GBD-MAPS working group meeting, IIT Bombay, January 18-19, 2016.

Emission projections of PM-2.5 and air pollutants from India (2015-2050)

Chandra Venkataraman, Mousumi Sarkar, Pankaj Sadavarte, Alok

Jhaldiyal

Department of Chemical Engineering Interdisciplinary Programme in Climate Studies Indian Institute of Technology Bombay

Goals

To combine energy scenarios with technology-linked emissions modelling to project Indian emissions 2015-2050.

Scenario building for future energy demand based on sectoral activity (or service demand) growth.

Scenario building for emissions under evolving technology mix, governed by environmental and energy legislation and policy.

Identifying sectors contributing largest shares to future emissions of PM-2.5 and its precursors.

Identifying policies and technology-shifts central to effective mitigation of PM-2.5 emissions.

Methodology

Diffusion model for sectoral activity growth

Sectoral growth rates (2015-30 and 2030-50). Evaluation with published activity/service demand growth factors.

Scenario building for technology mix evolution

S1 - BAU, 1995-2015 diffusion rates of clean technologies (e.g. SC in thermal power, PAT in industry, LPG in residential cooking, shift to BS-III vehicular standards).

S2 – EEE, expected efficiency and emission improvements, reflects current policy/legislation: national climate targets for GHG emissions (INDC in thermal power, industry), emission standards in transport, brick, targets in cookstoves initiative, clean technology diffusion rates 10% higher than S1.

S3 – HELE, high efficiency low emissions, large diffusion of clean technologies and practices, needs adoption of both air quality and climate policies for APs and SLCPs, currently not formulated.

Projection of future energy demand. Evaluation with literature on reference and low-carbon scenarios.

Technology linked emissions projections.

Sectoral activity or service demand growth (2005-2050)

Projections - annualised growth rates by sector, for 2015-30 and 2030-50 developed from

literature. Thermal power has >90% shift to non-fossil power (nuclear, hydro, renewables) – note log scale.

Growth rates differ in industrial sectors, highest in cement, almost stagnant in fertilizers beyond 2030.

Passenger km increase ~10 times, while freight increases ~ 5 times.

Residential growth tracks population projection at 1.25% per year.

Building sector (bricks) grows ~5 times till 2050, after including shift to cement blocks.

Non-fossil shares and tech-mix in 2030, 2050:

S1 - 30% and 40% (past 20y

rate of change).

S2 - 40% and 60% (India’s

INDC, 2015 ), Tech divisions,

IESS L2.

S3 - 75% and 80%, consistent

with low carbon scenarios with

carbon pricing and electricity

targets (Shukla and Chaturvedi,

2012; Anandarajah and

Gambhir, 2014). Tech divisions,

IESS L4.

Emission factors from

USEPA-AP42/EMEP for Indian

coal mean ash content of ~39%.

APCD: ESP-multiple cyclones

(for emission standard). For

sub-critical, assumption of 10%

time APCD not working

(uncontrolled emissions).

Technology mix evolution – thermal power

707 GW 1018 GW

707 GW 1018 GW

Transport Modal & technology shifts Transport

Modal shifts and emissions norms

(Guttikunda and Mohan, 2014; Auto Fuel

Policy, 2014 and IESS, NITI Aayog, 2014).

S1 – 80:20 private-public; GAS : DES :

CNG : ELE shares Level 2, IESS.

S2 – 72:25 private-public; GAS : DES :

CNG : ELE shares Level 3, IESS.

BS-IV in 2019, BS-V in 2024 and BS-VI in

2030.

S3 – 25% shift from private to public

passenger by 2030, further decrease at

same rate to 2050;

BS-IV in 2015, BS-V in 2020 and BS-VI in

2024; GAS : DES : CNG : ELE shares,

Level 4, IESS (cleanest).

Modal shifts 2030 26771 billion km 46131 billion km

2030

CNG, electric BS-III BS-V-VI

PUBLIC-passenger

Industries

Take

away

Technology mix evolution – industry

Energy efficiency in industry – PAT

scheme for each sector.

High levels ~80% already achieved in

heavy industry in 2014.

Light industry has low energy

efficiency and modest increases are

projected, because of scale.

Technology evolution – residential

MNRE - National Cookstoves

Initiative, 2010. Improved

cookstove targets with

implementation at state level.

National solar mission, 2014 -

solar lighting.

Cooking efficieny levels increase

by factors of ~4-5 by 2050 (IESS,

NITI Aayog, 2014).

S1: ~40% switch to gasifier

stoves, LPG/PNG and electricity;

~75% electric / solar lighting.

S2: ~60-70% switch to cleaner

stoves, >90% solar/electric

lighting.

S3: less than 40% and 20% use

of biomass cooking, cleaner

stoves, 100% switch to

solar/electric lighting.

Diesel generator sets continue to

provide decentralised power,

replaced only 5-20% by electricity.

Residential

Take

Away

Cooking 2030 326 million households 2050 362 million households

Lighting 2030 326 million households 2050 362 million households

2030 5.1 MT Diesel 2050 5.7 MT Diesel

2050 362 million households 2030 326 million households

Building material and technology shifts - Brick production

Current – clamps, BTKs. Intermediate - zig-zag fired BTK; Cleaner – non-fired blocks and VSBK (Roadmap for cleaner brick production, 2016, ongoing).

Shift to cement hollow-blocks ~ 25% in urban areas.

Diffusion of non-fired+VSBK, in 2030, 2050:

S1 – 15%, 40%; S2 – 35%, 65%; S3 – 60%, 90% (no traditional kilns remain in 2050)

MoEFCC proposed emission standards (2016) for BTK’s expected to provide push to zig-zag fired BTKs.

0.0 0.5 1.0 0.0 0.5 1.0

Take away

Brick production 652 billion bricks 1265 billion bricks

Take away

Growth tracks food production.

Cereal straws and sugarcane

waste assumed burned in field.

Shift from field burning to deep

sowing-mulching technology

Tractor-mounted machine that cuts

and lifts rice straws, sows wheat

into the bare soil, and deposits

the straw over the sown area as

mulch (helps to retain moisture

of the soil).

Reduces the time to sow wheat

without burning the rice straw

residue.

Technology available, however, no

increase in productivity or

profits. (Gupta, 2014).

Agricultural pumps: Almost 70%

electric present day; further

shifts to solar and electric

pumping.

Traditional practice and technology shifts - Agriculture

210 MT 171 MT

11 millions 13 millions

Residue Burning 2030

Agr. Pumps 2030

Energy demand evolution by sector

Energy demand harmonization with published scenarios for 2030, 2050:

S1 – 102 EJ; S2 – 82 EJ; S3 – 65 EJ

Literature reference scenario 95-110 EJ (Shukla et al. 2012; Parikh et al. 2012).

Low carbon pathways 45-55 EJ (Chaturvedi and Shukla, 2013; Anandarajah and Ganbhir,

2014). Power : Industry : transport : residential :: 20 : 25 : 10 : 5 EJ

S1 S2 S3

0

20

40

60

80

100

2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2010 2030 2050 2010 2030 2050 2010 2030 2050

100

80

60

40

20

0

Energy demand (EJ)

PM

2.5

em

issio

ns (

Tg/Y

r)

PM2.5 Emissions by sector: 2013, 2030, 2050

S1: Current legislation in TPP, IND, TRN. Current rates (past 20y) of diffusion cleaner technologies

in RES, BRK, no control on field burning:

Growth in PM2.5 emissions 7.2 Tg (2013) to 10.5 Tg (2030) and 17 Tg (2050).

S2: Envisaged policy and legislation in TPP, IND, TRN. Diffusion of cleaner technologies at 10%

higher than past 20y, in RES, BRK, no control on field burning.

Growth in PM2.5 emission from 7.2 Tg (2013) to 9.5 Tg (2030) and 10.5 Tg (2050).

S3: Low-carbon scenario assumptions for TPP, IND; best controls in TRN; high cleantech diffusion

in residential, bricks and informal industry, field burning controlled by 2030.

PM2.5 emissions reduced below present day levels to 4.5 Tg (2030) and 5 Tg (2050).

Notice the rising trend beyond 2040. Need tighter emissions controls in light industry to achieve

stabilisation.

2010 2030 2050 2010 2030 2050 2010 2030 2050

16

12

8

4

0

PM

2.5

em

issio

ns (

Tg/Y

r)

PM

2.5

em

issio

ns (

Tg/Y

r)

Difference S1-S2:

Mitigation achieved power

sector, in meeting INDC

goals by 2030 and continuing

on that trajectory to 2050.

RES/BRK, AGRI sectors

largely unmitigated.

Agricultural field burning not

regulated.

6 Tg mitigation, ~5 Tg from

TPP, 0.5 Tg RES, 0.25 Tg

BRK, 0.25 Tg IND+TRN.

Difference S1-S3:

Mitigation includes large

clean-tech interventions fin

RES, BRK and informal

industry.

No field burning by 2050.

12 Tg mitigation includes ~6

Tg from TPP and ~5 from

RES+AGRI, ~0.5 each from

BRK and IND+TRN.

PM2.5 mitigation needed by sector

PM2.5 emission mitigation in transport

Transport sector:

S1, S2 – current legislation and fuel policy lead to increases in emission (to 500-600 Gg) by

2030 and stabilisation to present day levels (450 Gg) by 2050.

S3 – Lage shift to public-passenger transport, large CNG/electric vehicle fractions and early

adoption of emission standards needed for reduction from 450 Gg (present day) to 225 Gg

(2050).

2010 2030 2050 2010 2030 2050 2010 2030 2050

SO

2 e

mis

sio

ns (

Tg/Y

r)

SO

2 e

mis

sio

ns (

Tg/Y

r)

NO

x e

mis

sio

ns (

Tg/Y

r)

NO

x e

mis

sio

ns (

Tg/Y

r)

SO2 and NOx mitigation needed by sector

SO2/NOx emissions, therefore, secondary SO4 and NO3 aerosol would be governed by TPP

and IND. How much of total PM-2.5 contributed by these species?

NMVOC, BC, OC Mitigation Em

issio

ns (

Tg

/Y

r)

Em

issio

ns (

Tg

/Y

r)

2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

0

20

10

0

2

1

0

2

1

3

0

20

10

0

2

1

0

2

1

3

NMVOC, BC and OC: All governed by RES & AGRI; NMVOC – TRN; BC - BRK Secondary organic aerosol (from NMVOC-NOx reactions) share of PM-2.5, impact of RES &

AGRI must be assessed.

Future scenarios, NOx increases expected, so controlling NMVOC becomes critical to both O3

and SOA related air quality.

Uncertainties and open questions

Current and envisaged legislation and policy not sufficient to reduce and stabilise future PM-2.5 emissions.

Lack of measured emission factors in all sectors biggest uncertainty.

Residential and agricultural sector emissions are not well constrained at present. But field emission factors are 2-5 times larger than those in lab, therefore, estimates more likely to increase than decrease.

Lack of solutions in residential cooking, need “ultra-low emissions biomass cookstoves.” Biomass use likely to continue.

Need policies that actually achieve published low-carbon-pathway transformations to reduce emissions from coal power.

How to best address residential biomass cooking? Health ministry, MNRE, business models …

Control of field burning offers one piece of mitigation. Needs economic incentive for technology adoption.