Transcript LIFE III – EC4MACS Kick- Off Meeting: 06/07 March 2007

Zbigniew Klimont
International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis
EC4MACS
European Consortium for Modelling of Air
Pollution and Climate Strategies
Update
Contents
•
•
•
•
•
EC4MACS background
EC4MACS workplan
EC4MACS recent achievements and next steps
EC4MACS – NIAM
NEC Directive review update
Background
• The European Commission envisages for 2011/12 a review
and revisions of their air quality legislation and the
European Climate Change Programme. Model analyses can
make useful contributions for these reviews.
• The consistency of EU policies in different fields are of
increasing concern.
• EC4MACS provides institutional funding to a consortium of
key modelling teams to have modelling tools technically
ready and accepted by stakeholders for policy applications.
Objectives
• Providing scientific and economic analyes for the revision of
the EU Thematic Strategy on Air and the European Climate
Change Programme (ECCP)
• Improvement of existing models by including recent
scientific findings.
• Update of input data
• Accceptance of modelling tools and input data by
stakeholders
• Make modelling tools available to the public over the
Internet.
Partners
• IIASA (AT) – Coordinator, integrated assessment
• MNP/RIVM (NL) - Modelling of environmental impacts
• NTUA Athens (GR) – Energy projections
• Uni Bonn, EuroCare (DE) – Agricultural projections
• LUATh Thessaloniki (GR) – Transport modelling
• Mike Holland, AEAT, Metroeconomica (UK) – Economic
benefit analysis
• (MET.NO (NO) – Modelling of atmospheric chemistry and
transport)
• JRC-Ispra
• JRC-Sevilla
The EC4MACS model system
Global/
hemispheric
boundary
conditions
Transport
Energy
European
policy drivers
Costeffectiveness
Impacts
GAINS
GEM-E3
TREMOVE
POLES
Agriculture
PRIMES
CAPRI
EU-FASOM, DNDC
Land use
CCE-CL
Ecosystems
BENEFITS
Atmosphere
TM5
EMEP
General work plan
• 2007:
– Methodological improvements
• 2008:
– Data collection
– Feedbacks on methodological improvements
• 2009
– Interim assessment
– Methodology workshop
• 2010
– Uncertainty assessment
– Bilateral consultations on input data
– Stakeholder workshop on baseline projections
• 2011
– Final assessment
Recent achievements - GAINS
• Interface with PRIMES, numerous scenarios have been
exchanged for the Commission’s burden sharing proposal,
the CCS study and the NEC revision (including the PRIMES
2007 baseline scenario)
• GAINS provided cost curves for non-CO2 gases for the
January 2008 Climate and Energy Package of the
Commission, and assessed co-benefits on air pollution
• Optimization analyses for the NEC revision based on the
burden sharing energy projection. Commission will use this
for NEC proposal in June 2008
CAPRI
Achievements for EC4MACS
• Database, policy representation, parameterisation updated
for EU27 + Western Balkan + Turkey
• Improved description of N Cycle inherited from earlier projects
(Ammonia, JRC-Ispra collaboration)
• Prepared for modelling of biofuels demand shocks, but
- No trade in fuels (ethanol, bio-diesel)
- Shares of feed stocks + demand shock exogenous
• Update of international database is under way
- Need to update FAOSTAT1 with FAOSTAT2 + AGLINK
EC4MACS Project meeting, Laxenburg, 03-04..04.08
Peter Witzke, EuroCARE, Arno Becker U Bonn
CAPRI
DEVELOPMENTS IN 2007 - PRIMES
Full update of the model database

Energy balances statistics, energy prices and taxes, economic
activity statistics

New plant level data for the power plants

Similar data collection took place for other sectors

Information about current policies and measures

Update of the technological and economic projections about
the future evolution of new energy technologies in all domains

Update of resources and renewable potential information
disaggregated per source and Member State

Including data on possibilities for CO2 geological storage
E3M – Lab
April 16

DEVELOPMENTS IN 2007 - PRIMES
New Baseline scenario constructed

Very important as it is considered as a reference projection
against which all alternative policy projections are compared to
in order to draw impact assessment conclusions

Model calibration to reproduce years 2000 and 2005

The final Baseline was ready by the end of Nov 2007



Detailed report will be available by the end of April 2008
The new Baseline has been extensively used to analyze the
effects of the announced Commission targets for 2020
Improved interface of PRIMES and GAINS models
E3M – Lab
April 16

GHG balance of rapeseed cultivation
JRC/AL-IIASA 02.04.2008 – EC4MACS/NIAM meeting
12
Carbon losses from arable fields
5000
Enhanced Carbon sink
1252
4500
kg CO2-eq ha-1
4000
1952
Energy input on farm
3500
596
3000
450
2500
193
358
424
Energy input processing
Indirect N2O from leaching+volatilization
Direct N2O emissions
Avoided CO2 energy input fossil fuel
CO2 emissions from fuel burning
2000
1500
1000
Fertiliser production
2239
2384
Saving
Emissions
500
0
Tasks for 2008
• Produce interim documentation on methodologies
• Start consultation on methodology over the Internet
• Harmonize C/N cycle and agricultural modelling approaches
• Link to global scale (with JRCs)
AN OUTLOOK INTO 2008 ACTIVITIES - PRIMES

The detailed definition of scenarios will be decided in close
interaction with DG-ENV and the EC4MACS steering group
A first set of tentative alternative policy scenarios has
been already prepared


Scenarios exploring the range of different burden sharing
targets per Member State

Specific scenarios exploring the possibility of CCS technology
deployment
E3M – Lab
April 16
Evaluation of alternative policy assumptions on the
evolution of the energy system

Questions that could help to improve GAINS
JRC/AL-IIASA 02.04.2008 – EC4MACS/NIAM meeting
→ Are direct N2O emissions really linearly dependent on Ninput?
→ Will the Nitrate Directive have an effect on N2O emissions?
→ Which impacts can be expected from changing production
technologies/agronomic optimizations?
→ Do we need extra-emission factors for organic farming?
→ What is the cost-efficiency of precision farming?
15
Three questions to NIAM
• How can EC4MACS improve the communication with
national modelling teams?
• Which information from EC4MACS would be useful for
national modelling teams?
• Which information could be provided by national modelling
teams to be included in the Europe-wide analysis?
Interaction with national modelling teams
• Information that could be offered:
– GAINS is accessible available on the Internet, all data can be
freely downloaded
– National versions of GAINS possible
• Most useful information from national teams:
– Implementation of current emission control legislation
– Energy projections coherent with national climate policy
• Under EC4MACS, bilateral consultations foreseen for 2010.
Possible interactions with national teams
JRC/AL-IIASA 02.04.2008 – EC4MACS/NIAM meeting
National teams
18
DNDC-EUROPE
→ Farm practice/management (NitroEurope-IP: crop rotations;
timing of operations; ...)
→ Detailed land use maps (e.g. commune-level for validation of
our agri-maps)
National teams
DNDC-EUROPE
→ “Regionalized” emission factors for Nr/GHG fluxes from
agricultural soils
Different approaches for
national GAINS implementations
The “Italian” way:
• Provinces as separate emission source regions
• Province-to-grid transfer matrices
• Software hosted locally, only limited update
The “Dutch” way:
• Entire country as one source region (as in GAINS-Europe)
• Sector-to-grid transfer matrices
• Software hosted at IIASA server (but with restricted
access), regularly updated
• Fully integrated into GAINS-Europe
Markus Amann (IIASA)
based on input from Ger Klaassen and Andre Zuber (EC)
State of play of the revision of the
EU NEC Directive
State of play
• DG-ENV has started Inter-Service consultations
• Commission’s agreement planned for July 2008
• No further stakeholder involvement before publication of
final Commission’s proposal
• Once agreed, NEC6 report and scenario details on GAINS
internet will be released
Assumptions on economic drivers for NEC
optimization
• Economic development and energy policy as in PRIMES Nov
2007 baseline
• Energy projection (developed with PRIMES) is compliant
with Climate and Energy package.
– Flexible instruments to cut-off domestic measures
at €30/t CO2
– Assuming trading of renewable energy permits among Member
States
– Results in -12% CO2 in 2020 in the EU-27
• National projections of agricultural activities as used before
Primary energy consumption in EU-27
2000 and projections for 2020
90
80
70
60
TJ
50
40
30
20
10
0
2000
National projections 2006 PRIMES 2007 baseline
Coal
Oil
Gas
Biomass
Other renewables
Other
C&E Package
Environmental improvements and emission
reductions, central case, EU-27, 2020
Environmental improvements
Years of life lost from
PM2.5
Emission reductions
SO2
NOx
Ecosystems area not
protected against
eutrophication
PM2.5
Forest area not protected
against acidification
NH3
Cases of premature deaths
from ozone
VOC
0%
-10% -20% -30% -40% -50% -60% -70% -80% -90% -100%
0%
-10%
-20%
-30%
-40%
-50%
-60%
-70%
-80%
Impact reductions relative to 2000
Emission reductions relative to 2000
Reduced by Current policy Additional reductions
Emissions reduced by Current policy Additional reductions
-90%
-100%
Austria
UK
Sweden
Spain
Slovenia
Slovakia
Romania
Portugal
Poland
Netherlands
Malta
Luxembourg
Lithuania
Latvia
Italy
Ireland
Hungary
Greece
Germany
France
Finland
Estonia
Denmark
Czech Rep.
Cyprus
Bulgaria
Belgium
% of GDP
Air pollution control costs 2020
on top of current policy
Costs as % of GDP per Member State
0.06
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
0.00
Austria
UK
Sweden
Spain
Slovenia
Slovakia
Romania
Portugal
Poland
Netherlands
Malta
Luxembourg
Lithuania
Latvia
Italy
Ireland
Hungary
Greece
Germany
France
Finland
Estonia
Denmark
Czech Rep.
Cyprus
Bulgaria
Belgium
% of GDP
0.04
0.03
0.02
Emission control costs (million €/yr)
Trade-off between efficiency and equity
Increase in total costs if GDP-related costs in each MS limited
Costs as % of GDP per Member State
Costs for EU-27
0.06
3.0
0.05
2.5
0.01
0.00
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
Austria
UK
Sweden
Spain
Slovenia
Slovakia
Romania
Portugal
Poland
Netherlands
Malta
Luxembourg
Lithuania
Latvia
Italy
Ireland
Hungary
Greece
Germany
France
Finland
Estonia
Denmark
Czech Rep.
Cyprus
Bulgaria
Belgium
% of GDP
0.04
0.03
0.02
Emission control costs (million €/yr)
Trade-off between efficiency and equity
Increase in total costs if GDP-related costs in each MS limited
Costs as % of GDP per Member State
Costs for EU-27
0.06
3.0
0.05
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.01
0.5
0.00
0.0
0.01
0.5
0.00
0.0
UK
Sweden
Spain
Slovenia
Slovakia
Romania
Portugal
Poland
Netherlands
Malta
Luxembourg
Lithuania
Latvia
Italy
Ireland
Hungary
Greece
Germany
France
Finland
Estonia
Denmark
Czech Rep.
Cyprus
Bulgaria
Belgium
Austria
% of GDP
0.04
0.03
0.02
Emission control costs (million €/yr)
Trade-off between efficiency and equity
Increase in total costs if GDP-related costs in each MS limited
Costs as % of GDP per Member State
Costs for EU-27
0.06
3.0
0.05
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
Sensitivity cases
1. Without Climate and Energy Package
(i.e., for PRIMES 2007 baseline)
2. Without trading of renewable energy
3. With full implementation of Nitrates Directive
4. For alternative health impact hypothesis (primary PM only)
5. For higher environmental ambition level (as suggested by
European Parliament)
EU-27 emissions of the sensitivity cases
relative to 2000
100%
90%
Emissions relative to 2000
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
SO2
TSAP central case
With Nitrates Directive
NOx
PM2.5
No C&E package
Health impacts only primary PM
NH3
No renewables trade
European Parliament
VOC
0%
Range for emission reductions (CP-MRR)
TSAP central case
Without C&E
Without RES trade
With ND
EU-27
UK
Sweden
Spain
Slovenia
Slovakia
Romania
Portugal
Poland
Netherlands
Malta
Luxembourg
Lithuania
Latvia
Italy
Ireland
Hungary
Greece
Germany
France
Finland
Estonia
Denmark
Czech Rep.
Cyprus
Bulgaria
Belgium
Austria
Emissions relative to 2000
SO2 reductions
for the central and the sensitivity cases
140%
120%
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
PPM only
0%
Range for emission reductions (CP-MRR)
TSAP central case
Without C&E
Without RES trade
With ND
EU-27
UK
Sweden
Spain
Slovenia
Slovakia
Romania
Portugal
Poland
Netherlands
Malta
Luxembourg
Lithuania
Latvia
Italy
Ireland
Hungary
Greece
Germany
France
Finland
Estonia
Denmark
Czech Rep.
Cyprus
Bulgaria
Belgium
Austria
Emissions relative to 2000
NOx reductions
for the central and the sensitivity cases
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
PPM only
0%
Range for emission reductions (CP-MRR)
TSAP central case
Without C&E
Without RES trade
With ND
EU-27
UK
Sweden
Spain
Slovenia
Slovakia
Romania
Portugal
Poland
Netherlands
Malta
Luxembourg
Lithuania
Latvia
Italy
Ireland
Hungary
Greece
Germany
France
Finland
Estonia
Denmark
Czech Rep.
Cyprus
Bulgaria
Belgium
Austria
Emissions relative to 2000
PM2.5 reductions
for the central and the sensitivity cases
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
PPM only
0%
Range for emission reductions (CP-MRR)
TSAP central case
Without C&E
Without RES trade
With ND
EU-27
UK
Sweden
Spain
Slovenia
Slovakia
Romania
Portugal
Poland
Netherlands
Malta
Luxembourg
Lithuania
Latvia
Italy
Ireland
Hungary
Greece
Germany
France
Finland
Estonia
Denmark
Czech Rep.
Cyprus
Bulgaria
Belgium
Austria
Emissions relative to 2000
NH3 reductions
for the central and the sensitivity cases
180%
160%
140%
120%
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
PPM only
Conclusions
• While final decision on NECs not yet taken within the
Commission, NEC proposal will be coherent with Climate
and Energy package
• Proposed emission reductions are in safe distance to MRR
• Sensitivity cases suggest robustness against (reasonable)
changes in major exogenous policy assumptions
• Full documentation will be released after publication of the
final Commission proposal