Household Energy Planning for Low Carbon Emission in Nepal (Vision 2030)

Lohani S.P. *, Adhikari J.R., Lama R.

Department of mechanical Engineering, Kathmandu University , Dhulikhel , Nepal
*Email: splohani @ ku.edu.np

Abstract-Although Nepal has very low per capita emissions as well as total emissions and still needs to meet basic development needs like education, healthcare, and the like, it has moral obligation to opt for low carbon development pathway. In this analysis the base case scenario and the low carbon emission scenario has been compared for the emission and cost factors. This paper deals with energy planning for low carbon emission scenario at household energy consumption sector till 2030. The base case scenario of energy mix and technological option are changed with low carbon content energy mix such as renewable energy, and increase use of modern and efficient technology. The low carbon emission energy planning is done using an energy planning software Long-Range Energy Alternatives Planning System (LEAP). This software provides long range emission projection for different emission scenario, which can be used as a reference for future energy planning of the country. The result of this analysis shows that the carbon dioxide (CO2) emission in base case scenario is higher than that of low carbon development pathway. A comparative result indicates that for base case scenario in 2030, CO2 emission is 44690 tons whereas for low carbon development pathway, the CO2 emission is about 23100 tons. However, energy cost per capita surge up with low emission scenario and is about 8951 USD / capita / year in contrast with 3282 USD / capita /year in base case scenario. Thus LCS will be very beneficial for sustainable development and CO2 stabilization. Nevertheless, the increased energy cost in low emission development pathway can be compensated through international financial assistance: direct financial assistance, technological transfer or carbon trading mechanism like CDM. Keywords- Base case scenario, Carbon dioxide, Energy cost, LEAP, Low carbon scenario, Projection, Renewable energy 1

List of Acronyms AEPC: Alternative Energy Promotion Center BCS: Base case scenario CDM: clean development mechanism CO2: Carbon dioxide GHG: green house gas GJ: Gigajoule HH: House hold i.e.: that is IPCC: Intergovernmental Panel ON Climate Change LEAP: Long-range Energy Alternative Planning LCS: low carbon scenario LPG: Liquefied petroleum gas $: U.S. dollar sq.km: square kilometer

1. Introduction
The modern era of human civilization is confronted by global warming phenomenon, which is resulting into climate change, one of the biggest challenges to humans. The Global Warming is caused by increase in the GHG emissions which, in turn, is increasing the greenhouse effect of the earth. According to IPCC, the temperature increase in 20th century likely to have been the largest of any century in past 100 years [1]. The overwhelming consensus among climate scientists is that most of the increase is due to human economic activity, especially the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation. These activities contribute as build-up in CO2 and other gases in Earths atmosphere. There will be catastrophic effects in the ecosystems of the planet. About 15 to 40% of species will face potential extinction even after only 2C of warming [1]. Most of the developing countries including Nepal which are in the already warm regions of the earth are experiencing further increase in temperature. Over the last twentyfive years, the temperature in Nepal has been increasing at the rate of 0.06OC per year. In high altitudes, it increased by 0.6OC over the last thirty years [2]. It is almost certain that Nepal, along with the other developing countries will encounter greater impact of global warming in terms of decreased agricultural produce (which these countries economy depend upon), shortage of water, mass migration, increase in diseases causing overburden to the already poor health sector. These impacts will further adversely affect the socio-economic development of this part of the world. Since the extent of global warming and thus climate change is related to the concentration of greenhouse gases. Stabilizing emissions of CO2 at current levels would not lead to stabilization in the atmospheric concentration of CO2 [1]. The reason for this is human activities adding CO2 to the atmosphere faster than its removal from natural processes. On the other hand Climate change adaptation is especially important in developing countries since those countries are predicted to bear the brunt of the effects of climate change as shown by the Vulnerability Index. South Asian countries such as Nepal are the most vulnerable to the climate change due to extreme levels of poverty and a high dependency on agriculture, coming in first and second position [3]. In the developing country like Nepal that is already under the considerable environmental stress, climate change will exert additional stress to the ecological and the social systems. In addition, the Kyoto Protocol established three market-based 3

mechanisms to help bring down the costs of lowering emissions. These mechanisms are known as joint implementation, the CDM, and emissions trading [4]. Under joint implementation and the CDM, a country can invest in a project to curb emissions in another country, where it is cheaper to do so and thereby acquire the resulting credit to offset against its own target. Under emissions trading, a country that exceeds its own target of lowering emissions can transfer the surplus credits to another country which is finding it more difficult to reduce its emissions. Developing countries can participate, but only through the CDM. Nepal can take huge advantage of CDM and carbon trading by increasing share of renewable energy in household. Carbon dioxide is the major GHG that is emitted in large volume by human activities. Carbon dioxide is emitted during the production, transportation and consumption of the fossil fuels (such as coal, oil, gas etc.) as energy sources in numerous activities to produce goods and services. The global environmental consequences of anthropogenic GHG emissions are an urgent concern in the scientific community. The UNFCCC, which was adopted in May 1992, sets an ultimate objective of stabilizing GHG concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that will prevent dangerous human-induced interference with the climate system. Energy resources in Nepal are traditional and commercial sources. Traditional sources include fuel wood, agricultural residues, and animal wastes (dung) whereas commercial sources include hydropower and imported petroleum fuels. In addition, Nepal carries a diverse range of renewable energy sources like biogas, solar, wind, hydro and modern biomass energies which contribute to the countrys overall energy in a moderate proportion only. Total energy consumption in Nepal in the year 2008/09 was about 9.4 million tons of oil equivalent (401 million GJ) of which some 87% was derived from traditional resources such as woody biomass and animal waste, 1% from small renewable energy sources, and only about 12% from commercial energy sources such as petroleum and fuel products and electricity from small to large hydropower plants. In the residential sector, biomass contributes about 96% of the total energy consumed [5-6]. About two thirds of HH use firewood as their main source of fuel for cooking, followed by LPG (12%), cow dung (11%), biogas (2.4%), and kerosene (1.4%). However, LPG is the main source of fuel for cooking in urban areas (52%), and the proportion is even higher in the urban areas of Kathmandu valley (83%). In rural areas, 75% of HH use firewood for cooking and it is 36% in urban areas. Ecologically, firewood is the major source of 4

cooking fuel in the Mountain (88%), Hill (76%) and Terai (58%) regions. The second common source of cooking fuel in the Hill and Mountain regions is LPG, which serves 18% and 6% of HH respectively, whereas in Terai region cow dung serves as cooking fuel to 21% of HH. Firewood remains the main source of fuel for cooking in all regions, and ranges from 53% in the central to as high as 91% in the Mid-Western regions [5-6]. Though, Nepal is using huge amount traditional sources such as biomass, growing concern in use of commercial sources such as fossil fuel is still prevailing. The use of such energy sources in residential sector emits huge amount of CO2 and because of sustainability and environmental issues, an alternative source of energy must be found to meet energy requirement and mitigation of CO2 release from high energy consumption sector. The residential sector is one of the prominent sectors, which can mitigate huge amount of CO2 release and save large amount of fossil fuels such as LPG, kerosene etc if renewable energy such as hydropower, solar, wind, biogas etc. substitute them. Nepal has high potential of renewable energies. It has the capacity to generate 83,000MW hydroelectricity in which 42,000MW is technically feasible. According to AEPC 659 projects, total around 17MW, especially in rural areas have been identified as technically possible and financially viable micro hydro power. The average solar radiation varying from 3.6 to 6.2 kWh/m2/day and sunshine around 300 days a year offers great opportunities of solar technologies. According to AEPC, the commercial for solar power grid connection is 2,100MW if only 2% of the land area of Nepal is considered as suitable land. It is estimated that the technical potential of biogas plants is 1.9 million. The annual average wind energy potential is about 3.387 MWh/m2 and potential area of wind power is about 6074 sq.km with power density greater than 3000W/m2 [7]. If we increase the share of renewable energy, it may increase total energy cost per capita. However renewable energy technologies are advantageous from environment and sustainability point of view. Renewable energy sources are considered to be carbon neutral. Widespread use of renewable energy sources will decrease GHG emission. The application of such energy sources by new interventions will increase the income of the people inhabited in the area. This paper presents an initial technical exploration of how Nepals residential energy systems might be altered over the coming 2 decades to meet ambitious goals for sustainable development and keeping CO2 emissions to an optimal level for global response. To explore this 5

question two scenarios have been developed. The Base case scenario examines current and historical trends in Nepals CO2 emissions in residential and projects CO2 emissions to 2030 assuming that Nepal continues to develop as usual. It assumes a general continuation of current policies which include some significant efforts to address sustainability and the climate challenge, but it does not foresee any fundamental shifts in energy policy. Additional analysis has been done to extrapolate energy and CO2 emissions patterns out to 2030. The second, Low Carbon Scenarios examine the feasibility of massively reducing Nepals CO2 emissions from residential sector in 2030. To achieve this target, increase sharing of renewable energy other than traditional ones is done. Due to the lack of crucial technologies, new policies and improvement, Nepals emissions will continue to climb in the next decade even under the most ambitious mitigation scenarios. LCS is intended to minimize the total cost as well as reduce the total carbon emission.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1 Low Carbon Energy Planning Analysis This paper focus on the emission and total energy cost increases due to substitution of renewable energy in residential sector energy sources with two different scenario: one is base case scenario and the other is low carbon scenario. The emission is based on the emission factor given by the IPCC Tier 1 Default Emission Factors [8]. The analysis has been based on linear forecasting and exponential forecasting technique on LEAP. The mitigation analysis uses the LEAP model and examines the demand, energy cost, emissions and effects. LEAP is a scenariobased energy environmental modeling tools on comprehensive accounting of how energy is consumed, converted and produced in a given region or economy under a range of alternatives assumptions[9]. Scenarios are self consistent story-lines of how future energy system might involve over time in a particular socio-economic setting and under a particular set of policy options. Scenario in LEAP can compare to assess their energy requirements, environmental impacts and social costs and benefits. In engineering optimization model like LEAP, the model itself provides a numerical assessment and comparison of different policies [10]. This model is a linear programming energy model in which the most basic criterion is total cost of providing economy- wide energy services under different scenarios. When this criterion is used the structure of this type of model as used in mitigation analysis can be represented schematically to minimize total cost of providing energy and satisfying end use demand subject to: - Energy supplied >= energy demanded - End use demands satisfied - Available resource limits not exceeded The validity of the results depends very much on the following assumptions: - Future price of fuels - Useful energy demands (projected)

- Technological characteristics Technological characteristics mean the rate of emission of carbon- dioxide, costs, efficiency etc. [10]. In developing the model the following basic assumptions have been made. The socio-economic parameter other than assumed to change and a particular set of policy options are as usual. The inflation rate of energy cost will be increasing by 5% per year for coming 2 decades. The change of socioeconomic parameter in the BCS is similar to historical pattern for coming 2 decades. The increase or decrease of energy share in LCS to meet the target is linear. Emission factor is as given by the IPCC Tier 1 Default Emission Factors.

2.1.1 Carbon dioxide emission from different energy sources The analysis uses a straightforward accounting methodology in which emissions of different pollutants are calculated as the product of fuel combustion and an emission factor. Energy consumption is in turn calculated as the product of an activity level measuring the level of energy service provided (e.g. total population etc.) and energy intensity. Put simply, emissions are calculated as follows: P=A*E*F Where: P is the total emission of CO2 (Thousands of kilograms) A is a measure of economic activity E is energy intensity of the activity [GJ/activity] F is the CO2 emission factor [thousands of kilogram/GJ] Levels of activity in residential sector is first projected forward based on overall assumptions about levels of growth of the Nepal economy and how its structure might shift as income levels grow. Also the energy from different sources is projected from historical energy consumption (BCS) and target energy share (LCS) based on the assumptions. (1)

Emission per capita per year can be calculated by dividing total emission of CO2 by total population in respective year. The total population in respective year is projected from historical population. p=P/Po Where p is CO2 Emission per capita per year (Thousand of kilogram) P is the total emission of CO2 (Thousands of kilograms) Po is total population of Nepal in respective year 2.1.2 Energy production cost of different energy sources The total energy cost of different energy sources is calculated as the product of total GJ energy consumption per year and energy cost to produce one GJ of different sources. i.e. C= E*S Where C is total energy cost per year ($) E is total energy consumption per year (GJ) S is energy cost per unit GJ ($/GJ) The inflation in energy cost per unit GJ is assumed to be 5% per year. Energy per capita per year can be calculated by dividing total energy cost per year by total population in respective year which is projected from historical population. i.e. c=C/Po Where c is energy cost per capita per year ($) C is total energy cost per year ($) Po is total population of Nepal in respective year (4) (3) (2)

Table 1: Residential energy consumption in GJ from different energy sources (1996 to 2009) [11].
Traditional Agriculture Year 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 residue 10349 10566 10788 11014 11246 11482 11723 11969 12220 12478 12502 13007 13020 13334 Animal dung 17568 17936 18313 18698 19090 19491 19901 20319 20748 21181 21626 22080 22544 23017 Fuel wood 231109 235962 240917 245976 251142 256416 266724 272323 278220 284138 289449 295994 302251 308604 Coal 15 10 11 13 45 31 26 23 29 25 39 26 36 35 Electrical 1183 1278 1363 1478 1681 1866 2008 2221 2434 2729 2900 3215 3352 3534 Commercial Kerosen e 6087 7100 8725 9051 10071 9534 11537 10297 9181 7053 6831 6055 4722 2126 LPG 796 925 708 728 867 1102 1301 1450 1711 2007 2183 2688 2713 3201 49 163 Other petroleum Biogas 411 536 678 826 981 1179 1350 1526 1650 1847 2027 2222 2384 2593 renewable Micro hydropower 23 24 27 29 33 38 41 47 52 57 65 90 112 136 0.3 0.9 1.7 2.2 2.7 2.9 3.1 4.1 5.6 solar

Table 2: Default Carbon dioxide emission factor [8]

Fuel type LPG Kerosene Biogas Coal Vented mud stove wood Mud stove Vegetable waste Mud stove animal waste Petroleum Emission factor (Kg/GJ) 67.3 70.2 81.5 92.644 83.43 78.77 87.33 68.55

10

Table 3: Energy cost required to generate unit GJ of different energy sources [12-13]
Sources Coal Electricity Kerosene LPG Petroleum Coke Hydro Solar Wind Animal waste Vegetable waste wood Cost ($/GJ) 6 23 27 25 40 23 80 74 5 3.12 3.12

Table 4: Total population of Nepal [14-15]

Year 1971 1981 1991 2001 2011 Population 11555983 15022839 18491097 23151423 26620809

11

2.2 Scenario description

A need to make substantial future reductions in GHG emissions is actually a major challenge in the energy system. The ability of nations to respond to this requirement depends entirely on the technology as well as strong policy. To assist policy decisions, the potential of technology and the cost of its applications must be estimated. Sustainable development requires interrelationship among society, energy, economy, environment as well as technology. In this context and to this extent, practicable and quantitative methods are needed to compare possible national responses. In order to evaluate emission control measures the use of simulation models have to be employed. These models require exploration of a wide range of alternatives that would almost be impossible to test in reality. Since this study is focused on comparing carbon emission and energy cost per capita in the residential sector supplied with base case scenario which projected from historical data and low carbon scenario which consist of more share of renewable energy, an exact and detailed simulation of whole socioeconomic parameter is not imperative at the moment. This analysis is focused on evaluating only few parameter such as population, energy cost , energy supply by different sector etc. that can influences the carbon emission and energy cost per capita.

12

Table 1 shows energy consumption data from 1996 to 2009. In this analysis base year is 1996 and projection is done from 2010 to 2030. Historical data between 1996 and 2009 was used, called current account (LEAP model terminology). Projections from the year 2010 to 2030 were made for two groups of scenarios: the base case scenario and low carbon scenario. Use of modules in LEAP models are key assumption and demand in residential sector, the key assumption is population. The subcategories or branches in households were determined by level of detail data that were available. The subcategories are traditional, commercial and renewable sources of energy. The 2001 and 2011 census provided detail household data for number of households population which is shown in table 4. The energy intensity data for residential (household) was used from Energy Sector Synopsis Report 2010 from 1996 to 2009 shown in Table 1. The emission factors used are not available for Nepal and so IPCC Tier 2 Default emission factors was used shown in Table 4. The energy cost for different residential energy sources was taken from different report of energy which is shown in Table 3. 2.2.1 Scenario drive This analysis considers two scenarios and show two alternative pathways for achieving the low carbon emission. The time spans till 2030. The descriptions of scenarios are as under. 3.2.2 Base case scenario The scenario assumes improvements in energy intensity similar to the dynamics-as-usual case and the targeted share of commercial renewable energy. The base case scenario examine how Nepals energy system in residential sector and its CO2 emissions might evolve to 2030 in the absence of significant new policies especially designed to addresses climate mitigation. The base case scenario covers energy consumption and production in residential areas and relative CO2 emissions historically from 1996 to 2009 and its future projection till 2030. The analysis uses straight forward methodology in which emission of different pollutant are calculated as the product and fuel emission factor is taken from IPCC Tier 2 Default emission factors. The levels of activities in households are first projected forward based on historical data. The scenario is driven forward by two high levels: historical population and historical energy consumption in residential sector. The energy consumption for future is estimated from overall 13

historical energy consumption in residential sector. Similarly energy consumption for different branches such as traditional branch: animal waste, vegetable waste, fuel wood commercial branch: coal, electricity, LPG, kerosene, petroleum coke and renewable branch: biogas, micro hydro, solar, wind is projected from historical energy consumption by using linear forecast method as shown in figure1. The total carbon dioxide emission given by equation (1) and total cost by equation (3). The commercial energy consumption in residential sectors from 1996 to 2010 is shown in figure 2.

Energy Share %

Years

Figure 1: Energy share by different sources in residential sectors from 1996 to 2010

14

Energy Share %

Years

Figure 2: The commercial energy consumption in residential sectors from 1996 to 2010.

2.2.3 Low carbon scenario In this scenario we reasonably increase the share of renewable energy and reduce share of traditional energy. The scenario assumes greater improvements in the energy intensity and higher target for the share of commercial renewable energy compared to the base case scenario. Nepal has very high potential of renewable energy sources. Let us consider the target energy share within 2030 in residential sector by different energy sources i.e. electricity 25%, solar 10%,vegetable wastage 5%,animal wastage 5%,wind5%,LPG 10%, kerosene 5%, biogas 10%, micro hydro 10%,wood 15% . The target energy consumption in residential sector in 2030 is shown in table 5. Table 5: The target energy consumption (GJ) in 2030 in LCS
Traditional Commercial Renewable

15

Agriculture residue 28590

Animal dung 28590

Fuel wood 85770 Electrical 142950

Kerosene 28590

Micro LPG 57180 Biogas 57180 hydropower 57180 Solar 57180 Wind 28590

2.3 Model analysis and simulation procedure 2.3.1 Base case scenario Nepals population is estimated to be 39.4 million in 2030, projected from historical data of population in 2001, 23151423[3] and in 2011, 26620809[15]. The total energy consumption projected in 2030 is 5.710^5 GJ by using historical energy consumption in residential sector [11]. The total energy consumption in residential sector is subdivided into different energy sources: traditional, commercial and renewable energy and their projection up to 2030 are as shown in figure 3. The figure shows that the energy share by traditional sources such as wood, animal waste and vegetable waste is very high accounting to almost 90% of the total energy consumption in 2030. The energy share by commercial energy sources is almost 8% in which the share of kerosene continuously decrease to almost 0%, whereas share of electricity, coal and LPG increases continuously to 2%, 3% and 3% in 2030. The energy share by renewable energy sources such as hydro, wind, solar energy, and biogas is only 2% in 2030. 16

Similarly the total energy consumption in 2030 by different residential sector is shown in figure 4. The energy consumption is about 433000 GJ by wood, 31500GJ by animal waste and 18000 GJ by vegetable waste. Likewise energy consumption is about 7500GJ by electricity, 7300GJ by LPG, 100 GJ by coal, and 500GJ by kerosene and 1300GJ by other petroleum products. The renewable energy consumption by residential sector is forecasted by exponential method is shown in figure 5. The energy consumption in 2030 is 3400GJ by biogas, 2000GJ by micro hydropower, 1500 GJ by solar energy. After forecasting these energy consumption data we can easily calculate the total carbon emission and total energy cost by equation (1) and (3). The carbon emission by different residential energy sources in this scenario are given in table 5.

Energy Share %

Years

Figure3: Historical and projection of energy share by different sources in residential sectors in BCS.

17

Thousands of GJ

Years

Figure 4: Historical and projected total energy consumption in different energy sources residential sector in BCS

Thousands of GJ

Years

18

Figure 5: Renewable energy consumption in residential sector in BCS 2.3.2 Low carbon scenario In this scenario, the targeted energy share is projected linearly from 2011 to 2030. The energy share by traditional energy sources such as wood, animal wastage, agriculture residue decreases linearly. However the share of commercial and renewable energy sources increases linearly to attain the targeted energy share within 2030. The energy consumption in residential sector by different energy sources is varying as shown in figure 6. Historical and projected total energy consumption in residential sector in LCS is as shown in figure 7. Renewable energy share in residential sector for LCS is as shown in figure 8. After forecasting these energy consumption data we can easily calculate the total carbon emission and total energy cost by equation (1) and (3). The carbon emission by different residential energy sources in this scenario are given in table 7. Figure 6 is a linear projection of the energy share to meet the target that has been assumed for LCS.

Energy Share %

Years

Figure 6: Projected energy shares in different energy sources in LCS 2.4 Simulation procedure Since the aim of this study is to compare the carbon emission and energy cost of a system supplied with historical energy consumption pattern and targeted energy consumption for the residential sector in two different scenarios, the self developed emission analysis model that used dynamic values of energy consumption from LEAP is implemented on each scenario. The 19

simulation is performed dynamically with period startup for 2010 by using historical energy consumption from 1996 to 2009, which is taken from Energy Sector Synopsis Report 2010. The self developed emission model with emission equation 1 has used dynamic values of energy from the simulation and calculates CO2 emission for each sub categories. The energy consumption and energy cost of different scenario are calculated by using emission equation 1 and energy cost equation 3.

Thousands of GJ

Years
Years Figure 7: Historical and projected total energy consumption in residential sector in LCS

20

Thousands of GJ

Years

Figure8: Renewable energy share in residential sector for LCS

3. Result and Discussion

The considered system has two parts: carbon emission part and energy demand part considering energy supply in base case scenario and low carbon scenario. Table 1 and table 5 represent the energy consumption pattern for the base case scenario and low carbon scenario for all categories studied here, while a glimpse of comparison followed by the carbon emission in BCS and LCS are given in table 6 and table 7. These tables give the CO2 emission values for each sub categories of different scenario analyzed. The result of implementing them in the residential sector in the two paths is shown graphically in Figure 9-12. The graphs compare the carbon dioxide emission from the BCS and the LCS. Table 6: Carbon dioxide emission in thousands of Kilogram by different sources in BSC
Year 1996 Vegetable Waste 815.2 Animal Waste 1534 21000 1.39 427 33.6 Wood Coal Kerosene LPG Other petroleum 3.4 43.9 23879 Biogas Total

21

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030

832.3 849.8 867.6 885.8 904.4 922.6 942.8 962.6 982.9 984.8 1025 1026 1050 1050 1082 1099.1 1116 1135 1152 1169.8 1188 1205.1 1223 1440.4 1258 1276 1293.4 1311.1 1328.7 1346.4 1364.1 1381.7 13999.4 1417

1566 1599 1633 1667.1 1702 1738 1775 1812 1850 1889 1928 1969 2010 2010 2067 2103.4 2139 2176 2212 2248 2284 2320.3 2356 2392.5 2429 2465 2050 2537.1 2573.2 2609.4 2645.5 2681.6 2717.8 2754

21500 21900 22400 22800 23300 24300 24800 25800 25800 26300 26900 27500 28100 28100 29000 29600 30100 30700 31200 31800 32300 32800 33400 33900 34500 35000 35600 36100 36700 37200 37800 38300 38900 39400

0.936 1.038 1.177 4.169 3.521 2.872 2.131 2.677 2.316 3.613 2.409 3.335 3.243 3.243 3.63 3.78 3.932 4.081 4.229 4.3775 4.526 4.6744 4.823 4.9712 5.12 5.268 5.4165 5.565 5.7134 5.8618 6.0103 6.1587 6.3072 6.456

498 612 635 707 669 810 722 644 495 479 425 331 149 149 228 207 188 170.8 155.1 140.8 127.9 116.1 105.5 95.8 87 79 71.7 65.1 59.1 53.7 48.8 44.3 40.2 36.5

62.3 47.6 49 58.3 74.2 87.6 87.6 115.2 135.1 146.9 180.9 182.6 215.4 215.4 225 239.1 253 267.3 281.4 295.5 309.7 323.8 337.9 352 366.1 380.2 394.3 408.4 422.5 436.7 450.8 464.9 479 493.1

3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 11.2 11.2 16.4 20.3 24 28.1 32 35.9 39.8 43.7 51.5 55.4 59.3 63.2 67.1 71 74.9 78.8 82.7 86.7 90.6

49.9 56.7 64.5 73.3 83.3 94.7 107.7 122.4 139.1 158.1 179.7 204.3 232.2 264 233.1 246.7 260 274.1 287.8 301.5 315.2 328.9 342.6 356.2 369.9 383.6 397.3 411 424.7 438.4 452 465.7 479.4 493.1

24514 25070 25654 26199 26740 27959 28451 29463 29408 29965 30644 31220 31772 31803 32855 33519 34086 34755 35325 35996 36569 37143 37818 38393.4 39070 39648 40326 40905 41585 42165.36 42846 43427 44109 44691

Table 7: Carbon dioxide emission in thousands of Kilogram by different sources in LCS

Year 1996 1997 1998 1990 2000 Vegetable Waste 820 830 850 870 890 Animal Waste 1500 1600 1600 1600 1700 21000 21000 22000 22000 23000 430 500 610 640 710 53 62 48 49 58 44 50 57 64 73 1.4 0.94 1 1.2 4.2 23848 24042 25165 25223 26431 Wood Kerosene LPG Biogas Coal Total

22

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030

900 920 940 960 980 1000 1000 1000 1100 1100 1100 1100 1200 1200 1300 1300 1400 1400 1500 1500 1600 1600 1700 1800 1900 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300

1700 1700 1800 1800 1800 1900 1900 2000 2000 2000 2000 2100 2100 2100 2200 2200 2200 2200 2300 2300 2300 2300 2400 2400 2400 2400 2400 2500 2500 2500

23000 24000 25000 25000 26000 26000 27000 27000 28000 28000 28000 27000 27000 27000 26000 26000 25000 24000 23000 22000 21000 20000 19000 18000 16000 15000 13000 11000 9700 7800

670 810 720 640 500 480 430 330 150 150 180 220 260 310 360 430 500 570 660 750 840 950 1100 1200 1300 1400 1600 1700 1900 2000

74 88 98 120 140 150 180 180 220 220 300 400 510 620 750 890 1000 1200 1400 1500 1700 1900 2100 2300 2600 2800 3000 3300 3600 3800

83 95 110 120 140 160 180 200 230 260 370 490 620 760 910 1100 1300 1400 1600 1900 2100 2300 2600 2800 3100 3400 3700 4000 4300 4700

3.5 2.9 2.1 2.7 2.3 3.6 2.4 3.3 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.1 3.1 3 2.9 2.8 2.6 2.5 2.3 2.1 1.9 1.7 1.5 1.2 0.93 0.64 0.2 0

26427 27613 28668 28640 29560 29670 30690 30710 31700 31730 31950 32310 31690 31910 31520 31920 31400 30770 30460 29950 29540 29050 28900 28500 27300 26900 25700 24600 24200 23100

23

50000 45000 40000 35000 30000 25000 20000 15000 10000 5000 0 1990

CO2 in thousand of kg

1995

2000

2005

2010

2015

2020

2025

2030

2035

Years

Figure 9: CO2 emission from residential sector in BCS

35000 30000 CO2 in thousand of kg 25000 20000 15000 10000 5000 0 1990 1995 2000 2005 Years 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035

Figure10: Thousands kilograms CO2 emission from residential sector in LCS. The CO2 emission in low carbon scenario (LCS) first increases and gradually decreases as compared to base case scenario (BCS) which is continuously increasing seen in figures 10 and 9 respectively. In 2030, residential sector CO2 emission at low carbon scenario is 23100 tons that is lower than the base case scenario value of 2012, which is shown in figure 10.

24

LCS results in residential sector show CO2 emissions (thousand kg per year) increases from a base of 23848 in 1996, peaks to about 32310 in 2012 before falling to 23100 in 2030 as shown in figure 10. Whereas in first path i.e. BCS results in residential sector CO2 emissions (thousand kg per year) shows continuous growth from a base of 23848 in 1996 to about 33519 in 2012 and further increase to 44690 in 2030 as shown in figure 9. This figure shows that the total CO2 emission of BCS in 2030 increases by 40.52% to that of 2010. However, in LCS the total CO2 emission in 2030 decreases by 27.69% of the emission value in 2010. This proves that energy share in LCS is more environmental friendly than BCS in terms of emission point of view that lead to reduction of CO2 following reduction in environmental impacts that upholds sustainability.

3500 3000

Cost per head ($)

2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 1990

1995

2000

2005 Years

2010

2015

2020

2025

2030

2035

Figure11: Energy cost per head increases in BCS

25

10000 9000 8000 7000

Cost per head ($)

6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 1990

1995

2000

2005

2010 Years

2015

2020

2025

2030

2035

Figure12: Energy cost per head increases in LCS The energy cost curves (figure11 and 12) give completely different pictures as compared to emission curve; the energy cost curve increases continuously to a very high level in LCS than in BCS to fulfill the same energy demand from 2010 to 2030. Total cost per head in residential sector increases from 142 in 1996 to 594 in 2012 and increase up to 8951 in 2030 in LCS as shown in figure12. Whereas in BCS, the total cost per head increases from 142 in 1996 to only 3282 in 2030 which is shown in figure 11. The graphs (figure 9, 10, 11 and 12) clearly indicate that the LCS is far more sustainable approach than the BCS model. In both cases CO2 emission and energy cost analysis depict that the calculation to fulfill the energy demand has less CO 2 emission in LCS as compared to BCS. Whereas energy cost is less in BCS than LCS. This result is very useful for national policy instruments and their implementation, initiatives of the private sector, local governments and non-governmental organizations, and cooperative international agreements. It is very useful for policy makers to select and evaluate policies. National policies and international agreements are discussed in terms of two criteria by which it is evaluated that are environmental sustainability and cost26

effectiveness. The result continues to reflect that a wide variety of national policies and measures are available to governments to limit or reduce GHG emissions. In general, climate change policies, if integrated with other government policies, can contribute to sustainable development. The volume of emissions allowed determines the carbon price and the environmental effectiveness of this instrument, while the distribution of allowances has implications for competitiveness. Uncertainty in the price of emission reductions under a trading system makes it difficult prior to estimate the total cost of meeting reduction targets. Nepal signed the UNFCCC in Rio de Janeiro in June 1992 and ratified the Convention on 02 May 1994. Furthermore, Nepal ratified the Kyoto Protocol of the UNFCCC on 16 September 2005 and Nepal is listed as the non-annex 1 party to the Protocol [2]. Nepal might have few opportunities to attract foreign investment in the form of Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) projects. Government support for research and development is a special type of incentive, which can be an important instrument to ensure that low GHG-emitting technologies is available in the long-term. Substantial additional investments and policies for R&D are needed to ensure that technologies.

The Kyoto Protocols most notable achievements are the stimulation of an array of national policies, the creation of an international carbon market and the establishment of new institutional mechanisms. The CDM, in particular, has created a large project pipeline and mobilized substantial financial resources, but it has faced methodological challenges regarding the determination of baselines and additionality [4]. The protocol has also stimulated the development of emissions trading systems, but a fully global system has not been implemented. The Kyoto Protocol is currently constrained by the modest emission limits and will have a limited effect on atmospheric concentrations. It would be more effective if the first commitment period were to be followed up by measures to achieve deeper reductions and the implementation of Nepals policy prospects to attract the foreign investment in CDM projects are small at the moment. China and India are reported to be the major countries to host the

27

CDM projects due to their low marginal costs of GHG abatement. Primarily, HH energy sectors are expected to be the major hosts of the CDM projects. In Nepal , the mitigation options available for household are more limited because the

electricity generation will continue to be based on hydropower. The main option considered is substution of LPG and kerosene with in cooking , cost of such substitution was found to be high. On the whole the emission level of Nepal is negligible as compared to other developing neighboring countries. It is quite clear that Nepal's developmental effort will be hampered if energy consuming activities are checked since these are the cornerstones of its overall development. The trend towards increased fossil fuel consumption seems almost unavoidable such that any relevant long-term GHG mitigation policy initiatives may be expected to reduce the rate of increase in carbon emissions, but not lower them. Some long and short term measures such as hydro power development, afforestation programs, and use of energy efficient technology have been recommended to reduce GHG emissions, but it would be very expensive as well as detrimental to the country's developmental efforts if strict mitigation measures were to be applied.

28

4. Conclusion
The analysis of the two scenarios with two different energy shares to fulfill the residential energy demand revealed that historical energy consumption pattern is also very important for the analysis. In this two different analysis variation in residential energy demand by changing energy share of renewable energy, the CO2 emission in BCS is very large as compared to LCS in 2030. Higher emission in BCS is due to large utility of traditional energy sources in residential sector. However, the energy cost in LCS is higher than BCS due to substitution of traditional energy by renewable energy which is expensive. From this analysis, we conclude that if we increase total cost per head from $3282 to $8951 in residential sector in 2030 to increase consumption of renewable energy, we can actually reduce thousands kg of CO2 per year (from 44690 to 23100) from residential sector in 2030. Thus LCS will be very beneficial for environmental sustainability due to the reduction of carbon emission in the atmosphere. The comparison of the analysis proves that LCS is one of the realistic models for the sustainable development considering environment point of view. Its effectiveness would be enhanced if we substitute energy cost in this scenario by international financial assistance like carbon credit.

29

References 1. IPCC (2001), Third Assessment Report (2001), Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2. KEEP (2011), Workshop Report-2011 (2011). Kathmandu Environmental Education Project, Kathmandu , Nepal 3. 14. IPCC (1997). The regional Impacts of Climate Change: An Assessment of Vulnerability Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Summary for Policymaker. 4. Barker T., I. Bashmakov, L. Bernstein, J. E. Bogner, P. R. Bosch, R. Dave, O. R. Davidson, B. S. Fisher, S. Gupta, K. Halsns, G.J. Heij, S. Kahn Ribeiro, S. Kobayashi, M. D. Levine, D. L. Martino, O. Masera, B. Metz, L. A. Meyer, G.-J. Nabuurs, A. Najam, N. Nakicenovic, H. -H. Rogner, J. Roy, J. Sathaye, R. Schock, P. Shukla, R. E. H. Sims, P. Smith, D. A. Tirpak, D. Urge-Vorsatz, D. Zhou, 2007: Technical Summary. In: Climate Change 2007: Mitigation. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [B. Metz, O. R. Davidson, P. R. Bosch, R. Dave, L. A. Meyer (eds)], Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. IPCC (2004), Technical Summary Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 5. SREP (2011). Scaling-up Renewable Energy Program Investment Plan For Nepal, draft of 11 September 2011, Kathmandu, Nepal. 6. AEPC (2009), Alternative Energy Promotion Centre Renewable Energy Data Book 2009, AEPC and other sources, Kathmandu, Nepal. 7. AEPC (2010), Alternative Energy Promotion Centre report 2010, Potential of Solar home systems, Biogas-plants and Micro-hydro in Nepal Opportunities for MFI Khumalter Heights Lalitpur, Kathmandu, Nepal 8. IPCC (1996], Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. Volume 3: Reference Manual 1996. 9. Heaps, C.G., 2012. Long-range Energy Alternatives Planning (LEAP) system, [Software version 2012.0018] Stockholm Environment Institute. Somerville, MA, USA.

30

10. CSMT (1996), draft report on mitigation assessment of greenhouse gases emissions for energy sector in Nepal, country study management team Washington, USA 11. WECS (2010).Energy Sector Synopsis Report 2010. Water and Energy Commission Secretariat, Kathmandu, Nepal 12. NEA (2011), Annual Report 2011. Nepal Electricity Authority, Durbar Marg, Kathmandu, Nepal. 13. NOC (2011), Selling price 2011. Nepal Oil Corporation Limited, Kathmandu, Nepal, 14. CBS (2004), Nepal Living Standards Survey Report: 1995/96-2003/04, Central Bureau of Statistics, National Planning Commission Secretariat, Nepal. 15. CBS (2011), Nepal Living Standards Survey Report: 1995/96-2010/11, Central Bureau of Statistics, National Planning Commission Secretariat, Nepal.

31