U.S. Emissions and Mitigation Results from EMF24

Transcription

1 U.S. Emissions and Mitigation Results from EMF24 Jae Edmonds Based on EMF 24 presentations by Leon Clarke, Allen Fawcett, John Weyant, Vaibhav Chaturvedi, James McFarland, Sebastian Rausch, and Yuyu Zhou IGES-ERI Policy Research Workshop On the road to Paris: The readiness of key countries for COP21 and beyond Beijing, China September 02, 2014

2 Overview of Presentation Study Design Reference Scenarios Overview of Results from the EMF 24 Technology Scenarios

3 AN OVERVIEW OF THE EMF24 STUDY DESIGN

4 The 9 EMF24 Models ADAGE Duke University CIMS Simon Fraser University EC-IAM Environment Canada FARM U.S. Department of Agriculture GCAM Pacific Northwest National Laboratory NewERA NERA Economic Consulting ReEDS National Renewable Energy Laboratory USREP Massachusetts Institute of Technology US-REGEN Electric Power Research Institute

5 Overview of the Models Model Covered Sectors Number of US Regions Covered Gases Model Base Year Model of Technology Choice Model Time Step (years) Last Model Year without Climate Policy Intertemporal Solution Approach Bio w/ccs Citation for Paper in this Volume ADAGE Energy, Rest of CO2, CH4, N2O, Intertemporal Economy (Limited Land CES production function HFC, PFC, SF6 Optimization Use) No Ross et al. (2013) CIMS Energy 1 C02, CH4, N Probabilistic choice model Recursive Dynamic No Jaccard and Goldberg (2013) EC-IAM Linear/Non-Linear programming CO2,CH4, N2O, (Electric supply Sector, Non- Energy, Rest of Short lived F- Intertemporal Zhu and Ghosh Electric Energy Supply Sector); No Economy (no Land Use) gases, long lived F- Optimization (2013) CES production function (Rest of gases Economy), FARM Energy, Rest of Economy (no Land Use) 1 CO CES production function Recursive Dynamic Yes Sands et al. (2013) GCAM Energy, Land use 1 CO2, CH4, N2O, HFC, PFC, SF Logit choice model Linear/Non-Linear Programming NewERA Energy, Rest of (Electric Supply Sector); CES 1* CO Economy (no Land Use) Production Function (all Other Sectors) 5 (but 2012 is included as an addiitonal year) 2012 Recursive Dynamic Yes Wise et al. (2013) Intertemporal Optimization No Tuladhar et al. (2013) ReEDS Electric Supply 134 CO Linear/Non-Linear Programming Sequential Myopic No Sullivan et al. (2013) USREP Energy, Rest of Economy (no Land Use) 12 CO2, CH4, N2O, HFC, PFC, SF CES production function Recursive Dynamic No Rausch et al. (2010) Linear/Non-Linear Programming US-REGEN Energy, Rest of Economy (no Land Use) 15 CO (Electric Supply Sector); CES Production Function (all Other Sectors) Intertemporal Optimization No Blanford et al. (2013) * At the time the EMF 24 were completed, NewERA with only one U.S. region. The default is now 12 U.S. regions.

6 Overview of Scenarios Technology Dimension Optimistic Single Technology Sensitivities Combined Sensitivities Pessimistic End Use Technology Optimistic Pessimistic Optimistic Optimistic Optimistic Optimistic Pessimistic Pessimistic CCS Optimistic Optimistic Pessimistic Optimistic Optimistic Pessimistic Optimistic Pessimistic Nuclear energy Optimistic Optimistic Optimistic Pessimistic Optimistic Pessimistic Optimistic Pessimistic Wind & Solar Optimistic Optimistic Optimistic Optimistic Pessimistic Optimistic Pessimistic Pessimistic Bioenergy Optimistic Optimistic Optimistic Optimistic Pessimistic Optimistic Pessimistic Pessimistic Scenario Name Hi Tech Low EE Low CCS Now Nuc Low Renew Low CCS/Nuc Low EERE Policy Dimension Baseline 50% Cap & Trade 80% Cap & Trade ation (CAFE) (RPS) (CES) Sectoral Policies (RPS & CAFE) Sectoral Policies + 50% Cap & Trade

7 Overview of Scenarios Technology Dimension Optimistic Single Technology Sensitivities Combined Sensitivities Pessimistic End Use Technology Optimistic Pessimistic Optimistic Optimistic Optimistic Optimistic Pessimistic Pessimistic CCS Optimistic Optimistic Pessimistic Optimistic Optimistic Pessimistic Optimistic Pessimistic Nuclear energy Optimistic Optimistic Optimistic Pessimistic Optimistic Pessimistic Optimistic Pessimistic Wind & Solar Optimistic Optimistic Optimistic Optimistic Pessimistic Optimistic Pessimistic Pessimistic Bioenergy Optimistic Optimistic Optimistic Optimistic Pessimistic Optimistic Pessimistic Pessimistic Scenario Name Hi Tech Low EE Low CCS Now Nuc Low Renew Low CCS/Nuc Low EERE Policy Dimension Baseline 50% Cap & Trade 80% Cap & Trade ation (CAFE) (RPS) (CES) Sectoral Policies (RPS & CAFE) Sectoral Policies + 50% Cap & Trade

8 AN OVERVIEW OF THE REFERENCE SCENARIOS

9 Population Population (Millions) Model (CAGR '10-'50) ADAGE (0.87%) EC-IAM (0.62%) FARM (0.66%) GCAM (0.77%) NewERA (0.65%) US-REGEN (0.91%) USREP (0.78%) Historical data

10 GDP GDP (Trllion 2005 US$) Model (CAGR '10-'50) ADAGE (2.39%) EC-IAM (2.35%) FARM (1.81%) GCAM (2.01%) NewERA (2.37%) US-REGEN (2.62%) USREP (2.06%) Historic (3.14%)

11 Primary Energy (2050) Other Renewables Wind 100 Solar EJ per year Nuclear Biomass w/ CCS Biomass w/o CCS Oil w/ CCS 40 Oil w/o CCS Gas w/ CCS Gas w/o CCS Coal w/ CCS Coal w/o CCS ADAGE CIMS EC-IAM FARM GCAM NewERA US-REGEN USREP EIA Although mixes vary across models and scenarios, all models continue the dependence on fossil fuels.

12 Generation (2050) Other Renewables Wind Billion kwh/yr Solar Nuclear Biomass w/ CCS Biomass w/o CCS Oil w/ CCS Oil w/o CCS Gas w/ CCS Gas w/o CCS Coal w/ CCS Coal w/o CCS ADAGE CIMS EC-IAM FARM GCAM NewERA US-REGEN USREP ReEDS Although mixes vary across models and scenarios, coal and gas together account for the majority of electricity generation in all scenarios

13 US CO 2 Emissions in the Low- Tech Scenario Emissions continue to rise in all the low-tech scenarios Gigatons CO Model (CAGR '10 -'50) ADAGE (0.52%) CIMS (0.93%) EC-IAM (0.9%) FARM (0.89%) GCAM (0.9%) NewERA (0.96%) US-REGEN (0.76%) USREP (0.88%) Historical data

14 US CO 2 Emissions in the HiTech Scenarios Improved technology largely reductions in energy use reduce baseline emissions Gigatons CO Model (CAGR '10 -'50) ADAGE (0.15%) CIMS (0.27%) EC-IAM (0.3%) FARM (0.32%) GCAM (-0.04%) NewERA (0.54%) US-REGEN (-0.19%) USREP (0.62%) Historical data

15 US CO 2 Emissions in the HiTech Scenarios Improved technology largely reductions in energy use reduce baseline emissions Gigatons CO But improved technology does not meet 8 the emissions goals of this study Model (CAGR '10 -'50) ADAGE (0.15%) CIMS (0.27%) EC-IAM (0.3%) FARM (0.32%) GCAM (-0.04%) NewERA (0.54%) US-REGEN (-0.19%) USREP (0.62%) Historical data

16 KEY RESULTS FROM THE MITIGATION SCENARIOS: TECHNOLOGY DIMENSION

17 By construction, the scenarios include banking, but not borrowing 9,000 8,000 Covered CO 2 Emissions All 50% Emissions Target Scenarios 7,000 6,000 Emissions reductions in 2050 is below the target in many models due to the banking provision. Covered CO 2 (MtCO 2 ) 5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,

18 Percent Reduction from Baseline Emissions 125% 100% 75% 50% 25% 0% The Nature of Sectoral Emissions Reductions Emissions Reduction by Selected Sectors in 2050 scenario (Optimistic CCS/Nuc) 80% reduction Bioenergy with CCS allows for negative electricity emissions. 50% reduction ADAGE CIMS EC-IAM FARM GCAM NewERA US-REGEN USREP

19 The Nature of Sectoral Emissions Reductions 125% Emissions Reduction by Selected Sectors in 2050 scenario (Optimistic Renew) Percent Reduction from Baseline Emissions 100% 75% 50% 25% 0% ADAGE CIMS EC-IAM FARM GCAM NewERA US-REGEN USREP

20 System Transitions* Billion kwh/yr Reduction from BAU Other Renewables Wind Solar Nuclear Biomass w/ CCS Biomass w/o CCS Oil w/ CCS Oil w/o CCS Gas w/ CCS Gas w/o CCS Coal w/ CCS Coal w/o CCS 50% 80% 50% 80% 50% 80% 50% 80% 50% 80% 50% 80% 50% 80% 50% 80% ADAGE CIMS EC-IAM FARM GCAM NewERA US-REGEN USREP * Note that data for ReEDS are not shown due to a database error

21 8000 System Transitions* Billion kwh/yr BioCCS. Increasing electricity. Large-scale deployment of nuclear power when available. Large-scale deployment of solar power when CCS and nuclear are not available. Reduction from BAU Other Renewables Wind Solar Nuclear Biomass w/ CCS Biomass w/o CCS Oil w/ CCS Oil w/o CCS Gas w/ CCS Gas w/o CCS Coal w/ CCS Coal w/o CCS 50% 80% 50% 80% 50% 80% 50% 80% 50% 80% 50% 80% 50% 80% 50% 80% ADAGE CIMS EC-IAM FARM GCAM NewERA US-REGEN USREP * Note that data for ReEDS are not shown due to a database error

22 8000 System Transitions* Billion kwh/yr Larger electricity reductions, particularly when CCS and nuclear are not available and at 80% reductions. Limited deployment of renewable energy. Reduction from BAU Other Renewables Wind Solar Nuclear Biomass w/ CCS Biomass w/o CCS Oil w/ CCS Oil w/o CCS Gas w/ CCS Gas w/o CCS Coal w/ CCS Coal w/o CCS 50% 80% 50% 80% 50% 80% 50% 80% 50% 80% 50% 80% 50% 80% 50% 80% ADAGE CIMS EC-IAM FARM GCAM NewERA US-REGEN USREP * Note that data for ReEDS are not shown due to a database error

23 8000 System Transitions* Billion kwh/yr Limited reductions in electricity. Large-scale deployment of nuclear power and CCS when available. Large-scale deployment of wind power when nuclear and CCS are not available. Reduction from BAU Other Renewables Wind Solar Nuclear Biomass w/ CCS Biomass w/o CCS Oil w/ CCS Oil w/o CCS Gas w/ CCS Gas w/o CCS Coal w/ CCS Coal w/o CCS 50% 80% 50% 80% 50% 80% 50% 80% 50% 80% 50% 80% 50% 80% 50% 80% ADAGE CIMS EC-IAM FARM GCAM NewERA US-REGEN USREP * Note that data for ReEDS are not shown due to a database error

24 8000 System Transitions* Billion kwh/yr Large-scale use of CCS when available. Large-scale wind deployment when nuclear and CCS are not available, Reduction from BAU Other Renewables Wind Solar Nuclear Biomass w/ CCS Biomass w/o CCS Oil w/ CCS Oil w/o CCS Gas w/ CCS Gas w/o CCS Coal w/ CCS Coal w/o CCS 50% 80% 50% 80% 50% 80% 50% 80% 50% 80% 50% 80% 50% 80% 50% 80% ADAGE CIMS EC-IAM FARM GCAM NewERA US-REGEN USREP * Note that data for ReEDS are not shown due to a database error

25 Carbon Price 50% Emissions Target Optimistic CCS/Nuc Scenario (low Renew) $500 $450 $400 $350 Prices rises in all scenarios. But not at a constant rate because borrowing is limited. $ $/tco2 $250 $200 $150 $100 $50 $

26 Prices Relative to Percentage Abatement from Reference (2050) 900 ables (Optimistic Nuc/CCS) $/tco2 (2005$) ADAGE CIMS EC-IAM FARM GCAM NewERA US-REGEN USREP 0 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

27 Prices Relative to Percentage Abatement from Reference (2050) 900 Low Nuc/CCS (Optimistic Renewables) $/tco2 (2005$) ADAGE CIMS EC-IAM FARM GCAM NewERA US-REGEN USREP 0 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

28 Why Might Prices (and Other Assumptions Results) Vary? Driving forces, such as population, GDP, and energy intensity. A wide range of additional assumptions about resources and costs. Implementation of optimistic and pessimistic assumptions regarding end use, wind and solar, and bioenergy The suite of other technologies assumed to be available (e.g., the combination of bioenergy with CCS) Different data sources Model Structure and Implementation Representations of the grid and grid integration issues Descriptive versus normative descriptions of behavior Ability for fuel switching in end uses tied to level of detail in end uses or in assumptions about elasticity Level of resolution issues across the board (temporal, spatial, technological)

29 CONCLUDING THOUGHTS The EMF 24 study group has produced a large dataset of model runs that explore 50% and 80% emissions reductions by The study provides projections of energy system transitions and economic indicators such as carbon prices. There is wide variation in these projections of economic and energy system indicators. All models indicate that technology alone will not be sufficient to meet these goals and that a dramatic transformation of the energy system will ultimately be required. Technology has a large effect on the challenge of mitigation, but it is not clear that any single technology is critical. This is, to some degree, a matter of the resolution at which technologies are defined. Decarbonization of electricity by 2050 is robust across all models. Clarification is needed regarding the potential for end use reductions and the associated welfare implications.

30 DISCUSSION