http://ampere-project.eu/web/

http://www.feem-project.net/limits/

AMPERE AND LIMITS
Shuichi Ashina
National Institute for Environmental Studies

The 17th AIM International Workshop (17-19 February, 2012)
At Ohyama Memorial Hall, National Institute for Environmental Studies

212/02/18

AMPERE: Overview• AMPERE = Assessment of Climate Change Mitigation Pathways andEvaluation of the Robustness of Mitigation Cost Estimates• Coordinated by PIK (Project chair: Ottmar Edenhofer; Project Director: Elmar

Kriegler). The SC includes Detlef van Vuuren (Universiteit Utrecht), KeywanRiahi (IIASA), Pantelis Capros (ICCS) and Valentina Bosetti (FEEM).
• Objective: Improve knowledge on climate change mitigation costs bybetter integrating climate and economic models and systematicallycomparing the economic components of these models.
• Expected impact: Better quantify the costs of climate change

mitigation within an inter-comparison framework; increased
consistency in cost-related information for policy making. Provide
input to international assessments including the 5th IPCC report.

3

12/02/18

AMPERE: Modeling Platform• For the first time bringing together European groups with10 global and 6 EU27 energy-economy / integrated
assessment models(PIK, IIASA, U Utrecht, FEEM, ICCS, CIRED, PSI, IPTS, LEPII UGrenoble, Enerdata, IPTS, IER U Stuttgart, EEG TU Wien,ERASME)• Plus 5 groups from China (ERI), India (IIM), Japan (NIES,RITE), USA (PNNL)• Plus 2 climate modeling groups (ClimateAnalytics, HadleyCentre)• Brussels think tank CEPS for dissemination

4

12/02/18

AMPERE:
Research Questions and 7 Working Packages
How sensitive are mitigation scenarios and costs tomodel assumptions and structural differences, and why?
Model transparency, validation, diagnostics, benchmarking andcomparison (all WPs, particular WP4)
How are mitigation scenarios and costs affected by
Feedbacks in the climate response (WP1)Technology availability and planning horizons (WP2)
Fragmented climate policy (WP3)What are the implications for climate policy, particular for
the EU27? (WP5 & 6)

5

12/02/18

AMPERE: Project Structure
WP7: Management
WP6: Stakeholder involvement and dissemination of results

WP leaders:

WP4: Mitigation pathways under climate, technology
and policy constraints in context
Global model harmonisation, validation andbenchmarkingWP1:
The role ofclimate systemrepresentation
for mitigation
pathways

WP2:
The role ofpathdependency
in energysystems for
mitigation
pathways

WP3:
The role ofinflexible
carbonmarkets for
mitigation
pathways

PolicySynthesis ofresults fromglobal modelcomparisonsin WP1-3

Global boundary conditions for Europe

WP5: Decarbonisation scenarios for Europe

Implications

WP 1: UU (van Vuuren)
WP 2: IIASA (Riahi)
WP 3: PIK (Kriegler)
WP 4: PIK, IIASA, UU
WP 5: ICCS (Kapros)
WP 6: FEEM (Bosetti)
WP 7: PIK (Reuster)6

12/02/18

LIMITS and Partners• LIMITS = Low Climate Impact Scenarios and theImplications of Required Tight Emission ControlStrategies• Coordinated by FEEM (Coordination: Massimo Tavoni)• Partners: FEEM, IIASA, PIK, UU, LSE, ECN, JRC-IES,CEU, ERI, IIMA
• Associated Research Organizations: PNNL, NIES
• Advisory Board: Alessandro Lanza, Raymond Kopp, Bert Metz,Hans Holger Rogner

7

12/02/18

LIMITS: Objective• LIMITS' main objective is to provide an assessment of the emissions

reductions strategies at the level of the world and the major global
economies, and to assess their implementation in terms of:• Defining the feasibility of low carbon scenarios and the associated emission

reduction pathways according to different assumptions about technology availability,
policy regimes, implementation obstacles, and level of commitment at the regionallevel• Assessing the investment requirements to implement these transformation
pathways and the financing mechanisms such that these resources can be bestraised and allocated. Evaluating the national and international policies which areneeded to ensure that the transition to a low carbon energy infrastructure is attained
efficiently, given specific obstacles in the respective economies• Quantifying the changes in the energy infrastructure and land use which major
economies would need to implement to attain stringent climate policies, andassessing the feasibility and risks of such changes.
• Evaluating the linkages of climate policies with other pressing social andenvironmental issues such as energy security, air pollution and economic
development.

8

12/02/18

LIMITS: 7 Work Packages• WP1 - Global mitigation pathways for limiting global

temperature increase below 2°C• WP2 - Implementation in major economies: Policy, institutionaland financing needs• WP3 - Implementation in major economies: Changes to energy
infrastructure and land use patterns• WP4 - Multiple benefits of climate mitigation and implications
for development• WP5 - Policy Outreach• WP6 - Dissemination and Communication Strategy• WP7 - Project management912/02/18

AIM Model for AMPERE and LIMITS:
AIM/BCM[Global]• Participating Model: AIM/Backcasting Model [Global]• Model Type: Global bottom-up type model• Participating Modelers: Hiroto Shiraki, Shuichi Ashina,Toshihiko Masui and Mikiko Kainuma• Time Step: 5 years.
• Time Frame: Yr. 2005- Yr. 2050.
• Solution Type: Intertemporal optimization• Equilibrium Type: Partial equilibrium• Underlying Computing Framework: GAMS (GeneralAlgebraic Modeling System) with Excel VBA support

10

12/02/18

AIM Model for AMPERE and LIMITS:
Example of results from AIM/BCM[Global]
The impact of nuclear policy changes on climate change
mitigation policy in Asia
• CO2 Emission Constraint• A 2050 global emission limit of 50% reduction from 2005 levels.
• A cumulative CO2 emission by 1137 Gt-CO2.

Installed Plants

Construction Plants inAsia

ProposedPlants inAsia

Reference (Ref.)

Available

Available

Available

Increases by 95% in
2050

50% construction(50%)

Available

Available

NOT allowed

Fixed at the level in2005

No construction (0%)

Available

NOT allowed

NOT allowed

Fixed at the level in2005

Nuclear Scenario

Capacity Factor

1112/02/18

AIM Model for AMPERE and LIMITS:
Example of results from AIM/BCM[Global]
Primary Energy Consumption by scenario• Total primary energy consumption in 2050 is 1.68 times as much as that in 2005.
• The increases in energy consumption from nuclear, natural gas and solar areabout 0.9, 0.8 and 0.5 Gtoe, respectively.
• Nuclear constraint leads to energy shifts from nuclear to biomass and coal.
7

6Primary energy
consumption [Gtoe]

Ref Scenario

54
3
2
1

6
54
32
100

520
5020
4520
4020
3520
3020
2

520
2020
120
1

5020
0

Primary energy
consumption [Gtoe]

7

Ref.

50%
2050

0%

BiomassSolar
Wind
GeothermalHydro
Nuclear
GasOilCoal

1212/02/18

AIM Model for AMPERE and LIMITS:
Example of results from AIM/BCM[Global]
Electricity generation by scenario and by country in 2050
• Japan: Natural gas generation increases since there is no additional potentialof solar and wind.
• China: Wind and coal power generation increase and electricity demand isreduced.
• India: Hydro and coal power generation increase instead of nuclear powergeneration.
100500

80

400

60

200

20

10000
Ref. 50%0%India

400

300

40500

China
[Mtoe]

600

Japan[Mtoe][Mtoe]

120

300
200
1000Ref. 50%0%

Ref. 50%0%Biomass w/ CCS
Biomass w/o CCS
Solar w/ SB
Solar w/o SB
Wind w/ SB
Wind w/o SB
Geothermal
Hydro
NuclearGas w/ CCS
Gas w/o CCS
Oil w/ CCS
Oil w/o CCS
Coal w/ CCS

12/02/18

13

Thank you for your attention!
Your comments and suggestions are always welcome!
Contact: Shuichi Ashina (NIES)
ashina.shuichi@nies.go.jp+81-(0)29-850-2227