Search

In this paper MARKAL integrated energy system model is applied to explore the impacts and opportunities for low emissions energy system development in Macedonia, identifying CO 2 emission reduction policies and the cost of taking action. Two scenarios with different reduction target have been examined: higher ambition scenario where emissions are restricted to 10% above 1990 levels in 2021 and 2.5% in 2030, and moderate ambition scenario where emissions are restricted to 25% above 1990 levels in 2021 and 15% in 2030. In order to provide insights into the optimal timing of emission reductions, both of these cases have also been run under cumulative constraints, that is, rather than having the specified annual targets, there is a carbon “budget” set for 2015–2030 (44 Mt and 26 Mt for higher and moderate ambition cases, respectively), reflecting the same ambition as the above cases but providing flexibility to reduce emissions in the most cost-optimal way. The results show that most of the CO 2 reductions are in the power generation sector, which is not surprising as this tends to be the most carbon intensive sector. The higher ambition case is considerably more expensive than the reference case, with costs 1.9% higher, while the increase under the moderate ambition case is 1%. Under a cumulative constraint, the additional costs are reduced to 1.5% and 0.6% respectively, highlighting the importance of the timing of action. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The goal of this paper is to showcase a modelling exercise, conducted for the Republic of Macedonia, a non-Annex I country under UNFCCC and a candidate for EU membership, by making use of MARKAL energy system model. Baseline Scenario and three groups of mitigation scenarios have been developed until 2050, reflecting different types of targets with different levels of ambition regarding CO 2 emissions reduction: (1) EU scenarios – end-year targets compared to 1990 level; (2) QELRC (Quantified Emission Limitation and Reduction Commitment) scenarios – a range of targets over the period 2021–28 and for each subsequent 8-year period, and (3) Baseline deviation scenarios – deviation compared to baseline emission level. The comparative assessment of mitigation scenarios, based on the cumulative emissions, cumulative total system costs and incremental specific reduction cost, has generated a basis for setting the national mitigation contributions and formulating the most appropriate national mitigation action plan. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]