Recent developments at CIAM Markus Amann International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis.
Future challenges for integrated assessment modelling Markus Amann International Institute for...
-
Upload
noah-allison -
Category
Documents
-
view
213 -
download
0
Transcript of Future challenges for integrated assessment modelling Markus Amann International Institute for...
Future challenges for
integrated assessment modelling
Markus AmannInternational Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
1880 1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000
Mil
lion
to
ns
SO2 NOx NH3
Historic SO2, NOx and NH3 emissions 1880-1985, EU-25
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
1880 1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000
Mil
lion
to
ns
SO2 NOx NH3
/dev/tty> International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA)
RAINS 1.1 (1984)
=========================================================
RRRR AA III NN N SSSS R R A A I N N N S RRRR AAAAAA I N N N SSSS R R A A I N N N S R R AA AA III N NN SSSS
=========================================================
Please treat all results with caution!
Hit RETURN to continue …
20 years assessment of forest soil acidification1984 and 2004
1984: RAINS 1.1 assessment for 2010 2004: CAFE assessment for 2010
Percentage of forest areawith acid deposition above critical loads
Historic SO2, NOx and NH3 emissions 1880-2005, EU-25
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
1880 1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000
Mil
lion
to
ns
SO2 NOx NH3
Functions of integrated assessment models (1)
• Integration over cause-effects chain– Multi-disciplinary approach (since RAINS 1.1)
• Balancing of measures – Cost-effectiveness optimization (since 2nd Sulphur Protocol)
• Integration over multiple benefits– Multi-effect approach (since Gothenburg-protocol)
• Integration over scales– Inclusion of health impacts (since CAFE)
Functions of integrated assessment models
• Integration over cause-effects chain– Multi-disciplinary approach (since RAINS 1.1)
• Balancing of measures – Cost-effectiveness optimization (since 2nd Sulphur Protocol)
• Integration over multiple benefits– Multi-effect approach (since Gothenburg-protocol)
• Integration over scales– Inclusion of health impacts (since CAFE)
• Integration of multiple policy areas– Link to climate policy, agriculture
Multi-pollutant measures (1)
• Structural measures: – Energy savings, efficiency improvements, bans: all pollutants ↓
– Increased use of natural gas: CO2, SO2, VOC, NOx, PM ↓ CH4 ↑
– Biomass: CO2 ↓ VOC, PM, CH4 ↑
• Stationary sources:– SCR, SNCR: NOx, CO ↓, NH3, N2O, CO2 ↑
– Fluidized bed combustion: SO2, NOx↓, N2O ↑
– Advanced residential combustion: VOC, PM, CO, CH4 ↓
– FGD: SO2, PM ↓ CO2 ↑
– IGCC: CO2, SO2, NOx, PM ↓
– CHP: all pollutants ↓
• Mobile sources:– Euro-standards: NOx, VOC, PM, CO ↓ NH3, N2O ↑
– Low sulfur fuels: SO2, PM ↓
– Diesel: CO2, VOC↓, PM, NOx, SO2 ↑
Multi-pollutant measures (2)
• Agricultural sources:– Low emission pig housing – NH3, CH4 ↓ N2O ↑
– Covered storage of slurry – NH3 ↓ CH4 ↑
– Injection of manure – NH3 ↓ N2O ↑
– Anaerobic digestion (biogas) – CH4, N2O ↓ CO2 ↑ NH3 ↓↑
• Other sources– Gas recovery and flaring: CH4 ↓ CO2, PM, VOC, SO2, NOx, CO ↑
– Gas recovery and re-use: CH4 ↓ CO2 ↑
– Improving flaring efficiency: PM, VOC, NOx, SO2, CO ↓
– Waste incineration: CH4 ↓ CO2 ↑
– Gas recovery from wastewater treatment: CH4 ↓ CO2 ↑
In total approx 500 measures with multi-pollutant impacts considered in GAINS
Air pollutant emissions as a function of CO2 mitigation
90 €
20 €
0 €
National NEC projections
CAFE BL
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
110%
120%
75% 80% 85% 90% 95% 100% 105%
CO2 emissions relative to the UNFCCC baseyear emissions
Air
po
lluta
nt
emis
sio
ns
rela
tiv
e to
a 0
€ c
ase
SO2 NOx PM25EU-25, 2020
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
25
95 100 105 110 115 No constraint
Health target (million life years lost)
Bill
ion
€/y
r
Benchmark
Net costs for further air pollution control as a function of CO2 mitigation
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
25
95 100 105 110 115 No constraint
Health target (million life years lost)
Bill
ion
€/y
r
Benchmark -20% GHGs
Ambition level of Thematic Strategy
Population, GDP and coal use for power generationin Andra Pradesh (projection provided by TERI)
0%
100%
200%
300%
400%
500%
600%
700%
800%
900%
1000%
1100%
1200%
2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030
rela
tive
to
200
0
Population GDP Coal use for power generation
0%
100%
200%
300%
400%
500%
600%
700%
800%
PM10 SO2 NOx CO2
Em
issi
on
s r
ela
tiv
e t
o y
ear
200
0
Coal with current air pollution (AP) standards Coal + advanced air pollution control Max. wind+hydro & advanced AP controls With IGCC for new plants after 2015IGCC + carbon capture
Emissions from electricity generation Andra Pradesh, 2020, relative to 2000
With advanced end-of-pipe emission control technologies
Level in 2000
With current emission standards
Costs of electricity generation Andra Pradesh, 2020
0
3
5
8
10
13
15
Coal with current APstandards
Coal + advanced airpollution control
Max. wind+hydro IGCC after 2015
Bill
ion
$/y
ear
IGCC Coal costs PM control SO2 control NOx control Wind Small hydropower
Emissions from electricity generation Andra Pradesh, 2020, relative to 2000with IGCC at new plants after 2015 (without carbon capture)
0%
100%
200%
300%
400%
500%
600%
700%
800%
PM10 SO2 NOx CO2
Em
issi
on
s r
ela
tiv
e t
o y
ear
200
0
Coal with current air pollution (AP) standards Coal + advanced air pollution control Max. wind+hydro & advanced AP controls With IGCC for new plants after 2015IGCC + carbon capture
0
3
5
8
10
13
15
Conv. coal with currentAP standards
Coal + advanced airpollution control
Max. wind+hydro With IGCC for new plantsafter 2015
Bill
ion
$/y
ear
IGCC Coal costs PM control SO2 control NOx control Wind Small hydropower
Costs of electricity generation Andra Pradesh, 2020
Uncertainty range quoted by IPCC
Expected impacts of the Nitrate Directive and optimized feed on EU-25 NH3 emissions
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
2000 CLE 2020 Targetindicated in
TSAP
NEC baseline as ofDecember 2006
With fullimplementation ofnitrate directiveWith nitratedirective and low Nfeed
Functions of integrated assessment models
• Integration over cause-effects chain– Multi-disciplinary approach (since RAINS 1.1)
• Balancing of measures – Cost-effectiveness optimization (since 2nd Sulphur Protocol)
• Integration over multiple benefits– Multi-effect approach (since Gothenburg-protocol)
• Integration over scales– Inclusion of health impacts (since CAFE)
• Integration of multiple policy areas– Link to climate policy, agriculture
• Integration with economic impacts– More comprehensive quantification of human welfare
Per-capita NOx emissions1940-2000
1940
North America1970
2000
2000
Europe1960
2000
Russia1990
East Asia
South Asia0
25
50
75
100
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000
Per-capita income ($/capita), PPP
kg N
Ox/
cap
ita
Per-capita NOx emissions1940-2030
2000
1970 North America
1940
2030
2030
1960Europe
2000
Russia
2000
East Asia
South Asia0
25
50
75
100
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000
Per-capita income ($/capita), PPP
kg N
Ox/
cap
ita
Integrating economic development not as a slide
• Conventional cost concept considers investments in clean air as a welfare loss – heavy argument in policy debate (e.g., EU for CAFE, developing countries, US for climate)– Not all investments do lead to loss in GDP (recycling)– Non-monetary aspects of welfare excluded
• Integrated assessment can come up with additional quantified indicators that constitute parts of welfare (life expectancy, nitrogen pollution in water, etc.)
• Not necessarily based on monetary evaluation of benefits
• This could eventually allow a more comprehensive measure for welfare – and a re-evaluation of the value of environmental investments
Conclusions