International Transport Energy Modeling (iTEM2): A comparison of national and international transport energy and climate policy strategies and scenarios Paul Natsuo Kishimoto 1 Sonia Yeh 2 Pierpaolo Cazzola 3 David Daniels 4 Jari Kauppila 5 Page Kyle 6 Lew Fulton 7 John Maples 8 David McCollum 9 Joshua Miller 10 Wei-Shiuen Ng 5 Robert Spicer 11 15 th IAEE European Conference, Vienna, AT Session 1H — 14:00–15:30, 04 September 2017 (1) Massachusetts Institute of Technology. (2) Chalmers University of Technology. Corresponding author: [email protected]. (3) International Energy Agency. (4) Energy Information Administration. (5) International Transport Forum. (6) Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. (7) University of California, Davis. (8) Energy Information Administration. (9) International Institute of Applied Systems Analysis. (10) International Council on Clean Transportation. (11) BP plc.
23
Embed
International Transport Energy Modeling (iTEM2): A comparison … · 2017. 9. 27. · International Transport Energy Modeling (iTEM2): A comparison of national and international transport
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
International Transport Energy Modeling (iTEM2): Acomparison of national and international transport energyand climate policy strategies and scenarios
Paul Natsuo Kishimoto1 Sonia Yeh2 Pierpaolo Cazzola3 David Daniels4Jari Kauppila5 Page Kyle6 Lew Fulton7 John Maples8 David McCollum9
Joshua Miller10 Wei-Shiuen Ng5 Robert Spicer11
15th IAEE European Conference, Vienna, ATSession 1H — 14:00–15:30, 04 September 2017(1) Massachusetts Institute of Technology. (2) Chalmers University of Technology. Corresponding author: [email protected]. (3) InternationalEnergy Agency. (4) Energy Information Administration. (5) International Transport Forum. (6) Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. (7) University ofCalifornia, Davis. (8) Energy Information Administration. (9) International Institute of Applied Systems Analysis. (10) International Council on CleanTransportation. (11) BP plc.
• Paris Agreement @ UNFCCC CoP21 sets up a new climate policy regime:• 5-year pledge & review cycles based on nationally determined contributions(NDC) of parties.
• Parties’ individual & joint assessment of individual & collective progress iscritical to future rounds of NDCs.
• (in parallel) Global agenda for sustainable transport development.• Economic & equity aspects, alongside the environmental.• Promoted by international groups, development banks, etc.
• Stakeholders use available reports/model outputs to inform expectations.• Likely/counterfactual outcomes under “business as usual.”• Impacts of proposed/hypothetical policies → what is achievable?• Divergence in these projections makes this assessment process difficult andcostly.
2
Motivation
• Paris Agreement @ UNFCCC CoP21 sets up a new climate policy regime:• 5-year pledge & review cycles based on nationally determined contributions(NDC) of parties.
• Parties’ individual & joint assessment of individual & collective progress iscritical to future rounds of NDCs.
• (in parallel) Global agenda for sustainable transport development.• Economic & equity aspects, alongside the environmental.• Promoted by international groups, development banks, etc.
• Stakeholders use available reports/model outputs to inform expectations.• Likely/counterfactual outcomes under “business as usual.”• Impacts of proposed/hypothetical policies → what is achievable?• Divergence in these projections makes this assessment process difficult andcostly.
2
Motivation
• Paris Agreement @ UNFCCC CoP21 sets up a new climate policy regime:• 5-year pledge & review cycles based on nationally determined contributions(NDC) of parties.
• Parties’ individual & joint assessment of individual & collective progress iscritical to future rounds of NDCs.
• (in parallel) Global agenda for sustainable transport development.• Economic & equity aspects, alongside the environmental.• Promoted by international groups, development banks, etc.
• Stakeholders use available reports/model outputs to inform expectations.• Likely/counterfactual outcomes under “business as usual.”• Impacts of proposed/hypothetical policies → what is achievable?• Divergence in these projections makes this assessment process difficult andcostly.
2
iTEM: International Transport Energy Modeling
• A consortium of groups that:• use models to project future transport activity,• globally and inclusive of all modes,• with a focus on energy use and GHG emissions (minimum), and otherenvironmental impacts.
• Groups contribute their model input assumptions and scenario results forinter-comparison and participate in interpretation.
Exxon ExxonMobilGET Chalmers UniversityStatoil StatoilITF ITFWEPS+ EIA World Energy Projection Sys-
tem Plus 4
iTEM2 expands the set of groups & models participating:
Including a wide set of participants that enrich the representations of modelingexpertise, scenarios, motivations, data sources, and discussions:
• A mix of groups:• National and international government organization—e.g. U.S. IEA, EIA.• NGOs, non-profits & think-tanks—e.g. ICCT, IEA, ITF-OECD.• Research/academic—e.g. Chalmers, UCDavis, IIASA, MIT, DOE PNNL.• Firms—e.g. BP, Shell, Statoil.
• Diverse research foci & scenarios (business strategy, IPCC support, academic),core model logic, methods, resolution, & sectoral/regional aggregation.
• Model source code, input data, and full-resolution outputs may each beeither public or proprietary, or in between.
5
Key findings from modelintercomparison
Key findings from model intercomparison
• Energy: largest variation across models for China, followed by U.S. andMiddle East.
• Policy scenario reductions become noticeable after 2030–2035; fossil fuelscontinue to dominate.
• Little decarbonization of fuels under business-as-usual.• CO2 levels higher than those identified by IEA ETP 2017 as necessary forglobal 2°C stabilization.
• Broad consensus: aviation, shipping & truck modes grow faster than LDVs.• Very wide variation in projections of per-capita vehicle ownership.
6
Global: Transport CO2 emissions remain high even in policy (2°C) scenarios
2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2050
6000
8000
10000
12000
TTW
emis
sion
s[M
tC
O2/y
ear]
ModelBP
GCAM
MESSAGE
MoMo
Roadmap
Shell
Scenariopolicy
reference
7
Global: Fossil liquids still the dominant fuel even in policy scenarios
0
50
100
150
200
EJ/y
ear
BP
FuelBiomass Liquids
Coal
Electricity
Fossil Liquids
Hydrogen
Natural Gas
Total Liquids
ExxonMobil GCAM GET MESSAGE MoMo Roadmap Shell WEPS+
policy
2010
2030
2050
0
50
100
150
200
2010
2030
2050
2010
2030
2050
2010
2030
2050
2010
2030
2050
2010
2030
2050
2010
2030
2050
2010
2030
2050
2010
2030
2050
reference
No peak in global oil demand(other than IEA MoMo policy).
Electricity, biomass, or naturalgas are likely to play small tomoderate roles after 2030. 8
Global: Aviation and freight are the fastest growing modes
0
50
100
150
200
250
EJ/y
ear
BP Mode2W and 3W
All
Aviation
Bus
Domestic Shipping
Freight Rail
Freight Rail and Air and Ship
HDT
International Shipping
LDV
Passenger Rail
Rail
EPPA5 ExxonMobil GCAM GET MESSAGE MoMo Roadmap Shell Statoil WEPS+
policy
2010
2030
2050
0
50
100
150
200
250
2010
2030
2050
2010
2030
2050
2010
2030
2050
2010
2030
2050
2010
2030
2050
2010
2030
2050
2010
2030
2050
2010
2030
2050
2010
2030
2050
2010
2030
2050
reference
9
Regional: Peak oil/fuel for the U.S. and EU-27
0
10
20
30
EJ/y
ear
BP
FuelAll
Biomass Liquids
Coal
Electricity
Fossil Liquids
Hydrogen
Natural Gas
Total Liquids
ExxonMobil GCAM MESSAGE MoMo Roadmap Shell WEPS+
policy
2010
2030
2050
0
10
20
30
2010
2030
2050
2010
2030
2050
2010
2030
2050
2010
2030
2050
2010
2030
2050
2010
2030
2050
2010
2030
2050
reference
USA
10
Regional: Peak oil/fuel for the U.S. and EU-27
0
5
10
15
20
EJ/y
ear
BP
FuelAll
Biomass Liquids
Coal
Electricity
Fossil Liquids
Hydrogen
Natural Gas
Total Liquids
ExxonMobil GCAM MESSAGE MoMo Roadmap Shell WEPS+
policy
2010
2030
2050
0
5
10
15
20
2010
2030
2050
2010
2030
2050
2010
2030
2050
2010
2030
2050
2010
2030
2050
2010
2030
2050
2010
2030
2050
reference
EU-27
10
Regional: Greater uncertainty for China—policy scenario & travel modes
0
10
20
30
40
EJ/y
ear
BP
FuelAll
Biomass Liquids
Coal
Electricity
Fossil Liquids
Hydrogen
Natural Gas
Total Liquids
ExxonMobil GCAM MESSAGE MoMo Roadmap Shell WEPS+
policy
2010
2030
2050
0
10
20
30
40
2010
2030
2050
2010
2030
2050
2010
2030
2050
2010
2030
2050
2010
2030
2050
2010
2030
2050
2010
2030
2050
reference
11
Regional: Greater uncertainty for China—policy scenario & travel modes
• The key strength of iTEM is the diversity in models, expertise, participants,scenarios, and objectives.
• Several aspects of modeling methods complicate comparison:• Use of different historical baselines, exogenous projections, t0/base years, GHGaccounting conventions.
• Broadly different policy scenarios chosen for distinct purposes → feasiblecomparison is more qualitative than quantitative.
• Options for significantly reducing transport GHGs, e.g.• behavioural change,• new transport technologies & business models (AV, MaaS), or• large-scale & high carbon prices
…will add to uncertainty; each modeling group may incorporate thesedifferently, possibly increasing inter-model divergence.
13
iTEM3+ methodology / future work
Enhancements of the iTEM intercomparison method can improve themeta-knowledge about transport energy projections that is available tostakeholders:
Flexibility. Ingest groups’ new model results or scenarios more frequently,instead of biannual update. Allow more diverse policy categories(partial NDC, full NDC, stringent). Sensitivity to alternate input dataused in regional re-aggregation.
Automation. Script all participants’ transformation of model outputs to iTEMdatabase inputs. Expose assumptions in this process.
Calibration. Work ongoing to ensure models have access to more consistentbase year data.
Common policies. As in other model intercomparisons, pre-defined scenarioscan be implemented to better compare policy response. 14