Linkages between air pollution and climate
-
Upload
panthea-zurlo -
Category
Documents
-
view
34 -
download
0
description
Transcript of Linkages between air pollution and climate
M. Amann G. Klaassen, R. Mechler, J. Cofala, C. HeyesInternational Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA)
Modelling synergies and trade-offs
between mitigation of GHGs and air pollution
with the RAINS model
Linkages between air pollution and climate
• Air pollutants have radiative forcing:
• Ozone controls serve air quality and climate concerns
• Aerosols/PM damage human health and influence climate
• Environmental impacts of CC and AP are interlinked
• Synergies and trade-offs in emission controls
A multi-pollutant/multi-effect frameworkextended to GHGs
PM SO2 NOx VOC NH3 CO2 CH4 N2OCFCsHFCsSF6
Health impacts: PM
O3 Vegetation damage: O3
Acidification
Eutrophication Radiative forcing: - direct
- via aerosols
- via OH
Introducing GHGs into RAINS
• Develop cost curves for GHGs (CO2, CH4, N2O, HFC, PFC, SF6) in addition to SO2, NOx, VOC, NH3, PM, (BC, CO)
• Country-by-country, medium-term up to 2030
• Include structural changes as means for emission controls
• Capture synergies and trade-offs
CO2 control options in the power sector
Shift from to Gas Hydro
Bio-mass
Wind
onshore
Wind
offshore
Solar
PV
Other
renew.
Carbon
capture
Brown coal x x x x x x x
Hard coal x x x x x x x x
Heavy fuel oil
x x x x x x x
Natural gas x x x x x x
CO2 cost curve Germany, power sector, 2020
0
10
20
30
0 50 100 150 200 250
Mt CO2
Eu
ro/t
on
CO
2
Options to control CH4
Technology Cost (€/tCH4)
Technology Cost (€/tCH4)
Paper recycling -1750Further gas use in gas extraction
7
Improved feeding -1231 Housing adaptation 15
Increased gas flaring -377 Alternative rice strains 45
Improved I&M for gas distribution
-200 Digestion 66
Gas use in oil extract. -187 Integrated waste water systems 100
Recovery in coal mines -67 Doubling leak control 1203
Gas use in gas extraction
-57 Waste diversion 1438
Ban of agricultural waste burning
0 Replace gray cast iron network 2378
Propionate precursors 4250
CH4 cost curve France, 2020
-100
-50
0
50
100
150
200
250
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Mt CO2eq
Eu
ro/t
on
CO
2eq
First preliminary results
Data and assumptions
• Latest RAINS energy- & cost data
• For EU-25, excluding Cyprus and Malta (EU-23)
• For 2020
Reference case (REF)
• CAFE “without climate measures” energy projections for 2020
• Air pollution control according to recent EU legislation (NEC Directive, LCP Directive, Auto-Oil, etc.)
Scenario 1: Fuel-shift
CO2 control in the power sector
• Cost-effective fuel shift measures to reduce CO2 emissions in the power sector by 15 %
• Subject to exogenous electricity demand
Fuel shifts applied to reduce CO2 emissions
-60% -40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Wind, solar
Biomass
Hydro
Gas
Hard coal
Brown coal
cf. REFScenario 1
CO2
[Mt]
NOx
[kt]
SO2
[kt]
PM2.5[kt]
Changes in emissionscompared to REF, EU-23
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
Fuel-shift Multi-gas Bio-fuel
-80
-70
-60
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
Fuel-shift Multi-gas Bio-fuel
-250
-200
-150
-100
-50
0
Fuel-shift Multi-gas Bio-fuel
-250
-200
-150
-100
-50
0
Fuel-shift Multi-gas Bio-fuel
Differences in premature deaths(cases/year, compared to REF)
-4000
-3000
-2000
-1000
0
1000
Fuel-shift Multi-gas Bio-fuel
Emission control costs(billion €/yr, compared to REF)
Control of Fuel-shift scenario
CO2 +3.5
CH4 0
GHGs +3.5
SO2 -1.4
NOx -0.3
PM -0.6
Air pollutants -2.3
Total +1.2
Scenario 2: Multi-gas
Multi-GHG control
• In each country, the equivalent CO2 reductions of the Fuel-shift scenario are achieved with CO2 and CH4 controls
CH4 reduction measures applied in the Multi-gas scenario
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Paper recycling
Improved feed conversion efficiency
Decreased gas flaring
Improved I&M for gas distribution
Use gas in oil extraction
Gas recovery coal mines
Increased gas utilization
Ban agricultural waste burning
Further increased gas utilization
Housing adaptation
Alternative rice strains
Digestion
Integrated waste water systems
Doubling leak control frequency
Other waste diversion
Replacement of grey cast iron network
Propionate precursors
MtCO2eq
Fuel shifts applied in the Fuel-shift and Multi-gas scenarios
-60% -40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Wind, solar
Biomass
Hydro
Gas
Hard coal
Brown coal
cf. REFScenario 2 Scenario 1
CO2
[Mt]
NOx
[kt]
SO2
[kt]
PM2.5[kt]
Changes in emissionscompared to REF, EU-23
CH4
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
Fuel-shift Multi-gas Bio-fuel
-80
-70
-60
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
Fuel-shift Multi-gas Bio-fuel
-250
-200
-150
-100
-50
0
Fuel-shift Multi-gas Bio-fuel
-250
-200
-150
-100
-50
0
Fuel-shift Multi-gas Bio-fuel
CH4
Differences in premature deaths(cases/year, compared to REF)
-4000
-3000
-2000
-1000
0
1000
Fuel-shift Multi-gas Bio-fuel
Emission control costs(billion €/yr, compared to REF)
Control of Fuel-shift Multi-gas
CO2 +3.5 +2.1
CH4 0 -1.2
GHGs +3.5 +0.9
SO2 -1.4 -1.2
NOx -0.3 -0.2
PM -0.6 -0.4
Air pollutants -2.3 -1.8
Total +1.2 -0.9
Scenario 3: Bio-fuels
Increased biomass use in households
• Shift to biomass use for domestic heating:10% of light fuel oil is replaced by biomass
CO2
[Mt]
NOx
[kt]
SO2
[kt]
PM2.5[kt]
Changes in emissionscompared to REF, EU-23
-250
-200
-150
-100
-50
0
Fuel-shift Multi-gas Bio-fuel
-80
-70
-60
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
Fuel-shift Multi-gas Bio-fuel
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
Fuel-shift Multi-gas Bio-fuel
-250
-200
-150
-100
-50
0
Fuel-shift Multi-gas Bio-fuel
CH4
Differences in premature deaths(cases/year, compared to REF)
-4000
-3000
-2000
-1000
0
1000
Fuel-shift Multi-gas Bio-fuel
Emission control costs(billion €/yr, compared to REF)
Control of Bio-fuel scenario
CO2 +0.6
CH4 0
GHGs +0.6
SO2 -0.1
NOx 0
PM 0
Air pollutants -0.1
Total 0.5
Further work
• Finalization of cost curves for other GHGs
• Optimization tool: – Separate and joint optimization of emission controls for
air pollutants and GHGs:– With constraints (targets) for air quality– With constraints (targets) for radiative forcing/GWP– Simulation of emission trading, emission taxes
• Implementation for developing countries
Conclusions (1)
• Important synergies and trade-offs exist between air pollution control and GHG mitigation
• Integration can maximize synergies and avoid trade-offs
• To be truly cost-effective, climate policies have to account for cost savings of reducing traditional air pollutants - both for industrialized and developing countries
Conclusions (2)
Multi-pollutant/multi-effect/multi-scale strategies:
• offer more flexibility and increased potential for economic efficiency
• harness multiple benefits of measures when costs are increasing
• connect global long-term climate objectives with concrete local near-term benefits