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

Gunnar Luderer (), Michaja Pehl, Anders Arvesen, Thomas Gibon, Benjamin L. Bodirsky, Harmen Sytze de Boer, Oliver Fricko, Mohamad Hejazi, Florian Humpenöder, Gokul Iyer, Silvana Mima, Ioanna Mouratiadou, Robert C. Pietzcker, Alexander Popp, Maarten van den Berg, Detlef van Vuuren and Edgar G. Hertwich
Additional contact information
Gunnar Luderer: Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK)
Michaja Pehl: Technische Universität Berlin
Anders Arvesen: Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU)
Thomas Gibon: Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU)
Benjamin L. Bodirsky: Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK)
Harmen Sytze de Boer: PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency
Oliver Fricko: International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA)
Mohamad Hejazi: Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
Florian Humpenöder: Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK)
Gokul Iyer: Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
Silvana Mima: Université Grenoble Alpes, CNRS, INRA, Grenoble INP, GAEL
Ioanna Mouratiadou: Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK)
Robert C. Pietzcker: Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK)
Alexander Popp: Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK)
Maarten van den Berg: PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency
Detlef van Vuuren: PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency
Edgar G. Hertwich: Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU)

Nature Communications, 2019, vol. 10, issue 1, 1-13

Abstract: 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.

Date: 2019
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (43)

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-13067-8 Abstract (text/html)

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:nat:natcom:v:10:y:2019:i:1:d:10.1038_s41467-019-13067-8

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
https://www.nature.com/ncomms/

DOI: 10.1038/s41467-019-13067-8

Access Statistics for this article

Nature Communications is currently edited by Nathalie Le Bot, Enda Bergin and Fiona Gillespie

More articles in Nature Communications from Nature
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Sonal Shukla () and Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing ().