RAINS review 2004 The RAINS model: The approach. Cost-effectiveness needs integration Economic/energy development (projections) State of emission controls,

RAINS review 2004

The RAINS model:

The approach

Cost-effectiveness needs integration

• Economic/energy development (projections)

• State of emission controls, available technologies, costs

• Atmospheric processes

• Environmental sensitivities

The RAINS model:Scenario analysis mode

Energy/agriculture projections

Emissions

Emission control options

Atmospheric dispersion

Costs

Driving forces

Health & environmental impact indicators

A multi-pollutant/multi-effect framework

Primary PM

Health impacts:- PM

SO2 NOx VOC NH3

via secondary aerosols

Acidification

Eutrophication

- Ozone

Vegetation damage: - Ozone

RAINS: A modular approach

Economicactivities

Emission controlpolicies

Agriculture

NOx emissions

SO2 emissions

Solvents, fuels,industry

Energy use

NH3 dispersion

S dispersion

VOC emissions

NH3 emissions

Transport

Critical loadsf. acidification

Critical loads f.eutrophication

NOx dispersion

O3 formation

NH3 control& costs

NOx/VOC control&costs

VOC control& costs

Emission control costs

Critical levelsfor ozone

Environmentaltargets

Primary PM dispersionOther activities PM control

& costs

Primary PM emissions

Secondary aerosols

PM Population exposure

SO2 control& costs

NOx control& costs

O3 Populationexposure

Economicactivities

Emission controlpolicies

Agriculture

NOx emissions

SO2 emissions

Solvents, fuels,industry

Energy use

NH3 dispersion

S dispersion

VOC emissions

NH3 emissions

Transport

Critical loadsf. acidification

Critical loads f.eutrophication

NOx dispersion

O3 formation

NH3 control& costs

NOx/VOC control&costs

VOC control& costs

Emission control costs

Critical levelsfor ozone

Environmentaltargets

Primary PM dispersionOther activities PM control

& costs

Primary PM emissions

Secondary aerosols

PM Population exposure

SO2 control& costs

NOx control& costs

O3 Populationexposure

Environmental impacts

Integrated assessment in CAFE with the RAINS model

Energy/agriculture projections

Emissions

Emission control options

Atmospheric dispersion

Health and environmental impacts

Environmental targets

Costs OPTIMIZATION

Driving forces

BASELINE SCENARIO

Per-capita costs Scenario H1

EU-15

UK

Sweden

SpainPortugal

Netherlands

Luxembourg

ItalyIreland

Greece

Germany

FranceFinland

Denmark

Belgium

Austria

0

100

200

300

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5

Average ozone population exposure index of REF(ppm.h)

Tota

l em

issi

on

co

ntr

ol c

ost

s/ca

pit

a (E

UR

O/y

r)

H1

REF

Uniform or effect-based scenarios?

REF

G5/3

G5/2

G5/1

UNIFORMPER CAPITAEMISSIONS

UNIFORM% REDUCTION

0

5

10

15

20

200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600

Population exposure index (million persons.ppm.hours)

Co

sts

ab

ov

e R

EF

( Bil

lio

n E

UR

O/y

r)

Cost-effectiveness vs. cost-benefit

Cost-effectiveness:

• Find least-cost solution to achieve exogenously given environmental policy targets.

• Decision makers set targets and decide about appropriate balance with costs

Cost-benefit analysis:

• The optimal balance between costs and measures is internalized by the model.

• No room for exogenous decision maker.

• Consensus on quantification of benefits required.

The cost-effectiveness approach

Decision makers

Decide about•Ambition level (environmental targets)

•Level of acceptable risk

•Willingness to pay

Models help to separate policy and technical issues:

Models

Identify cost-effective and robust measures:

• Balance controls over different countries, sectors and pollutants

• Regional differences in Europe

• Side-effects of present policies

• Maximize synergies with other air quality problems

• Search for robust strategies

System boundaries

Driving forces of air pollution (energy use, transport, agriculture)

• are driven by other issues, and• have impacts on other issues too.

• Critical boundaries:– Greenhouse gas emissions and climate change policies– Agricultural policies– Other air pollution impacts on water and soil (nitrogen

deposition over seas, nitrate in groundwater, etc.)– Quantification of AP effects where scientific basis is not

robust enough

Interactions between emission controls for air pollution and greenhouse gases

A “sneak preview” of the RAINS extension to GHGs

Reference case (REF)

• “Pre-Kyoto” energy projections for 2020

• Air pollution control according to recent EU legislation (NEC Directive, LCP Directive, Auto-Oil, etc.)

Scenario 1

CO2 control in the power sector

• Cost-effective measures to reduce CO2 emissions in the power sector by 15 %

• Subject to exogenous electricity demand

• Recent EU legislation for air pollutants

CO2 reduction measures applied in Scenario 1

-60% -40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Wind, solar

Biomass

Hydro

Gas

Hard coal

Brown coal

cf. REFScenario 1

Changes in emissionscompared to REF, EU-23

CO2

[Mt]

NOx

[kt]

SO2

[kt]

PM2.5[kt]

-250

-200

-150

-100

-50

0

1 2 3 NL

-250

-200

-150

-100

-50

0

-40

-20

0

20

40

-250

-200

-150

-100

-50

0

1 2 3 NL

Netherlands’ total emissions (grey) are shown for reference

Emission control costs(billion €/yr, compared to REF)

Control of Scenario 1

CO2 +3.5

CH4 0

GHGs +3.5

SO2 -1.4

NOx -0.3

PM -0.6

Air pollutants -2.3

Total +1.2

Differences in premature deaths (cases/year, compared to REF)

-4000

-3000

-2000

-1000

0

1000

1 2 3

Scenario 2

Multi-GHG control

• In each country, the equivalent CO2 reductions of Scenario 1 are achieved with CO2 and CH4 controls

• Recent EU legislation for air pollutants

CO2 reduction measures applied in Scenarios 1 and 2

-60% -40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Wind, solar

Biomass

Hydro

Gas

Hard coal

Brown coal

cf. REFScenario 2 Scenario 1

CH4 reduction measures applied in Scenario 2

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

Paper recycling

Improved feed conversion efficiency

Decreased gas flaring

Improved I&M for gas distribution

Use gas in oil extraction

Gas recovery coal mines

Increased gas utilization

Ban agricultural waste burning

Further increased gas utilization

Housing adaptation

Alternative rice strains

Digestion

Integrated waste water systems

Doubling leak control frequency

Other waste diversion

Replacement of grey cast iron network

Propionate precursors

MtCO2eq

-250

-200

-150

-100

-50

0

1 2 3 NL

-250

-200

-150

-100

-50

0

-40

-20

0

20

40

-250

-200

-150

-100

-50

0

1 2 3 NL

Changes in emissionscompared to REF, EU-23

CO2

[Mt]

NOx

[kt]

SO2

[kt]

PM2.5[kt]

Netherlands’ total emissions (black) are shown for reference

CH4

Emission control costs(billion €/yr, compared to REF)

Control of Scenario 1 Scenario 2

CO2 +3.5 +2.1

CH4 0 -1.2

GHGs +3.5 +0.9

SO2 -1.4 -1.2

NOx -0.3 -0.2

PM -0.6 -0.4

Air pollutants -2.3 -1.8

Total +1.2 -0.9

Scenario 3

Increased biomass use in households

• Shift to biomass use for domestic heating:10% of light fuel oil is replaced by biomass

-250

-200

-150

-100

-50

0

1 2 3 NL

-250

-200

-150

-100

-50

0

-40

-20

0

20

40

-250

-200

-150

-100

-50

0

1 2 3 NL

Netherlands’ total emissions (black) are shown for reference

CO2

[Mt]

NOx

[kt]

SO2

[kt]

PM2.5[kt]

Changes in emissionscompared to REF, EU-23

CH4

Differences in premature deaths(cases/year, compared to REF)

-4000

-3000

-2000

-1000

0

1000

1 2 3