stabilization and the sector - epri...© 2010 electric power research institute, inc. all rights...

Stabilization and the Energy Sector

Geoffrey J. Blanford, Ph.D.

EPRI, Global Climate Change

EPRI Washington Climate Seminar

May 18, 2010

2© 2010 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.

Outline

•Stabilization Basics

– Definitions

– Historic data and future projections

•Recent Stabilization Scenario Analysis: EMF 22

– Crosswalk between EMF 22 scenarios and policy proposals

– Insights related to incomplete participation

– Insights related to technology


Stabilization Basics

•Emissions

Concentrations

Radiative Forcing = change in Earth’s heat balance

•Many forcing agents, including long‐lived gases and aerosols

•Agents have different properties, but (global) forcing is additive

•Kyoto Protocol applied to all greenhouse gases (except ozone‐

depleting gases covered by Montreal Protocol), not to aerosols

•Total forcing from Kyoto gases can be expressed as a “CO2

equivalent concentration” – refers to the concentration from

CO2 alone that would cause the same forcing level


Historic Global Greenhouse Forcing

‐1.5

‐0.5

0.5

1.5

2.5

3.5

4.5

1750 1800 1850 1900 1950 2000 2050

Radiative Forcing (W

/m2 )

Montreal Gases

450 CO2‐e

550 CO2‐e

650 CO2‐e

Aerosol forcing estimate wide uncertainty range for aerosol effect

CO2

CH4

N2OOther (very small)

Kyoto Gases

Total forcing estimate

(Sulfur emissions history indexed to median current total aerosol forcing)

4.5 W/m2

3.7 W/m2

2.6 W/m2

Forcing Targets


Greenhouse Forcing Projections in MERGE BAU

‐1.5

‐0.5

0.5

1.5

2.5

3.5

4.5

1750 1800 1850 1900 1950 2000 2050

Radiative Forcing (W

/m2 )

450 CO2‐e

550 CO2‐e

650 CO2‐e

Montreal Gases

CO2

CH4

N2OOther (very small)

Kyoto Gases

Total forcing estimate

Aerosol forcing estimate

4.5 W/m2

3.7 W/m2

2.6 W/m2

Forcing Targets


What does stabilization mean for temperature?

•Depends on climate sensitivity and thermal lags

Both are very uncertain

•Climate sensitivity is defined as the equilibrium temperature

increase in response to sustained forcing equivalent to a

doubling of atmospheric CO2 (i.e. 550 CO2‐e or 3.7 W/m2)

•Median value from is 3°C, scales linearily with forcing

•With “overshoot”, all bets are off

550 CO2‐e = 3.7 W/m2 3°C (median)

450 CO2‐e = 2.6 W/m2 ~2°C (median)


What does stabilization mean for emissions?

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

1800 1850 1900 1950 2000 2050 2100 2150 2200

Billion

ton

s CO

2

OECD

non‐OECD

Fossil and Cement CO2 Emissions

3.7 W/m2 = 550 CO2‐e pathway

G8 Goal of 50% below 2000 by 2050

50% global reduction below 2000 levels +

80% below for OECD

20% below for non‐OECD


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

Low‐income

Mid‐income

India

China

Russia

Billion

tons CO2‐e

Baseline Emissions for Non‐OECD


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

Low‐income

Mid‐income

India

China

Russia

Billion

tons CO2‐e

20% below 2000 = 80% below BAU in 2050


EMF 22 Delayed Participation Storyline

2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100

OECD countries form coalition now

2030: Brazil, Russia, India, China (BRIC) join

2050: Rest of World (ROW) joins


Cost Asymptotes for Stabilization in MERGE

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Carbon

Price in 202

0 ($ / t C

O2)

Kyoto Gas Forcing (W/m2)

2010

Level

Optimal

Delayed Participation

“Lock‐in” from current inertia

Further lock‐in from developing country delay


Emissions before joining coalition by group

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

Optimistic Baseline

Energy‐related

CO2

(billion tons) 650 CO2‐e

550 CO2‐e

InfeasibleOECD

BRIC

ROW

Two Escape Options:

‐ Slower baseline growth

‐ Anticipation by non‐participants


What does stabilization mean for technology?

•Transformation of energy systems has two main attributes:

– De‐carbonization of electric sector

– Electrification at end‐use

•Key electric sector technologies:

– Carbon capture and storage (CCS)

– Nuclear

– Renewables, particularly wind and biomass

– Increased supply cost drives big changes on demand side


Global Technology Scenarios in MERGE

•OECD and developing countries will rely on the same

technologies, but dynamics and scale will be very different

•Consider two stabilization scenarios with delayed participation:

– 650 CO2‐e (no anticipation by

developing countries)

– 550 CO2‐e(developing countries

anticipate future targets) Carbon

Price ($

/t CO2)

0

100

200

300

400

500

2020 2030 2040 2050


Electric Generation in OECD (Effect of Target)Trillion kW

h pe

r year

650 CO2‐e

Trillion kW

h pe

r year

Demand with No PolicyCoal

w/CCS

Nuclear Hydro+

Wind Solar Demand Reduction

Biomass

Adv. Nuc.

550 CO2‐e (BRIC + ROW anticipate)

w/CCS

Gas/Oil

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050


Electric Generation in BRIC (Effect of Target)Trillion kW

h pe

r year

Trillion kW

h pe

r year

650 CO2‐e


w/CCS

Nuclear Hydro+

Wind Solar

Gas/Oil

Demand Reduction

Biomass


Adv. Nuc.w/CCS

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050


Electric Generation in ROW (Effect of Target)Trillion kW

h pe

r year

Trillion kW

h pe

r year

650 CO2‐e


w/CCS

Nuclear Hydro+

Wind Solar

Gas/Oil

Demand Reduction

Biomass


Adv. Nuc.w/CCS

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050


What happens without CCS or New Nuclear?

•550 CO2‐e scenario no longer feasible (even with anticipation)

•650 CO2‐e scenario more expensive

– More reliance on higher cost renewables

– More demand side changes with higher prices

•Increased total cost is a measure of the value of technology

– ~$1 trillion in US alone (in 650 CO2‐e scenario)

– ~$10 trillion globally


Electric Generation in OECD (Effect of Technology)Trillion kW

h pe

r year

650 CO2‐e

Trillion kW

h pe

r year


w/CCS

Hydro+


Biomass

650 CO2‐e (no CCS or new nuclear)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

NuclearGas/Oil

Adv. Nuc.w/CCS

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050


Electric Generation in BRIC (Effect of Technology)Trillion kW

h pe

r year

Trillion kW

h pe

r year

650 CO2‐e


w/CCS

Hydro+


Biomass

650 CO2‐e (no CCS or new nuclear)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

NuclearGas/Oil

Adv. Nuc.w/CCS

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050


Value of Technology: CCS and New Nuclear

No Recession

USA

World

US $ Trillions (d

iscoun

ted NPV

through 2100)

Mild Recession

Severe Recession

No Recession

Mild Recession

Severe Recession

$1.1 T $0.9 T $1.0 T

$0

$10

$20

$30

$40

Savings when CCS andnuclear are available

Policy Cost for 650 CO2‐ewith delay


Conclusions

•Aggressive not‐to‐exceed targets for global climate variables

depend critically on abatement outside of the OECD

(in addition to OECD abatement)

•Once they are participating, developing countries present huge

opportunity for technology:

– Fast growth means more new capital needs

– Scale is much larger: 80% of population is outside OECD

– The sooner the better (for all concerned)


Together…Shaping the Future of Electricity

stabilization and the sector - epri...© 2010 electric power research institute, inc. all rights...

Documents