Transcript prKypreos

The Quest for Emission Reduction
Analysis based on the newly developed hard-link of MERGE & TIMES-MACRO for USA (MTM)
IEW-2012
19th June 2012
Cape-Town, South Africa
S. Kypreos, A. Lehtila, A. Marcucci
Outline
•
•
•
•
Goals: Boundaries, Dynamics; Macro-economy
What is accomplished?
Why is the development needed?
Calibration algorithm of MM or TM based on existing LP models
(e.g., see report of Uwe Remme)
• Linking MM and MERGE; Coordinates of MTM
• Preliminary results
• Conclusions/Proposal
Overarching goals of development were threefold:
- Study of global/regional policies under consistent boundary conditions
- Include at least macro-economic equilibrium
- Simulate technology dynamics with endogenous learning (LbD and LbS)
To meet these goals we have established a hard link of TIMES-MACRO (TM)
models for USA as example with the MERGE model of all other world regions
such that we get:
a) Endogenous technology dynamics to be scenario and path dependent
b) Endogenous Price feed-backs due to resource depletion
c) Endogenous trade of CO2 permits and other energy products
d) Macro-economic feed-backs of energy and environmental policies
e) The macro-economic cost of policies
Modelling coordinates of MT&Merge (MTM)
–
MTM:
consists of a 8/9 region of MERGE-ETL model
& one region of the TIMES-MACRO model (USA)
–
is an Integrated Assesment hybrid model combining
‘bottom-up’ & ‘top-down’ approaches and is solved by
maximizing the Negishi weighted global welfare
MTM
– Traded commodities are: oil, gas, coal, biomass,
synthetic fuels, CO2 permits, and a numeraire good
What is accomplished?
A) Endogenous boundary conditions for national studies



Prices of global resources
Trade levels/bounds for energy sources,
CO2 emission permit trade or optimal CO2 reduction levels due to global
policies on emissions or CBA
 Optimal trade levels for renewable use like bio-fuels
B) Path & Policy dependent technology specifications

Technological change as result of global LbD and LbS and thus

Consistent Specific cost for the Nth of a kind installation
C) Macro-Economic developments
 Baseline consistent with global growth assumptions
 Macro-economic cost of policies/normative constraints
 Possibility to perform CBA of global or national environmental policies
How we have done it?
Different levels of activities are completed:
1) Mapping and integration of TM data to the cluster formulation of MERGE
2) Mapping and integration of traded fuels between MERGE and TM
2) Specification of MERGE and TIMES regions (set specification) splitting the data of the
world region where the country belongs (user specified data) and formulation/solution
of the overall NLP problem.
3) Calibration of TM of this region (NLP problem) based on existing TIMES models
4) By defining TM and MERGE equations in one model together with their input data
and solving them directly as NLP welfare maximization model
5) Report generation for TIMES and MERGE
Goals of the study: We aim to assess the feasibility
and implications of the Durban COP17 outcome.
Scenario
2000-2050 cumulative
emissions [GtCO2]
Prob. of temp ≥ 2°C
Range
Default
50%
1437
29-70%
50%
33%
1158
16-51%
33%
25%
1000
10-42%
25%
20%
886
8-37%
20%
Based on the conclusions of Meinshausen et al. (Nature 2009) shown above, we
impose cumulative CO2 emissions constraints between 2020 and 2060 in
MTM with gradually stringent budgets fixing the emissions for only 2005 and
examine the attained probability to exceed 2° Celsius.
We also study the necessary structural changes in the energy systems and define
the economic impacts globally and by region relative to baseline.
Finally the same information is given for USA in details.
Results of MTM-USA
Annual Carbon Emissions estimated for the Baseline (BAU) and the imposed global and
cumulative budgets with different probabilities of exceeding 2°C
Results of MTM-USA
Marginal cost of carbon under global and cumulative emission budgets from 2020 to 2050
that correspond to the previous emission profiles for different probabilities to exceed 2°C.
Estimated Carbon Emissions in GtCO2/a and the
associated probability to exceed 2 °C
2010
2020
2030
2040
2050
2000-2050
Probability
GtCO2/a
GtCO2/a
GtCO2/a
GtCO2/a
GtCO2/a
GtCO2
In %
37.69
37.40
37.14
37.11
36.74
41.18
38.39
37.14
36.67
30.18
46.93
34.17
28.38
24.38
15.14
49.94
26.03
15.22
8.32
5.79
54.96
18.85
5.79
4.58
4.69
2174
1597
1352
1232
1048
NA
60
45
37
28
The cumulative emissions are estimated using the shown emission levels from 2010 to 2050
using the trapezoidal rule adding 330 GtC for the period 2000-2010.
The probabilities in the last column are interpolated values based on the Meinshausen Table
The changed values for 2010 are due to optimization freedom given to MTM-USA for the
period around 2010.
Results of MTM-USA
GHGs Concentration in ppmv
700
600
500
oGHG
400
N2O
CH4
300
CO2
200
100
2005
2010
2020
2030
2040
2050
2005
2010
2020
2030
2040
2050
2005
2010
2020
2030
2040
2050
2005
2010
2020
2030
2040
2050
2005
2010
2020
2030
2040
2050
0
BAU
50%
33%
25%
20%
Atmospheric concentrations given in ppmv of Kyoto GHGs in CO2 equivalent as estimated with
MTM-USA under global and cumulative emission budgets for different probabilities of exceeding
2°C of warming.
Results of MTM-USA
Regional GDP losses relative to BaU in %
(Undiscounted and Cumulative)
Cumulative and Undiscounted GDP
losses relative to BaU in percent
7
1.6
USA
6
WEUR
5
JAPAN
1.4
1.2
CANZ
4
3
1
EFSU
CHINA
0.8
INDIA
2
1
0.6
MOPEC
RoW
0.4
0
-1
-2
0.2
BaU
50%
33%
25%
20%
0
50%
33 %
25 %
20 %
Although the global (undiscounted) economic impacts are below 1.4 % of GDP the regional (undiscounted)
impacts are significant for DCs and mainly the oil producing regions as quantity of exports and prices are
reduced.
No compensation via trade of permits and no environmental benefits are estimated here.
BAU
50%
33%
1200
1000
800
25%
2010
2020
2030
2040
2050
2010
2020
2030
2040
2050
2010
2020
2030
2040
2050
2010
2020
2030
2040
2050
2010
2020
2030
2040
2050
Primary Energy Consumption (EJ/a)
Renewable
Biomass
Nuc
Coal
Gas
Oil
600
400
200
0
20%
Global Electricity Production (PWh/a)
90
SolarTH
80
spv
Wind
70
bio-a
Biomass
60
hydro
50
nuclear
40
igcc-a
30
igcc
pc-a
20
Coal
10
gas-fc
Gas-CCS
BAU
50%
33%
25%
2010
2020
2030
2040
2050
2010
2020
2030
2040
2050
2010
2020
2030
2040
2050
2010
2020
2030
2040
2050
2010
2020
2030
2040
2050
0
20%
ngcc
Gas-Oil
oil&gas-r
Specific results for USA
US Energy related Carbon emissions in GtC/a
2.5
2
Upstr&Other
Transport
1.5
Residential
Industry
1
Electricity
Commercial
Agriculture
0.5
2005
2010
2020
2030
2040
2050
2005
2010
2020
2030
2040
2050
2005
2010
2020
2030
2040
2050
2005
2010
2020
2030
2040
2050
2005
2010
2020
2030
2040
2050
0
-0.5
BAU
50%
33%
25%
20%
The flexibility to reduce emissions for USA is given with remaining emissions Industry and Transport
Specific results for USA
US Primary Energy Consumption (EJ/a)
Renewable
Nuclear
140
Biomass
Coal
120
Oil
Gas
100
80
60
40
20
2005
2010
2020
2030
2040
2050
2005
2010
2020
2030
2040
2050
2005
2010
2020
2030
2040
2050
2005
2010
2020
2030
2040
2050
2005
2010
2020
2030
2040
2050
0
BAU
50%
33%
25%
20%
Specific results for USA
US Electricity Prodution (PWh/a)
25
20
Solar PV
Wind
Hydro
15
Nuclear
Biomass
10
Coal
Oil
Gas
5
2005
2010
2020
2030
2040
2050
2005
2010
2020
2030
2040
2050
2005
2010
2020
2030
2040
2050
2005
2010
2020
2030
2040
2050
2005
2010
2020
2030
2040
2050
0
BAU
50%
33%
25%
20%
Specific results for USA
US Final Energy (EJ/a)
90
80
Alcohol
70
Hydrogen
Renewables
60
Oil-Prodct
50
Heat
40
Electric
Bio-Diesel
30
Bio-Direct
Coal
20
Gas
2005
2010
2020
2030
2040
2050
2060
2005
2010
2020
2030
2040
2050
2060
2005
2010
2020
2030
2040
2050
2060
2005
2010
2020
2030
2040
2050
2060
2005
2010
2020
2030
2040
2050
2060
10
Although the
0
BAU
50%
33%
25%
20%
Conclusions-1
The study concludes that is always feasible but more difficult to sustain global
warming below 2°C. However, the associated probabilities to sustain temperature
change below 2 °C are becoming worse, while the window of opportunity narrows.
Although some carbon-free technologies like wind and advanced nuclear systems
are competitive and contribute to the reduction of carbon emissions already in the
baseline, other systems like advanced carbon capture and sequestration options
based on coal and natural gas for power generation and solar PV need the
introduction of taxes or other instruments to become competitive.
Synthetic fuel production and advanced power generation based on biomass with
CCS options have negative carbon emissions and become one of the key future
technological options to mitigate carbon emissions but for the moment they need
policy support to become mature.
Conclusions-2
Conservation options in the building sector and in the transportation
together with efficiency improving end-use options are contributing to the
reduction of carbon emissions. This is indicated by the stabilization of final
energy use for USA although the economic activity assumes a significant
growth.
Finally, although the net GDP reduction on the global level remains below
1.4% the impact of the carbon constraint is DCs and oil/gas exporting
regions is significant asking for compensation measures.
This could be obtained by Cap & Trade policies, the carbon transfer fund
for renewable and by regional differentiation of carbon emission policies in
the early decades based on the expected economic developments and the
potential mitigation options across the world regions.