Advertisement

Sustainability Science

, Volume 7, Issue 2, pp 157–168 | Cite as

Comparison of marginal abatement cost curves for 2020 and 2030: longer perspectives for effective global GHG emission reductions

  • Keigo Akimoto
  • Fuminori Sano
  • Takashi Homma
  • Kenichi Wada
  • Miyuki Nagashima
  • Junichiro Oda
Special Feature: Original Article Socio-technological transitions

Abstract

This study focuses on analyses of greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reductions, from the perspective of interrelationships among time points and countries, in order to seek effective reductions. We assessed GHG emission reduction potentials and costs in 2020 and 2030 by country and sector, using a GHG emission reduction-assessment model of high resolution regarding region and technology, and of high consistency with intertemporal, interregional, and intersectoral relationships. Global GHG emission reduction potentials relative to baseline emissions in 2020 are 8.4, 14.7, and 18.9 GtCO2eq. at costs below 20, 50, and 100 $/tCO2eq., corresponding to +19, −2, and −7 %, respectively, relative to 2005. The emission reduction potential for 2030 is greater than that for 2020, mainly because many energy supply and energy-intensive technologies have long lifetimes and more of the current key facilities will be extant in 2020 than in 2030. The emission reduction potentials in 2030 are 12.6, 22.0, and 26.6 GtCO2eq. at costs below 20, 50, and 100 $/tCO2eq., corresponding to +33, +8, and −3 %, respectively, relative to 2005. Global emission reduction potentials at a cost below 50 $/tCO2eq. for nuclear power and carbon capture and storage are 2.3 and 2.2 GtCO2eq., respectively, relative to baseline emissions in 2030. Longer-term perspectives on GHG emission reductions toward 2030 will yield more cost-effective reduction scenarios for 2020 as well.

Keywords

Emission reduction potentials Mitigation cost Marginal abatement cost Bottom-up model Nuclear power Carbon capture and storage 

References

  1. Akimoto K, Homma T, Kosugi T, Li X, Tomoda T, Fujii Y (2004) Role of CO2 sequestration by country for global warming mitigation after 2013. In: Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies, vol 1: peer-reviewed papers and plenary presentations, IEA Greenhouse Gas Programme, Cheltenham, UKGoogle Scholar
  2. Akimoto K, Sano F, Oda J, Homma T, Rout UK, Tomoda T (2008) Global emission reductions through a sectoral intensity target scheme. Clim Policy 8:S46–S59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Akimoto K, Sano F, Homma T, Oda J, Nagashima M, Kii M (2010) Estimates of GHG emission reduction potential by country, sector, and cost. Energy Policy 38(7):3384–3393CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Amann M, Rafaj P, Höhne N (2009) GHG mitigation potentials in Annex I countries. Comparison of model estimates for 2020. International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) Interim Report IR-09-034Google Scholar
  5. Clapp C, Karousakis K, Buchner B, Chateau J (2009) National and sectoral GHG mitigation potential: a comparison across models. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)Google Scholar
  6. Dubin JA (1992) Market barriers to conservation: are implicit discount rates too high? Working Paper No. 802, California Institute of Technology, Division of the Humanities and Social SciencesGoogle Scholar
  7. Energy Conservation Center, Japan (ECCJ) (2004) Report on investigations for diffusions of energy saving technologies. ECCJ. http://www.eccj.or.jp/diffusion/03/diffusion.pdf (in Japanese)
  8. Enkvist P-A, Nauclér T, Rosander J (2007) A cost curve for greenhouse gas reduction. McKinsey & Company, StockholmGoogle Scholar
  9. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (2005) Special report on carbon dioxide capture and storage. Cambridge University Press, UKGoogle Scholar
  10. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (2007) IPCC fourth assessment report: Climate Change 2007 Working Group III. Cambridge University Press, UKGoogle Scholar
  11. International Energy Agency (IEA) (2008) CO2 capture and storage. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)Google Scholar
  12. International Energy Agency (IEA) (2009) World energy outlook 2009. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)Google Scholar
  13. International Energy Agency (IEA) (2010a) CO2 emissions from fuel combustion. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)Google Scholar
  14. International Energy Agency (IEA) (2010b) World energy outlook 2010. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)Google Scholar
  15. International Energy Agency (IEA) (2010c) Energy technology perspectives 2010. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)Google Scholar
  16. International Energy Agency (IEA) (2011) World energy outlook 2011. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)Google Scholar
  17. International Energy Agency/Nuclear Energy Agency (IEA/NEA) (2005) Projected costs of generating electricity—2005 update. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)Google Scholar
  18. International Energy Agency/Nuclear Energy Agency (IEA/NEA) (2010) Projected costs of generating electricity—2010 edition. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)Google Scholar
  19. Institute of Energy Economics, Japan (IEEJ) (2008) Report on actual conditions of nuclear power plant construction in various countries. IEEJ (in Japanese)Google Scholar
  20. Jorgenson DW (1963) Capital theory and investment behavior. Am Econ Rev 53:247–259Google Scholar
  21. Oda J, Akimoto K, Tomoda T, Nagashima M, Wada K, Sano F (2012) International comparisons of energy efficiency in power, steel, and cement industries. Energy Policy 44:118–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Train K (1985) Discount rates in consumers’ energy-related decisions: a review of the literature. Energy 10(12):1243–1253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. United Nations (UN) (2009) World population prospects: the 2008 revisionGoogle Scholar
  24. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) (2009) GHG data from UNFCCC. http://unfccc.int/ghg_data/ghg_data_unfccc/items/4146.php. Accessed February 2009
  25. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) (2011) Quantified economy-wide emissions targets for 2020. http://unfccc.int/meetings/cop_15/copenhagen_accord/items/5264.php. Accessed March 2011
  26. United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) (2005) Interim report: new powertrain technologies and their projected costs. EPA420-R-05-012. http://www.epa.gov/OMS/technology/420r05012.pdf
  27. United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) (2006a) Global anthropogenic non-CO2 greenhouse gas emissions: 1990–2020Google Scholar
  28. United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) (2006b) Global mitigation of non-CO2 greenhouse gases. http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/economics/downloads/GlobalMitigationFullReport.pdf
  29. Wada K, Akimoto K, Sano F, Oda J, Homma T (2012) Energy efficiency opportunities in the residential sector and their feasibility. Energy (forthcoming)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Keigo Akimoto
    • 1
    • 2
  • Fuminori Sano
    • 1
  • Takashi Homma
    • 1
  • Kenichi Wada
    • 1
  • Miyuki Nagashima
    • 1
  • Junichiro Oda
    • 1
  1. 1.Systems Analysis Group, Research Institute of Innovative Technology for the Earth (RITE)Kizugawa-shiJapan
  2. 2.Graduate School of Art and ScienceThe University of TokyoTokyoJapan

Personalised recommendations