Richels

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/