Transcript BP Pathways: Project Progress Update

Low-Carbon Russia: Myth or
Reality?
Sergey Paltsev
Massachusetts
Institute of
Technology
Moscow, Russia
January 15, 2015
Setting
Russia’s share in global energy use – 5.5%, in global GHG
emissions – about 4%.
2011 global shares of energy use: Oil – 31%; Coal – 29%, Natural
Gas – 21%; Bioenergy – 10%, Nuclear – 5%; Hydro – 2%;
Renewables – 1%.
2011 Russia’s shares of energy use: Natural Gas – 54%; Oil – 20%,
Coal – 16%; Nuclear – 6%, Hydro – 2%, Bioenergy – 1%.
Low-Carbon Options:
Nuclear, Hydro, Wind, Solar, Biomass, CCS
2
http://globalchange.mit.edu/
Setting: Energy Intensity - Energy Efficiency
While energy consumption will increase over time, energy use per unit of GDP
generally decreases about 40% from 2010 to 2050. This reflects the
improvement in energy-efficiency and rising energy prices caused by resource
depletion and carbon policies.
Source: MIT Energy and Climate Outlook (2014)
3
http://globalchange.mit.edu/
Why to move to low-carbon?
Source: MIT Energy and Climate Outlook (2014)
4
http://globalchange.mit.edu/
Climate goals – which one?
Nature (2014), 514, 30-31.
Source: MIT Energy and Climate Outlook (2014)
Expected GHG Emissions
from COP-21
5
http://globalchange.mit.edu/
Russia’s GHG Emissions
Data:
1990-2012 UNFCCC
25% - 2013 President‘s Decree
752
40% - Comparable to the
proposed EU reduction for 2030
Reference, Measures,
Additional Measures – from
Rosgidromet submission to
UNFCCC
25 % Reductions from 1990 GHG including Land Use (Forestry
change) – from Blue Curve.
Land Use and Forestry Change Emissions are more uncertain.
Projections for GHG are without Land Use here.
6
http://globalchange.mit.edu/
Projections
http://www.cenef.ru/file/CB-LCE-2014-rus.pdf
178 pages
Pages 153-169
7
http://globalchange.mit.edu/
GHG and GDP Growth Projections for Russia
MIT EPPA Model:
Reference Scenario and
Climate Stabilization
Global, Economy-Wide Model,
captures impact on Economy.
2030 Policy Cost: $60 billion
Real GDP growth – 5-year average
GHG Emissions
Impact on Russian
economy: more expensive
energy and reduction in
energy exports
8
http://globalchange.mit.edu/
Energy Use in Russia
Reference
2C Climate Policy
Note: These results are based on a stringent climate policy and the same carbon
price in all countries (2030 - $75/tCO2, 2050 - $165/tCO2). The results depend on
emission burden sharing between countries.
With different allocation the impact might be less dramatic, but a direction of the
changes is the same. Russia is affected by higher energy costs for consumers and a
loss of revenue from oil and gas exports.
Source: Paltsev and Kalinina (2014)
9
http://globalchange.mit.edu/
Move to low-carbon energy
~3°C
Low climate stabilization scenarios
are dependent on decarbonization
Based on AR5 WGIII Figure 6.7
10
http://globalchange.mit.edu/
Plenty of carbon in the ground
Based on SRREN Figure 1.7
11
http://globalchange.mit.edu/
Rising GHG emissions in no-policy scenarios
Based on AR5 WGIII Figure TS.17
12
http://globalchange.mit.edu/
Mitigation requires dramatic changes
Based on AR5 WGIII Figure TS.17
13
http://globalchange.mit.edu/
No negative emission technologies in power sector imply more
effort in other sectors
Based on AR5 WGIII Figure TS.17
14
http://globalchange.mit.edu/
Technology options are affected by policy instruments and cost
assessments
2004 – 2007 Optimism about CCS
Short-term increase in gas
By 2100 coal and gas with CCS
and
Renewables
Based on EPPA results for US CCSP (2007)
15
http://globalchange.mit.edu/
Technology options are affected by policy instruments and cost
assessments
2014 – Less optimism about CCS,
More optimism on nuclear,
renewables and energy efficiency
Based on EPPA results for US
CCSP (2007)
2050 global shares of generation:
2007 study –- fossil – 75%, renewables – 15%
2014 study –- fossil – 30%, renewables – 50%
16
http://globalchange.mit.edu/
Technology options are affected by policy instruments and cost
assessments
17
http://globalchange.mit.edu/
Different modeling groups - no dominant technology for decarbonization
Based on AR5 WGIII Figure 7.11
18
http://globalchange.mit.edu/
Some low-carbon technologies can compete with conventional
Based on AR5 WGIII Figure 7.7
19
http://globalchange.mit.edu/
Moving to Low-Carbon: Example of the U.S. electricity price
increases (relative to BAU)
EPPA:
Increase in 2050
$60/MWh
MIT JP Report
173 (2009)
20
http://globalchange.mit.edu/
How to move to low-carbon energy?
21
http://globalchange.mit.edu/
Conclusions
Aggressive climate stabilization targets (2-3C) require drastic
changes in power generation technology options
Future costs and the resulting technology mixes are uncertain
Policy: Target emissions reductions from any source,
rather than focus on boosting certain kinds of renewable energy.
22
http://globalchange.mit.edu/
Conclusions for Russia
• Cost of climate policy is higher for a country that relies on fossil fuel
exports and has a limited potential for renewable energy than
for energy importing countries.
• Targets for GHG reduction should be milder than for other regions.
• Policy: Economic diversification (and nuclear energy expansion?).
• Low carbon Russia: nuclear, hydro, and electric cars? Not a near future.
• Carbon Policy: Carbon Tax
• Policy Design: “Хотели как лучше...”
23
http://globalchange.mit.edu/
Thank you
Questions or comments?
Please contact Sergey Paltsev at [email protected].
http://globalchange.mit.edu/
24