EEA 29-30 June 2004 Copenhagen EEA scenario 2005 project : sustainable emission pathways...
-
Upload
yuliana-rutty -
Category
Documents
-
view
215 -
download
0
Transcript of EEA 29-30 June 2004 Copenhagen EEA scenario 2005 project : sustainable emission pathways...
EEA 29-30 June 2004 Copenhagen
EEA scenario 2005 project : sustainable emission pathways
Presentation by Hans Eerens
EEA-ETC/ACC, RIVM/MNP
It is not most important to predict the future,but to be prepared for it
Perikles (about 500-429 b. Chr.)
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)
CAFE LREM
Dri
vin
g f
orc
es:
po
pu
lati
on
, ec
on
om
ic g
row
th
CAFE ETC/ACC for EEA/SoEOR2005
OVERVIEW OF THE PROCESS OF DESIGNING SUSTAINABLE EMISSIONS PATHWAYS SCENARIO FOR EEA’S SOEOR2005 REPORT
CAFE LREM-E
Add 2030-2100
Add non CO2 GHGs
NEC targets? Yes
Kyoto targets? No
LREM-E/LE SEP-LELow Economic growth
Sustainable Emissions Pathways
scenario (SEP)
Energy system details and variants
NEC targets? Yes
Kyoto targets? Yes*
long-term targets? Yes
CAFE KR
NEC targets? Yes
Kyoto targets? Yes*
long-term targets? No
THREE TIMEFRAMES FOR SOEOR2005 ANALYSIS
0
120
1990 1997 2003 2007 2010 2017 2023 2030 2050 2070 2080 2100year
Ind
ica
tor
va
lue
do
me
sti
c G
HG
em
iss
ion
s E
U-
15
/OE
CD
Eu
rop
e
LREM-E: existing policies, no kyoto implementation
CAFE-KR full implementation kyoto, NECHistorical trend
Short termCost-effectivinessFocus on pressures
Medium-termFocus on pressures, impact
Long termSustainability/infrastructureFocus on driving forces/impact
IMAGE/SEP.
Sustainable emission window paths (2 degree target)
PRIMES/SEP
TOOLS USED FOR SOEOR2005 MODEL ANALYSIS
OFIS
AQ Impacts
GEM-E3 PROMETHEUS
SEP
EMEP model
Indicator unit2000 2030 2000 2030 2050
All scenariosHouseholds Billion 0,19 0,23 0,7Population Billion 0,45 0,46 0,03 1 6,1 8,2 9
LREM/SEP scenariosGDP/cap 1000 pppEuro2000 20,5 41,6 2,4 2,4 5,3 10,6 14,4LREM/SEP-LE scenarios
GDP/cap 1000 pppEuro2000 20,5 34,7 1,7 1,8 5,3 8,9 12,1LREM-E scenario
CO2/cap ton CO2/cap 8,1 9,4 0,5 0,8 4,6 5,9 6,3CO2eq/cap ton CO2eq/cap 10,3 11,7 0,4 0,8 6,2 7,8 8,2CO2 emission index 1990=100 97 114 0,6 1,9 105 181 210CO2eq emission index 1990=100 95 108 0,4 1,7 106 176 205Primary Energy demand Mtoe 1650 1960 0,6 1,8 9800 17000 22000
liguid fuels % (EU30) 38,3 34,9 -0,3 -0,2 38,7 36,2 29,1natural gas % (EU30) 22,4 32,2 1,3 0,5 20,9 24,4 30,9
nuclear % (EU30) 13,7 8,4 -1,6 -0,6 2,2 1,8 1,8renewables % (EU30) 7,1 9,4 1 -0,7 14,6 11,7 12,2Solid fuels % (EU30) 18,6 15 -0,7 0,3 23,4 25,8 26
SEP scenarioCO2 reduction, burden index 1990=100 95 62 -1,4 0,5 105 121 68CO2,domestically (TIMER) index 1990=100 95 74 -0,7CO2 domestically (PRIMES) index 1990=100 97 89 -0,3CO2eq emission (PRIMES) index 1990=100 95 84 -0,4 0,3 105 115 76CO2/cap ton CO2/cap 8,1 7,3 -0,3 -0,5 4,6 4 2CO2eq/cap ton CO2eq/cap 10,3 9 -0,3 -0,6 6,2 5,1 3,1Primary Energy demand Mtoe 1650 1800 0,3 0,8 9600 12200 12300
liguid fuels % (EU30) 38,3 35,2 -0,3 -0,5 38,7 33,8 24,8natural gas % (EU30) 22,4 33,5 1,4 1,0 20,9 28,3 28,4
nuclear % (EU30) 13,7 11,4 -0,6 1,1 2,2 3 6,4renewables % (EU30) 7,1 14 2,3 0,6 14,6 17,5 28,1Solid fuels % (EU30) 18,6 5,9 -3,6 -1,0 23,4 17,5 12,2
Europe (EU25)
2000-30annual change (%)
Global
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
PRIMARY ENERGY DEMAND IN EU-15 AND EU10 FOR LREM-E, CAFE-KR AND SEP
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
1970 1990 2010 2030 2050 2070 2090
GH
G e
mis
sio
ns
(G
tCO
2-eq
)
LREM
A1b
B1
A2
B2
LREM emissions compared to SRES scenarios
LONG-TERM OBJECTIVE FOR CLIMATE CHANGE
Objective adopted by EU
• 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
IPCC
-1.0
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
2000 2100 2200 2300 2400
Tem
per
atu
re in
crea
se (
Deg
rees
C)
Temperature increase
LREM-E
S650e
SEP
pre-industrial level
• To explore and evaluate the environmental and abatement costs implications of possible future international climate policy regimes for differentiation of mitigation commitments
• The model is not made to promote any particular regime, but to allow for comparing regimes in consistent and transparent way
Objective FAIR 2.0
Global emission profile
Regional emissions targets
Regional GHG emissions after trade
Climate assessmentmodel
Per capita Convergence
Multi-stageapproach
emission intensity system
CLIMATE MODEL
Global emission profile
Abatement costs & permit price
DATASETS
EMISSIONS ALLOCATION MODEL
Mitigation costs & Emissions trade
EMISSION TRADE & COST MODEL
Historicalemissions
BrazilianProposal
Triptych approach
Baselinescenario
Emissionsprofile
MACs
FAIR 2.0 model
Global emission reduction objective
FAIR website: www.rivm.nl/fair
IMPLICATIONS OF DIFFERENT GLOBAL BURDEN SHARING OBJECTIVES FOR EUROPEAN EMISSIONS ALLOWANCES
For SoEOR2005, without prejudging negotiations outcomes, assume: -20% by 2020 and, -40 % by 2030 as a sustainability
benchmark when evaluating scenarios
Burden sharingapproach
2010 2020 2030 2050 gasses Remarks
C&C2100 -15 -34 -58 6 GHG’s No land-use related CO2
C&C2075 -9 -18 -38 -64 6 GHG’s No land-use related CO2
Multi stage 2 -9 -18 -46 -72 6 GHG’s No land-use related CO2
Multi stage 1 -9 -21 -48 -71 6 GHG’s No land-use related CO2
Multi stage 3 -9 -24 -51 -68 6 GHG’s No land-use related CO2
C&C2050 -24 -46 -76 6 GHG’s No land-use related CO2
Jacoby rule -11 -25 -55 -80 CO2 Only energy CO2
Brazilian Proposal -11 -31 -80 -133 CO2 Only energy CO2
Preference score -10 -39 -63 -81 CO2 Only energy CO2
CO2-eq. Emissions
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050time (years)
GtCO2/ yr reduction for S550e profile (SEP) (%)
-80%
-60%
-40%
-20%
0%
20%
40%
2025 2050
1990
LREM-E
SEP
LREM-E
Em
issi
ons
Gt
CO
2
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
197090 10 30 50 70 90
Sinks
Carbon Capture
Fuelswitch
Solar, wind, nuclear
Biofuels
Efficiency improvementSEP
LREM-E
2100
2010 2020 2030 2050world 138 145 115 71EU25 90 82 58 36USA & Canada 121 101 71 39South-East +East Asia 203 203 168 133South Asia 206 253 243 267
CO2eq Energy, industry and non CO2 Land-use change
Permit prices assumed
CAFE-KR SEP SEP-LE SEP SEP-LEAssumed permit price at EU-level1 Assumed global
permit priceYear
Euro (2000)/ton CO2
Low medium High2010 6 12 18 12 6 5 22015 8 16 24 20 6 6 12020 10 20 30 30 20 25 152025 10 20 30 50 40 45 352030 10 20 30 65 55 60 502040 - - - 105 802050 - - - 115 952075 - - - 165 1052100 - - - 190 105
EU SD AND ADOPTED (2010)
ASSUMED (2020-30) ENERGY TARGETS
• EU Sustainable Development Strategy: 1%/yr GHG emissionreductions from 2012-2020 ; extended for SoEOR to 2030EU25(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% by 2020 and 35% 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%, we choose 15% (SEP 10%) by 2020; extended for SoEOR2005 to 20% ( SEP 13%) by 2030
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONSGHG emissions EU-15
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
5000
5500
1990 2000 2010 2020 2030
MtC
O2/
yr
LREM-E CO2eq SEP CO2eq LREM-E CO2
CAFE-KR CO2 SEP CO2 Target EU-15/25
GHG emissions EU-25
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
5000
5500
1990 2000 2010 2020 2030
LREM
SEP-Domestic
SEP
CO2
CO2eq
CO2eq
CO2
SEP
LREM
SEP-Domestic
In SEP GHGs domestic reduction 20-27 % (2030), supplemented with flexible mechanism to meet proposed targets SEP
As energy intensity improvements become more difficult and non-CO2 abatement options get exhausted, shift to fuel mix changes
• 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)
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
AIR POLLUTANT EMISSIONS
• 2010 targets for NEC pollutants are assumed to be reached regardless of costs in CAFE
• Beyond 2010 emissions remain roughly stable in the scenarios
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
16000
1990 2000 2010 2020 2030YEAR
kT S
(S
O2
), k
t N
(N
Ox,
NH
3), k
t (V
OC
)
CAFE-KR, VOC
CAFE-KR, SO2
CAFE-KR, NOx
CAFE-KR, NH3
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, counted more heavily in behavioural costs
GLOBAL CLIMATE IMPLICATIONS OF SCENARIOS
Rate of global temperature change
0
0,05
0,1
0,15
0,2
0,25
0,3
0,35
2000 2020 2040 2060 2080 2100
ch
an
ge
(o
C/d
ec
ad
e)
baseline
SEP
Global temperature change (compared to 1961-1990 average)
0
0,5
1
1,5
2
2,5
3
3,5
2000 2020 2040 2060 2080 2100
ch
an
ge
(o
C)
baseline
SEP
• 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
Percentage change in average annual water availability for European river basins as compared to today’s levels, realized with two different climate models (ECHAM4 and HadCM3) for the 2070s.
EXAMPLE OF CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS AT EUROPEAN LEVEL
LREM-E SEP
Climate Change induced Species disappearance 1995-2100
Database 1400 species, 270-1100 per country
223
55
196
520
188
-50 -25 0 25 50 75
X
2-4 (cold)
5
6
7-9 (warm)
change (%)
187
27
54
115
165
-5 0 5 10 15
x
1 - 3
4
5
6-8
change (%)
Changes in frequencies of groups of plant species adapted to ‘warm’and cold’conditions in theNetherlands (left) and a study area in Norway (right, according Ellenberg numbers. LowEllenberg represent plant groups that are accustomed to cold conditions, high numbers aregroups accustomed to warm (upper part) growing conditions. For the Netherlands the periods1975-1984 and 1985-1999 have been compared, for Norway 1958-1961 and 2000-2002Source: Tamis et al. , (2001), Often & Stabbetorp, (2003), EEA (2204)
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
• 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 2eq in 2010 to €65 in 2030,
cost-effective action requires a major part of the GHG emissions
reductions reached through international mechanisms.
SCENARIOS FOR SOEOR2005: PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS 2
• SEP does initiate changes, but does not yet (2030) requires afundamental “transition” in the European energy system.
• A sustainability transition meeting all EU’s climate and energytargets appears to be feasible, but at significant costs (400Euro/household/year in 2030); there is not one optimal solution -> SEP variants.
• Integrated CC&AP policies can result in cost savings, avoidanceof trade-offs, and effective abatement of air pollutant and GHGemissions.
• A sustainability transition in Europe has to be viewed in a globalcontext.
• The costs for medium term GHG emissions reductions aresignificant dependent on the assumed economic growth, asshown by a lower economic growth variant.
SoEOR2005 variants2003:• 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??
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
Series: GDP growth rate OECD EuropeSample 1 1000Observations 1000
Mean 1.968327Median 1.983300Maximum 3.951006Minimum 0.271533Std. Dev. 0.613173Skewness 0.065407Kurtosis 2.848421
Jarque-Bera 1.670359Probability 0.433797
Probability distribution of the 2000-2030 growth rate for OECD Europe
-40.0
-35.0
-30.0
-25.0
-20.0
-15.0
-10.0
-5.0
0.0
BU,RO,TU NO,SW EU-15 CCA Europe 30
2010 2020 2030
Change in GDP by region in Europe 30 (% difference from baseline levels)Source: PRIMES, GEM-E3
-6.9 -7.3
-3.9
-6.2
-4.5
-6.2-7.0
-2.2
-4.2
-12.6
-11.1
-8.2
-10.7
-7.0
-12.4-12.0
-5.6
-17.6
-15.4
-11.4
-14.6
-9.5
-17.2-16.6
-20.0
-18.0
-16.0
-14.0
-12.0
-10.0
-8.0
-6.0
-4.0
-2.0
0.0
GDP householdincome
metalindustries
chemicals otherenergy
intensiveindustries
non-energyintensiveindustries
services agriculture
2010
2020
2030
Change in GDP, private income and value added by sector in Europe 30 (difference frombaseline levels)
-6.9
-9.6
-12.0
-14.3
-16.6
-3.4
-12.7
-11.0
-9.2
-7.1
-5.0
-1.6
-11.3
-9.6
-7.9
-1.6
-6.1
-4.3
-18.0
-16.0
-14.0
-12.0
-10.0
-8.0
-6.0
-4.0
-2.0
0.0
2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030
GDPCO2 emissionsPrimary Energy demand
Europe 30 primary energy indicators in the low growth case (% change from baselinelevels)
50.0
55.0
60.0
65.0
70.0
75.0
80.0
85.0
90.0
95.0
100.0
1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030
Energy intensityCarbon intensity
Baseline Low growth case
-279
-336
-41
-226
-112
-166-144
-305
-251
-198
-100
-26
-67
-212
-309
-425
-530
-641-700
-600
-500
-400
-300
-200
-100
0
2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030
Demand side
Supply side
Total
Changes in CO2 emissions in Europe 30 in the low growth case (diff. from baseline in MtCO2)
AIR QUALITY TARGETSPollutant Value (average time) nr of exceedances allowed/min
exceedance areaTo bemet in
Human HealthOzone (T) 120 μg/m 3 (8h average) < 76 days/3 year 2010PM10 (LV) 50 μg/m 3 (24h average) < 36 days/year 2005PM10 (LV) 40 μg/m 3 (annual mean) None 2005SO2 (LV) 350 μg/m 3 (1h average) < 25 hours/year 2005SO2 (LV) 125 μg/m 3 (24h average) < 4 days /year 2005NO2 (LV) 200 μg/m 3 (1h average( < 19 hours/year 2010NO2 (LV) 40 μg/m 3 (annual mean) None 2010
Ecosystem protectionOzone(T) AOT40c of 18 (mg/m3).h (5 year average) Daylight hours May-July 2010Ozone AOT40c of 6 (mg/m3).h (5 year average over
22500 km2)Reduction >33% compared to1990
2010
Acifidication Critical load exceedances (year, averagedover 22500 km2)
Reduction >50% compared to1990
2010
NOx(LV) 30 μg/m 3 (annual mean) > 1000 km2 2001SO2(LV) 20 μg/m 3 (annual mean) > 1000 km2 2001SO2((LV) 20 μg/m 3 (winter average) > 1000 km2 2001
Long-term targets
PM10 50 μg/m 3 (24h average) None -
PM10 20 μg/m 3 (annual mean) None -
Ozone 120 μg/m 3 (8h average) None -
Ozone AOT40c of 6 (mg/m3).h (5 year average) Daylight hours May-July -Acifidication Critical load exceedances (year) None -Eutrophication Critical load exceedances (year) None -
DRIVING FORCES, PRESSURE, STATE, IMPACTS AND RESPONSES IN SOEOR2005
POPULATION ASSUMPTIONS FOR SOEOR2005
Table Error! No text of specified style in document.-1 GHG emissions of the LREM-E scenarioby region
CO2 emissions(in GtCO2 per year)
GHG emissions(in GtCO2-eq per year) *
1995 2025 2050 1995 2025 2050Canada & USA 6.10 8.09 8.40 7.55 9.50 9.58Enlarged EU 4.36 5.10 5.32 5.38 6.00 6.05FSU 2.32 3.24 3.59 3.20 4.50 4.71Oceania 0.33 0.54 0.64 0.53 0.79 0.87Japan 1.26 1.48 1.41 1.37 1.58 1.51Latin America 1.18 2.89 5.11 2.33 4.54 7.00Africa 0.79 2.32 4.52 1.60 4.17 7.32ME & Turkey 1.06 2.85 4.36 1.35 3.69 5.73South Asia 0.97 3.79 7.46 2.11 5.54 9.44SE & E Asia 4.62 11.36 16.03 6.64 14.42 19.28World 22.99 41.65 56.83 32.06 54.74 71.48
LREM scenario
Table Error! No text of specified style in document.-1: Trends in atmosphericconcentration of different greenhouse gases between 1990 and 2100 for the LREM-E andSEP scenario
Year CH4
(ppb)N2O(ppb)
O3
(Du)F-gases(ppt)1
LREM-E SEP LREM-E SEP LREM-E SEP LREM-E SEPHistoric 700 Id 270 Id 16 Id 0 Id1990 1687 Id 308 Id 32 Id 9 + 1813 Id2000 1825 Id 314 Id 33 Id 35 + 1947 Id2010 2016 1989 321 Id 35 Id 140 + 1998 Id2020 2246 2025 330 329 36 35 302+ 1899 259+18942030 2458 1944 340 338 36 33 524+1707 319+16882050 2691 1699 361 350 37 30 1126+1147 499+13932075 2655 1552 389 364 36 29 1736+1293 628+11872100 2552 1453 416 376 35 28 1892+1271 568+1069
1 Two numbers are given for F gases. The first number represents the concentration of F gases under theKyoto protocol (e.g. HFC’s), the latter number represents F gases under the 1987 Montreal protocol (e.g.HCFC’s)
Changes in growing season throughout Europe for the LREM-E (left)
and SEP (right) scenario (2100 compared to 1990). Unit: days per year
Temperature increase in 2100 in LREM-E (LEFT) and SEP (right) for different regions in theworld (compared to 1990), ranging from 0-1 oC (blue areas) to 5-6 oC (red areas)