implications of different mitigation portfolios based on ... · implications of different...
TRANSCRIPT
Cristina Pizarro-Irizar, Mikel González-Eguino
IAEE 2017 Vienna, 6 September, 2017
Implications of different mitigation portfolios
based on stakeholder preferences
MODELERS AND STAKEHOLDERS ARE CONCERNED
ABOUT DATA, BUT ON DIFFERENT WAYS…
MODELERS STAKEHOLDERS
1. INTRODUCTION
2. METHODOLOGY
3. RESULTS
4. CONCLUS IONS AND FURTHER RESEARCH
OUTLINE
- Scenario-based model projections play an important role in evaluating different
mitigation options.
- Scenarios are commonly used to facilitate short and long-term decisions
associated with climate change, given the uncertainty in the underlying
environmental, social, political, economic and technological factors.
- However, results arising from model simulations could be attractive from a
theoretical standpoint, but unfeasible from a more practical angle.
- The role of stakeholders is to provide information to adjust the likely scenarios for
policy analysis and make them more realistic.
INTRODUCTION: OVERVIEW
The purpose of this analysis is:
1. To explore how stakeholder engagement can support scenario development
and pathway design for a low-emission and climate resilient future.
2. To quantify the trade-offs between positive and negative impacts of these
mitigation portfolios informed by the stakeholders
3. To observe if initial preferences change when stakeholders are provided with
more information on the trade-offs in the different scenarios (ongoing)
INTRODUCTION: RESEARCH GOALS
The key feature of this approach is the involvement of stakeholders
throughout the decision making process
METHODOLOGY: OVERVIEW
Step 1: Analysis of stakeholder initial preferences
Step 2: Simulations of stakeholder preferences
Step 3: Analysis of changes in stakeholder preferences
Tools –
▪ First online survey
Interim results –
Initial stakeholder preferences for pathways
(mitigation options)
Tools –
▪ Model: Scenario implementation in GCAM-
BC3 based on initial stakeholder
preferences
Interim results –
Model output: Trade-offs of different mitigation
options based on initial stakeholder preferences
Tools –
▪ Second online survey, based on the model
output
Interim results –
New stakeholder preferences for pathways
(mitigation options) based on the model output
Final output –
Did stakeholder preferences change as a result of the information provided by the model?
Step 4: Synthesis of the results
First Survey
- Stating initial preferences:
- Aimed at collecting information on how
stakeholders perceive and assess the
risks related to a changing climate and
which low emission pathways they
prefer to mitigate these risks
- 11 Questions
- 161 invitations, 38 responses
Second Survey
- Observing changes in preferences:
- Aimed at observing whether stakeholders changed
their initial preferences about mitigation technology
options after they were provided with additional
information about costs and implications of their
initial preferences
- 11 Questions + 3 Statements + 4 Control Questions
- 9 responses (yet!)
METHODOLOGY: STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT
Stakeholders: policy makers, private and public sector industries, scientists,
researchers, international associations, NGOs and finance community
TEMPERATURE (Q1)
- What is the
optimal
temperature
target that we
should aim for to
limit global
warming? (3ºC,
2ºC and 1.5ºC)
TECHNOLOGY (Q4-11)
- Which technologies
will be most
important in the
next 50 years?
- Which should
receive more public
support?
- What is the future
for each
technology?
CCS, Nuclear,
Renewable Energy,
Fossil Fuels, Biomass,
Others.
MITIGATION VS.
ADAPTATION (Q2-3)
- Which combination
of mitigation and
adaptation
measures would
you choose? (100%,
50%-50%, 25%-75%?)
- Should economic
growth prevail over
climate change
mitigation/
adaptation
measures?
METHODOLOGY: THE SURVEY
The G
lobal
Change
Ass
ess
ment
Model
(GCAM
)METHODOLOGY: THE MODEL
Source: Calvin et al. “Introduction to the Global Change Assessment Model (GCAM)”. Joint
GCAM Community Modeling Meeting and GTSP Technical Workshop. December 3, 2015.
Technology options Characteristics
No climate policy All technologies available in GCAM are included.
All technologies available All technologies available in GCAM are included.
CCS is available from 2030 onwards.
No CCSAll technologies available except for CCS, which
is unavailable in the whole century.
Nuclear phase-out
All technologies available but assuming a nuclear
energy phase out consisting of no addition of new
nuclear plants beyond those under construction
and existing plants operating until the end of
their lifetime.
Limited solar/wind
All technologies available except for solar/wind,
which are limited to a maximum of annual global
electricity generation.
Limited biomassAll technologies available except for biomass,
which is limited to a maximum of 100 EJ per year.
METHODOLOGY: SCENARIOS
MODEL RESULTS: ENERGY MIX, 2 ºC TARGET
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
2050
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
2100
0
1
2100
Biomass CCS Biomass Renewable Energy Nuclear
Coal CCS Coal Natural Gas CCS Natural Gas
Oil CCS Oil
MODEL RESULTS: ENERGY MIX, 1 .5 ºC TARGET
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
2050
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
2100
0
1
2100
Biomass CCS Biomass Renewable Energy Nuclear
Coal CCS Coal Natural Gas CCS Natural Gas
Oil CCS Oil
MODEL RESULTS: CO 2 EMISS IONS
-10000
-5000
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
MT
C
2ºC
-10000
-5000
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
MT
C
1.5ºC
04000
1990 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055 2060 2065 2070 2075 2080 2085 2090 2095 2100No Climate Policy All technologies available Limited biomass
Limited solar/wind No CCS Nuclear phase out
MODEL RESULTS: CO 2 EMISS IONS BY REGIONC L I M AT E P O L I C Y 2 º C
04000
1990 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055 2060 2065 2070 2075 2080 2085 2090 2095 2100No Climate Policy All technologies available Limited biomass
Limited solar/wind No CCS Nuclear phase out
-400
0
400
800
1200
1600
MT
C
EU 27
-150
-75
0
75
150
225
300
MT
C
Canada
MODEL RESULTS: M IT IGATION COSTSL I M I T E D S C E N A R I O S C O M PA R E D TO A L L T E C H N O L O G I E S AVA I L A B L E
73%
8%
53%
15%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
Limited biomass Limited solar/wind No CCS Nuclear phase out
2ºC
130%
X X
24%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
140%
Limited biomass Limited solar/wind No CCS Nuclear phase out
1.5ºC
Technology options
GDP share in 2100
2ºC 1.5ºC
All technologies available 3% 6%
Limited biomass 5% 14%
Limited solar/wind 3% -
No CCS 5% -
Nuclear phase-out 4% 7%
MODEL RESULTS: M IT IGATION COSTS OVER GDP
RESULTS: CHANGE IN PREFERENCEST E M P E R AT U R E / M I T I G AT I O N V S . A D A P TAT I O N
Temperature target
- First Round: 71% chooses 1.5ºC.
- Second Round: 14% chooses 1.5ºC.
Mitigation vs. Adaptation
- Both Rounds: 57-63% chooses 50%-50%.
RESULTS: CHANGE IN PREFERENCEST E C H N O L O G Y O P T I O N S
Most important
(1st-2nd)
Public support
(1st-2nd)
CCS 14%
Nuclear
Renewables 86% 86%
Bioenergy 0%-14% 0%-43%
Efficiency 86%-100% 71%-57%
Natural gas 14%-0%
Coal 14%-0%
Oil
Storage 14%-0%
PRELIMINA
RY
1. It is possible to achieve the below 2ºC temperature target even if some technologies are
limited or not available.
• Important effect on mitigation costs
• Solar/Wind and CCS are essential to limit global temperature to 1.5ºC.
2. The technology portfolio determines the timing and speed of the emissions reductions.
• Abatement should start earlier if technologies such as CCS/Biomass are not
available/limited.
• The later the mitigation efforts start, the faster the emissions reductions should be.
3. Stakeholders found the information provided in the survey useful.
• Switch from 1.5ºC to 2ºC in the second survey.
• Improved opinions towards the future development of CCS and Biomass.
CONCLUS IONS AND FURTHER RESEARCH
We are increasing the number of surveys!
N a m e : C r i s t i n a P i z a r r o - I r i z a r
E - m a i l : c r i s t i n a . p i z a r r o @ b c 3 r e s e a r c h . o r g
m a r i a c r i s t i n a . p i z a r r o @ e h u . e u s