New climate scenarios and possible consequences for air pollution control Detlef van Vuuren

New climate scenarios and possible consequences for air pollution control

Detlef van Vuuren

How low can we go? Detlef van Vuuren – 2 February 2009

Contents

1.New IPCC scenario development 2.What is needed for EU climate target3.Implications for energy scenarios


New scenarios development process –interactions for scenario development


Representative emission pathways

Table 1.1: Overview of Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs) 1 Description1 Publication – IA Model RCP8.5 Rising radiative forcing pathway leading to 8.5 W/m2

in 2100. Riahi et al. (2007) – MESSAGE

RCP6 Stabilization without overshoot pathway to 6 W/m2 at stabilization after 2100

Fujino et al. (2006) and Hijioka et al. (2008) – AIM

RCP4.5 Stabilization without overshoot pathway to 4.5 W/m2 at stabilization after 2100

Clarke et al. (2007) – MiniCAM

RCP3-PD2 Peak in radiative forcing at ~ 3 W/m2 before 2100 and decline

van Vuuren et al. (2006, 2007) – IMAGE

2

All selected from existing literature (but slightly updated)

Span a wide range of different possible futures and trajectory shapes.


CO2

CH4

N2OSOy

BCOCCONOx

VOCNH3

HFCsPFCsCFCsSF6

Emission scenarios and harmonisation

1. Air Transportation2. International Shipping3. Other transportation4. Energy production / conversion.5. Solvents6. Waste (landfills, waste water)7. Industry (combustion and process emissions)8. Buildings (Residential and Commercial)9. Ag. waste burning on fields10. Agriculture11. Savannah burning12. Land use change

CO (2050-2000)

Aim to have data at regional, national and grid scale

J.F. LamarqueEDGAR-teamIAM teamsOthers


Land use data and harmonisation

cropland

rangeland

Cropland

Sec. “nature”

Prim. “nature”

Pasture

1700 2000 2100

University of New HampshireIAM – teamsKees Klein Goldewijk (HYDE)


What could happen if we do nothing?


1850 1900 1950 2000 2050 21000

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Ene

rgy

cons

umpt

ion

(EJ)

Hout Kolen Olie Gas Waterkracht Nuclear Zon/wind Mod. bioenergie

What could happen if we do nothing?

1850 1900 1950 2000 2050 21000

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Ene

rgy

cons

umpt

ion

(EJ)

Hout Kolen Olie Gas Waterkracht Nuclear Zon/wind Mod. bioenergie

Future dominated by fossil fuelsTemperature increase 2100: 2-6oC – and rapidly increasing still!

WoodCoalOilNatural gasHydroNuclearSolar/windModern bio-energy

Van Vuuren et al. (2008). Temperature increase of 21st scenarios. PNAS. 105. 40. 15258–15262

1850 1900 1950 2000 2050 2100-1

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Tem

pera

ture

(o C

)

Energy Temperature


Where do we want to aim for?


Bill Nordhaus (2007)The optimal policy reduces the global temperature rise relative to 1900 to 2.8 °C in 2100 and to 3.4 °C in 2200.

Jim Hansen (2007):Based on climate model studies and the history of the Earth, the Hansen and Sato conclude that additional global warming of about 1ºC or more, above global temperature in 2000, is likely to be dangerous.


Impacts

No increase over 2oC

Stern report (2006).


The probability to reach the 2°C target

650

Presentation: Meinshausen, 2004


2000 2020 2040 2060 2080 2100-20

0

20

40

60

80

100

Em

issi

es (

GtC

O2)

400 600 800 10000

2

4

6

8

10

Tem

pera

tuur

stijg

ing

(o C)

Broeikasgasconcentratie (ppm CO2-eq)

2 Graden

2000 2020 2040 2060 2080 2100-20

0

20

40

60

80

100

Em

issi

es (

GtC

O2)

400 600 800 10000

2

4

6

8

10

Tem

pera

tuur

stijg

ing

(o C)


2 Graden

2000 2020 2040 2060 2080 2100-20

0

20

40

60

80

100

Em

issi

es (

GtC

O2)

400 600 800 10000

2

4

6

8

10

Tem

pera

tuur

stijg

ing

(o C)


2 Graden

2000 2020 2040 2060 2080 2100-20

0

20

40

60

80

100

Em

issi

es (

GtC

O2)

400 600 800 10000

2

4

6

8

10

Tem

pera

tuur

stijg

ing

(o C)


2 Graden

2000 2020 2040 2060 2080 2100-20

0

20

40

60

80

100

Em

issi

es (

GtC

O2)

400 600 800 10000

2

4

6

8

10

Tem

pera

tuur

stijg

ing

(o C)


2 Graden

2000 2020 2040 2060 2080 2100-20

0

20

40

60

80

100

Em

issi

es (

GtC

O2)

400 600 800 10000

2

4

6

8

10

Tem

pera

tuur

stijg

ing

(o C)


2 Graden

2000 2020 2040 2060 2080 2100-20

0

20

40

60

80

100

Em

issi

es (

GtC

O2)

400 600 800 10000

2

4

6

8

10

Tem

pera

tuur

stijg

ing

(o C)


2 Graden

2oC target corresponds to around 400-450 ppm CO2 eq. (80-50% probability). Corresponds to a 50% emission reduction in 2050


From temperature to emission target.


650 CO2-eq 550 CO2-eq 450 CO2-eq

Integrated analysis: combination of options based on technical feasibility and cost-effectiveness

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

1970

1990

2010

2030

2050

2070

2090

Em

issi

ons

(GtC

-eq)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

1970

1990

2010

2030

2050

2070

2090

Em

issi

ons

(GtC

-eq)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

1970

1990

2010

2030

2050

2070

2090

Em

issi

ons

(GtC

-eq)

Sinks

Non-CO2

Other

Fuel switch

CCS

Biofuels

Nuclear, renewable

Efficiency

From emissions to reduction measures (B2)

Van Vuuren et al. Stabilising GHG emissions at low concentration levels.Climatic Change 81: 119-159.


Mitigation scenarios – integrated analysis

Nuclear

Renewables

Biofuels + CCS

Natural gas+CCS

Oil+CCS

Coal+CCS

Biofuels

Natural gas

Oil

Coal

Major changes in the global energy system

BioEnergy +

CCS (BECS

Default

80% of meeting 2oC probably requires negative

emissions (BECS)


Electric power system: Many different options

2025 – Western EuropeE

lect

ricity

co

sts

($/k

Wh)

0.00

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

0.06

0.07

0.08

0.09

0.10

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400

Coal

‘Carbon price’ ($/tC)

WindNuclearCoalNGBiofuelsCoal-CCSNG-CCS



Many CO2-neutral options economic around 200-250 $/tC taxThus… EPG carbon neutral around this tax level; but not certain which

options – choice!

2025 – Western EuropeE

lect

ricity

co

sts

($/k

Wh)

0.00

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

0.06

0.07

0.08

0.09

0.10

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400

CoalNatural Gas

Wind

‘Carbon price’ ($/tC)

WindNuclearCoalNGBiofuelsCoal-CCSNG-CCS

Obviously strongly depends on technology assumptions. This is not

“science”


Renewable/nuclear

Gas CCS

Gas Coal

CoalCCS

Gas CCS

Gas Coal

Renewable/nuclear

CoalCCS


Dependency on the oil price and carbon price

Van Ruijven and van Vuuren (2000). Impact of oil prices on greenhouse gas mitigation. Energy Policy (Submitted)


Power sector: Influence on air pollution

2050: Little GHG emissions for power sector

Efficiency: Zero SO2/NOx/PM10 emissionsNuclear/wind: Zero SO2/NOx/PM10 emissionsCCS: Depends on technology choise. NOx,SO2?Bio-energy: SO2, PM10

Baseline 450 ppm

Nat.gas Nat.gas CCS

WindWind


Transport sector

2050: Still difficult to beat oil

Efficiency: Zero SO2/NOx/PM10 emissionsElectricity: Zero from car; but stationary emissions

H2: Some H2 emissions ; but stationary emissions

Bio-energy: SO2, PM10

Baseline 450 ppm 400 ppm

OilOil Oil

BiofuelH2 H2

Biofuel


Impacts on emissions (different models)



Findings

Stabilizing GHG concentration at low levels in order to meet 2 degrees requires very ambitious emission reductions.

Target technically feasible (with ‘known techniques’)… but just!

Portfolio of options needed: Likely substantial contribution CCS and efficiency

Implications on emissions… likely to be substantial for SO2.


Thank you for your attention

For further information: [email protected]


Lowest scenario


Representative emission pathways

Strong cooperation between Integrated Assessment Modelling community and Earth System Modelling community (and to some degree emission inventory people + atmospheric chemistry people).

IAM: Nakicenovic, Weyant, Edmonds, Riahi, Van Vuuren, Smith, Kainumi, and many others

ESM: Hibbart, Mitchell, Meehl, etc.

Atmospheric Chemistry: Jean-Francois Lamarque

Inventories: Van Aardenne, Smith, Ayring, Lee, Bond, etc.

Land use: Hurtt, Klein Goldewijk, Frokking etc.


Costs of stabilising emissions

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

1970 1990 2010 2030 2050 2070 2090

Car

bon

tax

($/t

C-e

q)

650 CO2-eq

550 CO2-eq

450 CO2-eq

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

1970 1990 2010 2030 2050 2070 2090M

itii

gati

ons

cost

s (%

GD

P)

650 CO2-eq

550 CO2-eq

450 CO2-eq

Carbon tax Abatement costs (%GDP)

Substantial costs But nothing to disrupt the economy



Main messages

Still scope for limiting global warming to about 2oC… just.

Global emissions will need to peak around 2020.Requires participation of all major countries.

Technologies and economics are not the most important obstacles.

Major uncertainties: Even if we aim for 2oC, we should prepare for much more.


Land use pattern in 450 ppm mitigation scenario (2100)

Forests

Desert

AgricultureIceTundra Ext. grasslandGrass

Bio-energyC-plantation


Documents

New climate scenarios and possible consequences for air pollution control Detlef van Vuuren