BQuelle: Michael Düren, Uni Gießen. Energieseminar SS 2007.

BQuelle: Michael Düren, Uni Gießen . Energieseminar SS 2007

Quelle: http://www.ipcc.ch/WG3_press_presentation.pdf , redaktionell bearbeitet

http://www.ipcc.ch/WG3_press_presentation.pdf

Neueste Version

0. The process and the people 1. Emission of GHG 1970 -2004 AD

2. Future Emissions and how to reduce them What is the potential for reducing emissions? How to reduce emissions? Changes in Lifestyle

3. What are the costs What are the costs in 2030? There are also co-benefits of mitigation

4. Long-term mitigation and Stabilization levels Long-term mitigation (after 2030) Stabilization and global mean temperatures

5. Policies to realize mitigation of climate change

6. Sustainable development & climate change mitigation

Quelle: http://www.ipcc.ch/WG3_press_presentation.pdf

0.

Danke !

from


1.

Quelle: http://www.ipcc.ch/ AR4wg3 SPM Fig.1

Fig.SPM 1

CO2 is

the largest

contributor

http://www.ipcc.ch/

Quelle: http://www.ipcc.ch AR4-wg3 _SPM p.6 , Notes to Fig. SPM1Notes to Fig.SPM 1

Notes:1. Other N2O includes industrial processes, deforestation/savannah burning, waste water and waste incineration.

2. Other is CH4 from industrial processes and savannah burning.

3. CO2 emissions from decay (decomposition) of above ground biomass that remains after logging and deforestation and CO2 from peat fires and decay of drained peat soils.

4. As well as traditional biomass use at 10% of total, assuming 90% is from sustainable biomass production. Corrected for 10% carbon of biomass that is assumed to remain as charcoal after combustion.

5. For large-scale forest and scrubland biomass burning averaged data for 1997-2002 based on Global Fire Emissions Data base satellite data.

6. Cement production and natural gas flaring.

7. Fossil fuel use includes emissions from feedstocks.

http://www.ipcc.ch/

2. Future Emissions and how to reduce them

<< 2030 AD >>

Mitigation

in the short and medium term (until 2030)

0. The concept of “mitigation potential” has been developed to assess the scale of GHG reductions that could be made, relative to emission baselines, for a given level of carbon price (expressed in cost per unit of CO2equ emissions avoided or reduced).

Mitigation potential is further differentiated in terms of “market potential” and “economic potential”.

1. Market potential is the mitigation potential based on private costs and private discount rates,which might be expected to occur under forecast market conditions,

including policies and measures currently in place, noting that barriers limit actual uptake.

2. Economic potential is the mitigation potential, which takes into account social costs and benefits and social discount rates assuming that market efficiency is improved by policies and measures and barriers are removed.

Quelle: http://www.ipcc.ch AR4-wg3 _SPM p.9 , Box SPM2,

Concept of Mitigation Potential

http://www.ipcc.ch/

Quelle: http://www.ipcc.ch/WG3_press_presentation.pdf and SPM Statement 5, p.10 Table SPM 1 Bottom up Studies

Both bottom-up and top-down Studies

indicate that there is substantial economic potential

for the mitigation of global GHG emissions over the coming decades,

that could offset the projected growth of global emissions

or reduce emissions below current levels

http://www.ipcc.ch/WG3_press_presentation.pdf

Definitionen aus Box SPM 2

Bottom-up studies are based on assessment of mitigation options, emphasizing specific technologies and regulations. They are typically sectoral studies taking the macro-economy as unchanged. Sector estimates have been aggregated, as in the TAR, to provide an estimate of global mitigation potential for this assessment.

Top-down studies assess the economy-wide potential of mitigation options. They use globally consistent frameworks and aggregated information about mitigation options and capture macro-economic and market feedbacks.

Quelle: http://www.ipcc.ch AR4-wg3 _SPM p.9 , Box SPM2,

http://www.ipcc.ch/

Quelle: http://www.ipcc.ch/WG3_press_presentation.pdfAR4-wg3 _SPM p.12

only: World

Fig. SPM 6 ; from bottom up stufiesQuelle: http://www.ipcc.ch/WG3_press_presentation.pdf

Based on end-use allocation


in insulation and appliances.

Renewable energy generally has a positive effect on energy security, employment and on air quality. Given costs relative to other supply options, renewable electricity, which accounted for 18% of the electricity

supply in 2005, can have a 30-35% share of the total electricity supply

supply in 2030 at carbon prices up to 50 US$/tCO2-eq

Wörtlich zitiert:

Nuclear powerNuclear powerGiven costs relative to other supply options, nuclear power, which accounted for

16% of the electricity supply in 2005, can have an 18% share of the total

electricity supply in 2030 at carbon prices up to 50 US$/tCO2-eq,

but safety, weapons proliferation and waste remain as constraints.

AR4wg3 _ SPM p.17+18


3. Costs

Definitionen (p.17 of SPM)

24 Spill over effects of mitigation in a cross-sectoral perspective are the effects of mitigation policies and measures in one country or group of countries on sectors in other countries.

25 Carbon leakage is defined as the increase in CO2 emissions outside the countries taking domestic mitigation action divided by the reduction in the emissions of these countries.


4. Mitigation and Stabilisation Levels

AR4wg3 _ SPM , Statement 18; p.21

Statement 18


2050 -2000 AD

AR4wg3 _ SPM , Table SPM5 selection; p.22

„ at equilibrium“

Pink shaded areas give the CO2 emissions for the post-TAR emissions scenarios. Green shaded areas depict the range of more than 80 TAR stabilization scenarios.

AR4wg3 _ SPM , Fig SPM7 selection; p.23

Emission pathways of mitigation scenario: Example category B

Pathway is for CO2 emissions only.

Figure SPM 7: Emissions pathways of mitigation scenarios for alternative categories of 5stabilization levels (Category I to VI as defined in the box in each panel). The pathways are for CO2 emissions only.

Pink shaded (dark) areas give the CO2 emissions for the post-TARemissions scenarios. Green shaded (light) areas depict the range of more than 80 TARstabilization scenarios.

Base year emissions may differ between models due to differences insector and industry coverage.

To reach the lower stabilization levels some scenarios deploy removal of CO2 from the atmosphere (negative emissions) using technologies such as biomass energy production utilizing carbon capture and storage. [Figure 3.17]

AR4wg3 _ SPM , Fig SPM7 Bildunterschrift; p.23


Categories: A1,…D,E

AR4wg3 _ SPM , Figure SPM8 ; p.24

Erläuterung:

AR4wg3 _ SPM , Figure SPM8 ; p.24

3°/CO2 doubling

4.5°/ doubling

2°/ doubling

Climate Sensitivity

Categories: A1,…D,E

Statement 19

Statement 19:

The range of stabilization levels assessed can be achieved by deployment of a portfolio of technologies that are currently available and those that are expected to be commercialised in coming decades.

This assumes that appropriate and effective incentives are in place for development, acquisition, deployment and diffusion of technologies and for addressing related barriers (high agreement, much evidence).

Technologie steht bereit, allerdings fehlen Anreize :

In 2050 global average macro-economic costs for multi-gas mitigation

towards stabilization between 710 and 445 ppm CO2-eq, are in the range

between a 1% gain to a 5.5% decrease of global GDP (see Table SPM.6).

For specific countries and sectors, costs vary considerably from the global average.

Macro-economic Costs in 2050

AR4wg3 _ SPM , Statement 20 ; p.26

Statement 20

AR4wg3 _ SPM ,Table SPM 6 ; p.26

„21. Decision-making about the appropriate level of global mitigation over time involves an iterative risk management process that includes mitigation and adaptation, taking into account actual and avoided CC damages, cobenefits, sustainability, equity, and attitudes to risk.

Choices about the scale and timing of GHG mitigation involve balancing the economic costs of more rapid emission reductions now against the corresponding medium-term and long-term climate risks of delay [high agreement, much evidence].

“


In dieser Abstraktheit überall vollste Zustimmung. (eigentlich sogar ziemlich trivial)

Das wussten schon die alten Römer:

Quidquid agis, prudenter agas et respice finem.

Statement 21

5.Policies Statement 22


Statement 23


alt


2. Future Emissions and how to reduce them


only: World


5.Policies


6.

BQuelle: Michael Düren, Uni Gießen. Energieseminar SS 2007.

Documents

Transcript of BQuelle: Michael Düren, Uni Gießen. Energieseminar SS 2007.