1 / 48

EEA 29-30 June 2004 Copenhagen

EEA 29-30 June 2004 Copenhagen. EEA scenario 2005 project : sustainable emission pathways Presentation by Hans Eerens EEA-ETC/ACC, RIVM/MNP. It is not most important to predict the future, but to be prepared for it Perikles (about 500-429 b. Chr.). ETC/ACC partners and others involved:

kare
Télécharger la présentation

EEA 29-30 June 2004 Copenhagen

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. EEA 29-30 June 2004 Copenhagen EEA scenario 2005 project : sustainable emission pathways Presentation by Hans Eerens EEA-ETC/ACC, RIVM/MNP It is not most important to predict the future, but to be prepared for it Perikles (about 500-429 b. Chr.)

  2. 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 • AEAT: non-CO2 GHGs and non-energy CO2 emissions • IPTS: POLES model, technology variants • AUTH: OFIS 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

  3. ETC/ACC SCENARIOS IN SUPPORT OF EEA SOEOR2005 Objectives: • Explore air pollution and climate change implications of CAFE baseline and policy scenarios • Long-Range Energy Modelling (LREM) • Clean Air For Europe Kyoto ratified (CAFE-KR) • Explore alternative scenarios which meet sustainability goals also beyond CAFE • Sustainable Emissions Pathways (SEP)

  4. OVERVIEW OF THE PROCESS OF DESIGNING SUSTAINABLE EMISSIONS PATHWAYS SCENARIO FOR EEA’S SOEOR2005 REPORT Add 2030-2100 Add non CO2 GHGs CAFE LREM CAFE LREM-E NEC targets? Yes Kyoto targets? No NEC targets? Yes Kyoto targets? Yes* long-term targets? No CAFE KR Driving forces: population, economic growth Sustainable Emissions Pathways scenario (SEP) NEC targets? Yes Kyoto targets? Yes* long-term targets? Yes Energy system details and variants Low Economic growth LREM-E/LE SEP-LE ETC/ACC for EEA/SoEOR2005 CAFE

  5. THREE TIMEFRAMES FOR SOEOR2005 ANALYSIS

  6. TOOLS USED FOR SOEOR2005 MODEL ANALYSIS GEM-E3 PROMETHEUS OFIS EMEP model AQ Impacts SEP

  7. ECONOMIC GROWTH ASSUMPTIONS FOR SOEOR2005 European economic growth assumptions for LREM-E, CAFE-KR and SEP well in range of other projections, ranking moderate optimistic

  8. POPULATION ASSUMPTIONS FOR SOEOR2005

  9. PRIMARY ENERGY DEMAND IN EU-15 AND EU10 FOR LREM-E, CAFE-KR AND SEP

  10. LREM emissions compared to SRES scenarios

  11. LONG-TERM OBJECTIVE FOR CLIMATE CHANGE Objective adopted by EU • The EU long-term climate objective of 2oC is roughly consistent with stabilisation of CO2equivalent concentrations at 550 ppm for low to medium estimates of the climate sensitivity

  12. Objective FAIR 2.0 • To explore and evaluate the environmental and abatement costs implications of possible future international climate policy regimes for differentiation of mitigation commitments • The model is not made to promote any particular regime, but to allow for comparing regimes in consistent and transparent way

  13. FAIR 2.0 model Global emission profile Global emission profile DATASETS CLIMATE MODEL Climate assessment model Historical emissions Global emission reduction objective Baseline scenario EMISSIONS ALLOCATION MODEL Multi-stage approach Brazilian Proposal Per capita Convergence emission intensity system Triptych approach Emissions profile Regional emissions targets MACs EMISSION TRADE & COST MODEL Mitigation costs & Emissions trade Regional GHG emissions after trade Abatement costs & permit price

  14. FAIR website: www.rivm.nl/fair

  15. IMPLICATIONS OF DIFFERENT GLOBAL BURDEN SHARING OBJECTIVES FOR EUROPEAN EMISSIONS ALLOWANCES For SoEOR2005, without prejudging negotiations outcomes, assume: -20% by 2020 and, -40 % by 2030 as a sustainability benchmark when evaluating scenarios

  16. Permit prices assumed

  17. EU SD AND ADOPTED (2010)ASSUMED (2020-30) ENERGY TARGETS • EU Sustainable Development Strategy: 1%/yr GHG emission reductions from 2012-2020 ; extended for SoEOR to 2030 EU25(domestic): 2010 -5.3% 2020 -13% 2030 -23% • EU Directive on renewables: electricity generation: 22.1% in 2010 (not met) extended for SoEOR to 27% by 2020 and 35% by 2030 ; • EU Directive on biofuels in transport: 2% by 2005, 5.75% by 2010; extended for SoEOR2005 to 7.5% by 2020 and 10% by 2030 • EU Directive on renewables: share of total energy use: 12% by 2010 (not met), at least 20%, we choose 15% (SEP 10%) by 2020; extended for SoEOR2005 to 20% ( SEP 13%) by 2030

  18. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS LREM CO2eq LREM SEP-Domestic CO2eq SEP-Domestic CO2 CO2 SEP SEP As energy intensity improvements become more difficult and non-CO2 abatement options get exhausted, shift to fuel mix changes In SEP GHGs domestic reduction 20-27 % (2030), supplemented with flexible mechanism to meet proposed targets SEP

  19. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS • In LREM-E, Kyoto targets are not met. • In CAFE-KR (carbon prices €12/tCO2eq in 2010, €20 in 2020/2030), Kyoto targets are assumed to be met by domestic measures plus significant usage of Kyoto mechanisms; emissions increase after 2010 • In SEP (carbon prices €12/tCO2eq in 2010, €30 in 2020 and €65 in 2030) emission allowances are in line with EU longer-term climate target, but use of the Kyoto mechanisms is still needed • IN SEP, EU’s SD target (1% GHG reduction in 2010-2020) and renewable energy targets are not met -> technology variants (to be developed)

  20. AIR POLLUTANT EMISSIONS • 2010 targets for NEC pollutants are assumed to be reached regardless of costs in CAFE • Beyond 2010 emissions remain roughly stable in the scenarios

  21. Costs PRIMES uses behavioural costs (discount rates): 8% Large Utilities 12% Large industrial & commercial entities 17.5% Households spending Recalculation to social costs (as in RAINS), 4% discount rate, assuming decisions have been taken) (Billion Euro) 2010 2020 2030 Behavioural costs 26 30 21 Social costs 25 39 32 Declining energy costs results in less capital investments, counted more heavily in behavioural costs

  22. GLOBAL CLIMATE IMPLICATIONS OF SCENARIOS • In LREM-E, the EU climate goal is exceeded around 2050 • In SEP, the global mean temperature increase remains below the EU objective in this century • In SEP, also the rate of change is lowered to facilitate adaptation of social and ecological systems

  23. Percentage change in average annual water availability for European river basins as compared to today’s levels, realized with two different climate models (ECHAM4 and HadCM3) for the 2070s.

  24. EXAMPLE OF CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS AT EUROPEAN LEVEL Climate Change induced Species disappearance 1995-2100 Database 1400 species, 270-1100 per country LREM-E SEP

  25. UNCERTAINTY TREATMENT IN SOEOR2005 • Measuring and monitoring: are statistics/measurement data precise? • Noted, not addressed in report • Representativess indicators: Are impacts avoided if climate/air quality goals are met? Is GDP an adequate measure for welfare? • Noted, not addressed in report • Model dynamics: do models adequately represent real world? • Differences models (PRIMES, POLES, TIMER) discussed in report • Assumptions about the future: how uncertain is the future? • No probabilities analysed • Results compared with other studies • Low economic growth variant; low/high carbon price sensitivities • Technology variants

  26. SCENARIOS FOR SOEOR2005: PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS 1 • Additional (global) action will be needed to facilitate a transition to a more sustainable Europe in terms of air pollution and climate change -> SEP • in 2010 to €65 in 2030, In SEP carbon prices go from €12/tCO 2eq cost-effective action requires a major part of the GHG emissions reductions reached through international mechanisms.

  27. SCENARIOS FOR SOEOR2005: PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS 2

  28. SoEOR2005 variants 2003: • Low economic growth • Renewables Considered for 2004: • Hydrogen economy/C-capture-storage • CAP reform • Nuclear • Phase-out • increased • External/internal burden sharing regimes

  29. LREM-E LOW ECONOMIC GROWTH VARIANT • LREM-E assumes moderately optimistic GDP growth -> a similarly pessimistic variant has been explored • In the low economic growth variant, the effect of lower activity levels outweighs the effect of slower technological development • Hence, GHG emissions are significant lower than in the base case, making it easier to meet NEC and Kyoto targets • The emissions in the energy-intensive industry, the power and transport sectors are particularly sensitive to economic growth assumptions??

  30. AIR QUALITY TARGETS

  31. DRIVING FORCES, PRESSURE, STATE, IMPACTS AND RESPONSES IN SOEOR2005

  32. POPULATION ASSUMPTIONS FOR SOEOR2005

  33. LREM scenario

  34. Changes in growing season throughout Europe for the LREM-E (left) and SEP (right) scenario (2100 compared to 1990). Unit: days per year

More Related