The Greenhouse gas Emission Control Strategies GECS project

1
The Greenhouse gas Emission Control Strategies
(GECS) project

• Work Package 2 WP Multi-gas emission and carbon
  sinks projections, Marginal Abatement Cost
  functions modelling
• Cor Graveland, Lex Bouwman and Bert de Vries

2
Contents

• Introduction
• Baseline scenario
• Emission reduction measures (ERM)
• Cost assumptions
• Development of MAC curves

3
(No Transcript)
4

• The characteristics of land use, land use changes
  and agriculture differ from those in the energy
  and industry sectors
• More uncertain. Emission estimates for the
  different land-use related sources are much more
  uncertain than those for energy and
  industry-related emissions
• Indirect effects. Modification of agricultural
  production through efficiency improvement has
  secondary effects. (e.g., improving efficiency in
  livestock production through increasing the
  portion of food crops in the ration may influence
  the volume of crop production, etc.)
• Non-private costs. Many abatement options
  involve only external costs (e.g. strategies to
  decrease biomass burning)
• Bottom-up approach. Detailed process
  descriptions are required

5

• Land-use sources and gas species in IMAGE 2.2
• biomass burning from deforestation (CO2,CH4, CO,
  NOx, VOC)
• biomass burning from fuel wood (CO2, CH4, CO,
  NOx, VOC)
• timber pools (CO2)
• savanna burning (CH4, CO, NOx, VOC)
• agricultural waste burning (CH4, CO, NOx, VOC)
• crop residues (N2O, NOx)
• landfills (CH4)
• domestic sewage treatment (CH4, N2O)
• wetland rice fields (CH4)
• livestock production(CH4)
• animal waste (CH4, N2O)
• crop production (N2O, NOx)
• post-clearing effects (N2O)
• biological N fixation (N2O)
• C sequestration and biofuels
• Sources printed in red are included in WP2b

6
(No Transcript)
7
Baseline scenario crop production
Synthetic N fertiliser
Arable land
N2O emission
Crop yields
8
Milk production /head
Feed per head
9
Cost calculations

• Costs considered
• private costs
• direct costs involved
• net costs
• Net costs, therefor direct benefits or savings
  are part of it as well, like energy savings for
  example
• Use discount rate of 10 Percent
• Use 1995 U or 1999 EURO

10
(No Transcript)
11
MAC curves
12
Costing method (I)

• 1. Reference emission scenario for view years
  (2010 and 2030) from IMAGE
• 2. Emission abatement measures
• 3. Costing methodology comprises
• (i) Relevant model parameters for each option,
  i.e. (i) (Investments and OM) (ii) The operation
  lifetime of an abatement option (iii) Discount
  rate and, (iv) Annual quantity of pollutant
  abated

13
Costing method (II)

• 4. Annualize the present value of the total cost
  stream over operating life
• COSTsTOT (a COSTsINV COSTsOM)
• With
• COSTsTOTyearly total costs
• COSTsINV yearly investment costs
• COSTsOM)yearly operation and maintenance costs
• The annuity factor
• a Annuity factor r/(1-(1r)-n)
• r discount rate (in per year)
• n operating lifetime (in years)

14
Costing method (III)
5. Net marginal costs COSTsNET COSTsTOT
COSTsSAV with COSTsNET COSTsTOT
COSTsSAV COSTsNET Net costs of emission
reduction of substance (Euro/tonne/yr) COSTsTOTco
sts of emission reduction of substance
(Euro/tonne/yr) COSTsSAVcosts avoided of
emission reduction of substance
(Euro/tonne/yr) 6. QA, the quantity of pollutant
S abated in year t, derived from - Emission
scenario for view year -The maximum
reduction potential (technically) of the ERM
-Share in sector or source
-Implementation degree of the measure in the view
year 7. Normalize the annualized cost of each
option to the resulting emission reduction MCs
(a COSTsINV COSTsOM) / QAt
15
MAC construction, preliminary results

• Examples
• CH4 - emissions from landfills
• Emission Reduction measures (ERMs)
• Carbon - sink
• C-sequestration via Forestation

16
Example Landfill
17
C/E Individual ERMs
18
C/E of mixture of ERM
19
Example Forestation
20
(No Transcript)
21
(No Transcript)
22
Conclusions

• Emission scenario, ...
• Emission projection
• ERM, Options
• Abatement costs