International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA)
State of model development:
RAINS/GAINS
M. Amann, W. Asman, I. Bertok, A. Chambers, J. Cofala,
F. Gyarfas, C. Heyes, L. Hoglund, Z. Klimont, M. Makowski,
P. Rafaj, M. Posch, R. Sandler, P. Tramberend, F. Wagner,
W. Winiwarter
Current/recent activities
Completed:
• Revised web interface
• Bilateral consultations with 21 EU-MS, N, CH, RUS, UKR
Ongoing:
• Development of NEC/CLTRAP baseline
• Update of agricultural module
• Improved methodologies and estimates and for ship
emissions
EC4MACS proposal for LIFE+ funding (2006-2011):
– Consortium of modelling teams including IIASA, MSC-W, CCE,
NTUA, UniBonn, LAUTh, AEAT, for CAFE+ECCP reviews in 2011
The GAINS model: The RAINS multi-pollutant/ multi-effect
framework extended to GHGs
Multiple benefits
Economic synergies between emission control measures
Health
Health impacts:
impacts:
PM
PM
O
O3
PM
PM
SO
SO22
NO
NOxx
VOC
VOC
NH
NH33




















3
Vegetation
Vegetation damage:
damage:
O3
O
3


Acidification
Acidification
Eutrophication
Eutrophication



- via OH

N2O







CH4
Physical
interactions


Radiative forcing:
- direct
- via aerosols
CO2
CFCs
HFCs
SF6







Progress with GAINS(-Europe)
Approach:
• Baseline case without carbon price
• Potential and costs for structural changes (fuel switching,
energy conservation, etc.) derived from scenarios with
carbon prices
• Input: PRIMES scenarios with 0, 20, 50 and 90 €/t CO2
Current status:
• Co-evaluation of emission changes and AQ impacts
completed
• First provisional results from optimization module:
– EU-25, 2020
– Based on PRIMES calculations for CAFE (30 $ oil price)
– Some important measures not yet implemented in GAINS
(co-generation, IGCC+CC, biofuel gasification, etc.),
thus all results might change
Some provisional general findings
• The RAINS definition of MTFR is much more restrictive than
PRIMES. To reproduce the measures of the PRIMES 90 €/t
CO2 scenario, additional potentials had to be introduced in
GAINS (e.g., premature scrapping)
• Most “non-technical” measures come – for AQ targets –
before or after the traditional RAINS cost curves
• Conceptual problem with treatment of negative costs:
– Interpretation of negative cost measures (or of the costing
concept) has crucial impacts on results of cost-effectiveness
analysis
– “Benchmark case” (with all zero cost measures adopted) taken
as reference point.
Provisional optimization results
1. Allocation of GHG mitigation to different gases
2. Changes in AP emissions with GHG mitigation
3. Co-benefits on air quality from GHG mitigation
4. CLE costs as a function of GHG mitigation
5. Costs for tightened AP and/or GHG targets
– Additional costs for AP targets
– Additional costs for GHG targets
– Cost savings from an integrated approach
Cost-effective GHG reductions, EU10, 2020
GAINS interpolations between PRIMES scenarios for 0 and 90 €/t CO2
GHG reduction relative to benchmark
(Mt CO2eq)
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
Carbon price (Euro/ton CO2)
CO2
CH4
N2O
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
Air pollutant emissions (with fixed AP legislation)
as a function of CO2 mitigation (EU-25, 2020)
Air pollutant emissions relative to benchmark
100%
95%
20 EUR/t CO2
30 EUR/t CO2
90%
50 EUR/t CO2
85%
SO2
NOx
PM2.5
80%
80%
82%
84%
86%
88%
90%
92%
94%
GHG emissions relative to benchmark
96%
98%
100%
Co-benefits of GHG mitigation on AQ impacts
Provisional GAINS estimates, EU-25, 2020
80%
60%
40%
20%
YOLLs
Residual
Acidification
Scope from technical AP measures
-20% GHG
Eutrophication
15% GHG
-10% GHG
GHG
measures
AP
measures
GHG
measures
AP
measures
GHG
measures
AP
measures
GHG
measures
0%
AP
measures
Effect indicator of benchmark scenario
100%
Ozone
-5% GHG
AP control costs (for current legislation CLE)
(SO2, NOx, PM) as a function of CO2 mitigation (EU-25, 2020)
50
Billion €/yr
45
40
35
30
-20% GHGs
-15% GHGs
-10% GHGs
Air pollution control costs
-5% GHGs
GHG Benchmark
Costs of GHG mitigation and CLE AP control
relative to benchmark. Provisional GAINS results (EU25, 2020)
50
40
Billion €/yr
30
50 €/t CO2
20
10
20 €/t CO2
0
-10
-20% GHGs
-15% GHGs
Gross GHG mitigation costs
-10% GHGs
-5% GHGs
Avoided AP control costs
GHG Benchmark
Net costs
Costs for further GHG and/or AP controls
Provisional GAINS results (EU25, 2020)
Costs (billion €/yr)
60
50
50-60
40-50
30-40
20-30
10-20
0-10
40
30
20
10
-20%
-15%
-10%
0
95
100
-5%
105
110
Health target (million YOLLs)
Benchmark
115
None
GHG
mitigation
Costs for AQ improvements at different GHG levels
“Air pollution-centric” perspective (AQ improvements after GHG measures)
AP control costs relative to benchmark case
“Air pollution-centric” perspective (AQ improvements after GHG measures)
Provisional GAINS estimates, EU-25, 2020
25
20
Billion €/yr
15
10
5
0
-5
-10
95
100
105
110
115
No constraint
Health target (million life years lost)
Benchmark
-5% GHGs
-10% GHGs
-15% GHGs
-20% GHGs
AP control costs relative to benchmark case
Integrated perspective (solid lines) vs. AP only perspective (dashed)
Provisional GAINS estimates, EU-25, 2020
25
20
Billion €/yr
15
10
5
0
-5
-10
95
100
105
110
115
No constraint
Health target (million life years lost)
Benchmark
-5% GHGs
-10% GHGs
-15% GHGs
-20% GHGs
Series9
Cost savings from an integrated approach
Provisional GAINS estimates, EU-25, 2020
6
5
Billion €/yr
4
3
2
1
0
95
100
105
110
115
Health targets (million YOLLs)
-5% GHGs
-10% GHGs,
-15% GHGs
-20% GHGs
No constraint
Costs for GHG mitigation for different AQ targets
The “climate-centric” perspective (GHG mitigation after AQ policy)
Additional GHG mitigation costs for different AQ targets
Provisional GAINS estimates
45
40
35
Billion €/yr
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
-5
-20% GHGs
-15% GHGs
-10% GHGs
-5% GHGs
Target on air pollution impacts (million YOLLs):
None
115
110
105
100
95
GHG Benchmark
Further work and outlook
• Inclusions of further measures for co-control
(CHP, IGCC, gasification of biomass, etc.)
• Improved treatment of “negative cost measures”
• Link to recent PRIMES calculations
• Documentation
• As of end 2006, GAINS will be operational for EU-25:
– AP only mode – the traditional “RAINS” approach
– AP including structural measures (“extended RAINS”)
– Targets for GHGs only
– Joint targets for AP and GHGs
• For policy application of GAINS, review of national
substitution potentials and costs necessary
Conclusions
• All quantitative results are provisional
• There are physical and economic interactions between the
control of air pollution emissions and GHG mitigation
• If these problems are considered separately:
– From the an air pollution perspective:
• Baseline AP emissions, impacts and control costs (for fixed AP
legislation) depend on the level of GHG mitigation
• Costs of strengthened AQ policies depend on the level of GHG
mitigation
• Further AP control strategies have co-benefits on GHG mitigation
costs.
– From a climate perspective:
• GHG mitigation costs depend on the level of AP control
• GHG mitigation costs have co-benefits on AQ impacts
• An integrated approach could reduce total GHG and AP
control costs