1 / 48

State of play in developing the NEC baseline scenario

This document provides an overview of the current status of developing the NEC baseline scenario, including energy and transport projections, CO2 projections, air pollutants, agricultural emissions, and environmental impacts. It also compares national energy projections with PRIMES scenarios and highlights discrepancies in coal consumption and fuel consumption for road transport. Additionally, it examines CO2 emissions estimates and air pollutant emissions as a function of CO2 mitigation.

robinsonpamela
Download Presentation

State of play in developing the NEC baseline scenario

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. Markus Amann, Janusz Cofala, Zbigniew Klimont International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) State of play in developing the NEC baseline scenario

  2. Contents • State of play • Energy and transport projections • CO2 projections • Air pollutants: SO2, NOx, PM, VOC • Agricultural emissions: NH3 • Environmental impacts

  3. State of play • National energy projections implemented in GAINS in draft form – activity data sent out to national experts in mid June, feedbacks from 10 countries are incorporated. • Further refinements in sectoral allocations required. • Further contacts with national experts for validation. • New PRIMES projections implemented. • New hardware, new server software, new GAINS software, new energy data: All results presented today are provisional! • All data on RAINS-online: as soon as quality control completed

  4. National scenarios provided for the NEC review

  5. Available energy projections • National energy projections for NEC, late 2005, - 19 MS (unknown assumptions on oil and carbon prices, etc.) • PRIMES 2006 projections with 0, 20 and 90 € carbon price(for 50$ oil price) • PRIMES “with climate policy” scenario 2004 used for CAFE (“PRIMES CAFE”) – all MS(for 30$ oil price + 20 € carbon price) • PRIMES 2005 DG TREN baseline (for 50$ oil price and 5 € carbon price for ETS only) • PRIMES 2005 with increased energy efficiency and renewable energy, + CCS

  6. Energy projections for 2020EU-25 Note: “National projections” assume PRIMES DG-TREN baseline for the 6 MS that have not submitted projections

  7. Energy projections for 2020 (1)

  8. Energy projections for 2020 (2)

  9. Energy projections for 2020 (3)

  10. Conclusions on energy projections (1) • Total EU-25 energy consumption of national projections is closest to PRIMES 0 € carbon price scenario • National projections foresee higher energy consumption than the PRIMES 0 € scenario for BEL, NL, IRE, DK, PT, FR • National projections are lower (than the 90 € case) in FIN, SWE, SK, SL

  11. Coal consumption projected for 2020 (1)

  12. Coal consumption projected for 2020 (2)

  13. Coal consumption projected for 2020 (3)

  14. Conclusions on coal consumption • For total EU-25, national projections on coal consumption 7 % higher than the PRIMES 0 € case, and 45% higher than in the 20€ case • More coal consumption than in the 0 € case foreseen by • Latvia (+1220%) • Slovenia (+85%) • Spain (+52%) • Slovakia (+50%) • France (+42%) • Germany (+24%) • Netherlands (+23%) • etc.

  15. Fuel consumption for road transport projected for 2020: EU25

  16. Fuel consumption for road transport projected for 2020 (1)

  17. Fuel consumption for road transport projected for 2020 (2)

  18. Fuel consumption for road transport projected for 2020 (3)

  19. Conclusions on road transport • For EU-25, national projections foresee 3% less fuel consumption for road transport than the PRIMES 0 € case, but 1% more than the 90 € case. • Rather large discrepancies for individual countries. Differences between national projections and 0€ case: • Latvia: +39% Germany: -26% • Netherlands: +24% Poland: -22% • Austria, Ireland: +23% Sweden: -13% • UK: +15% Spain: -11% • Large discrepancies in the expectations on gasoline/diesel use (national projections: 33% less gasoline, 20% more diesel)

  20. Comparison of CO2 estimates • National NEC energy projection • Fourth National Communication to UNFCCC • PRIMES 0, 20, 90 € cases

  21. Comparison of CO2 estimates for 1990excl. LULUCF

  22. CO2 emissions for 2020, EU-25relative to UNFCCC base year emissions

  23. Comparison of CO2 emissions from national NEC projections and UNFCC 4th National Communications for 2020

  24. CO2 projections for 2020(excl. LULUCF)

  25. Conclusions on CO2 emissions • National NEC energy projections are largely consistent with 4th National Communications to UNFCCC (to the extent MS have submitted them). • For EU-25, national NEC energy projections result in 2020 in a +1% CO2 increase, compared to a -7% decrease for a 20 € PRIMES case (-1% - -21%). • For some MS there are serious discrepancies between the national NEC projections for 2020 and the EU burden sharing target for 2012: • Ireland +55% Austria +39% • Portugal +53% Netherlands +36% • Spain +45% Denmark, Italy +22% • Most MS (except CZ, FIN, ITA) project higher CO2 emissions than the 20€ PRIMES case

  26. Emissions of air pollutants • Should reflect current legislation • Includes Commission proposal on Euro5 for diesel cars • For PM: new emission factors for residential/commercial sector, more accurate information on source distribution • Revised emission factors and current legislation as a result of bilateral consultations (not completed)

  27. Comparison of SO2 projections for 2020

  28. Comparison of NOx projections for 2020

  29. Comparison of PM2.5 projections for 2020

  30. Comparison of VOC projections for 2020

  31. Air pollutant emissions as a function of CO2 mitigation (EU-25, 2020)

  32. Conclusions • Air pollutant (baseline) emissions are sensitive towards the stringency of the GHG/CO2 target • For the latest PRIMES scenarios: For 1% less CO2: • ~1.5% less SO2 • ~1.0 % less NOx • ~0.5 % less PM2.5 • Thus, with the higher CO2 emissions of the national projections (compared to CAFE), also SO2, NOx and PM2.5 emissions are higher. • Implications on emission control costs (e.g., for targets laid down in Thematic Strategy) need to be explored.

  33. Zbigniew Klimont, Willem Asman International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) Agricultural emissions

  34. Ongoing improvements • Moving towards N-flow model for emission calculations- preliminary version included in baseline • Interactions with nitrogen policies First draft of IPPC pigs and poultry – included in baseline • Explicit consideration of impacts of changed productivity (i.e., milk yields) on emissions of NH3 and CH4 – included in baseline • New activity projections, also for GHGs: First version of CAP reform + national projections: – included in baseline

  35. 1. Process-based emission model • Complete C and N flow included (accounting for complete impacts of measures on NH3, N2O, CH4) • Following new processes will be incorporated: • CH4 emission from manure • N2O emission from manure • N2O emission from leaching of soil water • N2O emission from application of manure • Nitrate runoff • Nitrate leaching • A number of model parameters defined on sub-national level (NUTS2, NVZ-nitrate vulnerable zones)

  36. 2. Interactions with nitrogen policies • IPPC Directive (first draft of new data from integrated measures contract on IPPC farms) – done, extension for cattle will be done for policy scenarios • Biomass Action plan (new PRIMES + CAPRI scenarios) – coming for policy scenarios • Nitrate Directive (new emission factors and control measures + model extension)– coming for baseline and policy scenarios • Water Framework Directive (new emission factors and control measures + model extension)– coming for baseline and policy scenarios

  37. 3. Productivity changes:Milk yield vs. NH3 emission factor per cow

  38. 4: New activity projectionsComparison of agricultural activity projectionsCAFE, CAPRI Mid-term review, (EEA study), national projections

  39. 4: New activity projectionsComparison of agricultural activity projectionsCAFE, CAPRI Mid-term review, (EEA study), national projections

  40. Comparison of NH3 projections for 2020

  41. Conclusions on ammonia • For EU-25, national projections similar to CAPRI MTR • Still different expectations in some countries • In total, NEC baseline emissions lower than CAFE baseline (as suggested in CAFE sensitivity analysis) due to MTR

  42. Environmental impacts • Changes in environmental impacts from different baseline emissions, calculated • with 1997 meteorology • with critical loads estimates (2004) used for CAFE, • with City-Delta methodology used for CAFE • Improvements on these aspects are underway, but they are not used for this provisional assessment.

  43. Loss in statistical life expectancy 2020

  44. Percent of forest area with acid deposition exceeding critical loads

  45. Ecosystems area with acid deposition exceeding critical loads

  46. Ecosystems area with nitrogen deposition exceeding critical loads for eutrophication

  47. Ecosystems area with excess of critical loads (EU-25) Based on critical loads of 2004, 1997 meteorology, CAFE methodology

  48. Conclusions on environmental impacts • Baseline projections for national energy projections as well as for the new PRIMES projections result in somewhat lower environmental damage than those estimated for CAFE. • This is caused by the lower NH3 emissions (due to MTR), which more than compensate increased SO2, NOx and PM emissions resulting from the high CO2 energy projections. • Low CO2 strategies have significant co-benefits on air quality.

More Related