Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 30
Climate policy assessment and analysis on comparable reduction efforts - discussions on the mid-term target
Climate policy assessment and analysis on comparable reduction efforts - discussions on the mid-term target
Climate policy assessment
and
analysis on comparable reduction efforts
- discussions on the mid-term target -
reduction efforts - discussions on the mid-term target - Tatsuya Hanaoka Center for Global Environmental Research
reduction efforts - discussions on the mid-term target - Tatsuya Hanaoka Center for Global Environmental Research

Tatsuya Hanaoka Center for Global Environmental Research National Institute for Environmental Studies

Tatsuya Hanaoka Center for Global Environmental Research National Institute for Environmental Studies
1 st Japan National Workshop on Economics of Climate Change and Low Carbon Growth Strategies
1
st Japan National Workshop on Economics of Climate Change and
Low Carbon Growth Strategies in Northeast Asia
Tokyo, Japan
20-21 April 2010

AIM research network in Asia regions

AIM = A sia- Pacific I ntegrated M odel ソウル大学ソウル大学 中国能源研究所中国能源研究所 China
AIM = A sia- Pacific I ntegrated M odel
ソウル大学ソウル大学
中国能源研究所中国能源研究所
China
Energy Research Institute,
National Development and Reform Commission
韓国環境研究所韓国環境研究所(KEI)(KEI)
((ERI)ERI)
中国科学院地理科学中国科学院地理科学
与資源研究所与資源研究所
国立環境研究所国立環境研究所
Institute of Geographical Sciences and Natural Resources Research, Chinese Academy
of Science
((IGSNRR)IGSNRR)
(NIES)(NIES)
京都大学京都大学
インド経営大学院インド経営大学院
((IIM)IIM)
India
Indian Institute of Management
Thailand
国立太平洋国立太平洋
北西研究所北西研究所
((PNNL)PNNL)
アジア工科大学アジア工科大学
スタンフォード大学スタンフォード大学
国際応用システム国際応用システム
((AIT)AIT)
エネルギー・エネルギー・
分析研究所分析研究所 ((IIASA)IIASA)
モデリング・モデリング・
フォーラムフォーラム(EMF)(EMF)
Asian Institute of Technology
Korea
Seoul National University
Korea Environment Institute
AIM model family (since 1991 )
AIM Model Development
AIM Model Development
AIM Model Development
AIM Model Development
Strategic Database
Strategic Database
Strategic Database
Strategic Database
AIM/
AIM/ Energy/Technology/Country
AIM/
AIM/
Energy/Technology/Country
AIM/
AIM/
AIM/
AIM/
Ecosystem/Water/Impact
Ecosystem/Water/Impact
Temperature
Temperature
Temperature
Temperature
Temperature
Temperature
Temperature
Temperature
Institution, Management,
Institution, Management,
Precipitation
Precipitation
Precipitation
Precipitation
Precipitation
Precipitation
Precipitation
Precipitation
A
A
set of ecosystem models,
set of ecosystem models,
A
A
bottom-up
bottom-up
Sunshine
Sunshine
Sunshine
Sunshine
Sunshine
Sunshine
Sunshine
Sunshine
including a vegetation
including a vegetation
technology
technology
Technology, Adaptation
Technology, Adaptation
dynamics model, a water
dynamics model, a water
selection model of
selection model of
Land use
Land use
Land use
Land use
Land use
Land use
Land use
Land use
Water resource
Water resource
Water resource
Water resource
Water resource
Water resource
Water resource
Water resource
resource model, an
resource model, an
energy use and
energy use and
agricultural productivity
agricultural productivity
emissions at
emissions at
Socio -economic
Socio -economic
Socio -economic
Socio -economic
Socio -economic
Socio -economic
Socio - economic
Socio - economic
Crop
Crop
Crop
Crop
Crop
Crop
Crop
Crop
Database
Database
indicator
indicator
indicator
indicator
indicator
indicator
indicator
indicator
Productivity
Productivity
Productivity
Productivity
Productivity
Productivity
Productivity
Productivity
model and a health impact
model and a health impact
country and local
country and local
Impact on food demand
Impact on food demand
Impact on food demand
Impact on food demand
Impact on food demand
Impact on food demand
Impact on food demand
Impact on food demand
model
model
level
level
Emission Intensity of SO 2 2 in China
Emission Intensity of SO 2 in China
Emission Intensity of SO 2 in China
Emission Intensity of SO in China
Emission Intensity of SO 2 in China
Emission Intensity of SO in China
2
Adaptation strategy
Adaptation strategy
Adaptation strategy
Adaptation strategy
Adaptation strategy
Adaptation strategy
Adaptation strategy
Adaptation strategy
Scenario
Scenario
Scenario
Scenario
Assessment
Assessment
Assessment
Assessment
AIM/Bottom-up
AIM/Bottom-up
AIM/End -use
AIM/End -use
AIM/End -use
AIM/End -use
AIM/Top-down
AIM/Top-down
AIM/Top - down
AIM/Top - down
A
A
bottom-up technology
bottom-up technology
Country Based
Country Based
Country Based
Country Based
AIM Family
AIM Family
A
A
general-equilibrium-type
general-equilibrium-type
World Economic
World Economic
&
&
land use model for
land use model for
Technology Model
Technology Model
Technology Model
Technology Model
Model
Model
world economic model
world economic model
Asia-Pacific region
Asia-Pacific region
Model Base
Model Base
Future
Future
Future
Future
Future
Future
Future
Future
Future
Future
Environmental
Environmental
Environmental
Environmental
Environmental
Environmental
Environ-
Environ-
Environ-
Environ-
burden
burden
burden
burden
burden
burden
economic trend
economic trend
economic trend
economic trend
economic trend
economic trend
economic trend
economic trend
economic trend
economic trend
AIM/Material
AIM/Material
AIM/Material
AIM/Material
mental
mental
mental
mental
AIM/Trend
AIM/Trend
Burden
Burden
Burden
Burden
Environmental
Environmental
Environmental
Environmental
Environmental
Environmental
Future
Future
Future
Future
Future
Future
Future
Future
Future
Future
Industry
Industry
Industry
Industry
Industry
Industry
environmental trend
environmental trend
environmental trend
environmental trend
environmental trend
environmental trend
environmental trend
environmental trend
environmental trend
environmental trend
Green Purchase
Green Purchase
Green Purchase
Green Purchase
Industry
Industry
Industry
Industry
Korea
Korea
Korea
Korea
Korea
Korea
Korea
Korea
An environment-
An environment-
One country CGE model
One country CGE model
Developed as a
Developed as a
Consumer
Consumer
Consumer
Consumer
Consumer
Consumer
economy interacted
economy interacted
China
China
China
China
China
China
China
with CO2 and material
with CO2 and material
communication
communication
communication
communication
Environment Fund
Environment Fund
Environment Fund
Environment Fund
India
India
India
India
India
India
India
India
model with material
model with material
balance, interface with
balance, interface with
platform in order
platform in order
balance and recycling
balance and recycling
environmental
environmental
to
to
to
to
construct
construct
construct
construct
Environmental
Environmental
Environmental
Environmental
Environmental
Environmental
Thailand
Thailand
Thailand
Thailand
Thailand
Thailand
Thailand
Thailand
Japan
Japan
Japan
Japan
Japan
Japan
Japan
Japan
Strategy
Strategy
process modules
process modules
Burden
Burden
Burden
Burden
Burden
Burden
technology model
technology model
Asia -
Asia -
Asia - pacific
Asia - pacific
Environmental Industry
Environmental Industry
Environmental Industry
Environmental Industry
Index Base
Index Base
(waste management, recycle)
(waste management, recycle)
(waste management, recycle)
(waste management, recycle)
regional environmental
regional environmental
Option Base
Option Base
outlook supported with
outlook supported with
Technology assessment
Technology assessment
Technology assessment
Technology assessment
Technology assessment
Technology assessment
Technology needs
Technology needs
Technology needs
Technology needs
Technology needs
Technology needs
multi -
multi -
multi - regional environment
multi - regional environment
-economic
-economic
CGE model
CGE model
Research on new technologies
Research on new technologies
Research on new technologies
Research on new technologies
Research on new technologies
Research on new technologies
Recycle
Recycle
Recycle
Recycle
Recycle
Recycle
Wastes
Wastes
Wastes
Wastes
Overview of emission models
Overview of emission models
Overview of emission models Enduse/SDB type modules Energy end-use, Renewable energy, Waste treatment/disposal,

Enduse/SDB type modules

Energy end-use, Renewable energy, Waste treatment/disposal, Resource

recycling

AIM/CGE

AIM/Material

CGE approach

AIM/CGE AIM/Material CGE approach National AIM/Ecosystem [global] AIM/Ecosystem [country]
National
National

AIM/Ecosystem

[global]

AIM/Ecosystem

[country]

AIM/CGE AIM/Material CGE approach National AIM/Ecosystem [global] AIM/Ecosystem [country]

Global

AIM/Enduse models (Energy, Materials)

Bottom-up, enduse, SDB approach

Bottom up/accounting models

enduse, SDB approach Bottom up/accounting models AIM/Impact[Policy] … Simplified model for Long-term
enduse, SDB approach Bottom up/accounting models AIM/Impact[Policy] … Simplified model for Long-term
enduse, SDB approach Bottom up/accounting models AIM/Impact[Policy] … Simplified model for Long-term

AIM/Impact[Policy]Simplified model for

Long-term assessment of climate change

Process/SDB type modules

Land-use, Population-urbanization Forestry, Agriculture Water Resource and Infrastructures Air Load/emission

Analysis on Comparable Efforts by using the AIM/Enduse[Global] - Discussions and processes of the Japan’s
Analysis on Comparable Efforts
by using the AIM/Enduse[Global]
-
Discussions and processes of
the Japan’s mid-term reduction target
-
Process and contribution of NIES to Japan’s mid-term target discussions
Process and contribution of NIES
to Japan’s mid-term target discussions

AIM/Enduse [Global] Global bottom-up model

AIM/Enduse [Japan] Japan bottom-up model

AIM/CGE [Japan] Japan CGE model

AIM models in NIES

Comparing

GHG mitigation

potentials comparisons across Annex I countries

mitigation potentials comparisons across Annex I countries results RITE Analysis of detailed mitigation options with
mitigation potentials comparisons across Annex I countries results RITE Analysis of detailed mitigation options with

results

RITE

RITE
potentials comparisons across Annex I countries results RITE Analysis of detailed mitigation options with policies in
potentials comparisons across Annex I countries results RITE Analysis of detailed mitigation options with policies in

Analysis of detailed

across Annex I countries results RITE Analysis of detailed mitigation options with policies in Japan Analysis
across Annex I countries results RITE Analysis of detailed mitigation options with policies in Japan Analysis

mitigation options with

results RITE Analysis of detailed mitigation options with policies in Japan Analysis of economic impact IEEJ
results RITE Analysis of detailed mitigation options with policies in Japan Analysis of economic impact IEEJ

policies in Japan

Analysis of detailed mitigation options with policies in Japan Analysis of economic impact IEEJ JCER, KU

Analysis of economic

impact

IEEJ

Analysis of detailed mitigation options with policies in Japan Analysis of economic impact IEEJ JCER, KU

JCER, KU

Analysis of detailed mitigation options with policies in Japan Analysis of economic impact IEEJ JCER, KU

Other institutes

6 options Japan’s middle-term target

(as of 14 April 2009)
(as of 14 April 2009)
emission to 2005 level continuing present MAC emission to 1990 level efforts ± 0% 0
emission to
2005 level
continuing present
MAC
emission to
1990 level
efforts
±
0%
0
GDP growth
>
+4%
$/tCO2
rate (05-20)
+5%
1
1.5%/y
50
-5%
$/tCO2
photovoltaic
6 mil. kW
(4 times to
present level)
25% reduction in
Annex I countries with
equal MAC
±
0%
>
-5%
2
-10%
150
-5%
$/tCO2
introducing all existing
countermeasures
14
mil. kW
>
-7%
3
200
1.4%/y
-15%
(10 times)
$/tCO2
-10%
4
-20%
25% reduction in
Annex I countries with
equal cost to GDP
37
mil. kW
-15%
300
5
1.4%/y
> -17%
(25 times)
$/tCO2
-25%
-15%
-20%
79
mil. kW
-25%
-30%
1.1%/y
-25%
6
(55 times)
Costs: definitions and determinants
Costs: definitions and determinants
Costs: definitions and determinants See in detail: IPCC Second Assessment Report, WGIII, Chapter 8, pp269-270 1)
Costs: definitions and determinants See in detail: IPCC Second Assessment Report, WGIII, Chapter 8, pp269-270 1)
Costs: definitions and determinants See in detail: IPCC Second Assessment Report, WGIII, Chapter 8, pp269-270 1)

See in detail: IPCC Second Assessment Report, WGIII, Chapter 8, pp269-270 1) The direct engineering and financial costs of specific technical measures

Cost of switching from coal to gas in electric production, of improving energy efficiency of appliances, of planting trees in reforestation program. Technical costs can show negative net costs because a given technology may yield enough energy cost saving to more than offset the costs of adopting and using the technology. These costs depend on both technical-economic data and a given interest rate.

on both technical-economic data and a given interest rate. Bottom-up models Bottom-up models 2) Economic costs

Bottom-up models

Bottom-up models

2) Economic costs for a given sector

Bottom-up models 2) Economic costs for a given sector Cost by “partial equilibrium” analysis in sectroral

Cost by “partial equilibrium” analysis in sectroral models that do not capture the feedback effects between the behaviour of a sector and that of the overall economy.

the behaviour of a sector and that of the overall economy. CGE CGE models models 3)
the behaviour of a sector and that of the overall economy. CGE CGE models models 3)
the behaviour of a sector and that of the overall economy. CGE CGE models models 3)
the behaviour of a sector and that of the overall economy. CGE CGE models models 3)

CGECGE modelsmodels

and that of the overall economy. CGE CGE models models 3) Macroeconomic costs The impact of
and that of the overall economy. CGE CGE models models 3) Macroeconomic costs The impact of
and that of the overall economy. CGE CGE models models 3) Macroeconomic costs The impact of
and that of the overall economy. CGE CGE models models 3) Macroeconomic costs The impact of

3) Macroeconomic costs

The impact of a given strategy on the level of the GDP and its components (household consumption, investment,etc). This aggregated index measures the monetary value added of goods and services and provides an index of the scale of

human activities including the feedback effects between the behaviour and economy.

4) Welfare costs

Role of of AIM/Enduse[Global]
Role of of AIM/Enduse[Global]
Role of of AIM/Enduse[Global] 1) Estimation of marginal abatement costs and evaluate GHG mitigation potentials in
1) Estimation of marginal abatement costs and evaluate GHG mitigation potentials in world regions. -
1) Estimation of marginal abatement costs and
evaluate GHG mitigation potentials in world regions.
- Region-wise mitigation potentials and costs
- Sector-wise mitigation potentials and costs
2) Analysis of the impact of policy instruments and
costs 2) Analysis of the impact of policy instruments and consequent effects on GHG emission reductions.
costs 2) Analysis of the impact of policy instruments and consequent effects on GHG emission reductions.

consequent effects on GHG emission reductions. - possibility of achievement of required reduction

- possibility of achievement of required reduction under stabilization constraints How much is technological
- possibility of achievement of required reduction under stabilization constraints How much is technological
- possibility of achievement of required reduction under stabilization constraints How much is technological

under stabilization constraints

of required reduction under stabilization constraints How much is technological mitigation potential by region
of required reduction under stabilization constraints How much is technological mitigation potential by region

How much is technological mitigation potential by region & by sector?

Regional classification

Regional classification World 23 regions update The latest version: World 32 regions Annex I OECD During
Regional classification World 23 regions update The latest version: World 32 regions Annex I OECD During
Regional classification World 23 regions update The latest version: World 32 regions Annex I OECD During
World 23 regions update The latest version: World 32 regions
World 23 regions
update
The latest version:
World 32 regions

Annex I

OECD

During the discussions of mid-term target:
During the discussions
of mid-term target:

JPN (Japan) AUS (Australia) NZL (New Zealand) RUS (Russia) CHN (China) IND (India) IDN (Indonesia) THA (Thailand)

USA (United States) XE15 (Western EU-15) XE10 (Eastern EU-10) XE2 (Other EU-2) XSA (Other South Asia) XEA (Other East Asia) XSE (Other South-East Asia) MYS (Malaysia)

CAN (Canada) TUR (Turkey) XEWI (Other Western EU in Annex I) XEEI (Other Eastern EU in Annex I) XENI (Other EU) XCS (Central Asia) XOC (Other Oceania)

VNM (Viet Nam)
VNM (Viet Nam)

ASEAN

KOR (Korea) MEX (Mexico) BRA (Brazil) ARG (Argentine) XLM (Other Latin America) ZAF (South Africa) XAF (Other Africa) XME (Middle East)

Target gas and sectors

GHG Sector Measures Power generation Coal power plant, Oil power plant, Gas power plant, Renewable
GHG
Sector
Measures
Power generation
Coal power plant, Oil power plant, Gas power plant, Renewable
(Wind, Biomass, PV)
Industry
CO
2
Iron and steel,Cement
Other industries (Boiler, motor etc)
CH
4
Passenger vehicle, Truck,Bus,Ship, Aircraft,Passenger train,
N
Transportation
2 O
Freight train (except for pipeline transport and international
transport)
Residential and
& Commercial
Cooling, Heating, Hot-water,Cooking,Lighting,Refrigerator, TV
Agriculture
Livestock rumination, Manure management, Paddy field, Cropland
CH 4
N
2 O
MSW
Municipal solid waste
Fugitive emission from fuel
CH 4
Fugitive
HFCs,
Fgas emissions
By-product of HCFC-22, Refrigerant, Aerosol, Foams, Solvent,
Etching, Aluminum production, Insulation gas, others.
PFCs,SF 6
Note)

Nuclear power, hydro power, and geothermal power generation are included in the baseline and they are not considered as mitigation options in this study.

There are some mitigation options which are not able to be considered in this study due to the lack of data availability, for example, CO2 mitigation options in petrochemical, N2O mitigation options in waste water, CO2 mitigation options in agriculture etc.

Technology options for mitigation measures

Technology options for mitigation measures This study is based on realistic and currently existing technologies ,
Technology options for mitigation measures This study is based on realistic and currently existing technologies ,
Technology options for mitigation measures This study is based on realistic and currently existing technologies ,
This study is based on realistic and currently existing technologies , and future innovative technologies
This study is based on realistic and currently existing technologies , and future innovative technologies

This study is based on realistic and currently existing technologies, and

future innovative technologies expected in 2020 are not taken into account.

technologies expected in 2020 are not taken into account. Sector Category   Technology options  

Sector

Category

 

Technology options

 
 

Coal power

Efficient coal power plant, PFBC (Pressurized fluidized bed combustion), IGCC (Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle)

plant

Energy

supply

Gas power

Efficient gas power plant, ACC (Advanced Combined Cycle)

 

plant

plant
 

Renewables

Wind power, Photovoltaics, Biomass power plant

Wind power, Photovoltaics, Biomass power plant

  Renewables Wind power, Photovoltaics, Biomass power plant
Industry

Industry

 
Coke oven (Coke gas recovery, Automatic combustion, Coal wet adjustment , Coke dry type quenching,

Coke oven (Coke gas recovery, Automatic combustion, Coal wet adjustment , Coke dry type quenching, COG latent heat recovery, Next generation coke

Automatic combustion, Coal wet adjustment , Coke dry type quenching, COG latent heat recovery, Next generation
oven) , Sinter furnace (Automatic igniter, Cooler waste heat recovery, Mainly waste heat recovery, Efficient

oven), Sinter furnace (Automatic igniter, Cooler waste heat recovery, Mainly

(Automatic igniter, Cooler waste heat recovery, Mainly waste heat recovery, Efficient igniter) , Blast furnace
(Automatic igniter, Cooler waste heat recovery, Mainly waste heat recovery, Efficient igniter) , Blast furnace

waste heat recovery, Efficient igniter), Blast furnace

waste heat recovery, Efficient igniter) , Blast furnace (Large size blast furnace, Blast furnace gas recovery,

(Large size blast

furnace, Blast furnace gas recovery, Wet top pressure recovery turbine, Dry

furnace gas recovery, Wet top pressure recovery turbine, Dry top pressure recovery turbine, Heat recovery of
furnace gas recovery, Wet top pressure recovery turbine, Dry top pressure recovery turbine, Heat recovery of

top pressure recovery turbine, Heat recovery of hot blast stove, Coal

recovery turbine, Heat recovery of hot blast stove, Coal injection, Dry top pressure gas recovery) ,

injection, Dry top pressure gas recovery), Basic oxygen furnace

Dry top pressure gas recovery) , Basic oxygen furnace (LDG recovery, LDG latent heat recovery) ,

(LDG

recovery, LDG latent heat recovery), Casting & rolling (Continuous caster, Hot charge rolling, Hot direct rolling, Efficient heating furnace, Heat furnace with regenerative burner, Continuous annealing lines), Electric

furnace

(DC electric furnace, Scrap pre-heat)

Steel

Steel

 
 

Cement

Mill (Tube mill, Vertical mill), Kiln (Wet kiln, Semi-wet kiln, Dry long kiln, Dry shaft kiln, SP/NSP)

Other

Boiler (Efficient boiler [coal, oil, gas], Boiler with combustion control [coal, oil, gas], Cogeneration [coal, oil, gas], Regenerative gas boiler), Process heat

industries

(Efficient industrial furnace [oil, gas]), Motors (Motor with Inverter control,

Efficient motor)

Overview of AIM/Enduse[Global]

Macroeconomic model Socio-economic macro frame model Population GDP Sector-wise value added Service demand model
Macroeconomic model
Socio-economic macro frame model
Population
GDP
Sector-wise value added
Service demand model
Waste
Steel production
and trade model
Cement
Transportation
energy service
Agricultural
Fluorocarbon
generation
production model
demand model
demand model
trade model
emission model
model
Value added
Energy service
Energy service
Crude steel
Cement
Transportation
Agricultural
Waste
Emission of
of secondary
demand
demand
production
production
volume
production
generation
fluorocarbon
industry
(residential)
(commercial)
Technology bottom-up model
Waste
Iron and steel
sector
Other industries
Transportation
Residential
Commercial
Agriculture
Fluorocarbon
Cement sector
management
sector
sector
sector
sector
sector
emission sector
sector
Electricity demand
Technology database
Initial cost
Efficiency
Technology
Energy database
Primary energy
Maximum
lifetime
bottom-up model
diffusion rate
production
(power generation sector)
Energy price
Emission factor
Technology
bottom-up model
(energy mining sector)
Exogenous
Endogenous
variable
variable
Model
Database
GHG emission
Technology bottom-up model

Key factors for estimating

mitigation potentials and costs
mitigation potentials and costs
Key factors for estimating mitigation potentials and costs Results of mitigation potentials vary widely depending on

Results of mitigation potentials vary widely depending on

data assumptions such as socio-economic characteristics

Coverage

Definition

1)

Geographical coverage

Geographical coverage

1)

Definition of “potential”

2)

Sectoral coverage

2)

Definition of “cost”

Definition of “cost”
Definition of “cost”
Definition of “cost”

3)

GHG coverage

3) GHG coverage 3) Definition of “drivers”

3)

Definition of “drivers”

4)

Mitigation options coverage

4) Mitigation options coverage 4) Definition of any specific terms…

4)

Definition of any specific terms…

coverage 4) Definition of any specific terms… Data assumptions 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7)
coverage 4) Definition of any specific terms… Data assumptions 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7)
coverage 4) Definition of any specific terms… Data assumptions 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7)

Data assumptions

1)

2)

3)

4)

5)

6)

7)

Detail information (which reflects key uncertainties)

6) 7) Detail information (which reflects key uncertainties) 1) The rate of technology development and diffusion
6) 7) Detail information (which reflects key uncertainties) 1) The rate of technology development and diffusion

1)

The rate of technology development and diffusion The cost of future technology7) Detail information (which reflects key uncertainties) 1) Climate and non-climate policy drivers …. and so

Climate and non-climate policy

drivers

…. and so on

Population GDP and service demands Energy price Discount rate Payback period Composition of power sources Baseline scenario

2)GDP and service demands Energy price Discount rate Payback period Composition of power sources Baseline scenario

3)

Case studies for comparable efforts

Case studies for comparable efforts Energy efficient technology options are selected if energy saving cost benefits
Case studies for comparable efforts Energy efficient technology options are selected if energy saving cost benefits
Case studies for comparable efforts Energy efficient technology options are selected if energy saving cost benefits
Case studies for comparable efforts Energy efficient technology options are selected if energy saving cost benefits
Case studies for comparable efforts Energy efficient technology options are selected if energy saving cost benefits

Energy efficient technology options are selected if energy saving cost benefits exceeds additional investment costs.

saving cost benefits exceeds additional investment costs . Additional investment cost ≦ energy savings × (energy
Additional investment cost ≦ energy savings × (energy price+emission factor × carbon price ) ×
Additional investment cost
≦ energy savings × (energy price+emission factor × carbon price ) × payback period

Comparison of length of payback period

payback period ① Comparison of length of payback period  Scenario A : short payback period

Scenario A: short payback period

of payback period  Scenario A : short payback period around 3-years payback period in most

around 3-years payback period in most of sectors. around 10-years payback period for large plants such in power generation and industry

for large plants such in power generation and industry  Scenario B : long payback period
for large plants such in power generation and industry  Scenario B : long payback period
for large plants such in power generation and industry  Scenario B : long payback period

Scenario B: long payback period by policy intervention

 Scenario B : long payback period by policy intervention adequately payback periods corresponding to about

adequately payback periods corresponding to about 50~70% of the technology’s lifetime. e.g.) Residential equipments: 7-10 years (when technology’s lifetime is 10-15yearsCar, truck, bus: 6-9 years (when automobile lifetime is 8-12 years) Large plant: 14-15 years (when plant lifetime is 30 years

plant: 14-15 years (when plant lifetime is 30 years ) ② Comparison of composition of power
plant: 14-15 years (when plant lifetime is 30 years ) ② Comparison of composition of power
plant: 14-15 years (when plant lifetime is 30 years ) ② Comparison of composition of power
plant: 14-15 years (when plant lifetime is 30 years ) ② Comparison of composition of power
plant: 14-15 years (when plant lifetime is 30 years ) ② Comparison of composition of power
plant: 14-15 years (when plant lifetime is 30 years ) ② Comparison of composition of power

Comparison of composition of power sources

30 years ) ② Comparison of composition of power sources  Scenario A : composition under
30 years ) ② Comparison of composition of power sources  Scenario A : composition under

Scenario A: composition under cost optimization without energy security restrictions

A drastic energy shift is allowed. For example, if a gas power plant is more cost effective than a existing coal or oil power plant, then the coal or oil power plant is immediately stopped and replaced with a gas power plant.

Scenario B: composition with energy security restrictions.

Social barriers restrict to a certain extent any drastic energy shift from coal and oil power plants to efficient gas powers or renewable energies.

Logic of technology selection
Logic of technology selection
Logic of technology selection Initial cost Running cost for X years (1) Replacement, new demands Service

Initial cost

Running cost for X years

(1) Replacement, new demands

Service demand

Technology A (baseline tech)

Technology B (mitigation tech)

Technology A (baseline tech) Technology B (mitigation tech) If Tech A < Tech B ⇒ then

If Tech A Tech B then Tech A is selected

tech) If Tech A < Tech B ⇒ then Tech A is selected Extension of pay

Extension of pay back period

⇒ then Tech A is selected Extension of pay back period New demands Introduction in year
New demands Introduction in year X+1 Replacement Existing
New demands
Introduction
in year X+1
Replacement
Existing

X

X+1

Year

Initial costIntroduction in year X+1 Replacement Existing X X+1 Year Running cost for X years Technology A

Running cost for X years

Technology A

Technology A (baseline tech)

(baseline tech)

cost Running cost for X years Technology A (baseline tech) Technology B (mitigation tech) If Tech

Technology B (mitigation tech)

A (baseline tech) Technology B (mitigation tech) If Tech A < Tech B ⇒ then Tech
A (baseline tech) Technology B (mitigation tech) If Tech A < Tech B ⇒ then Tech
A (baseline tech) Technology B (mitigation tech) If Tech A < Tech B ⇒ then Tech

If Tech A Tech B then Tech B is selected

As private industries take into account high investment risk for energy conserving technologies, a payback period of 3-years is assumed.

take into account high investment risk for energy conserving technologies, a payback period of 3-years is

0

50

20

200

100

2005 Baseline


Electricity output (TWh)

0

50

20

200

100

2005 Baseline



Example of composition of power sources

≤ ≤ ≤ ≤ Example of composition of power sources Scenario A Electricity output (TWh) 1,600
≤ ≤ ≤ ≤ Example of composition of power sources Scenario A Electricity output (TWh) 1,600
Scenario A Electricity output (TWh)
Scenario
A
Electricity output (TWh)

1,600

1,400

1,200

1,000

800

600

400

200

0

output (TWh) 1,600 1,400 1,200 1,000 800 600 400 200 0 Japan PV WIN BMS GEO/HYD

Japan

output (TWh) 1,600 1,400 1,200 1,000 800 600 400 200 0 Japan PV WIN BMS GEO/HYD
output (TWh) 1,600 1,400 1,200 1,000 800 600 400 200 0 Japan PV WIN BMS GEO/HYD
output (TWh) 1,600 1,400 1,200 1,000 800 600 400 200 0 Japan PV WIN BMS GEO/HYD
output (TWh) 1,600 1,400 1,200 1,000 800 600 400 200 0 Japan PV WIN BMS GEO/HYD
output (TWh) 1,600 1,400 1,200 1,000 800 600 400 200 0 Japan PV WIN BMS GEO/HYD
output (TWh) 1,600 1,400 1,200 1,000 800 600 400 200 0 Japan PV WIN BMS GEO/HYD
output (TWh) 1,600 1,400 1,200 1,000 800 600 400 200 0 Japan PV WIN BMS GEO/HYD
output (TWh) 1,600 1,400 1,200 1,000 800 600 400 200 0 Japan PV WIN BMS GEO/HYD
output (TWh) 1,600 1,400 1,200 1,000 800 600 400 200 0 Japan PV WIN BMS GEO/HYD
output (TWh) 1,600 1,400 1,200 1,000 800 600 400 200 0 Japan PV WIN BMS GEO/HYD
output (TWh) 1,600 1,400 1,200 1,000 800 600 400 200 0 Japan PV WIN BMS GEO/HYD
output (TWh) 1,600 1,400 1,200 1,000 800 600 400 200 0 Japan PV WIN BMS GEO/HYD
output (TWh) 1,600 1,400 1,200 1,000 800 600 400 200 0 Japan PV WIN BMS GEO/HYD
output (TWh) 1,600 1,400 1,200 1,000 800 600 400 200 0 Japan PV WIN BMS GEO/HYD
output (TWh) 1,600 1,400 1,200 1,000 800 600 400 200 0 Japan PV WIN BMS GEO/HYD
output (TWh) 1,600 1,400 1,200 1,000 800 600 400 200 0 Japan PV WIN BMS GEO/HYD
output (TWh) 1,600 1,400 1,200 1,000 800 600 400 200 0 Japan PV WIN BMS GEO/HYD
output (TWh) 1,600 1,400 1,200 1,000 800 600 400 200 0 Japan PV WIN BMS GEO/HYD

PVoutput (TWh) 1,600 1,400 1,200 1,000 800 600 400 200 0 Japan WIN BMS GEO/HYD NUC

WIN(TWh) 1,600 1,400 1,200 1,000 800 600 400 200 0 Japan PV BMS GEO/HYD NUC GAS

BMS

GEO/HYD

NUC

GAS

OIL

COL

800 600 400 200 0 Japan PV WIN BMS GEO/HYD NUC GAS OIL COL USA 5,000
USA 5,000 PV 4,500 WIN 4,000 3,500 BMS 3,000 GEO/HYD 2,500 NUC 2,000 GAS 1,500
USA
5,000
PV
4,500
WIN
4,000
3,500
BMS
3,000
GEO/HYD
2,500
NUC
2,000
GAS
1,500
OIL
1,000
500
COL
0
Electricity output (TWh)
2005
Baseline
0
20
50
100
200

EU25

4,000 3,500 3,000 2,500 2,000 1,500 1,000 500 0 Electricity output (TWh) 2005 Baseline ≤
4,000
3,500
3,000
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
0
Electricity output (TWh)
2005
Baseline
0
20
50
100
200

PV

WIN

BMS

GEO/HYD

NUC

GAS

OIL

COL

A drastic energy shift from coal and oil to gas is allowed if it is cost effective.

Scenario

B

1,600

1,400

1,200

1,000

800

600

400

200

0

Scenario B 1,600 1,400 1,200 1,000 800 600 400 200 0 PV WIN BMS GEO/HYD NUC
Scenario B 1,600 1,400 1,200 1,000 800 600 400 200 0 PV WIN BMS GEO/HYD NUC
Scenario B 1,600 1,400 1,200 1,000 800 600 400 200 0 PV WIN BMS GEO/HYD NUC
Scenario B 1,600 1,400 1,200 1,000 800 600 400 200 0 PV WIN BMS GEO/HYD NUC
Scenario B 1,600 1,400 1,200 1,000 800 600 400 200 0 PV WIN BMS GEO/HYD NUC
Scenario B 1,600 1,400 1,200 1,000 800 600 400 200 0 PV WIN BMS GEO/HYD NUC
Scenario B 1,600 1,400 1,200 1,000 800 600 400 200 0 PV WIN BMS GEO/HYD NUC
Scenario B 1,600 1,400 1,200 1,000 800 600 400 200 0 PV WIN BMS GEO/HYD NUC
Scenario B 1,600 1,400 1,200 1,000 800 600 400 200 0 PV WIN BMS GEO/HYD NUC
Scenario B 1,600 1,400 1,200 1,000 800 600 400 200 0 PV WIN BMS GEO/HYD NUC
Scenario B 1,600 1,400 1,200 1,000 800 600 400 200 0 PV WIN BMS GEO/HYD NUC
Scenario B 1,600 1,400 1,200 1,000 800 600 400 200 0 PV WIN BMS GEO/HYD NUC
Scenario B 1,600 1,400 1,200 1,000 800 600 400 200 0 PV WIN BMS GEO/HYD NUC
Scenario B 1,600 1,400 1,200 1,000 800 600 400 200 0 PV WIN BMS GEO/HYD NUC
Scenario B 1,600 1,400 1,200 1,000 800 600 400 200 0 PV WIN BMS GEO/HYD NUC
Scenario B 1,600 1,400 1,200 1,000 800 600 400 200 0 PV WIN BMS GEO/HYD NUC

PVScenario B 1,600 1,400 1,200 1,000 800 600 400 200 0 WIN BMS GEO/HYD NUC GAS

WINScenario B 1,600 1,400 1,200 1,000 800 600 400 200 0 PV BMS GEO/HYD NUC GAS

BMS

GEO/HYD

NUC

GAS

OIL

COL

1,000 800 600 400 200 0 PV WIN BMS GEO/HYD NUC GAS OIL COL 5,000 PV
5,000 PV 4,500 WIN 4,000 3,500 BMS 3,000 GEO/HYD 2,500 NUC 2,000 GAS 1,500 OIL
5,000
PV
4,500
WIN
4,000
3,500
BMS
3,000
GEO/HYD
2,500
NUC
2,000
GAS
1,500
OIL
1,000
500
COL
0
Electricity output (TWh)
2005
Baseline
0
20
50
100
200
4,000 PV 3,500 WIN 3,000 BMS 2,500 GEO/HYD 2,000 NUC 1,500 GAS 1,000 OIL 500
4,000
PV
3,500
WIN
3,000
BMS
2,500
GEO/HYD
2,000
NUC
1,500
GAS
1,000
OIL
500
COL
0
Electricity output (TWh)
2005
Baseline
0
20
50
100
200

Social barriers restrict any drastic energy shift considering realistic state.

Example of difference of abatement cost curves in major developed countries Scenario A Scenario B
Example of difference of abatement cost curves
in major developed countries
Scenario A
Scenario B
- short payback period
- long payback period
- cost optimization in power sector
- energy security restrictions in power sector
200
200
180
180
160
160
140
140
120
120
100
100
80
80
60
60
40
40
20
20
-
-
-
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
4,000
-
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
4,000
GHG reductions (MtCO 2 eq, 2020)
GHG reductions (MtCO 2 eq, 2020)
JPN
Japan
USA
USA
EU25
EU25
RUS
Russia
Japan
USA
EU25
Russia
JPN
USA
EU25
RUS
 Under the long payback period, more reduction potentials at lower costs are estimated due to
the effects of promoting high efficient technologies on the demand side.
Abatement cost (US$/tCO2)
Marginal abatement cost (US$/tCO 2 eq)
Abatement cost (US$/tCO2)
Marginal abatement cost (US$/tCO 2 eq)

Under cost optimization without energy security restrictions in power generation, more

mitigation potentials are estimated above 50 US$/t-CO2 eq due to the effects of a drastic energy

shift from existing coal and oil power plants to new efficient gas power plants.

Discussions in the IPCC AR4

Discussions in the IPCC AR4 Working Group Ⅲ , Chapter 13, Box13.7 Japanese Government wanted to
Discussions in the IPCC AR4 Working Group Ⅲ , Chapter 13, Box13.7 Japanese Government wanted to
Discussions in the IPCC AR4 Working Group Ⅲ , Chapter 13, Box13.7 Japanese Government wanted to
Discussions in the IPCC AR4 Working Group Ⅲ , Chapter 13, Box13.7 Japanese Government wanted to

Working Group , Chapter 13, Box13.7

in the IPCC AR4 Working Group Ⅲ , Chapter 13, Box13.7 Japanese Government wanted to know
in the IPCC AR4 Working Group Ⅲ , Chapter 13, Box13.7 Japanese Government wanted to know
in the IPCC AR4 Working Group Ⅲ , Chapter 13, Box13.7 Japanese Government wanted to know

Japanese Government wanted to know the comparable reduction efforts

across Annex I countries to achieve the 25% reduction from the 1990 level.

GHG emissions in 2020 (%) [compared to 1990 level]

GHG emissions

Example of equitable emission allocation to achieve 25% reductions in Annex I
Example of equitable emission allocation
to achieve 25% reductions in Annex I
emission allocation to achieve 25% reductions in Annex I -11% -11% -19% -1% -23% -3% -11%
-11% -11% -19% -1% -23% -3% -11% -28% -15% -6% -9% -25% -9% -32% -37%
-11%
-11%
-19%
-1%
-23%
-3%
-11%
-28%
-15%
-6%
-9%
-25%
-9%
-32%
-37%
NonCO2 + CO2 (non fuel)
CO2 (Fuel Combustion)
GHG
Japan
Japan
USA
USA
EU27 Russia Annex I
EU27
Russia
Annex I
Equal marginal abatement cost MAC: 131 US$/tCO2 eq 0% 0% -2% -3% -5% -5% -5%
Equal marginal abatement cost
MAC: 131 US$/tCO2 eq
0%
0%
-2%
-3%
-5%
-5%
-5%
-17%
-19%
-10%
-10%
-21%
-15%
-15%
-31%
-20%
-20%
-9%
-1%
-6%
-25%
-25%
-22%
-25%
-25%
-30%
-30%
in 2020 (%) [compare to
1990 level]

Imposing equal marginal abatement cost (left figure) and equal total abatement costs per GDP (right figure) across Annex I countries to achieve a 25 % reduction target in Annex I countries. It is important to compare reduction targets by using different indices.

Equal total abatement cost per GDP Abatement cost per GDP: 0.74%

-35% -9% NonCO2 + CO2 (non fuel) -40% -40% CO2 (Fuel Combustion) -45% GHG -50%
-35%
-9%
NonCO2 + CO2 (non fuel)
-40%
-40%
CO2 (Fuel Combustion)
-45%
GHG
-50%
USA
EU27
Russia
Annex I

-35%

-40%

-45%

-50%

Japan
Japan

(Note: as of January 2010 in the case of Scenario A).

Example of equitable emission allocation reduction target in Japan and comparable efforts in Annex I
Example of equitable emission allocation
reduction target in Japan and comparable efforts in Annex I
Imposing equal marginal abatement cost (to achieve 15% reduction target in left
figure, 20% reduction target in right figure in Japan) across Annex I countries.
Equal marginal abatement cost
MAC: 270 US$/tCO2 eq
Equal marginal abatement cost
MAC: 544 US$/tCO2 eq
0%
0%
-5%
-5%
-12%
-16%
-10%
-10%
-23%
-25%
-25%
-3%
-27%
-29%
-15%
-15%
-15%
-31%
-31%
-33%
-20%
-4%
-20%
-20%
-25%
-25%
-9%
-30%
-6%
-2%
-9%
-30%
-30%
-6%
-33%
-2%
-32%
-31%
-35%
-35%
-9%
-34%
-33%
-9%
NonCO 2 + CO 2 (non fuel)
-40%
-40%
NonCO2 + CO 2 (non fuel)
-40%
-42%
CO 2 (Fuel Combustion)
CO2 (Fuel Combustion)
-45%
-45%
GHG
GHG
-50%
-50%
Japan
USA
EU27
Russia
Annex I
Japan
USA
EU27
Russia
Annex I
GHG emissions in 2020 (%)
[compared to 1990 level]
GHG emissions
in 2020 (%) [compare to
1990
level]
GHG emissions
in 2020 (%) [compare to
1990
level]

(Note: as of January 2010 in the case of Scenario A).

Criteria for Equitable Emission Allocation A variety of criteria has been proposed by countries and
Criteria for Equitable Emission Allocation
A variety of criteria has been proposed by countries and experts.
of criteria has been proposed by countries and experts.  Responsibility of emitting GHG  Historical

Responsibility of emitting GHG

Historical responsibility for temperature rise

Emission per capita

National emission at absolute level

Capacity (to pay)

GDP or GDP per capita

Combination with HDI (human

development indicator)and GDP

Combination with HDI (human development indicator)and GDP  Capability (emission reduction potential) 

Capability (emission reduction potential)

Emission per unit of production

Emission per GDP

Marginal cost of reduction

Hybrid criteria

Triptych

Multi-stage Approach

Multi-sector Convergence

EC Communication 28 Jan 2009 used four criteria to set emission targets for Annex I countries.

- GDP per capita

-Emission per unit of production -Emission trend between 1990-2005

- Population trend between 1990-2005

Emission reduction target according to a variety

of differentiation criteria(target year 2020/ base year 1990)
of differentiation criteria(target year 2020/ base year 1990)
criteria(target year 2020/ base year 1990) reference Emission reduction target (from 1990) Annex
reference Emission reduction target (from 1990) Annex Japan US EU25 Russia Non - I China
reference
Emission reduction target
(from 1990)
Annex
Japan
US
EU25
Russia
Non -
I
China
India
World
Annex I
Muti-Stage Approach 1)
-31%
-38%
-36%
-52%
-41%
62%
235%
89%
9%
Figures from: Höhne, N., D.
Phylipsen, Moltmann, S.,
2007: Factors underpinning
future action 2007 update, For
the Department for
Environment, Food and Rural
Affairs (DEFRA), UK,
Contraction and
-31%
-18%
-34%
-48%
-32%
62%
168%
76%
10%
Convergence 2)
Contraction but Differentiated
Convergence 3)
-33%
-9%
-35%
-47%
-29%
48%
180%
72%
10%
(450ppmCO2eqstabilization)
Triptych Approach 4)
-29%
-8%
-31%
-45%
-26%
65%
103%
69%
10%
Equal emission reduction
cost 5)
-5%
-22%
-25%
-40%
-25%
- -
- -
Calculation by AIM World
Technology Model
Equal emission reduction
cost per GDP 6)
-15%
-21%
-32%
-37%
-25%
- -
- -
Convergence of emission per
GDP 7)
- 3%
-10%
-26%
-52%
-25%
114%
65%
74%
14%
Calculation by NIES, Kyoto
University, and Tokyo
Institute of Technology
Contraction and
-16%
-13%
-26%
-46%
-25%
72%
98%
74%
14%
Convergence 8)
Equal percentage
improvement rage of
emission per GDP 9)
-30%
-19%
-33%
-21%
-25%
160%
81%
74%
14%

1)

2)

3)

4)

5)

6)

7)

8)

9)

-21% -25% 160% 81% 74% 14% 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 8) 9) Four

Four groups of countries according to level of economic development, which are committed to differenty ypes of commitments. Equal emission per capita by 2050. Similar with C&C, with additional emission allowances to Non-Annex I countries. Sets emission targets to power, industry, transportation and residential sectors individually. Senario 2 of AIM calculation. Assumes 25% reduction from 1990 by Annex I as a whole. Senario 4 of AIM calculation. Assumes 25% reduction from 1990 by Annex I as a whole. Equal emission per GDP by 2050. Assumes halving global emission from 1990 by 2050. The rule is the same as 3), but assumes halving global emission from 1990 by 2050. Equal rate of improvement in all countries in terms of emission per GDP. Assumes halving global emission from 1990 by 2050.

Example of equitable emission allocation
Example of equitable emission allocation

reduction target in Japan and comparable efforts in Annex I and Asia

target in Japan and comparable efforts in Annex I and Asia Imposing equal marginal abatement cost

Imposing equal marginal abatement cost as the same level of 15% reduction target in Japan (i.e. 270 US$/t-CO2). (left figure: Annex I, right figure: Asia)

GHG emissions in 2020 (%) [compare to 1990 level]

GHG emissions in 2020 (%) [compare to 1990 level] 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% -10% -20%
40% 30% 20% 10% 0% -10% -20% -30% -40% -50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
-10%
-20%
-30%
-40%
-50%
(%) [compare to 1990 level] 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% -10% -20% -30% -40% -50% Japan
(%) [compare to 1990 level] 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% -10% -20% -30% -40% -50% Japan
(%) [compare to 1990 level] 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% -10% -20% -30% -40% -50% Japan
(%) [compare to 1990 level] 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% -10% -20% -30% -40% -50% Japan
(%) [compare to 1990 level] 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% -10% -20% -30% -40% -50% Japan

JapanUSA EU27 Russia Annex I

USAJapan EU27 Russia Annex I

EU27Japan USA Russia Annex I

RussiaJapan USA EU27 Annex I

Annex IJapan USA EU27 Russia

300% Japan 250% China 200% India 150% Korea 100% 50% 0% -50% GHG emissions in
300%
Japan
250%
China
200%
India
150%
Korea
100%
50%
0%
-50%
GHG emissions in 2020 (%) [compare to 1990 level]

What kinds of equitable emission allocation scheme should be used for Asia?

How should we assume the baseline scenario for Asia? What types of low carbon scenarios can be discussed for Asia?

etc

Abatement cost

($/tCO2 eq)

Mitigation potentials and costs by bottom-up models

- Implication, caution & limitation -

bottom-up models - Implication, caution & limitation - 0 Cumulative GHG reductions (tCO2 eq) MAC by

0

bottom-up models - Implication, caution & limitation - 0 Cumulative GHG reductions (tCO2 eq) MAC by
bottom-up models - Implication, caution & limitation - 0 Cumulative GHG reductions (tCO2 eq) MAC by
bottom-up models - Implication, caution & limitation - 0 Cumulative GHG reductions (tCO2 eq) MAC by

Cumulative GHG reductions (tCO2 eq)

MAC by energy-engineering models with bottom-up data

Implication:

1)

2)

models with bottom-up data Implication: 1) 2) Technological mitigation potentials and technological
models with bottom-up data Implication: 1) 2) Technological mitigation potentials and technological
models with bottom-up data Implication: 1) 2) Technological mitigation potentials and technological

Technological mitigation potentials and technological implementation costs MAC curves can compare mitigation efforts across countries, because MAC considers various factors such as the current level of energy efficiencies, difference

such as the current level of energy efficiencies, difference of socio-economic characteristics by country, scope of
such as the current level of energy efficiencies, difference of socio-economic characteristics by country, scope of
such as the current level of energy efficiencies, difference of socio-economic characteristics by country, scope of
such as the current level of energy efficiencies, difference of socio-economic characteristics by country, scope of
such as the current level of energy efficiencies, difference of socio-economic characteristics by country, scope of

of socio-economic characteristics by country, scope of renewable energies, etc.

by country, scope of renewable energies, etc. MAC is a complicated index MAC curves differ widely

MAC is a complicated index

MAC curves differ widely depending on assumptions of technology data such as technology costs, energy prices, payback periods, diffusion ratio of technology, etc.

prices, payback periods, diffusion ratio of technology, etc. MAC curves differ widely depending on socio-economic
prices, payback periods, diffusion ratio of technology, etc. MAC curves differ widely depending on socio-economic

MAC curves differ widely depending on socio-economic assumptions and baseline emissions.

Caution:

1)

2)

Limitation:

25
25
25
Appendix
Appendix
Appendix

Socio-economic settings (POP and GDP)

Socio-economic settings (POP and GDP) ・Population (POP): the prospects at medium variant by UN World Population
Socio-economic settings (POP and GDP) ・Population (POP): the prospects at medium variant by UN World Population
・Population (POP): the prospects at medium variant by UN World Population Prospects 2007 ・GDP:GDP by
・Population (POP): the prospects at medium variant by UN World Population
Prospects 2007
・GDP:GDP by region are estimated by the Socio-economic Macro Frame model.
1.6
16
60
2005
2020
2005
2020
2005
2020
1.4
14
50
1.2
12
40
1.0
10
0.8
8
30
0.6
6
20
0.4
4
10
0.2
2
0.0
0
0
Annual growth rate from 2005 to 2020 (%/year)
Japan
USA
EU25
Russia
China
India
Developed
Developing
Global
POP
-0.2%
0.9%
0.1%
-0.6%
0.5%
1.3%
0.3%
1.2%
1.1%
GDP
1.3%
1.9%
1.9%
5.0%
8.1%
7.3%
1.9%
5.5%
3.0%
GDP/POP
1.5%
1.0%
1.7%
5.5%
7.6%
6.0%
1.6%
4.2%
1.9%
Population (billion)
JapanJapan
日本
USA
米国
EU
EU25
Russia
ロシア
China
25
25
25
中国
India
インド
GDP (Trillion US$, 2000 price)
JapanJapan
日本
USA
米国
EU
EU25
Russia
ロシア
China
中国
India
インド
GDP per capita
(Thousand US$, 2000 price)
JapanJapan
日本
USA
米国
EU
EU25
Russia
ロシア
China
中国
India
インド

Socio-economic settings (Energy Prices)

Socio-economic settings (Energy Prices) ・Current domestic and international energy prices: IEA Energy Prices and Taxes
Socio-economic settings (Energy Prices) ・Current domestic and international energy prices: IEA Energy Prices and Taxes
Socio-economic settings (Energy Prices) ・Current domestic and international energy prices: IEA Energy Prices and Taxes
・Current domestic and international energy prices: IEA Energy Prices and Taxes (2007) ・Future international energy
・Current domestic and international energy prices: IEA Energy Prices and Taxes
(2007)
・Future international energy prices : assumptions made by the Institute of Energy
Economics, Japan (personal communication, 2009), that lie between the
estimates in IEA World Energy Outlook 2007 and IEA World Energy Outlook 2008.
$/bbl
140
Crude oil
IEA 2008
IEA2008
IEA 2008
120
(real price)
エネ研想定high
100$
90$
100
エネ研想定low
IEA 2007
80
IEA2007
IEA 2007
60
40
20
0
Source) IEEJ
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
2020
2025
2030
Unit (real price)
2007
2020
2030
Crude oil
$/barrel
69.3
90
100
Gas
US
$/MBtu
6.8
11.2
13.5
EU
$/MBtu
7.0
12.5
15.4
Japan
$/MBtu
7.8
16.3
21.1
Coal
$/tonne
72.8
102.2
107.8

Cement Production (million ton)

Steel Production (million ton)

Developed

EU25

ロシア

日本

インド

中国

米国

Russia

Annex I

China

JapanJapan

India

USA

EU

Passenger transportation volume

(Trillion person-km)

Service demand settings

volume (Trillion person-km) Service demand settings  700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 2005
volume (Trillion person-km) Service demand settings  700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 2005

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

0

2005 2020

2005

2005 2020

2020

Steel
Steel
Steel
Steel
Steel

Steel

Steel
Steel
Steel
Steel
Steel
Steel
Steel
2005 2020 Passenger JapanJapan 日本 JapanJapan 日本 USA USA 25 米国 米国 EU EU EU25
2005
2020
Passenger
JapanJapan
日本
JapanJapan
日本
USA
USA
25
米国
米国
EU
EU
EU25
EU25
Russia
Russia
ロシア
ロシア
Developed
Annex I
Developed
Annex I
China
中国
China
中国
India
インド
India
インド
25

1,400

1,200

1,000

800

600

400

200

0

2005 2020 Cement

2005

2005 2020 Cement

2020

Cement

2005 2020 Cement
2005 2020 Cement
2005 2020 Cement
2005 2020 Cement
2005 2020 Cement
2005 2020 Cement
2005 2020 Cement
2005 2020 Cement
2005 2020 Cement
2005 2020 Cement
2005 2020 Cement
2005 2020 Cement
2005 2020 Cement
2005 2020 Cement
25 1,400 1,200 1,000 800 600 400 200 0 2005 2020 Cement 25 20 12 2005

25

1,400 1,200 1,000 800 600 400 200 0 2005 2020 Cement 25 20 12 2005 2020
20 12 2005 2020 18 10 16 Freight 14 8 12 10 6 8 4
20
12
2005
2020
18
10
16
Freight
14
8
12
10
6
8
4
6
4
2
2
0
0
Japan
USA
EU25
Russia
Developed
China
India
World
25
Freight transportation volume
(Triillion ton-km)
JapanJapan
日本
USA
米国
EU
EU25
Russia
ロシア
Developed
Annex I
China
中国
India
インド

Annual growth rage from 2005 to 2020(%//year)

Steel

0.4%

1.5%

0.1%

0.3%

0.5%

3.3%

10.7%

2.4%

Cement

-0.2%

0.8%

0.3%

1.3%

0.5%

1.0%

7.4%

2.2%

Passenger

-0.4%

0.9%

0.9%

2.5%

0.9%

2.6%

1.7%

1.6%

Freight

-0.2%

0.9%

1.1%

1.6%

1.1%

2.5%

1.6%

1.7%

Service Demand Settings

Service Demand Settings  Service demands are estimated by Steel production and trade model, Cement production
Service Demand Settings  Service demands are estimated by Steel production and trade model, Cement production
Service Demand Settings  Service demands are estimated by Steel production and trade model, Cement production

Service demands are estimated by Steel production and trade model, Cement production model, Socio-economic macro frame model, Passenger transportation demand model, Freight transportation demand model, Agricultural trade model and so on. Data settings of GDP and population are the same across all sectors.

service demands in each service and sector are estimated by these models based on various kinds of international and national statistics

on various kinds of international and national statistics < Example of service demands in 2020 by

Example of service demands in 2020 by major region

Japan USA EU25 Russia 2005 2020 2005 2020 2005 2020 2005 2020 POP Million 127.9
Japan
USA
EU25
Russia
2005
2020
2005
2020
2005
2020
2005
2020
POP
Million
127.9
124.5
299.8
342.5
461.0
471.5
144.0
132.4
GDP
2000
US $
4.96
5.99
10.87
14.50
9.10
11.99
0.33
0.68
Industry
Steel
Million ton
112.5
119.7
94.2
119.3
187.3
190.7
66.1
69.0
Cement
Million ton
68.7
66.7
100.0
113.1
242.5
252.3
48.7
59.2
Others
2005
year=100
100
111
100
121
100
115
100
203
Transport
Passenger
Bil. p-km
1322.7
1243.7
8090.8
9233.7
5147.5
5884.3
833.3
1203.8
Freight
Bil. ton-km
277.6
269.6
4583.9
5215.5
2161.8
2557.2
1473.1
1882.8
China
India
Developing
Developed
World
2005
2020
2005
2020
2005
2020
2005
2020
2005
2020
POP
Million
1320.5
1429.8
1134.4
1379.2
5448.1
6555.3
1089.4
1135.5
6537.5
7690.8
GDP
2000
US $
2.02
6.54
0.61
1.77
9.19
20.62
26.59
35.11
35.78
55.74
Industry
Steel
Million ton
355.8
580.4
38.1
174.2
651.9
1097.2
484.8
526.1
1136.8
1623.3
Cement
Million ton
1012.4
1175.0
142.7
417.9
1821.3
2673.8
483.5
518.5
2304.8
3192.2
Others
2005
year=100
100
317
100
305
100
230
100
119
100
156
Transport
Passenger
Bil. p-km
1872.2
2763.8
1095.0
1408.4
9058.9
13661.2
16356.9
18724.4
25415.8
32385.6
Freight
Bil. Ton-km
2338.7
3375.9
693.0
874.2
7573.8
10749.4
9382.1
10986.1
16955.8
21735.5