Coupling%20bottom-up%20and%20top-down%20energy%20models:%20challenges%20and%20results%20with%20TIAM%20and%20GEMINI-E3%20Maryse%20Labriet1,%20Marc%20Vielle2,%20Laurent%20Drouet3,%20Alain%20Haurie4,%20Amit%20Kanudia5,%20Richard%20Loulou6%201%20Kanlo%20Consultants,%20France%20and%20Spain%202%20Ecole%20Polytechnique%20de - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

View by Category
About This Presentation
Title:

Coupling%20bottom-up%20and%20top-down%20energy%20models:%20challenges%20and%20results%20with%20TIAM%20and%20GEMINI-E3%20Maryse%20Labriet1,%20Marc%20Vielle2,%20Laurent%20Drouet3,%20Alain%20Haurie4,%20Amit%20Kanudia5,%20Richard%20Loulou6%201%20Kanlo%20Consultants,%20France%20and%20Spain%202%20Ecole%20Polytechnique%20de

Description:

1 Kanlo Consultants, France and Spain. 2 Ecole Polytechnique de Lausanne and ORDECSYS, Switzerland ... Polytechnique de Lausanne, Switzerland. 4 University ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:24
Avg rating:3.0/5.0

less

Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: Coupling%20bottom-up%20and%20top-down%20energy%20models:%20challenges%20and%20results%20with%20TIAM%20and%20GEMINI-E3%20Maryse%20Labriet1,%20Marc%20Vielle2,%20Laurent%20Drouet3,%20Alain%20Haurie4,%20Amit%20Kanudia5,%20Richard%20Loulou6%201%20Kanlo%20Consultants,%20France%20and%20Spain%202%20Ecole%20Polytechnique%20de


1
Coupling bottom-up and top-down energy models
challenges and results with TIAM and
GEMINI-E3Maryse Labriet1, Marc Vielle2, Laurent
Drouet3, Alain Haurie4, Amit Kanudia5, Richard
Loulou61 Kanlo Consultants, France and Spain2
Ecole Polytechnique de Lausanne and ORDECSYS,
Switzerland 3 Ecole Polytechnique de Lausanne,
Switzerland4 University of Geneva and ORDECSYS,
Switzerland5 Kanors Consulting, India6 Kanlo
Consultants, FranceInternational Energy
WorkshopVenice (Italy), June 17th, 2009
TOCSIN
2
Aims of coupling
  • Enhance the description of world energy system
    by combining the strengths of the two models
  • Detailed technological representation of the
    energy system of ETSAP-TIAM allowing the
    endogenous computation of (amongst others) energy
    flows and prices
  • General equilibrium effects of GEMINI-E3 allowing
    the explicit representation of the main economic
    factors (labor, consumption, capital, etc.) and
    their interactions with the energy service demands

3
GEMINI-E3
  • General Equilibrium Model
  • 28 countries/regions 18 sectors
  • CO2 and other GHG
  • Reference year 2001 based on GTAP database
  • Time period 2001- 2050
  • Website http//www.gemini-e3.net/

4
ETSAP-TIAM
  • Technology rich, dynamic inter-temporal partial
    equilibrium representing the entire energy
    systems
  • Based on maximum total surplus (via LP) with own
    price elastic service demands
  • Driven by demands for energy services. eg. tons
    aluminium, km car travel, etc.
  • 15 regions linked by trades of 9 energy
    commodities emissions
  • CO2 and other GHGs
  • Reference year 2005 IEA Energy Statistics
  • Time horizon 2005-2100 (2005-2050 is used here)
  • Website www.etsap.org/documentation (Energy
    Technology System Analysis Programme)

5
Connecting the models regions, sectors and
commodities
  • Choose a common regional aggregation level
  • TIAM GEMINI-E3

6
Connecting the models regions, sectors and
commodities
  • Create connections between the two activity
    classifications (the two models are based on two
    different data sets)
  • Additions of activity sectors in GEMINI-E3
    hydrogen, biomass, adjusted share of other
    non-fossil fuels.

7
Coupling Framework
  • Harmonisation of the two models (POP, GDP, energy
    prices, some energy constraints)
  • Coupling of the two models

Energy mix Energy prices Technical
progress Investments Cost CO2 price
COUPLING
DriversGDP Industrial outputs
Service demands
8
Coupling Algorithm
Starting point harmonized models (GDP, POP,
energy prices)
9
Case study World Climate Agreement
  • Radiative forcing limited to 3.5 W/m2 (2005-2050,
    no overshooting)
  • Full World cooperation
  • All sectors
  • All countries
  • Only one carbon price for each time period,
    equivalent to a tax applied to all sectors and
    all countries
  • What do we learn from the coupling?

10
Convergence
Achieved at iteration 4
11
Some verifications
CO2 emissions (GtC/yr)
  • No difference between Coupled models and
    TIAM-Elast
  • Of course, energy service reductions help for
    mitigation (lower CO2 price than w/o elasticities)

12
Focus on final energy services
  • Expected added value of the coupling of TIAM and
    GEMINI-E3 better representation of the factors
    influencing the demands for energy services,
    globally and more importantly, regionally
  • What is observed in the results of the Coupled
    models?
  • Agriculture, commercial, residential and road
    transport behave similarly in both approaches,
    with slightly higher reductions in the Coupled
    models in residential and non-road sectors, and
    slightly smaller reduction in commercial and
    agriculture.
  • Demands for non-road transport (aviation,
    navigation) are more drastically reduced in
    TIAM-Elast
  • More complex dynamics in the industry sector,
    while in TIAM-Elast, all industrial energy
    services decrease

13
Industrial sector
14
Example the IronSteel sector
Relative values of production w.r.t. Ref
Domestic production Domestic demand Exports-
Imports
Decision factors
Relative values of domestic consumption and trade
w.r.t. Ref
15
Some macro-economic effects (from GEMINI-E3)
  • Energy exporting countries loss of terms of
    trade
  • Other affected countries where the energy
    intensive industry is strong
  • Importing countries / high energy efficiency
    smaller costs

16
Other applications Partial Climate Agreements
  • (S2) Climate Agreement Limited to the Energy
    Intensive Industries in Non-OECD in order to
    avoid penalizing too much the households
    (residential and transport) but also to limit the
    loss of competitiveness of developed countries.
    Same target 3.5 W/m2.
  • (S2B) Climate Agreement Limited to the
    Electricity generation of Non-OECD countries.
    Target 3.5 W/m2 infeasible. Target 4.0 W/m2.
  • What are the impacts on the energy system?
  • Are there emissions / investment leakages?
  • Are the costs supported by Non-OECD countries
    reduced?

17
Some of the technology decisions
  • S1 Full Cooperation 3.5 W/m2
  • S2 Only Energy Intensive Sectors of Non-OECD
    3.5 W/m2
  • S2B Only Electricity Sectors of Non-OECD 4.0
    W/m2
  • More electricity consumed in S2 wrt S1 by
    industry in all countries, and by residential in
    OECD only. No increase of electricity consumed in
    Non-OECD in S2B
  • Electricity generation by plants with CCS and
    renewable in all scenarios
  • Increase of emissions of the residential sector
    of Non-OECD countries in both scenarios biomass
    consumed in residential is transferred to
    industry and power plants, and replaced by coal
  • No rebound of oil consumption in Non-OECD
  • Displacement of gas extraction in S2B when Supply
    is excluded form the Climate agreement (AFR, FSU)

18
Other effects leakages?
  • Industrial productions and trade variations of S2
    (where industry of Non-OECD is covered by the
    Climate agreement) follow the same trends as in
    S1 (full cooperation)
  • There is displacement of some energy intensive
    industries in S2B when industry is excluded from
    the Climate agreement (AFR, MEA), but remains
    moderate
  • No increase of emissions thanks to the decrease
    of World oil consumption ? less extraction ? less
    emissions
  • Macro-economic costs reduced for non-OECD
    countries

19
Macro-economic impacts(surplus in of
households final consumption)
  • S2 more costly for developed countries than the
    full coop (S1), since the CO2 price is higher
  • Developing countries are better households are
    exempted from carbon taxation and benefit from
    the decrease of fossil fuel prices vs Reference
  • Energy exporting countries are especially better
    since the World energy consumption does not
    decrease so much
  • S2B smaller costs (more acceptable?), but less
    strict environmental target

20
Conclusion
  • Fine technology and energy analysis (mix, prices,
    technical progress) provided by ETSAP-TIAM
  • Fine macro-economic analysis (GDP, sectoral
    outputs) provided by GEMINI-E3. Finer
    representation of the variations of the demands
    for energy services, especially at the regional
    level (possible displacement of the production).
  • Crucial (and not easy) Connections between the
    two models
  • Complexity in the understanding of the results,
    especially the macro-economic ones, since
    GEMINI-E3 is the most altered model in the
    coupled approach
About PowerShow.com