skip to main content
OSTI.GOV title logo U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Scientific and Technical Information

Title: Diffusion of low-carbon technologies and the feasibility of long-term climate targets

Abstract

Stabilizing the global climate will require large-scale global deployment of low-carbon technologies. Even in the presence of aggressive climate policies, however, the diffusion of such technologies may be limited by several, institutional, behavioral, and social factors. In this paper, we review the literature on the sources of such diffusion constraints, and explore the potential implications of such non-economic constraints based on the GCAM integrated assessment model. Our analysis highlights that non-economic factors that limit technology deployment may have sizeable impacts on the feasibility and mitigation costs of achieving stringent stabilization targets. And such impacts are greatly amplified with major delays in serious climate policies. The results generally indicate that constraints on the expansions of CCS and renewables are more costly than those on nuclear or bioenergy, and jointly constraining these technologies leaves some scenarios infeasible.

Authors:
; ; ; ; ;
Publication Date:
Research Org.:
Pacific Northwest National Lab. (PNNL), Richland, WA (United States)
Sponsoring Org.:
USDOE
OSTI Identifier:
1173021
Report Number(s):
PNNL-SA-93434
600306000
DOE Contract Number:
AC05-76RL01830
Resource Type:
Journal Article
Resource Relation:
Journal Name: Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 90(Part A):103-118
Country of Publication:
United States
Language:
English

Citation Formats

Iyer, Gokul C., Hultman, Nathan, Eom, Jiyong, McJeon, Haewon C., Patel, Pralit L., and Clarke, Leon E. Diffusion of low-carbon technologies and the feasibility of long-term climate targets. United States: N. p., 2015. Web. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2013.08.025.
Iyer, Gokul C., Hultman, Nathan, Eom, Jiyong, McJeon, Haewon C., Patel, Pralit L., & Clarke, Leon E. Diffusion of low-carbon technologies and the feasibility of long-term climate targets. United States. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2013.08.025.
Iyer, Gokul C., Hultman, Nathan, Eom, Jiyong, McJeon, Haewon C., Patel, Pralit L., and Clarke, Leon E. Thu . "Diffusion of low-carbon technologies and the feasibility of long-term climate targets". United States. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2013.08.025.
@article{osti_1173021,
title = {Diffusion of low-carbon technologies and the feasibility of long-term climate targets},
author = {Iyer, Gokul C. and Hultman, Nathan and Eom, Jiyong and McJeon, Haewon C. and Patel, Pralit L. and Clarke, Leon E.},
abstractNote = {Stabilizing the global climate will require large-scale global deployment of low-carbon technologies. Even in the presence of aggressive climate policies, however, the diffusion of such technologies may be limited by several, institutional, behavioral, and social factors. In this paper, we review the literature on the sources of such diffusion constraints, and explore the potential implications of such non-economic constraints based on the GCAM integrated assessment model. Our analysis highlights that non-economic factors that limit technology deployment may have sizeable impacts on the feasibility and mitigation costs of achieving stringent stabilization targets. And such impacts are greatly amplified with major delays in serious climate policies. The results generally indicate that constraints on the expansions of CCS and renewables are more costly than those on nuclear or bioenergy, and jointly constraining these technologies leaves some scenarios infeasible.},
doi = {10.1016/j.techfore.2013.08.025},
journal = {Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 90(Part A):103-118},
number = ,
volume = ,
place = {United States},
year = {Thu Jan 01 00:00:00 EST 2015},
month = {Thu Jan 01 00:00:00 EST 2015}
}
  • This paper provides an overview of the AMPERE intermodeling comparison with focus on the implications of near-term policies for the costs and attainability of long-term climate objectives. Ten modeling teams participated in the project to explore the consequences of global emissions following the proposed policy stringency of the national pledges from the Copenhagen Accord and Cancún Agreements to 2030. Specific features compared to earlier assessments are the explicit consideration of near-term 2030 emissions targets as well as the systematic sensitivity analysis for the availability and potential of mitigation technologies. Our estimates show that a 2030 mitigation effort comparable to themore » pledges would result in a further "lock-in" of the energy system into fossil fuels and thus impede the required energy transformation to reach low greenhouse-gas stabilization levels (450ppm CO2e). Major implications include significant increases in mitigation costs, increased risk that low stabilization targets become unattainable, and reduced chances of staying below the proposed temperature change target of 2C. With respect to technologies, we find that following the pledge pathways to 2030 would narrow policy choices, and increases the risks that some currently optional technologies, such as nuclear or carbon capture and storage (CCS), will become "a must" by 2030.« less
  • This paper considers the effect of several key parameters of low carbon energy technologies on the cost of abatement. A methodology for determining the minimum level of performance required for a parameter to have a statistically significant impact on CO2 abatement cost is developed and used to evaluate the impact of eight key parameters of low carbon energy supply technologies on the cost of CO2 abatement. The capital cost of nuclear technology is found to have the greatest impact of the parameters studied. The cost of biomass and CCS technologies also have impacts, while their efficiencies have little, if any.more » Sensitivity analysis of the results with respect to population, GDP, and CO2 emission constraint show that the minimum performance level and impact of nuclear technologies is consistent across the socioeconomic scenarios studied, while the other technology parameters show different performance under higher population, lower GDP scenarios. Solar technology was found to have a small impact, and then only at very low costs. These results indicate that the cost of nuclear is the single most important driver of abatement cost, and that trading efficiency for cost may make biomass and CCS technologies more competitive.« less
  • We investigate the long-term global energy technology diffusion patterns required to reach a stringent climate change target with a maximum average atmospheric temperature increase of 2°C. If the anthropogenic temperature increase is to be limited to 2°C, total CO 2 emissions have to be reduced massively, so as to reach substantial negative values during the second half of the century. Particularly power sector CO 2 emissions should become negative from around 2050 onwards according to most models used for this analysis in order to compensate for GHG emissions in other sectors where abatement is more costly. The annual additional capacitymore » deployment intensity (expressed in GW/yr) for solar and wind energy until 2030 needs to be around that recently observed for coal-based power plants, and will have to be several times higher in the period 2030–2050. Relatively high agreement exists across models in terms of the aggregated low-carbon energy system cost requirements on the supply side until 2050, which amount to about 50 trillion US$.« less
  • An annual energy-balance model is coupled to a steady state formulation of the long-term CO{sub 2} cycle to investigate the possible sources of the global warming at the Cretaceous. It is found that paleogeography solely is an insufficient factor but that the different latitudinal distribution of continental masses 100 My ago influenced the CO{sub 2} cycle and favored a larger content of the atmospheric CO{sub 2} level. A larger rate of tectonic activity and the possible influence of the vegetation in a CO{sub 2} richer atmosphere provide further sources of atmospheric carbon dioxide increase. The combination of these factors, togethermore » with a more vigorous poleward heat transport, provides CO{sub 2} levels 5 to 15 times larger than today and a global surface warming within the 6-12C estimated from paleoindicators.« less