Climatic Change

, Volume 123, Issue 3, pp 353–367

The role of technology for achieving climate policy objectives: overview of the EMF 27 study on global technology and climate policy strategies

  • Elmar Kriegler
  • John P. Weyant
  • Geoffrey J. Blanford
  • Volker Krey
  • Leon Clarke
  • Jae Edmonds
  • Allen Fawcett
  • Gunnar Luderer
  • Keywan Riahi
  • Richard Richels
  • Steven K. Rose
  • Massimo Tavoni
  • Detlef P. van Vuuren
Article

DOI: 10.1007/s10584-013-0953-7

Cite this article as:
Kriegler, E., Weyant, J.P., Blanford, G.J. et al. Climatic Change (2014) 123: 353. doi:10.1007/s10584-013-0953-7

Abstract

This article presents the synthesis of results from the Stanford Energy Modeling Forum Study 27, an inter-comparison of 18 energy-economy and integrated assessment models. The study investigated the importance of individual mitigation options such as energy intensity improvements, carbon capture and storage (CCS), nuclear power, solar and wind power and bioenergy for climate mitigation. Limiting the atmospheric greenhouse gas concentration to 450 or 550 ppm CO2 equivalent by 2100 would require a decarbonization of the global energy system in the 21st century. Robust characteristics of the energy transformation are increased energy intensity improvements and the electrification of energy end use coupled with a fast decarbonization of the electricity sector. Non-electric energy end use is hardest to decarbonize, particularly in the transport sector. Technology is a key element of climate mitigation. Versatile technologies such as CCS and bioenergy are found to be most important, due in part to their combined ability to produce negative emissions. The importance of individual low-carbon electricity technologies is more limited due to the many alternatives in the sector. The scale of the energy transformation is larger for the 450 ppm than for the 550 ppm CO2e target. As a result, the achievability and the costs of the 450 ppm target are more sensitive to variations in technology availability.

Supplementary material

10584_2013_953_MOESM1_ESM.docx (668 kb)
ESM 1(DOCX 667 kb)
10584_2013_953_MOESM2_ESM.xlsx (73 kb)
ESM 2(XLSX 73.2 kb)

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Elmar Kriegler
    • 1
  • John P. Weyant
    • 2
  • Geoffrey J. Blanford
    • 3
  • Volker Krey
    • 6
  • Leon Clarke
    • 4
  • Jae Edmonds
    • 4
  • Allen Fawcett
    • 5
  • Gunnar Luderer
    • 1
  • Keywan Riahi
    • 6
  • Richard Richels
    • 3
  • Steven K. Rose
    • 3
  • Massimo Tavoni
    • 7
  • Detlef P. van Vuuren
    • 8
    • 9
  1. 1.Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact ResearchPotsdamGermany
  2. 2.Stanford UniversityPalo AltoUSA
  3. 3.Energy and Environmental Analysis Research GroupElectric Power Research InstituteWashingtonUSA
  4. 4.Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Joint Global Change Research Institute at the University of Maryland–College ParkCollege ParkUSA
  5. 5.U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyWashingtonUSA
  6. 6.International Institute for Applied Systems AnalysisLaxenburgAustria
  7. 7.Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM) and Centro-Mediterraneo sui Cambiamenti Climatici (CMCC)MilanItaly
  8. 8.PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment AgencyBilthovenThe Netherlands
  9. 9.Department of GeosciencesUtrecht UniversityUtrechtThe Netherlands