State of model development: RAINS/GAINS

1
State of model developmentRAINS/GAINS

• International Institute for Applied Systems
  Analysis (IIASA)

M. Amann, W. Asman, I. Bertok, A. Chambers, J.
Cofala, F. Gyarfas, C. Heyes, L. Hoglund, Z.
Klimont, M. Makowski, P. Rafaj, M. Posch, R.
Sandler, P. Tramberend, F. Wagner, W. Winiwarter
2
Current/recent activities

• Completed
• Revised web interface
• Bilateral consultations with 21 EU-MS, N, CH,
  RUS, UKR
• Ongoing
• Development of NEC/CLTRAP baseline
• Update of agricultural module
• Improved methodologies and estimates and for ship
  emissions
• EC4MACS proposal for LIFE funding (2006-2011)
• Consortium of modelling teams including IIASA,
  MSC-W, CCE, NTUA, UniBonn, LAUTh, AEAT, for
  CAFEECCP reviews in 2011

3
The GAINS model The RAINS multi-pollutant/
multi-effect framework extended to GHGs
Economic synergies between emission control
measures
PM SO2 NOx VOC NH3 CO2 CH4 N2O CFCsHFCsSF6
Health impacts PM ? ? ? ? ?
O3 ? ? ?
Vegetation damage O3 ? ? ?
Acidification ? ? ?
Eutrophication ? ?
Radiative forcing - direct ? ? ? ?
- via aerosols ? ? ? ? ?
- via OH ? ? ?
PM SO2 NOx VOC NH3
Health impacts PM ? ? ? ? ?
O3 ? ?
Vegetation damage O3 ? ?
Acidification ? ? ?
Eutrophication ? ?



Physical interactions
Multiple benefits
4
Progress with GAINS(-Europe)

• Approach
• Baseline case without carbon price
• Potential and costs for structural changes (fuel
  switching, energy conservation, etc.) derived
  from scenarios with carbon prices
• Input PRIMES scenarios with 0, 20, 50 and 90 /t
  CO2
• Current status
• Co-evaluation of emission changes and AQ impacts
  completed
• First provisional results from optimization
  module
• EU-25, 2020
• Based on PRIMES calculations for CAFE (30 oil
  price)
• Some important measures not yet implemented in
  GAINS (co-generation, IGCCCC, biofuel
  gasification, etc.), thus all results might
  change

5
Some provisional general findings

• The RAINS definition of MTFR is much more
  restrictive than PRIMES. To reproduce the
  measures of the PRIMES 90 /t CO2 scenario,
  additional potentials had to be introduced in
  GAINS (e.g., premature scrapping)
• Most non-technical measures come for AQ
  targets before or after the traditional RAINS
  cost curves
• Conceptual problem with treatment of negative
  costs
• Interpretation of negative cost measures (or of
  the costing concept) has crucial impacts on
  results of cost-effectiveness analysis
• Benchmark case (with all zero cost measures
  adopted) taken as reference point.

6
Provisional optimization results

• Allocation of GHG mitigation to different gases
• Changes in AP emissions with GHG mitigation
• Co-benefits on air quality from GHG mitigation
• CLE costs as a function of GHG mitigation
• Costs for tightened AP and/or GHG targets
• Additional costs for AP targets
• Additional costs for GHG targets
• Cost savings from an integrated approach

7
Cost-effective GHG reductions, EU10, 2020GAINS
interpolations between PRIMES scenarios for 0 and
90 /t CO2
8
Air pollutant emissions (with fixed AP
legislation)as a function of CO2 mitigation
(EU-25, 2020)
9
Co-benefits of GHG mitigation on AQ
impactsProvisional GAINS estimates, EU-25, 2020
10
AP control costs (for current legislation
CLE)(SO2, NOx, PM) as a function of CO2
mitigation (EU-25, 2020)
11
Costs of GHG mitigation and CLE AP control
relative to benchmark. Provisional GAINS results
(EU25, 2020)
50 /t CO2
20 /t CO2
12
Costs for further GHG and/or AP
controlsProvisional GAINS results (EU25, 2020)
13
Costs for AQ improvements at different GHG
levelsAir pollution-centric perspective (AQ
improvements after GHG measures)
14
AP control costs relative to benchmark caseAir
pollution-centric perspective (AQ improvements
after GHG measures)Provisional GAINS estimates,
EU-25, 2020
15
AP control costs relative to benchmark
caseIntegrated perspective (solid lines) vs. AP
only perspective (dashed) Provisional GAINS
estimates, EU-25, 2020
16
Cost savings from an integrated
approachProvisional GAINS estimates, EU-25, 2020
17
Costs for GHG mitigation for different AQ
targetsThe climate-centric perspective (GHG
mitigation after AQ policy)
18
Additional GHG mitigation costs for different AQ
targetsProvisional GAINS estimates
19
Further work and outlook

• Inclusions of further measures for co-control
  (CHP, IGCC, gasification of biomass, etc.)
• Improved treatment of negative cost measures
• Link to recent PRIMES calculations
• Documentation
• As of end 2006, GAINS will be operational for
  EU-25
• AP only mode the traditional RAINS approach
• AP including structural measures (extended
  RAINS)
• Targets for GHGs only
• Joint targets for AP and GHGs
• For policy application of GAINS, review of
  national substitution potentials and costs
  necessary

20
Conclusions

• All quantitative results are provisional
• There are physical and economic interactions
  between the control of air pollution emissions
  and GHG mitigation
• If these problems are considered separately
• From the an air pollution perspective
• Baseline AP emissions, impacts and control costs
  (for fixed AP legislation) depend on the level of
  GHG mitigation
• Costs of strengthened AQ policies depend on the
  level of GHG mitigation
• Further AP control strategies have co-benefits on
  GHG mitigation costs.
• From a climate perspective
• GHG mitigation costs depend on the level of AP
  control
• GHG mitigation costs have co-benefits on AQ
  impacts
• An integrated approach could reduce total GHG and
  AP control costs