A picture of the geographical distribution of the sources of CO2 emissions and the potential storage reservoirs helps us to understand the global cost of CO2 mitigation, particularly those components associated with CO2 transport. Geographical information about emission sources can be retrieved from a number of data sets. Table 2.4 shows the sectoral and regional distribution of energy-related CO2 emissions in 2000. As mentioned earlier in this report, over 60% of global CO2 emissions come from the power and industry sectors. Geographically, these power and industry emissions are dominated by four regions which account for over 90% of the emissions. These regions are: Asia (30%), North America (24%), the transitional economies (13%), and OECD West1 (12%). All the other regions account individually for less than 6% of the global emissions from the power and industry sectors.
Figure 2.3 shows the known locations of stationary CO2 sources worldwide, as taken from the database referred to in Section 2.2 (IEA GHG, 2002a). North America is the region with the largest number of stationary sources (37%), followed by Asia (24%) and OECD Europe2 (14%). Figure 2.3 shows three large clusters of stationary sources located in the central and eastern states of the US, in northwestern and central regions of Europe (Austria, Czech Republic, Germany, Hungary, Netherlands and UK) and in Asia (eastern China and Japan with an additional smaller cluster in the Indian subcontinent).
The distribution of stationary CO2 emissions as a proportion of the total stationary emissions for 2000 indicates that the regions that are the largest emitters of CO2 from stationary sources are: Asia at 41% (5.6 GtCO2 yr-1), North America at 20% (2.69 GtCO2 yr-1) and OECD Europe at 13% (1.75 GtCO2 yr-1). All other regions emitted less than 10% of the total CO2 emission from stationary sources in 2000.
A comparison of the estimates of CO2 emissions from the IEA and IEA GHG databases showed that the two sets produced
1 Note: OECD West refers to the following countries: Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, United Kingdom.
2 OECD Europe includes the OECD West countries listed above, plus the Czech Republic, Hungary, Iceland, Norway, Poland, Slovak Republic, Switzerland and Turkey.
similar estimates for the total of global emissions but that results differed significantly for many countries. Regional differences of this kind have also been noted for other CO2 emission databases (Marland et al., 1999).
2.3.2 Future CO2 emiss ions and technical capture potentials
The total CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion in the SRES scenarios provide the upper limit for potential CO2 capture for this assessment. In fact, the theoretical maximum is even higher because of the possibility of CO2 capture from biomass. These emissions are also included in the tables of CO2 emissions and they are therefore potentially available for capture. Obviously, the capture potential that is practical in technical terms is much smaller than the theoretical maximum, and the economic potential3 is even smaller. Needless to say, it is the economic potential that matters most. This section presents estimates of the technical potential and Chapter 8 will address the economic potential.
Table 2.5 shows the CO2 emissions by economic sector and major world regions for 2020 and 2050, and for six scenarios4. It should be noted that the total CO emissions in Table 2.5 are
3 Economic potential is the amount of reductions in greenhouse gas emissions from a specific option that could be achieved cost-effectively given prevailing circumstances (i.e. a price for CO2 reductions and the costs of other options).
4 For the four marker scenarios and the technology-intensive A1T and the fossil-intensive A1FI illustrative scenarios, it is important to note that comparisons between the results of different models are not straightforward. First, the modelling methodologies imply different representations of energy technologies and their future evolutions. Secondly, the sectoral disaggregation and the energy/fuel details vary across the models. Thirdly, there are differences in how countries of the world are grouped together into regions. Tables 2.5 and 2.6 are based on the work by Toth and Rogner (2005) that attempts to create the best possible approximation for the purposes of comparing the regional and sectoral model and scenario results.
higher than reported in SRES because emissions from biomass are explicitly included here (as these are potentially available for capture), while they where considered "climate-neutral" in the SRES presentations and therefore not counted as emission releases to the atmosphere. Geographically, the distribution of emission sources is set to change substantially. Between 2000 and 2050, the bulk of emission sources will shift from the OECD countries to the developing regions, especially China, South Asia and Latin America. As to emissions by sector, power generation, transport, and industry will remain the three main sources of CO2 emissions over the next 50 years. Globally, the projected energy sector emissions will fluctuate around the 40% mark in 2050 (this matches the current figure), emissions from the industry sector will decline and transport sector emissions (i.e., mobile sources) increase. Power generation, which typically represent the bulk of large point sources, will account for about 50% of total emissions by 20505.
These emissions form the theoretical maximum potential for CO2 capture from fossil fuel use. Toth and Rogner (2006) derived a set of capture factors on the basis of the technical or technological feasibility of adding CO2 capture before, during or after combustion of fossil fuels. Capture factors are defined as the estimated maximum share of emissions for which capture is technically plausible. A detailed assessment of the power plants
5 As regards the share of emissions across sectors in 2020 (Table 2.5), there is an inherent divergence between scenarios with longer and shorter time horizons. Given the quasi perfect foresight of the underlying models, the SRES scenarios account for resource depletion over a period of a century and, due to the anticipated transition to higher-fuel-cost categories in the longer run, they shift to non-fossil energy sources much earlier than, for example, the IEA scenarios, especially for electricity supply. Consequently, the range for the shares of fossil-sourced power generation is between 43 and 58% for 2020, while the IEA projects a share of 71%. The corresponding sectoral shares in CO2 emissions mirror the electricity generating mix: the IEA projects 43% for power generation (IEA, 2002) compared to a range of 28 to 32% in the six illustrative SRES scenarios.
A IB Sector
Was this article helpful?
Your Alternative Fuel Solution for Saving Money, Reducing Oil Dependency, and Helping the Planet. Ethanol is an alternative to gasoline. The use of ethanol has been demonstrated to reduce greenhouse emissions slightly as compared to gasoline. Through this ebook, you are going to learn what you will need to know why choosing an alternative fuel may benefit you and your future.