Global decarbonisation pathways: Contribution of different options in CO2 reduction: TIAM-MACRO, Decomposition analysis

1. 1
Global decarbonisation pathways: Contribution
of different options in CO2 reduction
TIAM-MSA, Decomposition analysis
Babak Mousavi - Markus Blesl
Semi-annual ETSAP_TIAM meeting
Copenhagen - Nov, 2014

2. Babak Mousavi Nov, 2014Contribution of different options in CO2 reduction
Outline
2
Conclusion and Outlook
Scenario Analysis
Decomposition of CO2 emission
ETSAP_TIAM-MACRO Stand Alone
Focus on Demand reduction option
ETSAP_TIAM (TIMES Integrated Assessment Model)
Motivation

3. Babak Mousavi Nov, 2014Contribution of different options in CO2 reduction
Motivation
● Climate change is a global concern.
● Different options to reduce energy-related CO2 emissions:
Study the contribution of these options to meet targets of decarbonistion policies and their
interaction under different availability assumptions is necessary for an integrated
assessment in climate change context.
GHG
reduction
Renewables
Efficiency
Improvement
Carbon
sequestration
Demand
reduction
Nuclear
Fossil Fuel
Changes

4. Babak Mousavi Nov, 2014Contribution of different options in CO2 reduction
ETSAP_TIAM (TIMES Integrated Assessment Model)
4
Africa Eastern Europe Middle-East Australia-New Zealand Former Soviet Union
Other Developing Asia Canada India South Korea Central and South America
Japan United States China Mexico Western Europe
Regions:
Time resolution:
WinterIntermediateSummer
20052100
Night
Day
Night
Day
Night
Day

5. Babak Mousavi Nov, 2014Contribution of different options in CO2 reduction
Demand reduction option
● Since energy-service demands in ETSAP_TIAM model are derived from exogenous drivers,
to include demand reduction option to such analysis two alternatives exist:
I. Using price elasticity in the model
II. Coupling with a Macro model
5
Reduction CO2
emission
Higher energy
price
Reduction energy-
service demand
Lower energy
consumption
− Elasticity factors are highly uncertain and
poorly understood.
− Demand response is dependent to elasticity
factors and usually in literature is observed
as a critical mechanism for CO2 reduction.

6. Babak Mousavi Nov, 2014Contribution of different options in CO2 reduction
ETSAP_TIAM-MACRO1
6
● ETSAP_TIAM model is linked with a top-down macroeconomic module MACRO.
● Maximization an inter-temporal utility function for a single representative producer-
consumer agent in each region, using decomposition and Negishi weights.
● Overview of TIMES-Macro2:
TIMES MACRO
Annual Energy
System Cost
Labor
Production
New capital
Energy-Service demands
Investment
Iron and Steel (Mt)
Chemicals (PJ)
Commercial Lighting (PJ)
Residential Heating (PJ) Pulp and Paper (Mt)
1: S. Kypreos, A.Lehtila, 2013 2: U. Remme, M. Blesl, 2006

7. Babak Mousavi Nov, 2014Contribution of different options in CO2 reduction
Decomposition of CO2 emission
● The rate of CO2 emission change is decomposed with an extended and modified Kaya
identify. The general formulation is as follow:
−
− Share of sequestrations is calculated separately.
● The Logarithmic Mean Divisa Index Method (LMDI) is used to determine share of each
factor:
− Introduced by Ang et al., 1997
− Perfect decomposition
− Applicable for problems with zero values
− Formulation for share of demand is as follow (time index eliminated for simplicity):
7
demand
PEC
FuelFossil
demand
PEC
FuelFossil
CO
CO ×××=
2
2
[ ] ...)ln()ln(
)2ln()2ln(
22
2 12
12
12
+−×
−
−
=∆ demanddemand
COCO
COCO
CO

8. Babak Mousavi Nov, 2014Contribution of different options in CO2 reduction
Scenario Analysis
8

9. Babak Mousavi Nov, 2014Contribution of different options in CO2 reduction 9
Scenario Definition
Scenario CO2 reduction1 Higher Nuclear2 Higher CCS3
BAU   
2D   
2D_NUC   
2D_CCS   
1: Level of CO2 emission in 2050 is similar to ETP 2014 2DS (20C degree target)
2: 50% higher availability of Nuclear power plants.
3: Higher CCS availability. CO2 reduction from CCS option in this scenario is similar to
the reduction from higher nuclear in 2D_NUC scenario.

10. Babak Mousavi Nov, 2014Contribution of different options in CO2 reduction
Primary Energy Consumption
10
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
BAU
2D
2D_NUC
2D_CCS
BAU
2D
2D_NUC
2D_CCS
BAU
2D
2D_NUC
2D_CCS
BAU
2D
2D_NUC
2D_CCS
BAU
2D
2D_NUC
2D_CCS
BAU
2D
2D_NUC
2D_CCS
BAU
2D
2D_NUC
2D_CCS
BAU
2D
2D_NUC
2D_CCS
BAU
2D
2D_NUC
2D_CCS
2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100
WORLD-PrimaryEnergyConsumption(EJ)
Waste (non renewable)
Geo
Hydro, wind, solar,
Ocean
Nuclear
Natural gas
Oil
Bio
Coal

11. Babak Mousavi Nov, 2014Contribution of different options in CO2 reduction
System cost and CO2 Marginal Price
11
2000
2050
2100
2150
2200
2250
2300
2350
Systemcost/demand($/PJ)
168
169
169
170
170
171
171
172
172
TotalSystemCost(M$)
BAU
2D
2D_NUC
2D_CCS
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
2012 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100
Marginalcostofco2emission($/KtCO2)
2D
2D_NUC
2D_CCS

12. Babak Mousavi Nov, 2014Contribution of different options in CO2 reduction
GDP-Loss and Electricity Price
12
0
5
10
15
20
25
2060 2070 2080 2090 2100
World-AveragePriceofElectricity($/GJ)
BAU
2D
2D_NUC
2D_CCS
0.0%
0.5%
1.0%
1.5%
2.0%
2.5%
3.0%
3.5%
2060 2070 2080 2090 2100
World-Average-GDP-Loss

13. Babak Mousavi Nov, 2014Contribution of different options in CO2 reduction
Decomposition of CO2 emission
13
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100
CO2emissionreduction(Gt)
2D
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100
CO2emissionreduction(Gt)
2D_NUC
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100
CO2emissionreduction(Gt)
2D_CCS

14. Babak Mousavi Nov, 2014Contribution of different options in CO2 reduction
Conclusion and open questions
B.Zwaan and M.Tavoni, 2011
14
PEC under 2D_NUC and 2D_CCS is higher than 2D. Because in first two scenarios lower
demand reduction and efficiency improvement are needed to meet CO2 reduction’s target.
Higher nuclear penetration doesn't necessarily mean lower total cost per demand.
In all three decarbonisation scenarios, Renewable option is leading in CO2 reduction.
CCS could overtake nuclear as a relatively better cost-efficient mitigation technology
Applying other formulation for MSA instead of NLP (e.g., LP, MCP, ...)?
Suppy more sensible initial values (better starting point)?

15. Babak Mousavi Nov, 2014Contribution of different options in CO2 reduction
Thanks
for your attention
15