Filters

2014 - 20202

More filters

2021 - 20222
Reset filters

Settings

Author: Bauer, Nico Ă— Author: Sano, Fuminori Ă— End date: 2022 Ă— Start date: 2021 Ă— Subject: Integrated assessment models Ă—

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Bioenergy technologies in long-run climate change mitigation: results from the EMF-33 study
    (Dordrecht [u.a.] : Springer Science + Business Media B.V, 2020) Daioglou, Vassilis; Rose, Steven K.; Bauer, Nico; Kitous, Alban; Muratori, Matteo; Sano, Fuminori; Fujimori, Shinichiro; Gidden, Matthew J.; Kato, Etsushi; Keramidas, Kimon; Klein, David; Leblanc, Florian; Tsutsui, Junichi; Wise, Marshal; van Vuuren, Detlef P.
    Bioenergy is expected to play an important role in long-run climate change mitigation strategies as highlighted by many integrated assessment model (IAM) scenarios. These scenarios, however, also show a very wide range of results, with uncertainty about bioenergy conversion technology deployment and biomass feedstock supply. To date, the underlying differences in model assumptions and parameters for the range of results have not been conveyed. Here we explore the models and results of the 33rd study of the Stanford Energy Modeling Forum to elucidate and explore bioenergy technology specifications and constraints that underlie projected bioenergy outcomes. We first develop and report consistent bioenergy technology characterizations and modeling details. We evaluate the bioenergy technology specifications through a series of analyses—comparison with the literature, model intercomparison, and an assessment of bioenergy technology projected deployments. We find that bioenergy technology coverage and characterization varies substantially across models, spanning different conversion routes, carbon capture and storage opportunities, and technology deployment constraints. Still, the range of technology specification assumptions is largely in line with bottom-up engineering estimates. We then find that variation in bioenergy deployment across models cannot be understood from technology costs alone. Important additional determinants include biomass feedstock costs, the availability and costs of alternative mitigation options in and across end-uses, the availability of carbon dioxide removal possibilities, the speed with which large scale changes in the makeup of energy conversion facilities and integration can take place, and the relative demand for different energy services. © 2020, The Author(s).
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Making or breaking climate targets: The AMPERE study on staged accession scenarios for climate policy
    (Amsterdam [u.a.] : Elsevier Science, 2014) Kriegler, Elmar; Riahi, Keywan; Bauer, Nico; Schwanitz, Valeria Jana; Petermann, Nils; Bosetti, Valentina; Marcucci, Adriana; Otto, Sander; Paroussos, Leonidas; Rao, Shilpa; CurrĂ¡s, TabarĂ© Arroyo; Ashina, Shuichi; Bollen, Johannes; Eom, Jiyong; Hamdi-Cherif, Meriem; Longden, Thomas; Kitous, Alban; MĂ©jean, AurĂ©lie; Sano, Fuminori; Schaeffer, Michiel; Wada, Kenichi; Capros, Pantelis; van Vuuren, Detlef P.; Edenhofer, Ottmar
    This study explores a situation of staged accession to a global climate policy regime from the current situation of regionally fragmented and moderate climate action. The analysis is based on scenarios in which a front runner coalition – the EU or the EU and China – embarks on immediate ambitious climate action while the rest of the world makes a transition to a global climate regime between 2030 and 2050. We assume that the ensuing regime involves strong mitigation efforts but does not require late joiners to compensate for their initially higher emissions. Thus, climate targets are relaxed, and although staged accession can achieve significant reductions of global warming, the resulting climate outcome is unlikely to be consistent with the goal of limiting global warming to 2 degrees. The addition of China to the front runner coalition can reduce pre-2050 excess emissions by 20–30%, increasing the likelihood of staying below 2 degrees. Not accounting for potential co-benefits, the cost of front runner action is found to be lower for the EU than for China. Regions that delay their accession to the climate regime face a trade-off between reduced short term costs and higher transitional requirements due to larger carbon lock-ins and more rapidly increasing carbon prices during the accession period.