taiwan's ghg mitigation potentials and costs: an evaluation with the markal model

Copyright 2009 ITRI 工業技術研究院

Taiwan's GHG Mitigation Potentials and Costs:

An Evaluation with the MARKAL ModelSsu-Li, Chang

Professor, Institute of Natural Resource Management, National Taipei University, Taiwan

Miao-Shan, Tsai*Researcher, Industrial Technology Research Institute, Taiwan

PhD student, Institute of Natural Resource Management, National Taipei University, Taiwan

Tzu-Yar, LiuLead Engineer, Industrial Technology Research Institute, Taiwan

IEW2012, Cape Town, Jane 19-21, 2012 * Corresponding author

Copyright 2008 ITRI 工業技術研究院 2

Outline• Introduction• MARKAL-Taiwan Model• International GHG Reduction Trend• Scenarios and Assumptions• Simulation Results• Discussions• Conclusions


Introduction (1/2)• Taiwan is an island that lacks natural energy resources. It relied on

imported energy for 99.30% of its total supply, which comprises 91% fossil fuels and only 0.25% of renewable energy (MOEABOE, 2011).

• Taiwan ranked 23rd in the world for countries with the highest CO2 emission countries (IEA, 2011).

3

58.52

145.58

Source: MOEABOE, 2011.


Introduction (2/2)• Copenhagen Accord asks

– The Annex I countries to submit quantitative reduction commitment for 2020

– The non-Annex I countries to submit Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMAs)

• Taiwan also announced its NAMAs to international community – CO2 reduction target: 30% lower than REF in 2020

• Objective– Utilize MARKAL model to evaluate emission reduction on

Taiwan’s electricity, industrial, buildings, and transportation sectors.


• The Reference Energy System

MARKAL-Taiwan Model

5

Import

Mining

Export

Refineries

Fuel processing

Emissions Controls

End-Use

DevicesDemandStocks

Electricity

Heat

RESOURCES PROCESSES GENERATION ENERGY SERVICES

75 processestechnologies

63 generation technologies

256 demandtechnologies


International GHG Reduction Trend (1/2)

• International Low Carbon Society Scenario in 2025– CO2 Target: Lower than REF 0.7%~22%, lower than 2005 level

11%~32%– Energy intensity: 0.13~0.61 toe/US$– Energy per capital: 1.96~7.6 t CO2/per capita

WEO-2011 AEO-2011 Japan-2009 Korea -2008

New

Policies Scenario

450Scenario

NoSunset

Extended Policies

Technology Advance

Technology Advance (nine new nuclear plants)

Technology Advance

(substantial CO2

emission reduction)

(Energy intensity)

CO2 target

lower than REF(%)

9 21 0.7 4.6 13 13 22

lower than 2005(%)

27 -11 1.4 5.3 25 25 32

average energy

demand growth rare

(%) 1.5 Similar to REF

7% lower than REF -0.1% -0.1%

energy intensity in 2025

(toe/US$) 0.13 0.15 0.14 0.14 0.13 0.06 0.06 0.21

energy per capital in

2025

(tons/per capita) 1.96 2.24 7.60 7.56 7.29


• Energy Structure in 2025– WEO-2011 scenario: coal is the largest energy – AEO-2011, Japan-2009, and Korea-2008 scenarios: oil is the

largest energy

International GHG Reduction Trend (2/2)

Source: IEA(2011), USEIA(2011), NIES(2009), Korea(2008).


• Assumptions in MARKAL model

Scenarios and Assumptions (1/3)

Taiwan Import Energy PriceTaiwan Industrial Structure (%)

2011-2015 2016-2020 2021-2025 AverageGDP(%/year)

REF 5.30 3.61 2.63 3.54

GDPL 3.58 3.29 3.04 3.14Population (%/year) 0.31 0.21 0.09 0.23

Household (%/year) 1.63 1.41 1.23 1.5

Year First Secondary Tertiary

2010 1.49 30.95 67.56

2015 1.16 30.87 67.96

2020 1.46 30.51 68.03

2025 1.36 29.47 69.17

Year Crude oil(US2007/bl)

Coal(US2007/t)

Coke(US2007/t)

LNG(US2007/t)

2010 68.82 54.84 118.60 444.93

2015 102.93 56.52 119.73 470.082020 105.51 55.18 119.97 507.052025 109.97 56.19 124.33 549.15


Scenarios and Assumptions (2/3)• Key Scenario Assumptions

REF GDPL CH30 CHAM CL30 CLAM

GDP

Average grow rate 3.54%/y from 2009 to 2025

Average grow rate 3.14%/y from 2009 to 2025

CO2 emission target

30% lower than in REF in 2020 - -

Largest reduction amount in 2020

Return to 2000 emission level (214 Mt) in 2025

LNGmaintain at 2008’s level(822 Mt)

up to 1400 Mt in 2020

Renewable energy

Maintain at 2008’s level: total 2934.9 MW

Accumulated installed capacity is 6,388MW in 2020


REF GDPL CH30 CHAM CL30 CLAM

Energy saving

Energy tech. efficiency improve 0.4%/yr from 2009 ~ 2025

high efficiency technology

Nuclear energy

NPP1~ NPP3 normal decommission- ing

NPP 1~ NPP3 extend service

NPP4 is deemed as the reduction measure

NPP4 operation

Coal-fired unit installedwith CCS (carbon removal efficiency 90%) device

Scenarios and Assumptions (3/3)


Simulation results(1/8)

• CO 2 emission pathways in each scenario


Simulation results(2/8)• Energy Supply Structure

– The Energy supply growth rate from 2008 to 2025• REF and GDPL: 1.8%/y~2.4%/y • Four reduction scenarios: 1.3%/y ~1.5%/y

– The reduction scenario’s• Total energy supply in 2020 and 2025 are reduced by about 12% relative

to REF. • Coal and oil demand proportion more than 87% in REF, thus the

proportion of reduction scenario must be reduced to 73% ~ 76%.


Simulation results(3/8)• Power generation structure

– Electricity demand growth rate • The REF and GDPL scenarios: 3.7%/y ~5.6%/y till 2025 • Four reduction scenarios decrease to 2%/y ~2.6%/y

– Increase electricity consumption ratio through fuel change choices. Nuclear, gas or coal power generation as the base load unit.



• Sector energy demand in 2025– Industry:

• REF and GDPL scenarios: the oil ratios provided 22.3% • Reduction scenarios: the oil ratios provided 30%

Industry Sector



– Buildings: • REF and GDPL scenarios: electricity provided 71%

• Reduction scenarios: Natural gas will replace electricity and oil is due

to natural gas target.

Buildings Sector


– Transport: • REF and GDPL scenarios: Traditional fossil oils provided 97%

• Reduction scenarios: Traditional fossil oils are replaced under given

biomass energy targets in order to reduce the greenhouse gas

emissions


Transport Sector



• Total incremental cost in Reduction scenarios– 2015: increases 27% relative to REF– 2020: increase 20%~21% relative to REF – 2025: increase 2%~7% relative to REF – the accumulated incremental cost will be 9%~14% relative to

REF.


Simulation results(8/8)• CO2 Index in Reduction Scenarios

– The per capita emission in 2020 are between 11.1~14.4 tons/per capita, and 9.5 tons/ per capita in 2025.

– The emission intensity are between 0.46~0.54 g/US$ in 2020 , and between 0.31~0.33 g/US$ in 2025.

– The energy intensity in 2020 are between 0.23~0.28 toe/US$ and 0.22 toe/US$ in 2025.

Year REF GDPL CLAM CHAM CL30 CH30 Energy CO2 Total Amount (Mt)

2020 467 420 255 259 299 330

2025 532 489 214 214 214 214

Per Capita Emission of CO2(tons/ per capita)

2020 20.4 18.3 11.1 11.3 13.0 14.4

2025 23.7 21.8 9.5 9.5 9.5 9.5

Emission Intensity (g/US$)

2020 0.76 0.76 0.46 0.47 0.49 0.54

2025 0.76 0.76 0.33 0.33 0.31 0.31

Energy Intensity (toe/US$)

2020 0.30 0.33 0.28 0.28 0.23 0.23

2025 0.30 0.24 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22


Discussions (1/2)

• The energy demand growth rate– REF and GDPL scenarios : more than 1.8%/y– Reduction scenario: decreases to 1.4%/y, close to the growth rate

in WEO-2011.• CO2 reduction ratio

– In 2025 a decrease of 56~60% relative to the baseline scenarios, and decrease of 15% relative to 2005 level

– This result is higher than Kyoto targets of Annex I countries, and also higher than reported in WEO-2011 and AEO-2011 scenarios.

• The total incremental cost – The accumulated incremental cost will be 9%~14% relative to

REF.


Discussions (2/2)

• Energy intensity – Taiwan’s is higher than in WEO-2011, AEO-2011, and Japan-2009

scenarios– Near Korea-2008 scenario

• the Per capita emission – Taiwan’s is also higher than WEO-2011 and AEO-2011 scenarios

• Because – 98% of Taiwan’s energy system relies on imports from oversea

sources– Limited natural endowments of domestic renewable energy– Limitation of imported natural gas– Nuclear power and oil accounts for high proportions in energy

demand structure– Renewable energy only accounts for a small ratio in power

generation structure


Conclusions• Taiwan CO2 reduction target is higher than in both WEO

scenario and AEO scenario• Taiwan total accumulated incremental cost increase will

be 9%~14% relative to REF• For Taiwan, it is very difficult to reach the reduction target

just by relying on mitigation technology. • It is also necessary to allow Taiwan to participate in

international flexible mechanisms. • Such participation will also benefit the international

community’s GHG reduction efforts tremendously.


Acknowledgements• We would like to thank the Bureau of Energy for financial

support in building Taiwan MARKAL model.• We thank Yu-Feng Chou, Jing-Wei Kuo, Kuei-Lan Chou,

Ming-Lung Hsu, and Shu-Yi Ho of MARKAL working group in Industrial Technology Research Institute (ITRI) for the research reported here.

• We thank Dr. Wei Ming Huang for his valuable suggestions.

• Also we thank Jin-Shiuan Li, Ming-Chih Chuang, Chin-Wei Wu, Chi-Liang Tsai , Su-Chen Weng of Bureau of Energy for additional support.

22


Miao-Shan, TsaiResearcherGreen Energy & Environment Research LaboratoriesIndustrial Technology Research InstituteE-mail: [email protected].

Thank you for your attention !

23


Appendix

24


Model Background• ITRI established MARKAL-Taiwan model since 1993

supported by ETSAP Outreach Program and Bureau of Energy, Ministry of Economic Affairs.

• Major Application– The annual energy outlook – The main analytic results includes:

• Energy supply outlook, Energy demand outlook, Power capacity, Electricity Structure, Energy intensity, CO2 intensity, Per capita CO2 emission.

• To evaluate the benefits and costs of CO2 mitigation strategies, and make comparison with other nations.

• To analyze the impacts of energy conservations and renewable energy development strategies on the future energy structure and GHG emissions of Taiwan.

25

taiwan's ghg mitigation potentials and costs: an evaluation with the markal model

Documents