3\n4.4\n4.2\n4.2\n4.2\n4.2\n4.2\n7.6\n1.7\n1.2\n0.8\n1.1\nOthers\n200.4\n199.3\n116.4\n114.2\n105.0\n101.0\n100.6\n102.5\n30.6\n25.5\n6.1\n5.4\n4.6\n4.2\n4.0\n3.9\n-2.2\n-0.4\n-1.2\n0.1\n-0.5\nPrimary energy consumption\nPower generation output\nPower generation input\nCO2 Emissions \nEnergy and economic indicators\nThermal efficiency\nFinal energy demand\nChina (BAU)\n\n\n359\nResults Summary Tables\nAAGR(%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nGDP (billions of 2010 US dollars)\n830\n2,237\n8,910\n12,206\n16,005\n20,546\n25,701\n31,116\n10.0\n6.5\n5.3\n4.2\n5.1\nPopulation (millions of people)\n1,135\n1,263\n1,371\n1,398\n1,412\n1,415\n1,407\n1,391\n0.8\n0.4\n0.1\n-0.2\n0.1\nGDP per capita (thousands of 2010 US$/person)\n 0.73 \n 1.77 \n 6.50 \n 8.73 \n 11.3 \n 14.5 \n 18.3 \n 22.4 \n9.1\n6.1\n5.2\n4.4\n5.1\nPrimary energy consumption per capita (toe/person)\n 0.77 \n 0.89 \n 2.17 \n 2.31 \n 2.38 \n 2.44 \n 2.48 \n 2.51 \n4.2\n1.3\n0.5\n0.3\n0.6\nPrimary energy consumption per unit of GDP (toe/million \n2010 US dollars)\n 1,050 \n 505 \n 334 \n 265 \n 210 \n 168 \n 136 \n 112 \n-4.5\n-4.5\n-4.4\n-3.9\n-4.3\nFinal energy consumption per unit of GDP (toe/million 2010 \nUS dollars)\n 789 \n 349 \n 214 \n 172 \n 138 \n 111 \n 90 \n 75 \n-5.1\n-4.3\n-4.3\n-3.8\n-4.1\nCO2 emissions per unit of GDP (t-C/million 2010 US dollars)\n 769 \n 386 \n 286 \n 216 \n 163 \n 124 \n 95 \n 74 \n-3.9\n-5.5\n-5.4\n-5.1\n-5.3\nCO2 emissions per unit of primary energy consumption \n(t-C/toe)\n 0.73 \n 0.76 \n 0.86 \n 0.81 \n 0.78 \n 0.74 \n 0.70 \n 0.66 \n0.6\n-1.0\n-1.0\n-1.2\n-1.1\nAutomobile ownership volume (millions of vehicles)\n 5 \n 16 \n 163 \n 250 \n 312 \n 366 \n 405 \n 438 \n14.7\n8.9\n3.9\n1.8\n4.0\nAutomobile ownership volume per capita (vehicles per \nperson)\n 0.005 \n 0.012 \n 0.119 \n 0.179 \n 0.221 \n 0.258 \n 0.288 \n 0.315 \n13.8\n8.5\n3.8\n2.0\n4.0\nMtoe\nShare, %\nAAGR (%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nTotal\n870.7\n1,129.8 2,973.3 3,232.7 3,357.4 3,452.5 3,494.6 3,494.9\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n5.0\n1.7\n0.7\n0.1\n0.6\nCoal\n527.6\n664.7\n1,982.0\n1,952.8\n1,865.0\n1,771.8\n1,650.6\n1,503.0\n60.6\n58.8\n66.7\n60.4\n55.5\n51.3\n47.2\n43.0\n5.4\n-0.3\n-1.0\n-1.6\n-1.1\nOil\n118.8\n220.8\n533.7\n649.5\n708.4\n742.6\n751.4\n752.1\n13.6\n19.5\n18.0\n20.1\n21.1\n21.5\n21.5\n21.5\n6.2\n4.0\n1.3\n0.1\n1.4\nNatural gas\n12.8\n20.8\n158.5\n228.6\n289.7\n346.4\n395.1\n435.0\n1.5\n1.8\n5.3\n7.1\n8.6\n10.0\n11.3\n12.4\n10.6\n7.6\n4.2\n2.3\n4.1\nNuclear\n0.0\n4.4\n44.5\n106.2\n170.1\n234.1\n298.0\n362.0\n0.0\n0.4\n1.5\n3.3\n5.1\n6.8\n8.5\n10.4\n-\n19.0\n8.2\n4.5\n8.7\nHydro\n10.9\n19.1\n95.8\n108.4\n115.2\n121.6\n127.6\n131.7\n1.3\n1.7\n3.2\n3.4\n3.4\n3.5\n3.7\n3.8\n9.1\n2.5\n1.1\n0.8\n1.3\nGeothermal\n0.0\n1.7\n5.1\n6.2\n6.5\n7.5\n8.3\n9.0\n0.0\n0.1\n0.2\n0.2\n0.2\n0.2\n0.2\n0.3\n-\n4.2\n1.8\n2.0\n2.4\nOthers\n200.6\n198.4\n153.6\n181.1\n202.5\n228.7\n263.6\n302.2\n23.0\n17.6\n5.2\n5.6\n6.0\n6.6\n7.5\n8.6\n-1.1\n3.3\n2.4\n2.8\n2.7\nBiomass\n200.4\n197.0\n104.0\n98.9\n89.4\n83.8\n85.5\n90.0\n23.0\n17.4\n3.5\n3.1\n2.7\n2.4\n2.4\n2.6\n-2.6\n-1.0\n-1.6\n0.7\n-0.6\nSolar, Wind, \nOcean\n0.0\n1.0\n41.2\n70.0\n98.2\n126.4\n155.0\n183.1\n0.0\n0.1\n1.4\n2.2\n2.9\n3.7\n4.4\n5.2\n33.0\n11.2\n6.1\n3.8\n6.2\nBiofuels\n0.0\n1.1\n9.5\n13.1\n15.9\n19.5\n24.1\n30.0\n0.0\n0.1\n0.3\n0.4\n0.5\n0.6\n0.7\n0.9\n-\n6.7\n4.1\n4.4\n4.7\nElectricity\n0.2\n-0.7\n-1.1\n-1.0\n-1.0\n-1.0\n-1.0\n-1.0\n0.0\n-0.1\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n-207.9\n-1.7\n0.0\n0.0\n-0.3\nTWh\nShare, %\nAAGR (%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nTotal\n621.3\n1,355.7 5,844.2 6,766.3 7,461.5 8,121.6 8,704.3\n9,129.6\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n9.4\n3.0\n1.8\n1.2\n1.8\nCoal\n441.3\n1,060.4 4,109.0\n4,167.4\n4,077.7\n3,958.8 3,764.6 3,465.5\n71.0\n78.2\n70.3\n61.6\n54.6\n48.7\n43.2\n38.0\n9.3\n0.3\n-0.5\n-1.3\n-0.7\nOil\n50.4\n47.3\n9.7\n9.2\n8.3\n7.4\n6.3\n5.1\n8.1\n3.5\n0.2\n0.1\n0.1\n0.1\n0.1\n0.1\n-6.4\n-1.0\n-2.1\n-3.6\n-2.5\nNatural gas\n2.8\n5.8\n145.3\n290.5\n433.7\n576.4\n706.7\n807.6\n0.4\n0.4\n2.5\n4.3\n5.8\n7.1\n8.1\n8.8\n17.2\n14.9\n7.1\n3.4\n7.1\nNuclear\n0.0\n16.7\n170.8\n407.5\n652.8\n898.2\n1,143.6\n1,388.9\n0.0\n1.2\n2.9\n6.0\n8.7\n11.1\n13.1\n15.2\n-\n19.0\n8.2\n4.5\n8.7\nHydro\n126.7\n222.4\n1,114.5\n1,260.9\n1,339.6\n1,413.5\n1,483.9\n1,531.2\n20.4\n16.4\n19.1\n18.6\n18.0\n17.4\n17.0\n16.8\n9.1\n2.5\n1.1\n0.8\n1.3\nGeothermal\n0.1\n0.1\n0.1\n0.3\n0.4\n0.5\n0.5\n0.6\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n3.2\n19.1\n4.8\n2.6\n6.6\nOthers\n0.0\n3.1\n294.8\n630.6\n948.9\n1,266.7\n1,598.7\n1,930.6\n0.0\n0.2\n5.0\n9.3\n12.7\n15.6\n18.4\n21.1\n50.4\n16.4\n7.2\n4.3\n7.8\nMtoe\nShare, %\nAAGR (%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nTotal\n144.7\n297.2\n948.5\n964.4\n948.1\n926.6\n889.0\n827.6\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n7.8\n0.3\n-0.4\n-1.1\n-0.5\nCoal\n131.7\n284.3\n920.1\n910.9\n870.5\n825.9\n767.9\n691.5\n91.0\n95.7\n97.0\n94.4\n91.8\n89.1\n86.4\n83.6\n8.1\n-0.2\n-1.0\n-1.8\n-1.1\nOil\n12.4\n11.6\n2.4\n2.2\n2.0\n1.8\n1.5\n1.2\n8.5\n3.9\n0.3\n0.2\n0.2\n0.2\n0.2\n0.1\n-6.4\n-1.3\n-2.4\n-3.8\n-2.7\nNatural gas\n0.6\n1.3\n26.1\n51.3\n75.6\n99.0\n119.7\n134.9\n0.4\n0.4\n2.7\n5.3\n8.0\n10.7\n13.5\n16.3\n16.2\n14.5\n6.8\n3.1\n6.8\nMt-C\nShare, %\nAAGR (%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nTotal\n637.8\n862.8\n2,545.4 2,634.5 2,611.5\n2,557.3 2,449.2 2,297.9\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n5.7\n0.7\n-0.3\n-1.1\n-0.4\nCoal\n549.0\n700.9\n2,080.5 2,037.6\n1,933.0\n1,822.2\n1,682.4\n1,513.6\n86.1\n81.2\n81.7\n77.3\n74.0\n71.3\n68.7\n65.9\n5.5\n-0.4\n-1.1\n-1.8\n-1.3\nOil\n83.5\n151.7\n369.7\n457.3\n500.0\n520.7\n521.5\n513.9\n13.1\n17.6\n14.5\n17.4\n19.1\n20.4\n21.3\n22.4\n6.1\n4.3\n1.3\n-0.1\n1.3\nNatural gas\n5.3\n10.2\n95.2\n139.6\n178.5\n214.4\n245.3\n270.4\n0.8\n1.2\n3.7\n5.3\n6.8\n8.4\n10.0\n11.8\n12.3\n7.9\n4.4\n2.3\n4.3\n%\nAAGR (%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nTotal\n29.4\n32.2\n38.7\n39.8\n41.0\n42.2\n43.3\n44.5\n1.1\n0.6\n0.6\n0.5\n0.6\nCoal\n28.8\n32.1\n38.4\n39.3\n40.3\n41.2\n42.2\n43.1\n1.2\n0.5\n0.5\n0.4\n0.5\nOil\n35.0\n35.0\n35.0\n35.4\n35.8\n36.2\n36.6\n37.0\n0.0\n0.2\n0.2\n0.2\n0.2\nNatural gas\n39.0\n39.0\n47.9\n48.7\n49.4\n50.1\n50.8\n51.5\n0.8\n0.3\n0.3\n0.3\n0.3\nMtoe\nShare, %\nAAGR (%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nTotal\n654.3\n781.2\n1,905.7 2,097.3 2,201.3 2,278.4 2,318.8 2,334.7\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n4.4\n1.9\n0.8\n0.2\n0.8\nIndustry\n233.9\n299.0\n966.1\n977.9\n970.2\n959.4\n938.7\n906.0\n35.7\n38.3\n50.7\n46.6\n44.1\n42.1\n40.5\n38.8\n5.8\n0.2\n-0.2\n-0.6\n-0.3\nTransportation\n33.5\n87.3\n298.6\n398.3\n455.8\n488.2\n501.5\n509.6\n5.1\n11.2\n15.7\n19.0\n20.7\n21.4\n21.6\n21.8\n9.2\n5.9\n2.1\n0.4\n2.2\nOthers\n344.1\n334.7\n483.2\n541.0\n577.8\n613.6\n645.0\n666.2\n52.6\n42.8\n25.4\n25.8\n26.2\n26.9\n27.8\n28.5\n1.4\n2.3\n1.3\n0.8\n1.3\nNon-energy\n42.9\n60.2\n157.7\n180.2\n197.5\n217.1\n233.7\n253.0\n6.6\n7.7\n8.3\n8.6\n9.0\n9.5\n10.1\n10.8\n5.3\n2.7\n1.9\n1.5\n1.9\nTotal\n654.3\n781.2\n1,905.7 2,097.3 2,201.3 2,278.4 2,318.8 2,334.7\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n4.4\n1.9\n0.8\n0.2\n0.8\nCoal\n308.2\n274.5\n700.8\n687.2\n660.0\n631.2\n593.1\n548.0\n47.1\n35.1\n36.8\n32.8\n30.0\n27.7\n25.6\n23.5\n3.3\n-0.4\n-0.8\n-1.4\n-1.0\nOil\n84.6\n180.4\n480.4\n589.4\n648.7\n681.5\n691.3\n693.6\n12.9\n23.1\n25.2\n28.1\n29.5\n29.9\n29.8\n29.7\n7.2\n4.2\n1.5\n0.2\n1.5\nNatural gas\n8.9\n12.4\n105.4\n140.2\n169.1\n195.0\n217.4\n237.5\n1.4\n1.6\n5.5\n6.7\n7.7\n8.6\n9.4\n10.2\n10.4\n5.9\n3.4\n2.0\n3.3\nElectricity\n39.0\n89.1\n419.4\n486.4\n538.1\n588.4\n634.3\n669.8\n6.0\n11.4\n22.0\n23.2\n24.4\n25.8\n27.4\n28.7\n10.0\n3.0\n1.9\n1.3\n1.9\nHeat\n13.2\n25.5\n83.3\n88.0\n91.4\n94.5\n96.5\n97.1\n2.0\n3.3\n4.4\n4.2\n4.2\n4.1\n4.2\n4.2\n7.6\n1.1\n0.7\n0.3\n0.6\nOthers\n200.4\n199.3\n116.4\n106.1\n94.0\n87.7\n86.1\n88.6\n30.6\n25.5\n6.1\n5.1\n4.3\n3.9\n3.7\n3.8\n-2.2\n-1.8\n-1.9\n0.1\n-1.1\nPrimary energy consumption\nPower generation output\nPower generation input\nCO2 Emissions \nEnergy and economic indicators\nThermal efficiency\nFinal energy demand\nChina (APS)\n\n\n360\nENERGY OUTLOOK AND ENERGY SAVING POTENTIAL IN EAST ASIA 2019\nAAGR(%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nGDP (billions of 2010 US dollars)\n470\n809\n2,288\n3,282\n4,710\n6,425\n8,655\n11,486\n6.5\n7.5\n6.9\n6.0\n6.7\nPopulation (millions of people)\n871\n1,053\n1,311\n1,385\n1,454\n1,515\n1,567\n1,608\n1.7\n1.1\n0.9\n0.6\n0.8\nGDP per capita (thousands of 2010 US$/person)\n 0.54 \n 0.77 \n 1.75 \n 2.37 \n 3.2 \n 4.2 \n 5.5 \n 7.1 \n4.8\n6.3\n6.0\n5.4\n5.8\nPrimary energy consumption per capita (toe/person)\n 0.35 \n 0.42 \n 0.65 \n 0.77 \n 0.92 \n 1.07 \n 1.24 \n 1.44 \n2.5\n3.5\n3.3\n3.0\n3.2\nPrimary energy consumption per unit of GDP (toe/million \n2010 US dollars)\n 651 \n 545 \n 372 \n 326 \n 284 \n 253 \n 225 \n 201 \n-2.2\n-2.6\n-2.5\n-2.2\n-2.4\nFinal energy consumption per unit of GDP (toe/million 2010 \nUS dollars)\n 517 \n 390 \n 252 \n 219 \n 190 \n 168 \n 150 \n 136 \n-2.8\n-2.8\n-2.6\n-2.1\n-2.4\nCO2 emissions per unit of GDP (t-C/million 2010 US dollars)\n 315 \n 303 \n 251 \n 229 \n 209 \n 195 \n 179 \n 165 \n-0.9\n-1.8\n-1.6\n-1.7\n-1.7\nCO2 emissions per unit of primary energy consumption \n(t-C/toe)\n 0.48 \n 0.56 \n 0.68 \n 0.70 \n 0.74 \n 0.77 \n 0.80 \n 0.82 \n1.3\n0.8\n0.9\n0.6\n0.8\nAutomobile ownership volume (millions of vehicles)\n 4 \n 9 \n 42 \n 60 \n 91 \n 131 \n 192 \n 284 \n9.5\n7.5\n8.1\n8.0\n8.0\nAutomobile ownership volume per capita (vehicles per \nperson)\n 0.005 \n 0.009 \n 0.032 \n 0.043 \n 0.062 \n 0.086 \n 0.122 \n 0.176 \n7.7\n6.4\n7.1\n7.4\n7.1\nMtoe\nShare, %\nAAGR (%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nTotal\n305.7\n440.9\n851.1\n1,068.7 1,335.8 1,623.6 1,944.1 2,312.46\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n4.2\n4.7\n4.3\n3.6\n4.1\nCoal\n92.7\n145.9\n378.9\n505.6\n675.2\n864.8\n1,070.0 1,290.0\n30.3\n33.1\n44.5\n47.3\n50.5\n53.3\n55.0\n55.8\n5.8\n5.9\n5.5\n4.1\n5.0\nOil\n61.1\n112.0\n206.2\n254.7\n316.5\n386.2\n474.1\n592.1\n20.0\n25.4\n24.2\n23.8\n23.7\n23.8\n24.4\n25.6\n5.0\n4.3\n4.3\n4.4\n4.3\nNatural gas\n10.6\n23.1\n43.2\n60.7\n83.0\n108.8\n139.4\n175.6\n3.5\n5.2\n5.1\n5.7\n6.2\n6.7\n7.2\n7.6\n5.8\n7.0\n6.0\n4.9\n5.8\nNuclear\n1.6\n4.4\n9.8\n17.5\n25.8\n34.7\n41.6\n48.6\n0.5\n1.0\n1.1\n1.6\n1.9\n2.1\n2.1\n2.1\n7.5\n12.4\n7.1\n3.4\n6.6\nHydro\n6.2\n6.4\n11.9\n16.0\n18.9\n21.8\n24.7\n27.5\n2.0\n1.5\n1.4\n1.5\n1.4\n1.3\n1.3\n1.2\n2.7\n6.2\n3.1\n2.4\n3.4\nGeothermal\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\nOthers\n133.6\n149.1\n201.2\n214.2\n216.5\n207.4\n194.3\n178.6\n43.7\n33.8\n23.6\n20.0\n16.2\n12.8\n10.0\n7.7\n1.7\n1.3\n-0.3\n-1.5\n-0.5\nBiomass\n133.5\n148.8\n195.5\n200.5\n195.5\n178.9\n158.2\n134.9\n43.7\n33.7\n23.0\n18.8\n14.6\n11.0\n8.1\n5.8\n1.5\n0.5\n-1.1\n-2.8\n-1.5\nSolar, Wind, \nOcean\n0.0\n0.2\n4.8\n12.5\n19.7\n27.1\n34.6\n42.1\n0.0\n0.0\n0.6\n1.2\n1.5\n1.7\n1.8\n1.8\n27.8\n21.0\n8.0\n4.5\n9.1\nBiofuels\n0.0\n0.1\n0.82\n0.8\n0.8\n0.9\n1.0\n1.1\n0.0\n0.0\n0.1\n0.1\n0.1\n0.1\n0.1\n0.0\n-\n-1.3\n1.9\n2.2\n1.4\nElectricity\n0.1\n0.1\n0.0\n0.4\n0.4\n0.4\n0.4\n0.4\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n-10.2\n121.5\n0.0\n0.0\n17.2\nTWh\nShare, %\nAAGR (%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nTotal\n292.7\n569.7\n1,383.0 1,926.1 2,548.9 3,255.4 4,003.6 4,809.0\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n6.4\n6.8\n5.4\n4.0\n5.1\nCoal\n191.6\n390.2\n1,041.5\n1,400.9\n1,854.6\n2,388.5\n2,972.4 3,598.9\n65.5\n68.5\n75.3\n72.7\n72.8\n73.4\n74.2\n74.8\n7.0\n6.1\n5.5\n4.2\n5.1\nOil\n13.3\n29.2\n23.0\n23.4\n20.9\n13.9\n1.4\n0.0\n4.5\n5.1\n1.7\n1.2\n0.8\n0.4\n0.0\n0.0\n2.2\n0.4\n-5.1\n-44.6\n-22.6\nNatural gas\n10.0\n56.0\n68.1\n91.1\n120.0\n153.7\n190.2\n230.2\n3.4\n9.8\n4.9\n4.7\n4.7\n4.7\n4.8\n4.8\n8.0\n6.0\n5.4\n4.1\n5.0\nNuclear\n6.1\n16.9\n37.4\n67.1\n99.0\n133.1\n159.7\n186.3\n2.1\n3.0\n2.7\n3.5\n3.9\n4.1\n4.0\n3.9\n7.5\n12.4\n7.1\n3.4\n6.6\nHydro\n71.7\n74.5\n138.1\n186.4\n219.8\n253.3\n286.7\n320.2\n24.5\n13.1\n10.0\n9.7\n8.6\n7.8\n7.2\n6.7\n2.7\n6.2\n3.1\n2.4\n3.4\nGeothermal\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\nOthers\n0.0\n3.0\n75.0\n157.2\n234.6\n312.9\n393.1\n473.4\n0.0\n0.5\n5.4\n8.2\n9.2\n9.6\n9.8\n9.8\n36.4\n16.0\n7.1\n4.2\n7.6\nMtoe\nShare, %\nAAGR (%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nTotal\n56.8\n121.4\n275.5\n357.4\n458.6\n576.7\n700.5\n832.5\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n6.5\n5.3\n4.9\n3.7\n4.5\nCoal\n48.4\n103.2\n254.0\n331.7\n427.9\n541.7\n662.5\n787.5\n85.1\n85.0\n92.2\n92.8\n93.3\n93.9\n94.6\n94.6\n6.9\n5.5\n5.0\n3.8\n4.6\nOil\n5.0\n9.0\n7.8\n7.5\n6.6\n4.4\n0.5\n0.0\n8.8\n7.4\n2.8\n2.1\n1.4\n0.8\n0.1\n0.0\n1.8\n-0.8\n-5.2\n-44.6\n-22.9\nNatural gas\n3.5\n9.3\n13.6\n18.2\n24.0\n30.6\n37.6\n45.0\n6.1\n7.6\n4.9\n5.1\n5.2\n5.3\n5.4\n5.4\n5.6\n6.0\n5.3\n3.9\n4.9\nMt-C\nShare, %\nAAGR (%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nTotal\n147.9\n245.2\n574.7\n751.7\n986.8\n1,252.2\n1,551.1\n1,893.6\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n5.6\n5.5\n5.2\n4.2\n4.9\nCoal\n100.1\n157.6\n409.2\n546.0\n729.2\n934.0\n1,155.6\n1,393.2\n67.7\n64.3\n71.2\n72.6\n73.9\n74.6\n74.5\n73.6\n5.8\n5.9\n5.5\n4.1\n5.0\nOil\n44.2\n77.7\n150.8\n185.4\n230.2\n282.1\n349.0\n441.2\n29.9\n31.7\n26.2\n24.7\n23.3\n22.5\n22.5\n23.3\n5.0\n4.2\n4.3\n4.6\n4.4\nNatural gas\n3.6\n9.9\n14.6\n20.3\n27.5\n36.1\n46.5\n59.3\n2.4\n4.0\n2.5\n2.7\n2.8\n2.9\n3.0\n3.1\n5.8\n6.7\n5.9\n5.1\n5.8\n%\nAAGR (%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nTotal\n32.5\n33.7\n35.4\n36.5\n37.4\n38.1\n38.8\n39.6\n0.3\n0.6\n0.4\n0.4\n0.4\nCoal\n34.1\n32.5\n35.3\n36.3\n37.3\n37.9\n38.6\n39.3\n0.1\n0.6\n0.4\n0.4\n0.4\nOil\n22.8\n28.0\n25.2\n26.8\n27.1\n27.3\n27.5\n27.7\n0.4\n1.2\n0.2\n0.2\n0.4\nNatural gas\n24.7\n52.0\n43.0\n43.0\n43.0\n43.1\n43.5\n44.0\n2.2\n0.0\n0.0\n0.2\n0.1\nMtoe\nShare, %\nAAGR (%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nTotal\n243.2\n315.3\n577.7\n719.8\n896.2\n1,081.9 1,299.5 1,560.4\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n3.5\n4.5\n4.2\n3.7\n4.1\nIndustry\n66.7\n83.4\n195.3\n260.3\n341.9\n432.8\n542.6\n673.0\n27.4\n26.5\n33.8\n36.2\n38.1\n40.0\n41.8\n43.1\n4.4\n5.9\n5.2\n4.5\n5.1\nTransportation\n20.8\n31.9\n86.0\n109.9\n139.8\n176.7\n227.6\n297.4\n8.6\n10.1\n14.9\n15.3\n15.6\n16.3\n17.5\n19.1\n5.8\n5.0\n4.9\n5.3\n5.1\nOthers\n142.3\n173.2\n249.9\n287.3\n332.8\n370.8\n405.2\n441.6\n58.5\n54.9\n43.3\n39.9\n37.1\n34.3\n31.2\n28.3\n2.3\n2.8\n2.6\n1.8\n2.3\nNon-energy\n13.3\n26.8\n46.5\n62.3\n81.7\n101.7\n124.1\n148.4\n5.5\n8.5\n8.0\n8.7\n9.1\n9.4\n9.5\n9.5\n5.1\n6.0\n5.0\n3.8\n4.8\nTotal\n243.2\n315.3\n577.7\n719.8\n896.2\n1,081.9 1,299.5 1,560.4\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n3.5\n4.5\n4.2\n3.7\n4.1\nCoal\n38.6\n34.5\n108.2\n151.0\n215.0\n281.3\n355.0\n438.3\n15.9\n10.9\n18.7\n21.0\n24.0\n26.0\n27.3\n28.1\n4.2\n6.9\n6.4\n4.5\n5.8\nOil\n50.2\n94.4\n174.4\n219.9\n278.5\n345.9\n431.9\n542.5\n20.6\n29.9\n30.2\n30.6\n31.1\n32.0\n33.2\n34.8\n5.1\n4.7\n4.6\n4.6\n4.6\nNatural gas\n5.6\n9.7\n28.9\n41.6\n57.7\n76.4\n99.6\n127.7\n2.3\n3.1\n5.0\n5.8\n6.4\n7.1\n7.7\n8.2\n6.8\n7.5\n6.3\n5.3\n6.1\nElectricity\n18.5\n32.4\n88.3\n124.0\n165.7\n215.1\n269.9\n331.3\n7.6\n10.3\n15.3\n17.2\n18.5\n19.9\n20.8\n21.2\n6.5\n7.0\n5.7\n4.4\n5.4\nHeat\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\nOthers\n130.3\n144.4\n177.8\n183.4\n179.2\n163.3\n143.2\n120.5\n53.6\n45.8\n30.8\n25.5\n20.0\n15.1\n11.0\n7.7\n1.3\n0.6\n-1.2\n-3.0\n-1.5\nPrimary energy consumption\nPower generation output\nPower generation input\nCO2 Emissions \nEnergy and economic indicators\nThermal efficiency\nFinal energy demand\nIndia (BAU)\n\n\n361\nResults Summary Tables\nAAGR(%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nGDP (billions of 2010 US dollars)\n470\n809\n2,288\n3,282\n4,710\n6,425\n8,655\n11,486\n6.5\n7.5\n6.9\n6.0\n6.7\nPopulation (millions of people)\n871\n1,053\n1,311\n1,385\n1,454\n1,515\n1,567\n1,608\n1.7\n1.1\n0.9\n0.6\n0.8\nGDP per capita (thousands of 2010 US$/person)\n 0.54 \n 0.77 \n 1.75 \n 2.37 \n 3.2 \n 4.2 \n 5.5 \n 7.1 \n4.8\n6.3\n6.0\n5.4\n5.8\nPrimary energy consumption per capita (toe/person)\n 0.35 \n 0.42 \n 0.65 \n 0.76 \n 0.88 \n 0.98 \n 1.10 \n 1.23 \n2.5\n3.2\n2.6\n2.2\n2.6\nPrimary energy consumption per unit of GDP (toe/million \n2010 US dollars)\n 651 \n 545 \n 372 \n 320 \n 271 \n 232 \n 199 \n 172 \n-2.2\n-2.9\n-3.2\n-3.0\n-3.0\nFinal energy consumption per unit of GDP (toe/million 2010 \nUS dollars)\n 517 \n 390 \n 252 \n 217 \n 185 \n 160 \n 139 \n 122 \n-2.8\n-3.0\n-3.0\n-2.7\n-2.9\nCO2 emissions per unit of GDP (t-C/million 2010 US dollars)\n 315 \n 303 \n 251 \n 223 \n 194 \n 171 \n 148 \n 130 \n-0.9\n-2.4\n-2.6\n-2.7\n-2.6\nCO2 emissions per unit of primary energy consumption \n(t-C/toe)\n 0.48 \n 0.56 \n 0.68 \n 0.69 \n 0.72 \n 0.73 \n 0.75 \n 0.75 \n1.3\n0.6\n0.6\n0.3\n0.4\nAutomobile ownership volume (millions of vehicles)\n 4 \n 9 \n 42 \n 60 \n 91 \n 131 \n 192 \n 284 \n9.5\n7.5\n8.1\n8.0\n8.0\nAutomobile ownership volume per capita (vehicles per \nperson)\n 0.005 \n 0.009 \n 0.032 \n 0.043 \n 0.062 \n 0.086 \n 0.122 \n 0.176 \n7.7\n6.4\n7.1\n7.4\n7.1\nMtoe\nShare, %\nAAGR (%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nTotal\n305.7\n440.9\n851.1\n1,051.8 1,276.6 1,492.4 1,718.2\n1,973.0\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n4.2\n4.3\n3.6\n2.8\n3.4\nCoal\n92.7\n145.9\n378.9\n489.1\n618.2\n741.2\n858.1\n981.6\n30.3\n33.1\n44.5\n46.5\n48.4\n49.7\n49.9\n49.7\n5.8\n5.2\n4.2\n2.8\n3.9\nOil\n61.1\n112.0\n206.2\n252.2\n307.8\n367.0\n437.6\n526.1\n20.0\n25.4\n24.2\n24.0\n24.1\n24.6\n25.5\n26.7\n5.0\n4.1\n3.8\n3.7\n3.8\nNatural gas\n10.6\n23.1\n43.2\n59.2\n78.3\n98.9\n122.4\n149.6\n3.5\n5.2\n5.1\n5.6\n6.1\n6.6\n7.1\n7.6\n5.8\n6.5\n5.3\n4.2\n5.1\nNuclear\n1.6\n4.4\n9.8\n17.5\n27.7\n41.6\n55.5\n69.4\n0.5\n1.0\n1.1\n1.7\n2.2\n2.8\n3.2\n3.5\n7.5\n12.4\n9.1\n5.2\n8.2\nHydro\n6.2\n6.4\n11.9\n16.9\n20.5\n24.1\n27.7\n31.3\n2.0\n1.5\n1.4\n1.6\n1.6\n1.6\n1.6\n1.6\n2.7\n7.3\n3.6\n2.6\n4.0\nGeothermal\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\nOthers\n133.6\n149.1\n201.2\n216.9\n224.0\n219.7\n217.0\n215.1\n43.7\n33.8\n23.6\n20.6\n17.6\n14.7\n12.6\n10.9\n1.7\n1.5\n0.1\n-0.2\n0.3\nBiomass\n133.5\n148.8\n195.5\n202.6\n197.6\n180.4\n159.5\n136.7\n43.7\n33.7\n23.0\n19.3\n15.5\n12.1\n9.3\n6.9\n1.5\n0.7\n-1.1\n-2.7\n-1.4\nSolar, Wind, \nOcean\n0.0\n0.2\n4.8\n12.7\n24.1\n35.5\n51.1\n66.8\n0.0\n0.0\n0.6\n1.2\n1.9\n2.4\n3.0\n3.4\n27.8\n21.3\n10.8\n6.5\n11.1\nBiofuels\n0.0\n0.1\n0.82\n1.2\n2.0\n3.3\n6.0\n11.1\n0.0\n0.0\n0.1\n0.1\n0.2\n0.2\n0.3\n0.6\n-\n8.1\n10.7\n12.8\n11.0\nElectricity\n0.1\n0.1\n0.0\n0.4\n0.4\n0.4\n0.4\n0.4\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n-10.2\n121.5\n0.0\n0.0\n17.2\nTWh\nShare, %\nAAGR (%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nTotal\n292.7\n569.7\n1,383.0 1,892.4 2,449.9 3,022.7\n3,619.7\n4,262.9\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n6.4\n6.5\n4.8\n3.5\n4.6\nCoal\n191.6\n390.2\n1,041.5\n1,352.3\n1,679.3\n2,012.1\n2,326.3\n2,674.4\n65.5\n68.5\n75.3\n71.5\n68.5\n66.6\n64.3\n62.7\n7.0\n5.4\n4.1\n2.9\n3.8\nOil\n13.3\n29.2\n23.0\n22.6\n18.9\n11.7\n1.1\n0.0\n4.5\n5.1\n1.7\n1.2\n0.8\n0.4\n0.0\n0.0\n2.2\n-0.3\n-6.3\n-45.2\n-23.5\nNatural gas\n10.0\n56.0\n68.1\n87.9\n108.6\n129.5\n148.9\n171.1\n3.4\n9.8\n4.9\n4.6\n4.4\n4.3\n4.1\n4.0\n8.0\n5.3\n3.9\n2.8\n3.8\nNuclear\n6.1\n16.9\n37.4\n67.1\n106.5\n159.7\n212.9\n266.2\n2.1\n3.0\n2.7\n3.5\n4.3\n5.3\n5.9\n6.2\n7.5\n12.4\n9.1\n5.2\n8.2\nHydro\n71.7\n74.5\n138.1\n196.4\n238.2\n280.1\n321.9\n363.7\n24.5\n13.1\n10.0\n10.4\n9.7\n9.3\n8.9\n8.5\n2.7\n7.3\n3.6\n2.6\n4.0\nGeothermal\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\nOthers\n0.0\n3.0\n75.0\n166.1\n298.5\n429.6\n608.6\n787.5\n0.0\n0.5\n5.4\n8.8\n12.2\n14.2\n16.8\n18.5\n36.4\n17.2\n10.0\n6.2\n9.9\nMtoe\nShare, %\nAAGR (%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nTotal\n56.8\n121.4\n275.5\n341.2\n404.8\n464.1\n514.0\n570.6\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n6.5\n4.4\n3.1\n2.1\n3.0\nCoal\n48.4\n103.2\n254.0\n317.0\n378.9\n437.6\n488.3\n542.4\n85.1\n85.0\n92.2\n92.9\n93.6\n94.3\n95.0\n95.1\n6.9\n4.5\n3.3\n2.2\n3.1\nOil\n5.0\n9.0\n7.8\n7.4\n6.0\n3.6\n0.3\n0.0\n8.8\n7.4\n2.8\n2.2\n1.5\n0.8\n0.1\n0.0\n1.8\n-1.1\n-7.1\n-45.6\n-24.1\nNatural gas\n3.5\n9.3\n13.6\n16.9\n20.0\n22.9\n25.4\n28.1\n6.1\n7.6\n4.9\n4.9\n4.9\n4.9\n4.9\n4.9\n5.6\n4.4\n3.1\n2.1\n2.9\nMt-C\nShare, %\nAAGR (%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nTotal\n147.9\n245.2\n574.7\n730.9\n915.0\n1,096.2 1,280.8 1,488.6\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n5.6\n4.9\n4.1\n3.1\n3.9\nCoal\n100.1\n157.6\n409.2\n528.2\n667.7\n800.4\n926.7\n1,060.1\n67.7\n64.3\n71.2\n72.3\n73.0\n73.0\n72.4\n71.2\n5.8\n5.2\n4.2\n2.8\n3.9\nOil\n44.2\n77.7\n150.8\n183.4\n222.9\n266.0\n318.4\n385.9\n29.9\n31.7\n26.2\n25.1\n24.4\n24.3\n24.9\n25.9\n5.0\n4.0\n3.8\n3.8\n3.8\nNatural gas\n3.6\n9.9\n14.6\n19.3\n24.4\n29.8\n35.6\n42.6\n2.4\n4.0\n2.5\n2.6\n2.7\n2.7\n2.8\n2.9\n5.8\n5.7\n4.4\n3.6\n4.4\n%\nAAGR (%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nTotal\n32.5\n33.7\n35.4\n36.9\n38.4\n39.9\n41.4\n42.9\n0.3\n0.8\n0.8\n0.7\n0.8\nCoal\n34.1\n32.5\n35.3\n36.7\n38.1\n39.5\n41.0\n42.4\n0.1\n0.8\n0.8\n0.7\n0.7\nOil\n22.8\n28.0\n25.2\n26.2\n27.3\n28.4\n29.4\n30.5\n0.4\n0.8\n0.8\n0.7\n0.8\nNatural gas\n24.7\n52.0\n43.0\n44.8\n46.7\n48.6\n50.4\n52.3\n2.2\n0.9\n0.8\n0.7\n0.8\nMtoe\nShare, %\nAAGR (%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nTotal\n243.2\n315.3\n577.7\n713.3\n872.9\n1,027.7 1,200.9 1,400.4\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n3.5\n4.3\n3.7\n3.1\n3.6\nIndustry\n66.7\n83.4\n195.3\n258.9\n334.0\n410.9\n496.9\n590.7\n27.4\n26.5\n33.8\n36.3\n38.3\n40.0\n41.4\n42.2\n4.4\n5.8\n4.7\n3.7\n4.5\nTransportation\n20.8\n31.9\n86.0\n108.4\n134.4\n164.5\n204.5\n257.4\n8.6\n10.1\n14.9\n15.2\n15.4\n16.0\n17.0\n18.4\n5.8\n4.7\n4.3\n4.6\n4.5\nOthers\n142.3\n173.2\n249.9\n283.8\n322.8\n350.6\n375.5\n403.9\n58.5\n54.9\n43.3\n39.8\n37.0\n34.1\n31.3\n28.8\n2.3\n2.6\n2.1\n1.4\n1.9\nNon-energy\n13.3\n26.8\n46.5\n62.3\n81.7\n101.7\n124.1\n148.4\n5.5\n8.5\n8.0\n8.7\n9.4\n9.9\n10.3\n10.6\n5.1\n6.0\n5.0\n3.8\n4.8\nTotal\n243.2\n315.3\n577.7\n713.3\n872.9\n1,027.7 1,200.9 1,400.4\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n3.5\n4.3\n3.7\n3.1\n3.6\nCoal\n38.6\n34.5\n108.2\n150.0\n209.9\n267.7\n327.7\n390.3\n15.9\n10.9\n18.7\n21.0\n24.0\n26.0\n27.3\n27.9\n4.2\n6.7\n6.0\n3.8\n5.3\nOil\n50.2\n94.4\n174.4\n217.8\n271.4\n329.3\n398.7\n482.1\n20.6\n29.9\n30.2\n30.5\n31.1\n32.0\n33.2\n34.4\n5.1\n4.6\n4.2\n3.9\n4.2\nNatural gas\n5.6\n9.7\n28.9\n41.5\n57.0\n74.4\n95.1\n119.0\n2.3\n3.1\n5.0\n5.8\n6.5\n7.2\n7.9\n8.5\n6.8\n7.5\n6.0\n4.8\n5.8\nElectricity\n18.5\n32.4\n88.3\n121.8\n159.3\n199.7\n244.0\n293.7\n7.6\n10.3\n15.3\n17.1\n18.3\n19.4\n20.3\n21.0\n6.5\n6.6\n5.1\n3.9\n4.9\nHeat\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\nOthers\n130.3\n144.4\n177.8\n182.3\n175.2\n156.6\n135.5\n115.3\n53.6\n45.8\n30.8\n25.6\n20.1\n15.2\n11.3\n8.2\n1.3\n0.5\n-1.5\n-3.0\n-1.7\nPrimary energy consumption\nPower generation output\nPower generation input\nCO2 Emissions \nEnergy and economic indicators\nThermal efficiency\nFinal energy demand\nIndia (APS)\n\n\n362\nENERGY OUTLOOK AND ENERGY SAVING POTENTIAL IN EAST ASIA 2019\nAAGR(%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nGDP (billions of 2010 US dollars)\n310\n453\n988\n1,300\n1,740\n2,328\n3,101\n4,052\n4.7\n5.6\n6.0\n5.7\n5.8\nPopulation (millions of people)\n179\n209\n258\n274\n287\n298\n307\n317\n1.5\n1.2\n0.9\n0.6\n0.8\nGDP per capita (thousands of 2010 US$/person)\n 1.7 \n 2.2 \n 3.8 \n 4.75 \n 6.1 \n 7.8 \n 10.1 \n 12.8 \n3.2\n4.4\n5.1\n5.0\n4.9\nPrimary energy consumption per capita (toe/person)\n 0.6 \n 0.7 \n 0.9 \n 1.23 \n 1.43 \n 1.61 \n 1.86 \n 2.12 \n1.9\n6.8\n2.7\n2.8\n3.5\nPrimary energy consumption per unit of GDP (toe/million \n2010 US dollars)\n 318 \n 341 \n 232 \n 260 \n 236 \n 206 \n 184 \n 166 \n-1.3\n2.3\n-2.3\n-2.1\n-1.3\nFinal energy consumption per unit of GDP (toe/million 2010 \nUS dollars)\n 258 \n 265 \n 165 \n 194 \n 176 \n 153 \n 133 \n 118 \n-1.8\n3.3\n-2.3\n-2.6\n-1.3\nCO2 emissions per unit of GDP (t-C/million 2010 US dollars)\n 132 \n 167 \n 123 \n 168 \n 157 \n 144 \n 127 \n 118 \n-0.3\n6.3\n-1.5\n-2.0\n-0.2\nCO2 emissions per unit of primary energy consumption \n(t-C/toe)\n 0.4 \n 0.5 \n 0.5 \n 0.65 \n 0.67 \n 0.70 \n 0.69 \n 0.71 \n1.0\n4.0\n0.8\n0.1\n1.2\nAutomobile ownership volume (millions of vehicles)\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\nAutomobile ownership volume per capita (vehicles per \nperson)\n - \n - \n - \n - \n - \n - \n - \n - \n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\nMtoe\nShare, %\nAAGR (%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nTotal\n98.62\n154.77\n229.46\n337.80\n410.03\n478.58\n571.54\n671.41\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n3.4\n8.0\n3.5\n3.4\n4.4\nCoal\n3.55\n12.01\n46.41\n84.65\n105.99\n141.89\n174.66\n217.96\n3.6\n7.8\n20.2\n25.1\n25.8\n29.6\n30.6\n32.5\n10.8\n12.8\n5.3\n4.4\n6.4\nOil\n33.35\n57.86\n67.70\n133.75\n168.40\n193.36\n210.79\n234.40\n33.8\n37.4\n29.5\n39.6\n41.1\n40.4\n36.9\n34.9\n2.9\n14.6\n3.8\n1.9\n5.1\nNatural gas\n15.80\n26.54\n40.23\n47.83\n55.72\n64.17\n82.73\n111.41\n16.0\n17.1\n17.5\n14.2\n13.6\n13.4\n14.5\n16.6\n3.8\n3.5\n3.0\n5.7\n4.2\nNuclear\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\nHydro\n0.49\n0.86\n1.18\n0.80\n1.64\n1.55\n2.08\n2.27\n0.5\n0.6\n0.5\n0.2\n0.4\n0.3\n0.4\n0.3\n3.6\n-7.5\n6.8\n3.9\n2.6\nGeothermal\n1.93\n8.37\n17.28\n9.46\n14.81\n13.66\n30.18\n32.97\n2.0\n5.4\n7.5\n2.8\n3.6\n2.9\n5.3\n4.9\n9.2\n-11.3\n3.7\n9.2\n2.6\nOthers\n43.50\n49.12\n56.66\n61.31\n63.46\n63.95\n71.10\n72.40\n44.1\n31.7\n24.7\n18.2\n15.5\n13.4\n12.4\n10.8\n1.1\n1.6\n0.4\n1.2\n1.0\nBiomass\n43.50\n49.12\n55.66\n55.45\n54.56\n53.81\n54.23\n54.60\n44.1\n31.7\n24.3\n16.4\n13.3\n11.2\n9.5\n8.1\n1.0\n-0.1\n-0.3\n0.1\n-0.1\nSolar, Wind, \nOcean\n-\n-\n0.00\n0.03\n0.05\n0.05\n0.19\n0.20\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n-\n67.8\n4.8\n14.5\n19.3\nBiofuels\n-\n-\n0.99\n5.75\n8.86\n10.09\n16.68\n17.59\n0.0\n0.0\n0.4\n1.7\n2.2\n2.1\n2.9\n2.6\n-\n42.0\n5.8\n5.7\n12.2\nElectricity\n-\n-\n0.00\n0.08\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n-\n133.8\n-100.0\n-\n-100.0\nTWh\nShare, %\nAAGR (%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nTotal\n32.67\n93.33\n233.33\n357.09\n454.25\n577.40\n752.99 968.73\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n8.2\n8.9\n4.9\n5.3\n5.9\nCoal\n9.77\n34.00\n130.51\n264.51\n334.19\n452.14\n558.28\n681.30\n29.9\n36.4\n55.9\n74.1\n73.6\n78.3\n74.1\n70.3\n10.9\n15.2\n5.5\n4.2\n6.8\nOil\n15.33\n18.34\n19.65\n13.04\n15.00\n12.69\n14.06\n15.36\n46.9\n19.7\n8.4\n3.7\n3.3\n2.2\n1.9\n1.6\n1.0\n-7.9\n-0.3\n1.9\n-1.0\nNatural gas\n0.73\n26.09\n58.89\n64.07\n76.46\n85.71\n134.19\n220.00\n2.2\n28.0\n25.2\n17.9\n16.8\n14.8\n17.8\n22.7\n19.2\n1.7\n3.0\n9.9\n5.4\nNuclear\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\nHydro\n5.71\n10.02\n13.74\n9.29\n19.09\n17.99\n24.17\n26.41\n17.5\n10.7\n5.9\n2.6\n4.2\n3.1\n3.2\n2.7\n3.6\n-7.5\n6.8\n3.9\n2.6\nGeothermal\n1.13\n4.87\n10.05\n5.50\n8.61\n7.95\n17.55\n19.18\n3.4\n5.2\n4.3\n1.5\n1.9\n1.4\n2.3\n2.0\n9.2\n-11.3\n3.7\n9.2\n2.6\nOthers\n0.00\n0.01\n0.49\n0.68\n0.90\n0.92\n4.74\n6.48\n0.0\n0.0\n0.2\n0.2\n0.2\n0.2\n0.6\n0.7\n-\n6.9\n3.0\n21.6\n10.9\nMtoe\nShare, %\nAAGR (%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nTotal\n6.50\n17.00\n55.68\n89.07\n109.51\n140.06\n174.02\n223.95\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n9.0\n9.8\n4.6\n4.8\n5.7\nCoal\n2.32\n6.90\n36.81\n71.09\n88.43\n117.83\n141.21\n172.33\n35.7\n40.6\n66.1\n79.8\n80.8\n84.1\n81.1\n77.0\n11.7\n14.1\n5.2\n3.9\n6.4\nOil\n3.97\n4.45\n5.53\n3.67\n4.22\n3.57\n3.95\n4.32\n61.0\n26.2\n9.9\n4.1\n3.9\n2.5\n2.3\n1.9\n1.3\n-7.9\n-0.3\n1.9\n-1.0\nNatural gas\n0.21\n5.65\n13.35\n14.31\n16.86\n18.66\n28.85\n47.30\n3.2\n33.2\n24.0\n16.1\n15.4\n13.3\n16.6\n21.1\n18.1\n1.4\n2.7\n9.7\n5.2\nMt-C\nShare, %\nAAGR (%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nTotal\n40.9\n75.8\n122.0\n218.0\n273.1\n335.8\n394.8\n476.2\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n4.5\n12.3\n4.4\n3.6\n5.6\nCoal\n8.4\n15.1\n49.4\n90.1\n112.8\n151.0\n185.8\n231.9\n20.5\n19.9\n40.5\n41.3\n41.3\n45.0\n47.1\n48.7\n7.4\n12.8\n5.3\n4.4\n6.4\nOil\n27.2\n46.1\n23.9\n28.5\n32.9\n37.4\n48.0\n64.7\n66.6\n60.9\n19.6\n13.1\n12.0\n11.1\n12.2\n13.6\n-0.5\n3.6\n2.8\n5.6\n4.1\nNatural gas\n5.3\n14.6\n48.7\n99.4\n127.5\n147.4\n161.0\n179.5\n12.9\n19.2\n40.0\n45.6\n46.7\n43.9\n40.8\n37.7\n9.3\n15.3\n4.0\n2.0\n5.4\n%\nAAGR (%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nTotal\n34.2\n39.7\n32.3\n33.0\n33.4\n33.8\n34.9\n35.2\n-0.2\n0.4\n0.2\n0.4\n0.3\nCoal\n36.1\n42.4\n30.5\n32.0\n32.5\n33.0\n34.0\n34.0\n-0.7\n1.0\n0.3\n0.3\n0.4\nOil\n33.2\n35.4\n30.6\n30.6\n30.6\n30.6\n30.6\n30.6\n-0.3\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\nNatural gas\n30.1\n39.7\n37.9\n38.5\n39.0\n39.5\n40.0\n40.0\n0.9\n0.3\n0.3\n0.1\n0.2\nMtoe\nShare, %\nAAGR (%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nTotal\n79.817 120.322 162.772 252.265 306.720 357.205 412.712 476.771\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n2.9\n9.2\n3.5\n2.9\n4.4\nIndustry\n18.09\n30.65\n41.55\n59.09\n72.52\n91.63\n117.66\n150.60\n22.7\n25.5\n25.5\n23.4\n23.6\n25.7\n28.5\n31.6\n3.4\n7.3\n4.5\n5.1\n5.3\nTransportation\n10.71\n21.87\n44.17\n108.87\n142.28\n163.50\n179.54\n194.09\n13.4\n18.2\n27.1\n43.2\n46.4\n45.8\n43.5\n40.7\n5.8\n19.8\n4.2\n1.7\n6.1\nOthers\n43.66\n58.01\n69.86\n75.88\n81.44\n88.85\n98.67\n110.80\n54.7\n48.2\n42.9\n30.1\n26.6\n24.9\n23.9\n23.2\n1.9\n1.7\n1.6\n2.2\n1.9\nNon-energy\n7.35\n9.80\n7.19\n8.43\n10.48\n13.23\n16.84\n21.28\n9.2\n8.1\n4.4\n3.3\n3.4\n3.7\n4.1\n4.5\n-0.1\n3.2\n4.6\n4.9\n4.4\nTotal\n79.82\n120.32\n162.77\n252.27\n306.72\n357.21\n412.71\n476.77\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n2.9\n9.2\n3.5\n2.9\n4.4\nCoal\n2.13\n4.65\n9.60\n13.56\n17.56\n24.06\n33.45\n45.63\n2.7\n3.9\n5.9\n5.4\n5.7\n6.7\n8.1\n9.6\n6.2\n7.1\n5.9\n6.6\n6.4\nOil\n27.24\n49.01\n56.19\n119.97\n153.99\n179.60\n196.64\n219.88\n34.1\n40.7\n34.5\n47.6\n50.2\n50.3\n47.6\n46.1\n2.9\n16.4\n4.1\n2.0\n5.6\nNatural gas\n6.02\n11.55\n24.24\n31.31\n37.20\n44.41\n53.34\n64.13\n7.5\n9.6\n14.9\n12.4\n12.1\n12.4\n12.9\n13.5\n5.7\n5.2\n3.6\n3.7\n4.0\nElectricity\n2.43\n6.81\n17.22\n27.26\n35.55\n46.18\n60.22\n77.48\n3.0\n5.7\n10.6\n10.8\n11.6\n12.9\n14.6\n16.3\n8.1\n9.6\n5.4\n5.3\n6.2\nHeat\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\nOthers\n41.99\n48.31\n55.52\n60.18\n62.42\n62.96\n69.06\n69.65\n52.6\n40.1\n34.1\n23.9\n20.4\n17.6\n16.7\n14.6\n1.1\n1.6\n0.5\n1.0\n0.9\nPrimary energy supply\nPower generation output\nPower generation input\nCO2 Emissions \nEnergy and economic indicators\nThermal efficiency\nFinal energy consumption\nIndonesia (BAU)\n\n\n363\nResults Summary Tables\nAAGR(%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nGDP (billions of 2010 US dollars)\n309.8\n453.4\n988.1\n1,300\n1,740\n2,328\n3,101\n4,052\n4.7\n5.6\n6.0\n5.7\n5.8\nPopulation (millions of people)\n178.6\n208.9\n258.2\n273.6\n287.0\n298.1\n307.5\n317.1\n1.5\n1.2\n0.9\n0.6\n0.8\nGDP per capita (thousands of 2010 US$/person)\n 1.7 \n 2.2 \n 3.8 \n 4.75 \n 6.1 \n 7.8 \n 10.1 \n 12.8 \n3.2\n4.4\n5.1\n5.0\n4.9\nPrimary energy consumption per capita (toe/person)\n 0.6 \n 0.7 \n 0.9 \n 1.10 \n 1.26 \n 1.41 \n 1.62 \n 1.79 \n1.9\n4.4\n2.5\n2.4\n2.8\nPrimary energy consumption per unit of GDP (toe/million \n2010 US dollars)\n 318 \n 341 \n 232 \n 232 \n 208 \n 181 \n 161 \n 140 \n-1.3\n0.0\n-2.5\n-2.5\n-2.0\nFinal energy consumption per unit of GDP (toe/million 2010 \nUS dollars)\n 258 \n 265 \n 165 \n 170 \n 148 \n 124 \n 108 \n 96 \n-1.8\n0.6\n-3.1\n-2.6\n-2.1\nCO2 emissions per unit of GDP (t-C/million 2010 US dollars)\n 132 \n 167 \n 123 \n 124 \n 108 \n 93 \n 80 \n 75 \n-0.3\n0.1\n-2.9\n-2.1\n-2.0\nCO2 emissions per unit of primary energy consumption \n(t-C/toe)\n 0.4 \n 0.5 \n 0.5 \n 0.53 \n 0.52 \n 0.51 \n 0.50 \n 0.54 \n1.0\n0.1\n-0.4\n0.5\n0.0\nAutomobile ownership volume (millions of vehicles)\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\nAutomobile ownership volume per capita (vehicles per \nperson)\n - \n - \n - \n - \n - \n - \n - \n - \n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\nMtoe\nShare, %\nAAGR (%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nTotal\n99\n155\n229\n302\n362\n421\n500\n567\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n3.4\n5.6\n3.4\n3.0\n3.7\nCoal\n4\n12\n46.41\n46.17\n52.91\n66.86\n82.27\n107.09\n3.6\n7.8\n20.2\n15.3\n14.6\n15.9\n16.5\n18.9\n10.8\n-0.1\n3.8\n4.8\n3.4\nOil\n33\n58\n67.70\n116.15\n137.96\n150.54\n164.04\n183.88\n33.8\n37.4\n29.5\n38.5\n38.1\n35.7\n32.8\n32.4\n2.9\n11.4\n2.6\n2.0\n4.1\nNatural gas\n16\n27\n40.23\n46.00\n51.48\n56.95\n69.30\n93.70\n16.0\n17.1\n17.5\n15.2\n14.2\n13.5\n13.9\n16.5\n3.8\n2.7\n2.2\n5.1\n3.4\nNuclear\n0\n0\n0.00\n0.00\n2.44\n2.46\n4.42\n4.92\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.7\n0.6\n0.9\n0.9\n-\n-\n-\n7.2\n-\nHydro\n0\n1\n1.18\n2.07\n3.12\n4.35\n5.42\n6.04\n0.5\n0.6\n0.5\n0.7\n0.9\n1.0\n1.1\n1.1\n3.6\n11.9\n7.7\n3.3\n6.7\nGeothermal\n2\n8\n17.28\n29.25\n47.31\n70.27\n83.23\n77.29\n2.0\n5.4\n7.5\n9.7\n13.1\n16.7\n16.7\n13.6\n9.2\n11.1\n9.2\n1.0\n6.2\nOthers\n43\n49\n56.66\n62.23\n66.56\n69.79\n90.90\n94.36\n44.1\n31.7\n24.7\n20.6\n18.4\n16.6\n18.2\n16.6\n1.1\n1.9\n1.2\n3.1\n2.1\nBiomass\n43\n49\n55.66\n57.45\n59.75\n62.42\n78.33\n81.06\n44.1\n31.7\n24.3\n19.0\n16.5\n14.8\n15.7\n14.3\n1.0\n0.6\n0.8\n2.6\n1.5\nSolar, Wind, \nOcean\n-\n-\n0.00\n0.10\n0.17\n0.32\n0.89\n0.98\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.1\n0.2\n0.2\n-\n112.3\n11.9\n12.0\n27.2\nBiofuels\n-\n-\n0.99\n4.60\n6.64\n7.06\n11.68\n12.32\n0.0\n0.0\n0.4\n1.5\n1.8\n1.7\n2.3\n2.2\n-\n35.8\n4.4\n5.7\n10.6\nElectricity\n-\n-\n0.00\n0.08\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n-\n133.8\n-100.0\n-\n-100.0\nTWh\nShare, %\nAAGR (%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nTotal\n32.67\n93.33\n233.33\n310.96\n384.26\n472.61\n616.11\n792.47\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n8.2\n5.9\n4.3\n5.3\n5.0\nCoal\n9.77\n34.00\n130.51\n152.90\n178.48\n226.65\n270.64\n344.12\n29.9\n36.4\n55.9\n49.2\n46.4\n48.0\n43.9\n43.4\n10.9\n3.2\n4.0\n4.3\n4.0\nOil\n15.33\n18.34\n19.65\n25.44\n26.41\n24.69\n22.18\n24.71\n46.9\n19.7\n8.4\n8.2\n6.9\n5.2\n3.6\n3.1\n1.0\n5.3\n-0.3\n0.0\n0.9\nNatural gas\n0.73\n26.09\n58.89\n83.37\n89.74\n94.31\n124.00\n210.71\n2.2\n28.0\n25.2\n26.8\n23.4\n20.0\n20.1\n26.6\n19.2\n7.2\n1.2\n8.4\n5.2\nNuclear\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n9.38\n9.43\n16.94\n18.88\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n2.4\n2.0\n2.8\n2.4\n-\n-\n-\n7.2\n-\nHydro\n5.71\n10.02\n13.74\n24.06\n36.29\n50.52\n63.03\n70.24\n17.5\n10.7\n5.9\n7.7\n9.4\n10.7\n10.2\n8.9\n3.6\n11.9\n7.7\n3.3\n6.7\nGeothermal\n1.13\n4.87\n10.05\n17.01\n27.51\n40.87\n48.41\n44.95\n3.4\n5.2\n4.3\n5.5\n7.2\n8.6\n7.9\n5.7\n9.2\n11.1\n9.2\n1.0\n6.2\nOthers\n0.00\n0.01\n0.49\n8.18\n16.45\n26.14\n70.90\n78.84\n0.0\n0.0\n0.2\n2.6\n4.3\n5.5\n11.5\n9.9\n-\n75.7\n12.3\n11.7\n22.5\nMtoe\nShare, %\nAAGR (%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nTotal\n6.50\n17.00\n55.68\n57.34\n62.58\n71.38\n83.32\n114.19\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n9.0\n0.6\n2.2\n4.8\n2.9\nCoal\n2.32\n6.90\n36.81\n34.60\n38.37\n47.54\n55.42\n70.46\n35.7\n40.6\n66.1\n60.3\n61.3\n66.6\n66.5\n61.7\n11.7\n-1.2\n3.2\n4.0\n2.6\nOil\n3.97\n4.45\n5.53\n7.16\n7.43\n6.94\n6.24\n6.95\n61.0\n26.2\n9.9\n12.5\n11.9\n9.7\n7.5\n6.1\n1.3\n5.3\n-0.3\n0.0\n0.9\nNatural gas\n0.21\n5.65\n13.35\n15.59\n16.78\n16.90\n21.66\n36.78\n3.2\n33.2\n24.0\n27.2\n26.8\n23.7\n26.0\n32.2\n18.1\n3.1\n0.8\n8.1\n4.1\nMt-C\nShare, %\nAAGR (%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nTotal\n40.9\n75.8\n122.0\n161.1\n188.6\n215.7\n249.1\n304.8\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n4.5\n5.7\n3.0\n3.5\n3.7\nCoal\n8.4\n15.1\n49.4\n49.1\n56.3\n71.2\n87.6\n114.0\n20.5\n19.9\n40.5\n30.5\n29.9\n33.0\n35.2\n37.4\n7.4\n-0.1\n3.8\n4.8\n3.4\nOil\n27.2\n46.1\n23.9\n27.1\n29.9\n32.4\n39.0\n53.0\n66.6\n60.9\n19.6\n16.8\n15.8\n15.0\n15.7\n17.4\n-0.5\n2.5\n1.8\n5.0\n3.2\nNatural gas\n5.3\n14.6\n48.7\n85.0\n102.4\n112.2\n122.5\n137.8\n12.9\n19.2\n40.0\n52.7\n54.3\n52.0\n49.2\n45.2\n9.3\n11.8\n2.8\n2.1\n4.2\n%\nAAGR (%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nTotal\n34.2\n39.7\n32.3\n39.2\n40.5\n41.6\n43.0\n43.6\n-0.2\n4.0\n0.6\n0.5\n1.2\nCoal\n36.1\n42.4\n30.5\n38.0\n40.0\n41.0\n42.0\n42.0\n-0.7\n4.5\n0.8\n0.2\n1.3\nOil\n33.2\n35.4\n30.6\n30.6\n30.6\n30.6\n30.6\n30.6\n-0.3\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\nNatural gas\n30.1\n39.7\n37.9\n46.0\n46.0\n48.0\n49.2\n49.3\n0.9\n3.9\n0.4\n0.3\n1.1\nMtoe\nShare, %\nAAGR (%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nTotal\n80\n120\n163\n221\n257\n289\n334\n388\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n2.9\n6.3\n2.7\n3.0\n3.5\nIndustry\n18\n31\n41.55\n51.04\n61.04\n75.05\n96.35\n123.28\n22.7\n25.5\n25.5\n23.1\n23.7\n26.0\n28.8\n31.8\n3.4\n4.2\n3.9\n5.1\n4.4\nTransportation\n11\n22\n44.17\n88.36\n108.89\n117.93\n130.24\n141.79\n13.4\n18.2\n27.1\n40.0\n42.3\n40.8\n38.9\n36.6\n5.8\n14.9\n2.9\n1.9\n4.8\nOthers\n44\n58\n69.86\n72.84\n77.05\n82.60\n91.04\n101.49\n54.7\n48.2\n42.9\n33.0\n29.9\n28.6\n27.2\n26.2\n1.9\n0.8\n1.3\n2.1\n1.5\nNon-energy\n7\n10\n7.19\n8.43\n10.48\n13.23\n16.84\n21.28\n9.2\n8.1\n4.4\n3.8\n4.1\n4.6\n5.0\n5.5\n-0.1\n3.2\n4.6\n4.9\n4.4\nTotal\n80\n120\n163\n221\n257\n289\n334\n388\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n2.9\n6.3\n2.7\n3.0\n3.5\nCoal\n2.13\n4.65\n9.60\n11.56\n14.54\n19.32\n26.85\n36.63\n2.7\n3.9\n5.9\n5.2\n5.6\n6.7\n8.0\n9.4\n6.2\n3.8\n5.3\n6.6\n5.5\nOil\n27.24\n49.01\n56.19\n98.88\n120.34\n133.40\n147.60\n166.73\n34.1\n40.7\n34.5\n44.8\n46.7\n46.2\n44.1\n43.0\n2.9\n12.0\n3.0\n2.3\n4.4\nNatural gas\n6.02\n11.55\n24.24\n28.20\n33.04\n38.96\n47.10\n56.95\n7.5\n9.6\n14.9\n12.8\n12.8\n13.5\n14.1\n14.7\n5.7\n3.1\n3.3\n3.9\n3.5\nElectricity\n2.43\n6.81\n17.22\n23.87\n30.22\n38.08\n49.65\n63.86\n3.0\n5.7\n10.6\n10.8\n11.7\n13.2\n14.8\n16.5\n8.1\n6.7\n4.8\n5.3\n5.4\nHeat\n0.00\n0.00\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\nOthers\n41.99\n48.31\n55.52\n58.16\n59.32\n59.04\n63.27\n63.68\n52.6\n40.1\n34.1\n26.4\n23.0\n20.4\n18.9\n16.4\n1.1\n0.9\n0.1\n0.8\n0.5\nPrimary energy supply\nPower generation output\nPower generation input\nCO2 Emissions \nEnergy and economic indicators\nThermal efficiency\nFinal energy consumption\nIndonesia (APS)\n\n\n364\nENERGY OUTLOOK AND ENERGY SAVING POTENTIAL IN EAST ASIA 2019\nAAGR(%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nGDP (billions of 2010 US dollars)\n4,683\n5,349\n5,986\n6,222\n6,533\n6,948\n7,342\n7,705\n1.0\n0.8\n1.1\n1.0\n1.0\nPopulation (millions of people)\n124\n127\n127\n125\n123\n121\n118\n114\n0.1\n-0.2\n-0.4\n-0.5\n-0.4\nGDP per capita (thousands of 2010 US$/person)\n 37.91 \n 42.17 \n 47.15 \n 49.58 \n 53.0 \n 57.6 \n 62.5 \n 67.4 \n0.9\n1.0\n1.5\n1.6\n1.4\nPrimary energy consumption per capita (toe/person)\n 3.55 \n 4.08 \n 3.39 \n 3.51 \n 3.56 \n 3.59 \n 3.60 \n 3.62 \n-0.2\n0.7\n0.2\n0.1\n0.3\nPrimary energy consumption per unit of GDP (toe/million \n2010 US dollars)\n 94 \n 97 \n 72 \n 71 \n 67 \n 62 \n 58 \n 54 \n-1.1\n-0.3\n-1.3\n-1.5\n-1.2\nFinal energy consumption per unit of GDP (toe/million 2010 \nUS dollars)\n 61 \n 61 \n 49 \n 46 \n 43 \n 40 \n 37 \n 35 \n-0.9\n-1.0\n-1.4\n-1.5\n-1.4\nCO2 emissions per unit of GDP (t-C/million 2010 US dollars)\n 62 \n 61 \n 52 \n 48 \n 43 \n 40 \n 37 \n 34 \n-0.7\n-1.5\n-1.9\n-1.6\n-1.7\nCO2 emissions per unit of primary energy consumption \n(t-C/toe)\n 0.67 \n 0.63 \n 0.73 \n 0.68 \n 0.64 \n 0.64 \n 0.65 \n 0.64 \n0.4\n-1.2\n-0.6\n-0.1\n-0.5\nAutomobile ownership volume (millions of vehicles)\n 58 \n 72 \n 77 \n 77 \n 77 \n 76 \n 74 \n 72 \n1.2\n0.1\n-0.2\n-0.4\n-0.3\nAutomobile ownership volume per capita (vehicles per \nperson)\n 0.467 \n 0.571 \n 0.608 \n 0.617 \n 0.623 \n 0.627 \n 0.630 \n 0.633 \n1.1\n0.3\n0.2\n0.1\n0.2\nMtoe\nShare, %\nAAGR (%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nTotal\n438.6\n517.9\n429.8\n440.5\n439.6\n432.9\n423.7\n414.3\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n-0.1\n0.5\n-0.2\n-0.4\n-0.1\nCoal\n76.5\n97.2\n117.5\n116.2\n110.1\n111.8\n112.5\n110.4\n17.4\n18.8\n27.3\n26.4\n25.1\n25.8\n26.5\n26.6\n1.7\n-0.2\n-0.4\n-0.1\n-0.2\nOil\n250.3\n255.1\n184.9\n172.9\n160.6\n151.5\n142.0\n132.7\n57.1\n49.3\n43.0\n39.2\n36.5\n35.0\n33.5\n32.0\n-1.2\n-1.3\n-1.3\n-1.3\n-1.3\nNatural gas\n44.2\n65.7\n100.0\n98.8\n95.4\n98.4\n100.4\n99.9\n10.1\n12.7\n23.3\n22.4\n21.7\n22.7\n23.7\n24.1\n3.3\n-0.2\n0.0\n0.2\n0.0\nNuclear\n52.7\n83.9\n2.5\n25.2\n42.9\n37.9\n32.7\n32.7\n12.0\n16.2\n0.6\n5.7\n9.8\n8.8\n7.7\n7.9\n-11.5\n59.3\n4.1\n-1.5\n10.9\nHydro\n7.5\n7.3\n7.3\n7.3\n7.6\n7.9\n8.0\n8.1\n1.7\n1.4\n1.7\n1.7\n1.7\n1.8\n1.9\n2.0\n-0.1\n0.0\n0.7\n0.3\n0.4\nGeothermal\n1.6\n3.1\n2.4\n3.0\n4.2\n5.4\n6.4\n7.4\n0.4\n0.6\n0.6\n0.7\n1.0\n1.3\n1.5\n1.8\n1.7\n4.6\n6.2\n3.2\n4.6\nOthers\n5.9\n5.7\n15.3\n17.1\n18.7\n20.1\n21.7\n23.1\n1.3\n1.1\n3.5\n3.9\n4.3\n4.6\n5.1\n5.6\n3.9\n2.3\n1.6\n1.4\n1.7\nBiomass\n4.5\n4.7\n11.4\n11.9\n12.2\n12.4\n12.9\n13.3\n1.0\n0.9\n2.7\n2.7\n2.8\n2.9\n3.0\n3.2\n3.8\n0.9\n0.5\n0.6\n0.6\nSolar, Wind, \nOcean\n1.4\n0.9\n3.9\n4.8\n5.9\n6.9\n8.0\n9.0\n0.3\n0.2\n0.9\n1.1\n1.3\n1.6\n1.9\n2.2\n4.2\n4.7\n3.7\n2.7\n3.5\nBiofuels\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.4\n0.7\n0.7\n0.8\n0.8\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.1\n0.2\n0.2\n0.2\n0.2\n-100.0\n-\n6.0\n1.7\n-\nElectricity\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\nTWh\nShare, %\nAAGR (%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nTotal\n872.6\n1,088.1 1,035.3 1,087.5\n1,113.8\n1,135.9\n1,147.7\n1,151.7\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n0.7\n1.0\n0.4\n0.1\n0.4\nCoal\n117.7\n233.8\n343.2\n329.4\n310.1\n325.6\n337.4\n337.4\n13.5\n21.5\n33.2\n30.3\n27.8\n28.7\n29.4\n29.3\n4.4\n-0.8\n-0.1\n0.4\n-0.1\nOil\n283.7\n179.3\n102.5\n84.9\n67.6\n58.7\n48.4\n36.5\n32.5\n16.5\n9.9\n7.8\n6.1\n5.2\n4.2\n3.2\n-4.0\n-3.7\n-3.6\n-4.6\n-4.0\nNatural gas\n170.6\n253.6\n409.8\n390.7\n365.4\n381.3\n392.6\n390.4\n19.6\n23.3\n39.6\n35.9\n32.8\n33.6\n34.2\n33.9\n3.6\n-1.0\n-0.2\n0.2\n-0.2\nNuclear\n202.3\n322.0\n9.4\n96.9\n164.8\n145.4\n125.5\n125.5\n23.2\n29.6\n0.9\n8.9\n14.8\n12.8\n10.9\n10.9\n-11.5\n59.3\n4.1\n-1.5\n10.9\nHydro\n86.9\n85.2\n85.2\n85.0\n88.9\n91.5\n93.2\n94.2\n10.0\n7.8\n8.2\n7.8\n8.0\n8.1\n8.1\n8.2\n-0.1\n0.0\n0.7\n0.3\n0.4\nGeothermal\n1.7\n3.3\n2.6\n3.3\n4.7\n6.1\n7.3\n8.5\n0.2\n0.3\n0.2\n0.3\n0.4\n0.5\n0.6\n0.7\n1.6\n4.9\n6.4\n3.3\n4.9\nOthers\n9.6\n10.7\n82.5\n97.3\n112.4\n127.4\n143.4\n159.3\n1.1\n1.0\n8.0\n8.9\n10.1\n11.2\n12.5\n13.8\n9.0\n3.4\n2.7\n2.3\n2.7\nMtoe\nShare, %\nAAGR (%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nTotal\n117.9\n132.8\n161.6\n151.8\n138.3\n140.0\n140.5\n136.3\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n1.3\n-1.2\n-0.8\n-0.3\n-0.7\nCoal\n25.2\n48.5\n69.6\n66.0\n61.0\n62.7\n64.0\n63.0\n21.4\n36.5\n43.1\n43.5\n44.1\n44.8\n45.5\n46.2\n4.2\n-1.0\n-0.5\n0.0\n-0.4\nOil\n58.8\n35.9\n20.3\n17.5\n13.9\n11.9\n9.7\n7.2\n49.9\n27.0\n12.5\n11.5\n10.0\n8.5\n6.9\n5.3\n-4.2\n-2.9\n-3.8\n-4.9\n-4.1\nNatural gas\n33.9\n48.5\n71.8\n68.3\n63.4\n65.4\n66.9\n66.1\n28.7\n36.5\n44.4\n45.0\n45.9\n46.7\n47.6\n48.5\n3.0\n-1.0\n-0.4\n0.1\n-0.3\nMt-C\nShare, %\nAAGR (%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nTotal\n292.1\n325.9\n312.9\n301.3\n282.6\n278.9\n273.4\n263.3\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n0.3\n-0.8\n-0.8\n-0.6\n-0.7\nCoal\n82.0\n104.5\n126.5\n125.1\n118.5\n120.3\n121.1\n118.8\n28.1\n32.1\n40.4\n41.5\n41.9\n43.1\n44.3\n45.1\n1.7\n-0.2\n-0.4\n-0.1\n-0.3\nOil\n182.0\n179.4\n122.5\n113.0\n103.2\n95.8\n88.2\n80.8\n62.3\n55.0\n39.2\n37.5\n36.5\n34.3\n32.3\n30.7\n-1.6\n-1.6\n-1.6\n-1.7\n-1.7\nNatural gas\n28.1\n42.0\n63.9\n63.1\n60.9\n62.8\n64.1\n63.8\n9.6\n12.9\n20.4\n21.0\n21.6\n22.5\n23.5\n24.2\n3.3\n-0.2\n0.0\n0.1\n0.0\n%\nAAGR (%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nTotal\n41.7\n43.2\n45.5\n45.6\n46.2\n47.0\n47.6\n48.2\n0.3\n0.0\n0.3\n0.2\n0.2\nCoal\n40.2\n41.5\n42.4\n42.9\n43.7\n44.7\n45.4\n46.1\n0.2\n0.2\n0.4\n0.3\n0.3\nOil\n41.5\n42.9\n43.5\n41.7\n42.0\n42.4\n43.0\n43.7\n0.2\n-0.9\n0.2\n0.3\n0.0\nNatural gas\n43.3\n45.0\n49.1\n49.2\n49.5\n50.1\n50.5\n50.7\n0.5\n0.1\n0.2\n0.1\n0.1\nMtoe\nShare, %\nAAGR (%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nTotal\n287.0\n328.2\n291.4\n288.3\n283.2\n278.8\n272.9\n266.1\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n0.1\n-0.2\n-0.3\n-0.5\n-0.4\nIndustry\n109.6\n99.7\n82.1\n80.4\n80.3\n81.0\n81.0\n80.6\n38.2\n30.4\n28.2\n27.9\n28.4\n29.0\n29.7\n30.3\n-1.1\n-0.4\n0.1\n0.0\n-0.1\nTransportation\n68.1\n84.4\n71.3\n65.5\n60.8\n57.4\n54.4\n51.7\n23.7\n25.7\n24.5\n22.7\n21.5\n20.6\n19.9\n19.4\n0.2\n-1.7\n-1.3\n-1.0\n-1.3\nOthers\n75.7\n102.7\n98.8\n103.9\n104.0\n102.6\n100.0\n96.8\n26.4\n31.3\n33.9\n36.0\n36.7\n36.8\n36.6\n36.4\n1.1\n1.0\n-0.1\n-0.6\n-0.1\nNon-energy\n33.7\n41.4\n39.2\n38.5\n38.1\n37.8\n37.4\n36.9\n11.8\n12.6\n13.4\n13.4\n13.5\n13.6\n13.7\n13.9\n0.6\n-0.3\n-0.2\n-0.2\n-0.2\nTotal\n287.0\n328.2\n291.4\n288.3\n283.2\n278.8\n272.9\n266.1\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n0.1\n-0.2\n-0.3\n-0.5\n-0.4\nCoal\n30.5\n24.4\n23.6\n22.9\n22.6\n22.4\n21.9\n21.3\n10.6\n7.4\n8.1\n8.0\n8.0\n8.0\n8.0\n8.0\n-1.0\n-0.6\n-0.2\n-0.5\n-0.4\nOil\n170.7\n194.5\n152.3\n143.4\n135.1\n128.2\n121.3\n114.7\n59.5\n59.3\n52.3\n49.8\n47.7\n46.0\n44.4\n43.1\n-0.5\n-1.2\n-1.1\n-1.1\n-1.1\nNatural gas\n15.2\n21.7\n29.5\n31.5\n32.7\n33.6\n34.1\n34.3\n5.3\n6.6\n10.1\n10.9\n11.5\n12.1\n12.5\n12.9\n2.7\n1.3\n0.7\n0.2\n0.6\nElectricity\n66.3\n83.3\n81.6\n85.8\n87.9\n89.7\n90.7\n91.0\n23.1\n25.4\n28.0\n29.7\n31.0\n32.2\n33.2\n34.2\n0.8\n1.0\n0.4\n0.2\n0.4\nHeat\n0.2\n0.5\n0.5\n0.5\n0.5\n0.5\n0.5\n0.5\n0.1\n0.2\n0.2\n0.2\n0.2\n0.2\n0.2\n0.2\n3.8\n0.3\n-0.4\n-1.0\n-0.5\nOthers\n4.1\n3.8\n3.8\n4.1\n4.4\n4.3\n4.4\n4.3\n1.4\n1.2\n1.3\n1.4\n1.5\n1.6\n1.6\n1.6\n-0.2\n1.5\n0.5\n-0.1\n0.4\nPrimary energy consumption\nPower generation output\nPower generation input\nCO2 Emissions \nEnergy and economic indicators\nThermal efficiency\nFinal energy demand\nJapan (BAU)\n\n\n365\nResults Summary Tables\nAAGR(%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nGDP (billions of 2010 US dollars)\n4,683\n5,349\n5,986\n6,222\n6,533\n6,948\n7,342\n7,705\n1.0\n0.8\n1.1\n1.0\n1.0\nPopulation (millions of people)\n124\n127\n127\n125\n123\n121\n118\n114\n0.1\n-0.2\n-0.4\n-0.5\n-0.4\nGDP per capita (thousands of 2010 US$/person)\n 37.91 \n 42.17 \n 47.15 \n 49.58 \n 53.0 \n 57.6 \n 62.5 \n 67.4 \n0.9\n1.0\n1.5\n1.6\n1.4\nPrimary energy consumption per capita (toe/person)\n 3.55 \n 4.08 \n 3.39 \n 3.49 \n 3.50 \n 3.50 \n 3.49 \n 3.45 \n-0.2\n0.6\n0.0\n-0.2\n0.1\nPrimary energy consumption per unit of GDP (toe/million \n2010 US dollars)\n 94 \n 97 \n 72 \n 70 \n 66 \n 61 \n 56 \n 51 \n-1.1\n-0.4\n-1.5\n-1.7\n-1.3\nFinal energy consumption per unit of GDP (toe/million 2010 \nUS dollars)\n 61 \n 61 \n 49 \n 46 \n 42 \n 38 \n 35 \n 32 \n-0.9\n-1.2\n-1.8\n-1.7\n-1.6\nCO2 emissions per unit of GDP (t-C/million 2010 US dollars)\n 62 \n 61 \n 52 \n 48 \n 41 \n 36 \n 32 \n 28 \n-0.7\n-1.9\n-2.7\n-2.4\n-2.4\nCO2 emissions per unit of primary energy consumption \n(t-C/toe)\n 0.67 \n 0.63 \n 0.73 \n 0.68 \n 0.63 \n 0.60 \n 0.57 \n 0.56 \n0.4\n-1.5\n-1.2\n-0.7\n-1.1\nAutomobile ownership volume (millions of vehicles)\n 58 \n 72 \n 77 \n 77 \n 77 \n 76 \n 74 \n 72 \n1.2\n0.1\n-0.2\n-0.4\n-0.3\nAutomobile ownership volume per capita (vehicles per \nperson)\n 0.467 \n 0.571 \n 0.608 \n 0.617 \n 0.623 \n 0.627 \n 0.630 \n 0.633 \n1.1\n0.3\n0.2\n0.1\n0.2\nMtoe\nShare, %\nAAGR (%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nTotal\n438.6\n517.9\n429.8\n438.1\n431.7\n422.5\n409.8\n394.1\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n-0.1\n0.4\n-0.4\n-0.7\n-0.3\nCoal\n76.5\n97.2\n117.5\n115.3\n108.0\n104.2\n95.7\n90.2\n17.4\n18.8\n27.3\n26.3\n25.0\n24.7\n23.4\n22.9\n1.7\n-0.4\n-1.0\n-1.4\n-1.1\nOil\n250.3\n255.1\n184.9\n170.5\n154.4\n140.6\n128.4\n118.2\n57.1\n49.3\n43.0\n38.9\n35.8\n33.3\n31.3\n30.0\n-1.2\n-1.6\n-1.9\n-1.7\n-1.8\nNatural gas\n44.2\n65.7\n100.0\n95.0\n87.5\n82.9\n82.4\n84.0\n10.1\n12.7\n23.3\n21.7\n20.3\n19.6\n20.1\n21.3\n3.3\n-1.0\n-1.4\n0.1\n-0.7\nNuclear\n52.7\n83.9\n2.5\n28.9\n49.1\n58.4\n62.1\n55.9\n12.0\n16.2\n0.6\n6.6\n11.4\n13.8\n15.2\n14.2\n-11.5\n63.6\n7.3\n-0.4\n13.3\nHydro\n7.5\n7.3\n7.3\n7.3\n7.6\n7.9\n8.0\n8.1\n1.7\n1.4\n1.7\n1.7\n1.8\n1.9\n2.0\n2.1\n-0.1\n0.0\n0.7\n0.3\n0.4\nGeothermal\n1.6\n3.1\n2.4\n3.7\n5.2\n6.7\n8.3\n9.9\n0.4\n0.6\n0.6\n0.8\n1.2\n1.6\n2.0\n2.5\n1.7\n9.2\n6.1\n4.0\n5.9\nOthers\n5.9\n5.7\n15.3\n17.5\n19.8\n21.9\n24.9\n27.8\n1.3\n1.1\n3.5\n4.0\n4.6\n5.2\n6.1\n7.1\n3.9\n2.7\n2.3\n2.4\n2.4\nBiomass\n4.5\n4.7\n11.4\n12.1\n12.7\n13.2\n14.0\n14.8\n1.0\n0.9\n2.7\n2.8\n2.9\n3.1\n3.4\n3.8\n3.8\n1.2\n0.9\n1.2\n1.1\nSolar, Wind, \nOcean\n1.4\n0.9\n3.9\n5.0\n6.5\n8.0\n10.1\n12.2\n0.3\n0.2\n0.9\n1.1\n1.5\n1.9\n2.5\n3.1\n4.2\n5.2\n4.9\n4.3\n4.7\nBiofuels\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.4\n0.7\n0.7\n0.8\n0.8\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.1\n0.2\n0.2\n0.2\n0.2\n-100.0\n-\n6.0\n1.7\n-\nElectricity\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\nTWh\nShare, %\nAAGR (%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nTotal\n872.6\n1,088.1 1,035.3 1,079.5 1,095.9 1,109.1\n1,112.9\n1,109.1\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n0.7\n0.8\n0.3\n0.0\n0.3\nCoal\n117.7\n233.8\n343.2\n326.2\n302.5\n293.5\n262.7\n246.5\n13.5\n21.5\n33.2\n30.2\n27.6\n26.5\n23.6\n22.2\n4.4\n-1.0\n-1.1\n-1.7\n-1.3\nOil\n283.7\n179.3\n102.5\n82.2\n62.8\n49.1\n37.1\n27.9\n32.5\n16.5\n9.9\n7.6\n5.7\n4.4\n3.3\n2.5\n-4.0\n-4.3\n-5.0\n-5.5\n-5.1\nNatural gas\n170.6\n253.6\n409.8\n371.2\n325.1\n298.5\n296.9\n308.8\n19.6\n23.3\n39.6\n34.4\n29.7\n26.9\n26.7\n27.8\n3.6\n-2.0\n-2.2\n0.3\n-1.1\nNuclear\n202.3\n322.0\n9.4\n110.7\n188.3\n224.1\n238.2\n214.6\n23.2\n29.6\n0.9\n10.3\n17.2\n20.2\n21.4\n19.4\n-11.5\n63.6\n7.3\n-0.4\n13.3\nHydro\n86.9\n85.2\n85.2\n85.0\n88.9\n91.5\n93.2\n94.2\n10.0\n7.8\n8.2\n7.9\n8.1\n8.3\n8.4\n8.5\n-0.1\n0.0\n0.7\n0.3\n0.4\nGeothermal\n1.7\n3.3\n2.6\n4.1\n5.9\n7.6\n9.5\n11.4\n0.2\n0.3\n0.2\n0.4\n0.5\n0.7\n0.9\n1.0\n1.6\n9.8\n6.3\n4.1\n6.1\nOthers\n9.6\n10.7\n82.5\n100.1\n122.4\n144.7\n175.2\n205.7\n1.1\n1.0\n8.0\n9.3\n11.2\n13.0\n15.7\n18.5\n9.0\n4.0\n3.8\n3.6\n3.7\nMtoe\nShare, %\nAAGR (%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nTotal\n117.9\n132.8\n161.6\n146.9\n128.3\n116.9\n106.9\n102.8\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n1.3\n-1.9\n-2.3\n-1.3\n-1.8\nCoal\n25.2\n48.5\n69.6\n65.3\n59.2\n56.1\n49.4\n45.5\n21.4\n36.5\n43.1\n44.4\n46.2\n48.0\n46.2\n44.3\n4.2\n-1.3\n-1.5\n-2.1\n-1.7\nOil\n58.8\n35.9\n20.3\n16.9\n12.8\n9.9\n7.4\n5.4\n49.9\n27.0\n12.5\n11.5\n10.0\n8.5\n6.9\n5.3\n-4.2\n-3.5\n-5.2\n-5.8\n-5.1\nNatural gas\n33.9\n48.5\n71.8\n64.7\n56.2\n50.9\n50.2\n51.8\n28.7\n36.5\n44.4\n44.1\n43.8\n43.5\n46.9\n50.4\n3.0\n-2.1\n-2.4\n0.2\n-1.3\nMt-C\nShare, %\nAAGR (%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nTotal\n292.1\n325.9\n312.9\n295.9\n270.1\n251.7\n232.3\n219.2\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n0.3\n-1.1\n-1.6\n-1.4\n-1.4\nCoal\n82.0\n104.5\n126.5\n124.1\n116.3\n112.1\n102.9\n97.0\n28.1\n32.1\n40.4\n41.9\n43.0\n44.5\n44.3\n44.3\n1.7\n-0.4\n-1.0\n-1.4\n-1.1\nOil\n182.0\n179.4\n122.5\n111.1\n97.9\n86.7\n76.8\n68.7\n62.3\n55.0\n39.2\n37.5\n36.3\n34.4\n33.1\n31.3\n-1.6\n-1.9\n-2.4\n-2.3\n-2.3\nNatural gas\n28.1\n42.0\n63.9\n60.7\n55.9\n52.9\n52.6\n53.6\n9.6\n12.9\n20.4\n20.5\n20.7\n21.0\n22.6\n24.4\n3.3\n-1.0\n-1.4\n0.1\n-0.7\n%\nAAGR (%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nTotal\n41.7\n43.2\n45.5\n45.6\n46.3\n47.1\n48.0\n48.8\n0.3\n0.0\n0.3\n0.3\n0.3\nCoal\n40.2\n41.5\n42.4\n43.0\n43.9\n45.0\n45.8\n46.6\n0.2\n0.3\n0.4\n0.4\n0.4\nOil\n41.5\n42.9\n43.5\n41.8\n42.2\n42.7\n43.4\n44.2\n0.2\n-0.8\n0.2\n0.3\n0.1\nNatural gas\n43.3\n45.0\n49.1\n49.3\n49.7\n50.4\n50.9\n51.2\n0.5\n0.1\n0.2\n0.2\n0.2\nMtoe\nShare, %\nAAGR (%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nTotal\n287.0\n328.2\n291.4\n285.7\n276.2\n267.1\n257.8\n248.8\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n0.1\n-0.4\n-0.7\n-0.7\n-0.6\nIndustry\n109.6\n99.7\n82.1\n80.4\n80.1\n80.5\n80.3\n79.6\n38.2\n30.4\n28.2\n28.1\n29.0\n30.2\n31.2\n32.0\n-1.1\n-0.4\n0.0\n-0.1\n-0.1\nTransportation\n68.1\n84.4\n71.3\n64.1\n56.9\n50.8\n46.1\n42.5\n23.7\n25.7\n24.5\n22.4\n20.6\n19.0\n17.9\n17.1\n0.2\n-2.1\n-2.3\n-1.8\n-2.1\nOthers\n75.7\n102.7\n98.8\n102.7\n101.1\n97.9\n94.0\n89.7\n26.4\n31.3\n33.9\n36.0\n36.6\n36.7\n36.4\n36.1\n1.1\n0.8\n-0.5\n-0.9\n-0.4\nNon-energy\n33.7\n41.4\n39.2\n38.5\n38.1\n37.8\n37.4\n36.9\n11.8\n12.6\n13.4\n13.5\n13.8\n14.2\n14.5\n14.9\n0.6\n-0.3\n-0.2\n-0.2\n-0.2\nTotal\n287.0\n328.2\n291.4\n285.7\n276.2\n267.1\n257.8\n248.8\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n0.1\n-0.4\n-0.7\n-0.7\n-0.6\nCoal\n30.5\n24.4\n23.6\n22.9\n22.5\n22.3\n21.7\n21.0\n10.6\n7.4\n8.1\n8.0\n8.2\n8.3\n8.4\n8.4\n-1.0\n-0.6\n-0.3\n-0.6\n-0.5\nOil\n170.7\n194.5\n152.3\n141.7\n130.2\n119.8\n110.4\n102.5\n59.5\n59.3\n52.3\n49.6\n47.1\n44.8\n42.8\n41.2\n-0.5\n-1.4\n-1.7\n-1.5\n-1.6\nNatural gas\n15.2\n21.7\n29.5\n31.3\n32.1\n32.7\n32.9\n32.8\n5.3\n6.6\n10.1\n11.0\n11.6\n12.2\n12.8\n13.2\n2.7\n1.2\n0.4\n0.0\n0.4\nElectricity\n66.3\n83.3\n81.6\n85.1\n86.5\n87.6\n87.9\n87.7\n23.1\n25.4\n28.0\n29.8\n31.3\n32.8\n34.1\n35.3\n0.8\n0.8\n0.3\n0.0\n0.3\nHeat\n0.2\n0.5\n0.5\n0.5\n0.5\n0.5\n0.5\n0.4\n0.1\n0.2\n0.2\n0.2\n0.2\n0.2\n0.2\n0.2\n3.8\n0.1\n-0.7\n-1.2\n-0.7\nOthers\n4.1\n3.8\n3.8\n4.1\n4.4\n4.3\n4.4\n4.3\n1.4\n1.2\n1.3\n1.4\n1.6\n1.6\n1.7\n1.7\n-0.2\n1.5\n0.4\n-0.1\n0.4\nPrimary energy consumption\nPower generation output\nPower generation input\nCO2 Emissions \nEnergy and economic indicators\nThermal efficiency\nFinal energy demand\nJapan (APS)\n\n\n366\nENERGY OUTLOOK AND ENERGY SAVING POTENTIAL IN EAST ASIA 2019\nAAGR(%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nGDP (billions of 2010 US dollars)\n377\n710\n1,267\n1,460\n1,683\n1,898\n2,101\n2,272\n5.0\n2.9\n2.7\n1.8\n2.4\nPopulation (millions of people)\n42.9\n47.0\n51.1\n52.0\n52.6\n52.9\n52.8\n52.2\n0.7\n0.4\n0.2\n-0.1\n0.1\nGDP per capita (thousands of 2010 US$/person)\n 8.80 \n 15.09 \n 24.80 \n 28.09 \n 32.0 \n 35.8 \n 39.8 \n 43.5 \n4.2\n2.5\n2.5\n2.0\n2.3\nPrimary energy consumption per capita (toe/person)\n 2.17 \n 4.00 \n 5.34 \n 5.53 \n 5.66 \n 5.74 \n 5.82 \n 5.81 \n3.7\n0.7\n0.4\n0.1\n0.3\nPrimary energy consumption per unit of GDP (toe/million \n2010 US dollars)\n 246 \n 265 \n 215 \n 197 \n 177 \n 160 \n 146 \n 134 \n-0.5\n-1.8\n-2.0\n-1.8\n-1.9\nFinal energy consumption per unit of GDP (toe/million 2010 \nUS dollars)\n 172 \n 179 \n 138 \n 127 \n 115 \n 106 \n 97 \n 91 \n-0.9\n-1.7\n-1.8\n-1.5\n-1.7\nCO2 emissions per unit of GDP (t-C/million 2010 US dollars)\n 173 \n 166 \n 125 \n 113 \n 101 \n 90 \n 85 \n 80 \n-1.3\n-2.1\n-2.2\n-1.2\n-1.8\nCO2 emissions per unit of primary energy consumption \n(t-C/toe)\n 0.70 \n 0.63 \n 0.58 \n 0.57 \n 0.57 \n 0.57 \n 0.58 \n 0.60 \n-0.7\n-0.3\n-0.2\n0.6\n0.1\nAutomobile ownership volume (millions of vehicles)\n 3 \n 12 \n 21 \n 24 \n 26 \n 28 \n 29 \n 29 \n7.6\n2.6\n1.5\n0.5\n1.3\nAutomobile ownership volume per capita (vehicles per \nperson)\n 0.079 \n 0.256 \n 0.411 \n 0.460 \n 0.496 \n 0.523 \n 0.546 \n 0.560 \n6.8\n2.3\n1.3\n0.7\n1.2\nMtoe\nShare, %\nAAGR (%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nTotal\n92.9\n188.2\n272.7\n287.2\n297.6\n303.8\n307.2\n303.5\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n4.4\n1.0\n0.6\n0.0\n0.4\nCoal\n25.4\n41.9\n80.8\n83.9\n86.3\n85.6\n90.3\n92.3\n27.3\n22.3\n29.6\n29.2\n29.0\n28.2\n29.4\n30.4\n4.7\n0.8\n0.2\n0.8\n0.5\nOil\n49.7\n99.0\n102.7\n105.0\n108.3\n110.0\n110.5\n109.1\n53.5\n52.6\n37.7\n36.6\n36.4\n36.2\n36.0\n35.9\n2.9\n0.4\n0.5\n-0.1\n0.2\nNatural gas\n2.7\n17.0\n39.3\n44.1\n49.5\n54.1\n61.0\n67.6\n2.9\n9.0\n14.4\n15.4\n16.6\n17.8\n19.9\n22.3\n11.3\n2.3\n2.1\n2.2\n2.2\nNuclear\n13.8\n28.4\n42.9\n45.0\n42.3\n40.8\n31.0\n18.8\n14.8\n15.1\n15.7\n15.7\n14.2\n13.4\n10.1\n6.2\n4.7\n0.9\n-1.0\n-7.5\n-3.3\nHydro\n0.5\n0.3\n0.2\n0.3\n0.3\n0.3\n0.3\n0.3\n0.6\n0.2\n0.1\n0.1\n0.1\n0.1\n0.1\n0.1\n-4.3\n11.8\n0.0\n0.0\n2.3\nGeothermal\n0.0\n0.0\n0.1\n0.2\n0.2\n0.2\n0.2\n0.2\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.1\n0.1\n0.1\n0.1\n0.1\n-\n2.2\n1.8\n1.1\n1.6\nOthers\n0.7\n1.4\n6.6\n8.6\n10.7\n12.8\n14.0\n15.2\n0.8\n0.8\n2.4\n3.0\n3.6\n4.2\n4.6\n5.0\n9.1\n5.6\n4.0\n1.7\n3.4\nBiomass\n0.7\n1.3\n5.0\n5.4\n5.7\n5.9\n6.0\n5.9\n0.8\n0.7\n1.8\n1.9\n1.9\n1.9\n1.9\n2.0\n8.1\n1.8\n0.8\n0.1\n0.7\nSolar, Wind, \nOcean\n0.0\n0.0\n0.6\n2.1\n3.8\n5.7\n6.8\n8.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.2\n0.7\n1.3\n1.9\n2.2\n2.6\n18.1\n26.9\n10.5\n3.4\n10.6\nBiofuels\n0.0\n0.0\n0.9\n1.1\n1.1\n1.2\n1.2\n1.2\n0.0\n0.0\n0.3\n0.4\n0.4\n0.4\n0.4\n0.4\n17.1\n3.0\n0.9\n0.2\n1.1\nElectricity\n0.0\n0.0\n0.1\n0.1\n0.1\n0.1\n0.1\n0.1\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n-\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\nTWh\nShare, %\nAAGR (%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nTotal\n105.4\n288.5\n549.2\n595.4\n641.6\n682.9\n719.0\n743.3\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n6.8\n1.6\n1.4\n0.9\n1.2\nCoal\n17.7\n111.4\n236.6\n241.1\n255.4\n261.8\n287.0\n308.6\n16.8\n38.6\n43.1\n40.5\n39.8\n38.3\n39.9\n41.5\n10.9\n0.4\n0.8\n1.7\n1.1\nOil\n18.9\n34.6\n12.5\n11.2\n10.2\n8.5\n7.2\n5.2\n17.9\n12.0\n2.3\n1.9\n1.6\n1.3\n1.0\n0.7\n-1.6\n-2.2\n-2.7\n-4.9\n-3.5\nNatural gas\n9.6\n29.5\n122.9\n138.3\n161.2\n181.3\n217.6\n255.6\n9.1\n10.2\n22.4\n23.2\n25.1\n26.6\n30.3\n34.4\n10.7\n2.4\n2.7\n3.5\n3.0\nNuclear\n52.9\n109.0\n164.8\n172.7\n162.5\n156.4\n118.8\n72.1\n50.2\n37.8\n30.0\n29.0\n25.3\n22.9\n16.5\n9.7\n4.7\n0.9\n-1.0\n-7.5\n-3.3\nHydro\n6.4\n4.0\n2.1\n3.7\n3.7\n3.7\n3.7\n3.7\n6.0\n1.4\n0.4\n0.6\n0.6\n0.5\n0.5\n0.5\n-4.3\n11.8\n0.0\n0.0\n2.3\nGeothermal\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\nOthers\n0.0\n0.1\n10.4\n28.4\n48.5\n71.1\n84.6\n98.1\n0.0\n0.0\n1.9\n4.8\n7.6\n10.4\n11.8\n13.2\n44.7\n22.3\n9.6\n3.3\n9.4\nMtoe\nShare, %\nAAGR (%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nTotal\n12.5\n40.4\n79.6\n81.4\n86.7\n88.9\n98.7\n106.5\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n7.7\n0.4\n0.9\n1.8\n1.2\nCoal\n6.0\n27.1\n56.4\n57.3\n59.4\n58.9\n63.4\n65.9\n47.7\n66.9\n70.8\n70.4\n68.5\n66.2\n64.3\n61.9\n9.4\n0.3\n0.3\n1.1\n0.6\nOil\n4.5\n7.6\n4.1\n2.6\n2.3\n2.0\n1.6\n1.2\n36.0\n18.9\n5.2\n3.2\n2.7\n2.2\n1.7\n1.1\n-0.4\n-8.7\n-2.8\n-5.0\n-4.9\nNatural gas\n2.0\n5.8\n19.1\n21.5\n25.0\n28.1\n33.6\n39.4\n16.3\n14.2\n24.0\n26.4\n28.8\n31.6\n34.1\n37.0\n9.4\n2.4\n2.7\n3.5\n2.9\nMt-C\nShare, %\nAAGR (%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nTotal\n65.2\n118.2\n158.7\n164.8\n170.6\n171.7\n179.2\n182.8\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n3.6\n0.7\n0.4\n0.6\n0.6\nCoal\n27.4\n45.3\n86.7\n89.9\n92.4\n91.5\n96.3\n98.4\n42.1\n38.3\n54.6\n54.6\n54.2\n53.3\n53.8\n53.8\n4.7\n0.7\n0.2\n0.7\n0.5\nOil\n36.0\n62.0\n46.8\n46.5\n46.5\n45.5\n43.8\n41.1\n55.3\n52.4\n29.5\n28.2\n27.3\n26.5\n24.4\n22.5\n1.1\n-0.1\n-0.2\n-1.0\n-0.5\nNatural gas\n1.7\n10.9\n25.2\n28.3\n31.7\n34.7\n39.1\n43.3\n2.7\n9.2\n15.9\n17.2\n18.6\n20.2\n21.8\n23.7\n11.3\n2.3\n2.1\n2.2\n2.2\n%\nAAGR (%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nTotal\n31.7\n37.3\n40.2\n41.3\n42.3\n43.7\n44.6\n46.0\n1.0\n0.5\n0.6\n0.5\n0.5\nCoal\n25.4\n35.4\n36.1\n36.2\n37.0\n38.2\n38.9\n40.3\n1.4\n0.0\n0.6\n0.5\n0.4\nOil\n35.9\n39.0\n26.1\n37.0\n37.2\n37.5\n37.7\n37.8\n-1.3\n7.2\n0.1\n0.1\n1.5\nNatural gas\n40.6\n44.0\n55.3\n55.4\n55.5\n55.6\n55.7\n55.8\n1.2\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\nMtoe\nShare, %\nAAGR (%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nTotal\n64.9\n127.1\n174.2\n184.8\n193.7\n200.3\n204.6\n205.7\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n4.0\n1.2\n0.8\n0.3\n0.7\nIndustry\n19.3\n38.5\n49.1\n52.3\n54.7\n56.2\n57.1\n57.1\n29.7\n30.3\n28.2\n28.3\n28.2\n28.1\n27.9\n27.8\n3.8\n1.2\n0.7\n0.2\n0.6\nTransportation\n14.6\n26.3\n33.4\n35.1\n35.8\n35.8\n35.1\n33.5\n22.5\n20.7\n19.2\n19.0\n18.5\n17.9\n17.1\n16.3\n3.4\n1.0\n0.2\n-0.7\n0.0\nOthers\n24.3\n37.3\n44.3\n47.4\n49.7\n51.7\n53.2\n53.8\n37.5\n29.4\n25.4\n25.7\n25.6\n25.8\n26.0\n26.1\n2.4\n1.4\n0.9\n0.4\n0.8\nNon-energy\n6.7\n25.0\n47.3\n50.0\n53.5\n56.6\n59.3\n61.3\n10.4\n19.7\n27.2\n27.1\n27.6\n28.3\n29.0\n29.8\n8.1\n1.1\n1.2\n0.8\n1.0\nTotal\n64.9\n127.1\n174.2\n184.8\n193.7\n200.3\n204.6\n205.7\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n4.0\n1.2\n0.8\n0.3\n0.7\nCoal\n11.7\n9.1\n11.8\n12.4\n12.4\n12.2\n11.9\n11.4\n18.1\n7.1\n6.8\n6.7\n6.4\n6.1\n5.8\n5.6\n0.0\n1.0\n-0.1\n-0.6\n-0.1\nOil\n43.7\n79.9\n90.3\n93.7\n96.8\n98.5\n98.9\n97.9\n67.3\n62.8\n51.8\n50.7\n50.0\n49.2\n48.4\n47.6\n2.9\n0.7\n0.5\n-0.1\n0.3\nNatural gas\n0.7\n10.9\n20.5\n22.9\n24.7\n26.3\n27.6\n28.4\n1.0\n8.6\n11.8\n12.4\n12.8\n13.1\n13.5\n13.8\n14.6\n2.3\n1.4\n0.8\n1.3\nElectricity\n8.1\n22.6\n42.6\n46.2\n49.8\n53.0\n55.9\n57.8\n12.5\n17.8\n24.5\n25.0\n25.7\n26.5\n27.3\n28.1\n6.9\n1.6\n1.4\n0.9\n1.2\nHeat\n0.0\n3.3\n4.4\n4.7\n4.9\n4.9\n4.9\n4.7\n0.0\n2.6\n2.5\n2.5\n2.5\n2.5\n2.4\n2.3\n-\n1.4\n0.6\n-0.5\n0.3\nOthers\n0.7\n1.3\n4.7\n5.0\n5.2\n5.4\n5.4\n5.5\n1.1\n1.0\n2.7\n2.7\n2.7\n2.7\n2.7\n2.7\n7.6\n1.3\n0.8\n0.2\n0.6\nPrimary energy consumption\nPower generation output\nPower generation input\nCO2 Emissions \nEnergy and economic indicators\nThermal efficiency\nFinal energy demand\nRepublic of Korea (BAU)\n\n\n367\nResults Summary Tables\nAAGR(%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nGDP (billions of 2010 US dollars)\n377\n710\n1,267\n1,460\n1,683\n1,898\n2,101\n2,272\n5.0\n2.9\n2.7\n1.8\n2.4\nPopulation (millions of people)\n42.9\n47.0\n51.1\n52.0\n52.6\n52.9\n52.8\n52.2\n0.7\n0.4\n0.2\n-0.1\n0.1\nGDP per capita (thousands of 2010 US$/person)\n 8.80 \n 15.09 \n 24.80 \n 28.09 \n 32.0 \n 35.8 \n 39.8 \n 43.5 \n4.2\n2.5\n2.5\n2.0\n2.3\nPrimary energy consumption per capita (toe/person)\n 2.17 \n 4.00 \n 5.34 \n 5.45 \n 5.49 \n 5.46 \n 5.44 \n 5.35 \n3.7\n0.4\n0.0\n-0.2\n0.0\nPrimary energy consumption per unit of GDP (toe/million \n2010 US dollars)\n 246 \n 265 \n 215 \n 194 \n 172 \n 152 \n 137 \n 123 \n-0.5\n-2.0\n-2.4\n-2.1\n-2.2\nFinal energy consumption per unit of GDP (toe/million 2010 \nUS dollars)\n 172 \n 179 \n 138 \n 126 \n 113 \n 102 \n 92 \n 85 \n-0.9\n-1.8\n-2.1\n-1.8\n-1.9\nCO2 emissions per unit of GDP (t-C/million 2010 US dollars)\n 173 \n 166 \n 125 \n 105 \n 84 \n 74 \n 64 \n 59 \n-1.3\n-3.6\n-3.4\n-2.3\n-3.0\nCO2 emissions per unit of primary energy consumption \n(t-C/toe)\n 0.70 \n 0.63 \n 0.58 \n 0.54 \n 0.49 \n 0.49 \n 0.47 \n 0.48 \n-0.7\n-1.5\n-1.0\n-0.2\n-0.8\nAutomobile ownership volume (millions of vehicles)\n 3 \n 12 \n 21 \n 24 \n 26 \n 28 \n 29 \n 29 \n7.6\n2.6\n1.5\n0.5\n1.3\nAutomobile ownership volume per capita (vehicles per \nperson)\n 0.079 \n 0.256 \n 0.411 \n 0.460 \n 0.496 \n 0.523 \n 0.546 \n 0.560 \n6.8\n2.3\n1.3\n0.7\n1.2\nMtoe\nShare, %\nAAGR (%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nTotal\n92.9\n188.2\n272.7\n283.4\n288.7\n288.9\n287.5\n279.3\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n4.4\n0.8\n0.2\n-0.3\n0.1\nCoal\n25.4\n41.9\n80.8\n74.4\n65.9\n65.0\n61.0\n61.8\n27.3\n22.3\n29.6\n26.2\n22.8\n22.5\n21.2\n22.1\n4.7\n-1.6\n-1.3\n-0.5\n-1.1\nOil\n49.7\n99.0\n102.7\n104.9\n106.0\n106.1\n104.7\n102.2\n53.5\n52.6\n37.7\n37.0\n36.7\n36.7\n36.4\n36.6\n2.9\n0.4\n0.1\n-0.4\n0.0\nNatural gas\n2.7\n17.0\n39.3\n41.4\n42.3\n45.5\n47.4\n51.2\n2.9\n9.0\n14.4\n14.6\n14.7\n15.7\n16.5\n18.3\n11.3\n1.0\n0.9\n1.2\n1.1\nNuclear\n13.8\n28.4\n42.9\n53.4\n61.9\n56.8\n56.8\n44.6\n14.8\n15.1\n15.7\n18.8\n21.4\n19.7\n19.7\n16.0\n4.7\n4.5\n0.6\n-2.4\n0.2\nHydro\n0.5\n0.3\n0.2\n0.3\n0.3\n0.3\n0.3\n0.3\n0.6\n0.2\n0.1\n0.1\n0.1\n0.1\n0.1\n0.1\n-4.3\n11.8\n0.0\n0.0\n2.3\nGeothermal\n0.0\n0.0\n0.1\n0.1\n0.2\n0.2\n0.2\n0.2\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.1\n0.1\n0.1\n0.1\n0.1\n-\n2.0\n1.6\n1.0\n1.4\nOthers\n0.7\n1.4\n6.6\n8.9\n12.0\n15.0\n17.1\n19.1\n0.8\n0.8\n2.4\n3.1\n4.2\n5.2\n5.9\n6.8\n9.1\n6.2\n5.3\n2.5\n4.4\nBiomass\n0.7\n1.3\n5.0\n5.4\n5.7\n5.9\n5.9\n5.9\n0.8\n0.7\n1.8\n1.9\n2.0\n2.0\n2.1\n2.1\n8.1\n1.8\n0.8\n0.0\n0.7\nSolar, Wind, \nOcean\n0.0\n0.0\n0.6\n2.3\n4.8\n7.4\n9.4\n11.5\n0.0\n0.0\n0.2\n0.8\n1.6\n2.6\n3.3\n4.1\n18.1\n28.7\n12.7\n4.5\n12.3\nBiofuels\n0.0\n0.0\n0.9\n1.1\n1.5\n1.6\n1.6\n1.6\n0.0\n0.0\n0.3\n0.4\n0.5\n0.5\n0.6\n0.6\n17.1\n4.4\n3.4\n0.4\n2.4\nElectricity\n0.0\n0.0\n0.1\n0.1\n0.1\n0.1\n0.1\n0.1\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n-\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\nTWh\nShare, %\nAAGR (%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nTotal\n105.4\n288.5\n549.2\n585.8\n619.1\n647.1\n670.1\n681.4\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n6.8\n1.3\n1.0\n0.5\n0.9\nCoal\n17.7\n111.4\n236.6\n214.1\n190.0\n193.4\n186.6\n198.8\n16.8\n38.6\n43.1\n36.5\n30.7\n29.9\n27.8\n29.2\n10.9\n-2.0\n-1.0\n0.3\n-0.7\nOil\n18.9\n34.6\n12.5\n10.0\n7.6\n6.3\n4.7\n3.3\n17.9\n12.0\n2.3\n1.7\n1.2\n1.0\n0.7\n0.5\n-1.6\n-4.5\n-4.5\n-6.2\n-5.2\nNatural gas\n9.6\n29.5\n122.9\n122.8\n120.0\n134.0\n141.5\n164.7\n9.1\n10.2\n22.4\n21.0\n19.4\n20.7\n21.1\n24.2\n10.7\n0.0\n0.9\n2.1\n1.2\nNuclear\n52.9\n109.0\n164.8\n204.9\n237.6\n217.8\n217.8\n171.1\n50.2\n37.8\n30.0\n35.0\n38.4\n33.7\n32.5\n25.1\n4.7\n4.5\n0.6\n-2.4\n0.2\nHydro\n6.4\n4.0\n2.1\n3.7\n3.7\n3.7\n3.7\n3.7\n6.0\n1.4\n0.4\n0.6\n0.6\n0.6\n0.6\n0.6\n-4.3\n11.8\n0.0\n0.0\n2.3\nGeothermal\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\nOthers\n0.0\n0.1\n10.4\n30.3\n60.2\n91.8\n115.8\n139.8\n0.0\n0.0\n1.9\n5.2\n9.7\n14.2\n17.3\n20.5\n44.7\n24.0\n11.7\n4.3\n11.0\nMtoe\nShare, %\nAAGR (%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nTotal\n12.5\n40.4\n79.6\n71.4\n63.1\n64.1\n61.9\n66.2\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n7.7\n-2.2\n-1.1\n0.3\n-0.7\nCoal\n6.0\n27.1\n56.4\n49.4\n42.5\n42.0\n39.4\n40.8\n47.7\n66.9\n70.8\n69.2\n67.5\n65.6\n63.6\n61.6\n9.4\n-2.6\n-1.6\n-0.3\n-1.3\nOil\n4.5\n7.6\n4.1\n3.0\n2.1\n1.7\n1.1\n0.8\n36.0\n18.9\n5.2\n4.2\n3.4\n2.6\n1.9\n1.2\n-0.4\n-6.0\n-5.8\n-7.4\n-6.5\nNatural gas\n2.0\n5.8\n19.1\n19.0\n18.4\n20.4\n21.4\n24.7\n16.3\n14.2\n24.0\n26.6\n29.2\n31.8\n34.5\n37.2\n9.4\n-0.2\n0.7\n1.9\n1.0\nMt-C\nShare, %\nAAGR (%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nTotal\n65.2\n118.2\n158.7\n152.6\n142.1\n140.6\n134.1\n133.5\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n3.6\n-0.8\n-0.8\n-0.5\n-0.7\nCoal\n27.4\n45.3\n86.7\n79.6\n70.3\n69.2\n64.7\n65.4\n42.1\n38.3\n54.6\n52.2\n49.5\n49.2\n48.3\n49.0\n4.7\n-1.7\n-1.4\n-0.6\n-1.1\nOil\n36.0\n62.0\n46.8\n46.5\n44.6\n42.2\n38.9\n35.2\n55.3\n52.4\n29.5\n30.4\n31.4\n30.0\n29.0\n26.4\n1.1\n-0.2\n-1.0\n-1.8\n-1.1\nNatural gas\n1.7\n10.9\n25.2\n26.6\n27.1\n29.2\n30.4\n32.8\n2.7\n9.2\n15.9\n17.4\n19.1\n20.7\n22.7\n24.6\n11.3\n1.0\n0.9\n1.2\n1.1\n%\nAAGR (%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nTotal\n31.7\n37.3\n40.2\n41.8\n43.3\n44.8\n46.2\n47.6\n1.0\n0.8\n0.7\n0.6\n0.7\nCoal\n25.4\n35.4\n36.1\n37.3\n38.4\n39.6\n40.7\n41.9\n1.4\n0.6\n0.6\n0.6\n0.6\nOil\n35.9\n39.0\n26.1\n28.3\n30.5\n32.6\n34.8\n37.0\n-1.3\n1.6\n1.4\n1.3\n1.4\nNatural gas\n40.6\n44.0\n55.3\n55.7\n56.1\n56.5\n57.0\n57.4\n1.2\n0.2\n0.2\n0.2\n0.2\nMtoe\nShare, %\nAAGR (%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nTotal\n64.9\n127.1\n174.2\n183.3\n189.6\n193.1\n194.3\n192.6\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n4.0\n1.0\n0.5\n0.0\n0.4\nIndustry\n19.3\n38.5\n49.1\n51.8\n53.5\n54.3\n54.3\n53.2\n29.7\n30.3\n28.2\n28.3\n28.2\n28.1\n27.9\n27.6\n3.8\n1.1\n0.5\n-0.2\n0.3\nTransportation\n14.6\n26.3\n33.4\n34.7\n34.6\n33.5\n31.4\n28.9\n22.5\n20.7\n19.2\n18.9\n18.3\n17.3\n16.2\n15.0\n3.4\n0.8\n-0.4\n-1.4\n-0.6\nOthers\n24.3\n37.3\n44.3\n46.7\n47.9\n48.8\n49.4\n49.2\n37.5\n29.4\n25.4\n25.5\n25.3\n25.2\n25.4\n25.6\n2.4\n1.1\n0.4\n0.1\n0.4\nNon-energy\n6.7\n25.0\n47.3\n50.0\n53.5\n56.6\n59.3\n61.3\n10.4\n19.7\n27.2\n27.3\n28.2\n29.3\n30.5\n31.8\n8.1\n1.1\n1.2\n0.8\n1.0\nTotal\n64.9\n127.1\n174.2\n183.3\n189.6\n193.1\n194.3\n192.6\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n4.0\n1.0\n0.5\n0.0\n0.4\nCoal\n11.7\n9.1\n11.8\n12.3\n12.2\n12.0\n11.5\n10.9\n18.1\n7.1\n6.8\n6.7\n6.4\n6.2\n5.9\n5.7\n0.0\n0.9\n-0.3\n-0.9\n-0.3\nOil\n43.7\n79.9\n90.3\n93.2\n94.9\n95.2\n94.2\n92.0\n67.3\n62.8\n51.8\n50.8\n50.1\n49.3\n48.5\n47.7\n2.9\n0.6\n0.2\n-0.3\n0.1\nNatural gas\n0.7\n10.9\n20.5\n22.7\n24.1\n25.3\n26.3\n26.7\n1.0\n8.6\n11.8\n12.4\n12.7\n13.1\n13.5\n13.9\n14.6\n2.1\n1.1\n0.5\n1.1\nElectricity\n8.1\n22.6\n42.6\n45.4\n48.0\n50.2\n52.1\n53.0\n12.5\n17.8\n24.5\n24.8\n25.3\n26.0\n26.8\n27.5\n6.9\n1.3\n1.0\n0.5\n0.9\nHeat\n0.0\n3.3\n4.4\n4.6\n4.8\n4.8\n4.6\n4.4\n0.0\n2.6\n2.5\n2.5\n2.5\n2.5\n2.4\n2.3\n-\n1.2\n0.3\n-0.8\n0.1\nOthers\n0.7\n1.3\n4.7\n5.0\n5.5\n5.6\n5.6\n5.6\n1.1\n1.0\n2.7\n2.7\n2.9\n2.9\n2.9\n2.9\n7.6\n1.4\n1.1\n0.0\n0.7\nPrimary energy consumption\nPower generation output\nPower generation input\nCO2 Emissions \nEnergy and economic indicators\nThermal efficiency\nFinal energy demand\nRepublic of Korea (APS)\n\n\n368\nENERGY OUTLOOK AND ENERGY SAVING POTENTIAL IN EAST ASIA 2019\nAAGR(%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nGDP (billions of 2010 US dollars)\n1.1\n2.0\n5.1\n7.2\n10.0\n13.3\n17.6\n23.1\n6.3\n7.1\n6.4\n5.7\n6.2\nPopulation (millions of people)\n4.2\n5.4\n6.7\n7.2\n7.7\n8.2\n8.7\n9.3\n1.8\n1.5\n1.3\n1.2\n1.3\nGDP per capita (thousands of 2010 US$/person)\n 0.3 \n 0.4 \n 0.8 \n 1.00 \n 1.3 \n 1.6 \n 2.0 \n 2.5 \n4.4\n5.5\n5.0\n4.4\n4.8\nPrimary energy consumption per capita (toe/person)\n 0.3 \n 0.3 \n 1.4 \n 1.87 \n 2.37 \n 2.26 \n 2.17 \n 3.97 \n6.7\n5.6\n1.9\n5.8\n4.2\nPrimary energy consumption per unit of GDP (toe/million \n2010 US dollars)\n 1,080 \n 818 \n 1,862 \n 1,872 \n 1,825 \n 1,394 \n 1,076 \n 1,592 \n2.2\n0.1\n-2.9\n1.3\n-0.6\nFinal energy consumption per unit of GDP (toe/million 2010 \nUS dollars)\n 984 \n 743 \n 1,791 \n 1,581 \n 1,492 \n 1,145 \n 888 \n 1,279 \n2.4\n-2.5\n-3.2\n1.1\n-1.3\nCO2 emissions per unit of GDP (t-C/million 2010 US dollars)\n 180 \n 148 \n 1,636 \n 1,890 \n 1,933 \n 1,459 \n 1,111 \n 1,771 \n9.2\n2.9\n-2.6\n2.0\n0.3\nCO2 emissions per unit of primary energy consumption \n(t-C/toe)\n 0.2 \n 0.2 \n 0.9 \n 1.01 \n 1.06 \n 1.05 \n 1.03 \n 1.11 \n6.9\n2.8\n0.4\n0.6\n0.9\nAutomobile ownership volume (millions of vehicles)\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\nAutomobile ownership volume per capita (vehicles per \nperson)\n - \n - \n - \n - \n - \n - \n - \n - \n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\nMtoe\nShare, %\nAAGR (%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nTotal\n1.20\n1.65\n9.49\n13.42\n18.18\n18.55\n18.95\n36.81\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n8.6\n7.2\n3.3\n7.1\n5.6\nCoal\n0.00\n0.00\n7.04\n11.64\n16.76\n16.80\n16.82\n36.32\n0.0\n0.0\n74.3\n86.8\n92.2\n90.6\n88.7\n98.7\n-\n10.6\n3.7\n8.0\n6.8\nOil\n0.16\n0.28\n0.99\n1.09\n1.21\n1.35\n1.50\n1.68\n13.6\n17.2\n10.4\n8.1\n6.7\n7.3\n7.9\n4.6\n7.5\n2.0\n2.1\n2.2\n2.1\nNatural gas\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\nNuclear\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\nHydro\n0.07\n0.30\n1.33\n2.42\n1.11\n1.86\n1.86\n2.30\n5.9\n17.9\n14.1\n18.0\n6.1\n10.0\n9.8\n6.2\n12.5\n12.6\n-2.6\n2.1\n2.2\nGeothermal\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\nOthers\n0.97\n1.07\n0.12\n-1.73\n-0.91\n-1.46\n-1.22\n-3.49\n80.5\n65.0\n1.3\n-12.9\n-5.0\n-7.9\n-6.5\n-9.5\n-8.0\n-270.3\n-1.7\n9.1\n-214.4\nBiomass\n1.01\n1.30\n1.30\n1.39\n1.48\n1.56\n1.66\n1.75\n84.6\n78.5\n13.7\n10.4\n8.1\n8.4\n8.7\n4.8\n1.0\n1.3\n1.2\n1.1\n1.2\nSolar, Wind, \nOcean\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\nBiofuels\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\nElectricity\n-0.05\n-0.22\n-1.18\n-3.12\n-2.38\n-3.02\n-2.88\n-5.24\n-4.1\n-13.6\n-12.5\n-23.3\n-13.1\n-16.3\n-15.2\n-14.2\n13.6\n21.4\n-0.3\n5.7\n6.1\nTWh\nShare, %\nAAGR (%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nTotal\n0.82\n3.44\n17.76\n41.12\n33.63\n42.32\n42.32\n71.86\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n13.1\n18.3\n0.3\n5.4\n5.7\nCoal\n0.00\n0.00\n2.26\n13.02\n20.71\n20.71\n20.71\n45.17\n0.0\n0.0\n12.7\n31.7\n61.6\n48.9\n48.9\n62.9\n-\n42.0\n4.7\n8.1\n12.7\nOil\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\nNatural gas\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\nNuclear\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\nHydro\n0.82\n3.44\n15.51\n28.09\n12.92\n21.61\n21.61\n26.69\n100.0\n100.0\n87.3\n68.3\n38.4\n51.1\n51.1\n37.1\n12.5\n12.6\n-2.6\n2.1\n2.2\nGeothermal\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\nOthers\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\nMtoe\nShare, %\nAAGR (%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nTotal\n0.00\n0.00\n0.56\n3.20\n5.09\n5.09\n5.09\n11.10\n-\n-\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n-\n42.0\n4.7\n8.1\n12.7\nCoal\n0.00\n0.00\n0.56\n3.20\n5.09\n5.09\n5.09\n11.10\n0.0\n0.0\n100.0\n100.0\n100.0\n100.0\n100.0\n100.0\n-\n42.0\n4.7\n8.1\n12.7\nOil\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\nNatural gas\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\nMt-C\nShare, %\nAAGR (%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nTotal\n0.2\n0.3\n8.3\n13.6\n19.3\n19.4\n19.6\n40.9\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n16.1\n10.2\n3.7\n7.7\n6.6\nCoal\n0.0\n0.0\n7.5\n12.6\n18.3\n18.3\n18.3\n39.5\n0.0\n0.0\n90.1\n93.3\n94.7\n94.2\n93.6\n96.6\n-\n11.0\n3.8\n8.0\n6.9\nOil\n0.2\n0.3\n0.8\n0.9\n1.0\n1.1\n1.3\n1.4\n100.0\n100.0\n9.9\n6.7\n5.3\n5.8\n6.4\n3.4\n5.8\n2.0\n2.1\n2.2\n2.1\nNatural gas\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n%\nAAGR (%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nTotal\n-\n-\n35.0\n35.0\n35.0\n35.0\n35.0\n35.0\n-\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\nCoal\n-\n-\n35.0\n35.0\n35.0\n35.0\n35.0\n35.0\n-\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\nOil\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\nNatural gas\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\nMtoe\nShare, %\nAAGR (%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nTotal\n1.09\n1.50\n9.12\n11.34\n14.87\n15.24\n15.64\n29.58\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n8.9\n4.4\n3.0\n6.9\n4.8\nIndustry\n0.04\n0.06\n6.70\n8.66\n11.90\n11.95\n11.97\n25.47\n3.6\n4.2\n73.5\n76.4\n80.0\n78.4\n76.5\n86.1\n22.9\n5.3\n3.3\n7.9\n5.5\nTransportation\n0.16\n0.27\n0.97\n1.08\n1.20\n1.33\n1.49\n1.66\n14.7\n17.7\n10.6\n9.5\n8.1\n8.8\n9.5\n5.6\n7.5\n2.1\n2.2\n2.2\n2.2\nOthers\n0.89\n1.17\n1.44\n1.59\n1.77\n1.96\n2.18\n2.44\n81.7\n78.1\n15.8\n14.1\n11.9\n12.8\n13.9\n8.2\n1.9\n2.0\n2.1\n2.2\n2.1\nNon-energy\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n-\n0.9\n0.9\n0.9\n0.9\nTotal\n1.09\n1.50\n9.12\n11.34\n14.87\n15.24\n15.64\n29.58\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n8.9\n4.4\n3.0\n6.9\n4.8\nCoal\n0.00\n0.00\n6.49\n8.44\n11.67\n11.71\n11.73\n25.22\n0.0\n0.0\n71.1\n74.5\n78.5\n76.9\n75.0\n85.3\n-\n5.4\n3.3\n8.0\n5.6\nOil\n0.16\n0.27\n0.99\n1.09\n1.21\n1.35\n1.50\n1.68\n14.9\n18.1\n10.8\n9.6\n8.2\n8.9\n9.6\n5.7\n7.5\n2.0\n2.1\n2.2\n2.1\nNatural gas\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\nElectricity\n0.01\n0.06\n0.34\n0.41\n0.50\n0.61\n0.75\n0.93\n1.3\n3.7\n3.8\n3.6\n3.4\n4.0\n4.8\n3.1\n13.6\n3.7\n4.0\n4.2\n4.1\nHeat\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\nOthers\n0.92\n1.17\n1.30\n1.39\n1.48\n1.56\n1.66\n1.75\n83.8\n78.2\n14.3\n12.3\n9.9\n10.3\n10.6\n5.9\n1.4\n1.3\n1.2\n1.1\n1.2\nPrimary energy supply \nPower generation output\nPower generation input\nCO2 Emissions \nEnergy and economic indicators\nThermal efficiency\nFinal energy consumption\nLao People’s Democratic Republic (BAU)\n\n\n369\nResults Summary Tables\nAAGR(%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nGDP (billions of 2010 US dollars)\n1.1\n2.0\n5.1\n7.2\n10.0\n13.3\n17.6\n23.1\n6.3\n7.1\n6.4\n5.7\n6.2\nPopulation (millions of people)\n4.2\n5.4\n6.7\n7.2\n7.7\n8.2\n8.7\n9.3\n1.8\n1.5\n1.3\n1.2\n1.3\nGDP per capita (thousands of 2010 US$/person)\n 0.3 \n 0.4 \n 0.8 \n 1.00 \n 1.3 \n 1.6 \n 2.0 \n 2.5 \n4.4\n5.5\n5.0\n4.4\n4.8\nPrimary energy consumption per capita (toe/person)\n 0.3 \n 0.3 \n 1.4 \n 1.73 \n 2.20 \n 2.11 \n 2.04 \n 3.72 \n6.7\n4.0\n2.0\n5.8\n3.9\nPrimary energy consumption per unit of GDP (toe/million \n2010 US dollars)\n 1,080 \n 818 \n 1,862 \n 1,729 \n 1,693 \n 1,299 \n 1,010 \n 1,491 \n2.2\n-1.5\n-2.8\n1.4\n-0.9\nFinal energy consumption per unit of GDP (toe/million 2010 \nUS dollars)\n 984 \n 743 \n 1,791 \n 1,425 \n 1,345 \n 1,032 \n 800 \n 1,152 \n2.4\n-4.5\n-3.2\n1.1\n-1.7\nCO2 emissions per unit of GDP (t-C/million 2010 US dollars)\n 180 \n 148 \n 1,636 \n 1,754 \n 1,800 \n 1,358 \n 1,034 \n 1,650 \n9.2\n1.4\n-2.5\n2.0\n0.0\nCO2 emissions per unit of primary energy consumption \n(t-C/toe)\n 0.2 \n 0.2 \n 0.9 \n 1.01 \n 1.06 \n 1.05 \n 1.02 \n 1.11 \n6.9\n2.9\n0.3\n0.6\n0.9\nAutomobile ownership volume (millions of vehicles)\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\nAutomobile ownership volume per capita (vehicles per \nperson)\n - \n - \n - \n - \n - \n - \n - \n - \n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\nMtoe\nShare, %\nAAGR (%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nTotal\n1.20\n1.65\n9.49\n12.40\n16.86\n17.29\n17.79\n34.47\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n8.6\n5.5\n3.4\n7.1\n5.3\nCoal\n0.00\n0.00\n7.04\n10.80\n15.60\n15.63\n15.64\n33.80\n0.0\n0.0\n74.3\n87.1\n92.5\n90.4\n87.9\n98.1\n-\n8.9\n3.8\n8.0\n6.5\nOil\n0.16\n0.28\n0.99\n0.99\n1.10\n1.23\n1.37\n1.53\n13.6\n17.2\n10.4\n8.0\n6.5\n7.1\n7.7\n4.4\n7.5\n0.0\n2.2\n2.2\n1.8\nNatural gas\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\nNuclear\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\nHydro\n0.07\n0.30\n1.33\n2.47\n1.11\n1.86\n1.86\n2.30\n5.9\n17.9\n14.1\n19.9\n6.6\n10.7\n10.4\n6.7\n12.5\n13.1\n-2.8\n2.1\n2.2\nGeothermal\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\nOthers\n0.97\n1.07\n0.12\n-1.86\n-0.94\n-1.43\n-1.08\n-3.15\n80.5\n65.0\n1.3\n-15.0\n-5.6\n-8.2\n-6.1\n-9.1\n-8.0\n-272.8\n-2.6\n8.3\n-213.9\nBiomass\n1.01\n1.30\n1.30\n1.26\n1.34\n1.42\n1.50\n1.58\n84.6\n78.5\n13.7\n10.1\n7.9\n8.2\n8.4\n4.6\n1.0\n-0.7\n1.2\n1.1\n0.8\nSolar, Wind, \nOcean\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\nBiofuels\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\nElectricity\n-0.05\n-0.22\n-1.18\n-3.12\n-2.28\n-2.84\n-2.58\n-4.74\n-4.1\n-13.6\n-12.5\n-25.2\n-13.5\n-16.4\n-14.5\n-13.7\n13.6\n21.4\n-0.9\n5.2\n5.7\nTWh\nShare, %\nAAGR (%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nTotal\n0.82\n3.44\n17.76\n41.77\n33.63\n42.32\n42.32\n71.86\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n13.1\n18.6\n0.1\n5.4\n5.7\nCoal\n0.00\n0.00\n2.26\n13.02\n20.71\n20.71\n20.71\n45.17\n0.0\n0.0\n12.7\n31.2\n61.6\n48.9\n48.9\n62.9\n-\n42.0\n4.7\n8.1\n12.7\nOil\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\nNatural gas\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\nNuclear\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\nHydro\n0.82\n3.44\n15.51\n28.74\n12.92\n21.61\n21.61\n26.69\n100.0\n100.0\n87.3\n68.8\n38.4\n51.1\n51.1\n37.1\n12.5\n13.1\n-2.8\n2.1\n2.2\nGeothermal\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\nOthers\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\nMtoe\nShare, %\nAAGR (%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nTotal\n0.00\n0.00\n0.56\n3.20\n5.09\n5.09\n5.09\n11.10\n-\n-\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n-\n42.0\n4.7\n8.1\n12.7\nCoal\n0.00\n0.00\n0.56\n3.20\n5.09\n5.09\n5.09\n11.10\n0.0\n0.0\n100.0\n100.0\n100.0\n100.0\n100.0\n100.0\n-\n42.0\n4.7\n8.1\n12.7\nOil\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\nNatural gas\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\nMt-C\nShare, %\nAAGR (%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nTotal\n0.2\n0.3\n8.3\n12.6\n17.9\n18.1\n18.2\n38.1\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n16.1\n8.6\n3.7\n7.8\n6.3\nCoal\n0.0\n0.0\n7.5\n11.8\n17.0\n17.1\n17.1\n36.9\n0.0\n0.0\n90.1\n93.5\n94.9\n94.4\n93.7\n96.7\n-\n9.4\n3.8\n8.0\n6.6\nOil\n0.2\n0.3\n0.8\n0.8\n0.9\n1.0\n1.1\n1.3\n100.0\n100.0\n9.9\n6.5\n5.1\n5.6\n6.3\n3.3\n5.8\n0.0\n2.2\n2.2\n1.8\nNatural gas\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n%\nAAGR (%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nTotal\n-\n-\n35.0\n35.0\n35.0\n35.0\n35.0\n35.0\n-\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\nCoal\n-\n-\n35.0\n35.0\n35.0\n35.0\n35.0\n35.0\n-\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\nOil\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\nNatural gas\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\nMtoe\nShare, %\nAAGR (%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nTotal\n1.09\n1.50\n9.12\n10.22\n13.40\n13.73\n14.10\n26.65\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n8.9\n2.3\n3.0\n6.9\n4.4\nIndustry\n0.04\n0.06\n6.70\n7.80\n10.72\n10.76\n10.78\n22.94\n3.6\n4.2\n73.5\n76.4\n80.0\n78.3\n76.5\n86.1\n22.9\n3.1\n3.3\n7.9\n5.0\nTransportation\n0.16\n0.27\n0.97\n0.98\n1.09\n1.21\n1.35\n1.51\n14.7\n17.7\n10.6\n9.5\n8.1\n8.8\n9.6\n5.7\n7.5\n0.1\n2.2\n2.2\n1.8\nOthers\n0.89\n1.17\n1.44\n1.44\n1.59\n1.76\n1.96\n2.20\n81.7\n78.1\n15.8\n14.0\n11.9\n12.8\n13.9\n8.2\n1.9\n-0.1\n2.1\n2.2\n1.7\nNon-energy\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n-\n-0.1\n0.9\n0.9\n0.7\nTotal\n1.09\n1.50\n9.12\n10.22\n13.40\n13.73\n14.10\n26.65\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n8.9\n2.3\n3.0\n6.9\n4.4\nCoal\n0.00\n0.00\n6.49\n7.60\n10.51\n10.54\n10.55\n22.70\n0.0\n0.0\n71.1\n74.4\n78.4\n76.8\n74.9\n85.2\n-\n3.2\n3.3\n8.0\n5.1\nOil\n0.16\n0.27\n0.99\n0.99\n1.10\n1.23\n1.37\n1.53\n14.9\n18.1\n10.8\n9.7\n8.2\n8.9\n9.7\n5.7\n7.5\n0.0\n2.2\n2.2\n1.8\nNatural gas\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\nElectricity\n0.01\n0.06\n0.34\n0.37\n0.45\n0.55\n0.67\n0.83\n1.3\n3.7\n3.8\n3.6\n3.4\n4.0\n4.8\n3.1\n13.6\n1.6\n4.0\n4.2\n3.6\nHeat\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\nOthers\n0.92\n1.17\n1.30\n1.26\n1.34\n1.42\n1.50\n1.58\n83.8\n78.2\n14.3\n12.3\n10.0\n10.3\n10.6\n5.9\n1.4\n-0.7\n1.2\n1.1\n0.8\nPrimary energy supply \nPower generation output\nPower generation input\nCO2 Emissions \nEnergy and economic indicators\nThermal efficiency\nFinal energy consumption\nLao People’s Democratic Republic (APS)\n\n\n370\nENERGY OUTLOOK AND ENERGY SAVING POTENTIAL IN EAST ASIA 2019\nAAGR(%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nGDP (billions of 2010 US dollars)\n81.8\n162.5\n330.0\n403.1\n487.1\n582.9\n679.0\n774.9\n5.7\n4.1\n3.8\n2.9\n3.5\nPopulation (millions of people)\n18.0\n23.2\n30.7\n33.0\n34.9\n36.6\n38.2\n39.6\n2.2\n1.4\n1.1\n0.8\n1.0\nGDP per capita (thousands of 2010 US$/person)\n 4.5 \n 7.0 \n 10.7 \n 12.23 \n 14.0 \n 15.9 \n 17.8 \n 19.6 \n3.5\n2.6\n2.7\n2.1\n2.4\nPrimary energy consumption per capita (toe/person)\n 1.1 \n 2.0 \n 2.3 \n 2.70 \n 3.07 \n 3.49 \n 3.92 \n 4.37 \n3.0\n3.3\n2.6\n2.3\n2.6\nPrimary energy consumption per unit of GDP (toe/million \n2010 US dollars)\n 243 \n 287 \n 214 \n 221 \n 219 \n 219 \n 221 \n 223 \n-0.5\n0.6\n-0.1\n0.2\n0.2\nFinal energy consumption per unit of GDP (toe/million 2010 \nUS dollars)\n 153 \n 173 \n 150 \n 159 \n 160 \n 160 \n 161 \n 161 \n-0.1\n1.2\n0.1\n0.1\n0.3\nCO2 emissions per unit of GDP (t-C/million 2010 US dollars)\n 166 \n 189 \n 157 \n 148 \n 148 \n 147 \n 146 \n 150 \n-0.2\n-1.3\n0.0\n0.2\n-0.2\nCO2 emissions per unit of primary energy consumption \n(t-C/toe)\n 0.7 \n 0.7 \n 0.7 \n 0.67 \n 0.67 \n 0.67 \n 0.66 \n 0.67 \n0.3\n-1.9\n0.0\n0.0\n-0.4\nAutomobile ownership volume (millions of vehicles)\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\nAutomobile ownership volume per capita (vehicles per \nperson)\n - \n - \n - \n - \n - \n - \n - \n - \n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\nMtoe\nShare, %\nAAGR (%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nTotal\n19.84\n46.72\n70.58\n88.92\n106.84\n127.91\n149.80\n172.74\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n5.2\n4.7\n3.7\n3.1\n3.6\nCoal\n1.36\n2.31\n17.37\n20.72\n23.76\n27.92\n32.59\n39.00\n6.8\n4.9\n24.6\n23.3\n22.2\n21.8\n21.8\n22.6\n10.7\n3.6\n3.0\n3.4\n3.3\nOil\n11.35\n19.09\n27.34\n35.03\n41.84\n49.60\n57.01\n64.26\n57.2\n40.9\n38.7\n39.4\n39.2\n38.8\n38.1\n37.2\n3.6\n5.1\n3.5\n2.6\n3.5\nNatural gas\n6.80\n24.72\n24.60\n30.34\n37.96\n47.07\n56.87\n66.11\n34.3\n52.9\n34.9\n34.1\n35.5\n36.8\n38.0\n38.3\n5.3\n4.3\n4.5\n3.5\n4.0\nNuclear\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\nHydro\n0.34\n0.60\n1.22\n1.45\n2.01\n2.05\n2.05\n2.05\n1.7\n1.3\n1.7\n1.6\n1.9\n1.6\n1.4\n1.2\n5.2\n3.6\n3.5\n0.0\n2.1\nGeothermal\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\nOthers\n-0.01\n0.00\n0.05\n1.38\n1.26\n1.27\n1.30\n1.32\n0.0\n0.0\n0.1\n1.5\n1.2\n1.0\n0.9\n0.8\n-209.3\n97.4\n-0.8\n0.4\n14.4\nBiomass\n0.00\n0.00\n0.21\n1.42\n1.42\n1.42\n1.42\n1.42\n0.0\n0.0\n0.3\n1.6\n1.3\n1.1\n0.9\n0.8\n-\n46.8\n0.0\n0.0\n8.0\nSolar, Wind, \nOcean\n0.00\n0.00\n0.02\n0.03\n0.03\n0.03\n0.03\n0.03\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n-\n7.7\n0.0\n0.0\n1.5\nBiofuels\n0.00\n0.00\n0.39\n0.41\n0.43\n0.45\n0.47\n0.50\n0.0\n0.0\n0.5\n0.5\n0.4\n0.4\n0.3\n0.3\n-\n1.0\n1.0\n1.0\n1.0\nElectricity\n-0.01\n0.00\n-0.57\n-0.48\n-0.62\n-0.63\n-0.63\n-0.63\n0.0\n0.0\n-0.8\n-0.5\n-0.6\n-0.5\n-0.4\n-0.4\n20.9\n-3.4\n2.7\n0.0\n0.4\nTWh\nShare, %\nAAGR (%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nTotal\n23.02\n66.65\n150.37\n182.25\n222.77\n267.54\n316.47\n368.13\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n7.8\n3.9\n3.9\n3.2\n3.6\nCoal\n2.93\n7.69\n63.47\n76.93\n87.34\n102.95\n121.73\n145.83\n12.7\n11.5\n42.2\n42.2\n39.2\n38.5\n38.5\n39.6\n13.1\n3.9\n3.0\n3.5\n3.4\nOil\n10.56\n3.01\n1.74\n1.84\n1.56\n1.54\n1.61\n1.60\n45.9\n4.5\n1.2\n1.0\n0.7\n0.6\n0.5\n0.4\n-7.0\n1.1\n-1.8\n0.4\n-0.3\nNatural gas\n5.54\n48.99\n69.96\n81.04\n104.92\n133.74\n163.83\n191.40\n24.1\n73.5\n46.5\n44.5\n47.1\n50.0\n51.8\n52.0\n10.7\n3.0\n5.1\n3.6\n4.1\nNuclear\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\nHydro\n3.99\n6.97\n14.17\n16.92\n23.43\n23.81\n23.79\n23.79\n17.3\n10.5\n9.4\n9.3\n10.5\n8.9\n7.5\n6.5\n5.2\n3.6\n3.5\n0.0\n2.1\nGeothermal\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\nOthers\n0.00\n0.00\n1.02\n5.51\n5.51\n5.51\n5.51\n5.51\n0.0\n0.0\n0.7\n3.0\n2.5\n2.1\n1.7\n1.5\n-\n40.0\n0.0\n0.0\n7.0\nMtoe\nShare, %\nAAGR (%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nTotal\n5.16\n13.86\n31.09\n35.39\n42.07\n50.85\n60.79\n71.98\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n7.4\n2.6\n3.7\n3.5\n3.4\nCoal\n0.81\n1.50\n15.59\n18.44\n21.00\n24.67\n28.86\n34.78\n15.7\n10.8\n50.2\n52.1\n49.9\n48.5\n47.5\n48.3\n12.5\n3.4\n3.0\n3.5\n3.3\nOil\n2.99\n0.78\n0.45\n0.48\n0.41\n0.40\n0.42\n0.42\n57.9\n5.7\n1.5\n1.4\n1.0\n0.8\n0.7\n0.6\n-7.3\n1.1\n-1.8\n0.4\n-0.3\nNatural gas\n1.36\n11.58\n15.04\n16.48\n20.67\n25.78\n31.51\n36.78\n26.4\n83.6\n48.4\n46.6\n49.1\n50.7\n51.8\n51.1\n10.1\n1.8\n4.6\n3.6\n3.6\nMt-C\nShare, %\nAAGR (%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nTotal\n13.6\n30.7\n52.0\n59.5\n72.0\n86.0\n98.8\n116.3\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n5.5\n2.8\n3.7\n3.1\n3.3\nCoal\n1.4\n2.6\n18.5\n18.6\n21.8\n25.1\n26.8\n33.7\n10.3\n8.5\n35.6\n31.2\n30.4\n29.2\n27.2\n29.0\n10.9\n0.1\n3.0\n3.0\n2.4\nOil\n10.3\n15.7\n20.6\n26.6\n31.9\n38.0\n44.0\n49.9\n75.7\n51.1\n39.7\n44.7\n44.4\n44.2\n44.6\n42.9\n2.8\n5.2\n3.6\n2.8\n3.6\nNatural gas\n1.9\n12.4\n12.9\n14.4\n18.2\n22.9\n27.9\n32.6\n14.0\n40.4\n24.7\n24.1\n25.3\n26.6\n28.3\n28.1\n7.9\n2.2\n4.8\n3.6\n3.8\n%\nAAGR (%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nTotal\n31.7\n37.0\n37.4\n38.8\n39.6\n40.3\n40.6\n40.5\n0.7\n0.8\n0.4\n0.0\n0.3\nCoal\n31.0\n44.2\n35.0\n35.9\n35.8\n35.9\n36.3\n36.1\n0.5\n0.5\n0.0\n0.0\n0.1\nOil\n30.4\n33.0\n33.0\n33.0\n33.0\n33.0\n33.0\n33.0\n0.3\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\nNatural gas\n35.0\n36.4\n40.0\n42.3\n43.7\n44.6\n44.7\n44.8\n0.5\n1.1\n0.5\n0.0\n0.4\nMtoe\nShare, %\nAAGR (%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nTotal\n12.52\n28.13\n49.52\n64.30\n77.93\n93.48\n109.31\n125.14\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n5.7\n5.4\n3.8\n3.0\n3.8\nIndustry\n5.30\n11.41\n13.97\n16.78\n20.65\n24.94\n29.20\n33.29\n42.3\n40.6\n28.2\n26.1\n26.5\n26.7\n26.7\n26.6\n4.0\n3.7\n4.0\n2.9\n3.5\nTransportation\n4.76\n10.50\n21.10\n27.34\n33.10\n39.73\n46.38\n53.03\n38.0\n37.3\n42.6\n42.5\n42.5\n42.5\n42.4\n42.4\n6.1\n5.3\n3.8\n2.9\n3.8\nOthers\n1.62\n3.97\n8.53\n10.84\n13.25\n16.04\n19.08\n22.29\n13.0\n14.1\n17.2\n16.9\n17.0\n17.2\n17.5\n17.8\n6.9\n4.9\n4.0\n3.3\n3.9\nNon-energy\n0.84\n2.25\n5.93\n9.34\n10.93\n12.76\n14.64\n16.53\n6.7\n8.0\n12.0\n14.5\n14.0\n13.7\n13.4\n13.2\n8.1\n9.5\n3.2\n2.6\n4.2\nTotal\n12.52\n28.13\n49.52\n64.30\n77.93\n93.48\n109.31\n125.14\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n5.7\n5.4\n3.8\n3.0\n3.8\nCoal\n0.51\n0.99\n1.78\n2.28\n2.76\n3.25\n3.73\n4.22\n4.1\n3.5\n3.6\n3.5\n3.5\n3.5\n3.4\n3.4\n5.1\n5.1\n3.6\n2.7\n3.5\nOil\n9.19\n18.01\n26.39\n33.74\n40.36\n47.87\n55.26\n62.52\n73.5\n64.0\n53.3\n52.5\n51.8\n51.2\n50.6\n50.0\n4.3\n5.0\n3.6\n2.7\n3.5\nNatural gas\n1.09\n3.86\n9.56\n13.86\n17.29\n21.29\n25.36\n29.33\n8.7\n13.7\n19.3\n21.6\n22.2\n22.8\n23.2\n23.4\n9.1\n7.7\n4.4\n3.3\n4.6\nElectricity\n1.72\n5.26\n11.40\n14.01\n17.08\n20.62\n24.49\n28.57\n13.7\n18.7\n23.0\n21.8\n21.9\n22.1\n22.4\n22.8\n7.9\n4.2\n3.9\n3.3\n3.7\nHeat\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\nOthers\n0.00\n0.00\n0.39\n0.41\n0.43\n0.45\n0.47\n0.50\n0.0\n0.0\n0.8\n0.6\n0.5\n0.5\n0.4\n0.4\n-\n1.0\n1.0\n1.0\n1.0\nPrimary energy supply\nPower generation output\nPower generation input\nCO2 Emissions \nEnergy and economic indicators\nThermal efficiency\nFinal energy consumption\nMalaysia (BAU)\n\n\n371\nResults Summary Tables\nAAGR(%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nGDP (billions of 2010 US dollars)\n81.8\n162.5\n330.0\n403.1\n487.1\n582.9\n679.0\n774.9\n5.7\n4.1\n3.8\n2.9\n3.5\nPopulation (millions of people)\n18.0\n23.2\n30.7\n33.0\n34.9\n36.6\n38.2\n39.6\n2.2\n1.4\n1.1\n0.8\n1.0\nGDP per capita (thousands of 2010 US$/person)\n 4.5 \n 7.0 \n 10.7 \n 12.23 \n 14.0 \n 15.9 \n 17.8 \n 19.6 \n3.5\n2.6\n2.7\n2.1\n2.4\nPrimary energy consumption per capita (toe/person)\n 1.1 \n 2.0 \n 2.3 \n 2.50 \n 2.76 \n 3.07 \n 3.37 \n 3.67 \n3.0\n1.7\n2.1\n1.8\n1.9\nPrimary energy consumption per unit of GDP (toe/million \n2010 US dollars)\n 243 \n 287 \n 214 \n 204 \n 197 \n 193 \n 189 \n 187 \n-0.5\n-0.9\n-0.6\n-0.3\n-0.5\nFinal energy consumption per unit of GDP (toe/million 2010 \nUS dollars)\n 153 \n 173 \n 150 \n 153 \n 152 \n 151 \n 151 \n 150 \n-0.1\n0.4\n-0.1\n-0.1\n0.0\nCO2 emissions per unit of GDP (t-C/million 2010 US dollars)\n 166 \n 189 \n 157 \n 132 \n 127 \n 123 \n 118 \n 117 \n-0.2\n-3.5\n-0.7\n-0.5\n-1.2\nCO2 emissions per unit of primary energy consumption \n(t-C/toe)\n 0.7 \n 0.7 \n 0.7 \n 0.64 \n 0.64 \n 0.64 \n 0.62 \n 0.62 \n0.3\n-2.6\n-0.1\n-0.2\n-0.7\nAutomobile ownership volume (millions of vehicles)\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\nAutomobile ownership volume per capita (vehicles per \nperson)\n - \n - \n - \n - \n - \n - \n - \n - \n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\nMtoe\nShare, %\nAAGR (%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nTotal\n19.84\n46.72\n70.58\n82.26\n96.05\n112.34\n128.61\n145.21\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n5.2\n3.1\n3.2\n2.6\n2.9\nCoal\n1.36\n2.31\n17.37\n17.54\n18.55\n20.42\n23.04\n25.31\n6.8\n4.9\n24.6\n21.3\n19.3\n18.2\n17.9\n17.4\n10.7\n0.2\n1.5\n2.2\n1.5\nOil\n11.35\n19.09\n27.34\n33.85\n40.28\n47.62\n54.57\n61.37\n57.2\n40.9\n38.7\n41.2\n41.9\n42.4\n42.4\n42.3\n3.6\n4.4\n3.5\n2.6\n3.3\nNatural gas\n6.80\n24.72\n24.60\n27.04\n32.62\n39.43\n45.86\n51.04\n34.3\n52.9\n34.9\n32.9\n34.0\n35.1\n35.7\n35.1\n5.3\n1.9\n3.8\n2.6\n3.0\nNuclear\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n2.16\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n1.5\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\nHydro\n0.34\n0.60\n1.22\n1.51\n2.12\n2.16\n2.18\n2.18\n1.7\n1.3\n1.7\n1.8\n2.2\n1.9\n1.7\n1.5\n5.2\n4.4\n3.7\n0.1\n2.4\nGeothermal\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\nOthers\n-0.01\n0.00\n0.05\n2.32\n2.48\n2.71\n2.95\n3.16\n0.0\n0.0\n0.1\n2.8\n2.6\n2.4\n2.3\n2.2\n-209.3\n119.0\n1.6\n1.5\n18.4\nBiomass\n0.00\n0.00\n0.21\n1.60\n1.61\n1.63\n1.68\n1.68\n0.0\n0.0\n0.3\n1.9\n1.7\n1.5\n1.3\n1.2\n-\n50.3\n0.2\n0.2\n8.7\nSolar, Wind, \nOcean\n0.00\n0.00\n0.02\n0.20\n0.36\n0.39\n0.40\n0.40\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.2\n0.4\n0.4\n0.3\n0.3\n-\n54.0\n6.9\n0.2\n12.1\nBiofuels\n0.00\n0.00\n0.39\n1.07\n1.25\n1.45\n1.65\n1.85\n0.0\n0.0\n0.5\n1.3\n1.3\n1.3\n1.3\n1.3\n-\n22.5\n3.1\n2.5\n6.5\nElectricity\n-0.01\n0.00\n-0.57\n-0.55\n-0.74\n-0.77\n-0.77\n-0.78\n0.0\n0.0\n-0.8\n-0.7\n-0.8\n-0.7\n-0.6\n-0.5\n20.9\n-0.8\n3.3\n0.1\n1.2\nTWh\nShare, %\nAAGR (%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nTotal\n23.02\n66.65\n150.37\n166.57 200.49 236.20 273.90\n312.18\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n7.8\n2.1\n3.6\n2.8\n3.0\nCoal\n2.93\n7.69\n63.47\n68.08\n74.10\n84.83\n100.03\n113.92\n12.7\n11.5\n42.2\n40.9\n37.0\n35.9\n36.5\n36.5\n13.1\n1.4\n2.2\n3.0\n2.4\nOil\n10.56\n3.01\n1.74\n1.91\n1.60\n1.61\n1.66\n1.65\n45.9\n4.5\n1.2\n1.1\n0.8\n0.7\n0.6\n0.5\n-7.0\n1.9\n-1.7\n0.3\n-0.2\nNatural gas\n5.54\n48.99\n69.96\n70.89\n90.18\n114.12\n136.18\n152.28\n24.1\n73.5\n46.5\n42.6\n45.0\n48.3\n49.7\n48.8\n10.7\n0.3\n4.9\n2.9\n3.2\nNuclear\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n8.28\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n2.7\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\nHydro\n3.99\n6.97\n14.17\n17.58\n24.61\n25.17\n25.32\n25.32\n17.3\n10.5\n9.4\n10.6\n12.3\n10.7\n9.2\n8.1\n5.2\n4.4\n3.7\n0.1\n2.4\nGeothermal\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\nOthers\n0.00\n0.00\n1.02\n8.12\n10.00\n10.48\n10.71\n10.73\n0.0\n0.0\n0.7\n4.9\n5.0\n4.4\n3.9\n3.4\n-\n51.3\n2.6\n0.2\n9.9\nMtoe\nShare, %\nAAGR (%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nTotal\n5.16\n13.86\n31.09\n29.66\n32.64\n37.31\n42.40\n46.00\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n7.4\n-0.9\n2.3\n2.1\n1.6\nCoal\n0.81\n1.50\n15.59\n15.47\n16.10\n17.58\n19.84\n21.77\n15.7\n10.8\n50.2\n52.1\n49.3\n47.1\n46.8\n47.3\n12.5\n-0.2\n1.3\n2.2\n1.3\nOil\n2.99\n0.78\n0.45\n0.50\n0.42\n0.42\n0.43\n0.43\n57.9\n5.7\n1.5\n1.7\n1.3\n1.1\n1.0\n0.9\n-7.3\n1.9\n-1.7\n0.3\n-0.2\nNatural gas\n1.36\n11.58\n15.04\n13.70\n16.13\n19.31\n22.12\n23.81\n26.4\n83.6\n48.4\n46.2\n49.4\n51.8\n52.2\n51.7\n10.1\n-1.8\n3.5\n2.1\n1.9\nMt-C\nShare, %\nAAGR (%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nTotal\n13.6\n30.7\n52.0\n53.0\n61.8\n71.6\n80.1\n90.3\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n5.5\n0.4\n3.0\n2.4\n2.2\nCoal\n1.4\n2.6\n18.5\n15.2\n16.4\n17.2\n17.2\n19.8\n10.3\n8.5\n35.6\n28.6\n26.5\n24.1\n21.4\n21.9\n10.9\n-3.9\n1.3\n1.4\n0.3\nOil\n10.3\n15.7\n20.6\n25.6\n30.6\n36.4\n42.0\n47.5\n75.7\n51.1\n39.7\n48.3\n49.5\n50.8\n52.5\n52.6\n2.8\n4.4\n3.6\n2.7\n3.4\nNatural gas\n1.9\n12.4\n12.9\n12.2\n14.8\n18.0\n20.9\n23.0\n14.0\n40.4\n24.7\n23.1\n23.9\n25.1\n26.1\n25.5\n7.9\n-1.0\n3.9\n2.5\n2.4\n%\nAAGR (%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nTotal\n31.7\n37.0\n37.4\n40.8\n43.7\n46.2\n48.3\n50.1\n0.7\n1.8\n1.2\n0.8\n1.2\nCoal\n31.0\n44.2\n35.0\n37.9\n39.6\n41.5\n43.4\n45.0\n0.5\n1.6\n0.9\n0.8\n1.0\nOil\n30.4\n33.0\n33.0\n33.0\n33.0\n33.0\n33.0\n33.0\n0.3\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\nNatural gas\n35.0\n36.4\n40.0\n44.5\n48.1\n50.8\n52.9\n55.0\n0.5\n2.1\n1.3\n0.8\n1.3\nMtoe\nShare, %\nAAGR (%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nTotal\n12.52\n28.13\n49.52\n61.72\n74.20\n88.29\n102.39\n116.25\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n5.7\n4.5\n3.6\n2.8\n3.5\nIndustry\n5.30\n11.41\n13.97\n15.22\n18.38\n21.78\n25.02\n27.96\n42.3\n40.6\n28.2\n24.7\n24.8\n24.7\n24.4\n24.1\n4.0\n1.7\n3.7\n2.5\n2.8\nTransportation\n4.76\n10.50\n21.10\n27.34\n33.10\n39.73\n46.38\n53.03\n38.0\n37.3\n42.6\n44.3\n44.6\n45.0\n45.3\n45.6\n6.1\n5.3\n3.8\n2.9\n3.8\nOthers\n1.62\n3.97\n8.53\n9.83\n11.80\n14.01\n16.35\n18.73\n13.0\n14.1\n17.2\n15.9\n15.9\n15.9\n16.0\n16.1\n6.9\n2.9\n3.6\n2.9\n3.2\nNon-energy\n0.84\n2.25\n5.93\n9.34\n10.93\n12.76\n14.64\n16.53\n6.7\n8.0\n12.0\n15.1\n14.7\n14.5\n14.3\n14.2\n8.1\n9.5\n3.2\n2.6\n4.2\nTotal\n12.52\n28.13\n49.52\n61.72\n74.20\n88.29\n102.39\n116.25\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n5.7\n4.5\n3.6\n2.8\n3.5\nCoal\n0.51\n0.99\n1.78\n2.07\n2.46\n2.84\n3.20\n3.54\n4.1\n3.5\n3.6\n3.4\n3.3\n3.2\n3.1\n3.0\n5.1\n3.1\n3.2\n2.3\n2.8\nOil\n9.19\n18.01\n26.39\n32.54\n38.80\n45.87\n52.81\n59.61\n73.5\n64.0\n53.3\n52.7\n52.3\n52.0\n51.6\n51.3\n4.3\n4.3\n3.5\n2.7\n3.3\nNatural gas\n1.09\n3.86\n9.56\n13.34\n16.49\n20.12\n23.74\n27.23\n8.7\n13.7\n19.3\n21.6\n22.2\n22.8\n23.2\n23.4\n9.1\n6.9\n4.2\n3.1\n4.3\nElectricity\n1.72\n5.26\n11.40\n12.70\n15.21\n18.01\n20.99\n24.02\n13.7\n18.7\n23.0\n20.6\n20.5\n20.4\n20.5\n20.7\n7.9\n2.2\n3.6\n2.9\n3.0\nHeat\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\nOthers\n0.00\n0.00\n0.39\n1.07\n1.25\n1.45\n1.65\n1.85\n0.0\n0.0\n0.8\n1.7\n1.7\n1.6\n1.6\n1.6\n-\n22.5\n3.1\n2.5\n6.5\nPrimary energy supply\nPower generation output\nPower generation input\nCO2 Emissions \nEnergy and economic indicators\nThermal efficiency\nFinal energy consumption\nMalaysia (APS)\n\n\n372\nENERGY OUTLOOK AND ENERGY SAVING POTENTIAL IN EAST ASIA 2019\nAAGR(%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nGDP (billions of 2010 US dollars)\n8\n16\n71\n100\n139\n185\n242\n316\n9.1\n7.2\n6.3\n5.5\n6.2\nPopulation (millions of people)\n41\n46\n52\n55\n57\n59\n61\n63\n1.0\n0.9\n0.8\n0.5\n0.7\nGDP per capita (thousands of 2010 US$/person)\n 0.2 \n 0.3 \n 1.3 \n 1.83 \n 2.4 \n 3.1 \n 4.0 \n 5.1 \n8.0\n6.3\n5.5\n4.9\n5.4\nPrimary energy consumption per capita (toe/person)\n 0.3 \n 0.3 \n 0.4 \n 0.43 \n 0.46 \n 0.52 \n 0.58 \n 0.67 \n1.5\n2.4\n2.0\n2.5\n2.3\nPrimary energy consumption per unit of GDP (toe/million \n2010 US dollars)\n 1,333 \n 803 \n 281 \n 234 \n 189 \n 167 \n 148 \n 132 \n-6.0\n-3.6\n-3.3\n-2.3\n-3.0\nFinal energy consumption per unit of GDP (toe/million 2010 \nUS dollars)\n 1,173 \n 718 \n 251 \n 206 \n 170 \n 145 \n 127 \n 112 \n-6.0\n-3.9\n-3.4\n-2.6\n-3.2\nCO2 emissions per unit of GDP (t-C/million 2010 US dollars)\n 140 \n 150 \n 93 \n 89 \n 75 \n 81 \n 76 \n 74 \n-1.6\n-0.9\n-0.9\n-1.0\n-0.9\nCO2 emissions per unit of primary energy consumption \n(t-C/toe)\n 0.1 \n 0.2 \n 0.3 \n 0.38 \n 0.40 \n 0.49 \n 0.52 \n 0.56 \n4.7\n2.9\n2.5\n1.4\n2.1\nAutomobile ownership volume (millions of vehicles)\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\nAutomobile ownership volume per capita (vehicles per \nperson)\n - \n - \n - \n - \n - \n - \n - \n - \n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\nMtoe\nShare, %\nAAGR (%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nTotal\n10.68\n12.84\n19.85\n23.39\n26.23\n30.94\n35.72\n41.79\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n2.5\n3.3\n2.8\n3.1\n3.0\nCoal\n0.07\n0.32\n0.38\n0.48\n0.59\n3.92\n4.77\n6.84\n0.6\n2.5\n1.9\n2.1\n2.2\n12.7\n13.4\n16.4\n7.1\n5.3\n23.2\n5.7\n12.3\nOil\n0.73\n1.97\n5.47\n7.11\n8.87\n10.85\n13.18\n16.00\n6.8\n15.4\n27.6\n30.4\n33.8\n35.1\n36.9\n38.3\n8.4\n5.4\n4.3\n4.0\n4.4\nNatural gas\n0.76\n1.20\n3.08\n4.48\n4.59\n3.84\n4.92\n5.77\n7.1\n9.3\n15.5\n19.1\n17.5\n12.4\n13.8\n13.8\n5.8\n7.8\n-1.5\n4.2\n2.5\nNuclear\n-\n-\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\nHydro\n0.10\n0.16\n0.81\n0.90\n1.38\n1.15\n1.41\n1.58\n1.0\n1.3\n4.1\n3.9\n5.3\n3.7\n4.0\n3.8\n8.6\n2.2\n2.5\n3.2\n2.7\nGeothermal\n-\n-\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\nOthers\n9.02\n9.19\n10.11\n10.41\n10.80\n11.18\n11.43\n11.60\n84.5\n71.5\n50.9\n44.5\n41.2\n36.1\n32.0\n27.8\n0.5\n0.6\n0.7\n0.4\n0.6\nBiomass\n9.02\n9.19\n10.11\n10.40\n10.76\n11.12\n11.36\n11.51\n84.5\n71.5\n50.9\n44.5\n41.0\n35.9\n31.8\n27.6\n0.5\n0.6\n0.7\n0.4\n0.5\nSolar, Wind, \nOcean\n-\n-\n0.00\n0.00\n0.04\n0.06\n0.08\n0.09\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.1\n0.2\n0.2\n0.2\n-\n-\n32.6\n3.2\n-\nBiofuels\n-\n-\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\nElectricity\n-\n-\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\nTWh\nShare, %\nAAGR (%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nTotal\n2.48\n5.12\n15.97\n23.62\n31.50\n40.33\n50.48\n63.00\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n7.7\n8.2\n5.5\n4.6\n5.6\nCoal\n0.04\n0.00\n0.00\n0.12\n0.20\n14.54\n17.91\n26.61\n1.6\n0.0\n0.0\n0.5\n0.6\n36.0\n35.5\n42.2\n-100.0\n-\n61.6\n6.2\n-\nOil\n0.27\n0.69\n0.06\n0.10\n0.06\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n10.9\n13.5\n0.3\n0.4\n0.2\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n-6.2\n11.7\n-100.0\n-\n-100.0\nNatural gas\n0.97\n2.54\n6.51\n12.59\n13.69\n9.30\n12.30\n13.74\n39.3\n49.5\n40.8\n53.3\n43.5\n23.1\n24.4\n21.8\n7.9\n14.1\n-3.0\n4.0\n3.0\nNuclear\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\nHydro\n1.19\n1.89\n9.40\n10.49\n16.02\n13.37\n16.43\n18.35\n48.1\n37.0\n58.9\n44.4\n50.8\n33.2\n32.5\n29.1\n8.6\n2.2\n2.5\n3.2\n2.7\nGeothermal\n-\n-\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\nOthers\n-\n-\n0.00\n0.33\n1.53\n3.13\n3.84\n4.29\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n1.4\n4.9\n7.8\n7.6\n6.8\n-\n-\n25.2\n3.2\n-\nMtoe\nShare, %\nAAGR (%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nTotal\n0.51\n0.94\n2.03\n3.33\n3.16\n5.29\n6.70\n8.97\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n5.7\n10.4\n4.7\n5.4\n6.1\nCoal\n0.01\n0.00\n0.00\n0.03\n0.05\n3.29\n4.05\n6.02\n2.4\n0.0\n0.0\n0.9\n1.6\n62.2\n60.5\n67.1\n-100.0\n-\n60.3\n6.2\n-\nOil\n0.06\n0.19\n0.01\n0.03\n0.01\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n12.5\n20.6\n0.7\n0.8\n0.5\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n-5.8\n11.7\n-100.0\n-\n-100.0\nNatural gas\n0.43\n0.74\n2.02\n3.28\n3.10\n2.00\n2.64\n2.95\n85.1\n79.4\n99.3\n98.4\n98.0\n37.8\n39.5\n32.9\n6.3\n10.2\n-4.8\n4.0\n1.5\nMt-C\nShare, %\nAAGR (%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nTotal\n1.1\n2.4\n6.6\n8.9\n10.4\n15.1\n18.5\n23.4\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n7.3\n6.3\n5.4\n4.5\n5.2\nCoal\n0.1\n0.3\n0.4067\n0.5255\n0.6389\n4.2362\n5.1606\n7.3975\n8.9\n12.5\n6.2\n5.9\n6.1\n28.1\n28.0\n31.6\n5.8\n5.3\n23.2\n5.7\n12.3\nOil\n0.6\n1.4\n4.3403\n5.6188\n6.9917\n8.5462\n10.371\n12.588\n50.0\n58.3\n66.0\n63.0\n67.0\n56.7\n56.2\n53.9\n8.5\n5.3\n4.3\n3.9\n4.4\nNatural gas\n0.5\n0.7\n1.8262\n2.7749\n2.812\n2.28\n2.9211\n3.3896\n41.1\n29.2\n27.8\n31.1\n26.9\n15.1\n15.8\n14.5\n5.7\n8.7\n-1.9\n4.0\n2.5\n%\nAAGR (%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nTotal\n21.7\n29.6\n27.8\n33.0\n37.9\n38.8\n38.8\n38.7\n1.0\n3.5\n1.6\n0.0\n1.3\nCoal\n28.7\n-\n-\n35.2\n35.2\n38.0\n38.0\n38.0\n-\n-\n0.8\n0.0\n-\nOil\n36.4\n30.8\n32.7\n32.7\n32.7\n-\n-\n-\n-0.4\n0.0\n-\n-\n-\nNatural gas\n19.3\n29.3\n27.7\n33.0\n38.0\n40.0\n40.0\n40.0\n1.5\n3.5\n1.9\n0.0\n1.5\nMtoe\nShare, %\nAAGR (%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nTotal\n9.400\n11.477\n17.734\n20.557\n23.574\n26.922 30.740 35.290\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n2.6\n3.0\n2.7\n2.7\n2.8\nIndustry\n0.39\n1.15\n2.17\n3.05\n3.86\n4.76\n5.79\n7.01\n4.2\n10.0\n12.3\n14.8\n16.4\n17.7\n18.8\n19.9\n7.1\n7.0\n4.6\n3.9\n4.8\nTransportation\n0.44\n1.16\n3.53\n4.88\n6.42\n8.19\n10.29\n12.86\n4.7\n10.1\n19.9\n23.8\n27.2\n30.4\n33.5\n36.4\n8.6\n6.7\n5.3\n4.6\n5.3\nOthers\n8.47\n9.08\n11.76\n12.33\n12.92\n13.50\n14.09\n14.71\n90.1\n79.1\n66.3\n60.0\n54.8\n50.2\n45.8\n41.7\n1.3\n0.9\n0.9\n0.9\n0.9\nNon-energy\n0.09\n0.09\n0.27\n0.30\n0.37\n0.46\n0.57\n0.71\n1.0\n0.8\n1.5\n1.4\n1.6\n1.7\n1.9\n2.0\n4.2\n2.2\n4.6\n4.4\n4.0\nTotal\n9.40\n11.48\n17.73\n20.56\n23.57\n26.92\n30.74\n35.29\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n2.6\n3.0\n2.7\n2.7\n2.8\nCoal\n0.05\n0.32\n0.38\n0.46\n0.54\n0.63\n0.72\n0.82\n0.5\n2.8\n2.1\n2.2\n2.3\n2.3\n2.3\n2.3\n8.3\n4.0\n3.3\n2.7\n3.2\nOil\n0.59\n1.53\n5.43\n7.02\n8.76\n10.74\n13.05\n15.85\n6.2\n13.3\n30.6\n34.2\n37.2\n39.9\n42.4\n44.9\n9.3\n5.3\n4.3\n4.0\n4.4\nNatural gas\n0.23\n0.32\n0.71\n0.92\n1.21\n1.57\n1.99\n2.51\n2.4\n2.8\n4.0\n4.5\n5.1\n5.8\n6.5\n7.1\n4.7\n5.4\n5.5\n4.8\n5.2\nElectricity\n0.15\n0.28\n1.15\n1.83\n2.44\n3.12\n3.93\n4.93\n1.6\n2.4\n6.5\n8.9\n10.3\n11.6\n12.8\n14.0\n8.5\n9.7\n5.5\n4.7\n6.0\nHeat\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\nOthers\n8.39\n9.02\n10.07\n10.34\n10.62\n10.86\n11.05\n11.18\n89.2\n78.6\n56.8\n50.3\n45.1\n40.4\n36.0\n31.7\n0.7\n0.5\n0.5\n0.3\n0.4\nPrimary energy supply \nPower generation output\nPower generation input\nCO2 Emissions \nEnergy and economic indicators\nThermal efficiency\nFinal energy consumption\nMyanmar (BAU)\n\n\n373\nResults Summary Tables\nAAGR(%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nGDP (billions of 2010 US dollars)\n8.0\n16.0\n70.5\n101.2\n140.8\n188.6\n244.2\n316.2\n9.1\n7.5\n6.4\n5.3\n6.2\nPopulation (millions of people)\n40.6\n46.1\n52.4\n57.1\n60.1\n63.0\n66.0\n66.0\n1.0\n1.7\n1.0\n0.5\n0.9\nGDP per capita (thousands of 2010 US$/person)\n 0.2 \n 0.3 \n 1.3 \n 1.77 \n 2.3 \n 3.0 \n 3.7 \n 4.8 \n8.0\n5.6\n5.4\n4.8\n5.2\nPrimary energy consumption per capita (toe/person)\n 0.3 \n 0.3 \n 0.4 \n 0.40 \n 0.41 \n 0.41 \n 0.44 \n 0.50 \n1.5\n1.0\n0.2\n2.1\n1.1\nPrimary energy consumption per unit of GDP (toe/million \n2010 US dollars)\n 1,333 \n 803 \n 281 \n 225 \n 173 \n 136 \n 120 \n 105 \n-6.0\n-4.4\n-4.9\n-2.6\n-3.9\nFinal energy consumption per unit of GDP (toe/million 2010 \nUS dollars)\n 1,173 \n 718 \n 251 \n 197 \n 156 \n 127 \n 111 \n 98 \n-6.0\n-4.7\n-4.3\n-2.5\n-3.7\nCO2 emissions per unit of GDP (t-C/million 2010 US dollars)\n 140 \n 150 \n 93 \n 84 \n 66 \n 53 \n 50 \n 46 \n-1.6\n-2.0\n-4.6\n-1.4\n-2.8\nCO2 emissions per unit of primary energy consumption \n(t-C/toe)\n 0.1 \n 0.2 \n 0.3 \n 0.37 \n 0.38 \n 0.39 \n 0.41 \n 0.44 \n4.7\n2.5\n0.3\n1.2\n1.1\nAutomobile ownership volume (millions of vehicles)\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\nAutomobile ownership volume per capita (vehicles per \nperson)\n - \n - \n - \n - \n - \n - \n - \n - \n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\nMtoe\nShare, %\nAAGR (%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nTotal\n10.68\n12.84\n19.85\n22.77\n24.35\n25.70\n29.35\n33.15\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n2.5\n2.8\n1.2\n2.6\n2.1\nCoal\n0.07\n0.32\n0.38\n0.46\n0.53\n0.59\n0.68\n0.80\n0.6\n2.5\n1.9\n2.0\n2.2\n2.3\n2.3\n2.4\n7.1\n4.3\n2.4\n3.1\n3.1\nOil\n0.73\n1.97\n5.47\n6.83\n8.06\n9.31\n11.30\n13.70\n6.8\n15.4\n27.6\n30.0\n33.1\n36.2\n38.5\n41.3\n8.4\n4.5\n3.2\n3.9\n3.7\nNatural gas\n0.76\n1.20\n3.08\n4.27\n4.01\n3.39\n4.33\n4.89\n7.1\n9.3\n15.5\n18.7\n16.5\n13.2\n14.7\n14.7\n5.8\n6.8\n-2.3\n3.7\n1.9\nNuclear\n-\n-\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\nHydro\n0.10\n0.16\n0.81\n0.95\n1.30\n1.47\n1.80\n2.23\n1.0\n1.3\n4.1\n4.2\n5.3\n5.7\n6.1\n6.7\n8.6\n3.3\n4.5\n4.2\n4.1\nGeothermal\n-\n-\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\nOthers\n9.02\n9.19\n10.11\n10.26\n10.45\n10.94\n11.24\n11.53\n84.5\n71.5\n50.9\n45.0\n42.9\n42.6\n38.3\n34.8\n0.5\n0.3\n0.6\n0.5\n0.5\nBiomass\n9.02\n9.19\n10.11\n10.25\n10.41\n10.74\n11.00\n11.23\n84.5\n71.5\n50.9\n45.0\n42.8\n41.8\n37.5\n33.9\n0.5\n0.3\n0.5\n0.5\n0.4\nSolar, Wind, \nOcean\n-\n-\n0.00\n0.00\n0.03\n0.20\n0.24\n0.30\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.1\n0.8\n0.8\n0.9\n-\n-\n49.9\n4.2\n-\nBiofuels\n-\n-\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\nElectricity\n-\n-\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\nTWh\nShare, %\nAAGR (%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nTotal\n2.48\n5.12\n15.97\n23.48\n28.40\n32.62\n40.61\n50.40\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n7.7\n8.0\n3.3\n4.4\n4.7\nCoal\n0.04\n0.00\n0.00\n0.11\n0.19\n0.26\n0.37\n0.52\n1.6\n0.0\n0.0\n0.5\n0.7\n0.8\n0.9\n1.0\n-100.0\n-\n8.6\n7.3\n-\nOil\n0.27\n0.69\n0.06\n0.09\n0.05\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n10.9\n13.5\n0.3\n0.4\n0.2\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n-6.2\n10.5\n-100.0\n-\n-100.0\nNatural gas\n0.97\n2.54\n6.51\n11.93\n11.60\n8.57\n11.24\n13.93\n39.3\n49.5\n40.8\n50.8\n40.8\n26.3\n27.7\n27.6\n7.9\n12.9\n-3.3\n5.0\n3.1\nNuclear\n0.00\n0.00\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\nHydro\n1.19\n1.89\n9.40\n11.04\n15.11\n17.14\n20.88\n25.89\n48.1\n37.0\n58.9\n47.0\n53.2\n52.5\n51.4\n51.4\n8.6\n3.3\n4.5\n4.2\n4.1\nGeothermal\n-\n-\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\nOthers\n-\n-\n0.00\n0.31\n1.45\n6.66\n8.11\n10.05\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n1.3\n5.1\n20.4\n20.0\n19.9\n-\n-\n35.8\n4.2\n-\nMtoe\nShare, %\nAAGR (%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nTotal\n0.51\n0.94\n2.03\n3.16\n2.68\n1.81\n2.37\n2.50\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n5.7\n9.2\n-5.4\n3.3\n0.8\nCoal\n0.01\n0.00\n0.00\n0.03\n0.04\n0.05\n0.07\n0.10\n2.4\n0.0\n0.0\n0.9\n1.5\n2.9\n3.0\n4.0\n-100.0\n-\n6.7\n6.5\n-\nOil\n0.06\n0.19\n0.01\n0.02\n0.01\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n12.5\n20.6\n0.7\n0.8\n0.5\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n-5.8\n10.5\n-100.0\n-\n-100.0\nNatural gas\n0.43\n0.74\n2.02\n3.11\n2.62\n1.75\n2.30\n2.40\n85.1\n79.4\n99.3\n98.4\n98.0\n97.1\n97.0\n96.0\n6.3\n9.0\n-5.6\n3.2\n0.7\nMt-C\nShare, %\nAAGR (%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nTotal\n1.1\n2.4\n6.6\n8.5\n9.4\n9.9\n12.1\n14.4\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n7.3\n5.4\n1.5\n3.8\n3.2\nCoal\n0.1\n0.3\n0.4\n0.5\n0.6\n0.6\n0.7\n0.9\n8.9\n12.5\n6.2\n5.9\n6.1\n6.4\n6.1\n6.0\n5.8\n4.3\n2.4\n3.1\n3.1\nOil\n0.6\n1.4\n4.3\n5.4\n6.3\n7.3\n8.9\n10.7\n50.0\n58.3\n66.0\n63.2\n67.8\n73.5\n73.0\n74.4\n8.5\n4.4\n3.1\n3.9\n3.7\nNatural gas\n0.5\n0.7\n1.8\n2.6\n2.4\n2.0\n2.5\n2.8\n41.1\n29.2\n27.8\n31.0\n26.1\n20.1\n20.9\n19.6\n5.7\n7.7\n-2.8\n3.5\n1.8\n%\nAAGR (%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nTotal\n21.7\n29.6\n27.8\n33.0\n38.0\n42.0\n42.1\n49.8\n1.0\n3.5\n2.4\n1.7\n2.4\nCoal\n28.7\n-\n-\n35.2\n42.0\n42.0\n45.0\n45.0\n-\n-\n1.8\n0.7\n-\nOil\n36.4\n30.8\n32.7\n32.7\n32.7\n-\n-\n-\n-0.4\n0.0\n-\n-\n-\nNatural gas\n19.3\n29.3\n27.7\n33.0\n38.0\n42.0\n42.0\n50.0\n1.5\n3.5\n2.4\n1.8\n2.4\nMtoe\nShare, %\nAAGR (%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nTotal\n9.40\n11.48\n17.73\n19.97\n21.97\n23.93\n27.17\n31.02\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n2.6\n2.4\n1.8\n2.6\n2.3\nIndustry\n0.39\n1.15\n 2.17 \n 2.92 \n 3.49 \n 4.03 \n 4.88 \n 5.89 \n4.2\n10.0\n12.3\n14.6\n15.9\n16.8\n18.0\n19.0\n7.1\n6.1\n3.3\n3.9\n4.1\nTransportation\n0.44\n1.16\n 3.53 \n 4.69 \n 5.83 \n 7.01 \n 8.79 \n 10.98 \n4.7\n10.1\n19.9\n23.5\n26.5\n29.3\n32.3\n35.4\n8.6\n5.8\n4.1\n4.6\n4.6\nOthers\n8.47\n9.08\n 11.76 \n 12.07 \n 12.28 \n 12.43 \n 12.92 \n 13.44 \n90.1\n79.1\n66.3\n60.4\n55.9\n51.9\n47.6\n43.3\n1.3\n0.5\n0.3\n0.8\n0.5\nNon-energy\n0.09\n0.09\n 0.27 \n 0.30 \n 0.37 \n 0.46 \n 0.57 \n 0.71 \n1.0\n0.8\n1.5\n1.5\n1.7\n1.9\n2.1\n2.3\n4.2\n2.2\n4.6\n4.4\n4.0\nTotal\n9.40\n11.48\n17.73\n19.97\n21.97\n23.93\n27.17\n31.02\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n2.6\n2.4\n1.8\n2.6\n2.3\nCoal\n0.05\n0.32\n0.38\n0.44\n0.49\n0.53\n0.61\n0.70\n0.5\n2.8\n2.1\n2.2\n2.2\n2.2\n2.3\n2.3\n8.3\n3.1\n2.0\n2.7\n2.5\nOil\n0.59\n1.53\n5.43\n6.74\n7.96\n9.20\n11.17\n13.55\n6.2\n13.3\n30.6\n33.7\n36.2\n38.5\n41.1\n43.7\n9.3\n4.4\n3.2\n3.9\n3.7\nNatural gas\n0.23\n0.32\n0.71\n0.88\n1.11\n1.37\n1.75\n2.20\n2.4\n2.8\n4.0\n4.4\n5.1\n5.7\n6.4\n7.1\n4.7\n4.6\n4.5\n4.8\n4.7\nElectricity\n0.15\n0.28\n1.15\n1.72\n2.12\n2.50\n3.14\n3.94\n1.6\n2.4\n6.5\n8.6\n9.7\n10.4\n11.6\n12.7\n8.5\n8.4\n3.8\n4.7\n5.0\nHeat\n0.00\n0.00\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\nOthers\n8.39\n9.02\n10.07\n10.19\n10.28\n10.32\n10.50\n10.62\n89.2\n78.6\n56.8\n51.0\n46.8\n43.1\n38.7\n34.2\n0.7\n0.2\n0.1\n0.3\n0.2\nPrimary energy supply \nPower generation output\nPower generation input\nCO2 Emissions \nEnergy and economic indicators\nThermal efficiency\nFinal energy consumption\nMyanmar (APS)\n\n\n374\nENERGY OUTLOOK AND ENERGY SAVING POTENTIAL IN EAST ASIA 2019\nAAGR(%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nGDP (billions of 2010 US dollars)\n85\n114\n169\n196\n219\n238\n258\n276\n2.8\n3.0\n2.0\n1.5\n2.0\nPopulation (millions of people)\n3.3\n3.9\n4.6\n4.8\n5.0\n5.2\n5.3\n5.5\n1.3\n0.9\n0.8\n0.5\n0.7\nGDP per capita (thousands of 2010 US$/person)\n 25.42 \n 29.60 \n 36.80 \n 40.76 \n 43.7 \n 45.9 \n 48.2 \n 50.4 \n1.5\n2.1\n1.2\n0.9\n1.3\nPrimary energy consumption per capita (toe/person)\n 3.85 \n 4.43 \n 4.4881 \n 4.53 \n 4.59 \n 4.63 \n 4.55 \n 4.4892 \n0.6\n0.2\n0.2\n-0.3\n0.0\nPrimary energy consumption per unit of GDP (toe/million \n2010 US dollars)\n 152 \n 150 \n 122 \n 111 \n 105 \n 101 \n 95 \n 89 \n-0.9\n-1.9\n-1.0\n-1.2\n-1.2\nFinal energy consumption per unit of GDP (toe/million 2010 \nUS dollars)\n 115 \n 113 \n 83 \n 74 \n 68 \n 62 \n 57 \n 53 \n-1.3\n-2.2\n-1.7\n-1.6\n-1.8\nCO2 emissions per unit of GDP (t-C/million 2010 US dollars)\n 74 \n 71 \n 52 \n 44 \n 39 \n 35 \n 32 \n 29 \n-1.4\n-3.3\n-2.3\n-1.9\n-2.3\nCO2 emissions per unit of primary energy consumption \n(t-C/toe)\n 0.49 \n 0.47 \n 0.43 \n 0.40 \n 0.37 \n 0.35 \n 0.33 \n 0.32 \n-0.5\n-1.5\n-1.3\n-0.7\n-1.1\nAutomobile ownership volume (millions of vehicles)\n 2 \n 3 \n 4 \n 4 \n 4 \n 4 \n 4 \n 5 \n2.9\n1.6\n0.9\n0.6\n0.9\nAutomobile ownership volume per capita (vehicles per \nperson)\n 0.538 \n 0.672 \n 0.799 \n 0.827 \n 0.836 \n 0.838 \n 0.840 \n 0.842 \n1.6\n0.7\n0.1\n0.0\n0.2\nMtoe\nShare, %\nAAGR (%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nTotal\n12.8\n17.1\n20.6\n21.8\n23.0\n24.0\n24.3\n24.6\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n1.9\n1.1\n1.0\n0.2\n0.7\nCoal\n1.2\n1.1\n1.4\n0.8\n0.7\n0.7\n0.7\n0.7\n9.2\n6.5\n6.6\n3.7\n3.2\n3.0\n2.8\n2.6\n0.6\n-10.3\n-1.1\n-0.9\n-2.9\nOil\n3.5\n5.7\n6.8\n6.9\n6.9\n6.8\n6.7\n6.5\n27.4\n33.4\n32.8\n31.8\n30.1\n28.5\n27.4\n26.2\n2.7\n0.4\n-0.1\n-0.6\n-0.2\nNatural gas\n3.9\n5.1\n4.1\n4.6\n4.6\n4.4\n4.4\n4.4\n30.2\n29.6\n19.8\n21.2\n19.9\n18.3\n18.1\n17.8\n0.2\n2.5\n-0.5\n0.0\n0.3\nNuclear\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\nHydro\n2.0\n2.1\n2.1\n2.1\n2.1\n2.1\n2.2\n2.2\n15.5\n12.3\n10.2\n9.5\n9.1\n8.9\n8.9\n8.9\n0.2\n-0.4\n0.3\n0.3\n0.2\nGeothermal\n1.5\n1.9\n4.9\n5.8\n7.0\n8.2\n8.7\n9.1\n11.5\n11.4\n23.6\n26.8\n30.5\n34.3\n35.6\n37.0\n4.9\n3.7\n3.5\n1.0\n2.5\nOthers\n0.8\n1.2\n1.4\n1.5\n1.6\n1.7\n1.8\n1.8\n6.2\n6.9\n6.9\n7.1\n7.1\n7.1\n7.3\n7.4\n2.3\n1.6\n1.1\n0.6\n1.0\nBiomass\n0.7\n1.1\n1.1\n1.2\n1.2\n1.2\n1.2\n1.2\n5.6\n6.4\n5.3\n5.4\n5.3\n5.0\n4.9\n4.8\n1.7\n1.5\n0.2\n-0.2\n0.3\nSolar, Wind, \nOcean\n0.0\n0.1\n0.3\n0.3\n0.3\n0.4\n0.4\n0.5\n0.3\n0.3\n1.2\n1.2\n1.4\n1.6\n1.8\n2.0\n7.2\n1.2\n3.9\n2.3\n2.7\nBiofuels\n0.0\n0.0\n0.1\n0.1\n0.1\n0.1\n0.1\n0.1\n0.3\n0.2\n0.4\n0.4\n0.4\n0.5\n0.5\n0.6\n2.6\n4.7\n2.1\n2.0\n2.6\nElectricity\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\nTWh\nShare, %\nAAGR (%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nTotal\n32.3\n39.2\n44.2\n48.0\n51.1\n53.5\n55.7\n57.6\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n1.3\n1.7\n1.1\n0.8\n1.1\nCoal\n0.7\n1.5\n1.9\n0.2\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n2.1\n3.9\n4.3\n0.4\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n4.3\n-37.8\n-100.0\n-\n-100.0\nOil\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n-8.8\n4.1\n-0.9\n0.6\n0.7\nNatural gas\n5.7\n9.6\n6.9\n10.5\n10.6\n9.8\n10.2\n10.4\n17.7\n24.4\n15.5\n21.9\n20.8\n18.3\n18.4\n18.0\n0.7\n8.9\n-0.7\n0.6\n1.7\nNuclear\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\nHydro\n23.2\n24.4\n24.5\n24.1\n24.4\n24.8\n25.2\n25.5\n71.9\n62.3\n55.5\n50.1\n47.8\n46.4\n45.2\n44.3\n0.2\n-0.4\n0.3\n0.3\n0.2\nGeothermal\n2.1\n2.9\n7.9\n9.5\n11.4\n13.5\n14.2\n14.9\n6.6\n7.4\n17.8\n19.7\n22.4\n25.2\n25.5\n25.9\n5.4\n3.8\n3.6\n1.0\n2.6\nOthers\n0.6\n0.8\n3.1\n3.8\n4.6\n5.4\n6.1\n6.8\n1.8\n2.0\n6.9\n7.9\n9.0\n10.1\n10.9\n11.7\n7.0\n4.3\n3.6\n2.3\n3.2\nMtoe\nShare, %\nAAGR (%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nTotal\n1.4\n2.3\n1.7\n1.8\n1.7\n1.6\n1.6\n1.6\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n0.7\n1.7\n-1.3\n0.0\n-0.2\nCoal\n0.2\n0.4\n0.5\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n11.9\n16.7\n27.1\n2.3\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n4.0\n-37.7\n-100.0\n-\n-100.0\nOil\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.4\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n-100.0\n-\n-1.9\n-1.0\n-\nNatural gas\n1.2\n1.9\n1.2\n1.8\n1.7\n1.6\n1.6\n1.6\n87.7\n83.3\n72.9\n97.6\n100.0\n100.0\n100.0\n100.0\n-0.1\n7.8\n-1.1\n0.0\n1.1\nMt-C\nShare, %\nAAGR (%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nTotal\n6.2\n8.1\n8.8\n8.6\n8.5\n8.3\n8.1\n7.9\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n1.4\n-0.4\n-0.4\n-0.5\n-0.4\nCoal\n1.3\n1.2\n1.5\n0.9\n0.8\n0.8\n0.7\n0.7\n20.5\n14.7\n16.8\n10.0\n9.3\n9.3\n9.1\n8.9\n0.6\n-10.3\n-1.1\n-0.9\n-2.9\nOil\n2.7\n4.5\n5.4\n5.5\n5.5\n5.4\n5.3\n5.1\n42.8\n55.8\n61.2\n63.7\n64.5\n65.3\n65.0\n64.7\n2.8\n0.4\n-0.1\n-0.6\n-0.2\nNatural gas\n2.3\n2.4\n1.9\n2.3\n2.2\n2.1\n2.1\n2.1\n36.7\n29.4\n21.9\n26.3\n26.2\n25.4\n26.0\n26.5\n-0.7\n3.3\n-0.7\n-0.1\n0.3\n%\nAAGR (%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nTotal\n38.8\n42.0\n45.2\n50.9\n52.5\n53.2\n54.9\n56.2\n0.6\n2.4\n0.4\n0.6\n0.9\nCoal\n33.9\n34.8\n35.8\n35.5\n-\n-\n-\n-\n0.2\n-0.1\n-\n-\n-\nOil\n14.1\n-\n-\n25.5\n26.9\n28.2\n30.8\n33.0\n-\n-\n1.0\n1.6\n-\nNatural gas\n39.6\n43.4\n48.7\n51.3\n52.5\n53.2\n54.9\n56.2\n0.8\n1.0\n0.4\n0.6\n0.6\nMtoe\nShare, %\nAAGR (%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nTotal\n9.7\n12.9\n14.1\n14.6\n14.8\n14.9\n14.8\n14.7\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n1.5\n0.7\n0.2\n-0.1\n0.2\nIndustry\n3.6\n4.3\n4.3\n4.5\n4.6\n4.6\n4.5\n4.5\n37.0\n32.9\n30.8\n31.1\n30.9\n30.7\n30.6\n30.5\n0.8\n0.9\n0.1\n-0.2\n0.1\nTransportation\n3.0\n4.1\n4.8\n4.9\n4.9\n4.9\n4.8\n4.7\n30.4\n31.4\n34.2\n33.7\n33.3\n32.9\n32.5\n32.0\n2.0\n0.4\n0.0\n-0.4\n-0.1\nOthers\n2.5\n3.0\n3.5\n3.7\n3.9\n4.0\n4.0\n4.1\n26.2\n23.0\n24.9\n25.5\n26.1\n26.7\n27.2\n27.7\n1.3\n1.1\n0.6\n0.3\n0.6\nNon-energy\n0.6\n1.6\n1.4\n1.4\n1.4\n1.4\n1.4\n1.4\n6.4\n12.7\n10.0\n9.8\n9.7\n9.7\n9.7\n9.8\n3.4\n0.2\n0.1\n-0.1\n0.0\nTotal\n9.7\n12.9\n14.1\n14.6\n14.8\n14.9\n14.8\n14.7\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n1.5\n0.7\n0.2\n-0.1\n0.2\nCoal\n0.7\n0.5\n0.6\n0.6\n0.6\n0.6\n0.6\n0.5\n6.9\n4.0\n4.3\n4.3\n4.2\n4.1\n3.9\n3.7\n-0.4\n0.7\n-0.3\n-1.1\n-0.4\nOil\n4.0\n5.3\n6.2\n6.4\n6.4\n6.3\n6.1\n5.9\n41.4\n41.0\n44.1\n43.6\n43.0\n42.2\n41.2\n40.2\n1.8\n0.5\n-0.1\n-0.6\n-0.2\nNatural gas\n1.8\n3.0\n2.7\n2.7\n2.6\n2.6\n2.6\n2.6\n18.5\n23.3\n19.1\n18.3\n17.9\n17.7\n17.7\n17.7\n1.6\n-0.1\n-0.2\n-0.1\n-0.1\nElectricity\n2.4\n2.9\n3.4\n3.7\n3.9\n4.1\n4.3\n4.4\n25.0\n22.8\n23.9\n25.1\n26.3\n27.4\n28.7\n30.0\n1.3\n1.7\n1.1\n0.8\n1.1\nHeat\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\nOthers\n0.8\n1.2\n1.204\n1.3\n1.3\n1.3\n1.3\n1.221\n8.1\n9.0\n8.6\n8.7\n8.7\n8.6\n8.5\n8.3\n1.7\n1.1\n0.0\n-0.4\n0.1\nPrimary energy consumption\nPower generation output\nPower generation input\nCO2 Emissions \nEnergy and economic indicators\nThermal efficiency\nFinal energy demand\nNew Zealand (BAU)\n\n\n375\nResults Summary Tables\nAAGR(%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nGDP (billions of 2010 US dollars)\n85\n114\n169\n196\n219\n238\n258\n276\n2.8\n3.0\n2.0\n1.5\n2.0\nPopulation (millions of people)\n3\n4\n5\n5\n5\n5\n5\n5\n1.3\n0.9\n0.8\n0.5\n0.7\nGDP per capita (thousands of 2010 US$/person)\n 25.42 \n 29.60 \n 36.80 \n 40.76 \n 43.7 \n 45.9 \n 48.2 \n 50.4 \n1.5\n2.1\n1.2\n0.9\n1.3\nPrimary energy consumption per capita (toe/person)\n 3.85 \n 4.43 \n 4.49 \n 4.60 \n 4.59 \n 4.53 \n 4.37 \n 4.24 \n0.6\n0.5\n-0.2\n-0.6\n-0.2\nPrimary energy consumption per unit of GDP (toe/million \n2010 US dollars)\n 152 \n 150 \n 122 \n 113 \n 105 \n 99 \n 91 \n 84 \n-0.9\n-1.5\n-1.4\n-1.6\n-1.5\nFinal energy consumption per unit of GDP (toe/million 2010 \nUS dollars)\n 115 \n 113 \n 83 \n 74 \n 66 \n 59 \n 53 \n 48 \n-1.3\n-2.4\n-2.2\n-2.1\n-2.2\nCO2 emissions per unit of GDP (t-C/million 2010 US dollars)\n 74 \n 71 \n 52 \n 42 \n 36 \n 31 \n 26 \n 23 \n-1.4\n-4.1\n-3.0\n-3.1\n-3.3\nCO2 emissions per unit of primary energy consumption \n(t-C/toe)\n 0.49 \n 0.47 \n 0.43 \n 0.37 \n 0.34 \n 0.31 \n 0.29 \n 0.27 \n-0.5\n-2.7\n-1.7\n-1.6\n-1.8\nAutomobile ownership volume (millions of vehicles)\n 2 \n 3 \n 4 \n 4 \n 4 \n 4 \n 4 \n 5 \n2.9\n1.6\n0.9\n0.6\n0.9\nAutomobile ownership volume per capita (vehicles per \nperson)\n 0.538 \n 0.672 \n 0.799 \n 0.827 \n 0.836 \n 0.838 \n 0.840 \n 0.842 \n1.6\n0.7\n0.1\n0.0\n0.2\nMtoe\nShare, %\nAAGR (%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nTotal\n12.8\n17.1\n20.6\n22.2\n23.0\n23.5\n23.4\n23.2\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n1.9\n1.4\n0.6\n-0.1\n0.5\nCoal\n1.2\n1.1\n1.4\n0.8\n0.7\n0.7\n0.7\n0.6\n9.2\n6.5\n6.6\n3.5\n3.1\n2.9\n2.8\n2.6\n0.6\n-10.7\n-1.1\n-1.3\n-3.2\nOil\n3.5\n5.7\n6.8\n6.8\n6.6\n6.2\n5.7\n5.2\n27.4\n33.4\n32.8\n30.8\n28.8\n26.5\n24.5\n22.4\n2.7\n0.2\n-0.9\n-1.8\n-1.0\nNatural gas\n3.9\n5.1\n4.1\n4.2\n4.0\n3.7\n3.6\n3.4\n30.2\n29.6\n19.8\n19.0\n17.5\n15.9\n15.4\n14.8\n0.2\n0.6\n-1.1\n-0.9\n-0.7\nNuclear\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\nHydro\n2.0\n2.1\n2.1\n2.1\n2.1\n2.1\n2.2\n2.2\n15.5\n12.3\n10.2\n9.3\n9.1\n9.1\n9.3\n9.4\n0.2\n-0.4\n0.3\n0.3\n0.2\nGeothermal\n1.5\n1.9\n4.9\n6.7\n7.8\n8.9\n9.3\n9.8\n11.5\n11.4\n23.6\n30.1\n33.8\n37.7\n40.0\n42.3\n4.9\n6.5\n2.9\n1.1\n2.9\nOthers\n0.8\n1.2\n1.4\n1.6\n1.7\n1.8\n1.9\n2.0\n6.2\n6.9\n6.9\n7.3\n7.6\n7.8\n8.1\n8.5\n2.3\n2.6\n1.2\n0.7\n1.3\nBiomass\n0.7\n1.1\n1.1\n1.2\n1.2\n1.2\n1.1\n1.1\n5.6\n6.4\n5.3\n5.3\n5.2\n5.0\n4.9\n4.7\n1.7\n1.4\n0.0\n-0.7\n0.0\nSolar, Wind, \nOcean\n0.0\n0.1\n0.3\n0.3\n0.4\n0.4\n0.5\n0.6\n0.3\n0.3\n1.2\n1.4\n1.6\n1.9\n2.2\n2.4\n7.2\n4.3\n3.6\n2.5\n3.3\nBiofuels\n0.0\n0.0\n0.1\n0.1\n0.2\n0.2\n0.3\n0.3\n0.3\n0.2\n0.4\n0.6\n0.7\n0.9\n1.1\n1.3\n2.6\n11.7\n5.2\n3.5\n5.8\nElectricity\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\nTWh\nShare, %\nAAGR (%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nTotal\n32.3\n39.2\n44.2\n47.6\n50.0\n51.7\n53.4\n54.8\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n1.3\n1.5\n0.8\n0.6\n0.9\nCoal\n0.7\n1.5\n1.9\n0.1\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n2.1\n3.9\n4.3\n0.3\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n4.3\n-40.9\n-100.0\n-\n-100.0\nOil\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n-8.8\n-1.2\n-2.6\n-1.7\n-2.0\nNatural gas\n5.7\n9.6\n6.9\n8.1\n7.6\n6.3\n6.0\n5.3\n17.7\n24.4\n15.5\n17.1\n15.3\n12.3\n11.2\n9.7\n0.7\n3.5\n-2.5\n-1.7\n-1.0\nNuclear\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\nHydro\n23.2\n24.4\n24.5\n24.1\n24.4\n24.8\n25.2\n25.5\n71.9\n62.3\n55.5\n50.6\n48.9\n47.9\n47.1\n46.6\n0.2\n-0.4\n0.3\n0.3\n0.2\nGeothermal\n2.1\n2.9\n7.9\n10.9\n12.7\n14.5\n15.4\n16.2\n6.6\n7.4\n17.8\n22.9\n25.4\n28.1\n28.8\n29.6\n5.4\n6.7\n2.9\n1.1\n2.9\nOthers\n0.6\n0.8\n3.1\n4.3\n5.2\n6.1\n6.9\n7.7\n1.8\n2.0\n6.9\n9.1\n10.4\n11.8\n12.9\n14.0\n7.0\n7.2\n3.4\n2.4\n3.7\nMtoe\nShare, %\nAAGR (%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nTotal\n1.4\n2.3\n1.7\n1.4\n1.2\n1.0\n0.9\n0.8\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n0.7\n-3.5\n-3.1\n-2.3\n-2.9\nCoal\n0.2\n0.4\n0.5\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n11.9\n16.7\n27.1\n2.3\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n4.0\n-40.9\n-100.0\n-\n-100.0\nOil\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.4\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n-100.0\n-\n-3.7\n-3.3\n-\nNatural gas\n1.2\n1.9\n1.2\n1.4\n1.2\n1.0\n0.9\n0.8\n87.7\n83.3\n72.9\n97.6\n100.0\n100.0\n100.0\n100.0\n-0.1\n2.3\n-2.9\n-2.3\n-1.6\nMt-C\nShare, %\nAAGR (%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nTotal\n6.2\n8.1\n8.8\n8.3\n7.9\n7.4\n6.8\n6.2\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n1.4\n-1.2\n-1.1\n-1.7\n-1.4\nCoal\n1.3\n1.2\n1.5\n0.8\n0.8\n0.7\n0.7\n0.7\n20.5\n14.7\n16.8\n10.2\n9.8\n10.1\n10.3\n10.5\n0.6\n-10.7\n-1.1\n-1.3\n-3.2\nOil\n2.7\n4.5\n5.4\n5.4\n5.2\n4.9\n4.5\n4.1\n42.8\n55.8\n61.2\n65.6\n66.3\n66.8\n66.1\n65.5\n2.8\n0.1\n-0.9\n-1.9\n-1.1\nNatural gas\n2.3\n2.4\n1.9\n2.0\n1.9\n1.7\n1.6\n1.5\n36.7\n29.4\n21.9\n24.3\n23.9\n23.1\n23.6\n24.0\n-0.7\n0.8\n-1.6\n-1.3\n-1.0\n%\nAAGR (%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nTotal\n38.8\n42.0\n45.2\n51.1\n52.9\n53.7\n55.6\n57.2\n0.6\n2.5\n0.5\n0.6\n0.9\nCoal\n33.9\n34.8\n35.8\n35.7\n-\n-\n-\n-\n0.2\n-0.1\n-\n-\n-\nOil\n14.1\n-\n-\n25.6\n27.0\n28.5\n31.2\n33.5\n-\n-\n1.1\n1.6\n-\nNatural gas\n39.6\n43.4\n48.7\n51.4\n52.9\n53.7\n55.6\n57.2\n0.8\n1.1\n0.4\n0.6\n0.6\nMtoe\nShare, %\nAAGR (%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nTotal\n9.7\n12.9\n14.1\n14.5\n14.4\n14.1\n13.7\n13.2\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n1.5\n0.5\n-0.2\n-0.7\n-0.3\nIndustry\n3.6\n4.3\n4.3\n4.5\n4.5\n4.4\n4.3\n4.1\n37.0\n32.9\n30.8\n31.2\n31.2\n31.3\n31.5\n31.5\n0.8\n0.7\n-0.2\n-0.6\n-0.2\nTransportation\n3.0\n4.1\n4.8\n4.9\n4.7\n4.5\n4.2\n3.9\n30.4\n31.4\n34.2\n33.6\n32.8\n31.8\n30.5\n29.3\n2.0\n0.2\n-0.8\n-1.5\n-0.9\nOthers\n2.5\n3.0\n3.5\n3.7\n3.8\n3.8\n3.8\n3.7\n26.2\n23.0\n24.9\n25.4\n26.0\n26.7\n27.5\n28.3\n1.3\n0.9\n0.3\n-0.1\n0.2\nNon-energy\n0.6\n1.6\n1.4\n1.4\n1.4\n1.4\n1.4\n1.4\n6.4\n12.7\n10.0\n9.9\n10.0\n10.2\n10.5\n10.9\n3.4\n0.2\n0.1\n-0.1\n0.0\nTotal\n9.7\n12.9\n14.1\n14.5\n14.4\n14.1\n13.7\n13.2\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n1.5\n0.5\n-0.2\n-0.7\n-0.3\nCoal\n0.7\n0.5\n0.6\n0.6\n0.6\n0.6\n0.5\n0.5\n6.9\n4.0\n4.3\n4.3\n4.2\n4.2\n4.0\n3.8\n-0.4\n0.5\n-0.6\n-1.5\n-0.7\nOil\n4.0\n5.3\n6.2\n6.3\n6.1\n5.7\n5.2\n4.7\n41.4\n41.0\n44.1\n43.3\n42.1\n40.4\n38.2\n35.9\n1.8\n0.2\n-0.9\n-1.9\n-1.1\nNatural gas\n1.8\n3.0\n2.7\n2.7\n2.6\n2.6\n2.5\n2.5\n18.5\n23.3\n19.1\n18.4\n18.1\n18.1\n18.4\n18.7\n1.6\n-0.2\n-0.4\n-0.4\n-0.4\nElectricity\n2.4\n2.9\n3.4\n3.6\n3.8\n4.0\n4.1\n4.2\n25.0\n22.8\n23.9\n25.1\n26.4\n28.0\n29.9\n31.9\n1.3\n1.5\n0.9\n0.6\n0.9\nHeat\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\nOthers\n0.8\n1.2\n1.2\n1.3\n1.3\n1.3\n1.3\n1.3\n8.1\n9.0\n8.6\n8.9\n9.1\n9.3\n9.5\n9.7\n1.7\n1.3\n0.2\n-0.3\n0.2\nPrimary energy consumption\nPower generation output\nPower generation input\nCO2 Emissions \nEnergy and economic indicators\nThermal efficiency\nFinal energy demand\nNew Zealand (APS)\n\n\n376\nENERGY OUTLOOK AND ENERGY SAVING POTENTIAL IN EAST ASIA 2019\nAAGR(%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nGDP (billions of 2010 US dollars)\n94.5\n125.3\n266.1\n368.0\n504.1\n674.6\n881.7\n1,146.9\n4.2\n6.7\n6.2\n5.4\n6.0\nPopulation (millions of people)\n61.9\n78.0\n101.7\n109.6\n118.0\n127.2\n137.0\n147.6\n2.0\n1.5\n1.5\n1.5\n1.5\nGDP per capita (thousands of 2010 US$/person)\n 1.5 \n 1.6 \n 2.6 \n 3.36 \n 4.3 \n 5.3 \n 6.4 \n 7.8 \n2.2\n5.1\n4.7\n3.9\n4.5\nPrimary energy consumption per capita (toe/person)\n 0.4 \n 0.5 \n 0.5 \n 0.54 \n 0.63 \n 0.68 \n 0.73 \n 0.78 \n0.4\n2.9\n2.4\n1.4\n2.1\nPrimary energy consumption per unit of GDP (toe/million \n2010 US dollars)\n 275 \n 299 \n 178 \n 161 \n 147 \n 128 \n 114 \n 101 \n-1.7\n-2.1\n-2.2\n-2.4\n-2.3\nFinal energy consumption per unit of GDP (toe/million 2010 \nUS dollars)\n 208 \n 191 \n 111 \n 102 \n 91 \n 79 \n 71 \n 65 \n-2.5\n-1.7\n-2.5\n-2.0\n-2.1\nCO2 emissions per unit of GDP (t-C/million 2010 US dollars)\n 304 \n 455 \n 358 \n 321 \n 307 \n 282 \n 260 \n 237 \n0.7\n-2.1\n-1.3\n-1.7\n-1.6\nCO2 emissions per unit of primary energy consumption \n(t-C/toe)\n 1.1 \n 1.5 \n 2.0 \n 2.00 \n 2.09 \n 2.20 \n 2.28 \n 2.35 \n2.4\n0.0\n0.9\n0.7\n0.6\nAutomobile ownership volume (millions of vehicles)\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\nAutomobile ownership volume per capita (vehicles per \nperson)\n - \n - \n - \n - \n - \n - \n - \n - \n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\nMtoe\nShare, %\nAAGR (%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nTotal\n25.95\n37.42\n47.49\n59.09\n74.03\n86.64\n100.49\n115.81\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n2.4\n4.5\n3.9\n2.9\n3.6\nCoal\n0.73\n4.11\n11.11\n14.50\n20.88\n26.19\n31.52\n36.45\n2.8\n11.0\n23.4\n24.5\n28.2\n30.2\n31.4\n31.5\n11.5\n5.5\n6.1\n3.4\n4.9\nOil\n10.92\n15.73\n16.55\n20.34\n23.75\n27.68\n32.56\n38.82\n42.1\n42.0\n34.8\n34.4\n32.1\n31.9\n32.4\n33.5\n1.7\n4.2\n3.1\n3.4\n3.5\nNatural gas\n-\n0.01\n3.00\n2.92\n3.92\n5.42\n7.01\n9.49\n0.0\n0.0\n6.3\n4.9\n5.3\n6.3\n7.0\n8.2\n-\n-0.6\n6.4\n5.8\n4.7\nNuclear\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\nHydro\n0.52\n0.67\n0.75\n0.99\n1.35\n1.40\n1.47\n1.52\n2.0\n1.8\n1.6\n1.7\n1.8\n1.6\n1.5\n1.3\n1.4\n5.8\n3.6\n0.8\n2.9\nGeothermal\n4.70\n10.00\n9.50\n11.85\n14.69\n16.14\n17.38\n18.36\n18.1\n26.7\n20.0\n20.1\n19.8\n18.6\n17.3\n15.9\n2.9\n4.5\n3.1\n1.3\n2.7\nOthers\n9.08\n6.90\n6.59\n8.48\n9.43\n9.81\n10.54\n11.17\n35.0\n18.4\n13.9\n14.4\n12.7\n11.3\n10.5\n9.6\n-1.3\n5.2\n1.5\n1.3\n2.1\nBiomass\n9.07\n6.89\n6.07\n7.63\n8.43\n8.73\n9.35\n9.87\n34.9\n18.4\n12.8\n12.9\n11.4\n10.1\n9.3\n8.5\n-1.6\n4.7\n1.4\n1.2\n2.0\nSolar, Wind, \nOcean\n-\n-\n0.08\n0.30\n0.40\n0.42\n0.45\n0.47\n0.0\n0.0\n0.2\n0.5\n0.5\n0.5\n0.4\n0.4\n-\n31.9\n3.3\n1.1\n7.5\nBiofuels\n0.01\n0.01\n0.45\n0.55\n0.60\n0.66\n0.74\n0.84\n0.0\n0.0\n0.9\n0.9\n0.8\n0.8\n0.7\n0.7\n15.8\n4.2\n1.8\n2.5\n2.5\nElectricity\n0.00\n0.00\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\nTWh\nShare, %\nAAGR (%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nTotal\n25.84\n45.25\n82.41\n98.50\n134.65\n161.47\n187.57\n215.33\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n4.7\n3.6\n5.1\n2.9\n3.9\nCoal\n1.93\n16.66\n36.69\n44.71\n65.02\n80.03\n94.15\n105.0\n7.5\n36.8\n44.5\n45.4\n48.3\n49.6\n50.2\n48.7\n12.5\n4.0\n6.0\n2.7\n4.3\nOil\n12.38\n9.14\n5.86\n5.04\n6.17\n6.34\n6.46\n7.4\n47.9\n20.2\n7.1\n5.1\n4.6\n3.9\n3.4\n3.4\n-2.9\n-3.0\n2.3\n1.5\n0.9\nNatural gas\n-\n0.02\n18.88\n18.09\n24.14\n32.99\n42.01\n55.8\n0.0\n0.0\n22.9\n18.4\n17.9\n20.4\n22.4\n25.9\n-\n-0.9\n6.2\n5.4\n4.4\nNuclear\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\nHydro\n6.06\n7.80\n8.67\n11.51\n15.74\n16.32\n17.05\n17.6\n23.5\n17.2\n10.5\n11.7\n11.7\n10.1\n9.1\n8.2\n1.4\n5.8\n3.6\n0.8\n2.9\nGeothermal\n5.47\n11.63\n11.04\n13.79\n17.08\n18.77\n20.21\n21.4\n21.2\n25.7\n13.4\n14.0\n12.7\n11.6\n10.8\n9.9\n2.9\n4.5\n3.1\n1.3\n2.7\nOthers\n0.00\n0.00\n1.28\n5.36\n6.49\n7.02\n7.67\n8.2\n0.0\n0.0\n1.6\n5.4\n4.8\n4.3\n4.1\n3.8\n-\n33.2\n2.7\n1.6\n7.7\nMtoe\nShare, %\nAAGR (%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nTotal\n3.10\n5.89\n13.62\n15.37\n21.73\n26.95\n31.97\n37.08\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n6.1\n2.4\n5.8\n3.2\n4.1\nCoal\n0.56\n3.78\n9.26\n11.31\n16.44\n20.24\n23.81\n26.5\n18.0\n64.3\n68.0\n73.6\n75.7\n75.1\n74.5\n71.6\n11.9\n4.1\n6.0\n2.7\n4.3\nOil\n2.54\n2.10\n1.41\n1.24\n1.52\n1.56\n1.59\n1.8\n82.0\n35.6\n10.3\n8.1\n7.0\n5.8\n5.0\n4.9\n-2.3\n-2.5\n2.3\n1.5\n1.0\nNatural gas\n-\n0.01\n2.95\n2.83\n3.77\n5.16\n6.57\n8.7\n0.0\n0.1\n21.7\n18.4\n17.4\n19.1\n20.5\n23.5\n-\n-0.9\n6.2\n5.4\n4.4\nMt-C\nShare, %\nAAGR (%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nTotal\n28.7\n57.0\n95.1\n118.1\n154.7\n190.3\n229.0\n271.6\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n4.9\n4.4\n4.9\n3.6\n4.3\nCoal\n4.4\n18.0\n45.9\n57.6\n82.9\n104.0\n125.1\n144.6\n15.3\n31.5\n48.3\n48.8\n53.6\n54.6\n54.6\n53.2\n9.8\n4.6\n6.1\n3.4\n4.7\nOil\n24.3\n39.0\n42.2\n53.6\n62.5\n73.6\n87.5\n104.8\n84.7\n68.4\n44.3\n45.4\n40.4\n38.7\n38.2\n38.6\n2.2\n4.9\n3.2\n3.6\n3.7\nNatural gas\n-\n0.0\n7.0\n6.8\n9.2\n12.7\n16.5\n22.3\n0.0\n0.0\n7.4\n5.8\n6.0\n6.7\n7.2\n8.2\n-\n-0.6\n6.4\n5.8\n4.7\n%\nAAGR (%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nTotal\n39.7\n37.7\n38.8\n37.9\n37.7\n38.1\n38.4\n39.0\n-0.1\n-0.4\n0.0\n0.2\n0.0\nCoal\n29.8\n37.9\n34.1\n34.0\n34.0\n34.0\n34.0\n34.0\n0.5\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\nOil\n41.9\n37.5\n35.8\n35.0\n35.0\n35.0\n35.0\n35.0\n-0.6\n-0.5\n0.0\n0.0\n-0.1\nNatural gas\n-\n16.6\n55.0\n55.0\n55.0\n55.0\n55.0\n55.0\n-\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\nMtoe\nShare, %\nAAGR (%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nTotal\n19.65\n23.92\n29.62\n37.60\n45.71\n53.58\n63.00\n74.23\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n1.7\n4.9\n3.6\n3.3\n3.7\nIndustry\n4.66\n5.35\n7.43\n9.80\n12.46\n15.61\n19.38\n24.10\n23.7\n22.4\n25.1\n26.1\n27.3\n29.1\n30.8\n32.5\n1.9\n5.7\n4.8\n4.4\n4.8\nTransportation\n4.52\n8.10\n10.61\n12.68\n14.33\n16.53\n19.37\n22.95\n23.0\n33.9\n35.8\n33.7\n31.4\n30.9\n30.7\n30.9\n3.5\n3.6\n2.7\n3.3\n3.1\nOthers\n10.25\n10.19\n10.53\n13.93\n17.57\n19.90\n22.50\n25.20\n52.1\n42.6\n35.6\n37.0\n38.4\n37.1\n35.7\n33.9\n0.1\n5.8\n3.6\n2.4\n3.6\nNon-energy\n0.23\n0.27\n1.05\n1.19\n1.35\n1.54\n1.75\n1.99\n1.2\n1.1\n3.5\n3.2\n3.0\n2.9\n2.8\n2.7\n6.3\n2.6\n2.6\n2.6\n2.6\nTotal\n19.65\n23.92\n29.62\n37.60\n45.71\n53.58\n63.00\n74.23\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n1.7\n4.9\n3.6\n3.3\n3.7\nCoal\n0.61\n0.77\n2.29\n3.20\n4.44\n5.95\n7.71\n9.9\n3.1\n3.2\n7.7\n8.5\n9.7\n11.1\n12.2\n13.3\n5.4\n6.9\n6.4\n5.2\n6.0\nOil\n7.92\n13.01\n15.01\n19.01\n22.12\n26.00\n30.85\n36.9\n40.3\n54.4\n50.7\n50.5\n48.4\n48.5\n49.0\n49.7\n2.6\n4.8\n3.2\n3.6\n3.7\nNatural gas\n-\n0.00\n0.05\n0.09\n0.15\n0.26\n0.44\n0.8\n0.0\n0.0\n0.2\n0.2\n0.3\n0.5\n0.7\n1.0\n-\n11.8\n11.4\n11.5\n11.5\nElectricity\n1.82\n3.14\n5.83\n7.71\n10.54\n12.63\n14.68\n16.8\n9.3\n13.1\n19.7\n20.5\n23.0\n23.6\n23.3\n22.7\n4.8\n5.7\n5.1\n2.9\n4.3\nHeat\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\nOthers\n9.30\n7.00\n6.44\n7.60\n8.46\n8.73\n9.32\n9.8\n47.3\n29.3\n21.7\n20.2\n18.5\n16.3\n14.8\n13.3\n-1.5\n3.4\n1.4\n1.2\n1.7\nPrimary energy supply \nPower generation output\nPower generation input\nCO2 Emissions \nEnergy and economic indicators\nThermal efficiency\nFinal energy consumption\nPhilippines (BAU)\n\n\n377\nResults Summary Tables\nAAGR(%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nGDP (billions of 2010 US dollars)\n94.5\n125.3\n266.1\n368.0\n504.1\n674.6\n881.7\n1,146.9\n4.2\n6.7\n6.2\n5.4\n6.0\nPopulation (millions of people)\n61.9\n78.0\n101.7\n109.6\n118.0\n127.2\n137.0\n147.6\n2.0\n1.5\n1.5\n1.5\n1.5\nGDP per capita (thousands of 2010 US$/person)\n 1.5 \n 1.6 \n 2.6 \n 3.36 \n 4.3 \n 5.3 \n 6.4 \n 7.8 \n2.2\n5.1\n4.7\n3.9\n4.5\nPrimary energy consumption per capita (toe/person)\n 0.4 \n 0.5 \n 0.5 \n 0.49 \n 0.51 \n 0.56 \n 0.61 \n 0.64 \n0.4\n1.1\n1.3\n1.4\n1.3\nPrimary energy consumption per unit of GDP (toe/million \n2010 US dollars)\n 275 \n 299 \n 178 \n 147 \n 119 \n 105 \n 95 \n 83 \n-1.7\n-3.8\n-3.3\n-2.4\n-3.0\nFinal energy consumption per unit of GDP (toe/million 2010 \nUS dollars)\n 208 \n 191 \n 111 \n 95 \n 75 \n 67 \n 61 \n 56 \n-2.5\n-3.0\n-3.5\n-1.8\n-2.7\nCO2 emissions per unit of GDP (t-C/million 2010 US dollars)\n 304 \n 455 \n 358 \n 271 \n 198 \n 193 \n 189 \n 167 \n0.7\n-5.4\n-3.3\n-1.4\n-3.0\nCO2 emissions per unit of primary energy consumption \n(t-C/toe)\n 1.1 \n 1.5 \n 2.0 \n 1.84 \n 1.66 \n 1.83 \n 1.99 \n 2.01 \n2.4\n-1.7\n-0.1\n1.0\n0.0\nAutomobile ownership volume (millions of vehicles)\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\nAutomobile ownership volume per capita (vehicles per \nperson)\n - \n - \n - \n - \n - \n - \n - \n - \n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\nMtoe\nShare, %\nAAGR (%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nTotal\n25.95\n37.42\n47.49\n54.11\n60.10\n71.16\n83.44\n95.05\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n2.4\n2.6\n2.8\n2.9\n2.8\nCoal\n0.73\n4.11\n11.11\n11.74\n12.03\n16.58\n21.78\n24.17\n2.8\n11.0\n23.4\n21.7\n20.0\n23.3\n26.1\n25.4\n11.5\n1.1\n3.5\n3.8\n3.2\nOil\n10.92\n15.73\n16.55\n18.45\n17.87\n21.73\n26.64\n31.63\n42.1\n42.0\n34.8\n34.1\n29.7\n30.5\n31.9\n33.3\n1.7\n2.2\n1.6\n3.8\n2.6\nNatural gas\n-\n0.01\n3.00\n2.04\n2.13\n3.00\n4.20\n4.90\n0.0\n0.0\n6.3\n3.8\n3.5\n4.2\n5.0\n5.2\n-\n-7.4\n3.9\n5.0\n2.0\nNuclear\n-\n-\n-\n0.00\n0.42\n1.12\n1.49\n3.76\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.7\n1.6\n1.8\n4.0\n-\n-\n106.4\n12.8\n-\nHydro\n0.52\n0.67\n0.75\n0.96\n1.33\n1.33\n1.33\n2.08\n2.0\n1.8\n1.6\n1.8\n2.2\n1.9\n1.6\n2.2\n1.4\n5.3\n3.3\n4.6\n4.2\nGeothermal\n4.70\n10.00\n9.50\n12.24\n16.37\n17.11\n17.14\n17.14\n18.1\n26.7\n20.0\n22.6\n27.2\n24.0\n20.5\n18.0\n2.9\n5.2\n3.4\n0.0\n2.4\nOthers\n9.08\n6.90\n6.59\n8.67\n9.95\n10.28\n10.87\n11.38\n35.0\n18.4\n13.9\n16.0\n16.6\n14.5\n13.0\n12.0\n-1.3\n5.6\n1.7\n1.0\n2.2\nBiomass\n9.07\n6.89\n6.07\n7.45\n8.27\n8.48\n8.97\n9.39\n34.9\n18.4\n12.8\n13.8\n13.8\n11.9\n10.8\n9.9\n-1.6\n4.2\n1.3\n1.0\n1.8\nSolar, Wind, \nOcean\n-\n-\n0.08\n0.63\n1.13\n1.18\n1.18\n1.18\n0.0\n0.0\n0.2\n1.2\n1.9\n1.7\n1.4\n1.2\n-\n52.7\n6.4\n0.0\n11.6\nBiofuels\n0.01\n0.01\n0.45\n0.59\n0.55\n0.62\n0.71\n0.81\n0.0\n0.0\n0.9\n1.1\n0.9\n0.9\n0.9\n0.9\n15.8\n5.8\n0.5\n2.7\n2.4\nElectricity\n0.00\n0.00\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\nTWh\nShare, %\nAAGR (%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nTotal\n25.84\n45.25\n82.41\n88.65\n100.98\n125.14\n150.05\n172.26\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n4.7\n1.5\n3.5\n3.2\n3.0\nCoal\n1.93\n16.66\n36.69\n35.75\n32.51\n45.90\n60.71\n62.2\n7.5\n36.8\n44.5\n40.3\n32.2\n36.7\n40.5\n36.1\n12.5\n-0.5\n2.5\n3.1\n2.1\nOil\n12.38\n9.14\n5.86\n4.64\n3.47\n4.63\n6.13\n6.6\n47.9\n20.2\n7.1\n5.2\n3.4\n3.7\n4.1\n3.8\n-2.9\n-4.6\n0.0\n3.6\n0.5\nNatural gas\n-\n0.02\n18.88\n13.64\n13.93\n19.29\n26.46\n29.3\n0.0\n0.0\n22.9\n15.4\n13.8\n15.4\n17.6\n17.0\n-\n-6.3\n3.5\n4.3\n1.8\nNuclear\n-\n-\n-\n-\n1.61\n4.31\n5.70\n14.4\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n1.6\n3.4\n3.8\n8.4\n-\n-\n-\n12.8\n-\nHydro\n6.06\n7.80\n8.67\n11.22\n15.45\n15.45\n15.45\n24.2\n23.5\n17.2\n10.5\n12.7\n15.3\n12.3\n10.3\n14.0\n1.4\n5.3\n3.3\n4.6\n4.2\nGeothermal\n5.47\n11.63\n11.04\n14.24\n19.04\n19.90\n19.93\n19.9\n21.2\n25.7\n13.4\n16.1\n18.9\n15.9\n13.3\n11.6\n2.9\n5.2\n3.4\n0.0\n2.4\nOthers\n0.00\n0.00\n1.28\n9.15\n14.97\n15.65\n15.67\n15.7\n0.0\n0.0\n1.6\n10.3\n14.8\n12.5\n10.4\n9.1\n-\n48.2\n5.5\n0.0\n10.5\nMtoe\nShare, %\nAAGR (%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nTotal\n3.10\n5.89\n13.62\n11.63\n10.42\n14.51\n19.33\n20.02\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n6.1\n-3.1\n2.2\n3.3\n1.6\nCoal\n0.56\n3.78\n9.26\n8.54\n7.59\n10.63\n14.07\n14.3\n18.0\n64.3\n68.0\n73.4\n72.8\n73.3\n72.8\n71.2\n11.9\n-1.6\n2.2\n3.0\n1.7\nOil\n2.54\n2.10\n1.41\n1.14\n0.85\n1.14\n1.51\n1.6\n82.0\n35.6\n10.3\n9.8\n8.2\n7.8\n7.8\n8.1\n-2.3\n-4.1\n0.0\n3.6\n0.6\nNatural gas\n-\n0.01\n2.95\n1.96\n1.98\n2.74\n3.75\n4.1\n0.0\n0.1\n21.7\n16.8\n19.0\n18.9\n19.4\n20.7\n-\n-7.9\n3.4\n4.2\n1.4\nMt-C\nShare, %\nAAGR (%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nTotal\n28.7\n57.0\n95.1\n99.6\n99.6\n130.0\n166.4\n191.3\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n4.9\n0.9\n2.7\n3.9\n2.8\nCoal\n4.4\n18.0\n45.9\n46.5\n47.8\n65.9\n86.6\n96.0\n15.3\n31.5\n48.3\n46.7\n47.9\n50.7\n52.0\n50.2\n9.8\n0.3\n3.5\n3.8\n3.0\nOil\n24.3\n39.0\n42.2\n48.3\n46.9\n57.0\n70.0\n83.8\n84.7\n68.4\n44.3\n48.5\n47.1\n43.9\n42.1\n43.8\n2.2\n2.7\n1.7\n3.9\n2.8\nNatural gas\n-\n0.0\n7.0\n4.8\n5.0\n7.0\n9.9\n11.5\n0.0\n0.0\n7.4\n4.8\n5.0\n5.4\n5.9\n6.0\n-\n-7.4\n3.9\n5.0\n2.0\n%\nAAGR (%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nTotal\n39.7\n37.7\n38.8\n39.9\n41.2\n41.4\n41.5\n42.1\n-0.1\n0.6\n0.4\n0.2\n0.3\nCoal\n29.8\n37.9\n34.1\n36.0\n36.8\n37.1\n37.1\n37.5\n0.5\n1.1\n0.3\n0.1\n0.4\nOil\n41.9\n37.5\n35.8\n35.0\n35.0\n35.0\n35.0\n35.0\n-0.6\n-0.5\n0.0\n0.0\n-0.1\nNatural gas\n-\n16.6\n55.0\n60.0\n60.5\n60.6\n60.6\n60.8\n-\n1.8\n0.1\n0.0\n0.4\nMtoe\nShare, %\nAAGR (%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nTotal\n19.65\n23.92\n29.62\n35.08\n37.82\n45.18\n54.20\n63.83\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n1.7\n3.4\n2.6\n3.5\n3.1\nIndustry\n4.66\n5.35\n7.43\n9.34\n11.04\n14.05\n17.71\n22.05\n23.7\n22.4\n25.1\n26.6\n29.2\n31.1\n32.7\n34.5\n1.9\n4.7\n4.2\n4.6\n4.4\nTransportation\n4.52\n8.10\n10.61\n11.50\n10.85\n12.92\n15.61\n18.48\n23.0\n33.9\n35.8\n32.8\n28.7\n28.6\n28.8\n29.0\n3.5\n1.6\n1.2\n3.6\n2.2\nOthers\n10.25\n10.19\n10.53\n13.05\n14.58\n16.66\n19.14\n21.31\n52.1\n42.6\n35.6\n37.2\n38.6\n36.9\n35.3\n33.4\n0.1\n4.4\n2.5\n2.5\n2.9\nNon-energy\n0.23\n0.27\n1.05\n1.19\n1.35\n1.54\n1.75\n1.99\n1.2\n1.1\n3.5\n3.4\n3.6\n3.4\n3.2\n3.1\n6.3\n2.6\n2.6\n2.6\n2.6\nTotal\n19.65\n23.92\n29.62\n35.08\n37.82\n45.18\n54.20\n63.83\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n1.7\n3.4\n2.6\n3.5\n3.1\nCoal\n0.61\n0.77\n2.29\n3.20\n4.44\n5.95\n7.71\n9.9\n3.1\n3.2\n7.7\n9.1\n11.7\n13.2\n14.2\n15.5\n5.4\n6.9\n6.4\n5.2\n6.0\nOil\n7.92\n13.01\n15.01\n17.22\n16.91\n20.48\n25.01\n29.9\n40.3\n54.4\n50.7\n49.1\n44.7\n45.3\n46.1\n46.8\n2.6\n2.8\n1.7\n3.8\n2.8\nNatural gas\n-\n0.00\n0.05\n0.09\n0.15\n0.26\n0.44\n0.8\n0.0\n0.0\n0.2\n0.2\n0.4\n0.6\n0.8\n1.2\n-\n11.8\n11.4\n11.5\n11.5\nElectricity\n1.82\n3.14\n5.83\n6.94\n7.90\n9.79\n11.74\n13.5\n9.3\n13.1\n19.7\n19.8\n20.9\n21.7\n21.7\n21.1\n4.8\n3.5\n3.5\n3.2\n3.4\nHeat\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\nOthers\n9.30\n7.00\n6.44\n7.65\n8.42\n8.70\n9.30\n9.8\n47.3\n29.3\n21.7\n21.8\n22.3\n19.3\n17.2\n15.4\n-1.5\n3.5\n1.3\n1.2\n1.7\nPrimary energy supply \nPower generation output\nPower generation input\nCO2 Emissions \nEnergy and economic indicators\nThermal efficiency\nFinal energy consumption\nPhilippines (APS)\n\n\n378\nENERGY OUTLOOK AND ENERGY SAVING POTENTIAL IN EAST ASIA 2019\nAAGR(%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nGDP (billions of 2010 US dollars)\n50.4\n100.4\n212.9\n248.7\n288.7\n326.7\n364.6\n402.5\n5.9\n3.2\n2.8\n2.1\n2.6\nPopulation (millions of people)\n3.0\n4.0\n5.5\n5.8\n6.1\n6.3\n6.4\n6.6\n2.4\n1.0\n0.8\n0.5\n0.7\nGDP per capita (thousands of 2010 US$/person)\n 16.55 \n 24.92 \n 38.58 \n 42.8 \n 47.6 \n 52.1 \n 56.6 \n 60.9 \n3.4\n2.1\n2.0\n1.6\n1.8\nPrimary energy consumption per capita (toe/person)\n 3.78 \n 4.63 \n 6.22 \n 8.23 \n 8.35 \n 8.47 \n 8.62 \n 8.56 \n2.0\n5.8\n0.3\n0.1\n1.3\nPrimary energy consumption per unit of GDP (toe/million \n2010 US dollars)\n 229 \n 186 \n 161 \n 192 \n 175 \n 163 \n 152 \n 141 \n-1.4\n3.6\n-1.7\n-1.4\n-0.5\nFinal energy consumption per unit of GDP (toe/million 2010 \nUS dollars)\n 99 \n 83 \n 121 \n 155 \n 141 \n 131 \n 124 \n 114 \n0.8\n5.2\n-1.6\n-1.4\n-0.2\nCO2 emissions per unit of GDP (t-C/million 2010 US dollars)\n 112 \n 88 \n 73 \n 78 \n 73 \n 69 \n 65 \n 60 \n-1.7\n1.4\n-1.2\n-1.4\n-0.8\nCO2 emissions per unit of primary energy consumption \n(t-C/toe)\n 0.49 \n 0.47 \n 0.45 \n 0.41 \n 0.42 \n 0.42 \n 0.43 \n 0.43 \n-0.3\n-2.1\n0.4\n0.0\n-0.2\nAutomobile ownership volume (millions of vehicles)\n 0.84 \n 0.85 \n 0.86 \n 0.87 \n 0.88 \n 0.89 \n-\n-\n0.25\n0.25\n-\nAutomobile ownership volume per capita (vehicles per \nperson)\n - \n - \n 0.151 \n 0.146 \n 0.141 \n 0.138 \n 0.136 \n 0.134 \n-\n-\n-0.52\n-0.28\n-\nMtoe\nShare, %\nAAGR (%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nTotal\n11.53\n18.67\n34.31\n47.76\n50.60\n53.11\n55.55\n56.61\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n4.5\n6.8\n1.1\n0.6\n2.0\nCoal\n0.02\n0.00\n0.27\n0.29\n0.31\n0.33\n0.35\n0.36\n0.2\n0.0\n0.8\n0.6\n0.6\n0.6\n0.6\n0.6\n10.6\n1.5\n1.3\n0.8\n1.1\nOil\n11.44\n17.35\n23.81\n35.33\n36.41\n37.42\n38.57\n39.18\n99.2\n92.9\n69.4\n74.0\n72.0\n70.5\n69.4\n69.2\n3.0\n8.2\n0.6\n0.5\n2.0\nNatural gas\n0.00\n1.12\n9.84\n11.65\n13.26\n14.63\n15.78\n16.12\n0.0\n6.0\n28.7\n24.4\n26.2\n27.5\n28.4\n28.5\n-\n3.4\n2.3\n1.0\n2.0\nNuclear\n0.00\n0.00\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\nHydro\n0.00\n0.00\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\nGeothermal\n0.00\n0.00\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\nOthers\n0.07\n0.20\n0.39\n0.49\n0.61\n0.73\n0.85\n0.95\n0.6\n1.1\n1.1\n1.0\n1.2\n1.4\n1.5\n1.7\n7.1\n4.9\n4.0\n2.7\n3.7\nBiomass\n0.07\n0.20\n0.37\n0.43\n0.48\n0.53\n0.57\n0.60\n0.6\n1.1\n1.1\n0.9\n1.0\n1.0\n1.0\n1.1\n6.9\n2.9\n2.2\n1.2\n2.0\nSolar, Wind, \nOcean\n0.00\n0.00\n0.02\n0.07\n0.13\n0.20\n0.28\n0.35\n0.0\n0.0\n0.1\n0.1\n0.3\n0.4\n0.5\n0.6\n-\n30.6\n11.5\n6.0\n12.8\nBiofuels\n0.00\n0.00\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\nElectricity\n0.00\n0.00\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\nTWh\nShare, %\nAAGR (%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nTotal\n15.71\n31.67\n50.91\n58.66\n66.41\n73.12\n79.06\n82.48\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n4.8\n2.9\n2.2\n1.2\n1.9\nCoal\n0.00\n0.00\n0.42\n0.48\n0.54\n0.60\n0.64\n0.67\n0.0\n0.0\n0.8\n0.8\n0.8\n0.8\n0.8\n0.8\n-\n2.9\n2.2\n1.2\n1.9\nOil\n15.54\n25.32\n0.56\n0.56\n0.53\n0.48\n0.40\n0.29\n98.9\n80.0\n1.1\n1.0\n0.8\n0.7\n0.5\n0.4\n-12.4\n-0.1\n-1.6\n-4.9\n-2.6\nNatural gas\n0.00\n5.86\n48.29\n55.19\n61.97\n67.66\n72.46\n75.06\n0.0\n18.5\n94.8\n94.1\n93.3\n92.5\n91.7\n91.0\n-\n2.7\n2.1\n1.0\n1.8\nNuclear\n0.00\n0.00\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\nHydro\n0.00\n0.00\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\nGeothermal\n0.00\n0.00\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\nOthers\n0.17\n0.49\n1.64\n2.44\n3.37\n4.38\n5.56\n6.46\n1.1\n1.5\n3.2\n4.2\n5.1\n6.0\n7.0\n7.8\n9.5\n8.2\n6.0\n4.0\n5.6\nMtoe\nShare, %\nAAGR (%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nTotal\n4.42\n7.72\n8.60\n9.70\n10.76\n11.61\n12.28\n12.70\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n2.7\n2.5\n1.8\n0.9\n1.6\nCoal\n0.00\n0.00\n0.14\n0.16\n0.19\n0.20\n0.22\n0.23\n0.0\n0.0\n1.7\n1.7\n1.7\n1.8\n1.8\n1.8\n-\n2.9\n2.2\n1.2\n1.9\nOil\n4.42\n6.60\n0.12\n0.12\n0.11\n0.10\n0.08\n0.06\n100.0\n85.5\n1.4\n1.2\n1.0\n0.9\n0.7\n0.5\n-13.4\n-0.3\n-1.7\n-4.9\n-2.7\nNatural gas\n0.00\n1.12\n8.33\n9.42\n10.47\n11.31\n11.98\n12.41\n0.0\n14.5\n97.0\n97.1\n97.2\n97.4\n97.5\n97.7\n-\n2.5\n1.8\n0.9\n1.6\nMt-C\nShare, %\nAAGR (%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nTotal\n5.7\n8.8\n15.5\n19.4\n21.1\n22.5\n23.8\n24.1\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n4.1\n4.6\n1.5\n0.7\n1.8\nCoal\n0.1\n0.0\n1.2\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n-100.0\n-\n-\n-\n-\nOil\n5.6\n8.0\n9.2\n12.0\n12.6\n13.1\n13.7\n13.7\n98.8\n90.4\n59.4\n61.6\n59.7\n58.3\n57.4\n57.1\n2.0\n5.3\n0.9\n0.5\n1.6\nNatural gas\n0.0\n0.9\n6.3\n7.5\n8.5\n9.4\n10.1\n10.3\n0.0\n9.6\n40.6\n38.4\n40.3\n41.7\n42.6\n42.9\n-\n3.4\n2.3\n1.0\n2.0\n%\nAAGR (%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nTotal\n30.3\n34.8\n49.3\n49.8\n50.4\n50.9\n51.5\n51.5\n2.0\n0.2\n0.2\n0.1\n0.2\nCoal\n-\n-\n25.1\n25.1\n25.0\n25.1\n25.1\n25.1\n-\n-0.1\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\nOil\n30.3\n33.0\n40.4\n40.9\n41.1\n41.5\n42.1\n41.5\n1.2\n0.2\n0.2\n0.0\n0.1\nNatural gas\n-\n45.0\n49.8\n50.4\n50.9\n51.5\n52.0\n52.0\n-\n0.2\n0.2\n0.1\n0.2\nMtoe\nShare, %\nAAGR (%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nTotal\n5.01\n8.31\n25.66\n38.54\n40.83\n42.93\n45.06\n45.88\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n6.8\n8.5\n1.1\n0.7\n2.4\nIndustry\n0.61\n2.18\n7.11\n9.48\n11.33\n13.03\n14.81\n15.29\n12.1\n26.3\n27.7\n24.6\n27.7\n30.4\n32.9\n33.3\n10.4\n5.9\n3.2\n1.6\n3.1\nTransportation\n1.36\n1.75\n2.99\n3.09\n3.25\n3.44\n3.66\n3.89\n27.1\n21.1\n11.6\n8.0\n8.0\n8.0\n8.1\n8.5\n3.2\n0.7\n1.1\n1.2\n1.1\nOthers\n1.13\n1.65\n2.47\n2.79\n3.06\n3.24\n3.36\n3.46\n22.6\n19.9\n9.6\n7.2\n7.5\n7.6\n7.5\n7.5\n3.2\n2.5\n1.5\n0.6\n1.4\nNon-energy\n1.91\n2.72\n13.10\n23.18\n23.20\n23.22\n23.23\n23.24\n38.2\n32.8\n51.0\n60.1\n56.8\n54.1\n51.6\n50.7\n8.0\n12.1\n0.0\n0.0\n2.3\nTotal\n5.01\n8.31\n25.66\n38.54\n40.83\n42.93\n45.06\n45.88\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n6.8\n8.5\n1.1\n0.7\n2.4\nCoal\n0.02\n0.00\n0.13\n0.13\n0.13\n0.13\n0.13\n0.13\n0.4\n0.0\n0.5\n0.3\n0.3\n0.3\n0.3\n0.3\n7.5\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\nOil\n3.81\n5.86\n19.84\n31.37\n32.45\n33.48\n34.64\n35.27\n76.1\n70.5\n77.3\n81.4\n79.5\n78.0\n76.9\n76.9\n6.8\n9.6\n0.7\n0.5\n2.3\nNatural gas\n0.06\n0.11\n1.51\n2.23\n2.80\n3.32\n3.80\n3.71\n1.2\n1.3\n5.9\n5.8\n6.8\n7.7\n8.4\n8.1\n13.6\n8.1\n4.1\n1.1\n3.7\nElectricity\n1.12\n2.35\n4.18\n4.82\n5.45\n6.01\n6.49\n6.77\n22.3\n28.3\n16.3\n12.5\n13.4\n14.0\n14.4\n14.8\n5.4\n2.9\n2.2\n1.2\n1.9\nHeat\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\nOthers\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\nPrimary energy consumption\nPower generation output\nPower generation input\nCO2 Emissions \nEnergy and economic indicators\nThermal efficiency\nFinal energy demand\nSingapore (BAU)\n\n\n379\nResults Summary Tables\nAAGR(%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nGDP (billions of 2010 US dollars)\n50.4\n100.4\n212.9\n248.7\n288.7\n326.7\n364.6\n402.5\n5.9\n3.2\n2.8\n2.1\n2.6\nPopulation (millions of people)\n3.0\n4.0\n5.5\n5.8\n6.1\n6.3\n6.4\n6.6\n2.4\n1.0\n0.8\n0.5\n0.7\nGDP per capita (thousands of 2010 US$/person)\n 16.55 \n 24.92 \n 38.58 \n 42.8 \n 47.6 \n 52.1 \n 56.6 \n 60.9 \n3.4\n2.1\n2.0\n1.6\n1.8\nPrimary energy consumption per capita (toe/person)\n 3.78 \n 4.63 \n 6.18 \n 8.10 \n 8.12 \n 8.13 \n 8.19 \n 8.12 \n2.0\n5.5\n0.0\n0.0\n1.1\nPrimary energy consumption per unit of GDP (toe/million \n2010 US dollars)\n 229 \n 186 \n 160 \n 189 \n 170 \n 156 \n 145 \n 133 \n-1.4\n3.4\n-1.9\n-1.6\n-0.7\nFinal energy consumption per unit of GDP (toe/million 2010 \nUS dollars)\n 99 \n 83 \n 120 \n 154 \n 140 \n 130 \n 121 \n 112 \n0.8\n5.1\n-1.7\n-1.5\n-0.3\nCO2 emissions per unit of GDP (t-C/million 2010 US dollars)\n 112 \n 88 \n 72 \n 76 \n 70 \n 65 \n 60 \n 55 \n-1.7\n1.0\n-1.6\n-1.6\n-1.1\nCO2 emissions per unit of primary energy consumption \n(t-C/toe)\n 0.49 \n 0.47 \n 0.45 \n 0.40 \n 0.41 \n 0.41 \n 0.41 \n 0.41 \n-0.3\n-2.3\n0.3\n0.0\n-0.4\nAutomobile ownership volume (millions of vehicles)\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\nAutomobile ownership volume per capita (vehicles per \nperson)\n - \n - \n - \n - \n - \n - \n - \n - \n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\nMtoe\nShare, %\nAAGR (%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nTotal\n11.53\n18.67\n34.12\n47.03\n49.21\n51.03\n52.73\n53.68\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n4.4\n6.6\n0.8\n0.5\n1.8\nCoal\n0.02\n0.00\n0.27\n0.29\n0.31\n0.33\n0.34\n0.35\n0.2\n0.0\n0.8\n0.6\n0.6\n0.6\n0.6\n0.7\n10.6\n1.4\n1.2\n0.7\n1.0\nOil\n11.44\n17.35\n23.78\n35.23\n36.22\n37.13\n38.16\n38.76\n99.2\n92.9\n69.7\n74.9\n73.6\n72.8\n72.4\n72.2\n3.0\n8.2\n0.5\n0.4\n2.0\nNatural gas\n0.00\n1.12\n9.68\n10.98\n12.01\n12.76\n13.28\n13.48\n0.0\n6.0\n28.4\n23.3\n24.4\n25.0\n25.2\n25.1\n-\n2.6\n1.5\n0.5\n1.3\nNuclear\n0.00\n0.00\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\nHydro\n0.00\n0.00\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\nGeothermal\n0.00\n0.00\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\nOthers\n0.07\n0.20\n0.40\n0.52\n0.67\n0.81\n0.95\n1.09\n0.6\n1.1\n1.2\n1.1\n1.4\n1.6\n1.8\n2.0\n7.2\n5.8\n4.5\n3.0\n4.1\nBiomass\n0.07\n0.20\n0.37\n0.42\n0.47\n0.50\n0.53\n0.55\n0.6\n1.1\n1.1\n0.9\n0.9\n1.0\n1.0\n1.0\n6.9\n2.6\n1.8\n0.9\n1.6\nSolar, Wind, \nOcean\n0.00\n0.00\n0.03\n0.10\n0.20\n0.31\n0.42\n0.54\n0.0\n0.0\n0.1\n0.2\n0.4\n0.6\n0.8\n1.0\n-\n30.9\n11.4\n5.9\n12.7\nBiofuels\n0.00\n0.00\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\nElectricity\n0.00\n0.00\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\nTWh\nShare, %\nAAGR (%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nTotal\n15.71\n31.67\n50.73\n57.90\n64.89\n70.70\n75.54\n78.95\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n4.8\n2.7\n2.0\n1.1\n1.8\nCoal\n0.00\n0.00\n0.41\n0.47\n0.53\n0.58\n0.62\n0.64\n0.0\n0.0\n0.8\n0.8\n0.8\n0.8\n0.8\n0.8\n-\n2.7\n2.0\n1.1\n1.8\nOil\n15.54\n25.32\n0.51\n0.50\n0.48\n0.43\n0.36\n0.28\n98.9\n80.0\n1.0\n0.9\n0.7\n0.6\n0.5\n0.4\n-12.8\n-0.1\n-1.5\n-4.3\n-2.4\nNatural gas\n0.00\n5.86\n48.06\n54.07\n59.73\n64.13\n67.49\n69.47\n0.0\n18.5\n94.7\n93.4\n92.0\n90.7\n89.3\n88.0\n-\n2.4\n1.7\n0.8\n1.5\nNuclear\n0.00\n0.00\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\nHydro\n0.00\n0.00\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\nGeothermal\n0.00\n0.00\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\nOthers\n0.17\n0.49\n1.75\n2.86\n4.16\n5.56\n7.07\n8.55\n1.1\n1.5\n3.5\n4.9\n6.4\n7.9\n9.4\n10.8\n9.8\n10.2\n6.9\n4.4\n6.5\nMtoe\nShare, %\nAAGR (%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nTotal\n4.42\n7.72\n8.42\n9.05\n9.57\n9.85\n9.95\n10.23\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n2.6\n1.4\n0.8\n0.4\n0.8\nCoal\n0.00\n0.00\n0.14\n0.16\n0.18\n0.20\n0.21\n0.22\n0.0\n0.0\n1.7\n1.8\n1.9\n2.0\n2.1\n2.2\n-\n2.7\n2.0\n1.1\n1.8\nOil\n4.42\n6.60\n0.11\n0.10\n0.10\n0.08\n0.07\n0.05\n100.0\n85.5\n1.3\n1.1\n1.0\n0.9\n0.7\n0.5\n-13.8\n-0.7\n-2.0\n-4.6\n-2.8\nNatural gas\n0.00\n1.12\n8.17\n8.79\n9.29\n9.57\n9.67\n9.96\n0.0\n14.5\n97.0\n97.1\n97.1\n97.1\n97.2\n97.3\n-\n1.5\n0.9\n0.4\n0.8\nMt-C\nShare, %\nAAGR (%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nTotal\n5.7\n8.8\n15.4\n18.9\n20.2\n21.1\n21.9\n22.1\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n4.1\n4.2\n1.1\n0.5\n1.5\nCoal\n0.1\n0.0\n1.2\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n-100.0\n-\n-\n-\n-\nOil\n5.6\n8.0\n9.2\n11.9\n12.5\n12.9\n13.4\n13.5\n98.8\n90.4\n59.7\n62.8\n61.8\n61.2\n61.1\n60.9\n2.0\n5.2\n0.8\n0.4\n1.5\nNatural gas\n0.0\n0.9\n6.2\n7.0\n7.7\n8.2\n8.5\n8.6\n0.0\n9.6\n40.3\n37.2\n38.2\n38.8\n38.9\n39.1\n-\n2.6\n1.5\n0.5\n1.3\n%\nAAGR (%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nTotal\n30.3\n34.8\n50.0\n52.3\n54.6\n56.9\n59.2\n59.2\n2.0\n0.9\n0.8\n0.4\n0.7\nCoal\n-\n-\n25.1\n25.1\n25.1\n25.1\n25.1\n25.1\n-\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\nOil\n30.3\n33.0\n40.6\n41.7\n42.8\n43.9\n45.0\n45.0\n1.2\n0.5\n0.5\n0.2\n0.4\nNatural gas\n-\n45.0\n50.6\n52.9\n55.3\n57.6\n60.0\n60.0\n-\n0.9\n0.9\n0.4\n0.7\nMtoe\nShare, %\nAAGR (%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nTotal\n5.01\n8.31\n25.62\n38.36\n40.46\n42.33\n44.18\n45.00\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n6.7\n8.4\n1.0\n0.6\n2.3\nIndustry\n0.61\n2.18\n7.08\n9.33\n11.02\n12.54\n14.09\n14.57\n12.1\n26.3\n27.6\n24.3\n27.2\n29.6\n31.9\n32.4\n10.3\n5.7\n3.0\n1.5\n2.9\nTransportation\n1.36\n1.75\n2.99\n3.09\n3.24\n3.42\n3.63\n3.86\n27.1\n21.1\n11.7\n8.0\n8.0\n8.1\n8.2\n8.6\n3.2\n0.7\n1.0\n1.2\n1.0\nOthers\n1.13\n1.65\n2.46\n2.76\n3.00\n3.15\n3.23\n3.33\n22.6\n19.9\n9.6\n7.2\n7.4\n7.5\n7.3\n7.4\n3.2\n2.3\n1.4\n0.5\n1.2\nNon-energy\n1.91\n2.72\n13.09\n23.18\n23.20\n23.22\n23.23\n23.24\n38.2\n32.8\n51.1\n60.4\n57.3\n54.8\n52.6\n51.7\n8.0\n12.1\n0.0\n0.0\n2.3\nTotal\n5.01\n8.31\n25.62\n38.36\n40.46\n42.33\n44.18\n45.00\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n6.7\n8.4\n1.0\n0.6\n2.3\nCoal\n0.02\n0.00\n0.13\n0.13\n0.13\n0.13\n0.13\n0.13\n0.4\n0.0\n0.5\n0.3\n0.3\n0.3\n0.3\n0.3\n7.5\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\nOil\n3.81\n5.86\n19.82\n31.28\n32.28\n33.20\n34.24\n34.86\n76.1\n70.5\n77.4\n81.6\n79.8\n78.4\n77.5\n77.5\n6.8\n9.6\n0.6\n0.5\n2.3\nNatural gas\n0.06\n0.11\n1.50\n2.19\n2.72\n3.19\n3.61\n3.52\n1.2\n1.3\n5.9\n5.7\n6.7\n7.5\n8.2\n7.8\n13.6\n7.8\n3.8\n1.0\n3.5\nElectricity\n1.12\n2.35\n4.17\n4.75\n5.33\n5.81\n6.20\n6.48\n22.3\n28.3\n16.3\n12.4\n13.2\n13.7\n14.0\n14.4\n5.4\n2.7\n2.0\n1.1\n1.8\nHeat\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\nOthers\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\nPrimary energy consumption\nPower generation output\nPower generation input\nCO2 Emissions \nEnergy and economic indicators\nThermal efficiency\nFinal energy demand\nSingapore (APS)\n\n\n380\nENERGY OUTLOOK AND ENERGY SAVING POTENTIAL IN EAST ASIA 2019\nAAGR(%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nGDP (billions of 2010 US dollars)\n141.6\n217.7\n393.7\n471.6\n570.2\n687.8\n828.8\n998.7\n4.2\n3.7\n3.8\n3.8\n3.8\nPopulation (millions of people)\n56.6\n61.9\n65.7\n65.8\n65.9\n66.0\n66.1\n66.2\n0.6\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\nGDP per capita (thousands of 2010 US$/person)\n 2.5 \n 3.5 \n 6.0 \n 7.16 \n 8.6 \n 10.4 \n 12.5 \n 15.1 \n3.6\n3.6\n3.8\n3.8\n3.8\nPrimary energy consumption per capita (toe/person)\n 0.8 \n 1.2 \n 2.1 \n 2.30 \n 2.60 \n 2.91 \n 3.28 \n 3.79 \n4.1\n2.3\n2.4\n2.7\n2.5\nPrimary energy consumption per unit of GDP (toe/million \n2010 US dollars)\n 301 \n 332 \n 343 \n 321 \n 301 \n 279 \n 262 \n 251 \n0.5\n-1.3\n-1.4\n-1.0\n-1.2\nFinal energy consumption per unit of GDP (toe/million 2010 \nUS dollars)\n 204 \n 232 \n 249 \n 240 \n 231 \n 221 \n 210 \n 199 \n0.8\n-0.7\n-0.8\n-1.1\n-0.9\nCO2 emissions per unit of GDP (t-C/million 2010 US dollars)\n 928 \n 777 \n 560 \n 515 \n 483 \n 446 \n 418 \n 411 \n-2.0\n-1.7\n-1.4\n-0.8\n-1.2\nCO2 emissions per unit of primary energy consumption \n(t-C/toe)\n 3.1 \n 2.3 \n 1.6 \n 1.60 \n 1.60 \n 1.60 \n 1.60 \n 1.64 \n-2.5\n-0.4\n0.0\n0.2\n0.0\nMtoe\nShare, %\nAAGR (%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nTotal\n42.63\n72.27\n134.97\n151.42\n171.76\n191.92\n217.11\n250.81\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n4.7\n2.3\n2.4\n2.7\n2.5\nCoal\n3.82\n7.67\n16.82\n17.81\n20.36\n22.53\n26.65\n33.40\n9.0\n10.6\n12.5\n11.8\n11.9\n11.7\n12.3\n13.3\n6.1\n1.2\n2.4\n4.0\n2.8\nOil\n17.96\n31.88\n52.27\n60.46\n71.06\n82.42\n95.05\n109.13\n42.1\n44.1\n38.7\n39.9\n41.4\n42.9\n43.8\n43.5\n4.4\n3.0\n3.1\n2.8\n3.0\nNatural gas\n4.99\n17.36\n37.92\n41.18\n42.60\n43.27\n45.08\n53.43\n11.7\n24.0\n28.1\n27.2\n24.8\n22.5\n20.8\n21.3\n8.4\n1.7\n0.5\n2.1\n1.4\nNuclear\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\nHydro\n0.43\n0.52\n0.49\n0.89\n1.04\n1.14\n1.23\n1.26\n1.0\n0.7\n0.4\n0.6\n0.6\n0.6\n0.6\n0.5\n0.6\n12.4\n2.5\n1.0\n3.8\nGeothermal\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\nOthers\n15.43\n14.83\n27.47\n31.08\n36.70\n42.55\n49.10\n53.59\n36.2\n20.5\n20.4\n20.5\n21.4\n22.2\n22.6\n21.4\n2.3\n2.5\n3.2\n2.3\n2.7\nBiomass\n14.69\n14.59\n23.27\n25.79\n29.70\n32.97\n36.60\n40.39\n34.4\n20.2\n17.2\n17.0\n17.3\n17.2\n16.9\n16.1\n1.9\n2.1\n2.5\n2.0\n2.2\nSolar, Wind, \nOcean\n0.31\n1.05\n1.90\n2.31\n2.66\n2.80\n0.0\n0.0\n0.2\n0.7\n1.1\n1.2\n1.2\n1.1\n-\n27.3\n8.2\n1.9\n9.1\nBiofuels\n1.53\n1.59\n1.74\n1.94\n2.18\n2.50\n0.0\n0.0\n1.1\n1.1\n1.0\n1.0\n1.0\n1.0\n-\n0.8\n2.0\n2.6\n2.0\nElectricity\n0.05\n0.24\n2.35\n2.65\n3.35\n5.32\n7.65\n7.90\n0.1\n0.3\n1.7\n1.7\n2.0\n2.8\n3.5\n3.1\n16.4\n2.4\n7.2\n4.0\n5.0\nTWh\nShare, %\nAAGR (%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nTotal\n44.18\n95.98\n165.71\n193.52\n222.41\n237.18\n251.27\n294.57\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n5.4\n3.2\n2.1\n2.2\n2.3\nCoal\n11.05\n17.77\n32.92\n31.89\n35.66\n38.11\n49.01\n71.82\n25.0\n18.5\n19.9\n16.5\n16.0\n16.1\n19.5\n24.4\n4.5\n-0.6\n1.8\n6.5\n3.2\nOil\n10.38\n10.03\n1.68\n0.21\n0.62\n0.62\n1.80\n3.04\n23.5\n10.4\n1.0\n0.1\n0.3\n0.3\n0.7\n1.0\n-7.0\n-34.3\n11.6\n17.3\n2.4\nNatural gas\n17.77\n61.64\n117.01\n134.33\n145.38\n150.58\n145.81\n160.96\n40.2\n64.2\n70.6\n69.4\n65.4\n63.5\n58.0\n54.6\n7.8\n2.8\n1.1\n0.7\n1.3\nNuclear\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\nHydro\n4.98\n6.03\n5.75\n10.30\n12.05\n13.24\n14.29\n14.61\n11.3\n6.3\n3.5\n5.3\n5.4\n5.6\n5.7\n5.0\n0.6\n12.4\n2.5\n1.0\n3.8\nGeothermal\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\nOthers\n0.51\n8.36\n16.80\n28.71\n34.63\n40.35\n44.13\n0.0\n0.5\n5.0\n8.7\n12.9\n14.6\n16.1\n15.0\n-\n15.0\n7.5\n2.5\n6.9\nMtoe\nShare, %\nAAGR (%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nTotal\n8.92\n19.24\n29.71\n32.12\n34.98\n36.33\n38.11\n46.10\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n4.9\n1.6\n1.2\n2.4\n1.8\nCoal\n2.55\n4.16\n8.35\n7.98\n8.76\n9.18\n11.55\n16.56\n28.6\n21.6\n28.1\n24.8\n25.1\n25.3\n30.3\n35.9\n4.9\n-0.9\n1.4\n6.1\n2.8\nOil\n2.55\n2.34\n0.37\n0.05\n0.14\n0.14\n0.40\n0.67\n28.6\n12.2\n1.2\n0.1\n0.4\n0.4\n1.0\n1.5\n-7.4\n-34.3\n11.6\n17.3\n2.4\nNatural gas\n3.82\n12.73\n20.99\n24.10\n26.08\n27.01\n26.16\n28.87\n42.9\n66.2\n70.6\n75.0\n74.6\n74.3\n68.6\n62.6\n7.0\n2.8\n1.1\n0.7\n1.3\nMt-C\nShare, %\nAAGR (%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nTotal\n131.5\n169.2\n220.6\n242.7\n275.2\n307.0\n346.6\n410.1\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n2.1\n1.9\n2.4\n2.9\n2.5\nCoal\n37.5\n46.1\n64.4\n69.5\n79.5\n87.9\n104.0\n130.3\n28.5\n27.3\n29.2\n28.6\n28.9\n28.6\n30.0\n31.8\n2.2\n1.5\n2.4\n4.0\n2.9\nOil\n44.6\n71.5\n94.1\n101.8\n116.0\n132.7\n153.3\n178.3\n34.0\n42.2\n42.7\n41.9\n42.1\n43.2\n44.2\n43.5\n3.0\n1.6\n2.7\n3.0\n2.6\nNatural gas\n49.3\n51.6\n62.0\n71.4\n79.8\n86.3\n89.3\n101.5\n37.5\n30.5\n28.1\n29.4\n29.0\n28.1\n25.8\n24.7\n0.9\n2.8\n1.9\n1.6\n2.0\n%\nAAGR (%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nTotal\n37.8\n40.0\n43.9\n44.6\n44.7\n44.8\n44.4\n44.0\n0.6\n0.3\n0.1\n-0.2\n0.0\nCoal\n37.3\n36.7\n33.9\n34.4\n35.0\n35.7\n36.5\n37.3\n-0.4\n0.3\n0.4\n0.4\n0.4\nOil\n35.0\n36.8\n38.8\n38.8\n38.8\n38.8\n38.8\n38.8\n0.4\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\nNatural gas\n40.0\n41.6\n47.9\n47.9\n47.9\n47.9\n47.9\n47.9\n0.7\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\nMtoe\nShare, %\nAAGR (%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nTotal\n28.87\n50.57\n98.04\n113.33\n132.00\n152.16\n174.02\n198.30\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n5.0\n2.9\n3.0\n2.7\n2.9\nIndustry\n8.65\n16.72\n30.61\n35.79\n42.45\n49.90\n58.17\n67.56\n30.0\n33.1\n31.2\n31.6\n32.2\n32.8\n33.4\n34.1\n5.2\n3.2\n3.4\n3.1\n3.2\nTransportation\n9.01\n14.61\n23.72\n25.88\n29.42\n33.71\n38.78\n44.92\n31.2\n28.9\n24.2\n22.8\n22.3\n22.2\n22.3\n22.7\n3.9\n1.8\n2.7\n2.9\n2.6\nOthers\n10.78\n13.62\n21.10\n23.42\n25.96\n28.55\n31.25\n34.20\n37.3\n26.9\n21.5\n20.7\n19.7\n18.8\n18.0\n17.2\n2.7\n2.1\n2.0\n1.8\n2.0\nNon-energy\n0.43\n5.63\n22.62\n28.25\n34.17\n40.01\n45.82\n51.63\n1.5\n11.1\n23.1\n24.9\n25.9\n26.3\n26.3\n26.0\n17.2\n4.5\n3.5\n2.6\n3.4\nTotal\n28.87\n50.57\n98.04\n113.33\n132.00\n152.16\n174.02\n198.30\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n5.0\n2.9\n3.0\n2.7\n2.9\nCoal\n1.31\n3.54\n8.16\n9.84\n11.60\n13.35\n15.09\n16.85\n4.5\n7.0\n8.3\n8.7\n8.8\n8.8\n8.7\n8.5\n7.6\n3.8\n3.1\n2.4\n2.9\nOil\n14.93\n28.77\n49.25\n57.26\n67.25\n78.09\n89.93\n103.21\n51.7\n56.9\n50.2\n50.5\n50.9\n51.3\n51.7\n52.0\n4.9\n3.1\n3.1\n2.8\n3.0\nNatural gas\n0.14\n1.11\n9.63\n11.02\n13.14\n15.53\n18.16\n21.16\n0.5\n2.2\n9.8\n9.7\n10.0\n10.2\n10.4\n10.7\n18.5\n2.7\n3.5\n3.1\n3.2\nElectricity\n3.30\n7.56\n15.04\n17.62\n20.50\n23.55\n26.84\n30.44\n11.4\n15.0\n15.3\n15.5\n15.5\n15.5\n15.4\n15.3\n6.3\n3.2\n2.9\n2.6\n2.9\nHeat\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\nOthers\n9.20\n9.59\n15.96\n17.59\n19.52\n21.64\n23.99\n26.65\n31.9\n19.0\n16.3\n15.5\n14.8\n14.2\n13.8\n13.4\n2.2\n2.0\n2.1\n2.1\n2.1\nPrimary energy supply \nPower generation output\nPower generation input\nCO2 Emissions \nEnergy and economic indicators\nThermal efficiency\nFinal energy consumption\nThailand (BAU)\n\n\n381\nResults Summary Tables\nAAGR(%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nGDP (billions of 2010 US dollars)\n141.6\n217.7\n393.7\n471.6\n570.2\n687.8\n828.8\n998.7\n4.2\n3.7\n3.8\n3.8\n3.8\nPopulation (millions of people)\n56.6\n61.9\n65.7\n65.8\n65.9\n66.0\n66.1\n66.2\n0.6\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\nGDP per capita (thousands of 2010 US$/person)\n 2.5 \n 3.5 \n 6.0 \n 7.16 \n 8.6 \n 10.4 \n 12.5 \n 15.1 \n3.6\n3.6\n3.8\n3.8\n3.8\nPrimary energy consumption per capita (toe/person)\n 0.8 \n 1.2 \n 2.1 \n 2.11 \n 2.20 \n 2.33 \n 2.49 \n 2.78 \n4.1\n0.6\n1.0\n1.8\n1.2\nPrimary energy consumption per unit of GDP (toe/million \n2010 US dollars)\n 301 \n 332 \n 343 \n 295 \n 254 \n 223 \n 199 \n 184 \n0.5\n-3.0\n-2.7\n-1.9\n-2.5\nFinal energy consumption per unit of GDP (toe/million 2010 \nUS dollars)\n 204 \n 232 \n 249 \n 222 \n 198 \n 180 \n 161 \n 147 \n0.8\n-2.3\n-2.1\n-2.0\n-2.1\nCO2 emissions per unit of GDP (t-C/million 2010 US dollars)\n 928 \n 777 \n 560 \n 461 \n 388 \n 331 \n 281 \n 252 \n-2.0\n-3.8\n-3.3\n-2.7\n-3.1\nCO2 emissions per unit of primary energy consumption \n(t-C/toe)\n 3.1 \n 2.3 \n 1.6 \n 1.56 \n 1.52 \n 1.48 \n 1.41 \n 1.37 \n-2.5\n-0.9\n-0.5\n-0.8\n-0.7\nMtoe\nShare, %\nAAGR (%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nTotal\n42.63\n72.27\n134.97\n139.08\n145.12\n153.72\n165.00\n183.98\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n4.7\n0.6\n1.0\n1.8\n1.2\nCoal\n3.82\n7.67\n16.82\n16.31\n17.45\n18.65\n21.10\n23.25\n9.0\n10.6\n12.5\n11.7\n12.0\n12.1\n12.8\n12.6\n6.1\n-0.6\n1.3\n2.2\n1.3\nOil\n17.96\n31.88\n52.27\n56.05\n61.04\n66.98\n72.37\n79.67\n42.1\n44.1\n38.7\n40.3\n42.1\n43.6\n43.9\n43.3\n4.4\n1.4\n1.8\n1.7\n1.7\nNatural gas\n4.99\n17.36\n37.92\n37.05\n34.53\n31.73\n29.94\n34.17\n11.7\n24.0\n28.1\n26.6\n23.8\n20.6\n18.1\n18.6\n8.4\n-0.5\n-1.5\n0.7\n-0.4\nNuclear\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n1.18\n2.56\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.7\n1.4\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\nHydro\n0.43\n0.52\n0.49\n0.91\n1.02\n1.14\n1.25\n1.36\n1.0\n0.7\n0.4\n0.7\n0.7\n0.7\n0.8\n0.7\n0.6\n13.0\n2.3\n1.8\n4.1\nGeothermal\n0.00\n0.00\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\nOthers\n15.43\n14.83\n27.47\n28.76\n31.07\n35.23\n39.16\n42.96\n36.2\n20.5\n20.4\n20.7\n21.4\n22.9\n23.7\n23.4\n2.3\n0.9\n2.0\n2.0\n1.8\nBiomass\n14.69\n14.59\n23.27\n24.12\n25.99\n28.41\n30.94\n34.02\n34.4\n20.2\n17.2\n17.3\n17.9\n18.5\n18.7\n18.5\n1.9\n0.7\n1.7\n1.8\n1.5\nSolar, Wind, \nOcean\n0.00\n0.00\n0.31\n0.77\n1.27\n1.76\n2.25\n2.74\n0.0\n0.0\n0.2\n0.6\n0.9\n1.1\n1.4\n1.5\n-\n19.6\n8.6\n4.6\n9.1\nBiofuels\n0.00\n0.00\n1.53\n1.32\n1.13\n1.00\n0.83\n0.76\n0.0\n0.0\n1.1\n0.9\n0.8\n0.6\n0.5\n0.4\n-\n-3.0\n-2.7\n-2.7\n-2.8\nElectricity\n0.05\n0.24\n2.35\n2.56\n2.67\n4.06\n5.15\n5.44\n0.1\n0.3\n1.7\n1.8\n1.8\n2.6\n3.1\n3.0\n16.4\n1.7\n4.7\n3.0\n3.4\nTWh\nShare, %\nAAGR (%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nTotal\n44.18\n95.98\n165.71\n177.00\n189.94\n196.96 206.74\n233.22\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n5.4\n1.3\n1.1\n1.7\n1.4\nCoal\n11.05\n17.77\n32.92\n29.33\n30.90\n31.46\n38.34\n42.96\n25.0\n18.5\n19.9\n16.6\n16.3\n16.0\n18.5\n18.4\n4.5\n-2.3\n0.7\n3.2\n1.1\nOil\n10.38\n10.03\n1.68\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.91\n23.5\n10.4\n1.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.4\n-7.0\n-100.0\n-\n-\n-2.4\nNatural gas\n17.77\n61.64\n117.01\n123.55\n125.99\n124.28\n114.04\n121.09\n40.2\n64.2\n70.6\n69.8\n66.3\n63.1\n55.2\n51.9\n7.8\n1.1\n0.1\n-0.3\n0.1\nNuclear\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n4.53\n9.82\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n2.2\n4.2\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\nHydro\n4.98\n6.03\n5.75\n10.59\n11.91\n13.24\n14.56\n15.84\n11.3\n6.3\n3.5\n6.0\n6.3\n6.7\n7.0\n6.8\n0.6\n13.0\n2.3\n1.8\n4.1\nGeothermal\n0.00\n0.00\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\nOthers\n0.00\n0.51\n8.36\n13.53\n21.13\n27.97\n35.27\n42.59\n0.0\n0.5\n5.0\n7.6\n11.1\n14.2\n17.1\n18.3\n-\n10.1\n7.5\n4.3\n6.7\nMtoe\nShare, %\nAAGR (%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nTotal\n8.92\n19.24\n29.71\n29.50\n30.20\n29.88\n29.49\n31.83\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n4.9\n-0.1\n0.1\n0.6\n0.3\nCoal\n2.55\n4.16\n8.35\n7.34\n7.60\n7.58\n9.04\n9.90\n28.6\n21.6\n28.1\n24.9\n25.2\n25.4\n30.6\n31.1\n4.9\n-2.6\n0.3\n2.7\n0.7\nOil\n2.55\n2.34\n0.37\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.20\n28.6\n12.2\n1.2\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.6\n-7.4\n-100.0\n-\n-\n-2.4\nNatural gas\n3.82\n12.73\n20.99\n22.16\n22.60\n22.29\n20.46\n21.72\n42.9\n66.2\n70.6\n75.1\n74.8\n74.6\n69.4\n68.3\n7.0\n1.1\n0.1\n-0.3\n0.1\nMt-C\nShare, %\nAAGR (%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nTotal\n131.5\n169.2\n220.6\n217.2\n221.3\n227.4\n232.8\n252.0\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n2.1\n-0.3\n0.5\n1.0\n0.5\nCoal\n37.5\n46.1\n64.4\n63.6\n68.1\n72.8\n82.3\n90.7\n28.5\n27.3\n29.2\n29.3\n30.8\n32.0\n35.4\n36.0\n2.2\n-0.3\n1.3\n2.2\n1.4\nOil\n44.6\n71.5\n94.1\n88.5\n85.8\n86.1\n84.6\n89.5\n34.0\n42.2\n42.7\n40.8\n38.8\n37.8\n36.3\n35.5\n3.0\n-1.2\n-0.3\n0.4\n-0.2\nNatural gas\n49.3\n51.6\n62.0\n65.0\n67.3\n68.5\n65.9\n71.8\n37.5\n30.5\n28.1\n29.9\n30.4\n30.1\n28.3\n28.5\n0.9\n0.9\n0.5\n0.5\n0.6\n%\nAAGR (%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nTotal\n37.8\n40.0\n43.9\n44.6\n44.7\n44.8\n44.4\n44.6\n0.6\n0.3\n0.1\n-0.1\n0.1\nCoal\n37.3\n36.7\n33.9\n34.4\n35.0\n35.7\n36.5\n37.3\n-0.4\n0.3\n0.4\n0.4\n0.4\nOil\n35.0\n36.8\n38.8\n-\n-\n-\n-\n38.8\n0.4\n-\n-\n-\n0.0\nNatural gas\n40.0\n41.6\n47.9\n47.9\n47.9\n47.9\n47.9\n47.9\n0.7\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\nMtoe\nShare, %\nAAGR (%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nTotal\n28.87\n50.57\n98.04\n104.66\n112.65\n123.63\n133.52\n147.17\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n5.0\n1.3\n1.7\n1.8\n1.6\nIndustry\n8.65\n16.72\n30.61\n32.63\n36.08\n41.35\n46.47\n53.51\n30.0\n33.1\n31.2\n31.2\n32.0\n33.4\n34.8\n36.4\n5.2\n1.3\n2.4\n2.6\n2.3\nTransportation\n9.01\n14.61\n23.72\n21.35\n19.08\n17.31\n14.65\n13.63\n31.2\n28.9\n24.2\n20.4\n16.9\n14.0\n11.0\n9.3\n3.9\n-2.1\n-2.1\n-2.4\n-2.2\nOthers\n10.78\n13.62\n21.10\n22.43\n23.33\n24.96\n26.58\n28.40\n37.3\n26.9\n21.5\n21.4\n20.7\n20.2\n19.9\n19.3\n2.7\n1.2\n1.1\n1.3\n1.2\nNon-energy\n0.43\n5.63\n22.62\n28.25\n34.17\n40.01\n45.82\n51.63\n1.5\n11.1\n23.1\n27.0\n30.3\n32.4\n34.3\n35.1\n17.2\n4.5\n3.5\n2.6\n3.4\nTotal\n28.87\n50.57\n98.04\n104.66\n112.65\n123.63\n133.52\n147.17\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n5.0\n1.3\n1.7\n1.8\n1.6\nCoal\n1.31\n3.54\n8.16\n8.97\n9.86\n11.07\n12.06\n13.35\n4.5\n7.0\n8.3\n8.6\n8.8\n9.0\n9.0\n9.1\n7.6\n1.9\n2.1\n1.9\n2.0\nOil\n14.93\n28.77\n49.25\n52.90\n57.36\n62.73\n67.49\n74.16\n51.7\n56.9\n50.2\n50.5\n50.9\n50.7\n50.5\n50.4\n4.9\n1.4\n1.7\n1.7\n1.7\nNatural gas\n0.14\n1.11\n9.63\n10.24\n11.32\n12.67\n13.91\n15.66\n0.5\n2.2\n9.8\n9.8\n10.0\n10.2\n10.4\n10.6\n18.5\n1.2\n2.1\n2.1\n2.0\nElectricity\n3.30\n7.56\n15.04\n16.26\n17.37\n19.30\n21.15\n23.48\n11.4\n15.0\n15.3\n15.5\n15.4\n15.6\n15.8\n16.0\n6.3\n1.6\n1.7\n2.0\n1.8\nHeat\n0.00\n0.00\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\nOthers\n9.20\n9.59\n15.96\n16.29\n16.74\n17.87\n18.91\n20.52\n31.9\n19.0\n16.3\n15.6\n14.9\n14.5\n14.2\n13.9\n2.2\n0.4\n0.9\n1.4\n1.0\nPrimary energy supply \nPower generation output\nPower generation input\nCO2 Emissions \nEnergy and economic indicators\nThermal efficiency\nFinal energy consumption\nThailand (APS)\n\n\n382\nENERGY OUTLOOK AND ENERGY SAVING POTENTIAL IN EAST ASIA 2019\nAAGR(%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nGDP (billions of 2010 US dollars)\n 17.8 \n 36.8 \n 154.5 \n 216.7 \n 296.9 \n 397.3 \n 519.3 \n 662.8 \n9.0\n7.0\n6.2\n5.2\n6.0\nPopulation (millions of people)\n 66.0 \n 77.6 \n 91.7 \n 96.2 \n 100.1 \n 103.1 \n 105.4 \n 107.0 \n1.3\n1.0\n0.7\n0.4\n0.6\nGDP per capita (thousands of 2010 US$/person)\n 0.3 \n 0.5 \n 1.7 \n 2.25 \n 3.0 \n 3.9 \n 4.9 \n 6.2 \n7.6\n6.0\n5.5\n4.9\n5.3\nPrimary energy consumption per capita (toe/person)\n 0.3 \n 0.4 \n 0.8 \n 1.12 \n 1.37 \n 1.61 \n 1.82 \n 2.06 \n4.2\n7.9\n3.7\n2.5\n4.0\nPrimary energy consumption per unit of GDP (toe/million \n2010 US dollars)\n 1,006 \n 780 \n 453 \n 495 \n 461 \n 417 \n 369 \n 332 \n-3.1\n1.8\n-1.7\n-2.3\n-1.2\nFinal energy consumption per unit of GDP (toe/million 2010 \nUS dollars)\n 905 \n 681 \n 364 \n 354 \n 325 \n 290 \n 255 \n 228 \n-3.6\n-0.6\n-2.0\n-2.4\n-1.9\nCO2 emissions per unit of GDP (t-C/million 2010 US dollars)\n 265 \n 326 \n 317 \n 417 \n 397 \n 365 \n 326 \n 295 \n0.7\n5.7\n-1.3\n-2.1\n-0.3\nCO2 emissions per unit of primary energy consumption \n(t-C/toe)\n 0.3 \n 0.4 \n 0.7 \n 0.84 \n 0.86 \n 0.88 \n 0.88 \n 0.89 \n4.0\n3.8\n0.4\n0.1\n1.0\nAutomobile ownership volume (millions of vehicles)\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\nAutomobile ownership volume per capita (vehicles per \nperson)\n - \n - \n - \n - \n - \n - \n - \n - \n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\nMtoe\nShare, %\nAAGR (%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nTotal\n17.86\n28.74\n70.06\n107.36\n136.84\n165.63\n191.56\n219.92\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n5.6\n8.9\n4.4\n2.9\n4.7\nCoal\n2.21\n4.37\n25.18\n57.90\n74.65\n91.31\n107.22\n123.54\n12.4\n15.2\n35.9\n53.9\n54.6\n55.1\n56.0\n56.2\n10.2\n18.1\n4.7\n3.1\n6.6\nOil\n2.71\n7.81\n15.58\n22.50\n30.25\n38.94\n47.63\n57.87\n15.2\n27.2\n22.2\n21.0\n22.1\n23.5\n24.9\n26.3\n7.2\n7.6\n5.6\n4.0\n5.4\nNatural gas\n0.00\n1.12\n9.62\n9.63\n15.42\n20.22\n23.25\n26.57\n0.0\n3.9\n13.7\n9.0\n11.3\n12.2\n12.1\n12.1\n38.1\n0.0\n7.7\n2.8\n4.1\nNuclear\n0.00\n0.00\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\nHydro\n0.46\n1.25\n5.43\n4.26\n4.95\n5.17\n5.12\n5.14\n2.6\n4.4\n7.8\n4.0\n3.6\n3.1\n2.7\n2.3\n10.4\n-4.7\n1.9\n0.0\n-0.2\nGeothermal\n - \n - \n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\nOthers\n12.47\n14.19\n14.25\n13.08\n11.57\n10.00\n8.34\n6.80\n69.8\n49.4\n20.3\n12.2\n8.5\n6.0\n4.4\n3.1\n0.5\n-1.7\n-2.6\n-3.8\n-2.9\nBiomass\n12.47\n14.19\n14.78\n12.59\n11.07\n9.45\n7.78\n6.22\n69.8\n49.4\n21.1\n11.7\n8.1\n5.7\n4.1\n2.8\n0.7\n-3.2\n-2.8\n-4.1\n-3.4\nSolar, Wind, \nOcean\n0.02\n0.02\n0.02\n0.03\n0.04\n0.05\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n-\n0.3\n5.1\n4.1\n3.7\nBiofuels\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.03\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n-\n-100.0\n-\n-\n9.1\nElectricity\n-0.55\n0.47\n0.47\n0.51\n0.51\n0.51\n0.0\n0.0\n-0.8\n0.4\n0.3\n0.3\n0.3\n0.2\n-\n-196.8\n0.9\n0.0\n-199.7\nTWh\nShare, %\nAAGR (%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nTotal\n8.68\n26.57\n159.81\n242.79\n323.27\n398.90 469.84\n546.15\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n12.4\n8.7\n5.1\n3.2\n5.0\nCoal\n2.00\n3.14\n51.00\n155.30\n200.30\n253.42\n313.14\n376.39\n23.1\n11.8\n31.9\n64.0\n62.0\n63.5\n66.6\n68.9\n13.8\n24.9\n5.0\n4.0\n8.3\nOil\n1.31\n4.52\n0.30\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n15.0\n17.0\n0.2\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n-5.8\n-100.0\n-\n-\n-100.0\nNatural gas\n0.01\n4.36\n44.93\n37.58\n65.05\n85.00\n96.72\n109.56\n0.1\n16.4\n28.1\n15.5\n20.1\n21.3\n20.6\n20.1\n42.9\n-3.5\n8.5\n2.6\n3.6\nNuclear\n0.00\n0.00\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\nHydro\n5.37\n14.55\n63.19\n49.56\n57.57\n60.11\n59.60\n59.82\n61.8\n54.8\n39.5\n20.4\n17.8\n15.1\n12.7\n11.0\n10.4\n-4.7\n1.9\n0.0\n-0.2\nGeothermal\n - \n - \n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\nOthers\n - \n - \n0.39\n0.35\n0.36\n0.38\n0.37\n0.37\n0.0\n0.0\n0.2\n0.1\n0.1\n0.1\n0.1\n0.1\n-\n-2.4\n0.8\n0.0\n-0.2\nMtoe\nShare, %\nAAGR (%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nTotal\n1.27\n3.56\n20.35\n43.92\n58.59\n73.49\n88.11\n103.29\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n11.7\n16.6\n5.3\n3.5\n6.7\nCoal\n0.89\n1.15\n12.53\n37.51\n47.58\n59.21\n71.99\n85.17\n69.8\n32.3\n61.6\n85.4\n81.2\n80.6\n81.7\n82.5\n11.2\n24.5\n4.7\n3.7\n8.0\nOil\n0.38\n1.31\n0.08\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n30.0\n36.8\n0.4\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n-6.1\n-100.0\n-\n-\n-100.0\nNatural gas\n0.00\n1.10\n7.74\n6.41\n11.01\n14.28\n16.12\n18.12\n0.2\n30.9\n38.0\n14.6\n18.8\n19.4\n18.3\n17.5\n36.9\n-3.7\n8.3\n2.4\n3.5\nMt-C\nShare, %\nAAGR (%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nTotal\n4.7\n12.0\n49.0\n90.4\n117.9\n145.2\n169.2\n195.2\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n9.8\n13.0\n4.9\n3.0\n5.7\nCoal\n2.5\n4.7\n28.0\n63.9\n82.7\n101.2\n118.3\n135.7\n53.2\n39.2\n57.2\n70.7\n70.1\n69.7\n69.9\n69.5\n10.1\n17.9\n4.7\n3.0\n6.5\nOil\n2.2\n6.4\n13.9\n19.4\n24.4\n30.3\n35.3\n41.7\n46.8\n53.3\n28.5\n21.5\n20.7\n20.9\n20.9\n21.4\n7.7\n6.8\n4.6\n3.2\n4.5\nNatural gas\n0.0\n0.9\n7.0\n7.1\n10.8\n13.6\n15.7\n17.9\n0.0\n7.5\n14.3\n7.8\n9.2\n9.4\n9.3\n9.1\n-\n0.2\n6.8\n2.7\n3.8\n%\nAAGR (%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nTotal\n22.4\n29.0\n40.7\n37.8\n39.0\n39.6\n40.0\n40.5\n2.4\n-1.5\n0.5\n0.2\n0.0\nCoal\n19.4\n23.5\n35.0\n35.6\n36.2\n36.8\n37.4\n38.0\n2.4\n0.3\n0.3\n0.3\n0.3\nOil\n29.4\n29.7\n32.3\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n0.4\n-\n-\n-\n-\nNatural gas\n17.2\n34.1\n49.9\n50.4\n50.8\n51.2\n51.6\n52.0\n4.4\n0.2\n0.2\n0.2\n0.2\nMtoe\nShare, %\nAAGR (%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nTotal\n16.06\n25.09\n56.31\n76.63\n96.43\n115.35\n132.39\n150.97\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n5.1\n6.4\n4.2\n2.7\n4.0\nIndustry\n4.54\n7.86\n23.68\n37.01\n49.13\n59.19\n68.17\n77.97\n28.3\n31.3\n42.0\n48.3\n50.9\n51.3\n51.5\n51.6\n6.8\n9.3\n4.8\n2.8\n4.9\nTransportation\n1.38\n3.50\n10.46\n14.91\n19.89\n25.79\n31.54\n37.56\n8.6\n13.9\n18.6\n19.5\n20.6\n22.4\n23.8\n24.9\n8.4\n7.3\n5.6\n3.8\n5.2\nOthers\n10.11\n13.60\n20.95\n23.03\n25.18\n27.57\n29.22\n31.24\n63.0\n54.2\n37.2\n30.1\n26.1\n23.9\n22.1\n20.7\n3.0\n1.9\n1.8\n1.3\n1.6\nNon-energy\n0.03\n0.13\n1.23\n1.68\n2.23\n2.81\n3.46\n4.20\n0.2\n0.5\n2.2\n2.2\n2.3\n2.4\n2.6\n2.8\n16.3\n6.5\n5.3\n4.1\n5.1\nTotal\n16.06\n25.09\n56.31\n76.63\n96.43\n115.35\n132.39\n150.97\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n5.1\n6.4\n4.2\n2.7\n4.0\nCoal\n1.33\n3.22\n12.65\n20.39\n27.08\n32.10\n35.22\n38.37\n8.3\n12.8\n22.5\n26.6\n28.1\n27.8\n26.6\n25.4\n9.4\n10.0\n4.6\n1.8\n4.5\nOil\n2.33\n6.51\n14.23\n19.96\n26.74\n34.73\n42.92\n51.82\n14.5\n26.0\n25.3\n26.0\n27.7\n30.1\n32.4\n34.3\n7.5\n7.0\n5.7\n4.1\n5.3\nNatural gas\n0.00\n0.02\n1.49\n2.57\n3.46\n4.34\n5.37\n6.53\n0.0\n0.1\n2.6\n3.4\n3.6\n3.8\n4.1\n4.3\n-\n11.5\n5.4\n4.2\n6.1\nElectricity\n0.53\n1.93\n12.14\n19.69\n26.13\n32.25\n37.97\n44.15\n3.3\n7.7\n21.6\n25.7\n27.1\n28.0\n28.7\n29.2\n13.3\n10.2\n5.1\n3.2\n5.3\nHeat\n - \n - \n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\nOthers\n11.87\n13.41\n15.81\n14.02\n13.02\n11.94\n10.91\n10.10\n73.9\n53.4\n28.1\n18.3\n13.5\n10.3\n8.2\n6.7\n1.2\n-2.4\n-1.6\n-1.7\n-1.8\nPrimary energy supply\nPower generation output\nPower generation input\nCO2 Emissions \nEnergy and economic indicators\nThermal efficiency\nFinal energy consumption\nViet Nam (BAU)\n\n\n383\nResults Summary Tables\nAAGR(%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nGDP (billions of 2010 US dollars)\n 17.8 \n 36.8 \n 154.5 \n 216.7 \n 296.9 \n 397.3 \n 519.3 \n 662.8 \n9.0\n7.0\n6.2\n5.2\n6.0\nPopulation (millions of people)\n 66.0 \n 77.6 \n 91.7 \n 96.2 \n 100.1 \n 103.1 \n 105.4 \n 107.0 \n1.3\n1.0\n0.7\n0.4\n0.6\nGDP per capita (thousands of 2010 US$/person)\n 0.3 \n 0.5 \n 1.7 \n 2.25 \n 3.0 \n 3.9 \n 4.9 \n 6.2 \n7.6\n6.0\n5.5\n4.9\n5.3\nPrimary energy consumption per capita (toe/person)\n 0.3 \n 0.4 \n 0.8 \n 1.09 \n 1.28 \n 1.45 \n 1.58 \n 1.72 \n4.2\n7.3\n2.9\n1.7\n3.3\nPrimary energy consumption per unit of GDP (toe/million \n2010 US dollars)\n 1,006 \n 780 \n 453 \n 482 \n 432 \n 376 \n 320 \n 277 \n-3.1\n1.2\n-2.4\n-3.0\n-2.0\nFinal energy consumption per unit of GDP (toe/million 2010 \nUS dollars)\n 905 \n 681 \n 364 \n 343 \n 306 \n 266 \n 227 \n 196 \n-3.6\n-1.2\n-2.5\n-3.0\n-2.4\nCO2 emissions per unit of GDP (t-C/million 2010 US dollars)\n 265 \n 326 \n 317 \n 397 \n 356 \n 310 \n 263 \n 226 \n0.7\n4.6\n-2.4\n-3.1\n-1.3\nCO2 emissions per unit of primary energy consumption \n(t-C/toe)\n 0.3 \n 0.4 \n 0.7 \n 0.82 \n 0.82 \n 0.83 \n 0.82 \n 0.82 \n4.0\n3.4\n0.0\n-0.1\n0.6\nAutomobile ownership volume (millions of vehicles)\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\nAutomobile ownership volume per capita (vehicles per \nperson)\n - \n - \n - \n - \n - \n - \n - \n - \n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\nMtoe\nShare, %\nAAGR (%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nTotal\n17.86\n28.74\n70.06\n104.37\n128.16\n149.37\n166.23\n183.66\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n5.6\n8.3\n3.7\n2.1\n3.9\nCoal\n2.21\n4.37\n25.18\n54.63\n65.11\n74.30\n81.81\n88.71\n12.4\n15.2\n35.9\n52.3\n50.8\n49.7\n49.2\n48.3\n10.2\n16.8\n3.1\n1.8\n5.2\nOil\n2.71\n7.81\n15.58\n21.66\n28.23\n35.30\n42.05\n49.81\n15.2\n27.2\n22.2\n20.8\n22.0\n23.6\n25.3\n27.1\n7.2\n6.8\n5.0\n3.5\n4.8\nNatural gas\n0.00\n1.12\n9.62\n9.37\n14.66\n18.63\n20.98\n23.42\n0.0\n3.9\n13.7\n9.0\n11.4\n12.5\n12.6\n12.8\n38.1\n-0.5\n7.1\n2.3\n3.6\nNuclear\n0.00\n0.00\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\nHydro\n0.46\n1.25\n5.43\n4.16\n4.71\n4.85\n4.67\n4.54\n2.6\n4.4\n7.8\n4.0\n3.7\n3.2\n2.8\n2.5\n10.4\n-5.2\n1.6\n-0.7\n-0.7\nGeothermal\n - \n - \n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\nOthers\n12.47\n14.19\n14.25\n14.55\n15.46\n16.29\n16.72\n17.18\n69.8\n49.4\n20.3\n13.9\n12.1\n10.9\n10.1\n9.4\n0.5\n0.4\n1.1\n0.5\n0.8\nBiomass\n12.47\n14.19\n14.78\n13.92\n14.13\n14.15\n13.77\n13.12\n69.8\n49.4\n21.1\n13.3\n11.0\n9.5\n8.3\n7.1\n0.7\n-1.2\n0.2\n-0.8\n-0.5\nSolar, Wind, \nOcean\n0.02\n0.16\n0.86\n1.63\n2.25\n2.87\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.2\n0.7\n1.1\n1.4\n1.6\n-\n53.8\n26.0\n5.8\n22.3\nBiofuels\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.19\n0.68\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.1\n0.4\n-\n-100.0\n-\n-\n24.0\nElectricity\n-0.55\n0.47\n0.47\n0.51\n0.51\n0.51\n0.0\n0.0\n-0.8\n0.5\n0.4\n0.3\n0.3\n0.3\n-\n-196.8\n0.9\n0.0\n-199.7\nTWh\nShare, %\nAAGR (%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nTotal\n8.68\n26.57\n159.81\n236.17\n305.82 366.66\n418.57\n470.84\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n12.4\n8.1\n4.5\n2.5\n4.4\nCoal\n2.00\n3.14\n51.00\n148.23\n176.49\n209.73\n245.31\n280.77\n23.1\n11.8\n31.9\n62.8\n57.7\n57.2\n58.6\n59.6\n13.8\n23.8\n3.5\n3.0\n7.1\nOil\n1.31\n4.52\n0.30\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n15.0\n17.0\n0.2\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n-5.8\n-100.0\n-\n-\n-100.0\nNatural gas\n0.01\n4.36\n44.93\n36.66\n61.89\n77.44\n85.86\n94.51\n0.1\n16.4\n28.1\n15.5\n20.2\n21.1\n20.5\n20.1\n42.9\n-4.0\n7.8\n2.0\n3.0\nNuclear\n0.00\n0.00\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\nHydro\n5.37\n14.55\n63.19\n48.34\n54.77\n56.44\n54.32\n52.81\n61.8\n54.8\n39.5\n20.5\n17.9\n15.4\n13.0\n11.2\n10.4\n-5.2\n1.6\n-0.7\n-0.7\nGeothermal\n - \n - \n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\nOthers\n - \n - \n0.39\n2.94\n12.67\n23.05\n33.07\n42.74\n0.0\n0.0\n0.2\n1.2\n4.1\n6.3\n7.9\n9.1\n-\n49.6\n22.9\n6.4\n20.6\nMtoe\nShare, %\nAAGR (%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nTotal\n1.27\n3.56\n20.35\n41.47\n50.87\n59.35\n66.81\n73.90\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n11.7\n15.3\n3.7\n2.2\n5.3\nCoal\n0.89\n1.15\n12.53\n35.41\n41.01\n47.46\n54.08\n60.36\n69.8\n32.3\n61.6\n85.4\n80.6\n80.0\n80.9\n81.7\n11.2\n23.1\n3.0\n2.4\n6.5\nOil\n0.38\n1.31\n0.08\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n30.0\n36.8\n0.4\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n-6.1\n-100.0\n-\n-\n-100.0\nNatural gas\n0.00\n1.10\n7.74\n6.06\n9.86\n11.89\n12.73\n13.54\n0.2\n30.9\n38.0\n14.6\n19.4\n20.0\n19.1\n18.3\n36.9\n-4.8\n7.0\n1.3\n2.3\nMt-C\nShare, %\nAAGR (%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nTotal\n4.7\n12.0\n49.0\n86.1\n105.6\n123.2\n136.4\n149.9\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n9.8\n11.9\n3.7\n2.0\n4.6\nCoal\n2.5\n4.7\n28.0\n60.3\n72.2\n82.6\n90.5\n97.7\n53.2\n39.2\n57.2\n70.1\n68.4\n67.1\n66.3\n65.1\n10.1\n16.6\n3.2\n1.7\n5.1\nOil\n2.2\n6.4\n13.9\n18.7\n22.8\n27.4\n30.9\n35.3\n46.8\n53.3\n28.5\n21.8\n21.6\n22.2\n22.6\n23.5\n7.7\n6.1\n3.9\n2.6\n3.8\nNatural gas\n0.0\n0.9\n7.0\n7.0\n10.6\n13.2\n15.0\n17.0\n0.0\n7.5\n14.3\n8.1\n10.0\n10.7\n11.0\n11.3\n-\n-0.1\n6.5\n2.6\n3.6\n%\nAAGR (%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nTotal\n22.4\n29.0\n40.7\n38.3\n40.3\n41.6\n42.6\n43.7\n2.4\n-1.2\n0.8\n0.5\n0.3\nCoal\n19.4\n23.5\n35.0\n36.0\n37.0\n38.0\n39.0\n40.0\n2.4\n0.6\n0.5\n0.5\n0.5\nOil\n29.4\n29.7\n32.3\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n0.4\n-\n-\n-\n-\nNatural gas\n17.2\n34.1\n49.9\n52.0\n54.0\n56.0\n58.0\n60.0\n4.4\n0.8\n0.7\n0.7\n0.7\nMtoe\nShare, %\nAAGR (%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nTotal\n16.06\n25.09\n56.31\n74.36\n90.90\n105.61\n117.66\n130.15\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n5.1\n5.7\n3.6\n2.1\n3.4\nIndustry\n4.54\n7.86\n23.68\n35.47\n45.37\n52.62\n58.39\n64.29\n28.3\n31.3\n42.0\n47.7\n49.9\n49.8\n49.6\n49.4\n6.8\n8.4\n4.0\n2.0\n4.1\nTransportation\n1.38\n3.50\n10.46\n14.46\n18.80\n23.82\n28.49\n33.23\n8.6\n13.9\n18.6\n19.4\n20.7\n22.6\n24.2\n25.5\n8.4\n6.7\n5.1\n3.4\n4.7\nOthers\n10.11\n13.60\n20.95\n22.75\n24.50\n26.36\n27.31\n28.43\n63.0\n54.2\n37.2\n30.6\n27.0\n25.0\n23.2\n21.8\n3.0\n1.7\n1.5\n0.8\n1.2\nNon-energy\n0.03\n0.13\n1.23\n1.68\n2.23\n2.81\n3.46\n4.20\n0.2\n0.5\n2.2\n2.3\n2.5\n2.7\n2.9\n3.2\n16.3\n6.5\n5.3\n4.1\n5.1\nTotal\n16.06\n25.09\n56.31\n74.36\n90.90\n105.61\n117.66\n130.15\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n5.1\n5.7\n3.6\n2.1\n3.4\nCoal\n1.33\n3.22\n12.65\n19.23\n24.09\n26.84\n27.73\n28.35\n8.3\n12.8\n22.5\n25.9\n26.5\n25.4\n23.6\n21.8\n9.4\n8.7\n3.4\n0.5\n3.3\nOil\n2.33\n6.51\n14.23\n19.13\n24.74\n31.16\n37.34\n43.77\n14.5\n26.0\n25.3\n25.7\n27.2\n29.5\n31.7\n33.6\n7.5\n6.1\n5.0\n3.5\n4.6\nNatural gas\n0.00\n0.02\n1.49\n2.66\n3.85\n5.14\n6.48\n7.95\n0.0\n0.1\n2.6\n3.6\n4.2\n4.9\n5.5\n6.1\n-\n12.3\n6.8\n4.5\n6.9\nElectricity\n0.53\n1.93\n12.14\n19.17\n24.75\n29.68\n33.88\n38.13\n3.3\n7.7\n21.6\n25.8\n27.2\n28.1\n28.8\n29.3\n13.3\n9.6\n4.5\n2.5\n4.7\nHeat\n - \n - \n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\nOthers\n11.87\n13.41\n15.81\n14.18\n13.48\n12.80\n12.23\n11.95\n73.9\n53.4\n28.1\n19.1\n14.8\n12.1\n10.4\n9.2\n1.2\n-2.1\n-1.0\n-0.7\n-1.1\nPrimary energy supply\nPower generation output\nPower generation input\nCO2 Emissions \nEnergy and economic indicators\nThermal efficiency\nFinal energy consumption\nViet Nam (APS)\n\n\n384\nENERGY OUTLOOK AND ENERGY SAVING POTENTIAL IN EAST ASIA 2019\nAAGR(%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nGDP (billions of 2010 US dollars)\n9,064\n12,713\n16,598\n18,394\n20,260\n22,629\n25,118\n27,677\n2.4\n2.1\n2.1\n2.0\n2.1\nPopulation (millions of people)\n250\n282\n321\n333\n345\n356\n367\n376\n1.0\n0.7\n0.7\n0.5\n0.6\nGDP per capita (thousands of 2010 US$/person)\n 36.31 \n 45.06 \n 51.64 \n 55.24 \n 58.8 \n 63.5 \n 68.5 \n 73.6 \n1.4\n1.4\n1.4\n1.5\n1.4\nPrimary energy consumption per capita (toe/person)\n 7.67 \n 8.06 \n 6.81 \n 6.50 \n 6.27 \n 6.08 \n 5.88 \n 5.70 \n-0.5\n-0.9\n-0.7\n-0.6\n-0.7\nPrimary energy consumption per unit of GDP (toe/million \n2010 US dollars)\n 211 \n 179 \n 132 \n 118 \n 107 \n 96 \n 86 \n 77 \n-1.9\n-2.2\n-2.0\n-2.1\n-2.1\nFinal energy consumption per unit of GDP (toe/million 2010 \nUS dollars)\n 143 \n 122 \n 92 \n 82 \n 75 \n 67 \n 61 \n 55 \n-1.8\n-2.1\n-2.0\n-2.0\n-2.0\nCO2 emissions per unit of GDP (t-C/million 2010 US dollars)\n 145 \n 121 \n 83 \n 72 \n 64 \n 56 \n 50 \n 44 \n-2.2\n-2.9\n-2.4\n-2.4\n-2.5\nCO2 emissions per unit of primary energy consumption \n(t-C/toe)\n 0.69 \n 0.67 \n 0.63 \n 0.61 \n 0.60 \n 0.59 \n 0.58 \n 0.57 \n-0.3\n-0.6\n-0.4\n-0.3\n-0.4\nAutomobile ownership volume (millions of vehicles)\n 189 \n 221 \n 255 \n 267 \n 278 \n 292 \n 306 \n 319 \n1.2\n0.9\n0.9\n0.9\n0.9\nAutomobile ownership volume per capita (vehicles per \nperson)\n 0.756 \n 0.785 \n 0.793 \n 0.801 \n 0.805 \n 0.819 \n 0.834 \n 0.849 \n0.2\n0.2\n0.2\n0.4\n0.3\nMtoe\nShare, %\nAAGR (%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nTotal\n1,915.1\n2,273.3 2,188.3 2,164.6 2,160.6 2,167.3\n2,155.3 2,143.0\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n0.5\n-0.2\n0.0\n-0.1\n-0.1\nCoal\n460.3\n533.6\n374.1\n334.6\n319.8\n311.4\n301.4\n289.3\n24.0\n23.5\n17.1\n15.5\n14.8\n14.4\n14.0\n13.5\n-0.8\n-2.2\n-0.7\n-0.7\n-1.0\nOil\n756.8\n871.1\n794.0\n765.7\n737.3\n719.0\n697.3\n676.9\n39.5\n38.3\n36.3\n35.4\n34.1\n33.2\n32.4\n31.6\n0.2\n-0.7\n-0.6\n-0.6\n-0.6\nNatural gas\n438.2\n547.6\n646.4\n663.6\n681.0\n702.4\n717.1\n724.6\n22.9\n24.1\n29.5\n30.7\n31.5\n32.4\n33.3\n33.8\n1.6\n0.5\n0.6\n0.3\n0.5\nNuclear\n159.4\n207.9\n216.4\n210.0\n210.2\n208.7\n195.9\n190.7\n8.3\n9.1\n9.9\n9.7\n9.7\n9.6\n9.1\n8.9\n1.2\n-0.6\n-0.1\n-0.9\n-0.5\nHydro\n23.5\n21.8\n21.6\n25.0\n25.2\n25.4\n25.5\n25.7\n1.2\n1.0\n1.0\n1.2\n1.2\n1.2\n1.2\n1.2\n-0.3\n3.0\n0.2\n0.1\n0.7\nGeothermal\n14.1\n13.1\n9.0\n13.5\n18.8\n20.8\n23.6\n26.3\n0.7\n0.6\n0.4\n0.6\n0.9\n1.0\n1.1\n1.2\n-1.8\n8.4\n4.5\n2.3\n4.4\nOthers\n62.7\n78.2\n126.9\n152.2\n168.2\n179.6\n194.4\n209.5\n3.3\n3.4\n5.8\n7.0\n7.8\n8.3\n9.0\n9.8\n2.9\n3.7\n1.7\n1.6\n2.0\nBiomass\n61.5\n67.3\n60.6\n65.9\n68.5\n70.7\n72.2\n73.8\n3.2\n3.0\n2.8\n3.0\n3.2\n3.3\n3.3\n3.4\n-0.1\n1.7\n0.7\n0.4\n0.8\nSolar, Wind, \nOcean\n0.3\n2.1\n22.4\n39.3\n47.6\n57.4\n69.4\n81.4\n0.0\n0.1\n1.0\n1.8\n2.2\n2.6\n3.2\n3.8\n18.5\n11.9\n3.9\n3.6\n5.3\nBiofuels\n0.7\n5.9\n38.2\n42.5\n47.5\n46.9\n48.3\n49.7\n0.0\n0.3\n1.7\n2.0\n2.2\n2.2\n2.2\n2.3\n17.1\n2.2\n1.0\n0.6\n1.1\nElectricity\n0.2\n2.9\n5.7\n4.6\n4.6\n4.6\n4.6\n4.6\n0.0\n0.1\n0.3\n0.2\n0.2\n0.2\n0.2\n0.2\n15.1\n-4.4\n0.0\n0.0\n-0.9\nTWh\nShare, %\nAAGR (%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nTotal\n3,202.8 4,025.9 4,297.0 4,462.4 4,622.7 4,831.2 5,016.1\n5,173.8\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n1.2\n0.8\n0.8\n0.7\n0.7\nCoal\n1,699.6\n2,129.5\n1,471.0\n1,316.0\n1,291.7\n1,302.6\n1,302.9\n1,279.3\n53.1\n52.9\n34.2\n29.5\n27.9\n27.0\n26.0\n24.7\n-0.6\n-2.2\n-0.1\n-0.2\n-0.6\nOil\n130.6\n118.5\n38.8\n14.8\n13.8\n11.9\n11.5\n10.8\n4.1\n2.9\n0.9\n0.3\n0.3\n0.2\n0.2\n0.2\n-4.7\n-17.5\n-2.2\n-1.0\n-5.0\nNatural gas\n381.7\n634.3\n1,372.6\n1,512.1\n1,581.3\n1,671.7\n1,778.9\n1,854.2\n11.9\n15.8\n31.9\n33.9\n34.2\n34.6\n35.5\n35.8\n5.3\n2.0\n1.0\n1.0\n1.2\nNuclear\n611.6\n797.7\n830.3\n805.8\n806.6\n800.8\n751.8\n731.9\n19.1\n19.8\n19.3\n18.1\n17.4\n16.6\n15.0\n14.1\n1.2\n-0.6\n-0.1\n-0.9\n-0.5\nHydro\n273.2\n253.2\n251.0\n290.5\n293.2\n295.4\n297.1\n298.4\n8.5\n6.3\n5.8\n6.5\n6.3\n6.1\n5.9\n5.8\n-0.3\n3.0\n0.2\n0.1\n0.7\nGeothermal\n16.0\n14.6\n18.7\n28.4\n39.9\n44.2\n50.0\n55.9\n0.5\n0.4\n0.4\n0.6\n0.9\n0.9\n1.0\n1.1\n0.6\n8.6\n4.5\n2.4\n4.5\nOthers\n90.1\n78.1\n314.6\n494.8\n596.2\n704.6\n824.0\n943.3\n2.8\n1.9\n7.3\n11.1\n12.9\n14.6\n16.4\n18.2\n5.1\n9.5\n3.6\n3.0\n4.5\nMtoe\nShare, %\nAAGR (%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nTotal\n513.0\n668.0\n591.4\n560.4\n551.2\n549.9\n550.0\n544.0\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n0.6\n-1.1\n-0.2\n-0.1\n-0.3\nCoal\n396.0\n501.6\n340.8\n303.1\n289.3\n281.8\n272.9\n262.0\n77.2\n75.1\n57.6\n54.1\n52.5\n51.2\n49.6\n48.2\n-0.6\n-2.3\n-0.7\n-0.7\n-1.0\nOil\n27.2\n29.6\n8.9\n3.5\n3.2\n2.7\n2.6\n2.4\n5.3\n4.4\n1.5\n0.6\n0.6\n0.5\n0.5\n0.4\n-4.4\n-17.2\n-2.3\n-1.1\n-5.1\nNatural gas\n89.7\n136.9\n241.7\n253.8\n258.7\n265.4\n274.5\n279.6\n17.5\n20.5\n40.9\n45.3\n46.9\n48.3\n49.9\n51.4\n4.0\n1.0\n0.4\n0.5\n0.6\nMt-C\nShare, %\nAAGR (%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nTotal\n1,314.7\n1,532.0 1,382.9 1,324.4 1,292.2 1,277.6 1,255.4 1,228.9\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n0.2\n-0.9\n-0.4\n-0.4\n-0.5\nCoal\n497.1\n576.3\n404.1\n361.4\n345.4\n336.3\n325.5\n312.5\n37.8\n37.6\n29.2\n27.3\n26.7\n26.3\n25.9\n25.4\n-0.8\n-2.2\n-0.7\n-0.7\n-1.0\nOil\n545.6\n615.8\n574.4\n548.0\n521.3\n502.6\n482.2\n464.1\n41.5\n40.2\n41.5\n41.4\n40.3\n39.3\n38.4\n37.8\n0.2\n-0.9\n-0.9\n-0.8\n-0.8\nNatural gas\n272.0\n339.8\n404.4\n415.0\n425.5\n438.7\n447.7\n452.3\n20.7\n22.2\n29.2\n31.3\n32.9\n34.3\n35.7\n36.8\n1.6\n0.5\n0.6\n0.3\n0.4\n%\nAAGR (%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nTotal\n37.1\n37.1\n41.9\n43.6\n45.0\n46.7\n48.4\n49.7\n0.5\n0.8\n0.7\n0.6\n0.7\nCoal\n36.9\n36.5\n37.1\n37.3\n38.4\n39.8\n41.1\n42.0\n0.0\n0.1\n0.6\n0.5\n0.5\nOil\n41.2\n34.5\n37.5\n36.9\n37.2\n37.5\n37.9\n38.2\n-0.4\n-0.3\n0.2\n0.2\n0.1\nNatural gas\n36.6\n39.9\n48.8\n51.2\n52.6\n54.2\n55.7\n57.0\n1.2\n1.0\n0.6\n0.5\n0.6\nMtoe\nShare, %\nAAGR (%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nTotal\n1,293.5 1,546.2 1,520.1\n1,514.8\n1,513.1\n1,521.6\n1,519.9\n1,514.8\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n0.6\n-0.1\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\nIndustry\n283.7\n332.3\n261.6\n259.1\n260.3\n264.0\n265.3\n265.0\n21.9\n21.5\n17.2\n17.1\n17.2\n17.4\n17.5\n17.5\n-0.3\n-0.2\n0.2\n0.0\n0.1\nTransportation\n487.6\n588.2\n629.0\n612.6\n595.6\n583.6\n569.8\n559.0\n37.7\n38.0\n41.4\n40.4\n39.4\n38.4\n37.5\n36.9\n1.0\n-0.5\n-0.5\n-0.4\n-0.5\nOthers\n403.2\n472.7\n506.3\n515.8\n525.4\n537.3\n544.9\n549.4\n31.2\n30.6\n33.3\n34.1\n34.7\n35.3\n35.8\n36.3\n0.9\n0.4\n0.4\n0.2\n0.3\nNon-energy\n119.0\n153.0\n123.3\n127.2\n131.8\n136.7\n140.0\n141.5\n9.2\n9.9\n8.1\n8.4\n8.7\n9.0\n9.2\n9.3\n0.1\n0.6\n0.7\n0.3\n0.6\nTotal\n1,293.5 1,546.2 1,520.1\n1,514.8\n1,513.1\n1,521.6\n1,519.9\n1,514.8\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n0.6\n-0.1\n0.0\n0.0\n0.0\nCoal\n55.7\n32.6\n19.5\n18.3\n17.5\n16.8\n16.0\n15.1\n4.3\n2.1\n1.3\n1.2\n1.2\n1.1\n1.1\n1.0\n-4.1\n-1.3\n-0.8\n-1.1\n-1.0\nOil\n683.3\n793.4\n757.9\n735.9\n710.5\n694.7\n674.0\n654.5\n52.8\n51.3\n49.9\n48.6\n47.0\n45.7\n44.3\n43.2\n0.4\n-0.6\n-0.6\n-0.6\n-0.6\nNatural gas\n303.0\n359.9\n333.2\n337.2\n344.7\n354.2\n358.4\n359.9\n23.4\n23.3\n21.9\n22.3\n22.8\n23.3\n23.6\n23.8\n0.4\n0.2\n0.5\n0.2\n0.3\nElectricity\n226.5\n301.0\n325.2\n336.6\n349.1\n365.6\n380.6\n393.9\n17.5\n19.5\n21.4\n22.2\n23.1\n24.0\n25.0\n26.0\n1.5\n0.7\n0.8\n0.7\n0.8\nHeat\n2.2\n5.3\n5.5\n5.6\n5.8\n6.1\n6.3\n6.5\n0.2\n0.3\n0.4\n0.4\n0.4\n0.4\n0.4\n0.4\n3.8\n0.4\n0.9\n0.6\n0.7\nOthers\n22.9\n54.1\n79.0\n81.2\n85.4\n84.1\n84.6\n85.0\n1.8\n3.5\n5.2\n5.4\n5.6\n5.5\n5.6\n5.6\n5.1\n0.6\n0.3\n0.1\n0.3\nPrimary energy consumption\nPower generation output\nPower generation input\nCO2 Emissions \nEnergy and economic indicators\nThermal efficiency\nFinal energy demand\nUnited States (BAU)\n\n\n385\nResults Summary Tables\nAAGR(%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nGDP (billions of 2010 US dollars)\n9,064\n12,713\n16,598\n18,394\n20,260\n22,629\n25,118\n27,677\n2.4\n2.1\n2.1\n2.0\n2.1\nPopulation (millions of people)\n250\n282\n321\n333\n345\n356\n367\n376\n1.0\n0.7\n0.7\n0.5\n0.6\nGDP per capita (thousands of 2010 US$/person)\n 36.31 \n 45.06 \n 51.64 \n 55.24 \n 58.8 \n 63.5 \n 68.5 \n 73.6 \n1.4\n1.4\n1.4\n1.5\n1.4\nPrimary energy consumption per capita (toe/person)\n 7.67 \n 8.06 \n 6.81 \n 6.43 \n 6.05 \n 5.71 \n 5.36 \n 5.08 \n-0.5\n-1.1\n-1.2\n-1.2\n-1.2\nPrimary energy consumption per unit of GDP (toe/million \n2010 US dollars)\n 211 \n 179 \n 132 \n 116 \n 103 \n 90 \n 78 \n 69 \n-1.9\n-2.5\n-2.5\n-2.6\n-2.6\nFinal energy consumption per unit of GDP (toe/million 2010 \nUS dollars)\n 143 \n 122 \n 92 \n 82 \n 73 \n 64 \n 56 \n 50 \n-1.8\n-2.2\n-2.4\n-2.5\n-2.4\nCO2 emissions per unit of GDP (t-C/million 2010 US dollars)\n 145 \n 121 \n 83 \n 71 \n 59 \n 48 \n 40 \n 33 \n-2.2\n-3.3\n-3.7\n-3.9\n-3.7\nCO2 emissions per unit of primary energy consumption \n(t-C/toe)\n 0.69 \n 0.67 \n 0.63 \n 0.61 \n 0.57 \n 0.54 \n 0.51 \n 0.47 \n-0.3\n-0.8\n-1.2\n-1.3\n-1.2\nAutomobile ownership volume (millions of vehicles)\n 189 \n 221 \n 255 \n 267 \n 278 \n 292 \n 306 \n 319 \n1.2\n0.9\n0.9\n0.9\n0.9\nAutomobile ownership volume per capita (vehicles per \nperson)\n 0.756 \n 0.785 \n 0.793 \n 0.801 \n 0.805 \n 0.819 \n 0.834 \n 0.849 \n0.2\n0.2\n0.2\n0.4\n0.3\nMtoe\nShare, %\nAAGR (%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nTotal\n1,915.1\n2,273.3 2,188.3 2,140.3 2,085.3 2,033.8 1,966.0 1,910.2\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n0.5\n-0.4\n-0.5\n-0.6\n-0.5\nCoal\n460.3\n533.6\n374.1\n319.4\n259.9\n213.7\n171.3\n129.7\n24.0\n23.5\n17.1\n14.9\n12.5\n10.5\n8.7\n6.8\n-0.8\n-3.1\n-3.9\n-4.9\n-4.1\nOil\n756.8\n871.1\n794.0\n766.2\n712.7\n662.5\n611.7\n567.6\n39.5\n38.3\n36.3\n35.8\n34.2\n32.6\n31.1\n29.7\n0.2\n-0.7\n-1.4\n-1.5\n-1.3\nNatural gas\n438.2\n547.6\n646.4\n647.5\n648.7\n654.5\n648.0\n626.6\n22.9\n24.1\n29.5\n30.3\n31.1\n32.2\n33.0\n32.8\n1.6\n0.0\n0.1\n-0.4\n-0.1\nNuclear\n159.4\n207.9\n216.4\n210.0\n210.2\n208.7\n197.7\n206.5\n8.3\n9.1\n9.9\n9.8\n10.1\n10.3\n10.1\n10.8\n1.2\n-0.6\n-0.1\n-0.1\n-0.2\nHydro\n23.5\n21.8\n21.6\n25.0\n25.2\n25.4\n25.5\n25.7\n1.2\n1.0\n1.0\n1.2\n1.2\n1.2\n1.3\n1.3\n-0.3\n3.0\n0.2\n0.1\n0.7\nGeothermal\n14.1\n13.1\n9.0\n13.5\n26.1\n33.2\n38.0\n42.8\n0.7\n0.6\n0.4\n0.6\n1.3\n1.6\n1.9\n2.2\n-1.8\n8.4\n9.4\n2.6\n6.4\nOthers\n62.7\n78.2\n126.9\n158.9\n202.5\n235.7\n273.9\n311.3\n3.3\n3.4\n5.8\n7.4\n9.7\n11.6\n13.9\n16.3\n2.9\n4.6\n4.0\n2.8\n3.7\nBiomass\n61.5\n67.3\n60.6\n67.7\n70.8\n73.3\n74.6\n76.0\n3.2\n3.0\n2.8\n3.2\n3.4\n3.6\n3.8\n4.0\n-0.1\n2.2\n0.8\n0.4\n0.9\nSolar, Wind, \nOcean\n0.3\n2.1\n22.4\n43.3\n68.7\n91.3\n121.4\n151.4\n0.0\n0.1\n1.0\n2.0\n3.3\n4.5\n6.2\n7.9\n18.5\n14.1\n7.7\n5.2\n8.0\nBiofuels\n0.7\n5.9\n38.2\n43.3\n58.4\n66.6\n73.3\n79.3\n0.0\n0.3\n1.7\n2.0\n2.8\n3.3\n3.7\n4.2\n17.1\n2.5\n4.4\n1.8\n3.0\nElectricity\n0.2\n2.9\n5.7\n4.6\n4.6\n4.6\n4.6\n4.6\n0.0\n0.1\n0.3\n0.2\n0.2\n0.2\n0.2\n0.2\n15.1\n-4.4\n0.0\n0.0\n-0.9\nTWh\nShare, %\nAAGR (%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nTotal\n3,202.8 4,025.9 4,297.0 4,414.9 4,512.4 4,664.8 4,797.2 4,897.6\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n1.2\n0.5\n0.6\n0.5\n0.5\nCoal\n1,699.6\n2,129.5\n1,471.0\n1,256.6\n1,038.3\n870.9\n705.2\n525.6\n53.1\n52.9\n34.2\n28.5\n23.0\n18.7\n14.7\n10.7\n-0.6\n-3.1\n-3.6\n-4.9\n-4.0\nOil\n130.6\n118.5\n38.8\n33.0\n27.1\n22.6\n18.1\n13.3\n4.1\n2.9\n0.9\n0.7\n0.6\n0.5\n0.4\n0.3\n-4.7\n-3.2\n-3.7\n-5.2\n-4.2\nNatural gas\n381.7\n634.3\n1,372.6\n1,449.8\n1,485.3\n1,556.8\n1,598.1\n1,545.6\n11.9\n15.8\n31.9\n32.8\n32.9\n33.4\n33.3\n31.6\n5.3\n1.1\n0.7\n-0.1\n0.5\nNuclear\n611.6\n797.7\n830.3\n805.8\n806.6\n800.8\n758.5\n792.5\n19.1\n19.8\n19.3\n18.3\n17.9\n17.2\n15.8\n16.2\n1.2\n-0.6\n-0.1\n-0.1\n-0.2\nHydro\n273.2\n253.2\n251.0\n290.5\n293.2\n295.4\n297.1\n298.4\n8.5\n6.3\n5.8\n6.6\n6.5\n6.3\n6.2\n6.1\n-0.3\n3.0\n0.2\n0.1\n0.7\nGeothermal\n16.0\n14.6\n18.7\n28.4\n55.5\n70.8\n81.1\n91.5\n0.5\n0.4\n0.4\n0.6\n1.2\n1.5\n1.7\n1.9\n0.6\n8.6\n9.6\n2.6\n6.6\nOthers\n90.1\n78.1\n314.6\n550.9\n806.3\n1,047.5\n1,339.1\n1,630.7\n2.8\n1.9\n7.3\n12.5\n17.9\n22.5\n27.9\n33.3\n5.1\n11.9\n6.6\n4.5\n6.8\nMtoe\nShare, %\nAAGR (%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nTotal\n513.0\n668.0\n591.4\n537.9\n476.7\n433.4\n389.5\n334.1\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n0.6\n-1.9\n-2.1\n-2.6\n-2.3\nCoal\n396.0\n501.6\n340.8\n288.0\n230.1\n185.3\n144.4\n104.6\n77.2\n75.1\n57.6\n53.5\n48.3\n42.7\n37.1\n31.3\n-0.6\n-3.3\n-4.3\n-5.6\n-4.6\nOil\n27.2\n29.6\n8.9\n7.7\n6.2\n5.1\n4.0\n2.9\n5.3\n4.4\n1.5\n1.4\n1.3\n1.2\n1.0\n0.9\n-4.4\n-3.0\n-4.0\n-5.4\n-4.4\nNatural gas\n89.7\n136.9\n241.7\n242.2\n240.4\n243.1\n241.1\n226.5\n17.5\n20.5\n40.9\n45.0\n50.4\n56.1\n61.9\n67.8\n4.0\n0.0\n0.0\n-0.7\n-0.3\nMt-C\nShare, %\nAAGR (%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nTotal\n1,314.7\n1,532.0 1,382.9 1,298.0\n1,186.1\n1,094.1\n998.8\n902.2\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n0.2\n-1.3\n-1.7\n-1.9\n-1.7\nCoal\n497.1\n576.3\n404.1\n344.9\n280.7\n230.8\n185.0\n140.1\n37.8\n37.6\n29.2\n26.6\n23.7\n21.1\n18.5\n15.5\n-0.8\n-3.1\n-3.9\n-4.9\n-4.1\nOil\n545.6\n615.8\n574.4\n548.5\n500.6\n455.3\n410.4\n372.6\n41.5\n40.2\n41.5\n42.3\n42.2\n41.6\n41.1\n41.3\n0.2\n-0.9\n-1.8\n-2.0\n-1.7\nNatural gas\n272.0\n339.8\n404.4\n404.6\n404.8\n408.0\n403.4\n389.5\n20.7\n22.2\n29.2\n31.2\n34.1\n37.3\n40.4\n43.2\n1.6\n0.0\n0.1\n-0.5\n-0.2\n%\nAAGR (%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nTotal\n37.1\n37.1\n41.9\n43.8\n46.0\n48.6\n51.3\n53.7\n0.5\n0.9\n1.0\n1.0\n1.0\nCoal\n36.9\n36.5\n37.1\n37.5\n38.8\n40.4\n42.0\n43.2\n0.0\n0.2\n0.7\n0.7\n0.6\nOil\n41.2\n34.5\n37.5\n37.1\n37.6\n38.2\n38.8\n39.3\n-0.4\n-0.2\n0.3\n0.3\n0.2\nNatural gas\n36.6\n39.9\n48.8\n51.5\n53.1\n55.1\n57.0\n58.7\n1.2\n1.1\n0.7\n0.6\n0.7\nMtoe\nShare, %\nAAGR (%)\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990\n2000\n2015\n2020\n2025\n2030\n2035\n2040\n1990-\n2015 \n2015-\n2020 \n2020-\n2030 \n2030-\n2040 \n2015-\n2040 \nTotal\n1,293.5 1,546.2 1,520.1 1,503.9 1,476.4 1,449.7 1,413.7 1,379.0\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n0.6\n-0.2\n-0.4\n-0.5\n-0.4\nIndustry\n283.7\n332.3\n261.6\n257.5\n255.5\n254.8\n250.3\n243.2\n21.9\n21.5\n17.2\n17.1\n17.3\n17.6\n17.7\n17.6\n-0.3\n-0.3\n-0.1\n-0.5\n-0.3\nTransportation\n487.6\n588.2\n629.0\n610.0\n582.2\n553.3\n523.6\n501.4\n37.7\n38.0\n41.4\n40.6\n39.4\n38.2\n37.0\n36.4\n1.0\n-0.6\n-1.0\n-1.0\n-0.9\nOthers\n403.2\n472.7\n506.3\n509.1\n506.9\n504.9\n499.7\n493.0\n31.2\n30.6\n33.3\n33.9\n34.3\n34.8\n35.4\n35.7\n0.9\n0.1\n-0.1\n-0.2\n-0.1\nNon-energy\n119.0\n153.0\n123.3\n127.2\n131.8\n136.7\n140.0\n141.5\n9.2\n9.9\n8.1\n8.5\n8.9\n9.4\n9.9\n10.3\n0.1\n0.6\n0.7\n0.3\n0.6\nTotal\n1,293.5 1,546.2 1,520.1 1,503.9 1,476.4 1,449.7 1,413.7 1,379.0\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n100\n0.6\n-0.2\n-0.4\n-0.5\n-0.4\nCoal\n55.7\n32.6\n19.5\n18.2\n17.2\n16.2\n15.1\n13.9\n4.3\n2.1\n1.3\n1.2\n1.2\n1.1\n1.1\n1.0\n-4.1\n-1.4\n-1.1\n-1.5\n-1.3\nOil\n683.3\n793.4\n757.9\n732.3\n684.2\n638.9\n591.6\n550.9\n52.8\n51.3\n49.9\n48.7\n46.3\n44.1\n41.9\n39.9\n0.4\n-0.7\n-1.4\n-1.5\n-1.3\nNatural gas\n303.0\n359.9\n333.2\n333.4\n332.9\n332.4\n327.9\n321.4\n23.4\n23.3\n21.9\n22.2\n22.5\n22.9\n23.2\n23.3\n0.4\n0.0\n0.0\n-0.3\n-0.1\nElectricity\n226.5\n301.0\n325.2\n333.2\n341.4\n354.4\n366.2\n375.8\n17.5\n19.5\n21.4\n22.2\n23.1\n24.4\n25.9\n27.3\n1.5\n0.5\n0.6\n0.6\n0.6\nHeat\n2.2\n5.3\n5.5\n5.5\n5.7\n5.9\n6.0\n6.0\n0.2\n0.3\n0.4\n0.4\n0.4\n0.4\n0.4\n0.4\n3.8\n0.3\n0.6\n0.1\n0.4\nOthers\n22.9\n54.1\n79.0\n81.3\n94.9\n101.7\n106.8\n111.0\n1.8\n3.5\n5.2\n5.4\n6.4\n7.0\n7.6\n8.1\n5.1\n0.6\n2.3\n0.9\n1.4\nPrimary energy consumption\nPower generation output\nPower generation input\nCO2 Emissions \nEnergy and economic indicators\nThermal efficiency\nFinal energy demand\nUnited States (APS)","difficulty":"hard","domain":"Single-Document QA","length":"long","question":"Based on the energy outlook and policy scenarios presented in the report, which of the following statements best represents the projected impact of implementing the Alternative Policy Scenario (APS) compared to the Business-As-Usual (BAU) scenario on Malaysia's energy consumption and CO2 emissions by 2040?","sub_domain":"Governmental"} Source: https://huggingface.co/datasets/zai-org/LongBench-v2 initial import Posting: /agents GET /api/v1/write?intent=publish&task_id=11fefad4-6a26-5957-b07e-c9057c2dec5e&body={url_encoded_text}&agent_name={optional_name}&nonce={optional_random_id}