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

Bauer, Nico; Rose, Steven K.; Fujimori, Shinichiro; van Vuuren, Detlef P.; Weyant, John; Wise, Marshall; Cui, Yiyun; Daioglou, Vassilis; Gidden, Matthew J.; Kato, Etsushi; Kitous, Alban; Leblanc, Florian; Sands, Ronald; Sano, Fuminori; Strefler, Jessica; Tsutsui, Junichi; Bibas, Ruben; Fricko, Oliver; Hasegawa, Tomoko; Klein, David; Kurosawa, Atsushi; Mima, Silvana; Muratori, Matteo

doi:10.1007/s10584-018-2226-y

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

Journal Article · Mon Jul 02 04:00:00 EDT 2018 · Climatic Change

DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-018-2226-y· OSTI ID:1481100

Bauer, Nico; Rose, Steven K.; Fujimori, Shinichiro; van Vuuren, Detlef P.; Weyant, John; Wise, Marshall; Cui, Yiyun; Daioglou, Vassilis; Gidden, Matthew J.; Kato, Etsushi; Kitous, Alban; Leblanc, Florian; Sands, Ronald; Sano, Fuminori; Strefler, Jessica; Tsutsui, Junichi; Bibas, Ruben; Fricko, Oliver; Hasegawa, Tomoko; Klein, David more »

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.

Research Organization:: National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), Golden, CO (United States)

Sponsoring Organization:: USDOE Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE)

DOE Contract Number:: AC36-08GO28308

OSTI ID:: 1481100

Report Number(s):: NREL/JA-5400-72723; MainId:22411; UUID:d06b6bb0-5bdc-e811-9c19-ac162d87dfe5; MainAdminID:10887

Journal Information:: Climatic Change, Journal Name: Climatic Change Journal Issue: none Vol. in press; ISSN 0165-0009

Publisher:: Springer

Country of Publication:: United States

Language:: English

References (32)

Impact of fragmented emission reduction regimes on the energy market and on CO2 emissions related to land use: A case study with China and the European Union as first movers Otto, Sander A. C.; Gernaat, David E. H. J.; Isaac, Morna Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 90 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2014.01.015	journal	January 2015
Screening and techno-economic assessment of biomass-based power generation with CCS technologies to meet 2050 CO2 targets Bhave, Amit; Taylor, Richard H. S.; Fennell, Paul Applied Energy, Vol. 190 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.12.120	journal	March 2017
Constant elasticity of substitution functions for energy modeling in general equilibrium integrated assessment models: a critical review and recommendations Kaya, Abdulla; Csala, Denes; Sgouridis, Sgouris Climatic Change, Vol. 145, Issue 1-2 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-017-2077-y	journal	September 2017
Energy, land-use and greenhouse gas emissions trajectories under a green growth paradigm van Vuuren, Detlef P.; Stehfest, Elke; Gernaat, David E. H. J. Global Environmental Change, Vol. 42 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.05.008	journal	January 2017
Biomass for heat or as transportation fuel? A comparison between two model-based studies Grahn, M.; Azar, C.; Lindgren, K. Biomass and Bioenergy, Vol. 31, Issue 11-12 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2007.05.001	journal	November 2007
The value of bioenergy in low stabilization scenarios: an assessment using REMIND-MAgPIE Klein, David; Luderer, Gunnar; Kriegler, Elmar Climatic Change, Vol. 123, Issue 3-4 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-013-0940-z	journal	October 2013
Marginalization of end-use technologies in energy innovation for climate protection Wilson, Charlie; Grubler, Arnulf; Gallagher, Kelly S. Nature Climate Change, Vol. 2, Issue 11 https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1576	journal	October 2012
Integrating place-specific livelihood and equity outcomes into global assessments of bioenergy deployment Creutzig, Felix; Corbera, Esteve; Bolwig, Simon Environmental Research Letters, Vol. 8, Issue 3 https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/8/3/035047	journal	September 2013
A Sustainable Pathway of Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage Deployment Kato, Etsushi; Moriyama, Ryo; Kurosawa, Atsushi Energy Procedia, Vol. 114 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2017.03.1748	journal	July 2017
The role of technology for achieving climate policy objectives: overview of the EMF 27 study on global technology and climate policy strategies Kriegler, Elmar; Weyant, John P.; Blanford, Geoffrey J. Climatic Change, Vol. 123, Issue 3-4 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-013-0953-7	journal	January 2014
Assessments of GHG emission reduction scenarios of different levels and different short-term pledges through macro- and sectoral decomposition analyses Sano, Fuminori; Wada, Kenichi; Akimoto, Keigo Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 90 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2013.11.002	journal	January 2015
The trouble with negative emissions Anderson, K.; Peters, G. Science, Vol. 354, Issue 6309 https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aah4567	journal	October 2016
Rapid scale-up of negative emissions technologies: social barriers and social implications Buck, Holly Jean Climatic Change, Vol. 139, Issue 2 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-016-1770-6	journal	August 2016
SSP3: AIM implementation of Shared Socioeconomic Pathways Fujimori, Shinichiro; Hasegawa, Tomoko; Masui, Toshihiko Global Environmental Change, Vol. 42 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.06.009	journal	January 2017
Energy system transformations for limiting end-of-century warming to below 1.5 °C Rogelj, Joeri; Luderer, Gunnar; Pietzcker, Robert C. Nature Climate Change, Vol. 5, Issue 6 https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2572	journal	May 2015
The SSP4: A world of deepening inequality Calvin, Katherine; Bond-Lamberty, Ben; Clarke, Leon Global Environmental Change, Vol. 42 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.06.010	journal	January 2017
Fossil-fueled development (SSP5): An energy and resource intensive scenario for the 21st century Kriegler, Elmar; Bauer, Nico; Popp, Alexander Global Environmental Change, Vol. 42 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.05.015	journal	January 2017
The Ecological Impact of Biofuels Fargione, Joseph E.; Plevin, Richard J.; Hill, Jason D. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics, Vol. 41, Issue 1 https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-ecolsys-102209-144720	journal	December 2010
Estimating the Supply and Demand for Deep Geologic CO2 Storage Capacity over the Course of the 21st Century: A Meta-analysis of the Literature Dooley, James J. Energy Procedia, Vol. 37 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2013.06.429	journal	January 2013
Fossil fuels in a trillion tonne world Scott, Vivian; Haszeldine, R. Stuart; Tett, Simon F. B. Nature Climate Change, Vol. 5, Issue 5 https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2578	journal	April 2015
The Shared Socioeconomic Pathways and their energy, land use, and greenhouse gas emissions implications: An overview Riahi, Keywan; van Vuuren, Detlef P.; Kriegler, Elmar Global Environmental Change, Vol. 42 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.05.009	journal	January 2017
The Imaclim-R model: infrastructures, technical inertia and the costs of low carbon futures under imperfect foresight Waisman, Henri; Guivarch, Céline; Grazi, Fabio Climatic Change, Vol. 114, Issue 1 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-011-0387-z	journal	January 2012
Shared Socio-Economic Pathways of the Energy Sector – Quantifying the Narratives Bauer, Nico; Calvin, Katherine; Emmerling, Johannes Global Environmental Change, Vol. 42 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.07.006	journal	January 2017
Biophysical and economic limits to negative CO2 emissions Smith, Pete; Davis, Steven J.; Creutzig, Felix Nature Climate Change, Vol. 6, Issue 1 https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2870	journal	December 2015
Bioenergy in energy transformation and climate management Rose, Steven K.; Kriegler, Elmar; Bibas, Ruben Climatic Change, Vol. 123, Issue 3-4 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-013-0965-3	journal	December 2013
Rightsizing carbon dioxide removal Field, Christopher B.; Mach, Katharine J. Science, Vol. 356, Issue 6339 https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aam9726	journal	May 2017
Betting on negative emissions Fuss, Sabine; Canadell, Josep G.; Peters, Glen P. Nature Climate Change, Vol. 4, Issue 10 https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2392	journal	September 2014
Introduction to the special issue: historical and projected climatic changes to Australian natural hazards Westra, Seth; White, Christopher J.; Kiem, Anthony S. Climatic Change, Vol. 139, Issue 1 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-016-1826-7	journal	October 2016
Role of end-use technologies in long-term GHG reduction scenarios developed with the BET model Yamamoto, Hiromi; Sugiyama, Masahiro; Tsutsui, Junichi Climatic Change, Vol. 123, Issue 3-4 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-013-0938-6	journal	October 2013
Reframing the policy approach to greenhouse gas removal technologies Lomax, Guy; Workman, Mark; Lenton, Timothy Energy Policy, Vol. 78 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2014.10.002	journal	March 2015
Uncertainty in Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) deployment projections: a cross-model comparison exercise Koelbl, Barbara Sophia; van den Broek, Machteld A.; Faaij, André P. C. Climatic Change, Vol. 123, Issue 3-4 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-013-1050-7	journal	February 2014
The marker quantification of the Shared Socioeconomic Pathway 2: A middle-of-the-road scenario for the 21st century Fricko, Oliver; Havlik, Petr; Rogelj, Joeri Global Environmental Change, Vol. 42 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.06.004	journal	January 2017

Similar Records

Bioenergy Technologies in Long-Run Climate Change Mitigation: Results from the EMF-33 Study

Journal Article · Mon Aug 24 00:00:00 EDT 2020 · Climatic Change · OSTI ID:1665824

Bioenergy technologies in long-run climate change mitigation: results from the EMF-33 study

Journal Article · Sun Aug 23 20:00:00 EDT 2020 · Climatic Change · OSTI ID:1660260

Bioenergy for climate change mitigation: Scale and sustainability

Journal Article · Fri Jul 09 20:00:00 EDT 2021 · Global Change Biology. Bioenergy · OSTI ID:1819932

Related Subjects

09 BIOMASS FUELS
budget control
carbon capture
carbon dioxide
climate change
climate models
costs
emission control
feedstocks
fossil fuels
investments
model structures

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

Citation Formats

References (32)

Similar Records

Related Subjects