Future challenges for

integrated assessment modelling

Markus AmannInternational Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1880 1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000

Mil

lion

to

ns

SO2 NOx NH3

Historic SO2, NOx and NH3 emissions 1880-1985, EU-25

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1880 1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000

Mil

lion

to

ns

SO2 NOx NH3

/dev/tty> International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA)

RAINS 1.1 (1984)

=========================================================

RRRR AA III NN N SSSS R R A A I N N N S RRRR AAAAAA I N N N SSSS R R A A I N N N S R R AA AA III N NN SSSS

=========================================================

Please treat all results with caution!

Hit RETURN to continue …

20 years assessment of forest soil acidification1984 and 2004

1984: RAINS 1.1 assessment for 2010 2004: CAFE assessment for 2010

Percentage of forest areawith acid deposition above critical loads

Historic SO2, NOx and NH3 emissions 1880-2005, EU-25

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1880 1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000

Mil

lion

to

ns

SO2 NOx NH3

Functions of integrated assessment models (1)

• Integration over cause-effects chain– Multi-disciplinary approach (since RAINS 1.1)

• Balancing of measures – Cost-effectiveness optimization (since 2nd Sulphur Protocol)

• Integration over multiple benefits– Multi-effect approach (since Gothenburg-protocol)

• Integration over scales– Inclusion of health impacts (since CAFE)

Functions of integrated assessment models

• Integration over cause-effects chain– Multi-disciplinary approach (since RAINS 1.1)

• Balancing of measures – Cost-effectiveness optimization (since 2nd Sulphur Protocol)

• Integration over multiple benefits– Multi-effect approach (since Gothenburg-protocol)

• Integration over scales– Inclusion of health impacts (since CAFE)

• Integration of multiple policy areas– Link to climate policy, agriculture

Multi-pollutant measures (1)

• Structural measures: – Energy savings, efficiency improvements, bans: all pollutants ↓

– Increased use of natural gas: CO2, SO2, VOC, NOx, PM ↓ CH4 ↑

– Biomass: CO2 ↓ VOC, PM, CH4 ↑

• Stationary sources:– SCR, SNCR: NOx, CO ↓, NH3, N2O, CO2 ↑

– Fluidized bed combustion: SO2, NOx↓, N2O ↑

– Advanced residential combustion: VOC, PM, CO, CH4 ↓

– FGD: SO2, PM ↓ CO2 ↑

– IGCC: CO2, SO2, NOx, PM ↓

– CHP: all pollutants ↓

• Mobile sources:– Euro-standards: NOx, VOC, PM, CO ↓ NH3, N2O ↑

– Low sulfur fuels: SO2, PM ↓

– Diesel: CO2, VOC↓, PM, NOx, SO2 ↑

Multi-pollutant measures (2)

• Agricultural sources:– Low emission pig housing – NH3, CH4 ↓ N2O ↑

– Covered storage of slurry – NH3 ↓ CH4 ↑

– Injection of manure – NH3 ↓ N2O ↑

– Anaerobic digestion (biogas) – CH4, N2O ↓ CO2 ↑ NH3 ↓↑

• Other sources– Gas recovery and flaring: CH4 ↓ CO2, PM, VOC, SO2, NOx, CO ↑

– Gas recovery and re-use: CH4 ↓ CO2 ↑

– Improving flaring efficiency: PM, VOC, NOx, SO2, CO ↓

– Waste incineration: CH4 ↓ CO2 ↑

– Gas recovery from wastewater treatment: CH4 ↓ CO2 ↑

In total approx 500 measures with multi-pollutant impacts considered in GAINS

Air pollutant emissions as a function of CO2 mitigation

90 €

20 €

0 €

National NEC projections

CAFE BL

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

110%

120%

75% 80% 85% 90% 95% 100% 105%

CO2 emissions relative to the UNFCCC baseyear emissions

Air

po

lluta

nt

emis

sio

ns

rela

tiv

e to

a 0

€ c

ase

SO2 NOx PM25EU-25, 2020

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20

25

95 100 105 110 115 No constraint

Health target (million life years lost)

Bill

ion

€/y

r

Benchmark

Net costs for further air pollution control as a function of CO2 mitigation

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20

25

95 100 105 110 115 No constraint

Health target (million life years lost)

Bill

ion

€/y

r

Benchmark -20% GHGs

Ambition level of Thematic Strategy

Population, GDP and coal use for power generationin Andra Pradesh (projection provided by TERI)

0%

100%

200%

300%

400%

500%

600%

700%

800%

900%

1000%

1100%

1200%

2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030

rela

tive

to

200

0

Population GDP Coal use for power generation

0%

100%

200%

300%

400%

500%

600%

700%

800%

PM10 SO2 NOx CO2

Em

issi

on

s r

ela

tiv

e t

o y

ear

200

0

Coal with current air pollution (AP) standards Coal + advanced air pollution control Max. wind+hydro & advanced AP controls With IGCC for new plants after 2015IGCC + carbon capture

Emissions from electricity generation Andra Pradesh, 2020, relative to 2000

With advanced end-of-pipe emission control technologies

Level in 2000

With current emission standards

Costs of electricity generation Andra Pradesh, 2020

0

3

5

8

10

13

15

Coal with current APstandards

Coal + advanced airpollution control

Max. wind+hydro IGCC after 2015

Bill

ion

$/y

ear

IGCC Coal costs PM control SO2 control NOx control Wind Small hydropower

Emissions from electricity generation Andra Pradesh, 2020, relative to 2000with IGCC at new plants after 2015 (without carbon capture)

0%

100%

200%

300%

400%

500%

600%

700%

800%

PM10 SO2 NOx CO2

Em

issi

on

s r

ela

tiv

e t

o y

ear

200

0

Coal with current air pollution (AP) standards Coal + advanced air pollution control Max. wind+hydro & advanced AP controls With IGCC for new plants after 2015IGCC + carbon capture

0

3

5

8

10

13

15

Conv. coal with currentAP standards

Coal + advanced airpollution control

Max. wind+hydro With IGCC for new plantsafter 2015

Bill

ion

$/y

ear

IGCC Coal costs PM control SO2 control NOx control Wind Small hydropower

Costs of electricity generation Andra Pradesh, 2020

Uncertainty range quoted by IPCC

Expected impacts of the Nitrate Directive and optimized feed on EU-25 NH3 emissions

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

2000 CLE 2020 Targetindicated in

TSAP

NEC baseline as ofDecember 2006

With fullimplementation ofnitrate directiveWith nitratedirective and low Nfeed

Functions of integrated assessment models

• Integration over cause-effects chain– Multi-disciplinary approach (since RAINS 1.1)

• Balancing of measures – Cost-effectiveness optimization (since 2nd Sulphur Protocol)

• Integration over multiple benefits– Multi-effect approach (since Gothenburg-protocol)

• Integration over scales– Inclusion of health impacts (since CAFE)

• Integration of multiple policy areas– Link to climate policy, agriculture

• Integration with economic impacts– More comprehensive quantification of human welfare

Per-capita NOx emissions1940-2000

1940

North America1970

2000

2000

Europe1960

2000

Russia1990

East Asia

South Asia0

25

50

75

100

0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000

Per-capita income ($/capita), PPP

kg N

Ox/

cap

ita

Per-capita NOx emissions1940-2030

2000

1970 North America

1940

2030

2030

1960Europe

2000

Russia

2000

East Asia

South Asia0

25

50

75

100

0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000

Per-capita income ($/capita), PPP

kg N

Ox/

cap

ita

Integrating economic development not as a slide

• Conventional cost concept considers investments in clean air as a welfare loss – heavy argument in policy debate (e.g., EU for CAFE, developing countries, US for climate)– Not all investments do lead to loss in GDP (recycling)– Non-monetary aspects of welfare excluded

• Integrated assessment can come up with additional quantified indicators that constitute parts of welfare (life expectancy, nitrogen pollution in water, etc.)

• Not necessarily based on monetary evaluation of benefits

• This could eventually allow a more comprehensive measure for welfare – and a re-evaluation of the value of environmental investments

Conclusions