Environmental co-benefits and adverse side-effects of alternative power sector decarbonization strategies

Gunnar Luderer, Michaja Pehl, Anders Arvesen, Thomas Gibon, Benjamin Bodirsky, Harmen Sytze de Boer, Oliver Fricko, Mohamad Hejazi, Florian Humpenöder, Gokul Iyer, Silvana Mima (), Ioanna Mouratiadou (), Robert Pietzcker, Alexander Popp, Maarten van den Berg, Detlef van Vuuren and Edgar Hertwich
Additional contact information
Gunnar Luderer: PIK - Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research
Thomas Gibon: LIST - Luxembourg Institute of Science and Technology
Benjamin Bodirsky: PIK - Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research
Harmen Sytze de Boer: PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency
Florian Humpenöder: PIK - Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research
Silvana Mima: GAEL - Laboratoire d'Economie Appliquée de Grenoble - Grenoble INP - Institut polytechnique de Grenoble - Grenoble Institute of Technology - INRA - Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique - UGA [2016-2019] - Université Grenoble Alpes [2016-2019]
Ioanna Mouratiadou: Scottish Agricultural College - The University of Edinburgh
Robert Pietzcker: PIK - Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research
Alexander Popp: PIK - Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research
Detlef van Vuuren: Universiteit Utrecht / Utrecht University [Utrecht]

Post-Print from HAL

Abstract: A rapid and deep decarbonization of power supply worldwide is required to limit global warming to well below 2?°C. Beyond greenhouse gas emissions, the power sector is also responsible for numerous other environmental impacts. Here we combine scenarios from integrated assessment models with a forward-looking life-cycle assessment to explore how alternative technology choices in power sector decarbonization pathways compare in terms of non-climate environmental impacts at the system level. While all decarbonization pathways yield major environmental co-benefits, we find that the scale of co-benefits as well as profiles of adverse side-effects depend strongly on technology choice. Mitigation scenarios focusing on wind and solar power are more effective in reducing human health impacts compared to those with low renewable energy, while inducing a more pronounced shift away from fossil and toward mineral resource depletion. Conversely, non-climate ecosystem damages are highly uncertain but tend to increase, chiefly due to land requirements for bioenergy.

Keywords: life-cycle assessment; climate-change mitigation; land-use; integrated assessment; water demand; transformation pathways; electricity-generation; severe accidents; impact assessment; air-pollution (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2019-12
New Economics Papers: this item is included in nep-agr, nep-ene, nep-env, nep-reg and nep-res
Note: View the original document on HAL open archive server: https://hal.science/hal-02380468v1
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (42)

Published in Nature Communications, 2019, 10, pp.5229. ⟨10.1038/s41467-019-13067-8⟩

Downloads: (external link)
https://hal.science/hal-02380468v1/document (application/pdf)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:hal:journl:hal-02380468

DOI: 10.1038/s41467-019-13067-8

Access Statistics for this paper

More papers in Post-Print from HAL
Bibliographic data for series maintained by CCSD ().