Sergey Paltsev
MassachusettsInstitute of Technology
Low-Carbon Russia: Myth or Reality?
Moscow, RussiaJanuary 15, 2015
http://globalchange.mit.edu/
Setting
2
Russia’s share in global energy use – 5.5%, in global GHG emissions – about 4%.
Low-Carbon Options:
Nuclear, Hydro, Wind, Solar, Biomass, CCS
2011 global shares of energy use: Oil – 31%; Coal – 29%, Natural Gas – 21%; Bioenergy – 10%, Nuclear – 5%; Hydro – 2%; Renewables – 1%.
2011 Russia’s shares of energy use: Natural Gas – 54%; Oil – 20%, Coal – 16%; Nuclear – 6%, Hydro – 2%, Bioenergy – 1%.
http://globalchange.mit.edu/
Setting: Energy Intensity - Energy Efficiency
3
Source: MIT Energy and Climate Outlook (2014)
While energy consumption will increase over time, energy use per unit of GDP generally decreases about 40% from 2010 to 2050. This reflects the improvement in energy-efficiency and rising energy prices caused by resource depletion and carbon policies.
http://globalchange.mit.edu/
Why to move to low-carbon?
4
Source: MIT Energy and Climate Outlook (2014)
http://globalchange.mit.edu/
Climate goals – which one?
5
Expected GHG Emissions from COP-21
Nature (2014), 514, 30-31.
Source: MIT Energy and Climate Outlook (2014)
http://globalchange.mit.edu/
Russia’s GHG Emissions
6
Data:1990-2012 UNFCCC
25% - 2013 President‘s Decree 752
40% - Comparable to the proposed EU reduction for 2030
Reference, Measures, Additional Measures – from Rosgidromet submission to UNFCCC
25 % Reductions from 1990 GHG including Land Use (Forestry change) – from Blue Curve.
Land Use and Forestry Change Emissions are more uncertain.
Projections for GHG are without Land Use here.
http://globalchange.mit.edu/
Projections
7
Pages 153-169
http://www.cenef.ru/file/CB-LCE-2014-rus.pdf
178 pages
http://globalchange.mit.edu/
GHG and GDP Growth Projections for Russia
8
GHG Emissions
Impact on Russian economy: more expensive energy and reduction in energy exports
MIT EPPA Model:Reference Scenario andClimate Stabilization
Global, Economy-Wide Model,captures impact on Economy.2030 Policy Cost: $60 billion
Real GDP growth – 5-year average
http://globalchange.mit.edu/
Energy Use in Russia
9
Note: These results are based on a stringent climate policy and the same carbon price in all countries (2030 - $75/tCO2, 2050 - $165/tCO2). The results depend on emission burden sharing between countries.
With different allocation the impact might be less dramatic, but a direction of the changes is the same. Russia is affected by higher energy costs for consumers and a loss of revenue from oil and gas exports.
Reference 2C Climate Policy
Source: Paltsev and Kalinina (2014)
http://globalchange.mit.edu/
Move to low-carbon energy
10
~3°C
Based on AR5 WGIII Figure 6.7Low climate stabilization scenarios are dependent on decarbonization
http://globalchange.mit.edu/
Plenty of carbon in the ground
11
Based on SRREN Figure 1.7
http://globalchange.mit.edu/
Rising GHG emissions in no-policy scenarios
12
Based on AR5 WGIII Figure TS.17
http://globalchange.mit.edu/
Mitigation requires dramatic changes
13
Based on AR5 WGIII Figure TS.17
http://globalchange.mit.edu/
No negative emission technologies in power sector imply more effort in other sectors
14
Based on AR5 WGIII Figure TS.17
http://globalchange.mit.edu/
Technology options are affected by policy instruments and cost assessments
15
Based on EPPA results for US CCSP (2007)
2004 – 2007 Optimism about CCS
Short-term increase in gas
By 2100 coal and gas with CCS and
Renewables
http://globalchange.mit.edu/
Technology options are affected by policy instruments and cost assessments
16
Based on EPPA results for US CCSP (2007)
2014 – Less optimism about CCS,More optimism on nuclear, renewables and energy efficiency
2050 global shares of generation: 2007 study –- fossil – 75%, renewables – 15%2014 study –- fossil – 30%, renewables – 50%
http://globalchange.mit.edu/
Technology options are affected by policy instruments and cost assessments
17
http://globalchange.mit.edu/
Different modeling groups - no dominant technology for de-carbonization
18
Based on AR5 WGIII Figure 7.11
http://globalchange.mit.edu/
Some low-carbon technologies can compete with conventional
19
Based on AR5 WGIII Figure 7.7
http://globalchange.mit.edu/
Moving to Low-Carbon: Example of the U.S. electricity price increases (relative to BAU)
20
EPPA:
Increase in 2050$60/MWh
MIT JP Report 173 (2009)
http://globalchange.mit.edu/
How to move to low-carbon energy?
21
http://globalchange.mit.edu/
Conclusions
22
Aggressive climate stabilization targets (2-3C) require drastic changes in power generation technology options
Future costs and the resulting technology mixes are uncertain
Policy: Target emissions reductions from any source, rather than focus on boosting certain kinds of renewable energy.
http://globalchange.mit.edu/
Conclusions for Russia
23
• Cost of climate policy is higher for a country that relies on fossil fuel exports and has a limited potential for renewable energy than for energy importing countries.
• Targets for GHG reduction should be milder than for other regions.
• Policy: Economic diversification (and nuclear energy expansion?).
• Low carbon Russia: nuclear, hydro, and electric cars? Not a near future.
• Carbon Policy: Carbon Tax
• Policy Design: “Хотели как лучше...”
Thank you
http://globalchange.mit.edu/
Questions or comments?Please contact Sergey Paltsev at [email protected].
24
Top Related