Probabilistic Long-term Assessment of New Energy Technology - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Probabilistic Long-term Assessment of New Energy Technology Scenarios PLANETS Final Event: Policy Implications Bob van der Zwaan ECN and Columbia University vanderzwaan@ecn.nl Bruegel Institute Brussels, 8 June 2010 www.ecn.nl

Outline Probabilistic Long-term Assessment of New Energy Technology Scenarios • I. Policy implications • II. Several examples • III. Overall recommendations The EC is greatly acknowledged for funding PLANETS, and the Bruegel Institute for hosting this final event. 2 Jun-10

I. 1. Interim emission targets • Several scenarios with a 500 ppm-e (2.3 C) climate target prove unreachable. • Especially scenarios in which some regions postpone significant abatement are infeasible. • Emission targets for 2050 are very relevant for the economics of long-term climate stabilization. 3 Jun-10

I. 2. Costs of climate policy • The cost of achieving a 530 ppm-e (2.5 C) target is typically below 1-2 % of Gross World Product. • A 500 ppm-e (2.3 C) climate target, if reachable, is significantly more costly to achieve. • Even for a target less ambitious than 2.0 C, deep early global emission reductions are essential. 4 Jun-10

I. 3. Regional mitigation costs • As an alternative to immediate global participation, PLANETS considered second-best quota systems. • Our quota systems with 28% global abatement (2050 vs. 2005) involve varying regional costs. • Across scenarios, developing countries typically gain large benefits as carbon permit sellers. 5 Jun-10

I. 4. Carbon trading • Global costs of emission control are only modestly affected by a limit on carbon permit trading. • Such a trading limit, however, can have a significant effect on regional abatement costs. • But trade restrictions can spur carbon-free energy innovation and stimulate energy security. 6 Jun-10

I. 5. Mitigation portfolio • All scenarios imply cost-efficient solutions based on a broad set of different mitigation options. • Apart from savings, this set includes renewables, nuclear, and CCS (fossil- and biomass-based). • For the medium term, bridging technologies are valuable, as they fit in the existing energy system. 7 Jun-10

I. 6. CCS bridging technology • CCS is currently among the obvious transition technologies, with a large potential until 2050. • But for the short- and long-term its role remains unsure (imperfect capture rate, leakage). • Medium-term CCS deployment is determined by the importance of savings and electricity sector. 8 Jun-10

I. 7. CCS policy requirements • Technical, economic and social uncertainties remain, and scaling is a fundamental challenge. • A massive ramp-up is required of the entire chain of capture, transportation and storage of CO 2 . • Even while CCS cannot be fully exempt from a carbon tax, climate policy is a key determinant. 9 Jun-10

II. WITCH: coal with CCS Coal power (with and without CCS) 80 70 new capacity (GW/yr) 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 single year 450ppm Historical 550ppm BAU Source: Tavoni and van der Zwaan, 2009. Future capacity additions of coal-based power plus CCS (GW/yr) in a business-as-usual scenario and two climate control scenarios. 10 Jun-10

II. WITCH: new nuclear Nuclear power 50 new capacity (GW/yr) 40 30 20 10 0 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 single year 450ppm Historical 550ppm BAU Source: Tavoni and van der Zwaan, 2009. Future capacity additions of nuclear power (GW/yr) in a business-as-usual scenario and two climate control scenarios. 11 Jun-10

II. DEMETER: CCS with leakage 70 60 50 [tCO2/yr] 40 S1 S2 30 S3 S4 20 10 0 2000 2020 2040 2060 2080 2100 Source: Gerlagh and van der Zwaan, 2010. Optimal CCS deployment. 12 Jun-10

II. DEMETER: CCS carbon tax exempt 100% 90% 80% 70% [CCS effectiveness] S1 60% S2 50% S3 40% S4 30% 20% 10% 0% 2000 2020 2040 2060 2080 2100 Source: Gerlagh and van der Zwaan, 2010. CCS effectiveness. 13 Jun-10

II. TIAM-ECN: CCS and climate target 1800 1800 a) b) 1600 1600 1400 1400 Captured CO 2 , MtonCO 2 /yr Captured CO 2 , MtonCO 2 /yr 1200 1200 1000 1000 800 800 600 600 400 400 200 200 0 0 2010 2020 2030 2040 2010 2020 2030 2040 Target 5.5 High Target 5.5 Low Target 4.0 High Target 5.5 High Target 5.5 Low Target 4.0 High Target 4.0 Low Target 4.0 Low Target 3.6 High Target 3.6 Low Target 3.2 High Target 3.2 Low Stochastic Stochastic, variant Source: Keppo and van der Zwaan, 2010. CO 2 capture and storage deployment. Panel b) replaces the 3.2 W/m2 by a 3.6 W/m2 climate target. 14 Jun-10

III. Overall recommendations • Deep global GHG emission reductions need to be implemented as soon as possible. • Our findings justify a tightening of EU emission abatement efforts from 20% to 30% in 2020. • In order to facilitate this, there is an urgent need for a global climate agreement. • In the EU as elsewhere, the mix of carbon-free energy technologies should be highly diverse. 15 Jun-10