03.01.2014 Views

sectoral economic costs and benefits of ghg mitigation - IPCC

sectoral economic costs and benefits of ghg mitigation - IPCC

sectoral economic costs and benefits of ghg mitigation - IPCC

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

Renewable Energy<br />

Table 6 World power generation by main technology<br />

World 1990 2010 2030 1990 2010 2030<br />

in TWh in %<br />

Electricity Generation in TWh 12102 20837 40668 100 100 100<br />

(y.a.g.r.) 2.8% 3.4%<br />

Thermal 7551 13813 30940 62.4 66.3 76.1<br />

<strong>of</strong> which:<br />

Clean Coal 0 1495 12011 0.0 7.2 29.5<br />

Gas Turbines 252 2983 9142 2.1 14.3 22.5<br />

Biomass 124 353 484 1.0 1.7 1.2<br />

Nuclear 2013 2466 3091 16.6 11.8 7.6<br />

Hydro+Geoth 2140 3248 4745 17.7 15.6 11.7<br />

Solar 1 5 15 0.0 0.0 0.0<br />

Wind 4 121 648 0.0 0.6 1.6<br />

Small Hydro 110 267 306 0.9 1.3 0.8<br />

CHP 284 917 923 2.3 4.4 2.3<br />

Source: POLES model<br />

However unlike for the 2010 horizon, the scenario assumes a participation <strong>of</strong> non-Annex B<br />

countries (broadly the developing world) in the climate change abatement process after 2020.<br />

Given the increasing importance <strong>of</strong> these countries as contributors to global emissions, it<br />

becomes clear that without their participation little meaningful impact would be possible on a<br />

global scale. Furthermore, emission permit trade (an option specifically acknowledged in the<br />

Kyoto Protocol) is assumed <strong>and</strong> extended to the whole world without distinction or limitation.<br />

This assumption ensured that abatement is carried out “cost efficiently” <strong>and</strong> also that the results<br />

obtained for the <strong>costs</strong> <strong>of</strong> meeting the target are free <strong>of</strong> “biases” introduced by the necessarily<br />

arbitrary nature <strong>of</strong> permit endowments, negotiated more on political rather than <strong>economic</strong><br />

grounds.<br />

The main assumptions <strong>of</strong> this scenario around which technological change is assessed in the<br />

following sections are radically different from the Reference Case:<br />

- for Annex B countries other than Eastern European countries, the Kyoto targets are<br />

identically replicated for the period 2010-2030, i.e., countries are expected to reduce or limit<br />

their emission growth between 2010 <strong>and</strong> 2030 by the same percentage as the Kyoto<br />

stipulation for the period 1990-2010;<br />

- for the countries in transition that are in Annex B, the 2030 target is assumed to be stability<br />

at the 1990 level <strong>of</strong> emissions.<br />

- as far as the rest <strong>of</strong> the World (non-Annex B) countries are concerned, for which the Kyoto<br />

conference assigned no targets for 2010, it is assumed that emissions targets would become<br />

operative only after 2020; these targets are assumed to ensure that world CO 2 emissions<br />

(including those targeted for Annex B countries) would stabilise at some level between 2020<br />

<strong>and</strong> 2030.<br />

Using the POLES model, the stabilisation level after 2020 comes out for a level <strong>of</strong> 9.6 billion<br />

tons <strong>of</strong> carbon; this translates into overall growth limitations to an increment <strong>of</strong> 43% for<br />

Developing Asia <strong>and</strong> 56% for the Rest <strong>of</strong> the World for the period 2010 to 2030.<br />

126

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!