Advertisement

A model-based analysis on energy systems transition for climate change mitigation and ambient particulate matter 2.5 concentration reduction

  • Keii Gi
  • Fuminori Sano
  • Ayami Hayashi
  • Keigo Akimoto
Original Article
  • 69 Downloads

Abstract

One of the most serious concerns facing developing countries is high concentrations of ambient particulate matter (PM2.5). Concurrently, climate change has also been a major challenge for countries around the world. Energy systems are dominant emission sources of both PM2.5 and carbon dioxide (CO2). This study investigates cost-efficient energy system transitions for individual or dual targets of climate change mitigation and PM2.5 concentration reduction by a global energy systems model. We set two levels of mitigation efforts for each of the CO2 and PM2.5 emissions, whose stringent one corresponds to the long-term target of the Paris agreement and current national air quality standards, respectively. For PM2.5 reduction, a combination of moderate improvement in energy efficiency and a transition from coal to gas and renewable energies and a significant deployment of end-of-pipe measures for scrubbing air pollutants is shown to be among the most cost-efficient strategy. For CO2 reduction, drastic improvement in energy efficiency and a rapid transition from coal to gas, renewable and nuclear energies is the most cost-efficient strategy, in contrast. There is a larger co-benefit on PM2.5 concentration reduction from CO2 reduction measures than the converse, and the co-benefit varies regionally. Developing countries such as India have a huge potential of co-benefits, and energy efficiency improvement and fuel switching are key measures to bring them. The simultaneous achievement costs of the dual targets are smaller than the sum of individual achievement costs, and the cost reduction varies significantly depending on the level of each mitigation target.

Keywords

Energy systems Climate change mitigation PM2.5 concentration reduction Co-benefit Cost-efficient measures 

References

  1. 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 38:3384–3393CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Akimoto K, Sano F, Homma T, Tokushige K, Nagashima M, Tomoda M (2014) Assessment of the emission reduction target of halving CO2 emissions by 2050: macro-factors analysis and model analysis under newly developed socio-economic scenarios. Energ Strat Rev 2:246–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Amann M, Bertok I, Borken-Kleefeld J, Cofala J, Heyes C, Höglund-Isaksson L, Klimont Z, Nguyen B, Posch M, Rafaj P, Sandler R, Schöpp W, Wagner F, Winiwarter W (2011) Cost-effective control of air quality and greenhouse gases in Europe: modeling and policy applications. Environ Model Softw 26(12):1489–1501CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bell ML, Dominici F, Ebisu K, Zeger SL, Samet M (2007) Spatial and temporal variation in PM2.5 chemical composition in the United States for health effects studies. Environ Health Perspect 115(7):989–995CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Burnett R, Pope IIICA, Ezzati M, Olives C, Lim S, Mehta S, Shin H, Singh G, Hubbell B, Brauer M, Anderson HR, Smith KR, Balmes JR, Bruce NG, Kan H, Laden F, Prüss-Ustün A, Turner MC, Gapstur SM, Diver WR, Cohen A (2014) An integrated risk function for estimating the Global Burden of Disease attributable to ambient fine particulate matter exposure. Environ Health Perspect 122(4):397–403Google Scholar
  6. China (2012) Ambient air quality standards (GB 3095–2012). http://kjs.mep.gov.cn/hjbhbz/bzwb/dqhjbh/dqhjzlbz/201203/W020120410330232398521.pdf
  7. Clappier A, Pisoni E, Thunis P (2015) A new approach to design source-receptor relationships for air quality modelling. Environ Model Softw 74:66–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Complainville C, Martins JO (1994) NOx/SOx emissions and carbon abatement. OECD Economic Department Working Papers No. 151, OECD Publishing, ParisGoogle Scholar
  9. CPCB (2009) National ambient air quality standards. http://www.cpcb.nic.in/National_Ambient_Air_Quality_Standards.php
  10. Environmental Protection Agency (2013) National ambient air quality standards for particulate matter; Final rule. 40 CFR Parts 50, 51, 52, 53 and 58. https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-01-15/pdf/2012-30946.pdf
  11. EU (2008) Directive 2008/50/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2008 on Ambient Air Quality and Cleaner Air for Europe (Offic J EU, L 152, 11.6.2008, pp. 1–44). https://www.umwelt-pickerl.at/fileadmin/umwelt-pickerl.at/Gesetze/RL_2008-50_EG/EN_CELEX_32008L0050_EN_TXT.pdf
  12. European Environment Agency (2015) Air pollutant concentrations at station level (statistics). http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/data/air-pollutant-concentrations-at-station
  13. GBD 2013 Risk Factors Collaborators (2015) Global, regional, and national comparative risk assessment of 79 behavioural, environmental and occupational, and metabolic risks or clusters of risks in 188 countries, 1990-2013: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2013. Lancet 386:2287–2323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. IEA (2016) Energy and air pollution, World energy outlook 2016 special reportGoogle Scholar
  15. IPCC (2014) Technical summary. In: Edenhofer O, Pichs-Madruga R, Sokona Y, Farahani E, Kadner S, Seyboth K, Adler A, Baum I, Brunner S, Eickemeier P, Kriemann B, Savolainen J, Schlömer S, von Stechow C, Zwickel T, Minx JC (eds) Climate change 2014: mitigation of climate change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  16. Kaya Y (1990) Impact of carbon dioxide emission control on GNP growth: interpretation of proposed scenarios. Paper presented to the IPCC Energy and Industry Subgroup, Response Strategies Working Group, Paris (mimeo)Google Scholar
  17. McCollum D, Krey V, Riahi K, Kolp P, Grubler A, Makowski M, Nakicenovic N (2013) Climate policies can help resolve energy security and air pollution challenges. Clim Chang 119:479–494CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ministry of the Environment (2009) Environmental standards for fine particulate matter (PM2.5). https://www.env.go.jp/en/headline/1156.html
  19. Ministry of the Environment (2015) https://www.env.go.jp/air/osen/
  20. OECD (2016) The economic consequences of outdoor air pollutionGoogle Scholar
  21. Philip S, Martin RV, Van Donkelaar A, Lo JWH, Wang Y, Chen D, Zhang L, Kasibhatla PS, Wang S, Zhang Q, Lu Z, Streets DG, Bittman S, Macdonald DJ (2014) Global chemical composition of ambient fine particulate matter for exposure assessment. Environ Sci Technol 48:13060–13068CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Rafaj P, Schöpp W, Russ P, Heyes C, Amann M (2013) Co-benefits of post-2012 global climate mitigation policies. Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Chang 18:801–824CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Rao S, Pachauri S, Dentener F, Kinney P, Klimont Z, Riahi K, Schoepp W (2013) Better air for better health: forging synergies in policies for energy access, climate change and air pollution. Glob Environ Chang 23(5):1122–1130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Rao S, Klimont Z, Smith S, Van Dingenen R, Dntener F, Bouwman L, Riahi K, Amann M, Bodirsky BL, Van Vuuren D, Reis LA, Calvin K, Drouet L, Fricko O, Fujimori S, Gernaat D, Havlik P, Harmsen M, Hasegawa T, Heyes C, Hilaire J, Luderer G, Masui T, Stehfest E, Strefler J, Van Der Sluis S, Tavoni M (2017) Future air pollution in the Shared Socio-economic Pathways. Glob Environ Chang 42:346–358Google Scholar
  25. Riahi K, Van Vuuren DP, Kriegler E, Edmonds J, O’Neill BC, Fujimori S, Bauer N, Calvin K, Dellink R, Fricko O, Lutz W, Popp A, Cuaresma JC, KC S, Leimbach M, Jiang L, Kram T, Rao S, Emmerling J, Ebi K, Hasegawa T, Havlik P, Humpenöder F, Da Silva LA, Smith S, Stehfest E, Bosetti V, Eom J, Gernaat D, Masui T, Rogelj J, Strefler J, Drouet L, Baumstark L, Doelman JC, Kainuma M, Klimont Z, Marangoni G, Lotze-Campen H, Obersteiner M, Tabeau A, Tavoni M (2017) The Shared Socioeconomic Pathways and their energy, land use, and greenhouse gas emissions implications: an overview. Glob Environ Chang 42:153–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. UNFCCC (2015) Adoption of the Paris Agreement. http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2015/cop21/eng/l09.pdf
  27. Van Donkelaar A, Martin RV, Brauer M, Hsu NC, Kahn RA, Levy RC, Lyapustin A, Sayer AM, Winker DM (2016) Global estimates of fine particulate matter using a combined geophysical-statistical method with information from satellites, models, and monitors. Environ Sci Technol 50(7):3762–3772CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. West JJ, Smith SJ, Silva RA, Naik V, Zhang Y, Adelman Z, Fry MM, Anenberg S, Horowitz LW, Lamarque J (2013) Co-benefits of mitigating global greenhouse gas emissions for future air quality and human health. Nat Clim Chang 3:885–889CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. WHO (2005) Air quality guidelines for particulate matter, ozone, nitrogen dioxide and sulfur dioxideGoogle Scholar
  30. World Bank (2015) World development indicators. http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.PM25.MC.M3

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Research Institute of Innovative Technology for the EarthKizugawa-shiJapan

Personalised recommendations