Global energy sector emission reductions and bioenergy use: overview of the bioenergy demand phase of the EMF-33 model comparison (original) (raw)

Abstract

We present an overview of results from 11 integrated assessment models (IAMs) that participated in the 33rd study of the Stanford Energy Modeling Forum (EMF-33) on the viability of large-scale deployment of bioenergy for achieving long-run climate goals. The study explores future bioenergy use across models under harmonized scenarios for future climate policies, availability of bioenergy technologies, and constraints on biomass supply. This paper provides a more transparent description of IAMs that span a broad range of assumptions regarding model structures, energy sectors, and bioenergy conversion chains. Without emission constraints, we find vastly different CO2 emission and bioenergy deployment patterns across models due to differences in competition with fossil fuels, the possibility to produce large-scale bio-liquids, and the flexibility of energy systems. Imposing increasingly stringent carbon budgets mostly increases bioenergy use. A diverse set of available bioenergy technology portfolios provides flexibility to allocate bioenergy to supply different final energy as well as remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere by combining bioenergy with carbon capture and sequestration (BECCS). Sector and regional bioenergy allocation varies dramatically across models mainly due to bioenergy technology availability and costs, final energy patterns, and availability of alternative decarbonization options. Although much bioenergy is used in combination with CCS, BECCS is not necessarily the driver of bioenergy use. We find that the flexibility to use biomass feedstocks in different energy sub-sectors makes large-scale bioenergy deployment a robust strategy in mitigation scenarios that is surprisingly insensitive with respect to reduced technology availability. However, the achievability of stringent carbon budgets and associated carbon prices is sensitive. Constraints on biomass feedstock supply increase the carbon price less significantly than excluding BECCS because carbon removals are still realized and valued. Incremental sensitivity tests find that delayed readiness of bioenergy technologies until 2050 is more important than potentially higher investment costs.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

• Starting from 10 chapters or articles per month
• Access and download chapters and articles from more than 300k books and 2,500 journals
• Cancel anytime View plans

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

The alternative text for this image may have been generated using AI.

Fig. 2

The alternative text for this image may have been generated using AI.

Fig. 3

The alternative text for this image may have been generated using AI.

Fig. 4

The alternative text for this image may have been generated using AI.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

• Anderson K, Peters G (2016) The trouble with negative emissions. Science 354:182–183
  Article Google Scholar
• Bauer N et al (2017) Shared socio-economic pathways of the energy sector—quantifying the narratives. Glob. Environ Change 42:316–330
  Article Google Scholar
• Bhave A et al (2017) Screening and techno-economic assessment of biomass-based power generation with CCS technologies to meet 2050 CO2 targets. Appl Energy 190:481–489
  Article Google Scholar
• Buck HJ (2016) Rapid scale-up of negative emissions technologies: social barriers and social implications. Clim Chang 139:1–13
  Article Google Scholar
• Calvin K et al (2017) The SSP4: a world of deepening inequality. Glob. Environ Change 42:284–296
  Article Google Scholar
• Chum H et al (2011) Bioenergy, in: IPCC Special Report on Renewable Energy Sources and Climate Change Mitigation (SRREN), Chapter 2. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge and New York
• Clarke L et al (2014) Assessing transformation pathways. In: Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Chapter 6. Contribution of working group III to AR5 of the IPCC. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA
• Creutzig F et al (2013) Integrating place-specific livelihood and equity outcomes into global assessments of bioenergy deployment. Environ Res Lett 8:035047
  Article Google Scholar
• Dooley JJ (2013) Estimating the supply and demand for deep geologic CO2 storage capacity over the course of the 21st century. Energy Procedia 37:5141–5150
  Article Google Scholar
• Fargione JE et al (2010) The ecological impact of biofuels. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 41:351–377
  Article Google Scholar
• Field CB, Mach KJ (2017) Rightsizing carbon dioxide removal. Science 356:706–707
  Article Google Scholar
• Fricko O et al (2017) The marker quantification of the shared socioeconomic pathway 2. Glob Environ Change 42:251–267
  Article Google Scholar
• Fujimori S et al (2017) SSP3: AIM implementation of shared socioeconomic pathways. Glob Environ Change 42:268–283
  Article Google Scholar
• Fuss S et al (2014) Betting on negative emissions. Nat Clim Chang 4:850–853
  Article Google Scholar
• Grahn M et al (2007) Biomass for heat or as transportation fuel? Biomass Bioenergy 31:747–758
  Article Google Scholar
• Kato E et al (2017) A sustainable pathway of bioenergy with carbon capture and storage deployment. Energy Procedia 114:6115–6123
  Article Google Scholar
• Kaya A et al (2017) Constant elasticity of substitution functions for energy modeling in general equilibrium integrated assessment models: a critical review and recommendations. Clim Chang 145:27–40
  Article Google Scholar
• Keramidas K et al (2017) POLES-JRC model documentation (JRC Technical Report No. EUR 28728 EN). Seville, Spain
• Klein D et al (2014) The value of bioenergy in low stabilization scenarios: an assessment using REMIND-MAgPIE. Clim Chang 123:705–718
  Article Google Scholar
• Koelbl BS et al (2014) Uncertainty in carbon capture and storage (CCS) deployment projections: a cross-model comparison exercise. Clim Chang 123:461–476
  Article Google Scholar
• Kriegler E et al (2014) The role of technology for achieving climate policy objectives: overview of the EMF 27 study on global technology and climate policy strategies. Clim Chang 123:353–367
  Article Google Scholar
• Kriegler E et al (2017) Fossil-fueled development (SSP5): an energy and resource intensive scenario for the 21st century. Glob. Environ. Change 42:297–315
  Article Google Scholar
• Laurens L (2017) State of technology review—algae bioenergy (Task No. Task 39). IEA Bioenergy, Golden, CO
• Lomax G et al (2015) Reframing the policy approach to greenhouse gas removal technologies. Energy Policy 78:125–136
  Article Google Scholar
• Otto SAC et al (2015) Impact of fragmented emission reduction regimes on the energy market and on CO2 emissions related to land use. Technol. Forecast Soc. Change Part A 90:220–229
  Article Google Scholar
• Riahi K et al (2017) The shared socioeconomic pathways and their energy, land use, and greenhouse gas emissions implications: an overview. Glob. Environ Change 42:153–168
  Article Google Scholar
• Rogelj J et al (2015) Energy system transformations for limiting end-of-century warming to below 1.5 °C. Nat Clim Chang 5:519–527
  Article Google Scholar
• Rose SK et al (2014) Bioenergy in energy transformation and climate management. Clim Chang 123:477–493
  Article Google Scholar
• Sands R et al (2017) Dedicated energy crops and competition for agricultural land. Economic Research Report 223, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Washington DC
• Sano F et al (2015) Assessments of GHG emission reduction scenarios of different levels and different short-term pledges through macro- and sectoral decomposition analyses. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change Part A 90:153–165
  Article Google Scholar
• Scott V et al (2015) Fossil fuels in a trillion tonne world. Nat Clim Chang 5:419–423
  Article Google Scholar
• Smith P et al (2015) Biophysical and economic limits to negative CO2 emissions. Nat Clim Chang 6:42–50
  Article Google Scholar
• van Vuuren DP et al (2010) Bio-energy use and low stabilization scenarios. Energy J 31:193–221
  Google Scholar
• van Vuuren DP et al (2017) Energy, land-use and greenhouse gas emissions trajectories under a green growth paradigm. Glob. Environ Change 42:237–250
  Article Google Scholar
• Waisman H et al (2012) The Imaclim-R model: infrastructures, technical inertia and the costs of low carbon futures under imperfect foresight. Clim Chang 114:101–120
  Article Google Scholar
• Wilson C et al (2012) Marginalization of end-use technologies in energy innovation for climate protection. Nat Clim Chang 2:780–788
  Article Google Scholar
• Yamamoto H et al (2014) Role of end-use technologies in long-term GHG reduction scenarios developed with the BET model. Clim Chang 123:583–596
  Article Google Scholar

Download references

Acknowledgements

The views expressed in this paper are those of the individual authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the author’s institutions or funders. All errors are the responsibility of the authors. NB and JS received funding from the German Research Foundation (DFG) Priority Programme (SPP) 1689 (CEMICS). SR was supported by the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI); however, the views expressed here are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of EPRI or its funders. SF and TH were supported by the Environment Research and Technology Development Fund (2-1702) of the Environmental Restoration and Conservation Agency, Japan.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

1. Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK), Leibniz Association, 601203, 14412, Potsdam, Germany
   Nico Bauer, Jessica Strefler & David Klein
2. Energy and Environmental Analysis Research Group, Electric Power Research Institute, Washington, DC, USA
   Steven K. Rose
3. Department of Environmental Engineering, Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan
   Shinichiro Fujimori
4. National Institute for Environmental Studies (NIES), Tsukuba, Japan
   Shinichiro Fujimori & Tomoko Hasegawa
5. Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (PBL), The Hague, The Netherlands
   Detlef P. van Vuuren & Vassilis Daioglou
6. Copernicus Institute for Sustainable Development, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands
   Detlef P. van Vuuren
7. Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA, USA
   John Weyant
8. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL), College Park, MD, USA
   Marshall Wise & Yiyun Cui
9. International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), Laxenburg, Austria
   Matthew J. Gidden, Etsushi Kato & Oliver Fricko
10. The Institute of Applied Energy, Minato, Tokyo, 105-0003, Japan
    Atsushi Kurosawa
11. Joint Research Center (JRC), Seville, Spain
    Alban Kitous
12. Centre International de Recherche sur l’Environnement et le Développement, Paris, France
    Florian Leblanc & Ruben Bibas
13. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Washington, DC, USA
    Ronald Sands
14. Research Institute of Innovative Technology for the Earth (RITE), Kyoto, Japan
    Fuminori Sano
15. Environmental Science Laboratory, Central Research Institute of Electric Power Industry (CRIEPI), Abiko, Chiba, Japan
    Junichi Tsutsui
16. Grenoble Applied Economics Lab (GAEL), University Grenoble Alpes, CNRS, INRA, Grenoble INP, Grenoble, France
    Silvana Mima
17. National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), Golden, CO, USA
    Matteo Muratori

Authors

1. Nico Bauer
2. Steven K. Rose
3. Shinichiro Fujimori
4. Detlef P. van Vuuren
5. John Weyant
6. Marshall Wise
7. Yiyun Cui
8. Vassilis Daioglou
9. Matthew J. Gidden
10. Etsushi Kato
11. Alban Kitous
12. Florian Leblanc
13. Ronald Sands
14. Fuminori Sano
15. Jessica Strefler
16. Junichi Tsutsui
17. Ruben Bibas
18. Oliver Fricko
19. Tomoko Hasegawa
20. David Klein
21. Atsushi Kurosawa
22. Silvana Mima
23. Matteo Muratori

Corresponding author

Correspondence toNico Bauer.

Additional information

This article is part of the special issue “Assessing Large-scale Global Bioenergy Deployment for Managing Climate Change (EMF-33)” edited by Steven Rose, John Weyant, Nico Bauer, Shinichiro Fuminori, Petr Havlik, Alexander Popp, Detlef van Vuuren, and Marshall Wise.

Electronic supplementary material

Rights and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bauer, N., Rose, S.K., Fujimori, S. et al. Global energy sector emission reductions and bioenergy use: overview of the bioenergy demand phase of the EMF-33 model comparison.Climatic Change 163, 1553–1568 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-018-2226-y

Download citation

• Received: 01 November 2017
• Accepted: 15 May 2018
• Published: 02 July 2018
• Version of record: 02 July 2018
• Issue date: December 2020
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-018-2226-y

Profiles

1. Nico Bauer View author profile
2. Ronald Sands View author profile
3. Oliver Fricko View author profile
4. Matteo Muratori View author profile