approach and analysis of low carbon society scenarios for india … · 2020. 2. 6. · ipcc new...

IPCC new scenario from the viewpoint of developing countries IPCC new scenario from the viewpoint of developing countries

Approach and Analysis of Low Approach and Analysis of Low Carbon Society Scenarios for IndiaCarbon Society Scenarios for India

AIM Training Workshop 2007Organized by NIES, October 2007, Tsukuba, Japan

P.R. Shukla

Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad, IndiaIndian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad, India


–

Base Case Scenario

–

LCS Scenarios: Paradigms

–

Base Case Scenario Analysis

–

Low Carbon Society Scenario Analysis

–

Comparative Scenario Analysis

–

Choice of ‘LCS Pathway’

–

Conclusions

Agenda


India: Population, GDP and Energy Trends

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

220

240

260

28019

80

1982

1984

1986

1988

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

2004

Indi

ces,

Bas

e:19

80=1

00

Primary Energy Consumption

Primary Energy/Person

Energy Intensity of GDP

Population

Electricity Consumption

GDP


Integrated Model FrameworkDATABASES:

Socio-Economic, Technologies, Energy Resources, Environmental Constraints

AIM CGE Model

ANSWER-MARKAL ModelAIM Enduse

AIM SNAPSHOT Model

End

Use

Dem

and

Mod

el AIM

Strategic Database

(SDB

)


AIM CGE

Production Sector (4)

Household Sector

Produced Goods (Y) market

Production factor market (K,L)

Envi

ronm

ent

OutputValue Added

Intermediate Demand (X)

Final Demand (C)

Endowment (K*, L*)

Feedback

Feedback

Pollution

Pollution

Source : Masui, T, 2005


India AIM CGE Data Structure

• Indian I/O Table (1998-99)– 115 X 115 Commodity

• Aggregated to– 4 Sector X 4 Sector

• 2 Energy Sectors– Fossil Fuels & Other Energy

• 2 Production Sectors– Manufacturing & Non Manufacturing

• Carbon Tax trajectory


ANSWER MARKAL/ AIM End-use

Techno-economic Database

Economic & EnvironmentalScenario

MARKAL AIM End-use

1. Future Energy Balances2. Emissions3. Marginal ‘values’ of energy forms and emissions4. Technology Shares


MARKAL Data Structure • Specification of Technologies for

– Electricity Sector (Generation/ Transmission)– End Use Demand Sectors– Fuel Supply

• Technology Parameters (SDB)– Cost – Capital & Operating (TD)– Life– Fuel choices– Efficiencies (TD)– Emissions (TD)


AIM End-use Model

Transport Agriculture Residential CommercialIndustry

Urban Rural

Steel

Cement Aluminum Sugar

Chlor - Alkali Paper Brick

Textiles Fertilizer Others

End-use Sub-Sector Models (AIM)Transport Agriculture Residential CommercialIndustry

Urban Rural

Steel

Cement Aluminum Sugar

Chlor - Alkali Paper Brick

Textiles Fertilizer Others

End-use Sub-Sector Models (AIM)

Energy Sector Optimization Model (MARKAL)

Long-term demand projection model


AIM SNAPSHOT

Primary Energy

Final Energy

Services

CO2 emission

Primary Energy

Final Energy

Services

CO2 emission

Emission factors Emission factors

Energy use efficiency

Transformation efficiency

Energy use efficiency

Transformation efficiency

Base Year Target Year

Source : Mizuho, 2006


End-Use Demand

Macro Economic Models – Overall GDP

Projections

Sectoral Share Forecasting

Expert Opinions Sectoral Elasticity’s Module

End Use Demand


India’s GDP (Index: 2005 GDP = 1)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050

Inde

x: 2

005

GD

P =

1

CAGR 2005-32

A - 9%, B - 8%, C - 7%, D - 6%

CAGR 2005-50

A - 7.79%, B - 7.16%, C - 6.45%, D - 5.95%

Very High

High

Medium

Low

Economic Growth: GDP Projections

India’s GDP Growth Rate (%)

0.0%

2.0%

4.0%

6.0%

8.0%

10.0%

2000 2010 2020 2030 2040

GD

P G

row

th R

ates

%

Very High

High

Med

Low

2050

Sustainable Economic Growth

•

Energy Security

•

Trade

•

Human Capital

•

Innovations

•

Institutions


PopulationPopulation (Million)

358

555

849

1183

1449

1593

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

1950 1970 1990 2010 2030 2050

Annual Growth Rate of Population

2.22% 2.15%

1.67%

1.02%

0.47%

0.00%

0.50%

1.00%

1.50%

2.00%

2.50%

1950-70 1970-90 1990-2010 2010-30 2030-50

Population and Sustainability

•

Growth

•

Quality

•

Mobility

•

Opportunity

•

Empowerment


Demographic TransitionsLabor Supply

133210

360

595

795915

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1950 1970 1990 2010 2030 2050 Annual Growth Rate of Labor Supply

2.30%

2.74%2.54%

1.46%

0.70%

0.00%

0.50%

1.00%

1.50%

2.00%

2.50%

3.00%

1950-70 1970-90 190-2010 2010-30 2030-50


Age/Gender Profile

Population Projec tion for 2030

70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

0-4 5-9

10-1415-1920-2425-2930-3435-3940-4445-4950-5455-5960-6465-6970-7475-7980-8485-8990-9595-99100+

Age

gro

up

Populat ion (million)

Female Male

Population Projec tion for 2010

70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

0-4 5-9

10-1415-1920-2425-2930-3435-3940-4445-4950-5455-5960-6465-6970-7475-7980-8485-8990-9595-99100+

Age

gro

up

Population (million)

Female Male

Population Projec t ion for 2050

70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

0-4 5-9

10-1415-1920-2425-2930-3435-3940-4445-4950-5455-5960-6465-6970-7475-7980-8485-8990-9595-99100+

Age

gro

up


Female Male

Population in 1970

50 40 30 20 10 0 10 20 30 40 50

0-4 5-9

10-1415-1920-2425-2930-3435-3940-4445-4950-5455-5960-6465-6970-7475-7980-8485-8990-9595-99100+

Age

gro

up


Female Male

1970 2010

2030 2050


Growth ScenariosHuman Capital

⎯

Government Expenditure in Education ⎯

Private Expenditure in Education ⎯

Urban / Rural & Gender-wise Education Expenditure⎯

(Net) Migration by Labor Classes (intra & inter county)

R&D⎯

Government/ Private Expenditure⎯

Knowledge Flows

Technology⎯

Backbones (infrastructures)⎯

Learning, transfers, deployment

Saving/ Investments⎯

Social Security⎯

Lifestyles, Behaviors

Governance⎯

Institutions⎯

Laws⎯

Policies

Savings Rate

20.6022.80

24.60

33.00

35.00

29.00

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030

40 37.00??

31.00


Demographic Transitions in India: Urban/Rural

Urban & Rural population of India (Medium Variant)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

1950

1955

1960

1965

1970

1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

2010

2015

2020

2025

2030

Year

% S

hare

RuralUrban


Energy Transitions to Low Carbon Future?Pe

rcen

tage

of P

rimar

y En

ergy

Con

sum

ptio

n

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

1952 1960 1970 1980 1990 2001

TraditionalBiomass

Hydro

Coal

Oil

GasNuclear

How to transit to Modern Biomass?

Food Security?

Domestic Resource: +ve

Direct Employment: +ve

Energy Security: -ve

Foreign Exchange: -ve

Geopolitical Risk: High

Foreign Exchange: -ve

Fuel Supply?Waste disposal?

Safety?

Regional water disputes?

Indirect Benefits

En. Security: +Ve


Base Case Energy & CO2 EmissionsFrom 2000-2050:Annual Economic Growth: 7.2%Annual Population Growth: 0.9%

Absolute Growth in 2050 over 2000Economy 33 timesPopulation 1.6 times

Annual Improvement From 2000-2050:Energy Intensity (%): 2.65Decarbonization of Energy (%): 1.48Carbon Intensity (%): 4.13

Ratios: 2050 over 2000Energy Intensity: 0.29Decarbonization of Energy: 0.49Carbon Intensity: 0.14

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050

Mto

e

Other RenewablesNuclearHydroGasOilCoalCommercial BiomassNon Com Biomass

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050M

illio

n T

on C

O2


Base Case: Energy & Carbon Intensities

0

1020

30

40

5060

70

80

90100

110

2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

Ene

rgy

& C

arbo

n In

tens

ity (2

000

= 10

0)

Energy IntensityCO2 Intensity

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

CO2 Emissions (Mt CO2)

Energy Efficiency Improvement but no more decarbonization of Energy


•

Stabilization Target 550 ppmv

CO2e

•

Two “Alternate Scenarios” or “Development Pathways”

1. Conventional Development + High Carbon TaxThe global stabilization studies show that to altering conventional emissions path to stabilization would need high carbon tax: E.g. according to US-CCSP report the tax would be:

2010: US$10 2050: US$1002100: US$167

2. Sustainable Development Pathways + Low Carbon Tax Also called the “Low Carbon Society”

Scenario

LCS as a Development Pathway


Concept of Low Carbon Development through Sustainability

Low Carbon Society

Innovations

Co-benefits

Sustainability

Technological

Social/Institutional

Management

Modify Preferences

Avoid Lock-ins

Long-term Vision

Win/Win Options

Shared Costs/Risks

Aligning Markets

National Socio-economic

Objectives and Targets

Global Climate Change

Objectives and Targets

Nat

iona

l Dev

elop

men

t Ta

rget

s

Climate Quality

Econ

omic

/soc

ial I

ndic

ator

Climate Quality

Eco

nom

ic/s

ocia

l Ind

icat

or

Climate Goal

Technology & Institutional Innovations; Co-benefits


GDP Loss due to Carbon Tax

-1.6%

-1.2%

-0.8%

-0.4%

0.0%2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

0

40

80

120

2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

(US $

/tC

O2

) Price CO2


CO2 Mitigations in Carbon Tax Scenario

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

Mill

ion

Ton

CO

2

OthersDevice EfficiencyRenewable Energy

Electricity (Fuel Switch)

CCS

Residual Emissions

Carbon Tax 7 22 40 67 100$ per ton of CO2


CO2 Emission trajectories India & Global

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

Inde

x 2

00

0 =

1

Base (650 ppmv CO2e)

Carbon Tax (550 ppmv CO2e)

550 ppmv CO2e

650 ppmv CO2e


Some Intermediate & Final Demands Base & Sustainability Scenario

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

Dem

and

(Mill

ion

Tonn

es)

Base

SS

Base

SS

Steel

0

200

400

600

800

1000

2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

Dem

and

(Mill

ion

Tonn

es)

CementBase

SS

0

400

800

1200

1600

2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

Dem

and

(Bill

ion

Lum

ens)

LightingBase

SS

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

Dem

and

(Mill

ion

Tonn

es)

PaperBase

SS


Mitigation Options in SS Scenario

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050

Mill

ion

Ton

CO

2

OthersCCSTransport (Modal Shift)Urban PlanningReduced ConsumptionRecyclingMaterial SubstitutionsDevice EfficiencyRenewable Energy Building (Material Design)

Electricity (Fuel Switch)

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050

Mill

ion

Ton

CO

2

OthersOthersCCSCCSTransport (Modal Shift)Transport (Modal Shift)Urban PlanningUrban PlanningReduced ConsumptionReduced ConsumptionRecyclingRecyclingMaterial SubstitutionsMaterial SubstitutionsDevice EfficiencyDevice EfficiencyRenewable Energy Renewable Energy Building (Material Design)Building (Material Design)

Electricity (Fuel Switch)Electricity (Fuel Switch)


Energy and Carbon Intensities: Base & LCS Scenarios

0

10

20

30

40

50

2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

EI (

toe/

Mill

ion

INR

)

0

10

20

30

40

50

CI (

tCO

2/M

illio

n IN

R)

Base CaseCarbon TaxSS

Energy Intensities (EI)

Carbon Intensities (CI)


Kaya Analysis of LCS Scenarios

883%

-315%

197%

-715%

50%

678%

-316%

279%

-471%

171%

-800%

-600%

-400%

-200%

0%

200%

400%

600%

800%

1000%

D E/D

C/E

C'/C

Tota

l

vs 2

000'

s

2050 CT Case 2050 SS Case


Energy & CO2 Emission Trajectories across LCS scenarios

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

Mill

ion

tCO

2

Base

Carbon TaxSS

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

Mto

e

Base

Carbon Tax

SS

Cumulative Emissions 2005-50

Base 162.3 billion tCO2

CT /SS 99.7 billion tCO2


Carbon Price: LCS vs. Base Scenarios

Base Case*

Carbon Tax+

SS#

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

Pric

e C

O2

(U

S $

/tC

O2

)


CO2 Mitigation Pathways – SS Vs Carbon Tax Case

Billion Tonnes of CO2

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

Mill

ion

tCO

2

Base

Carbon TaxSS


Carbon Price Trajectories

Base Case*

Carbon Tax+

SS#

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

Pric

e C

O2

(U

S $

/tC

O2

)


Fuel mix: LCS & Base Scenarios

-

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

Coal

Oil

Gas

Hydro

Nuclear

BiomassRenewable

s

Mto

e

Base CT SSShare of renewable

Base 24 %CT 34 %SS 47 %

Total Energy Demand

Base 3004 MtoeCT 2945 MtoeSS 2004 Mtoe


SO2 Emissions: LCS & Base Scenarios

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

Mill

ion tS

O2

Base

Carbon Tax

SS


Conclusions: LCS with Sustainability


Stabilization via Sustainability: The Post-Kyoto Regime •

LCS requires ‘Paradigm Shift’

to treating climate change at the

‘mainstream’

and not at the ‘margin’

•

In developing countries, where economies are not on the efficient frontier, ‘mainstreaming’

would permit gaining ‘multiple dividends’

•

Even under sustainable development, stabilization would require direct climate focused policies, both for mitigation and adaptation

•

Sustainability roadmap provides a practical way-out from managing climate change as a zero-sum game for nations to a win-win proposition

•

LCS through sustainability therefore will promote cooperation and deliver climate goals at lower costs and risks

•

No single country can decide pathway that is very different than

the global trend.

•

LCS roadmap for countries has to be mainstreamed in agreements among governments, financial institutions, corporations and NGOs

and implements through wider stakeholder initiatives.


Thank youPlease look at following websites

for some recent work: www-iam.nies.go.jp/aim

www.developmentfirst.org

www.electricityindia.org

www.e2models.com

approach and analysis of low carbon society scenarios for india … · 2020. 2. 6. · ipcc new...

Documents