Richels

Uploaded from authorPOINTLite
Views:
 
Category: Entertainment
     
 

Presentation Description

No description available.

Comments

Presentation Transcript

Managing the Transition to Climate Stabilization: 

Managing the Transition to Climate Stabilization Richard Richels, EPRI Thomas Rutherford, U. of Col. Geoffrey Blanford, EPRI Leon Clarke, PNNL Nicholas Institute Climate Economic Modeling Symposium Washington, DC July 18-19, 2007

USCCSP Study Design: 

USCCSP Study Design Three integrated assessment modeling teams MIT – IGSM Stanford/EPRI – MERGE PNNL – MiniCAM Stabilize total radiative forcing from CO2, N2O, CH4, HFCs, PFCs, and SF6 Four stabilization scenarios roughly consistent with 450 ppmv through 750 ppmv CO2, along with one reference case.

US Climate Change Science Program: 

US Climate Change Science Program All models assume existing climate mitigation programs (Kyoto, U.S. intensity target) But then assume perfect “how”, “where” and “when” flexibility going forward.

Slide4: 

3.4 RF Target (450 ppmv) 4.7 RF Target (550 ppmv) Reference Case Radiative Forcing

Slide5: 

3.4 RF Target 4.7 RF Target Reference without Annex B Emissions

Two Types of Constraints: 

Two Types of Constraints Complete Flexibility (end point specified) How When Where Limited Flexibility ( end point and transition specified) How When - limited Where - limited

Transition Specified: 

Transition Specified Historic Emissions Transition Constraints Post-transition emissions cannot increase USA Kyoto Coalition EEFSU “Hot Air” Kyoto Commitments

Focus on Two Radiative Forcing Constraints: 

Focus on Two Radiative Forcing Constraints

Two Technology Scenarios: 

Two Technology Scenarios “Optimistic”: All technologies available “Pessimistic”: New nuclear and carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) are not available in electric sector

Scenario Design: 

Scenario Design Pess. 550ppmv 450 ppmv Trans Flex Trans Flex Opt. Pess. Opt. Pess. Opt. Pess. Opt. Constraint POLICY TECHNOLOGY 8 SCENARIOS

Overview of MERGE 5.5: 

Overview of MERGE 5.5 Intertemporal optimization model with 200 year timeframe Each region maximizes its own utility Prices of each GHG determined endogenously, i.e. no GWPs Top down model of economic growth Process model of energy sector, with new additions: CCS Technologies Existing plants New plants

CAVEAT:: 

THIS IS NOT A COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS CAVEAT:

Global Carbon Emissions: 

450 ppmv 550 ppmv BAU Global Carbon Emissions Flex Trans (Optimistic Technology)

Annex B Carbon Price with 450 ppmv Target: 

Annex B Carbon Price with 450 ppmv Target Opt. Pess. Trans Flex Transition: Non-Annex B OUT OPTIMAL

USA GDP Loss from Reference with 450 ppmv Target: 

USA GDP Loss from Reference with 450 ppmv Target Opt. Pess. Trans Flex

Annex B Carbon Price with 550 ppmv Target: 

Annex B Carbon Price with 550 ppmv Target Opt. Pess. Trans Flex Transition: Annex B Constrained Non-Annex B OUT OPTIMAL

USA GDP Loss from Reference with 550 ppmv Target: 

USA GDP Loss from Reference with 550 ppmv Target Opt. Pess. Trans Flex

Slide18: 

Reference 550 ppmv 450 ppmv US Electric Sector, Optimistic Technology

Slide19: 

BAU 550 ppmv 450 ppmv US Electric Share of Primary Energy, Optimistic Technology

US Electric Sector, Pessimistic Technology: 

US Electric Sector, Pessimistic Technology Reference 550 ppmv 450 ppmv

Global Discounted Sum of Economic Cost: 

Global Discounted Sum of Economic Cost 30 25 20 15 10 5 2000$US Trillions 0.5% 1.0% 1.5% 2.0% 2.5% % GDP Loss from Reference 550 ppmv Target 450 ppmv Target Trans Flex Trans Flex Pessimistic Optimistic Trans Flex Trans Flex Pessimistic Optimistic At 5% through 2200

More Information: 

More Information http://www.aei.brook.edu/