State of model development: RAINS/GAINS - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

1 / 20
About This Presentation
Title:

State of model development: RAINS/GAINS

Description:

Title: Comparison of energy and CO2 projections Author: Markus Amann Last modified by: Markus Amann Created Date: 3/6/2006 9:30:05 AM Document presentation format – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:60
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 21
Provided by: Markus106
Learn more at: https://unece.org
Category:

less

Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: 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
Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
About PowerShow.com