how can global ghg emissions peak in the next 10 to 15 years? · 21/11/2007  · nebojša...

NebojNebojšša Nakia NakiććenovienoviććInternational Institute for Applied Systems Analysis International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis xxxx

Technische UniversitTechnische Universitäät Wient Wien xxxxnaki@iiasa.ac.atnaki@iiasa.ac.at

How Can Global GHG Emissions Peak How Can Global GHG Emissions Peak in the Next 10 to 15 Years?in the Next 10 to 15 Years?

International Conference, International Conference, AbgeordnetenhausAbgeordnetenhaus BerlinBerlin –– 23 November 200723 November 2007

INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON CLIMATE CHNGE (IPCC)

The main finding from the comparison of SRES and new scenarios in the literature is that (high agreement, much evidence):● The ranges of main driving forces and emissions

have not changed very much● Population scenarios from major demographic

institutions are lower than they were at the time of TAR

● Regional medium-term (2030) economic projections for some developing country regions are currently lower than the highest scenarios used in TAR.

● The most noticeable changes are lower projections of SOx and NOx emissions.

2

Global Mean Temperature ChangeSix illustrative SRES scenarios, full range

Baseline Uncertainty:Baseline Uncertainty:50% climate sensitivity50% climate sensitivity25% population & GDP25% population & GDP25% technology25% technology

Uncertainty on extent and Uncertainty on extent and success of climate policiessuccess of climate policies

s

INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON CLIMATE CHANGE (IPCC)

INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON CLIMATE CHNGE (IPCC)4

Global CO2 EmissionsGlobal CO2 Emissions

INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON CLIMATE CHNGE (IPCC)5

Global CO2 EmissionsGlobal CO2 Emissions

6 Categories6 Categories

INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON CLIMATE CHNGE (IPCC)

LongLong--Term Stabilization ProfilesTerm Stabilization Profiles

~$100/tCO~$100/tCO22

INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON CLIMATE CHNGE (IPCC)

LongLong--term mitigation: stabilisation and term mitigation: stabilisation and equilibrium global mean temperaturesequilibrium global mean temperatures

INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON CLIMATE CHNGE (IPCC)

LongLong--term mitigation: stabilisation and term mitigation: stabilisation and equilibrium global mean temperaturesequilibrium global mean temperatures

INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON CLIMATE CHNGE (IPCC)

Emissions PeakEmissions Peak

11

INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON CLIMATE CHNGE (IPCC)

Below 2000Below 2000

12

INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON CLIMATE CHNGE (IPCC)

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

Energy conservation &efficiency

Fossil fuel switch

Renewables

Nuclear

CCS

Forest sinks andavoided deforestation

Non-CO2

Cumulative emissions reductions (2000-2030), GtCO20 500 1000 1500 2000

Cumulative emissions reductions (2000-2100), GtCO2

2000 - 2030 2000 - 2100

120

Emissions reductions for 650 ppm

Additional reductions for 490-540 ppm

IPAC

AIM

MESSAGE

IMAGE

N/A

efficiency

f

Forest sinks and

Cumulative Emissions ReductionsMitigation measures, 4 IAMs and 2 stabilization levels

INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON CLIMATE CHNGE (IPCC)

GDP LossGDP Loss

14

INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON CLIMATE CHNGE (IPCC)

GDP LossGDP Loss

15

INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON CLIMATE CHNGE (IPCC)

Carbon PriceCarbon Price

16

INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON CLIMATE CHNGE (IPCC)

Carbon PriceCarbon Price

17

INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON CLIMATE CHNGE (IPCC)18

Carbon PriceCarbon Price

INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON CLIMATE CHNGE (IPCC)

Total reduction potential

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

TD: 2030-Low TD: 2030-High

Tota

l GH

G re

duct

ion

pote

ntia

l (G

tCO

2-eq

)

$20/tCO2$50/tCO2$100/tCO2

INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON CLIMATE CHNGE (IPCC)

Global Mitigation Challenges• Significant mitigation potential by 2030 and

beyond at costs <$100/tCO2

• Technological change essential for reducing mitigation costs and increasing potentials

• “Upfront” investments reduce longer-term mitigation costs and increase potentials

• High emissions baselines have higher mitigation costs and higher stabilization levels.

• Investment in RD&D and diffusion reduce mitigation costs

After: Thomas Johansson, 2005After: Thomas Johansson, 2005

NakicenovicNakicenovic ##2121 20072007

100

1,000

10,000

100,000

0 0.1 1 10 100 1,000Cumulative expenditures, billion (1985) Yen

PV

cos

ts (1

985)

Yen

per

W

1973: 30,000

y = 104.0 –0.54x

R2 = 0.989

1995: 640

Applied R&D InvestmentBasic R&D

1976: 16,300

1980: 4,900

1985: 1,200

Data source:Watanabe, 1995 &1997

Japan Japan -- PV Costs vs. ExpendituresPV Costs vs. Expenditures

GrGrüübler, 2002bler, 2002

100

1,000

10,000

100,000

0 0.1 1 10 100 1,000Cumulative expenditures, billion (1985) Yen

PV

cos

ts (1

985)

Yen

per

W

1973: 30,000

y = 104.0 –0.54x

R2 = 0.989

1995: 640

Applied R&D InvestmentBasic R&D

1976: 16,300

1980: 4,900

1985: 1,200

Data Source: Watanabe, 1997 ~ $1 109

Cost reduction~ $100 109

NakicenovicNakicenovic ##2222 20072007

0

200

400600

800

1000

1200

14001600

1800

2000

2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100

EJ

RenewablesNuclearGasOilCoal

Global Primary Energy Global Primary Energy –– A2rA2r

NakicenovicNakicenovic ##2323 20072007

0

200

400600

800

1000

1200

14001600

1800

2000

2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100

EJ

RenewablesNuclearGasOilCoal

Global Primary Energy Global Primary Energy –– B1B1

INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON CLIMATE CHNGE (IPCC)

Surface Temperature ChangeAOGCM projections for illustrative SRES scenarios

NakicenovicNakicenovic ##2525 20072007

Climate Mitigation vs Total Energy Investments(World, 2000-2030)

Climate mitigation investments

Total investments “Upfront”Investments

0

5

10

15

20

25

Trill

ion

US$

2000

A2 B1 A2 B1 25

NakicenovicNakicenovic ##2626 20072007

Total Energy-related Investments(World, short & long-term)

0

25

50

75

100

125

150

175

200

Trill

ion

US$

2000

A2 B1 A2 B1

2000-21002000-2030

Long-termInvestment

Savings(~40 trillion)

“Upfront” Investments(~2 trillion)

26

400

450

500

550

600

650

700

4006008001000120014001600

CO2-equivalent concentration in 2100, ppmv

Cum

ulat

ive

Sys

tem

Cos

ts (t

rilli

on$)

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

Cum

ulat

ive

Emis

sion

s (G

tCeq

.)

Emissions and Costs2000-2100

Emissions

Costs

A2r B1

27

Existing and Planned ProjectsExisting and Planned ProjectsSleipner Project, saline formation, North SeaWeyburn, EOR, Saskatchewan, CanadaIn Salah, gas reservoir, Algeria (development)Snohvit, off-shore saline formation, North SeaGorgon, saline formation, Australia (planning)

Nakicenovic #30 Source: Sally Benson, 2003

NakicenovicNakicenovic ##3131 20072007http://www.nrel.gov/data/pix/Jpegs/06442.jpghttp://www.nrel.gov/data/pix/Jpegs/06442.jpg

UsinaUsina Santa Elisa mill in Santa Elisa mill in SertaozinhoSertaozinho, Brazil, Brazil

NakicenovicNakicenovic ##3232 20072007Source: Source: www.fuelwww.fuel--efficientefficient--vehicles.orgvehicles.org

Tesla Electric RoadsterTesla Electric Roadster

NakicenovicNakicenovic ##3333 20072007

Toyota Toyota PriusPrius MethaneMethane

NakicenovicNakicenovic ##3434 20072007

Honda Honda PuyoPuyo FuellFuell CellCell

NakicenovicNakicenovic ##3535 20072007

CITARO HCITARO H22 Fuel Cell BusFuel Cell Bus

NakicenovicNakicenovic ##3636 20072007

Source: Source: TupolevTupolev

Hydrogen Airplane DesignHydrogen Airplane Design

NakicenovicNakicenovic ##3737 20072007Source: EPRISource: EPRI

Energy SuperGrid and Energy SuperGrid and MagLevMagLev TrainsTrains

NakicenovicNakicenovic ##3838 20072007

A Vision of a Future Energy SystemA Vision of a Future Energy System

Source: EU, 2002Source: EU, 2002

NakicenovicNakicenovic ##3939 20072007

naki@iiasa.ac.atnaki@iiasa.ac.at