Transcript ETC/ACC

TFIAM 10-12 May 2004
Amiens
EEA scenario 2005 project :
sustainable emission pathways
Hans Eerens
RIVM
ETC/ACC partners and others involved:
• RIVM: IMAGE/TIMER/FAIR/EUROMOVE models,
global scenarios, climate effects, coordination
• NTUA: PRIMES/GEM-E3/PROMETHEUS models,
European energy system
• IIASA: RAINS model, European air quality
• AEAT: non-CO2 GHGs and non-energy CO2 emissions
• IPTS: POLES model, technology variants
• AUTH: OFIS model, transport & urban Air Quality
• NILU: Air Pollution State & policies
• CCE: Air pollution effects on ecosystems/critical loads
• EEA: project guidance, links with issues other than air
and climate change
ETC/ACC SCENARIOS IN
SUPPORT OF EEA SOEOR2005
Objectives:
• Explore air pollution and climate change
implications of CAFE baseline and policy
scenarios
– Long-Range Energy Modelling (LREM)
– Clean Air For Europe Kyoto ratified (CAFE-KR)
• Explore alternative scenarios which meet
sustainability goals also beyond CAFE
– Sustainable Emissions Pathways (SEP)
DRIVING FORCES, PRESSURE, STATE, IMPACTS AND
RESPONSES IN SOEOR2005
TOOLS USED FOR SOEOR2005 MODEL
ANALYSIS
GEM-E3
PROMETHEUS
OFIS
AQ Impacts
SEP
OVERVIEW OF THE PROCESS OF DESIGNING SUSTAINABLE
EMISSIONS PATHWAYS SCENARIO FOR EEA’S SOEOR2005 REPORT
Driving forces: population, economic growth
Add 2030-2100
Add non CO2 GHGs
CAFE
LREM
CAFE
LREM-E
NEC targets? Yes
Kyoto targets? No
NEC targets? Yes
Kyoto targets? Yes*
CAFE KR
long-term targets? No
Sustainable
Emissions Pathways
scenario (SEP)
NEC targets? Yes
Kyoto targets? Yes*
Energy system details
and variants
Low Economic growth
LREM-E/LE
CAFE
SEP-LE
ETC/ACC for EEA/SoEOR2005
long-term targets? Yes
THREE TIMEFRAMES FOR
SOEOR2005 ANALYSIS
Indicator value domestic GHG emissions EU15/OECD Europe
Short term
Cost-effectiviness
Focus on pressures
120
Medium-term
Focus on pressures, impact
Long term
Sustainability/infrastructure
Focus on driving forces/impact
LREM-E: existing policies, no kyoto
implementation
CAFE-KR full
implementation kyoto, NEC
Historical trend
PRIMES/SEP
IMAGE/SEP
.
Sustainable emission window
paths (2 degree target)
0
year
1990
1997
2003
2007
2010
2017
2023
2030
2050
2070
2080
2100
ECONOMIC GROWTH ASSUMPTIONS FOR SOEOR2005
European economic growth assumptions for LREM-E, CAFE-KR
and SEP well in range of other projections, ranking moderate
optimistic
POPULATION ASSUMPTIONS FOR SOEOR2005
POPULATION ASSUMPTIONS FOR SOEOR2005
PRIMARY ENERGY DEMAND IN EU-15 AND EU10 FOR
LREM-E, CAFE-KR AND SEP
LONG-TERM OBJECTIVE FOR
CLIMATE CHANGE
Temperature increase
IPCC
Temperature increase (Degrees C)
6.0
LREM-E
5.0
4.0
Objective adopted by EU
3.0
S650e
2.0
SEP
1.0
0.0
pre-industrial level
-1.0
2000
2100
2200
2300
2400
• The EU long-term climate objective of 2oC is roughly
consistent with stabilisation of CO2equivalent concentrations at
550 ppm for low to medium estimates of the climate sensitivity
IMPLICATIONS OF DIFFERENT GLOBAL BURDEN SHARING
OBJECTIVES FOR EUROPEAN EMISSIONS ALLOWANCES
Burden sharing
approach
C&C2100
C&C2075
Multi stage 2
Multi stage 1
Multi stage 3
C&C2050
Jacoby rule
Brazilian Proposal
Preference score
2010
2020
2030
2050
gasses
Remarks
-9
-9
-9
-9
-15
-18
-18
-21
-24
-24
-34
-38
-46
-48
-51
-46
-58
-64
-72
-71
-68
-76
6 GHG’s
6 GHG’s
6 GHG’s
6 GHG’s
6 GHG’s
6 GHG’s
No land-use related CO2
No land-use related CO2
No land-use related CO2
No land-use related CO2
No land-use related CO2
No land-use related CO2
-11
-11
-10
-25
-31
-39
-55
-80
-63
-80
-133
-81
CO2
CO2
CO2
Only energy CO2
Only energy CO2
Only energy CO2
For SoEOR2005, without prejudging negotiations outcomes,
assume: -20% by 2020 and, -40 % by 2030 as a sustainability
benchmark when evaluating scenarios
AIR QUALITY TARGETS
Pollutant
Value (average time)
nr of exceedances allowed/min
exceedance area
To be
met in
Human Health
Ozone (T)
PM10 (LV)
PM10 (LV)
SO2 (LV)
SO2 (LV)
NO2 (LV)
NO2 (LV)
3
120 μg/m (8h average)
50 μg/m3 (24h average)
40 μg/m3 (annual mean)
350 μg/m3 (1h average)
125 μg/m3 (24h average)
200 μg/m3 (1h average(
40 μg/m3 (annual mean)
< 76 days/3 year
< 36 days/year
None
< 25 hours/year
< 4 days /year
< 19 hours/year
None
Ecosystem protection
3
Ozone(T)
AOT40c of 18 (mg/m ).h (5 year average)
Daylight hours May-July
3
AOT40c of 6 (mg/m ).h (5 year average over Reduction >33% compared to
Ozone
22500 km2)
1990
Acifidication
Critical load exceedances (year, averaged
Reduction >50% compared to
2
over 22500 km )
1990
3
NOx(LV)
30 μg/m (annual mean)
> 1000 km2
SO2(LV)
20 μg/m3 (annual mean)
> 1000 km2
SO2((LV)
20 μg/m3 (winter average)
> 1000 km2
Long-term targets
PM10
50 μg/m3 (24h average)
None
3
PM10
20 μg/m (annual mean)
None
3
Ozone
120 μg/m (8h average)
None
3
Ozone
AOT40c of 6 (mg/m ).h (5 year average)
Daylight hours May-July
Acifidication
Critical load exceedances (year)
None
Eutrophication Critical load exceedances (year)
None
2010
2005
2005
2005
2005
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2001
2001
2001
-
EU SD AND ADOPTED (2010)
ASSUMED (2020-30) ENERGY TARGETS
EU Sustainable Development Strategy: 1%/yr GHG emission
• reductions
from 2012-2020 ; extended for SoEOR to 2030
•
•
•
EU25(domestic): 2010 -5.3% 2020 -13% 2030 -23%
EU Directive on renewables: electricity generation: 22.1% in 2010
(not met) extended for SoEOR to 27% (35) by 2020 and 35% (40)
by 2030
EU Directive on biofuels in transport:
2% by 2005, 5.75% by 2010;
;
extended for SoEOR2005 to 7.5% by 2020 and 10% by 2030
EU Directive on renewables: share of total energy use: 12% by
2010 (not met), at least 20% (15%, SEP 10%) by 2020;
extended for SoEOR2005 to 20% (30, SEP 13%) by 2030
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
GHG emissions EU-15
GHG emissions EU-25
5500
5500
5000
MtCO2/yr
5000
LREM
4500
LREM
CO2eq
SEP-Domestic
4500
CO2eq
4000
4000
SEP-Domestic
3500
CO2
3500
CO2
3000
3000
2500
2500
2000
1990
SEP
SEP
2000
2010
2020
2000
2030 1990
2000
2010
2020
LREM-E CO2eq
SEP CO2eq
LREM-E CO2
CAFE-KR CO2
SEP CO2
Target EU-15/25
In SEP GHGs domestic reduction 20-27 %
(2030), supplemented with flexible mechanism
to meet proposed targets SEP
2030
As energy intensity improvements become
more difficult and non-CO2 abatement options
get exhausted, shift to fuel mix changes
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
• In LREM-E, Kyoto targets are not met.
• In CAFE-KR (carbon prices €12/tCO2eq in 2010, €20 in
2020/2030), Kyoto targets are assumed to be met by
domestic measures plus significant usage of Kyoto
mechanisms; emissions increase after 2010
• In SEP (carbon prices €12/tCO2eq in 2010, €30 in 2020 and
€65 in 2030) emission allowances are in line with EU
longer-term climate target, but use of the Kyoto
mechanisms is still needed
• IN SEP, EU’s SD target (1% GHG reduction in 2010-2020)
and renewable energy targets are not met -> technology
variants (to be developed)
AIR POLLUTANT EMISSIONS
kT S (SO2), kt N (NOx, NH3), kt (VOC)
16000
14000
CAFE-KR, VOC
12000
10000
8000
CAFE-KR, SO2
6000
CAFE-KR, NOx
4000
2000
CAFE-KR, NH3
0
1990
2000
2010
2020
2030
YEAR
• 2010 targets for NEC pollutants are assumed to
be reached regardless of costs in CAFE
• Beyond 2010 emissions remain roughly stable in
the scenarios
Costs
PRIMES uses behavioural costs (discount rates):
8%
Large Utilities
12%
Large industrial & commercial entities
17.5% Households spending
Recalculation to social costs (as in RAINS), 4% discount
rate,
assuming decisions have been taken)
(Billion Euro)
2010
2020
2030
Behavioural costs
26
30
21
Social costs
25
39
32
Declining energy costs results in less capital investments,
GLOBAL CLIMATE IMPLICATIONS OF SCENARIOS
Rate of global temperature change
Global temperature change
(compared to 1961-1990 average)
0,35
change (oC)
3
2,5
change (oC/decade)
3,5
baseline
SEP
2
1,5
1
0,5
0,25
0,2
0,15
0,1
baseline
SEP
0,05
0
0
2000
0,3
2020
2040
2060
2080
2100
2000
2020
2040
2060
2080
• In LREM-E, the EU climate goal is exceeded around 2050
• In SEP, the global mean temperature increase remains
below the EU objective in this century
• In SEP, also the rate of change is lowered to facilitate
adaptation of social and ecological systems
2100
EXAMPLE OF CLIMATE CHANGE
IMPACTS AT EUROPEAN LEVEL
Climate Change induced Species disappearance 1995-2100
Database 1400 species, 270-1100 per country
LREM-E
SEP
UNCERTAINTY TREATMENT IN
SOEOR2005
• Measuring and monitoring: are statistics/measurement data
precise?
– Noted, not addressed in report
• Representativess indicators: Are impacts avoided if
climate/air quality goals are met? Is GDP an adequate measure
for welfare?
– Noted, not addressed in report
• Model dynamics: do models adequately represent real world?
– Differences models (PRIMES, POLES, TIMER) discussed in report
• Assumptions about the future: how uncertain is the future?
–
–
–
–
No probabilities analysed
Results compared with other studies
Low economic growth variant; low/high carbon price sensitivities
Technology variants
SCENARIOS FOR SOEOR2005: PRELIMINARY
CONCLUSIONS 1
• CAFE-KR is consistent with NEC and Kyoto targets if domestic
measures (up to €12/tCO2eq by 2010) are complemented by
usage of international mechanisms (trading, CDM).
• CAFE LREM-E meets NEC targets but is inconsistent with the
EU’s climate and renewable energy targets due to increasing
GHG emissions and slow penetration of renewables ---->.
• Additional (global) action will be needed to facilitate a transition
to a more sustainable Europe in terms of air pollution and
climate change -> SEP
• In SEP carbon prices go from €12/tCO
in 2010 to €65 in 2030,
cost-effective action requires a major part of the GHG emissions
reductions reached through international mechanisms.
2eq
SCENARIOS FOR SOEOR2005: PRELIMINARY
CONCLUSIONS 2
• SEP does initiate changes, but does not yet (2030) requires a
fundamental “transition” in the European energy system.
• A sustainability transition meeting all EU’s climate and energy
targets appears to be feasible, but at significant costs (400
Euro/household/year in 2030); there is not one optimal solution > SEP variants.
• Integrated CC&AP policies can result in cost savings, avoidance
of trade-offs, and effective abatement of air pollutant and GHG
emissions.
• A sustainability transition in Europe has to be viewed in a global
context.
• The costs for medium term GHG emissions reductions are
significant dependent on the assumed economic growth, as
shown by a lower economic growth variant.
SoEOR2005 variants
2003:
• Low economic growth
• Renewables
Considered for 2004:
• Hydrogen economy/C-capture-storage
• CAP reform
• Nuclear
– Phase-out
– increased
• External/internal burden sharing regimes
LREM-E LOW ECONOMIC GROWTH VARIANT
• LREM-E assumes moderately optimistic GDP
growth -> a similarly pessimistic variant has
been explored
• In the low economic growth variant, the effect of
lower activity levels outweighs the effect of
slower technological development
• Hence, GHG emissions are significant lower
than in the base case, making it easier to meet
NEC and Kyoto targets
• The emissions in the energy-intensive industry,
the power and transport sectors are particularly
sensitive to economic growth assumptions??
SEP: NEC assumptions
• Variant 1:
– Continue with NEC 2010
• Variant 2:
– NEC 2010, followed by:
– Proposed EU- wide target for 2020 (costeffective)
– MFR scenario for 2030