The Quest for Emission Reduction
Analysis based on the newly developed hard-link of MERGE & TIMES-MACRO for USA (MTM)
S. Kypreos, A. Lehtila, A. Marcucci
IEW-2012 19th June 2012
Cape-Town, South Africa
Outline
• Goals: Boundaries, Dynamics; Macro-economy
• What is accomplished?
• Why is the development needed?
• Calibration algorithm of MM or TM based on existing LP models
(e.g., see report of Uwe Remme)
• Linking MM and MERGE; Coordinates of MTM
• Preliminary results
• Conclusions/Proposal
Overarching goals of development were threefold:
To meet these goals we have established a hard link of TIMES-MACRO (TM) models for USA as example with the MERGE model of all other world regions such that we get:
a) Endogenous technology dynamics to be scenario and path dependentb) Endogenous Price feed-backs due to resource depletion c) Endogenous trade of CO2 permits and other energy products d) Macro-economic feed-backs of energy and environmental policiese) The macro-economic cost of policies
- Study of global/regional policies under consistent boundary conditions - Include at least macro-economic equilibrium- Simulate technology dynamics with endogenous learning (LbD and LbS)
Modelling coordinates of MT&Merge (MTM)
– MTMMTM: consists of a 8/9 region of MERGEMERGE--ETLETL model
& one regionone region of the of the TIMESTIMES-MACRO-MACRO model (USA)
– MTMMTM is an Integrated Assesment hybrid model combining ‘bottom-up’ & ‘top-down’ approaches and is solved by maximizing the Negishi weighted global welfare
– Traded commodities are: oil, gas, coal, biomass, synthetic fuels, CO2 permits, and a numeraire good
What is accomplished?
A) Endogenous boundary conditions for national studies
Prices of global resources Trade levels/bounds for energy sources, CO2 emission permit trade or optimal CO2 reduction levels due to global
policies on emissions or CBA Optimal trade levels for renewable use like bio-fuels
B) Path & Policy dependent technology specifications
Technological change as result of global LbD and LbS and thus
Consistent Specific cost for the Nth of a kind installation
C) Macro-Economic developments
Baseline consistent with global growth assumptions
Macro-economic cost of policies/normative constraints
Possibility to perform CBA of global or national environmental policies
Different levels of activities are completed:
1) Mapping and integration of TM data to the cluster formulation of MERGE
2) Mapping and integration of traded fuels between MERGE and TM
2) Specification of MERGE and TIMES regions (set specification) splitting the data of the
world region where the country belongs (user specified data) and formulation/solution
of the overall NLP problem.
3) Calibration of TM of this region (NLP problem) based on existing TIMES models
4) By defining TM and MERGE equations in one model together with their input data
and solving them directly as NLP welfare maximization model
5) Report generation for TIMES and MERGE
How we have done it?
Goals of the study: We aim to assess the feasibility and implications of the Durban COP17 outcome.
Based on the conclusions of Meinshausen et al. (Nature 2009) shown above, we impose cumulative CO2 emissions constraints between 2020 and 2060 in MTM with gradually stringent budgets fixing the emissions for only 2005 and examine the attained probability to exceed 2° Celsius.
We also study the necessary structural changes in the energy systems and define the economic impacts globally and by region relative to baseline.
Finally the same information is given for USA in details.
Scenario 2000-2050 cumulative emissions [GtCO2]
Prob. of temp ≥ 2°C
Range Default
50% 1437 29-70% 50%
33% 1158 16-51% 33%
25% 1000 10-42% 25%
20% 886 8-37% 20%
Results of MTM-USA
Annual Carbon Emissions estimated for the Baseline (BAU) and the imposed global and cumulative budgets with different probabilities of exceeding 2°C
Results of MTM-USA
Marginal cost of carbon under global and cumulative emission budgets from 2020 to 2050 that correspond to the previous emission profiles for different probabilities to exceed 2°C.
Estimated Carbon Emissions in GtCO2/a and the associated probability to exceed 2 °C
2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2000-2050 ProbabilityGtCO2/a GtCO2/a GtCO2/a GtCO2/a GtCO2/a GtCO2 In %
37.69 41.18 46.93 49.94 54.96 2174 NA37.40 38.39 34.17 26.03 18.85 1597 6037.14 37.14 28.38 15.22 5.79 1352 4537.11 36.67 24.38 8.32 4.58 1232 3736.74 30.18 15.14 5.79 4.69 1048 28
The cumulative emissions are estimated using the shown emission levels from 2010 to 2050 using the trapezoidal rule adding 330 GtC for the period 2000-2010.
The probabilities in the last column are interpolated values based on the Meinshausen Table
The changed values for 2010 are due to optimization freedom given to MTM-USA for the period around 2010.
Results of MTM-USA
GHGs Concentration in ppmv
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
2005
2010
2020
2030
2040
2050
2005
2010
2020
2030
2040
2050
2005
2010
2020
2030
2040
2050
2005
2010
2020
2030
2040
2050
2005
2010
2020
2030
2040
2050
BAU 50% 33% 25% 20%
oGHG
N2O
CH4
CO2
Atmospheric concentrations given in ppmv of Kyoto GHGs in CO2 equivalent as estimated with MTM-USA under global and cumulative emission budgets for different probabilities of exceeding 2°C of warming.
Although the global (undiscounted) economic impacts are below 1.4 % of GDP the regional (undiscounted) impacts are significant for DCs and mainly the oil producing regions as quantity of exports and prices are reduced.
No compensation via trade of permits and no environmental benefits are estimated here.
Regional GDP losses relative to BaU in % (Undiscounted and Cumulative)
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
BaU 50% 33% 25% 20%
USA
WEUR
JAPAN
CANZ
EFSU
CHINA
INDIA
MOPEC
RoW
Cumulative and Undiscounted GDP losses relative to BaU in percent
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
50% 33 % 25 % 20 %
Results of MTM-USA
Primary Energy Consumption (EJ/a)
0
200
400
600
800
1000
120020
1020
2020
3020
4020
50
2010
2020
2030
2040
2050
2010
2020
2030
2040
2050
2010
2020
2030
2040
2050
2010
2020
2030
2040
2050
BAU 50% 33% 25% 20%
Renewable
Biomass
Nuc
Coal
Gas
Oil
Global Electricity Production (PWh/a)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
9020
1020
2020
3020
4020
50
2010
2020
2030
2040
2050
2010
2020
2030
2040
2050
2010
2020
2030
2040
2050
2010
2020
2030
2040
2050
BAU 50% 33% 25% 20%
SolarTH
spv
Wind
bio-a
Biomass
hydro
nuclear
igcc-a
igcc
pc-a
Coal
gas-fc
Gas-CCS
ngcc
Gas-Oil
oil&gas-r
The flexibility to reduce emissions for USA is given with remaining emissions Industry and Transport
Specific results for USA
US Energy related Carbon emissions in GtC/a
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
20
05
20
10
20
20
20
30
20
40
20
50
20
05
20
10
20
20
20
30
20
40
20
50
20
05
20
10
20
20
20
30
20
40
20
50
20
05
20
10
20
20
20
30
20
40
20
50
20
05
20
10
20
20
20
30
20
40
20
50
BAU 50% 33% 25% 20%
Upstr&Other
Transport
Residential
Industry
Electricity
Commercial
Agriculture
Specific results for USAUS Primary Energy Consumption (EJ/a)
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
2005
2010
2020
2030
2040
2050
2005
2010
2020
2030
2040
2050
2005
2010
2020
2030
2040
2050
2005
2010
2020
2030
2040
2050
2005
2010
2020
2030
2040
2050
BAU 50% 33% 25% 20%
Renewable
Nuclear
Biomass
Coal
Oil
Gas
Specific results for USAUS Electricity Prodution (PWh/a)
0
5
10
15
20
25
2005
2010
2020
2030
2040
2050
2005
2010
2020
2030
2040
2050
2005
2010
2020
2030
2040
2050
2005
2010
2020
2030
2040
2050
2005
2010
2020
2030
2040
2050
BAU 50% 33% 25% 20%
Solar PV
Wind
Hydro
Nuclear
Biomass
Coal
Oil
Gas
Although the
Specific results for USA
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
20
05
20
10
20
20
20
30
20
40
20
50
20
60
20
05
20
10
20
20
20
30
20
40
20
50
20
60
20
05
20
10
20
20
20
30
20
40
20
50
20
60
20
05
20
10
20
20
20
30
20
40
20
50
20
60
20
05
20
10
20
20
20
30
20
40
20
50
20
60
BAU 50% 33% 25% 20%
US Final Energy (EJ/a)
Alcohol
Hydrogen
Renewables
Oil-Prodct
Heat
Electric
Bio-Diesel
Bio-Direct
Coal
Gas
Conclusions-1
The study concludes that is always feasible but more difficult to sustain global warming below 2°C. However, the associated probabilities to sustain temperature change below 2 °C are becoming worse, while the window of opportunity narrows.
Although some carbon-free technologies like wind and advanced nuclear systems are competitive and contribute to the reduction of carbon emissions already in the baseline, other systems like advanced carbon capture and sequestration options based on coal and natural gas for power generation and solar PV need the introduction of taxes or other instruments to become competitive.
Synthetic fuel production and advanced power generation based on biomass with CCS options have negative carbon emissions and become one of the key future technological options to mitigate carbon emissions but for the moment they need policy support to become mature.
Conclusions-2
Conservation options in the building sector and in the transportation together with efficiency improving end-use options are contributing to the reduction of carbon emissions. This is indicated by the stabilization of final energy use for USA although the economic activity assumes a significant growth.
Finally, although the net GDP reduction on the global level remains below 1.4% the impact of the carbon constraint is DCs and oil/gas exporting regions is significant asking for compensation measures.
This could be obtained by Cap & Trade policies, the carbon transfer fund for renewable and by regional differentiation of carbon emission policies in the early decades based on the expected economic developments and the potential mitigation options across the world regions.
