The Paris Agreement requires all signatory countries to put forward their best efforts through
\nnationally determined contributions and to strengthen these efforts in the years ahead. This includes requirements that all signatory countries report regularly on their emissions and on
\ntheir implementation efforts.<\/p>\n
The modeling report for the 2nd nationally determined contribution of Ukraine, developed
\nwithin the framework of the EBRD Project \u201cSupport to the Government of Ukraine for the
\nrenewal of the nationally determined contribution\u201d contains three main scenarios and eleven
\nscenarios of sensitivity of greenhouse gas emissions in Ukraine.<\/p>\n
Main scenarios:<\/strong><\/p>\n 1. Scenario 1 \/ Baseline Scenario<\/strong> is based on the current level of implementation of Sensitivity scenarios:<\/strong><\/p>\n 1. The scenario “Optimistic scenario of economic development”<\/strong> (for all main 5. The scenario \u201cHigh capital costs for construction of new nuclear power station<\/strong> \u2022 Higher (global) capital investments for the construction of new nuclear power
\ncurrent legislation (adopted before 01.09.2019), when the legislation is not
\nimplemented, implemented only partially or with significant delays (for example,
\nalthough progress has been made in implementing Energy Efficiency and RES Action
\nPlans however, the legally established mandatory targets set out in these plans have
\nnot been met).
\n2. Scenario 2 \/ The reference scenario<\/strong> is created to obtain a model assessment of timely
\nand full implementation of all current legislation adopted before 01.09.2019, as well
\nas draft regulations developed and submitted by 01.09.2019.
\n3. Scenario 3 \/ The climate-neutral scenario<\/strong> envisages timely implementation of
\nlegislation (existing and projects) as in Scenario 2, as well as additional innovative
\npolicies, measures and technologies (for example, in the model from 2026 available:
\nnew biotechnologies in navigation and aviation, industry, agriculture, biogas and
\nelectric road freight transport, improved forecasting system and balancing
\ntechnologies, from 2030 hydrogen (or other RES gas) in electricity generation and
\ntransport, fuel cells, carbon ultrasonic, bio-ultrasonic, etc. ), which correspond to the
\nglobal efforts to prevent the global average temperature from rising by 1.5 \u00b0C from
\nthe pre-industrial level. For 2050, an important goal of Scenario 3 is to reduce
\ngreenhouse gas emissions to 1.7 tons of CO2-eq. per capita.<\/p>\n
\nscenarios) assumes that Ukraine's economy will recover and grow rapidly, in
\nparticular, GDP growth is projected at 40% by 2025 from 2018, according to the
\nprevious Government Program.
\n2. \u201cThe Carbon Tax\u201d scenario<\/strong> envisages a dramatic increase in the CO2 tax (or the
\nformation of a corresponding market price) in all sectors of the economy from the
\ncurrent approximately 0.35 eurocents per tonne of CO2 to 15.6 euros in 2030 and 100
\neuros in 2050.
\n3. Scenario \u201cNew trajectory of greenhouse gas emission limits\u201d<\/strong> provides a linear
\ntrajectory of total greenhouse gas emissions in the country from the values of the main
\nScenario 3 in 2035 to net zero in 2070. Thus, reducing the ambition to reduce
\ngreenhouse gas emissions in 2050 from 1.7 tons of CO2-eq. per capita (Scenario 3) up
\nto 3.2 tons of CO2-eq. per capita.
\n4. The scenario \u201cWithout new nuclear units\u201d<\/strong> assumes that in Ukraine during 2020-
\n2050 no new large nuclear unit (1000+ MW) will be built and put into operation,
\nwhile the existing ones will function. At the same time, the possibility of construction
\nand commissioning of small and micro-nuclear units is assumed.<\/p>\n
\nunits\u201d<\/strong> assumes that the cost of construction and commissioning of all new large
\nnuclear units (including units No.3 and No.4 of Khmelnitsky nuclear power station)
\nwill correspond to the cost in the European Union – approximately 5922 euros (or
\n7,000 US dollars) per kW of installed capacity.
\n6. The scenario \u201cExtension of the service life of existing nuclear power station units\u201d<\/strong>
\nprovides an opportunity to extend the service life of existing nuclear power station
\nunits for an additional 5-10 years (in addition to the existing or planned extension for
\n20 years), subject to all possible safety conditions. Thus, the model calculations
\nassume that the existing nuclear power station units will be able to operate for 55-60
\nyears from the moment of their commissioning.
\n7. The scenario \u201cCurrent level of installed capacity utilization coefficient for existing<\/strong>
\nand new nuclear power station units\u201d<\/strong> assumes that taking into account the domestic
\nspecifics of the structure of electricity generation and demand for electricity, the
\ncompany NNEGC "Energoatom" will not be able to achieve technologically possible
\ninstalled capacity utilization coefficient levels of 85-90%, and it will fluctuate within
\nthe average for the last 11 years – 76%.
\n8. The scenario \u201cAdditional \u0441apacities of hydroaccumulating power stations\u201d<\/strong>
\nenvisages the potential possibility of putting into operation additional 1.7 GW of
\nhydroaccumulating power stations\u2019 capacities to those available in the main scenarios.
\nIt is assumed that additional capacity can be built at Kakhovka hydropower station-2,
\nDniester and Tashlyk hydropower stations. Additional hydropower capacity is
\nconsidered as additional opportunities to increase balancing capacity.
\n9. The scenario \u201cLower requirements for balancing capacity\u201d<\/strong> envisages faster
\ntechnological progress and more efficient management of the energy system
\n(including the use of new tools, instruments, etc.), which will reduce the need for
\nhighly maneuverable balancing capacity, and thus reduce the required level of
\ninvestment in electricity.
\n10. The scenario \u201cLimited implementation of waste management measures\u201d<\/strong> envisages
\nless optimistic rates of implementation of waste management measures than is
\ngenerally envisaged in Scenario 3. Accordingly, this will lead to lower greenhouse gas
\nemission reductions in the "Waste" sectors.
\n11. The scenario \u201cImpact of the EU carbon duty\u201d<\/strong> envisages an assessment of the
\npotential introduction by the European Union of a new special carbon duty (carbon
\nborder adjustment mechanism) on imports of goods and services into their territory,
\nincluding from the territory of Ukraine. This is due to the fact that the EU fears that
\nthe lack of climate ambitions of its international partners will undermine the EU's
\ndesire to achieve carbon neutrality by 2050.
\n12. Combined scenario:<\/strong>
\nThe combined scenario was developed on the basis of basic scenarios with the
\naddition of sensitivity scenario options that help to minimize investment needs and
\noptimize them, increase the share of renewable energy, maintain the long-term goal of
\nclimate policy – achieving a carbon-neutral economy by 2070, which corresponds to
\nthe long-term goal of Paris Agreement.
\nThe combined scenario was modeled on the baseline scenario of economic
\ndevelopment, including the conditions of the main Scenarios 2 for the sectors
\n"Agriculture" and "Land use, land use change and forestry", as well as the options of
\nsensitivity scenarios, such as:
\n\u2022 Carbon tax
\n\u2022 New trajectory of greenhouse gas emissions by 2050<\/p>\n
\nstation units
\n\u2022 Extension of the service life of existing nuclear power station units
\n\u2022 Current installed capacity utilization coefficient level for existing and new nuclear
\npower station units
\n\u2022 Lower balancing capacity requirements
\n\u2022 Limited implementation of waste management measures<\/p>\n