Emissions reduction scenarios in the Argentinean Energy Sector

Journal Article · Thu Apr 14 00:00:00 EDT 2016 · Energy Economics

DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2015.03.021· OSTI ID:1406809

Di Sbroiavacca, Nicolás ^[1]; Nadal, Gustavo ^[1]; Lallana, Francisco ^[1]; Falzon, James  ^[2]; Calvin, Katherine ^[3]

---

1. Fundacion Bariloche, Energy Program, Bariloche (Argentina)
2. Energy research Centre of the Netherlands, Amsterdam (The Netherlands)
3. Pacific Northwest National Lab. (PNNL), College Park MD (United States). Joint Global Change Research Inst.

Here in this paper the LEAP, TIAM-ECN, and GCAM models were applied to evaluate the impact of a variety of climate change control policies (including carbon pricing and emission constraints relative to a base year) on primary energy consumption, final energy consumption, electricity sector development, and CO₂ emission savings of the energy sector in Argentina over the 2010-2050 period. The LEAP model results indicate that if Argentina fully implements the most feasible mitigation measures currently under consideration by official bodies and key academic institutions on energy supply and demand, such as the ProBiomass program, a cumulative incremental economic cost of 22.8 billion US$(2005) to 2050 is expected, resulting in a 16% reduction in GHG emissions compared to a business-as-usual scenario. These measures also bring economic co-benefits, such as a reduction of energy imports improving the balance of trade. A Low CO₂ price scenario in LEAP results in the replacement of coal by nuclear and wind energy in electricity expansion. A High CO₂ price leverages additional investments in hydropower. An emission cap scenario (2050 emissions 20% lower than 2010 emissions) is feasible by including such measures as CCS and Bio CCS, but at a significant cost. By way of cross-model comparison with the TIAM-ECN and GCAM global integrated assessment models, significant variation in projected emissions reductions in the carbon price scenarios was observed, which illustrates the inherent uncertainties associated with such long-term projections. These models predict approximately 37% and 94% reductions under the High CO₂ price scenario, respectively. By comparison, the LEAP model, using an approach based on the assessment of a limited set of mitigation options, predicts a 11.3% reduction under the ‘high’ carbon tax. The main reasons for this difference are differences in assumptions about technology cost and availability, CO₂ storage capacity, and the ability to import bioenergy. In terms of technology pathways, the models agree that fossil fuels, in particular natural gas, will remain an important part of the electricity mix in the core baseline scenario. Finally, according to the models there is agreement that the introduction of a carbon price will lead to a decline in absolute and relative shares of aggregate fossil fuel generation. However, predictions vary as to the extent to which coal, nuclear and renewable energy play a role.

• Research Organization: Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL), Richland, WA (United States)
• Sponsoring Organization: USDOE; European Union (EU); USEPA
• Grant/Contract Number: AC05-76RL01830
• OSTI ID: 1406809
• Report Number(s): PNNL-SA-109345; 453040310
• Journal Information: Energy Economics, Vol. 56, Issue C; ISSN 0140-9883
• Publisher: Elsevier
• Country of Publication: United States
• Language: English

Related Subjects

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY
Argentina
energy sector
mitigation measures
CO₂ control policies