The role of low-carbon technologies in climate mitigation - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

The role of low-carbon technologies in climate mitigation Perspectives on feasibility of low climate targets, sector-specific action and mitigation costs based on the EMF27 model inter-comparison project Volker Krey krey@iiasa.ac.at

“The purpose of computing is insights, not numbers.” Richard W. Hamming Numerical Methods for Scientists and Engineers McGraw-Hill, 1962

Outline • Introduction • Energy Modeling Forum (EMF) 27 Study • The Influence of Technology Availability on critical Characteristics of Mitigation Strategies – Timing of Mitigation – Contribution of different Sectors – Value of Technology

The EMF27 Model Comparison • Topic: Global Technology Strategies for Greenhouse Gas Mitigation • 18 energy-economic and integrated assessment models Special Issue in Climatic Change • 11 cross cutting papers: study overview, technology, policy, fossil resources, renewable energy, bioenergy, nuclear, CCS, energy efficiency, land-use, non- Kyoto radiative forcing

EMF27 Modeling Protocol Policy Dimension Technology dimension • Energy intensity: High/Low • Baseline • CCS: On/Off • 550 ppm CO2-eq. • Nuclear: On/Off • 450 ppm CO2-eq. • Wind/Solar: Opt/Pess • Bioenergy: High/Low Combinations: • Conventional • EERE • Limited Technology Source: ¡IPCC ¡AR4 ¡Synthesis ¡Report, ¡adopted ¡for ¡IPCC ¡SRREN ¡

Technology Representation • coverage of different options similar in the electricity sector – coverage of biomass w/ CCS, CSP and geothermal varies – ocean energy not represented in most models • most models have liquid biofuels, but coverage of CCS is less common than in electricity generation • coverage of hydrogen production and even more so gasification vary considerably across models – w/o and w/ CCS • compared to earlier studies the option of bioenergy with CCS (BECCS) is much higher

Timing of Mitigation: Full Portfolio 2010

Timing of Mitigation: No CCS 2010

Timing of Mitigation: Limited Biomass 2010

Direct Sectoral Emissions 2010 level

Climate Target Feasibility FullTech LowEI NoCCS NucOff LimSW LimBio Conv EERE LimTech Baseline 13/13 13/13 11/11 11/11 13/13 13/13 13/13 11/11 550 ppm 13/13 13/13 12/12 11/11 11/11 13/13 13/13 12/12 6/9 450 ppm 10/11 9/10 4/11 9/10 9/10 9/11 8/11 6/11 0/10 What does feasibility tell us? • Models cannot produce scenario within comfort zone of modelers (e.g., model does not technically solve, carbon price very high) • Subjective judgment involved • Many ”real-life factors” not covered by models

Policy Costs of Climate Mitigation NPV(5%) as fraction of GDP (2010-2100) i B BET i P 10 P G GCAM i IMACLIM Policy Costs [% of GDP] I IMAGE 8 P m MERGE i i i P M MESSAGE R P POLES 6 R REMIND i R T TIAM-WORLD R 4 W WITCH T T R W m W m T T T T P T B B P R W W P W X Consumption Loss R B m 2 R m m T G W B B G Area under the MAC curve m G P M G R W G I M I M I B M M I M 0 10/119/10 4/11 9/10 9/10 9/11 8/11 6/11 0/10 LowEI NoCCS NucOff EERE FullTech LimSW LimBio Conv LimTech 450 ppm CO 2 e

Policy Costs of Climate Mitigation normalized to the 450 ppm FullTech scenario Policy Costs Increase (relative to FullTech) B BET G GCAM P 4 P i IMACLIM I IMAGE m MERGE R P 3 M MESSAGE P P POLES R R R REMIND 2 T TIAM-WORLD m M R G m B G W WITCH B G i i W W T T R M B X G I m T P T R M T m 1 P B I W W M i i T Consumption Loss m W i Area under the MAC curve T R I P B W M 0 9/10 4/11 9/10 9/10 9/11 8/11 6/11 0/10 LowEI NoCCS NucOff EERE LimSW LimBio Conv LimTech 450 ppm CO 2 e

Policy Costs of Climate Mitigation normalized to the 450/550 ppm FullTech scenario 450 ppm CO 2 e 550 ppm CO 2 e to 6 Policy Costs Increase (relative to FullTech) P 4 4 P R P 3 3 R P P R R 2 2 P T m m M R G F m B P B R B G I B W E B R G i i M P M m W G g W T I T W R R M I g B B X E I T G G M G T E I i W M W F F m P R m P T T R m m m G E P T T M R T m E G m 1 P I B I 1 B T W W E M W i i i i T M W i i I R m G B W F i T m T i I E R M I R P W B T W G P M E F M g W i W B 0 0 9/10 4/11 9/10 9/10 9/11 8/11 6/11 0/10 13/1312/1211/11 11/1113/1313/1312/12 6/9 Co Ar LowEI NoCCS NucOff LimSW LimBio Conv EERE LimTech LowEI NoCCS NucOff EERE LimSW LimBio Conv LimTech

Conclusions • All technologies are valuable, but some are more valuable • The value and importance of technology increases with the stringency of the climate target • The timing of mitigation and the burden that different sectors will have to carry critically depend on future availability of Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) technologies – policy implications • “Betting on CDR technologies” might be risky – there is (almost) no way back

Some Thoughts and Questions • Many known (and unknown?) unknowns related to CDR deployment (session on Friday) • How to address the CDR technology lock-in from a risk management perspective? • Does the demand side (e.g. efficiency) have the silver bullet?

Thank you! Reference Krey V., G. Luderer, L. Clarke, and E. Kriegler (In Press). Getting from here to there – energy technology transformation pathways in the EMF27 scenarios. Climatic Change, EMF27 Special Issue, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10584-013-0947-5.

19 IPCC AR4 Stabilization Categories GHG emissions resulting from the provision of energy services contribute significantly to the increase in atmospheric GHG concentrations. Source: ¡IPCC ¡AR4 ¡Synthesis ¡Report, ¡adopted ¡for ¡IPCC ¡SRREN ¡

Modeling Teams in EMF27 • AIM/End-Use (Japan) • IMACLIM (France) • BET (Japan) • IMAGE (Netherlands) • DNE21+ (Japan) • MERGE (U.S.) • EC-IAM (Canada) • MESSAGE (Austria) • ENV-Linkages (OECD) • Phoenix (U.S.) • FARM (U.S./Germany) • POLES (France) • GCAM (U.S.) • REMIND (Germany) • GCAM-IIM (U.S./India) • TIAM-World (Canada) • GRAPE (Japan) • WITCH (Italy)