TFIAM 10-12 May 2004Amiens

EEA scenario 2005 project : sustainable emission pathways

Hans Eerens

RIVM

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

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)

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

TOOLS USED FOR SOEOR2005 MODEL ANALYSIS

OFIS

AQ Impacts

GEM-E3 PROMETHEUS

SEP

CAFE LREM

Dri

vin

g f

orc

es:

po

pu

lati

on

, ec

on

om

ic g

row

th

CAFE ETC/ACC for EEA/SoEOR2005

OVERVIEW OF THE PROCESS OF DESIGNING SUSTAINABLE EMISSIONS PATHWAYS SCENARIO FOR EEA’S SOEOR2005 REPORT

CAFE LREM-E

Add 2030-2100

Add non CO2 GHGs

NEC targets? Yes

Kyoto targets? No

LREM-E/LE SEP-LELow Economic growth

Sustainable Emissions Pathways

scenario (SEP)

Energy system details and variants

NEC targets? Yes

Kyoto targets? Yes*

long-term targets? Yes

CAFE KR

NEC targets? Yes

Kyoto targets? Yes*

long-term targets? No

THREE TIMEFRAMES FOR SOEOR2005 ANALYSIS

0

120

1990 1997 2003 2007 2010 2017 2023 2030 2050 2070 2080 2100year

Ind

ica

tor

va

lue

do

me

sti

c G

HG

em

iss

ion

s E

U-

15

/OE

CD

Eu

rop

e

LREM-E: existing policies, no kyoto implementation

CAFE-KR full implementation kyoto, NECHistorical trend

Short termCost-effectivinessFocus on pressures

Medium-termFocus on pressures, impact

Long termSustainability/infrastructureFocus on driving forces/impact

IMAGE/SEP.

Sustainable emission window paths (2 degree target)

PRIMES/SEP

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

POPULATION ASSUMPTIONS FOR SOEOR2005

POPULATION ASSUMPTIONS FOR SOEOR2005

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

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

IPCC

-1.0

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

2000 2100 2200 2300 2400

Tem

per

atu

re in

crea

se (

Deg

rees

C)

Temperature increase

LREM-E

S650e

SEP

pre-industrial level

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

Burden sharingapproach

2010 2020 2030 2050 gasses Remarks

C&C2100 -15 -34 -58 6 GHG’s No land-use related CO2

C&C2075 -9 -18 -38 -64 6 GHG’s No land-use related CO2

Multi stage 2 -9 -18 -46 -72 6 GHG’s No land-use related CO2

Multi stage 1 -9 -21 -48 -71 6 GHG’s No land-use related CO2

Multi stage 3 -9 -24 -51 -68 6 GHG’s No land-use related CO2

C&C2050 -24 -46 -76 6 GHG’s No land-use related CO2

Jacoby rule -11 -25 -55 -80 CO2 Only energy CO2

Brazilian Proposal -11 -31 -80 -133 CO2 Only energy CO2

Preference score -10 -39 -63 -81 CO2 Only energy CO2

AIR QUALITY TARGETSPollutant Value (average time) nr of exceedances allowed/min

exceedance areaTo bemet in

Human HealthOzone (T) 120 μg/m 3 (8h average) < 76 days/3 year 2010PM10 (LV) 50 μg/m 3 (24h average) < 36 days/year 2005PM10 (LV) 40 μg/m 3 (annual mean) None 2005SO2 (LV) 350 μg/m 3 (1h average) < 25 hours/year 2005SO2 (LV) 125 μg/m 3 (24h average) < 4 days /year 2005NO2 (LV) 200 μg/m 3 (1h average( < 19 hours/year 2010NO2 (LV) 40 μg/m 3 (annual mean) None 2010

Ecosystem protectionOzone(T) AOT40c of 18 (mg/m3).h (5 year average) Daylight hours May-July 2010Ozone AOT40c of 6 (mg/m3).h (5 year average over

22500 km2)Reduction >33% compared to1990

2010

Acifidication Critical load exceedances (year, averagedover 22500 km2)

Reduction >50% compared to1990

2010

NOx(LV) 30 μg/m 3 (annual mean) > 1000 km2 2001SO2(LV) 20 μg/m 3 (annual mean) > 1000 km2 2001SO2((LV) 20 μg/m 3 (winter average) > 1000 km2 2001

Long-term targets

PM10 50 μg/m 3 (24h average) None -

PM10 20 μg/m 3 (annual mean) None -

Ozone 120 μg/m 3 (8h average) None -

Ozone AOT40c of 6 (mg/m3).h (5 year average) Daylight hours May-July -Acifidication Critical load exceedances (year) None -Eutrophication Critical load exceedances (year) None -

EU SD AND ADOPTED (2010)

ASSUMED (2020-30) ENERGY TARGETS

• EU Sustainable Development Strategy: 1%/yr GHG emissionreductions from 2012-2020 ; extended for SoEOR to 2030EU25(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% (35) by 2020 and 35% (40) 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% (15%, SEP 10%) by 2020; extended for SoEOR2005 to 20% (30, SEP 13%) by 2030

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONSGHG emissions EU-15

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

5500

1990 2000 2010 2020 2030

MtC

O2/

yr

LREM-E CO2eq SEP CO2eq LREM-E CO2

CAFE-KR CO2 SEP CO2 Target EU-15/25

GHG emissions EU-25

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

5500

1990 2000 2010 2020 2030

LREM

SEP-Domestic

SEP

CO2

CO2eq

CO2eq

CO2

SEP

LREM

SEP-Domestic

In SEP GHGs domestic reduction 20-27 % (2030), supplemented with flexible mechanism to meet proposed targets SEP

As energy intensity improvements become more difficult and non-CO2 abatement options get exhausted, shift to fuel mix changes

• 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)

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

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

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

16000

1990 2000 2010 2020 2030YEAR

kT S

(S

O2

), k

t N

(N

Ox,

NH

3), k

t (V

OC

)

CAFE-KR, VOC

CAFE-KR, SO2

CAFE-KR, NOx

CAFE-KR, NH3

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

GLOBAL CLIMATE IMPLICATIONS OF SCENARIOS

Rate of global temperature change

0

0,05

0,1

0,15

0,2

0,25

0,3

0,35

2000 2020 2040 2060 2080 2100

ch

an

ge

(o

C/d

ec

ad

e)

baseline

SEP

Global temperature change (compared to 1961-1990 average)

0

0,5

1

1,5

2

2,5

3

3,5

2000 2020 2040 2060 2080 2100

ch

an

ge

(o

C)

baseline

SEP

• 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

EXAMPLE OF CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS AT EUROPEAN LEVEL

LREM-E SEP

Climate Change induced Species disappearance 1995-2100

Database 1400 species, 270-1100 per country

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

SCENARIOS FOR SOEOR2005: PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS 1

• CAFE-KR is consistent with NEC and Kyoto targets if domesticmeasures (up to €12/tCO2eq by 2010) are complemented byusage of international mechanisms (trading, CDM).

• CAFE LREM-E meets NEC targets but is inconsistent with theEU’s climate and renewable energy targets due to increasingGHG emissions and slow penetration of renewables ---->.

• Additional (global) action will be needed to facilitate a transitionto a more sustainable Europe in terms of air pollution andclimate change -> SEP

• In SEP carbon prices go from €12/tCO2eq in 2010 to €65 in 2030,cost-effective action requires a major part of the GHG emissionsreductions reached through international mechanisms.

SCENARIOS FOR SOEOR2005: PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS 2

• 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.

SoEOR2005 variants2003:• Low economic growth• Renewables

Considered for 2004:• Hydrogen economy/C-capture-storage• CAP reform• Nuclear

– Phase-out– increased

• External/internal burden sharing regimes

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??

SEP: NEC assumptions

• Variant 1:– Continue with NEC 2010

• Variant 2:– NEC 2010, followed by:– Proposed EU- wide target for 2020 (cost-

effective)– MFR scenario for 2030