eea scenario 2005 project: “climate change and a european low- carbon energy system” rob swart,...
TRANSCRIPT
EEA scenario 2005 project:
“Climate Change and a European low-carbon energy
system”
Rob Swart, EEA Topic Centre Air and Climate Change
(core presentation provided by Hans Eerens)
It is not most important to predict the future, but to be prepared for it
Perikles (about 500-429 b. Chr.)
SoEOR2005 Air and Climate Change
Energy and GHG projections
Regional air quality 2000-2030
Some conclusions
SoEOR2005
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• DNMI: EMEP model
• AEAT: non-CO2 GHGs and non-energy CO2 emissions
• IPTS: POLES model, technology variants• AUTH: OFIS, OSPM 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
SoEOR2005: series of reportsSoEOR2005: series of reports
• Climate change and a low-carbon European energy system
• European Environmental Outlook
• Main SoEOR2005 report (29 November 2005)• Air quality and ancillary benefits of climate policy
(December 2005?)
SoEOR2005 SoEOR2005 ObjectiveObjective ACC ACC
Assessment of long-term air pollution and climate change trends and scenarios
–Europe (2030) in a global long-term context (2100)–Baseline (no climate action after 2012, moderate high
economic growth, based on CAFE scenario)–Climate action scenario (550 CO2eq) assuming EU25
GHG target of -40 % by 2030 (from 1990 levels), combination of domestic action and use of international flexibility mechanisms
–Variants (low economic growth path, high renewable/biomass ambitions, increase/decrease use of nuclear energy, Maximum Feasible Reductions AQ)
Baseline and climate action scenarios compared to IPCC SRES scenarios
300
500
700
900
1100
1300
1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100
year
CO
2eq
conc
(pp
mv)
baseline 550mitigation A1B A2 B1 B2Climate action
Impact of a 75 year Convergence and Contraction global burden sharing Impact of a 75 year Convergence and Contraction global burden sharing
approach on the GHG emissions ceiling for various world regionsapproach on the GHG emissions ceiling for various world regions
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
GH
G e
mis
ison
s re
lativ
e to
199
0 (1
990=
100)
202020302050
C&C75
Global development in energy use 1970-2100:Global development in energy use 1970-2100:
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1971
1980
1990
2000
2010
2016
2020
2022
2025
2030
2033
2037
2043
2047
2055
2065
2075
2085
2095
EJ
Baseline
Coal
Oil
Natural gas
Biofuels
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1971
1980
1990
2000
2010
2016
2020
2022
2025
2030
2033
2037
2043
2047
2055
2065
2075
2085
2095
EJ
Climate action
Coal
Oil
Natural gas Biofuels
Global trend in CO2eq emissionsGlobal trend in CO2eq emissions
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
2020
2025
2030
2035
2040
2045
2050
2055
2060
2065
2070
2075
2080
2085
2090
2095
2100
Gto
n C
O2e
q
CO2-climate action CH4-climate action
N2O-climate action F-gases-climate action
CO2 baseline additional to climate action CH4 baseline additional to climate action
N2O baseline additional to climate action F-gases baseline additional to climate action
Baseline
Climate action
Focus on 2030: avoided COFocus on 2030: avoided CO22 emissions emissions
Climate action
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030
Pro
ject
ed e
nerg
y-re
late
d C
O2
emis
sion
s (M
t) Transport
Services
Households
Industry
Energy Branch
Electricity and Steamproduction
CO2 Emission Climate action
Avoidable "baseline" emissions by sector:
0
20
40
60
80
100
NOx SO2 NMVOC NH3 PM10
Ind
ex (
year
200
0 =
100)
2000 2020 CAFE 2030 baseline 2030 LGEP 2030 LGEP-MFR
Change in emissions of air pollutants in the Change in emissions of air pollutants in the EU 25 region relative to 2000EU 25 region relative to 2000
Ancillary benefits of climate policy
Anthropogenic contribution to modeled grid-average PM2.5 concentrations (annual mean, µg/m3)
2000 2020 CAFE
2030 Climate Action
2030 Climate Action -
MFR
Percentage of total ecosystems area receiving nitrogen deposition above the critical loads
2000 2020 CAFE
2030 Climate Action - MFR
2030 Climate Action
Percentage of forest area receiving acid deposition above the critical loads
2000 2020 CAFE
2030 Climate Action - MFR
2030 Climate Action
Loss in statistical life expectancy that can be attributed to the anthropogenic contributions to PM2.5 (in months)
2000 2020 CAFE
2030 Climate Action - MFR
2030 Climate Action
Grid-average ozone concentrations in ppb.days expressed as SOMO35
2000 2020 CAFE
2030 Climate Action - MFR
2030 Climate Action
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
United K
ingdo
m (lon
don)
Finlan
d (hels
inki)
Denmark
(Cop
enha
gen)
Belgium (A
ntwerp
, Bru
ssel)
Poland (
Gdansk
, Kato
wice)
Portugal
(Lisb
on)
France
(Pari
s, M
arseil
le)
Czech
(Prag
ue)
German
y (Berl
in, Stut
gart)
Hungary
(Bud
apes
t)
Greece
(Athen
s, The
ssalonik
i)
Austria
(Graz
)
Italy (R
ome, M
ilan)
Spain (B
arcelo
na)
SOM
O-3
5 (p
pb.d
ays)
2000 2030-LGEP-CLE 2030-LGEP-MFR
Coverage:55 Million inhabitants
Ozone concentration in urban area’s: SOMO-35
SoEOR2005: Climate Change and SoEOR2005: Climate Change and Air Quality ConclusionsAir Quality Conclusions
Climate action scenario assumes GHG emissions to be reduced by 15-30 [20] % below 1990 levels by 2020 and 60-80 [65] % by 2050.
The analyses suggest that 40 % of the reductions could be achieved cost-effectively by actions outside the EU and that no fundamental transition in Europe’s energy system is needed
The domestic actions have significant ancillary benefits for air quality (yet to be quantified this year)
But to meet AQ objectives, (additional) air pollution policies remain necessary
SCENARIOS FOR SOEOR2005: CONCLUSIONS (II)SCENARIOS FOR SOEOR2005: CONCLUSIONS (II)
• 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.
Climate action
While such a transition can bring enormous benefits, it also While such a transition can bring enormous benefits, it also presents substantial challengespresents substantial challenges
• Benefits Decoupling of CO2 emissions from economic growth and reduced
European contribution to global climate change Reduced emissions of air pollutants Reduced energy import dependency (-20%) Employment in industrial and agricultural sectors selling biofuels
and clean and low energy technologies to Europe and the world
• Challenges Large changes required in the energy sector Difficult choices over controversial technologies such as nuclear
power and carbon capture and storage Potential for energy efficiency is well-known, but achieving energy
reductions in practice will require new policy approaches Costs may be small in relation to GDP, but are nevertheless large
in real terms
NederlandNederland
• Bij een gelijke koolstof tax zal NL, naar verwachting, achterblijven in binnenlandse CO2 reduktie vergeleken met het Europees gemiddelde (+2% versus -16% in 2030 tov Kyoto doelstelling)
• In combinatie met een Europees beleid voor hernieuwbare brandstoffen (2,5 Eurocent/Kwh in 2020 oplopend tot 5 Eurocent/Kwh in 2030) kan de reduktie oplopen tot -7% voor NL en -23% voor EU25.
• Door Europees klimaat beleid kunnen aanzienlijke co-benefits voor luchtkwaliteit worden gerealiseerd (inclusief financiele voordelen).
SoEOR2005: flow chart of models usedSoEOR2005: flow chart of models used
PRIMES
Economy
AEA-T model
CH4, N2O, HFC, PFC, SF6 (Europe)
CO2 (Europe)
Transport Agriculture
Regional concen-tration:SO2, NO, NH3, PM, O3
POLES
IMAGE
TIMER FAIR
WaterGap
Energy Price
CO2 Permit Price
CO2, CH4, N2O, HFC, PFC, SF6
Sinks
EMEPOFIS
AQ impacts
Urban conc. PM, NO2, O3
Emissions
OPSM
Street increments
CC impacts
GEM-E3, PROMETHEUS
RAINS
MERLIN
COPERT III, TREMOVE, TREND
Burden sharing regimes, impact for EU-27Burden sharing regimes, impact for EU-27
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
80
100
Brazilian prop Preferencescore
Jacoby rule C&C 2050 Multi stage-v1
Multi stage-v3
C&C 2075 C&C 2100 Average
Inde
x co
mpa
red
to 1
990
202020302050
1990=100
Permit prices assumedPermit 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
Climate action Climate action
Past and projected Past and projected prices of fossil fuels and prices of fossil fuels and electricity 1970-2050electricity 1970-2050
OECD End-use costs (including tax) 1971-2050
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
Eu
ro(2
000)
/Gj
Coal-industrial
Oil-transport
Electricity-residential
0
8
16
24
32
40
48
1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
$(19
99)/
bar
rel s
tart
of
year
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Pri
ces
$(19
99)/
GJ
Oil
Coal
Gas
Climate action
Fossil prices prices baseline and climate action 1970-2050Left axis oil prices per barrel, right axis gas and coal prices per GJ
Climate action
Costs (% of GDP) for various world regions to achieve climate change Costs (% of GDP) for various world regions to achieve climate change targets 2020-2100 under the climate action scenario. targets 2020-2100 under the climate action scenario.
-0,6
-0,4
-0,2
0,0
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
1,0
1,2
1,4
1,6
2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100Year
Cos
ts (
% o
f G
DP
)
Latin-America
USA & Canada
Enlarged EU
SE & E-Asia (e.g. China)
S-Asia (e.g. India)
Africa
Climate action scenario: Netherlands versus EU-15Climate action scenario: Netherlands versus EU-15
0
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
1
1,2
1,4
NL EU15 NL EU15 NL EU15 NL NL NL EU15
2000 2010 2020 2030
Baseline Climate action
CO2 non-CO2CO2 CO2
+ renewables Climate action Nuclear
+ -
Changes in the fuel mix of EU-25 gross inland energy Changes in the fuel mix of EU-25 gross inland energy consumption compared to the baseline in 2030consumption compared to the baseline in 2030
-100% -75% -50% -25% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% 125% 150%
Solids
Oil
Natural gas
Nuclear
Renewable energyforms
Change in gross inland energy consumption compared to baseline (in 2030)
Climate action
Climate action renewables
Climate action nuclear phase out
Climate action nuclear accelerated
Emission control costs EU-25 billion Euro/year
Climate change benefit
Air pollutant land-abatement cost; baseline compared to Climate action
EU 25
costs in billion €/year
Pollutant 2000 2020 2030
CLE baselineClimate
action
Climate action-
MFR
SO2 11,4 12,9 16,0 12 15
NOx 2 2,4 3,1 2 7,9
VOC 0,4 1,7 1,8 1,8 4
NH3 2 2,2 2,2 2,1 17,6
PM 10 6,4 6,5 7,4 5,5 17,6
Mobile 7,7 40,2 50,5 47,7 61,4
Total 30 66 81 71 123