TFIAM meeting27 May 2005 Berlin

EEA scenario 2005 project :

Low greenhouse gas emission pathways

Presentation by Hans Eerens

EEA Topic Centre Air and Climate Change

Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (MNP)

It is not most important to predict the future,but to be prepared for it

Perikles (about 500-429 b. Chr.)

1. Introduction, methodology

2. Energy and GHG projections

3. Regional air quality, emission trend and costs 2030

4. Urban background trend (PM10, NO2, SOMO-35)

5. Street increment (PM10, NO2)

ETC/ACC partners and others involved:• RIVM: IMAGE/TIMER/FAIR/EUROMOVE models, global

scenarios, climate effects, coordination• NTUA: PRIMES/GEM-E3/PROMETHEUS models, European

energy system• IIASA: RAINS model, European air quality• DNMI: EMEP model

• AEAT: non-CO2 GHGs and non-energy CO2 emissions

• IPTS: POLES model, technology variants• AUTH: OFIS, OSPM model, transport & urban Air Quality• NILU: Air Pollution State & policies• CCE: Air pollution effects on ecosystems/critical loads• EEA: project guidance, links with issues other than air and

climate change

ETC/ACC SoEOR2005 subreport 6Introduction

Objectives:

•Explore air pollution and climate change trends and projections using 3 scenarios:–Long-Range Energy Modelling (LREM)–Low greenhouse gas Emission Pathways (LGEP)–Plus variants

•Target assessment on possible use for EU’s post-2012 debate

SoEOR2005: flow chart of models used

M

PRIMES

Economy

AEA-T model

CH4, N2O, HFC, PFC, SF6 (Europe)

CO2 (Europe)

Transport Agriculture

Regional concen-tration:SO2, NO, NH3, PM, O3

POLES

IMAGE

TIMER FAIR

WaterGap

Energy Price

CO2 Permit Price

CO2, CH4, N2O, HFC, PFC, SF6

Sinks

EMEPOFIS

AQ impacts

Urban conc. PM, NO2, O3

Emissions

OPSM

Street increments

CC impacts

GEM-E3, PROMETHEUS

RAINS

MERLIN

COPERT III, TREMOVE, TREND

Focus air pollution assessment:• Emission/effects/costs change between 2020

and 2030 assuming:– No climate change policies– Increased climate change policies– Different economic growth path– High renewable/biomass ambition– Increase/decrease use of nuclear energy

Emission/activity due to various agricultural scenario’s:– CAP reform– Animlib (reduced border protection for pig & poultry,

dairy liberalization)– Best environmental practice

Data availability and dissemination

• SoEOR2005 report• SoEOR2005 sub reports• SoEOR2005 technical papers• Articles• SoEOR2005 Scenario information platform

(web-based application, indicator based country specific information) including maps

• presentations

LREM and LGEP emissions compared to SRES scenarios

300

500

700

900

1100

1300

1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100

year

CO

2eq

conc

(pp

mv)

baseline 550mitigation A1B A2 B1 B2

Global development in energy use 1980-2100: hydropower, non-thermal electricity, traditional biofuels, modern biofuels,

natural gas, oil and coal. Left baseline (1170 EJ by 2100), right LGEP (730

EJ by 2100)

Permit prices assumed

CAFE-KR SEP SEP-LE SEP SEP-LEAssumed permit price at EU-level1 Assumed global

permit priceYear

Euro (2000)/ton CO2

Low medium High2010 6 12 18 12 6 5 22015 8 16 24 20 6 6 12020 10 20 30 30 20 25 152025 10 20 30 50 40 45 352030 10 20 30 65 55 60 502040 - - - 105 802050 - - - 115 952075 - - - 165 1052100 - - - 190 105

Projected global energy investment 2000-2050 Investments in

respectively energy savings, electricity, modern biofuels and fossil fuel. Left baseline (4400 thousand million €/year by 2100), right LGEP (4600

thousand million €/year by 2100

Global energy investments LGEP 1990-2050

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

Bil

lion

(19

95)

$

fossil modern biofuels electricity savings

Global energy investments baseline 2000-2050

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050

Inve

stm

ent

bill

ion

$(19

95)

fossil modern biofuels electricity savings

Past and projected prices of fossil fuels and

electricity 1970-2050

OECD End-use costs (including tax) 1971-2050

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050Year

$(1995

)/Gj

Coal-industrial

Oil-transport

Electricity-residential

LCEP

Baseline

0

8

16

24

32

40

48

1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050year

$(1999

)/bar

rel start of ye

ar

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Prices $(199

9)/G

J

Baseline

Oil

Coal

Gas

Baseline

Baseline

LCEP

Fossil prices prices baseline and LCEP 1970-2050Left axis oil prices per barrel, right axis gas and coal prices per GJ

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

CO

2eq

(Mto

n)

all numbers compared to 1990 (%) Result LGEP climate policy scenario EU-25 EU-25 PRIMES FAIR Range share Year Baseline Commitment domestic domestic domestic 2020 +4% -20% -10% -8% 50-60%2030 +8% -40% -16% -26% 50-70%2040 +9% -57% -48% 85%2050 +7% -64% -61% 95%

Baseline

Commitment in LGEP

Domestic action

non-domestic (trade)

LGEP (FAIR)

LGEP (PRIMES)

Uncertainty range

Kyoto

Kyoto:FAIR: 6 Euro/ton CO2eq

PRIMES: 12 Euro/ton CO2eq

Avoided CO2 emissions

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030

Pro

ject

ed

en

erg

y-re

late

d C

O2

emis

sio

ns

(Mt)

Transport

Services

Households

Industry

Energy Branch

Electricity and Steamproduction

Emissions LCEP

Avoidable "baseline" emissions by sector:

Changes in the fuel mix of EU-25 gross inland energy consumption compared to the baseline in 2030

-100% -75% -50% -25% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% 125% 150%

Solids

Oil

Natural gas

Nuclear

Renewable energy forms

Change in gross inland energy consumption compared to baseline (in 2030)

LCEP nuclear phase out

LCEP nuclear accelerated

LCEP renewables

LCEP

Further CO2 reductions are possible through enhanced renewable deployment (meeting targets), while phasing out

nuclear risks increasing emissions if these plants are replaced by fossil fuels

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

1990 2000 2030 -baseline

2030 - SEP 2030 - SEPincr.

Renewables

2030 -nuclear

phase-out

2030 - incr.nuclear

MtC

O2

Transport

Services

Households

Industry

Energy branch

Electricity & Steamproduction

Change in air pollutants emissions in developed and developing regions under the baseline and LGEP scenarios

relative to year 2000

Developed regions

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

baseline LGEP NOx

baseline LGEP SO2

baseline LGEP NMVOC

Ind

ex (

year

200

0 =

100

)

2000 2010 baseline 2020 baseline 2030 baseline 2050 baseline

2010 LGEP 2020 LGEP 2030 LGEP 2050 LGEP

Developing regions

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

baseline LGEP NOx

baseline LGEP SO2

baseline LGEP NMVOC

Ind

ex (

year

200

0 =

100

)

0

20

40

60

80

100

NOx SO2 NMVOC NH3 PM10

Ind

ex (

year

200

0 =

100)

2000 2020 CAFE 2030 baseline 2030 LGEP 2030 LGEP-MFR

Change in emissions of air pollutants in the EU 25 region

relative to 2000

Identified anthropogenic contribution to modelled grid-average PM2.5 concentrations (annual mean, µg/m3) , 2000, 2020-CAFÉ, 2030-CC, 2030-CC-MFR

Percentage of total ecosystems area receiving nitrogen deposition above the critical loads for the emissions of the year 2000 (top left panel), the current legislation for 2020 (top right), the LGEP in 2030 and the maximum feasible reduction case for 2030 (LGEP-B-MFR – bottom right panel).

Percentage of forest area receiving acid deposition above the critical loads for the emissions of the year 2000 (top left panel), CAFE 2020 (top right), LGEP (bottom left) and LGEP-MFR (bottom right panel).

1.Regional air quality and impacts

Loss in statistical life expectancy that can be attributed to the identified anthropogenic contributions to PM2.5 (in months) for the emissions of the year 2000 (top left panel), ‘CAFE 2020’ (top right), the “LGEP” (bottom left) and the LGEP-MFR (bottom right) panel).

1.Regional air quality and impacts

Grid-average ozone concentrations in ppb.days expressed as SOMO35 for the emissions of the year 2000 (top left panel), CAFE 2020 (top right), LGEP (bottom left) and LGEP-MFR (bottom right panel).

Provisional estimates of premature mortality attributable to ozone (cases of premature deaths per million inhabitants per year)

Percentage of total ecosystems area receiving nitrogen deposition above the critical loads for eutrophication by country group and scenario

Country 2000

2020, CP

2030, SEP

CLE MFR B-CLE LE-CLE B-MFR

Finland 0.7 0.7 0.2 0.7 0.7 0.2

Sweden 14.9 10.5 5.2 10.9 10.5 5.1

UK 8.1 3.7 1.3 3.8 3.5 0.8

Norway 28.6 19.3 9.1 19.9 19.6 6.9

Switzerland 79.8 56.9 18.2 53.2 52.7 9.7

Average 22.6 15.4 7.3 15.8 15.5 5.9

Percentage of freshwater ecosystems area receiving acid deposition above the critical loads for by scenario and country. Calculation results for the meteorological conditions of 1997, using grid-average deposition. Critical loads data base of 2004.

Reductions in emissions compared with 2000: Baseline 2030 LGEP LGEP-MFR

NOx -47% - 52 % -75% NMVOC -45% - 45 % -62% SO2 -67% - 73 % -87% NH3 - 6% - 5 % -43% PM10 - 38% - 45 % -67% PM2.5 - 46% - 51 % -73%

2030: LGEP LGEP-MFR • Loss of statistical life expectancy: - 44% - 78% • Premature mortality due to ozone: - 16 % - 51% • Forest area at risk of acidification: - 56% - 88% • Ecosystems’ area endangered by eutrophication - 15 % - 82%

Table 8: Air pollutant emissions; baseline compared to CP and LGEP

EU25 emissions kton % change LREM-E 2030, LGEP 2030, LGEP

air pollutant 2000 2030 B-CLE LE-CLE SER-CLE B-MFR B-CLE LE-CLE SER-CLE B-MFRSO2 8736 2851 2371 2150 2342 1130 -16,8 -24,6 -17,9 -60,4NOx 11581 6125 5524 4972 5550 2849 -9,8 -18,8 -9,4 -53,5VOC 10654 5863 5877 5701 5912 4101 0,2 -2,8 0,8 -30,1NH3 3824 3597 3582 3573 3584 2174 -0,4 -0,7 -0,4 -39,6PM10 2455 1512 1357 1258 1344 817 -10,3 -16,8 -11,1 -46,0PM2.5 1748 937 860 790 857 468 -8,2 -15,7 -8,5 -50,1

Table Error! No text of specified style in document.-1: Total annual emissions (Kton) of air pollutants from international shipping for the European sea region.

2010 2020 2030

Pollutant 1990 2000 SHIP-BAU

SHIP-BAU

SHIP-MFR

SHIP-BAU

SHIP-MFR

NOx 2743 3501 4265 5207 595 6530 769 NMVOC 101 131 170 219 219 284 284 SO2 1874 2418 2652 3415 752 4406 972 PM10 171 222 270 348 298 450 385 PM2.5 162 210 255 330 282 426 364

Emission control costs EU-25 billion Euro/year

Climate change benefit

The trend engine:

What is included?• About 50 crop and animal products/activities, covering

agriculture according to the definition of Economic Accounts

• Plus some major derived products (dairy, oils and cakes)• Areas/herd sizes, yields, market balances, producer and

consumer prices, feed requirements …• Time series from 1985 onwards, projected till 2030• EU25 (minus Cyprus und Malta)

Table 4: Environmental indicators in the “best practice” scenario compared to the baseline run in EU 23

Region : European Union 2001 2011 2015 2020 2025

Item : Environmental indicator per ha

(kg/ha)

Nitrogen Reference run 42.64 42.4 42.14 41.66 41.12

Best practice 42.64 37.77 35.04 31.44 28.05

Potassium Reference run 31.44 29.54 29.12 28.52 28.01

Best practice 31.44 19.92 16.27 12.26 8.81

Phosphate Reference run 15.89 14.44 14.02 13.42 12.8

Best practice 15.89 9.4 7.05 4.04 1.03

Ammonium Reference run 19.45 19.68 19.87 20.04 20.21

Best practice 19.45 14.28 12.3 9.8 7.32

Methane Reference run 48.82 47.52 47.78 48 48.31

Best practice 48.82 47.52 47.78 48 48.31

Nitrous oxide Reference run 2.98 3.07 3.11 3.16 3.21

Best practice 2.98 2.88 2.83 2.77 2.72

80% organic farming, full covered storage facilities, improved manure handling in the stable. Better application techniques as injections are assumed to reduce ammonia losses during application to 5% No changes are assumed regarding the grazing practice

Urban background:

• 20 Cities (MERLIN project), 53 million inhabitants

• EMEP regional background (1997)

• OFIS model urban background

• City specific fleet composition data

ANTW ATHE BARC BERL BRUS BUDA COPE GDAN GRAZ HELS KATO LISB LOND MARS MILA PARI PRAG ROME STUT THES

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

observations

OFIS

EMEP

Results for NO2 annual average

R2 = 0.58

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Observed (μg/m 3)

OF

IS m

od

el r

esu

lts

(μg

/m3)

Comparison EMEP/OFIS results NO2 annual average 2000

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Observed (μg/m3)

OF

IS m

od

el (

μg

/m3)

PRAG

BERL

COPE

MARS

GDAN

LISB

HELS

ROME

BRUS

ANTW

GRAZ

THES

BUDA

LOND

MILA

ATHE

KATO

PARI

STUT

BARC

Trend NO2 European cities 2000-2030

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Gra

z

Gdan

sk

Thessa

lonik

i

Mars

eille

Copen

hagen

Stutg

art

Hels

inki

Lisbon

Prague

Barcelo

na

Berlin

Budapes

t

Athen

s

Rome

Antwer

p

Bruss

elPar

is

Kat

owice

London

Mila

n

NO

2 (u

g/m

3)2000 2030-CC 2030-CC-MFR

Annual average ozone concentration (ug/m3)

Trend somo-35 in European cities 2000-2030

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

Londo

n

Helsin

ki

Copenha

gen

Antwer

p

Brusse

l

Katowice

Lisbon

Gdansk

Berlin

Paris

Pragu

e

Budapes

t

Athen

sRome

Graz

Thess

aloniki

Stutga

rt

Barce

lona

Mars

eille

Mila

n

som

o-35

(pp

b.da

ys)

2000 2030-CC 2030-CC-MFR Coverage:55 Million inhabitants 2030

ANTW ATHE BARC BERL BRUS BUDA COPE GDAN GRAZ HELS KATO LISB LOND MARS MILA PARI PRAG ROME STUT THES

0

10

20

30

40

50

observations

OFIS

EMEP

PM10 annual mean values

Summary results 20 cities, 55 million inhabitants (2030)

Population weighted average NO2 PM10 O3 (SOMO35)

Scenario MIN AVE MAX EXC* MIN AVE MAX MIN AVE MAX

Reference year (2000) 13 37 51 5 8.2 16 30 1300 4890 8000

LGEP 7.7 24 32 0 5.3 10 16 2000 4950 7400

LGEPMFR 4.5 15 23 0 2.5 6 10 1500 4480 6600

two hypothetical street canyon configurations: street 1:narrow canyon with a traffic volume of 20,000

vehicles per day street 2:wide canyon with a traffic volume of 60,000 vehicles

per day Orientation: East to West , centrally located, specific fleet

composition, average vehicle speed of 26 km/h

City Wind speed (m/s) City Wind speed (m/s)

ANTW 3.10 KATO 2.62

ATHE 3.07 LISB 3.13

BARC 2.29 LOND 3.74

BERL 2.83 MARS 2.70

BRUS 3.06 MILA 1.66

BUDA 2.27 PARI 2.88

COPE 3.68 PRAG 2.63

GDAN 3.44 ROME 2.50

GRAZ 2.67 STUT 2.48

HELS 3.15 THES 1.90

Average yearly wind speed considered per city

Specific wind directions for each cityWind direction Frequency for THES

0

2

4

6

8

10

12N

NNE

NE

ENE

E

ESE

SE

SSE

S

SSW

SW

WSW

W

WNW

NW

NNW

Wind direction Frequency for STUT

0

5

10

15N

NNE

NE

ENE

E

ESE

SE

SSE

S

SSW

SW

WSW

W

WNW

NW

NNW

Wind direction Frequency for ROME

0

2

4

6

8

10N

NNE

NE

ENE

E

ESE

SE

SSE

S

SSW

SW

WSW

W

WNW

NW

NNW

Wind direction Frequency for LISB

0

5

10

15

20

25N

NNE

NE

ENE

E

ESE

SE

SSE

S

SSW

SW

WSW

W

WNW

NW

NNW

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

ANTW ATHE BARC BERL BRUS BUDA COPE GDAN GRAZ HELS KATO LISB LOND MARS MILA PARI PRAG ROME STUT THES

Con

cent

ratio

n (μ

g/m

3)

measured modelled

Mean annual NO2 street increments (μg/m3) in 20 European cities: OSPM model results compared with observations

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

26

28

30

32

ANTW ATHE BARC BERL BRUS BUDA COPE GDAN GRAZ HELS KATO LISB LOND MARS MILA PARI PRAG ROME STUT THES

Con

cent

ratio

n (μ

g/m

3 )

measured modelled

Mean annual PM10 street increments (μg/m3) in 20 European cities: OSPM model results compared with observations.

• PM10: range modelled street increment 5-16 μg/m3,(average10.3μg/m3).

• PM10: Average measured street increment 11.1 μg/m3, (not including exceptionally large street increment for Lisbon).

• PM10, 16 station background-street pairs (< 1km distance) from airbase: 6.9 μg/m3

• HDV% and average vehicle speed per day most sensitive assumptions for street emission calculations

Reduction percentage of NOx emissions with respect to Euro IV (for PC and LDV) and to Euro V (for HDV) for Euro V (for PC and LDV) and Euro VI (for HDV) compliant vehicles, according to the four scenarios. PC - LDV Gasoline PC - LDV Diesel HDV Package 1 - -20% -50% Package 2 - -20% -85% Package 3 - -40% -85% Package 4 -40% -20% -85% Package 5 -40% -40% -85%

Reduction percentage of PM emissions with respect to Euro IV (for PC and LDV) and to Euro V (for HDV) for Euro V (for PC and LDV) and Euro VI (for HDV) compliant vehicles, according to the four scenarios. PC - LDV Gasoline PC - LDV Diesel HDV Package 1 -50% -0% Package 2 - DPF -0% Package 3 DPF (GDI) DPF DPF

basis reduction: discussions on Euro V and Euro VI held at EU level (European Commission, 2004)

Development of NOx emission factor (%) for the two scenarios in Germany (reference year: 2000)

2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 NOx emissonfactor (%) CLE MFR CLE MFR CLE MFR CLE MFR CLE MFR

PC Gasoline 36 36 22 20 17 13 16 12 17 12

PC Diesel 108 108 105 78 102 54 98 38 100 30

LDV 81 81 74 58 74 45 79 42 83 42

HDV 67 67 46 42 34 25 32 15 36 11

Buses 70 70 44 42 26 21 22 12 21 10

Development of PM emission factor (%) for the two scenarios in Germany (reference year: 2000)

2010 2015 2020 2025 2030

PM emission factor (%) CLE MFR CLE MFR CLE MFR CLE MFR CLE MFR

PC Diesel 69 69 69 44 70 26 69 15 70 11

LDV 58 58 47 34 42 20 45 15 47 15

HDV 54 54 30 29 17 13 12 6 13 5

Buses 64 64 35 34 16 13 10 6 9 5

COPERT III,TRENDS and input traffic activity data originating from TREMOVE (version 2.23 ).

SCENARIOS FOR SOEOR2005: CONCLUSIONS (II)

• SEP does initiate changes, but does not yet (2030) requires afundamental “transition” in the European energy system.

• A sustainability transition meeting all EU’s climate and energytargets appears to be feasible, but at significant costs (400Euro/household/year in 2030); there is not one optimal solution -> SEP variants.

• Integrated CC&AP policies can result in cost savings, avoidanceof trade-offs, and effective abatement of air pollutant and GHGemissions.

• A sustainability transition in Europe has to be viewed in a globalcontext.

• The costs for medium term GHG emissions reductions aresignificant dependent on the assumed economic growth, asshown by a lower economic growth variant.

LGEP

LGEP

While a transition such as LGEP can bring enormous benefits, it also presents substantial

challenges• Benefits Decoupling of CO2 emissions from economic growth and reduced European

contribution to global climate change Reduced emissions of air pollutants Reduced energy import dependency (-20%) Employment in industrial and agricultural sectors selling biofuels and clean

and low energy technologies to Europe and the world

• Challenges Large changes required in the energy sector Difficult choices over controversial technologies such as nuclear power and

carbon capture and storage Potential for energy efficiency is well-known, but achieving energy reductions

in practice will require new policy approaches Costs may be small in relation to GDP, but are nevertheless large in real

terms