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