Transcript Slide 1

M. Amann, W. Asman, I. Bertok, J. Cofala, C. Heyes,
Z. Klimont, W. Schöpp, F. Wagner
Emission control scenarios
for EU and non-EU countries
Meeting of the Task Force on Integrated Assessment Modelling
Prague, May 2-4, 2007
Recent emission scenarios
• Scenarios for EU Member States
• Scenarios for non-EU countries
• Ship emissions
Changes in the GAINS databases for EU MS
since December 2006
For energy-related aspects:
• National energy scenarios for Greece, Lithuania and Switzerland
implemented
• Revised emission factors, control strategies and other inputs for
Belgium, Czech Rep., Germany, Greece, Hungary, Finland, Ireland,
Lithuania, Malta, Netherlands, Switzerland, UK;
• Revised baseline emission control legislation on national sea traffic
For VOC:
• Country comments from Belgium, Greece, Romania
For NH3:
• Comments from Denmark, Finland, Romania, Switzerland,
Bulgaria, Romania, Turkey, Malta, Switzerland
Target setting for the NEC analysis
• TSAP has established environmental targets for 2020
• In the meantime, methodology, data and boundary
conditions have changed:
–
–
–
–
Ecosystem-specific deposition for eutrophication
Multi-year meteorology
Extension to EU-27
Extension to Norway
• Current NEC analysis has applied TSAP percentage
improvement targets to YOLLs, acidification and ozone.
For eutrophication targets have been recalculated with
ecosystem-specific deposition methodology.
Summary of the environmental targets
as applied in the NEC-3 report
• Health impacts for PM:
– EU-27+N –wide reductions in YOLLs by 47%
• Acidification target:
– EU-27+N –wide reduction in unprotected ecosystems area
by 74% for forests and 39% for water.
– In each Member State, a 30% gap closure of accumulated
excess deposition between CLE and MRR
• Eutrophication target:
– EU-27+N –wide reduction in unprotected ecosystems area by
31%.
– In each Member State, gap closure of accumulated excess
deposition between CLE and MRR accumulated by 67%
(national proj.) and 61% (PRIMES/CAPRI proj.)
• Ozone target:
– EU-27+N –wide reduction in premature mortality by 10%
Two central cases
Cost-optimized emission reductions meeting the
environmental TSAP objectives
• With Euro-VI measures in all countries (Package A of
Commission proposal, from 2013/14 onwards)
• Assuming 2020 emissions in non-EU countries and ships
• For the
– national activity projections and the
– PRIMES €20 case
Costs of the single-objective optimization runs
for the translated TSAP environmental objectives
4
Billion €/yr
3
2
1
Health impacts PM
Eutrophication
Acidification
Ozone
Joint optimization
Emission control costs by pollutant, EU-27, 2020
Costs of multi-pollutant measures for mobile sources are
accounted under NOx
5
Billion €/year
4
3
2
1
0
Without Euro-VI
With Euro-VI
Without Euro-VI
PRIMES €20
National projections
SO2
NOx *)
PM2.5
NH3
VOC
With Euro-VI
Emission control costs by SNAP sector
for meeting the TSAP environmental objectives
6
5
Billion €/yr
4
3
2
1
0
Without Euro-VI
With Euro-VI
Without Euro-VI
PRIMES €20
National projections
SNAP1
SNAP2
SNAP3
SNAP4
SNAP 5
With Euro-VI
SNAP 6
SNAP 7
SNAP 8
SNAP 9
SNAP 10
Costs for air pollution and GHG mitigation in 2020
EU-25, GAINS estimates
120
+2% CO2
-8% CO2
-20% CO2
100
Billion €/yr
80
60
40
20
0
National energy and agricultural With 20€ carbon price (-8% CO2)
projections (+2% CO2)
Costs for current legislation on air pollution
Additional costs for TSAP
With 90€ carbon price (-20%
CO2)
Additional costs for the CO2 reduction
Impacts of uniform ELVs for large combustion plants
• How would EU-wide uniform emission limit values for large
combustion plants influence total emissions?
• Reflecting the ranges of emission factors given in
BREF notes
• For SO2, NOx and PM2.5 emissions
• Compared to
– NEC baseline (with national interpretations of IPPC)
– Optimized emission levels (without Euro-VI)
Highest EF in BREF
Lowest EF in BREF
NEC baseline
Optimized ceiling
EU27
UK
Sweden
Spain
Slovenia
Slovakia
Romania
Portugal
Poland
Netherlands
Malta
Luxembourg
Lithuania
Latvia
Italy
Ireland
Hungary
Greece
Germany
France
Finland
Estonia
Denmark
Czech Rep.
Cyprus
Bulgaria
Belgium
Austria
Emissions relative to the NEC baseline
National SO2 emissions 2020
for different ELVs for LCPs
160%
140%
120%
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
Highest EF in BREF
Lowest EF in BREF
NEC baseline
Optimized ceiling
UK
Sweden
Spain
Slovenia
Slovakia
Romania
Portugal
Poland
Netherlands
Malta
Luxembourg
Lithuania
Latvia
Italy
Ireland
Hungary
Greece
Germany
France
Finland
Estonia
Denmark
Czech Rep.
Cyprus
Bulgaria
Belgium
Austria
Emissions relative to NEC baseline
National NOx emissions 2020
with different ELVs for LCPs
120%
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
Conclusions on scenarios for EU Member States
• Emission ceilings are currently under development
• Recent round of analysis put highest emphasis on
eutrophication, and less on PM
• Euro-VI measures cost-effective means for achieving the
environmental objectives
• Additional emission control costs are strongly influenced by
assumptions on climate policy.
• Emission limit values for LCPs reflecting the emission
factors indicated in the BREF-notes would lead to further
emission reductions. In most cases these reductions are
cost-effective.
Non-EU countries
Input data for non-EU countries
• National input received from Switzerland and Norway
• For all other countries, no new input received since
EB 2006
• Compared to Gothenburg Protocol, modified energy
projections have been received for Russia, Ukraine and
Belarus, but not through official channels. For all other
countries, no change in input data since the Gothenburg
Protocol
• Bilateral consultations with Russia, Ukraine and Belarus
held in 2006, but no follow-up
Sources of energy projections for non-EU countries
Albania
Gothenburg Protocol 1996
Norway
National projection
2005/2006
Belarus
Gothenburg Protocol,
adjusted 2006
Romania
PRIMES baseline 2005
Bosnia-H.
Gothenburg Protocol 1996
Russia
National projection 2002
Bulgaria
PRIMES baseline 2005
Serbia-M.
Gothenburg Protocol 1996
Croatia
Gothenburg Protocol 1996
Switzerland
National projection
2005/2006
T.F.Y.R.O.
Macedonia
Gothenburg Protocol 1996
Turkey
PRIMES baseline 2005
Rep. of
Moldova
Gothenburg Protocol 1996
Ukraine
National projection 2004
No change since 2006!
Case A for “Current legislation”
• SO2: Emission standards as laid down in national
legislation. For new LCPs standards of the 2nd Sulfur
Protocol
• NOx: Uncontrolled emissions, except for new LCPs where
primary measures (combustion modifications) are assumed
• PM: Controls according to current practices. No enhanced
replacement of boilers and stoves in the residential/
commercial sector.
• Successful implementation of EURO emission standards for
road vehicles according to national legislation/plans
• Replacement of VOC-emitting products and production
equipment according to historic trends/replacement rates
Case B for “Current legislation”
• SO2: Uncontrolled emissions
• NOx: Uncontrolled emissions, except new LCPs where
primary measures (combustion modifications) are assumed
• PM: Controls according to current practices. Replacement of
boilers and stoves in the residential/commercial sector
follow a "natural' replacement rate
• Road vehicles: Uncontrolled emissions
• VOC: Uncontrolled emissions
Range of “Current legislation” emission projections
Russia, Ukraine, Belarus
6000
5000
kilotons
4000
3000
2000
WGSR has decided to assume Case B
for the review of the Gothenburg Protocol
1000
0
2000 2010 2020
SO2
2000 2010 2020
2000 2010 2020
NOx
Case B
PM2.5
Case A
CAFE
2000 2010 2020
VOC
Cost-effectiveness of ship emission controls
Cost-effectiveness of ship emission controls
Study for DG-ENV (IIASA/MSC-W/ENTEC):
• Updated emission projections for 2020
• New gridding of emissions
• Distinguishing ferries/freight vessels, 6 sea regions,
in/outside of the 12 mile zones, EU/non-EU flags
• Cost-effectiveness of four packages of measures to achieve
the TSAP targets in 2020
• Will be available on IIASA’s web site soon.
Packages of measures for ships (1)
Baseline
SO2
Sulphur content as in the EU Marine Fuel Directive (OJ L 191/59,
2005): 1.5% S in residual oil for all ships in SECA (North Sea and
Baltic Sea); 1.5% S fuel all passenger ships in other sea regions
surrounding the European Union; 0.1% S fuel at berth in ports
NOx
MARPOL NOx standards for ships built since 2000
Ambition level 1 - all ships
SO2
As in the baseline
NOx
Slide valve retrofit on all slow-speed engines pre-2000
Internal engine modifications for all new engines post-2010
Ambition level 2 - all ships
SO2
0.5% S in residual oil or scrubbing equivalent (2g SO2/kWh) in SECA,
and for passenger vessels everywhere.
Cargo vessels as in the baseline
NOx
Slide valve retrofit on all slow-speed engines pre-2000
Humid air motors for all new engines post-2010
Packages of measures for ships (2)
Ambition level 3 - all ships
SO2
Passenger and cargo ships:
SECA - 1.0% S in residual oil from 2010, 0.5% or scrubbing equivalent from
2015.
Other sea regions - as in the baseline but 0.5% or scrubbing equivalent from
2020
NOx
Pre-2010 vessels: 15% reduction above baseline level through available
retrofit measures.
Post-2010 vessels: 50% reduction above baseline level.
Ambition level 4 - all ships
SO2
As ambition level 3
NOx
Pre-2010 vessels: 15% reduction above baseline level through available
retrofit measures.
Post-2010 vessels: Selective catalytic reduction (SCR) technology
Costs for achieving the TSAP targets
(National activity projections, no Euro-VI)
Billion €/yr on top of the NEC baseline
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Reference (TSAP
targets for national
scenarios, no EuroVI)
Level 1 all ships
Level 2 all ships
Costs for land-based sources
Level 3 all ships
Costs for ships
Level 4 all ships
Conclusions
For the integrated assessment modelling activities for the
review of the Gothenburg Protocol:
• Choice of baseline assumptions on climate strategy and
agricultural policy are most crucial for EU Member States.
• For non-EU countries, very sparse validated national
information available. Assumptions on the implementation
of existing regulations have strongest impact on results.
WGSR has decided to assume Case B for the Gothenburg
review.
• Control of international ship emissions appears as costeffective.