3 results
Search Results
Now showing 1 - 3 of 3
- ItemThe economically optimal warming limit of the planet(Göttingen : Copernicus Publ., 2019) Ueckerd, Falko; Frieler, Katja; Lange, Stefan; Wenz, Leonie; Luderer, Gunnar; Levermann, AndersBoth climate-change damages and climate-change mitigation will incur economic costs. While the risk of severe damages increases with the level of global warming (Dell et al., 2014; IPCC, 2014b, 2018; Lenton et al., 2008), mitigating costs increase steeply with more stringent warming limits (IPCC, 2014a; Luderer et al., 2013; Rogelj et al., 2015). Here, we show that the global warming limit that minimizes this century's total economic costs of climate change lies between 1.9 and 2°C, if temperature changes continue to impact national economic growth rates as observed in the past and if instantaneous growth effects are neither compensated nor amplified by additional growth effects in the following years. The result is robust across a wide range of normative assumptions on the valuation of future welfare and inequality aversion. We combine estimates of climate-change impacts on economic growth for 186 countries (applying an empirical damage function from Burke et al., 2015) with mitigation costs derived from a state-of-the-art energy-economy-climate model with a wide range of highly resolved mitigation options (Kriegler et al., 2017; Luderer et al., 2013, 2015). Our purely economic assessment, even though it omits non-market damages, provides support for the international Paris Agreement on climate change. The political goal of limiting global warming to "well below 2 degrees" is thus also an economically optimal goal given above assumptions on adaptation and damage persistence. © 2019 Copernicus GmbH. All rights reserved.
- ItemBio-IGCC with CCS as a long-term mitigation option in a coupled energy-system and land-use model(Amsterdam [u.a.] : Elsevier, 2011) Klein, D.; Bauer, N.; Bodirsky, B.; Dietrich, J.P.; Popp, A.This study analyses the impact of techno-economic performance of the BIGCC process and the effect of different biomass feedstocks on the technology's long term deployment in climate change mitigation scenarios. As the BIGCC technology demands high amounts of biomass raw material it also affects the land-use sector and is dependent on conditions and constraints on the land-use side. To represent the interaction of biomass demand and supply side the global energy-economy-climate model ReMIND is linked to the global land-use model MAgPIE. The link integrates biomass demand and price as well as emission prices and land-use emissions. Results indicate that BIGCC with CCS could serve as an important mitigation option and that it could even be the main bioenergy conversion technology sharing 33% of overall mitigation in 2100. The contribution of BIGCC technology to long-term climate change mitigation is much higher if grass is used as fuel instead of wood, provided that the grass-based process is highly efficient. The capture rate has to significantly exceed 60 % otherwise the technology is not applied. The overall primary energy consumption of biomass reacts much more sensitive to price changes of the biomass than to technoeconomic performance of the BIGCC process. As biomass is mainly used with CCS technologies high amounts of carbon are captured ranging from 130 GtC to 240 GtC (cumulated from 2005-2100) in different scenarios.
- ItemLow-stabilisation scenarios and technologies for carbon capture and sequestration(Amsterdam : Elsevier, 2009) Bauer, N.; Edenhofer, O.; Leimbach, M.Endogenous technology scenarios for meeting low stabilization CO2 targets are derived in this study and assessed regarding emission reductions and mitigation costs. The aim is to indentify the most important technology options for achieving low stabilization targets. The significance of an option is indicated by its achieved emission reduction and the mitigation cost increase, if this option were not available. Quantitative results are computed using a global multi-regional hard-linked hybrid model that integrates the economy, the energy sector and the climate system. The model endogenously determines the optimal deployment of technologies subject to a constraint on climate change. The alternative options in the energy sector comprise the most important mitigation technologies: renewables, biomass, nuclear, carbon capture and sequestration (CCS), and biomass with CCS as well as energy efficiency improvements. The results indicate that the availability of CCS technologies and espec. biomass with CCS is highly desirable for achieving low stabilization goals at low costs. The option of nuclear energy is different: although it could play an important role in the primary energy mix, mitigation costs would only mildly increase, if it could not be expanded. Therefore, in order to promote prudent climate change mitigation goals, support of CCS technologies reduces the costs and-thus-is desirable from a social point of view. © 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.