1 / 22

Sensitivity analyses for the CAFE policy scenarios

This study explores the sensitivity of the CAFE policy scenarios to various factors such as health impact theories, national energy and agricultural projections, uncertainties in agricultural projections, exclusion of road measures, and additional measures for ships. The analyses aim to determine if ambition levels for different environmental problems are balanced and to identify potential biases in the results.

joslynj
Download Presentation

Sensitivity analyses for the CAFE policy scenarios

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Sensitivity analyses for the CAFE policy scenarios Markus Amann, Janusz Cofala, Chris Heyes, Zbigniew Klimont, Wolfgang Schöpp, Fabian Wagner

  2. Sensitivity analysesQuestions • Are ambition levels for different environmental problems balanced? • How would alternative health impact theories change the results? • How would national energy and agricultural projections change the optimization outcome? • How do uncertainties in agricultural projections influence the results? • How would exclusion of further road measures change the results? • How would additional measures for ships change the outcomes?

  3. Sensitivity analysis 1 Are ambition levels for different environmental problems balanced? Approach: • Compare outcomes of • Optimization for health targets only • Optimization for environmental targets only • Joint optimization

  4. Sensitivity analysis 1Costs for health and environmental targets

  5. Sensitivity analysis 1 Emission cuts for health and environmental targets

  6. How robust are optimized emission reductions against uncertainties in impact mechanisms? Test with alternative hypothesis: “Secondary inorganic aerosols do not contribute to health impacts, all PM effects are related to primary PM2.5 emissions” Primaryanthrop.particles Secondaryanthrop.particles StandardRAINSapproach WHO advice Sensitivitycase Carbon Primarynon-carbon Sulfates Nitrates Sec organics Natural Sensitivity analysis 2Uncertainty in PM health impact theories

  7. Sensitivity analysis 2Sensitivity case • Approach • Achieve same relative improvement in mortality estimated for CLE based on “primary PM only” theory – or, expressed alternatively: • Reduce primary PM2.5 concentrations by the same percentage as total PM2.5 would be reduced in reference case • Two optimization runs: • Targets for health (PM) only • For all targets simultaneously

  8. Sensitivity analysis 2Control costs for alternative impact theories

  9. Sensitivity analysis 2AOptimization for health targets only

  10. Sensitivity analysis 2BJoint optimization for all targets

  11. How robust are optimized emission reductions against alternative assumptions on economic/energy/agricultural development? National energy and agricultural projections are available for 10 countries However, these do not comply with Kyoto obligations Sensitivity analysis 3

  12. Sensitivity analysis 3National energy and agricultural projections • Two aspects: • How would optimization results (“emission ceilings”) change based on the national projections? • What about the feasibility/costs of emission ceilings, if the underlying baseline projection does not materialize? • Approach: • Joint optimization with national projections for same target setting rules(gap closures and relative YOLL improvement recalculated for new space between CLE and MTFR)

  13. Sensitivity analysis 3Costs of optimized scenarios Billion €/year *) excluding costs for road sources

  14. Sensitivity analysis 3SO2 emissions

  15. Sensitivity analysis 3PM2.5 emissions

  16. Sensitivity analysis 4 Are there potential biases in the results for the agricultural sector? • Uncertainties in agricultural projections • Potential implications of the CAP reform • Implications of the IPPC Directive • Implications of the Nitrate Directive • Recent information on emission control measures

  17. Sensitivity analysis 4 Implications on compliance costs

  18. Sensitivity analysis 5 How would cost-optimal emission reductions change if no further measures were taken for road emissions (i.e., no Euro-5 and Euro-6 for diesel vehicles)? Approach: • Optimization for same environmental targets without the further measures for road emissions Results: • Environmental improvements of Cases B and C cannot be achieved without further road measures

  19. Sensitivity analysis 5Costs for achieving the Case “A” targets (Cases “B” and “C” cannot be achieved without road measures)

  20. Sensitivity analysis 6 How would further NOx controls for ships change the optimal emission reductions for land-based sources? Measures contained in baseline: • EU sulfur proposal as in Common Position (1.5% S in North Sea, Baltic and EU seas, 0.1% in harbors, new MARPOL NOx standards, state-of-art for new ships) Approach: • Optimization for same environmental targets with further measures for ships • Assumed additional measure: Slide valve retrofits for low speed engines (28 million €/year)

  21. Sensitivity analysis 6Control costs with NOx measures for ships

  22. Conclusions • Multi-effect optimization increases robustness against uncertainties in health impact mechanisms • CAFE policy scenarios are driven by health and ecosystems targets • Optimized emission reductions are sensitive against future levels of coal use. Robustness against national energy projections needs further attention (and more robust national projections!) • Costs for the agricultural sector are most likely overestimated • Substituting control of road emissions with further measures from stationary sources is not cost-effective • Control of marine ship emissions is cost-effective

More Related