The GAINS optimization approach – Basic background information Fabian Wagner International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) IIASA workshop.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Purpose: Integrated assessment of options to control air pollution in Europe Model the full chain from sources to impacts Multi-effects: acidification,
Advertisements

IIASA Janusz Cofala, Markus Amann International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) Emission Projections for 2020 Results from a study for the.
Three policy scenarios for CAFE Markus Amann, Janusz Cofala, Chris Heyes, Zbigniew Klimont, Wolfgang Schöpp, Fabian Wagner.
Markus Amann International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) Links between climate, air pollution and energy policies Findings from the.
Italian Agency for New Technology Energy and the Environment Italian-Polish workshop, Warsaw, 17th of March, 2006 The MINNI Project: An Integrated Assessment.
RAINS1 ECON 4910 Spring 2007 Environmental Economics Lecture 7, The RAINS model Memorandum No 37/99 Lecturer: Finn R. Førsund.
Integrated Assessment Modeling, cost-effectiveness, and agricultural projections in the RAINS model Zbigniew Klimont International Institute for Applied.
RAINS review 2004 The RAINS model: The approach. Cost-effectiveness needs integration Economic/energy development (projections) State of emission controls,
Sensitivity analyses for the CAFE policy scenarios Markus Amann, Janusz Cofala, Chris Heyes, Zbigniew Klimont, Wolfgang Schöpp, Fabian Wagner.
Methodology and applications of the RAINS air pollution integrated assessment model Markus Amann International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA)
National work with the GAINS model: experiences from Sweden and other countries Работы в рамках модели GAINS на национальном уровне: опыт Швеции и других.
The inclusion of near-term radiative forcing into a multi-pollutant/multi-effect framework Markus Amann Centre for Integrated Assessment Modelling (CIAM)
Building Institutional Capacity in the Science- Policy Interface for Regional Worldwide Air Quality Management Lars Nordberg Adviser on International Legislation.
The Clean Air For Europe (CAFE) program: Scientific and economic assessment Markus Amann International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis.
Application of air quality strategies of Western Europe for modeling of the transboundary air pollution impact on the Russian Federation with the GAINS.
European Scenarios of Air Pollution and Greenhouse Gases Mitigation: Focus on Poland J. Cofala, M. Amann, W. Asman, I. Bertok, C. Heyes, Z. Klimont, L.
Baseline emission projections for the EU-27 Results from the EC4MACS project and work plan for the TSAP revision Markus Amann International Institute for.
Baseline emission projections for the revision of the Gothenburg protocol All calculations refer to Parties in the EMEP modelling domain Markus Amann Centre.
Application of IIASA GAINS Model for Integrated Assessment of Air Pollution in Europe Janusz Cofala International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis.
Impacts on air pollution from Nordic low CO 2 emission initiatives Scenario analysis performed with the GAINS model.
Baseline projections of European air quality up to 2020 M. Amann, I. Bertok, R. Cabala, J. Cofala, F. Gyarfas, C. Heyes, Z. Klimont, K. Kupiainen, W. Winiwarter,
Co-benefits of Integrated Approach to Air Quality Management and Climate Change Mitigation Role of Integrated Assessment Methods in SEA Dr. Vladislav.
Clean Air The revision of the National Emission Ceilings Directive and agriculture FERTILIZERS FORUM 23 June 2015.
IIASA International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) An Integrated Assessment Model for Fine Particulate Matter in Europe Markus Amann, M.
GAINS databases Links and interactions with the international reporting processes UNECE TFEIP/EIONET meeting Dublin, Ireland, October, 2007 Z.Klimont.
Impact of the EGTEI proposed ELVs on Emission Scenarios UNECE Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution Modelling analysis performed by the.
New concepts and ideas in air pollution strategies Richard Ballaman Chairman of the Working Group on Strategies and Review.
Coordination Centre for Effects Jean-Paul Hettelingh, EC4MACS kick off meeting, IIASA, 6-7 March 2007 EC4MACS Task 3: Ecosystem Impact Assessment by the.
Cost-effective measures to achieve further improvements of air quality in Europe ( focus on key measures in the EECCA and Balkan countries) Based on presentation.
IIASA M. Amann, J. Cofala, Z. Klimont International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis Progress in developing the baseline scenario for CAFE.
1 MULTILATERAL NEGOTIATIONS ON AIR POLLUTION LARS NORDBERG ScandEnvironment, Stockholm Adviser
Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution Task Force on Integrated Assessment Modelling Review of the Gothenburg Protocol UNITED NATIONS ECONOMIC.
Lecture notes 2, 4910 spring 2005, The RAINS model Transboundary pollution  UN 1972 conference on the human environment: States have...the responsibility.
Thematic Strategy on Air Pollution CAFE team, DG Environment and streamlined air quality legislation.
Norwegian Meteorological Institute met.no Contribution from MSC-W to the review of the Gothenburg protocol – Reports 2006 TFIAM, Rome, 16-18th May, 2006.
Baseline emission projections for the revision of the Gothenburg protocol Markus Amann Centre for Integrated Assessment Modelling (CIAM) International.
Janusz Cofala and Markus Amann Centre for Integrated Assessment Modelling (CIAM) International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) Application.
IIASA International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) RAINS-Asia: A Tool for Optimization Analysis of the Acidification Problem in Asia while.
Integrated Assessment of Air Pollution and Greenhouse Gases Mitigation Janusz Cofala International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) Laxenburg,
International and National Abatement Strategies for Transboundary air Pollution New concepts and methods for effect-based strategies on transboundary air.
1 Review of the Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC) and National Emission Ceilings (NEC) Directives Marianne Wenning DG ENV, Head of Unit,
Use of emissions & other data reported within the LRTAP Convention in the IIASA GAINS model Z.Klimont Center for.
Data sources for GAINS Janusz Cofala and Stefan Astrom.
GAINS emission projections for the EU Clean Air Policy Package Work in Zbigniew Klimont Task Force on.
Attaining urban air quality objectives- links to transboundary air pollution Helen ApSimon, Tim Oxley and Marios Valiantis UK Centre for Integrated Assessment.
Baseline emission projections and scope for further reductions in Europe up to 2020 Results from the CAFE analysis M. Amann, I. Bertok, R. Cabala, J. Cofala,
Scenarios for the Negotiations on the Revision of the Gothenburg Protocol with contributions from Imrich Bertok, Jens Borken-Kleefeld, Janusz Cofala, Chris.
The three CAFE policy scenarios Markus Amann, Janusz Cofala, Chris Heyes, Zbigniew Klimont, Wolfgang Schöpp, Fabian Wagner.
Air Quality Governance in the ENPI East Countries Assessment and Enhancement of National Capacities for Joining CLRTAP Protocols and Meeting Corresponding.
Overview of Transboundary Air Management in North America Gothenburg Protocol and Review 20 September 2006 Nav Khera and Kimber Scavo.
An outlook to future air quality in Europe: Priorities for EMEP and WGE from an Integrated Assessment perspective Markus Amann Centre for Integrated Assessment.
Scope for further emission reductions: The range between Current Legislation and Maximum Technically Feasible Reductions M. Amann, I. Bertok, R. Cabala,
Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution Task Force on Integrated Assessment Modelling 31 st and 32 nd meeting 8-9 December 2005, Gothenburg,
Baseline and MTFR scenarios EECCA and Balkan countries Janusz Cofala and Stefan Astrom.
IIASA Markus Amann, Chris Heyes, Wolfgang Schöpp International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis Uncertainty treatment in the integrated assessment.
Uniform limit value for air quality: Bring down PM2.5 everywhere below a AQ limit value Gap closure concept: Reduce PM2.5 levels everywhere by same.
Particulates: Where is the current policy emphasis in the EU CAFE Programme? A contribution to the panel discussion “Nanoparticles from road vehicle exhaust:
UNECE WG PM Berlin May 2005 Duncan Johnstone
Clean Air for Europe and Research Needs
Markus Amann International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) Updating the Baseline and Maximum Control scenarios State of play of the.
Three policy scenarios for CAFE
M. Amann, W. Asman, I. Bertok, J. Cofala, C. Heyes,
Stakeholder Expert Group on the Review of EU Air Policy 6-7 June 2011
M. Amann, I. Bertok, R. Cabala, J. Cofala, F. Gyarfas, C. Heyes, Z
Emission Projections for 2020
The Kiev Report: contribution from “Air Emissions”
Environmental objectives and target setting
Environmental targets for the NEC analysis
Tentative Ideas for Co-operation
Summary of discussion (1)
Presentation transcript:

The GAINS optimization approach – Basic background information Fabian Wagner International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) IIASA workshop on The use of the GAINS model for the revision of the Gothenburg protocol Laxenburg 20 June 2011

Overview Why we use optimization tools How we use optimization tools Frequently Asked Questions

SO 2 measures NO x measures NH 3 measures VOC measures PM measures Energy Industry Transport Agriculture Other (e.g Waste) Costs SO 2 NO x PM NH 3 VOC Why we use optimization tools With the GAINS online model we SIMULATE future emissions, air pollution control costs S deposition NO y deposition O 3 production Secondary aerosols Primary PM concentration NH 4 + deposition PM Exposure Humans O 3 Exposure Humans Exceedance CL nitrogen Exceedance CL acidification Env. Impacts Targets and environmental impacts

Why we use optimization tools Because we are seeking to identify cost-effective portfolios of technologies that reach a given set of environmental targets at the lowest possible cost. And we need to take into account: Future emissions are different in different countries (and for different pollutants) Potentials and costs for control technologies are different Different pollutants have different environmental effects Optimization is a systematic procedure to address this problem

SO 2 measures NO x measures NH 3 measures VOC measures PM measures Energy Industry Transport Agriculture Other (e.g Waste) Costs SO 2 NO x PM NH 3 VOC Target setting: effects-based approach S deposition NO y deposition O 3 production Secondary aerosols Primary PM concentration NH 4 + deposition PM Exposure Humans O 3 Exposure Humans Exceedance CL nitrogen Exceedance CL acidification Env. Impacts Targets

Target setting: the feasible range (‘gap’) Emissions Impacts

Target setting: the feasible range (‘gap’) MFR = ‘maximum feasible reduction’ = lowest feasible level Emissions Impacts ‘Gap’

Target setting: domestic and transboundary implications In order to calculate the ‘gap’ in one country we need to calculate the baseline emissions and the MFR emissions in ALL countries.

Setting comparable targets in different countries: The ‘equal environmental progress’ (‘gap closure’) concept 100% of gap 25% of gap 50% of gap 75% of gap

Setting comparable targets in different countries: The ‘equal environmental progress’ (‘gap closure’) concept Country ACountry B

Gap closure procedure For a given environmental impact indicator the same percentage is applied in each country

Four impact indicators considered Years of life lost (YOLL) – [PM2.5, SO2, NOx, NH3] Acidification – [SO2, NOx, NH3] Eutrophication [NOx, NH3] Health-related Ozone – SOMO35 [NOx, VOC]

Formulating the optimization Minimize European-wide air pollution control cost, such that: –Environmental targets are met in each country and overall But also take into account: –Technical limitations on new technologies –Existing technology has a lifetime –Road vehicle emission control measures remain as in the baseline

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) Why does my country have to reduce more than my neighbour? –Maybe your country has a higher environmental impact and hence your reductions result in higher benefits –Maybe emission reductions in your country are relatively less expensive Why does my country have to reduce more of X (e.g. SO2) than of Y (e.g. NH3)? –Maybe it is less expensive to reduce more of X –Maybe it is just more cost-effective to reduce more of X –Maybe due to atmospheric dispersion reducing X is just more effective

Conclusions We use optimization because –We are looking for cost-effective solutions –We are setting targets on effects, but would like to find out a set of upstream technology portfolios (and this is a complex task!) The optimization only utilizes: –Input data from the GAINS database (act. projections, tech. costs and emission factors; atmospheric dispersion; critical loads) –Environmental targets that are formulated as ‘equal environmental progress’ (gap closure) Results can always be explained by cost-effectiveness, even though sometimes they initially appear unintuitive