5 results
Search Results
Now showing 1 - 5 of 5
- ItemImplications of climate change mitigation strategies on international bioenergy trade(Dordrecht [u.a.] : Springer Science + Business Media B.V, 2020) Daioglou, Vassilis; Muratori, Matteo; Lamers, Patrick; Fujimori, Shinichiro; Kitous, Alban; Köberle, Alexandre C.; Bauer, Nico; Junginger, Martin; Kato, Etsushi; Leblanc, Florian; Mima, Silvana; Wise, Marshal; van Vuuren, Detlef P.Most climate change mitigation scenarios rely on increased use of bioenergy to decarbonize the energy system. Here we use results from the 33rd Energy Modeling Forum study (EMF-33) to investigate projected international bioenergy trade for different integrated assessment models across several climate change mitigation scenarios. Results show that in scenarios with no climate policy, international bioenergy trade is likely to increase over time, and becomes even more important when climate targets are set. More stringent climate targets, however, do not necessarily imply greater bioenergy trade compared to weaker targets, as final energy demand may be reduced. However, the scaling up of bioenergy trade happens sooner and at a faster rate with increasing climate target stringency. Across models, for a scenario likely to achieve a 2 °C target, 10–45 EJ/year out of a total global bioenergy consumption of 72–214 EJ/year are expected to be traded across nine world regions by 2050. While this projection is greater than the present trade volumes of coal or natural gas, it remains below the present trade of crude oil. This growth in bioenergy trade largely replaces the trade in fossil fuels (especially oil) which is projected to decrease significantly over the twenty-first century. As climate change mitigation scenarios often show diversified energy systems, in which numerous world regions can act as bioenergy suppliers, the projections do not necessarily lead to energy security concerns. Nonetheless, rapid growth in the trade of bioenergy is projected in strict climate mitigation scenarios, raising questions about infrastructure, logistics, financing options, and global standards for bioenergy production and trade. © 2020, The Author(s).
- ItemFossil-fueled development (SSP5): An energy and resource intensive scenario for the 21st century(Amsterdam : Elsevier, 2016) Kriegler, Elmar; Bauer, Nico; Popp, Alexander; Humpenöder, Florian; Leimbach, Marian; Strefler, Jessica; Baumstark, Lavinia; Bodirsky, Benjamin Leon; Hilaire, Jérôme; Klein, David; Mouratiadou, Ioanna; Weindl, Isabelle; Bertram, Christoph; Dietrich, Jan-Philipp; Luderer, Gunnar; Pehl, Michaja; Pietzcker, Robert; Piontek, Franziska; Lotze-Campen, Hermann; Biewald, Anne; Bonsch, Markus; Giannousakis, Anastasis; Kreidenweis, Ulrich; Müller, Christoph; Rolinski, Susanne; Schultes, Anselm; Schwanitz, Jana; Stevanovic, Miodrag; Calvin, Katherine; Emmerling, Johannes; Fujimori, Shinichiro; Edenhofer, OttmarThis paper presents a set of energy and resource intensive scenarios based on the concept of Shared Socio-Economic Pathways (SSPs). The scenario family is characterized by rapid and fossil-fueled development with high socio-economic challenges to mitigation and low socio-economic challenges to adaptation (SSP5). A special focus is placed on the SSP5 marker scenario developed by the REMIND-MAgPIE integrated assessment modeling framework. The SSP5 baseline scenarios exhibit very high levels of fossil fuel use, up to a doubling of global food demand, and up to a tripling of energy demand and greenhouse gas emissions over the course of the century, marking the upper end of the scenario literature in several dimensions. These scenarios are currently the only SSP scenarios that result in a radiative forcing pathway as high as the highest Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP8.5). This paper further investigates the direct impact of mitigation policies on the SSP5 energy, land and emissions dynamics confirming high socio-economic challenges to mitigation in SSP5. Nonetheless, mitigation policies reaching climate forcing levels as low as in the lowest Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP2.6) are accessible in SSP5. The SSP5 scenarios presented in this paper aim to provide useful reference points for future climate change, climate impact, adaption and mitigation analysis, and broader questions of sustainable development.
- ItemThe Shared Socioeconomic Pathways and their energy, land use, and greenhouse gas emissions implications: An overview(Amsterdam : Elsevier, 2016) Riahi, Keywan; van Vuuren, Detlef P.; Kriegler, Elmar; Edmonds, Jae; O’Neill, Brian C.; Fujimori, Shinichiro; Bauer, Nico; Calvin, Katherine; Dellink, Rob; Fricko, Oliver; Lutz, Wolfgang; Popp, Alexander; Crespo Cuaresma, Jesus; KC, Samir; Leimbach, Marian; Jiang, Leiwen; Kram, Tom; Rao, Shilpa; Emmerling, Johannes; Ebi, Kristie; Hasegawa, Tomoko; Havlik, Petr; Humpenöder, Florian; Aleluia Da Silva, Lara; Smith, Steve; Stehfest, Elke; Bosetti, Valentina; Eom, Jiyong; Gernaat, David; Masui, Toshihiko; Rogelj, Joeri; Strefler, Jessica; Drouet, Laurent; Krey, Volker; Luderer, Gunnar; Harmsen, Mathijs; Takahashi, Kiyoshi; Baumstark, Lavinia; Doelman, Jonathan C.; Kainuma, Mikiko; Klimont, Zbigniew; Marangoni, Giacomo; Lotze-Campen, Hermann; Obersteiner, Michael; Tabeau, Andrzej; Tavoni, MassimoThis paper presents the overview of the Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (SSPs) and their energy, land use, and emissions implications. The SSPs are part of a new scenario framework, established by the climate change research community in order to facilitate the integrated analysis of future climate impacts, vulnerabilities, adaptation, and mitigation. The pathways were developed over the last years as a joint community effort and describe plausible major global developments that together would lead in the future to different challenges for mitigation and adaptation to climate change. The SSPs are based on five narratives describing alternative socio-economic developments, including sustainable development, regional rivalry, inequality, fossil-fueled development, and middle-of-the-road development. The long-term demographic and economic projections of the SSPs depict a wide uncertainty range consistent with the scenario literature. A multi-model approach was used for the elaboration of the energy, land-use and the emissions trajectories of SSP-based scenarios. The baseline scenarios lead to global energy consumption of 400–1200 EJ in 2100, and feature vastly different land-use dynamics, ranging from a possible reduction in cropland area up to a massive expansion by more than 700 million hectares by 2100. The associated annual CO2 emissions of the baseline scenarios range from about 25 GtCO2 to more than 120 GtCO2 per year by 2100. With respect to mitigation, we find that associated costs strongly depend on three factors: (1) the policy assumptions, (2) the socio-economic narrative, and (3) the stringency of the target. The carbon price for reaching the target of 2.6 W/m2 that is consistent with a temperature change limit of 2 °C, differs in our analysis thus by about a factor of three across the SSP marker scenarios. Moreover, many models could not reach this target from the SSPs with high mitigation challenges. While the SSPs were designed to represent different mitigation and adaptation challenges, the resulting narratives and quantifications span a wide range of different futures broadly representative of the current literature. This allows their subsequent use and development in new assessments and research projects. Critical next steps for the community scenario process will, among others, involve regional and sectoral extensions, further elaboration of the adaptation and impacts dimension, as well as employing the SSP scenarios with the new generation of earth system models as part of the 6th climate model intercomparison project (CMIP6).
- ItemBio-energy and CO2 emission reductions: an integrated land-use and energy sector perspective(Dordrecht [u.a.] : Springer Science + Business Media B.V, 2020) Bauer, Nico; Klein, David; Humpenöder, Florian; Kriegler, Elmar; Luderer, Gunnar; Popp, Alexander; Strefler, JessicaBiomass feedstocks can be used to substitute fossil fuels and effectively remove carbon from the atmosphere to offset residual CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion and other sectors. Both features make biomass valuable for climate change mitigation; therefore, CO2 emission mitigation leads to complex and dynamic interactions between the energy and the land-use sector via emission pricing policies and bioenergy markets. Projected bioenergy deployment depends on climate target stringency as well as assumptions about context variables such as technology development, energy and land markets as well as policies. This study investigates the intra- and intersectorial effects on physical quantities and prices by coupling models of the energy (REMIND) and land-use sector (MAgPIE) using an iterative soft-link approach. The model framework is used to investigate variations of a broad set of context variables, including the harmonized variations on bioenergy technologies of the 33rd model comparison study of the Stanford Energy Modeling Forum (EMF-33) on climate change mitigation and large scale bioenergy deployment. Results indicate that CO2 emission mitigation triggers strong decline of fossil fuel use and rapid growth of bioenergy deployment around midcentury (~ 150 EJ/year) reaching saturation towards end-of-century. Varying context variables leads to diverse changes on mid-century bioenergy markets and carbon pricing. For example, reducing the ability to exploit the carbon value of bioenergy increases bioenergy use to substitute fossil fuels, whereas limitations on bioenergy supply shift bioenergy use to conversion alternatives featuring higher carbon capture rates. Radical variations, like fully excluding all technologies that combine bioenergy use with carbon removal, lead to substantial intersectorial effects by increasing bioenergy demand and increased economic pressure on both sectors. More gradual variations like selective exclusion of advanced bioliquid technologies in the energy sector or changes in diets mostly lead to substantial intrasectorial reallocation effects. The results deepen our understanding of the land-energy nexus, and we discuss the importance of carefully choosing variations in sensitivity analyses to provide a balanced assessment. © 2020, The Author(s).
- ItemBioenergy 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).