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/
Catch the
buzz on authorSTREAM
Copyright © 2002-2008 authorSTREAM. All rights reserved.