Stabilization and the Energy Sector Geoffrey J. Blanford, Ph.D. EPRI, Global Climate Change EPRI Washington Climate Seminar May 18, 21
Outline Stabilization Basics Definitions Historic data and future projections Recent Stabilization Scenario Analysis: EMF 22 Crosswalk between EMF 22 scenarios and policy proposals Insights related to incomplete participation Insights related to technology 2
Stabilization Basics Emissions Concentrations Radiative Forcing = change in Earth s heat balance Many forcing agents, including long-lived gases and aerosols Agents have different properties, but (global) forcing is additive Kyoto Protocol applied to all greenhouse gases (except ozonedepleting gases covered by Montreal Protocol), not to aerosols Total forcing from Kyoto gases can be expressed as a CO 2 equivalent concentration refers to the concentration from CO 2 alone that would cause the same forcing level 3
Historic Global Greenhouse Forcing 4.5 Kyoto Gas Forcing Targets 4.5 W/m 2 65 CO 2 -e 3.5 Kyoto Gases 3.7 W/m 2 55 CO 2 -e CO 2 Radiative Forcing (W/m 2 ) 2.5 1.5. 5 CH 4 N 2 O Other (very small) Total forcing estimate Montreal Gases 2.6 W/m 2 45 CO 2 -e 175 18 185 19 195 2 25 -.5 wide uncertainty Aerosol forcing estimate range for aerosol effect - 1.5 (Sulfur emissions history indexed to median current total aerosol forcing) 4
Greenhouse Forcing Projections in MERGE BAU 4.5 Kyoto Gas Forcing Targets 4.5 W/m 2 65 CO 2 -e 3.5 Kyoto Gases 3.7 W/m 2 55 CO 2 -e CO 2 Radiative Forcing (W/m 2 ) 2. 5 1.5.5 CH 4 N 2 O Other (very small) Total forcing estimate Montreal Gases 2.6 W/m 2 45 CO 2 -e 175 18 185 19 195 2 25 -.5 Aerosol forcing estimate - 1.5 5
What does stabilization mean for temperature? Depends on climate sensitivity and thermal lags Both are very uncertain Climate sensitivity is defined as the equilibrium temperature increase in response to sustained forcing equivalent to a doubling of atmospheric CO 2 (i.e. 55 CO 2 -e or 3.7 W/m 2 ) Median value from IPCC is 3 C, scales linearily with forcing 55 CO 2 -e = 3.7 W/m 2 3 C (median) 45 CO 2 -e = 2.6 W/m 2 ~2 C (median) With overshoot, all bets are off 6
What does stabilization mean for emissions? 35 3 3.7 W/m 2 = 55 CO 2 -e pathway Billion tons CO 2 25 2 15 1 5 OECD non- OECD 18 185 19 195 2 25 21 215 22 Fossil and Cement CO 2 Emissions G8 Goal of 5% below 2 by 25 5% global reduction below 2 levels + 8% below for OECD 2% below for non-oecd 7
Baseline Emissions for Non-OECD 6 5 Billion tons CO 2 -e 4 3 2 1 Low-income Mid-income India China Russia 2 21 22 23 24 25 8
2% below 2 = 8% below BAU in 25 6 5 Billion tons CO 2 -e 4 3 2 1 Low-income Mid-income India China Russia 2 21 22 23 24 25 9
EMF 22 Delayed Participation Storyline OECD countries form coalition now 23: Brazil, Russia, India, China (BRIC) join 25: Rest of World (ROW) joins 2 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 21 1
Cost Asymptotes for Stabilization in MERGE Carbon Price in 22 ($ / t CO2) 1 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 Lock-in from current inertia 21 Level Optimal Further lock-in from developing country delay Delayed Participation 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Kyoto Gas Forcing (W/m 2 ) 11
Emissions before joining coalition by group 7 Two Escape Options: Optimistic Baseline 6 - Slower baseline growth 5 - Anticipation by non-participants Energy-related CO 2 (billion tons) 4 3 2 OECD 65 CO 2 -e 55 CO 2 -e Infeasible 1 BRIC ROW 199 2 21 22 23 24 25 12
What does stabilization mean for technology? Transformation of energy systems has two main attributes: De-carbonization of electric sector Electrification at end-use Key electric sector technologies: Carbon capture and storage (CCS) Nuclear Renewables, particularly wind and biomass Increased supply cost drives big changes on demand side 13
Global Technology Scenarios in MERGE OECD and developing countries will rely on the same technologies, but dynamics and scale will be very different Consider two stabilization scenarios with delayed participation: 65 CO 2 -e (no anticipation by developing countries) 55 CO 2 -e (developing countries anticipate future targets) Carbon Price ($/t CO2) 5 4 3 2 1 22 23 24 25 14
Electric Generation in OECD (Effect of Target) 18 Coal w/ccs Gas/Oil w/ccs Nuclear Adv. Nuc. Hydro+ Biomass Demand with No Policy Wind Solar Demand Reduction 18 16 65 CO 2 -e 55 CO 2 -e (BRIC + ROW anticipate) 16 14 14 Trillion kwh per year 12 1 8 6 12 1 8 6 Trillion kwh per year 4 4 2 2 2 21 22 23 24 25 2 21 22 23 24 25 15
Electric Generation in BRIC (Effect of Target) 3 Coal w/ccs Gas/Oil w/ccs Nuclear Adv. Nuc. Hydro+ Wind Biomass Solar Demand with No Policy Demand Reduction 3 25 65 CO 2 -e 55 CO 2 -e (BRIC + ROW anticipate) 25 Trillion kwh per year 2 15 1 2 15 1 Trillion kwh per year 5 5 2 21 22 23 24 25 2 21 22 23 24 25 16
Electric Generation in ROW (Effect of Target) 16 Coal w/ccs Gas/Oil w/ccs Nuclear Adv. Nuc. Hydro+ Wind Biomass Solar Demand with No Policy Demand Reduction 16 14 65 CO 2 -e 55 CO 2 -e (BRIC + ROW anticipate) 14 12 12 Trillion kwh per year 1 8 6 1 8 6 Trillion kwh per year 4 4 2 2 2 21 22 23 24 25 2 21 22 23 24 25 17
What happens without CCS or New Nuclear? 55 CO 2 -e scenario no longer feasible (even with anticipation) 65 CO 2 -e scenario more expensive More reliance on higher cost renewables More demand side changes with higher prices Increased total cost is a measure of the value of technology ~$1 trillion in US alone (in 65 CO 2 -e scenario) ~$1 trillion globally 18
Electric Generation in OECD (Effect of Technology) 18 Coal w/ccs Gas/Oil w/ccs Nuclear Adv. Nuc. Hydro+ Biomass Demand with No Policy Wind Solar Demand Reduction 18 16 65 CO 2 -e 65 CO 2 -e (no CCS or new nuclear) 16 14 14 Trillion kwh per year 12 1 8 6 12 1 8 6 Trillion kwh per year 4 4 2 2 2 21 22 23 24 25 2 21 22 23 24 25 19
Electric Generation in BRIC (Effect of Technology) 3 Coal w/ccs Gas/Oil w/ccs Nuclear Adv. Nuc. Hydro+ Biomass Demand with No Policy Wind Solar Demand Reduction 3 25 65 CO 2 -e 65 CO 2 -e (no CCS or new nuclear) 25 Trillion kwh per year 2 15 1 2 15 1 Trillion kwh per year 5 5 2 21 22 23 24 25 2 21 22 23 24 25 2
Value of Technology: CCS and New Nuclear $4 US $ Trillions (discounted NPV through 21) $3 $2 $1 Savings when CCS and nuclear are available Policy Cost for 65 CO2-e with delay $1.1 T USA $.9 T $1. T World $ No Recession Mild Recession Severe Recession No Recession Mild Recession Severe Recession 21
Conclusions Aggressive not-to-exceed targets for global climate variables depend critically on abatement outside of the OECD (in addition to OECD abatement) Once they are participating, developing countries present huge opportunity for technology: Fast growth means more new capital needs Scale is much larger: 8% of population is outside OECD The sooner the better (for all concerned) 22
Together Shaping the Future of Electricity 23