IV.4. Model for Energy Supply Strategy Alternatives and their General Environmental
Impact (MESSAGE)
A set of integrated models was used to formulate the SRES scenarios at IIASA
(Nakicenovic, et al., 1998). Model for Energy Supply Strategy Alternatives
and their General Environmental Impact (MESSAGE) is one of the six models that
constitute IIASA's integrated modeling framework (Messner and Strubegger, 1995;
Riahi and Roehrl, 2000; Roehrl and Riahi, 2000).
The scenario formulation process starts with exogenous assumptions about population
and per capita economic growth by region. Energy demand (defined at the useful
energy level) is derived using the Scenario Generator (SG) model, a dynamic
model of future economic and energy development. It combines extensive historical
data about economic development and energy systems with empirically estimated
equations of trends to determine future structural change. For each scenario,
SG generates future paths of energy use consistent with historical dynamics
and with the specific scenario features (e.g., high or moderate economic growth,
rapid or more gradual energy intensity improvements).
The economic and energy development profiles serve as inputs for the energy
systems engineering model MESSAGE (Messner and Strubegger, 1995; Riahi and Roehrl,
2000; Roehrl and Riahi, 2000) and the macro-economic model MACRO (Manne and
Richels, 1992). MESSAGE is a dynamic linear programming model that calculates
cost-minimal supply structures under the constraints of resource availability,
the menu of given technologies, and the demand for useful energy. It estimates
detailed energy system structures, including energy demand, supply, and emissions
patterns, consistent with the evolution of the energy demand produced by SG.
MACRO is a modified version of the Global 2100 model, originally published in
1992 (Manne and Richels, 1992) and subsequently used widely in many energy studies
around the world. MACRO maximizes the inter-temporal utility function of a single
representative producer-consumer in each world region and estimates the relationships
between macro-economic development and energy use. MESSAGE and MACRO are linked
and used in tandem to test scenario consistency because they correspond to the
two different perspectives from which energy modeling is usually carried out
- top-down (MACRO) and bottom-up (MESSAGE).
The impacts of energy price changes on energy demand and gross domestic product
(GDP) growth are estimated by iterating shadow prices from MESSAGE and energy
demands from the MACRO model. The iteration is repeated until energy intensities
and GDP growth rates are consistent with the output of the SG model adopted
as exogenous input assumptions at the beginning of the scenario formulation
process. The demand reductions caused by increasing energy prices in the B2
marker compared to a hypothetical case with constant energy prices were calculated
with MACRO. Compared to this hypothetical case the price-induced energy demand
savings in the B2 marker are 8% by 2020, 23% by 2050, and 30% by 2100. Table
IV-4 gives the shadow prices for international trade for gas, oil, and coal
in the B2 marker. Table IV-5 summarizes the regional ranges
for extraction costs of gas, oil, and coal in the B2 marker.
The atmospheric concentrations of GHGs and the resultant warming potentials
can be estimated by the Model for the Assessment of Greenhouse Gas-Induced Climate
Change (MAGICC), a carbon cycle and climate change model developed by Wigley
et al. (1994).
Table IV-4: Shadow prices for international
trade in the B2 marker (1990US$/GJ).
|
Table IV-5: Ranges of
extraction costs for the four SRES regions in the B2 marker (1990US$/GJ).
|
|
|
Year |
Gas |
Coal |
Oil |
Year |
Gas |
Coal |
Oil |
|
|
2020
2050
2100 |
0.4
0.7
0.7 |
0.3
0.4
1.1 |
0.5
1.1
2.3 |
2020
2050
2100 |
(0.2-0.3)
(0.3-0.6)
(0.5-0.8) |
(0.2-0.3)
(0.2-0.3)
(0.4-0.7) |
(0.1-0.4)
(0.4-0.6)
(0.5-0.7) |
|
|
Figure IV-4 illustrates the IIASA integrated modeling framework and shows how
the models are linked (Nakicenovic, et al., 1998). Of the six models
shown in Figure IV-4, four (SG, MESSAGE, MACRO, and MAGICC) were used for the
formulation and analysis of SRES scenarios, including the B2 marker scenario.
In addition the MESSAGE model was used to quantify all four scenario groups
of the A1 storyline and scenario family and a number of scenarios of the B1
storyline and scenario family. Altogether, the IIASA team formulated nine SRES
scenarios, including the B2 marker.
Figure IV-4:IIASA integrated
modeling framework (Nakicenovic, et al., 1998).
|
The other two models shown in Figure IV-4, RAINS and BLS, were not used to
model the SRES scenarios. RAINS (Alcamo et al., 1990) is a simulation
model of sulfur and NOx emissions, their subsequent atmospheric transport, chemical
transformations of those emissions, deposition, and ecological impacts. BLS
(Fischer et al., 1988, 1994) is a sectorial macro-economic model that
accounts for all major inputs (such as land, fertilizer, capital, and labor)
required for the production of 11 agricultural commodities.
The IIASA model set covers energy sector and industrial emission sources only.
Agricultural and land-use related emissions for the B2 marker scenario and other
SRES scenarios were derived from corresponding quantifications by the AIM model.
They are consistent with the energy-related emissions because they are based
on assumptions about the main driving forces that are in line with those in
the quantifications with the MESSAGE model.
More detailed information can be obtained by referring to the web site:
http://www.iiasa.ac.at/Research/ECS/.
Table IV-6: Assumptions on
cumulative resources and extraction costs as used in MARIA (source: based
on Rogner, 1997). |
|
|
Coal
|
Oil
|
Natural Gas
|
|
|
|
Grade A-C |
Grade D-E |
Grade I-III |
Grade IV-VIII |
Grade I-III |
Grade IV-VIII |
|
World occurrences
Cost |
53
0.2-2.8 |
205
2.8-6.3 |
12
< 4.4 |
98
4.4-28.0 |
16
< 4.4 |
820
4.4-25.4 |
|
(1) Resources are in ZJ and extraction costs
are in 1990US$/GJ (in the model itself costs are given in 1990US$/barrel
oil equivalent).
(2) Coal resources include brown coal.
(3) Grade I-III and Grade A-C, conventional resources; Grade I and A, proved
recoverable reserves; Grade II and B, additional recoverable resources;
Grade III and C, additional speculative (identified) reserves.
(4) Grade IV, enhanced recovery, Grade V-VIII, unconventional resources
and reserves; Grade VII-VIII, additional occurrences; Grade D-E, additional
resources. |
|