Mitigation Pathways to well below 2C in ETSAP-TIAM

Environmental Research Institute
University College Cork
Mitigation Pathways to well below 2˚C
in ETSAP-TIAM
Dr James Glynn, Prof. Brian Ó Gallachóir
Joint Global Change Research Institute of Pacific Northwest Laboratory
(PNNL) & University of Maryland (UMD), USA
71st ETSAP-MEETING | 11th July 2017

Research Question & Motivation
• How low can we go?
• How far below 2C can we achieve temperature
stabilisation?
• Explore the solution space for mitigation
pathways for well below 2C in ETSAP-TIAM.
• Constrain TIAM with carbon budgets, Climate
module and CO2 sequestration sinks volumes.
• Explore the influence of CCS on temperature
stabilisation.
• Effort to inform the IPCC SR1.5 scenario
database Call.
• Is this best done collaboratively through the
ETSAP-TIAM github project?
• What is the influence of CCS and other
“backstop” technologies, such as DAC?

GLOBAL ETSAP-TIAM model
• Linear programming bottom-up energy system model of IEA-ETSAP
• Integrated model of the entire energy system
• Prospective analysis on medium to long term horizon (2100)
• Demand driven by exogenous energy service demands
• Partial and dynamic equilibrium
• (usually)
• Optimal technology selection
• Minimizes the total system cost
• Environmental constraints
• Price-elastic demands
• Hybrid General Equilibrium MSA
• Integrated Climate Model
• Myopic and Stochastic options

ETSAP TIAM Description
• …
Climate
Module
Atm. Conc.
ΔForcing
ΔTemp
Used for
reporting &
setting
targets
Biomass
Potential
Renewable
Potential
Nuclear
Fossil Fuel
Reserves
(oil, coal, gas)
Extraction
Upstream
Fuels
Trade
Secondary
Transformation
OPEC/
NON-OPEC
regrouping
Electricity
Fuels
Electricity
Cogeneration
Heat
Hydrogen production
and distribution
End Use
Fuels
Industrial
Service
Composition
Auto Production
Cogeneration
Carbon
capture
CH4 options
Carbon
sequestration
Terrestrial
sequestration
Landfills Manure
Bio burning, rice,
enteric ferm
Wastewater
CH4 options
N2O options
CH4 options
OI****
GA****
CO****
Trade
ELC***
WIN SOL
GEO TDL
BIO***
NUC
HYD
BIO***
HETHET
ELC
ELC
SYNH2
BIO***
CO2
ELC
GAS***
COA***
Industrial
Tech.
Commercial
Tech.
Transport
Tech.
Residential
Tech.
Agriculture
Tech.
I***
I** (6)
T** (16)R** (11)C** (8)A** (1)
INDELC
INDELC
IS**
Demands
IND*** COM***AGR*** TRA***RES***
Non-energy
sectors (CH4)
OIL***

Updates to ETSAP-TIAM
• Following from IER Phase 2 Updates (2014) & DTU Github updates (Present)
• Updated Drivers
• SSP2 from OECD Env-LINKS CGE model
• Regional Structural detail of the economy from GTAP calibration.
• Work in progress on other SSP narratives and consistent resource estimates
• MACRO / MSA
• Collaboration with PSI,VTT, E4SMA, UCC
• Calibrations for Default TIAM drivers & SSP2 drivers submitted to ETSAP-TIAM
GIT project
• 2 Papers in Review ETSAP-TIAM / TIAM-UCL
• Local Air Pollution
• Include damage costs from local air pollutants (NEEDS extrapolation)
• PM2.5, PM10, SO2, NOx, NH4, etc.
• Collaboration with PSI, VTT, CRES, UCC
• Paper in review (MSA + LAP)
• Climate Module – Control for non-CO2 GHGs & Exoforcing
• Updates to UCL specifications using CMIP5 linear forcing (CO2, N2O, CH4)

Meaning of 1.5˚C: Warming in volcano-free
periods relative to a volcano-free period
1900 1950 2000
-0.5
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
Warmingrelativeto1861-1880(o
C)
Monthly global temperatures from HadCRUT4
Attributable human-induced warming
Attributable natural warming & cooling
Combination
1861-80

Scenarios
• Base – Drivers are calibrated to SSP2 drivers from the OECD ENV-LINKS.
• Population, GDP, sectoral GVA, Households
• All Climate Policy runs are fixed to the Base run to 2020.
• Combinations of the following
• 2°C, 1.75°C and 1.5°C temperature limits from the Climate module to control
for Non-CO2 GHGs and Exoforcing
• Carbon Budgets applied from 2020-2100
• 1000GtCO2 – 2°C
• 750GtCO2 – 1.75°C
• 500GtCO2 – 1.5°C
• Constraints on CO2 sequestration sinks limits
• NoLimit, 16600GtCO2, 1380GtCO2, 800GtCO2, 367GtCO2, ZEROGtCO2
• Not Shown – to keep things simple
• with Local Air pollution Damages
• with Macro Stand Alone macroeconmic estimates of economic and consumption
losses

Resulting Temperature Increases
0.5
0.75
1
1.25
1.5
1.75
2
2.25
2.5
2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100
TemperatureIncrease(°C)
1-5DS_by2100_SSP2_500GtCB_CCSLim1380Gt
1-5DS_by2100_SSP2_500GtCB_CCSNoLim
1-5DS_by2100_SSP2_500GtCO2_CCSNoLim
1-75DS_SSP2_750GtCB_CCSLim1380Gt
1-75DS_SSP2_750GtCB_CCSLimZeroGt
1-75DS_SSP2_750GtCB_CCSNoLim
1-75DS_by2100_SSP2_750GtCB_CCSLimZeroGt
2DS_SSP2_1000GtCO2_CCSLim1380Gt_noCo2TRD
2DS_SSP2_1000GtCO2_CCSLim1660_noCo2TRD
2DS_SSP2_1000GtCO2_CCSLimZeroGt_noCo2TRD
2DS_SSP2_1000GtCO2_CCSNoLim_noCo2TRD
BASE_SSP2_11p_NoCO2Trd

SSP Marker Model Comparison
CO2 Emissions
-30
-10
10
30
50
70
2000 2020 2040 2060 2080 2100

SSP2 Marker Model Comparison
Primary Energy
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
1100
1200
1300 1-5DS_by2100_SSP2_500GtCB_CCSLim1380Gt

Primary Energy (PJ)
0
200,000
400,000
600,000
800,000
1,000,000
1,200,000
1,400,000
1,600,000
1,800,000
2,000,000
2005
2010
2020
2030
2040
2050
2060
2070
2080
2090
2100
2005
2010
2020
2030
2040
2050
2060
2070
2080
2090
2100
2005
2010
2020
2030
2040
2050
2060
2070
2080
2090
2100
2005
2010
2020
2030
2040
2050
2060
2070
2080
2090
2100
BASE_SSP2_11p_NoCO2Trd 2DS_SSP2_1000GtCO2_CCSLim1380Gt_noCo2TRD 1-75DS_by2100_SSP2_750GtCB_CCSLim1380Gt 1-5DS_by2100_SSP2_500GtCB_CCSNoLim
Coal Oil Gas Nuclear Biomass Hydro Renewable except hydro and biomass

Final Energy (PJ)
0
200,000
400,000
600,000
800,000
1,000,000
1,200,000
1,400,000
2005
2010
2020
2030
2040
2050
2060
2070
2080
2090
2100
2005
2010
2020
2030
2040
2050
2060
2070
2080
2090
2100
2005
2010
2020
2030
2040
2050
2060
2070
2080
2090
2100
2005
2010
2020
2030
2040
2050
2060
2070
2080
2090
2100
Coal Oil Products (includes synthetic oil from coal and Gas Biomass (excludes liquid biofuels) Biodiesel Alcohol (ethanol, methanol, from biomass or not) Hydrogen Heat Other Renewable Electricity

Electricity Installed Capacity (GW)
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
16,000
18,000
2005
2010
2020
2030
2040
2050
2060
2070
2080
2090
2100
2005
2010
2020
2030
2040
2050
2060
2070
2080
2090
2100
2005
2010
2020
2030
2040
2050
2060
2070
2080
2090
2100
2005
2010
2020
2030
2040
2050
2060
2070
2080
2090
2100
Coal Gas and Oil Nuclear Hydro Biomass Biomass CCS Wind Geo, Tidal and Wave Solar Thermal Solar PV

Electricity Generation (PJ)
0
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2100 2090 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2100 2090 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2100 2090 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2100 2090
Coal Gas and Oil Nuclear Hydro Biomass Biomass CCS CH4 Options Wind Geo, Tidal and Wave Solar Thermal Solar PV

Regional Emissions (MtCO2)
-20,000
0
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
20052010202020302040205020602070208020902100200520102020203020402050206020702080209021002005201020202030204020502060207020802090210020052010202020302040205020602070208020902100
AFR AUS CAN CHI CSA EEU FSU IND JPN MEA MEX ODA SKO USA WEU

Carbon Price ($/tCO2)
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100
2DS_SSP2_1000GtCO2_CCSLim1380Gt_noCo2TRD 2DS_SSP2_1000GtCO2_CCSLimZeroGt_noCo2TRD 1-75DS_by2100_SSP2_750GtCB_CCSLim1380Gt 1-5DS_by2100_SSP2_500GtCB_CCSNoLim
AFR AUS CAN CHI CSA EEU FSU IND JPN MEA MEX ODA SKO USA WEU

Key Messages
• Staying below a 1.5°C ceiling seems infeasible.
• Overshooting and returning to 1.5°C may be feasible
• Negative Emissions technologies are required.
• TIAM currently does not have a Direct Air Capture (DAC) Specification
• Do we think it should have a DAC specification?
• The costs of achieving ambitious decarbonisation scenarios are
highly sensitive to the volume of CO2 disposed.
• Carbon Capture and Storage, and other negative emissions technologies
require accelerated development as well as likely demand side measures.
• Some regions may have significantly reduced abatement costs due
to their ability to sequester CO2 in conjunction with large renewables
potentials as well geological storage for BECCs
• Notably, Austrailia, Canada and Former Soviet Union

“Unlocking the potential of our
marine and renewable energy
resources through the power of
research and innovation”

Environmental Research Institute
Instiúd Taighde Comshaoil
Energy Policy and Modelling Group
www.ucc.ie/energypolicy

INDC action is not fast enough
UNFCCC INDC Synthesis Report

Simple Science-Policy Message:
For every 1 trillion tonnes of CO2 emitted, temperature increases about 0.52˚C
1.5°C - 2°C
550-1000
GtCO2
left
~1750
175yrs
34 yrs
16 yrs
13 yrs
10 yrs
9 yrs
8 yrs
300
GtCO2
300
GtCO2
300
GtCO2
300
GtCO2
300
GtCO2
300
GtCO2
300
GtCO2
300
GtCO2
250
GtCO2
300
GtCO2
250
GtCO2
11 yrs?
9 yrs?
2016

Global Sensitivity to Restricted Technology

Global emissions from fossil fuel and industry: 36.3 ± 1.8 GtCO2 in 2015, 63% over 1990
Projection for 2016: 36.4 ± 2.3 GtCO2, 0.2% higher than 2015
Estimates for 2014 and 2015 are preliminary. Growth rate is adjusted for the leap year in 2016.
Source: CDIAC; Le Quéré et al 2016; Global Carbon Budget 2016
Uncertainty is ±5% for
one standard deviation
(IPCC “likely” range)
Emissions from fossil fuel use and industry

Total global emissions
Total global emissions: 41.9 ± 2.8 GtCO2 in 2015, 49% over 1990
Percentage land-use change: 36% in 1960, 9% averaged 2006-2015
Three different methods have been used to estimate
land-use change emissions, indicated here by different shades of grey
Source: CDIAC; Houghton et al 2012; Giglio et al 2013; Le Quéré et al 2016; Global Carbon Budget 2016

Global carbon budget
The carbon sources from fossil fuels, industry, and land use change emissions are balanced by the atmosphere and carbon
sinks on land and in the ocean
Source: CDIAC; NOAA-ESRL; Houghton et al 2012; Giglio et al 2013; Joos et al 2013; Khatiwala et al 2013;
Le Quéré et al 2016; Global Carbon Budget 2016

Total global emissions by source
Land-use change was the dominant source of annual CO2 emissions until around 1950
Others: Emissions from cement production and gas flaring
Source: CDIAC; Houghton et al 2012; Giglio et al 2013; Le Quéré et al 2016; Global Carbon Budget 2016

Where did the 80%-95% target come from?
Firstly the IPCC AR4 WG3 report was published in 2007. specifically chapter 13 is where the targets came from.
[1]Implications of regime stringency: linking goals, participation and timing.
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch13-ens13-3-3-3.html
Then an EU Parliament recommended to use this (scientifically based target) before COP15 (Copenhagen) for developed regions to
aim for 80%-95% GHG reduction by 2050.
[1] 2050: The future begins today – Recommendations for the EU’s Future integrated policy on climate change
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?lang=en&reference=2008/2105(INI)
(Note AR5 does not have the same table or recommendation as AR4 and is discussed in various online blog pieces from IPCC co-
authors that WG3 lead authors feel that there should be a separation from Science and policy, and hence did not update the WG3
Ch13 chart on Annex1 country targets in AR5. Most of the regions in the AR5 WG3 IAM models are different from AR4 - I don't
know if this aggregation was on purpose or not to disable this link between the climate science and national/regional policy
decisions, i.e. to encourage policy makers to take ownership of the uncertainties in the decision making subtleties.)
The recommendation is also highlighted in the EU Presidency conclusion documents before Copenhagen (COP15) in October 2009
[1] Presidency Conclusions (2009)
http://register.consilium.europa.eu/doc/srv?l=EN&f=ST%2015265%202009%20INIT
Then the EU energy roadmap from 2011 includes the 80% target.
[1]Energy Roadmap 2050 (2011)
http://ec.europa.eu/energy/sites/ener/files/documents/roadmap2050_ia_20120430_en_0.pdf
during this time the EU 20-20-20 targets for 2020 had been used, but were established before the 2007 publication of AR4 and so
where not based on the 80%-95% reduction targets for 2050.

Mitigation Pathways to well below 2C in ETSAP-TIAM

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to Mitigation Pathways to well below 2C in ETSAP-TIAM

Similar to Mitigation Pathways to well below 2C in ETSAP-TIAM (20)

More from IEA-ETSAP

More from IEA-ETSAP (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Mitigation Pathways to well below 2C in ETSAP-TIAM