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

Nico Bauer (), Steven K. Rose, Shinichiro Fujimori, Detlef P. Vuuren, John Weyant, Marshall Wise, Yiyun Cui, Vassilis Daioglou, Matthew J. Gidden, Etsushi Kato, Alban Kitous, Florian Leblanc, Ronald Sands, Fuminori Sano, Jessica Strefler, Junichi Tsutsui, Ruben Bibas, Oliver Fricko, Tomoko Hasegawa, David Klein, Atsushi Kurosawa, Silvana Mima and Matteo Muratori
Additional contact information
Nico Bauer: Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK), Leibniz Association
Steven K. Rose: Electric Power Research Institute
Shinichiro Fujimori: Kyoto University
Detlef P. Vuuren: Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (PBL)
John Weyant: Stanford University
Marshall Wise: Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL)
Yiyun Cui: Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL)
Vassilis Daioglou: Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (PBL)
Matthew J. Gidden: International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA)
Etsushi Kato: International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA)
Alban Kitous: Joint Research Center (JRC)
Florian Leblanc: Centre International de Recherche sur l’Environnement et le Développement
Ronald Sands: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service
Fuminori Sano: Research Institute of Innovative Technology for the Earth (RITE)
Jessica Strefler: Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK), Leibniz Association
Junichi Tsutsui: Environmental Science Laboratory, Central Research Institute of Electric Power Industry (CRIEPI)
Ruben Bibas: Centre International de Recherche sur l’Environnement et le Développement
Oliver Fricko: International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA)
Tomoko Hasegawa: National Institute for Environmental Studies (NIES)
David Klein: Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK), Leibniz Association
Atsushi Kurosawa: The Institute of Applied Energy
Silvana Mima: University Grenoble Alpes, CNRS, INRA, Grenoble INP
Matteo Muratori: National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL)

Climatic Change, 2020, vol. 163, issue 3, No 23, 1553-1568

Abstract: 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.

Date: 2020
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (14)

Downloads: (external link)
http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10584-018-2226-y Abstract (text/html)
Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

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:spr:climat:v:163:y:2020:i:3:d:10.1007_s10584-018-2226-y

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.springer.com/economics/journal/10584

DOI: 10.1007/s10584-018-2226-y

Access Statistics for this article

Climatic Change is currently edited by M. Oppenheimer and G. Yohe

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