GCAM Fossil Fuel Ef/iciencies & Transportation Module Updates

Transcription

1 GCAM Fossil Fuel Ef/iciencies & Transportation Module Updates Gouri Shankar Mishra, Geoff Morrison,* Jacob Teter,* Sonia Yeh UC Davis, Ins=tute of Transporta=on Studies * Presenters GCAM Modeling Conference Nov. 29,

2 Energy Flow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

3 Developed vs. Developing Countries Efficiency 3

4 Desired changes to transport module! Model Structure! Include 2- & 3- wheelers in India and China! Break buses into minibuses and large buses! Break avia3on into domes<c vs. interna<onal trips! Input Parameters! Load factor: region specific, f(gdp, motoriza<on rate)! Non- fuel costs: (capture infrastructure/capital, O&M costs)! Value of 3me: (VOT) mul<plier! Speed: mode; region- and <me- specific! Income and price elas3city: region- and <me- specific! Both Model Structure and Input Parameters! Energy intensity: by mode; region- and <me- specific 4

5 Load Factor Vehicle Occupancy Ratio: region specific and time variant #"?DE"FG!!HI"?DE"FG!H!I" A?;<'?>;<' !"#2%&'(34567'8%+%-91' GCAM, bus ( )!"#$#%&'()*(+,&-./0&#!" $%&" '()(*(" +,-.,/)"01/23," 4(3()" &1-./(56(789" :%$" ';6)(" <6**5,"0(-." %21.;,(-."&-6(" 0(-.,/)"01/23," B2/,(" >;<' =;<' =;<& :;D& :;C& :;B& :;A& :;?& :;>& :;=& :;:& :;<& UK US UK US :DBB& :DC:& :DCD& :DD>& :DDB& =<<:& =<<D& :DBC& :DC=& :DCA& :DD<& :DD?& :DDC& =<<=& =<<A& Japan!"#!$%&'23456& & Japan!"#$%&'()*&+,-*./01' GCAM, LDV ( )!"#!$%&'()*+,-)./01& :DBB& :DC:& :DCD& :DD>& :DDB& =<<:& =<<D& =<:>& =<:B& =<=:& =<=D& =<>>& =<>B& =<?:& =<?D& EF)+9G&H)FIG,J& EF)+9G&K+/+9*& L/M/F& 5

6 Share of vehicles and Energy Intensity of 2- & 3- wheelers and passenger LDVs 345$#'67'8#4(9:#';6<(:()&'+<(::(6"'012' <;A% :;A% C;A% -;A% 1;A% 1./0(('(#$%&'()%"*+$,% 23(#"4(%56(#47%869(6$+97% &#+409%"*+$,%!"#$%&'()%"*+$,% >?-;;% >?1;;% >?>;;% >?;;;% =;;%!"#$%&'(")#"*()&'+,-./012' >;A% -./0(('(#$%&'()%"*+$,% <;;% ;A% 1;;;% 1;;B% 1;>;% 1;>B% 1;1;% 1;1B% 1;-;% 1;-B% :;;% 6

7 Buses minibuses and large buses! Minibuses: 8-10 pass. vs. Large buses: pass. Share of minibuses = f (MOR, GDP) à increases Schäfer, presenta<on at UC Davis,

8 Truck Load Factor vs. Energy Intensity (partial 3'4',(!"#$%&'()*+,%-.('*/%0.,(.1),/%2345,"..(6789%?;<(?( >;<( >( =;<( =(!"#$%'8&'( 12( 9%*8',0( 7&,8',0(!"#$%&'( )*%+',-( 5*,+'%6(./*0*,( :;<( :( A( B( =:( =>( =A( :"#$%&#;,"'%6%<".15=(+);>(% 8

9 Load Factor Road Freight! Energy intensity of trucks is strongly dependent on payload! Most of the changes in energy intensity are due to changes in payload not technology improvement!"#$%&'(")#"*()&'+,-.)/01' -+" (&" (+" 1&" 1+" &" Light commercial vehicles Rigid trucks!"#"$%&&'() *+%,'- "./"#"+%00'1(" Australia ( ) "1++%++"" "1+%++"" "1%++""!"#"$%&&'() *+%,'- "./"#"+%00'1(" "+%1+"" "+%1+"" "1%++"" "1+%++"" "1++%++"" ArCculated trucks +" +" &" 1+" 1&" (+" (&",#2"'32&45267')5".8#9(:4#'+)/0.8/01' 9

10 Non- Fuel Costs! GCAM default assump<ons: same non- fuel costs (i.e. taxes/ subsidies, capital costs/deprecia<on, and non- fuel opera<ng costs) of vehicle ownership and opera<on in the U.S. and for all other countries/regions! Differences in fuel taxes (figure below)! Differences in public transit fare!)'$%$$!!!"#$%&'()*+',%# H24.?I!J.38I?/2! H24.?I!K?232I!!)&$%$$!!!)#$%$$!!!)$$%$$!!!($%$$!!!'$%$$!!!&$%$$!!!#$%$$!!!"!!!! *+,! -./.0.! /! ! :.9./!,;<! =+*! C.D/!,E25?B.! +874>!6.34!,3?.! /! ! F852.! G/0?.! 10

11 Value of Time (VOT)! VOT comprises a large share of total travel cost. P(VOT) as a percentage of total travel cost 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% Bus Rail LDV USA India! GCAM assumes a VOT mul<plier of 1 (a traveller values his travel <me at the same rate as his wage) across all regions and modes. However, literature suggests otherwise. 11

12 Conclusions results of UCD updates! (1) Regional trends in total energy consump<on / total transporta<on demand (T- km, P- Km) will not change substan<ally (absolute service values will change).! (2) Effec<veness of carbon taxes will change:! Non- fuel costs will rise due to incorpora<on of taxes à reducing the impact of any given level of carbon tax.! Reduce VOT mul<plier values from current level = 1. This will increase the poten<al impact of taxes.! (3) Stock- average EI (BTU/pass- km) may rise for some modes/technologies (vs. current assump<on that EI decreases at an exogenously defined rate).! Share of cars will rise and 2- /3- wheelers will decrease.! Share of Minibuses will increase. 12

13 Acknowledgements! Kenneth Gillingham! Raul Quiceno! Andreas Schäfer 13

14 Forecasting three approaches: Three scenarios: base case, advanced, and very advanced (1) Derive parameters from authorita<ve models! e.g. IEA s Momo model! limited to exis<ng forecasts, proprietary data (2) Search for general global rela<onships ( holis<c regressions)! e.g. Andreas Schäfer s mode- specific rela<onships EI(LF)! Exis<ng rela<onships may be masked by data that is not consistent over <me/among countries (data limita<ons)! General, global rela<onships may not exist (3) Derive country- / region- specific rela<onships ( targeted )! Premised upon accurate data, con<nua<on of past trends! Time intensive, less transparent, depends on many assump<ons

15 LDV (cars) Energy Intensity vs. fuel costs

16 Energy Intensity of LDVs in Europe!"#$%&'()*'+),-.")./-"0,12345, '"!# &"!# %"!# $"!#!"!# (*6#7878# +)679:);,<4-# *:#%!$!# ()*# +,-#.%# */012341# ()*# +,-#.%# */012341# %!!5# %!5!#