Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Emissions reduction potential in regions of Kazakhstan using TIMES-16RKZ model

305 views

Published on

Emissions reduction potential in regions of Kazakhstan using TIMES-16RKZ model

Published in: Data & Analytics
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Emissions reduction potential in regions of Kazakhstan using TIMES-16RKZ model

  1. 1. Emissions reduction potential assessment in regions of Kazakhstan using TIMES-16RKZ model B. Suleimenov, R. De Miglio, A. Kerimray National Laboratory Astana Nazarbayev University IEA-ETSAP Workshop 18th-19th November 2016 CIEMAT, Madrid, Spain
  2. 2. Content • Introduction • TIMES-16RKZ model • Scenarios • Results • Conclusions
  3. 3. Sankey diagram of energy balance in Kazakhstan 2014, Mtoe 53% of production is exported Ratio between final energy consumption and domestic energy supply = 56% High losses and energy industry own use
  4. 4. Regions of Kazakhstan 16 administrative regions: • GDP and its structure differs from region to region • Different fuel energy mix by regions due to existing energy infrastructure (Soviet Heritage) • Different climate conditions • GRP per capita varies from the lowest 2.2k USD2005 to the highest 18.2k USD2005 • 11 times difference in regional energy intensity from the lowest to the highest
  5. 5. Regions of Kazakhstan Regions of extractions of sub-bituminous coal (values in TJ, extraction in 2011)
  6. 6. Regions of Kazakhstan Regions of extractions of crude oil (values in TJ, extraction in 2011)
  7. 7. Regions of Kazakhstan Regions of extractions of associated gas (values in TJ, extraction in 2011)
  8. 8. Regions of Kazakhstan Installed power capacity by region (values in MW in 2011)
  9. 9. TPES by region 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 18000 20000 AKM AKT ALM ATY WKZ ZHA KAR KST KZL MAN SKZ PAV NKZ EKZ AST ALC Total primary energy supply by fuel type in 2014, (ktoe) Coal Crude Oil Gas Biofuels and waste • 16 regional energy balances were collected and reclassified Generating capacities, oil refinery, heavy industry CHP plants, Heavy industry Oil Refinery, oil and gas extraction
  10. 10. So why regional model? • Resource availability • Different growth rates by regions • Economic structure • Climate differences • Region oriented climate and energy policies test
  11. 11. TIMES-16RKZ Fossilfuelsmining(Oilandgas,coal) Transformation sectors Power sector (electricity and heat) Refinery Gas processing Coal transformation Demand sectors Residential sector (Heating, cooling, lightning, washing, refrigerators and etc.) Commercial sector (Heating, cooling, lightning, washing, refrigerators and etc.) Industry (Iron and steel, aluminum, non-ferrous metals, cement, chemicals, mining, construction and etc.) Transport (Cars, light and heavy trucks, busses and etc.) Agriculture direct consumption Electricity and heat Oil products LPG and stripped gas Coke oven coke, blast furnace gas and etc.
  12. 12. Drivers 0.000 1.000 2.000 3.000 4.000 5.000 6.000 7.000 8.000 9.000 2011 2020 2030 2040 2050 GRP growth rate (2011=1) AKM AKT ALM ATY WKZ ZHA KAR KST KZL MAN SKZ PAV NKZ EKZ AST ALC 0.000 0.500 1.000 1.500 2.000 2.500 3.000 2011 2020 2030 2040 2050 Population growth rate (2011=1) AKM AKT ALM ATY WKZ ZHA KAR KST KZL MAN Model drivers: GDP, GDPP and population are very different from region to region Service elasticities to drivers from national model, inelastic demand projections 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 Historic GDP growth of Kazakhstan GDP
  13. 13. Scenarios INDC Limits GHG emissions from fuel combustion to 198.9 Mt CO2 eq. at national level (stabilization at current level) -50000.00 0.00 50000.00 100000.00 150000.00 200000.00 250000.00 300000.00 350000.00 400000.00 450000.00 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2014 GHG emissions trend in Kazakhstan, kt CO2 eq. 5. Waste 4. Land use, land-use change and forestry(1) 3. Agriculture 2. Industrial processes and product use 1. Energy 1990 minus 15% (INDC target) BaU Without implementing any constraint on GHG emissions. • INDC unconditional target of Kazakhstan is to reduce GHG emissions by 15% compared to 1990 level (317.3 Mt) • In 2014 the target has been already exceeded by 7% • Ambitious target!
  14. 14. Results Most emissions reductions occur in 3 regions: Almaty, Karaganda and Pavlodar. Last 2 regions are regions with heavy industries and main electricity generation capacities. 194.5 211.1 230.8 210.6 198.9 0.0 50.0 100.0 150.0 200.0 250.0 1 2 3 Total GHG emissions from fuel combustion, Mt BaU INDC -5 0 5 10 15 20 Differences in GHG emissions from fuel combustion between BaU and INDC scenario by regions in 2030, Mt Total GHG emissions in the system from fuel combustion Difference between BaU and INDC scenario is about 32 Mt CO2 eq in 2030
  15. 15. Emissions reduction has lower cost in supply side than in demand side. Therefore 28.6 Mt GHG emission reduction comes from supply and only 3.3 Mt from demand side. 75.6 81.0 91.3 118.9 130.1 139.5 80.8 88.0 129.9 110.9 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 120.0 140.0 160.0 2011 2020 2030 2011 2020 2030 Demand Supply GHG emissions from fuel combustion, Mt BaU INDC -0.09 0.17 27.88 1.24 1.32 0.56 0.51 -5.00 0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00 Differences in CO2 emissions from fuel combustion between Business as usual and INDC scenario by regions of KZK, mln t 2020 2030 Emission reduction potential by sectors Energy sector emission reduction based on both improved efficiency and decreased production.
  16. 16. INDC scenario requires 21% less coal than BaU. Oil and gas at same level. But TFC in INDC scenario is only 4% less than in BaU scenario. INDC target reached by increasing efficiency of energy supply, TFC/TPES increased by 4.6% in 2030. 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 BaU INDC BaU INDC 2011 2020 2030 Total final consumtion, PJ Agriculuture Commercial Residential Transport Industry 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 BaU INDC BaU INDC 2011 2020 2030 Primary energy supply, PJ Oil Gas Coal 49.9% 54.4% 54.4% 57.9% 62.5% 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 0 BaU INDC BaU INDC 2011 2020 2030 TFC/TPES Energy supply and demand
  17. 17. Power generation • In INDC scenario electricity and heat generation decreased by 6.3% and 3.5% accordingly compared to BaU • Coal based Pavlodar and Karaganda remain main electricity producers in BaU • In INDC new capacities are installed in the regions with high demand growth -40000 -30000 -20000 -10000 0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000 AKM AKT ALC ALM AST ATY EKZ KAR KST KZL MAN NKZ PAV SKZ WKZ ZHA Difference between BaU and INDC electricity generation, TJ 2020 2030 0 100000 200000 300000 400000 500000 600000 700000 2011 2020 2030 2011 2020 2030 Electricity Heat Electricity and heat generation, TJ BaU INDC
  18. 18. Heat generation is more or less same in two scenarios by regions. -30000 20000 70000 120000 170000 220000 BaU BaU BaU BaU BaU BaU BaU BaU BaU BaU BaU BaU BaU BaU BaU BaU AKMAKTALCALMASTATYEKZKARKSTKZLMANNKZPAVSKZWKZZHA Electricity and heat generation by regions in 2030, TJ Electricity Heat Power and heat generation
  19. 19. Coal consumption decreased and gas consumption at same level, systems overall efficiency increased 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% BaU INDC BaU INDC BaU INDC Generation efficiency Share of hydro Share of wind 2011 2020 2030 -90000 -40000 10000 60000 110000 160000 Coal Gas Fuel oil In order to meet INDC target system uses more efficient generation technologies and installed wind power plant with share of generation 4.5%. Hydro power plants generation are same in both scenarios. Fuel consumption for power generation and RES
  20. 20. Investments -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 200 AKM AKT ALC ALM AST ATY EKZ KAR KST KZL MAN NKZ PAV SKZ WKZ ZHA Difference in investments by regions in BaU and INDC scenario, mln$ 2020 2030 More investments in the regions with high demand growth, less investments in coal regions
  21. 21. Result from national TIMES KZK model INDC (- 15% 1990) 305 424 526 654 329 341 399 494 591 380 447 508 307 344 375 389 250 350 450 550 650 2011 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 MtCO2eq GHG emissions scenarios Baseline INDC ETS ETS_HS ETS_HS & ADJ ETS_HS & CO2Tax Differences in the results • National model: In Baseline scenario, the gap between emissions and the INDC target reaches 59 MtCO2eq in 2030 • Regional model: 32 Mt CO2eq in 2030 • National model uses higher GDP growth rate and sectoral drivers from CGE model, regional model more pessimistic • More work will be done on comparing the results and understanding the differences
  22. 22. Conclusions • INDC target can be achieved by – gradual retirement of old coal generating capacities – coal consumption, obviously, must be decreased – new generating capacities in the regions with highest demand growth – gas power generation in already gasified regions > no need for gas pipeline (in contrast with national model results) • Regionalized energy and climate policies needed • Significant advantages comparing to national model (energy demand distribution, particularly heating, energy prices by regions etc.)
  23. 23. Future work • Regional renewable energy penetration potential • Different national and regional economic development scenarios • Different regional burden sharing of GHG emissions reduction • Disaggregation of housing stock
  24. 24. This research was funded under the target program №0115РК03041 “Research and development in the fields of energy efficiency and energy saving, renewable energy sources and environmental protection for years 2014-2016” from the Ministry of Education and Science of the Republic of Kazakhstan. The provision of data by the Committee of Statistics of the Republic of Kazakhstan, Information Analytical Center on Oil and Gas, Ministry of Energy of the Republic of Kazakhstan is greatly acknowledged. Acknowledgements
  25. 25. Thank you! Any questions? Bakytzhan.suleimenov@nu.edu.kz

×