Abstract
Following a multi-scenario framework based on the technology assumptions proposed by the 27th Energy Modeling Forum (EMF-27), our analysis focuses on analyzing the impacts of key technology assumptions on climate policies, including the interdependencies of different technological options. Each scenario may be considered as either a possible state of nature upon which one has no influence, each scenario thus dictating the availability (or non availability) of some subset of the technology groups, or as an opportunity for society, by its own actions and policies, to influence the availability of said technology group. The main insights obtained from the assessment show the prominent role of bioenergy as a means to abate greenhouse gas emissions, irrespective of other technological developments, while the role of the other technologies (wind and solar, carbon capture and sequestration, nuclear) are more dependent of one another. It appears that CCS may play a sort of “backstop” role: it compensates for a lower contribution of solar and wind, or of nuclear. This means that an increased social acceptability of one (or all) of these three sets of technology should be at the heart of future climate policies. The costs caused by the adaptation of electricity networks to accommodate a high fraction of intermittent sources would deserve more attention in future research.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
NBR includes not only Wind and Solar electricity, but also hydro, ocean, and geothermal electricity, as well as direct end-use of solar heat. However, Wind and Solar electricity tends to be a major portion of NBR. See Section 4.2 for details.
For baselines scenarios G10 and G16, the drastic increase in EUEE induces a small, positive rebound effect of service demands.
Resulting in negative emissions.
References
Bataille C (2005) Design & application of a technologically explicit hybrid energy-economy policy model with micro and macro economic dynamics. Ph.D. Thesis, Simon Fraser University, 294 p
IPCC (2007) Climate change 2007: mitigation. In: Metz B, Davidson OR, Bosch PR, Dave R, Meyer LA (Eds) Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge
Labriet M, Loulou R, Kanudia A (2012) Climate mitigation under an uncertain technology future: A TIAM-World analysis. Energy Economics, Vol 34, Supplement 3, pp S366–S377
Latin H (2012) Climate change policy failures. World Scientific Publishing, ISBN: 978-981-4355-64-3
Loulou R, Labriet M (2008) ETSAP-TIAM: the TIMES integrated assessment model. Part I: model structure: Computational Management Science, Special issue “Managing Energy and the Environment”, Vol 5 (Issue 1):pp 7–40
Loulou R, Labriet M, Kanudia A (2009) Deterministic and Stochastic Analysis of alternative climate targets under differentiated cooperation regimes. Energy Economics: International, US and EU Climate Change Control Scenarios: Results from EMF22, Volume 31, Supplement 2, pp S131–S143
Smeets E, Faaij A, Lewandowski I, Turkenburg W (2007) A bottom-up assessment and review of global bio-energy potentials to 2050. Prog Energy Combust Sci 33:56–106
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
This article is part of the Special Issue on “The EMF27 Study on Global Technology and Climate Policy Strategies” edited by John Weyant, Elmar Kriegler, Geoffrey Blanford, Volker Krey, Jae Edmonds, Keywan Riahi, Richard Richels, and Massimo Tavoni.
Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
ESM 1
(XLSX 28 kb)
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Kanudia, A., Labriet, M. & Loulou, R. Effectiveness and efficiency of climate change mitigation in a technologically uncertain World. Climatic Change 123, 543–558 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-013-0854-9
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-013-0854-9