The Scenario Planning methodology has been applied by national and international institutions to long term studies of possible future evolutions of primary and final energy consumption, power generation capacity, emerging power generation technologies and green house gas emissions. Power generation equipment manufacturing companies are large enough to have considerable influence on how the future of the energy world will unfold, through their investment decisions in technology development. On the other hand, their future depends on external factors, out of their control, such as economics, demographics, public opinion, government policies, availability of natural resources and competitor technologies, not all of them explicitly considered in the scenarios published by those institutions. If robust technology development strategies are to be chosen, it is essential for a manufacturer, in the first place, to have as clear as possible an understanding not only of the published long-term scenarios, but also of the certainties and uncertainties regarding the driving factors that can significantly affect its future in particular. From this understanding, it should ideally create its own set of scenarios, against which it should test its strategies. In a previous paper the author discussed external factors and aspects of published scenarios, which are relevant for manufacturers within their usual planning time scales. From that discussion, two scenarios were proposed, as alternative ‘futures’ to the scenarios published by the International Energy Agency. The study was restricted to the OECD countries. In this paper, an extension of the previous work is presented, where some non-OECD countries are included and new external factors are considered, relevant in the context of these countries, which are China, Brazil and India.

1.
Franco, F.J., 2004, “Strategic Management of Technology for Power Generation Equipment – A System Dynamics Approach,” Proc. ASME Turbo Expo 2004, June 14–17, 2004, Vienna.
2.
Franco, F.J., 2005, “Scenarios for Evaluation of Technology Development Options for Power Generation Equipment,” Proceedings ASME Power 2005, Chicago, Illinois.
3.
Heijden van der, K., 1996. “Scenarios – The Art of Strategic Conversation,” John Wiley & Sons, Chichester.
4.
IEA, 2004, “World Energy Outlook,” OECD, Paris.
5.
Nakicenovic, N., Grubler, A. and McDonald, A., 1998, “Global Energy Perspectives,” Cambridge University
6.
Geus de, A.P., 1988, “Planning as Learning,” Harvard Business Review, p. 70–74.
7.
Shell International 2001, Global Business Environment, “Energy Needs, Choices and Possibilities – Scenarios to 2050,” Shell.com
8.
McCrreary, E. I., Gu, A. Y., Loose, V. W., 1996, “China’s Energy A Forecast to 2015,” Los Alamos National Laboratory, US DOE, Office of Energy Intelligence.
9.
Reuters, 2005, “Vattenfall Plans CO2-Free Power Plant in Germany,” internet planetark.com.
10.
Matzner, D. and Wallace, E., 2005, “PBMR moves forward, with higher power and horizontal turbine,” Modern Power Systems, February, p. 11–15.
11.
Dickie, M., 2005. “China in drive for revolutionary reactors,” Financial Times, February 8, p. 9.
12.
Varley, J., 2005, “The nuclear future: hot or not?” Modern Power Systems, April, p. 11.
13.
IAFA, 2003, Country Profiles, internet, Vienna.
14.
Coal Industry Advisory Board, 1999, “Coal in the Energy Supply of China,” Report of the CIAB Asia Committee, IEA. OECD, Paris.
15.
Energy Information Agency, 2004, “Country Analysis Briefs.” US Department of Energy, internet eia.doe.gov.
16.
Audinet, P. and Verneyre, F., 2002, “Electricity in India,” IEA. OECD, Paris.
17.
Brazil Oil & Gas Review, 2002, “Diversifying Brazil’s energy matrix,” World Petroleum, internet.
18.
BP Statistical Review of World Energy, 2004, June.
19.
The Royal Society and The Royal Academy of Engineering, 1999, “Nuclear Energy – The Future Climate,” London.
20.
Ball, D. J. and Boehmer-Christiansen. S., 2002, “Understanding and responding to societal concerns,” Health and Safety Executive, UK Government, Sudbury.
21.
Fabian, T., 2005, “Data falsification scandal hits Yucca Mt.,” Modern Power Systems, May, p. 3.
22.
Wall, C., Bernstone, C., and Olvstam, M. L., 2004, “International and European Legal Aspects on Underground Geological Storage of CO2,” 7th International Conference on Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies, Vancouver, Canada, 5–9 September 2004.
23.
Itaoka, K., Saito, A. and Akai, M., 2004, “Public Acceptance of CO2 Capture and Storage Technology: a Survey of Public Opinion to Explore Influential Factors,” 7th International Conference on Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies, Vancouver, Canada, 5–9 September 2004.
24.
Curry, T., Reiner, D.M., Ansolabehere, S. and Herzog, H.J., 2004, “How Aware is the Public of Carbon Capture and Storage,” 7th International Conference on Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies, Vancouver, Canada, 5–9 September 2004.
25.
Singh, R., Horlock, J. and Haslam, T., 2003, “Cycles for Low Carbon Dioxide Production,” Conference Report and Summary, Conference on Cycles for Low Carbon Dioxide Production, March 25–26, Cranfield University, UK.
26.
U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Fossil Energy, 2004, “FutureGen Integrated Hydrogen, Electric Power Production and Carbon Sequestration Research Initiative,” March 2004.
27.
Samuelsen, S, 2004, “Fuel Cell/Gas Turbine Hybrid Systems,” ASME International Gas Turbine Institute.
28.
McDonald
A.
and
Schrattenholzer
L.
,
2002
, “
Learning Curves and Technology Assessment
,”
International Journal of Technology Management
, special issue,
23
, nos.
7/8
, p.
718
745
.
29.
Knebel
J. U.
and
Heusener
G
,
2000
, “
Research on Transmutation and Accelerator-Driven Systems at the Forschungszentrum Karlsruhe
,”
Internationale Zeitschrift fur Kernenergie atw Jg.
, Heft
6
, pp.
350
358
, June.
This content is only available via PDF.
You do not currently have access to this content.