Kranzl L.,Vienna University of Technology |
Daioglou V.,University Utrecht |
Faaij A.,University Utrecht |
Junginger M.,University Utrecht |
And 3 more authors.
Lecture Notes in Energy | Year: 2014
In the coming decades, huge challenges in the global energy system are expected. Scenarios indicate that bioenergy will play a substantial role in this process. However, up to now there is very limited insight regarding the implication this may have on bioenergy trade in the long term. The objectives of this chapter are: (1) to assess how bioenergy trade is included in different energy sector models and (2) to discuss the implications and perspectives of bioenergy trade in different energy scenarios. We grouped scenarios from the models IMAGE/TIMER, POLES and GFPM according to their policy targets and increase of bioenergy use in "ambitious" and "moderate" bioenergy scenarios and compared results regarding bioenergy trade for solid and liquid biomass. Trade balances for various world regions vary significantly in the different models and scenarios. Nevertheless, a few robust trends and results can be derived up to the year 2050: Russia and former USSR countries could turn into strong biomass exporting countries. Moreover, Canada, South-America, Central and Rest-Africa as well as Oceania could cover another substantial part of the bioenergy supply. As importing countries, India, Western Europe and China might play a key role. The results show (1) the high relevance of the topic, (2) the high uncertainties, (3) the need to better integrate social, ecological, economic and logistical barriers and restrictions into the models and (4) the need to better understand the potential role of bioenergy trade for a sustainable, low-carbon future energy system. © Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014.
Griffin B.,Enerdata |
Buisson P.,Enerdata |
Criqui P.,Pierre Mendès-France University |
Mima S.,British Petroleum
Climatic Change | Year: 2014
In the wake of the Fukushima nuclear accident, countries like Germany and Japan have planned a phase-out of nuclear generation. Carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology has yet to become a commercially viable technology with little prospect of doing so without strong climate policy to spur development. The possibility of using renewable power generation from wind and solar as a non-emitting alternative to replace a nuclear phase-out or failure to deploy CCS technology is investigated using scenarios from EMF27 and the POLES model. A strong carbon price appears necessary to have significant penetration of renewables regardless of alternative generation technologies available, but especially if nuclear or CCS are absent from the energy supply system. The feasibility of replacing nuclear generation appears possible at realistic costs (evaluated as total abatement costs and final user prices to households); however for ambitious climate policies, such as a 450 ppm target, CCS could represent a critical technology that renewables will not be able to fully replace without unbearable economic costs. © 2013 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht.
Van Vuuren D.P.,Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency |
Bellevrat E.,Joseph Fourier University |
Kitous A.,EnerData |
Isaac M.,Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency
Energy Journal | Year: 2010
This paper explores the potential for bio-energy production, and the implications of different values for the attainability of low stabilization targets. The impact of scenarios of future land use, yield improvements for bio-energy and available land under different sustainability assumptions (protection of biodiversity, risks of water scarcity and land degradation) are explored. Typical values for sustainable potential of bio-energy production are around 50-150 EJ in 2050 and 200-400 EJ in 2100. Higher bio-energy potential requires a development path with high agricultural yields, dietary patterns with low meat consumption, a low population and/or accepting high conversion rates of natural areas. Scenario analysis using four different models shows that low stabilization levels may be achieved with a bio-energy potential of around 200 EJ p.a. In such scenarios, bio-energy is in most models mainly used outside the transport sector. Copyright © 2010 by the IAEE.
Duscha V.,Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research |
Schumacher K.,Oeko - Institute e.V. |
Schleich J.,Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research |
Schleich J.,Grenoble Graduate School of Business |
And 2 more authors.
Climate Policy | Year: 2014
The impact of a global phase-out of nuclear energy is assessed for the costs of meeting international climate policy targets for 2020. The analysis is based on simulations with the Prospective Outlook on Long-term Energy Systems (POLES) global energy systems model. The phase-out of nuclear power increases GHG emissions by 2% globally and 7% for Annex I countries. The price of certificates increases by 24% and total compliance costs of Annex I countries rise by 28%. Compliance costs increase most for Japan (+58%) and the US (+28%). China, India, and Russia benefit from a global nuclear phase-out because revenues from higher trading volumes of certificates outweigh the costs of losing nuclear power as a mitigation option. Even for countries that face a relatively large increase in compliance costs, such as Japan, the nuclear phase-out implies a relatively small overall economic burden. When trading of certificates is available only to countries that committed to a second Kyoto period, the nuclear phase-out results in a larger increase in the compliance costs for the group of Annex I countries (but not for the EU and Australia). Results from sensitivity analyses suggest that the findings are fairly robust to alternative burden-sharing schemes and emission target levels.Policy relevanceNew calculations show that the impact of a global phase-out of nuclear energy on global mitigation costs is quite modest, but that there are substantial differences for countries. Total compliance costs increase the most for Japan and the US, but these are rather marginal if measured in terms of GDP. China, India, and Russia benefit from a nuclear phase-out because their additional revenues from selling certificates outweigh the additional costs of losing nuclear power as a mitigation option. The findings also highlight the importance of certificate trading to achieving climate targets in a cost-efficient way. If Japan or the US were to be banned from certificate trading, along with other countries, because of their non-participation in a second Kyoto period, then their compliance costs would increase substantially under a nuclear phase-out. The EU, however, would benefit because certificate prices would be lower. © 2013 Taylor & Francis.