Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Bio-electricity and land use in the Future Agricultural Resources Model (FARM)

  • Published:
Climatic Change Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Bio-electricity is an important technology for Energy Modeling Forum (EMF-27) mitigation scenarios, especially with the possibility of negative carbon dioxide emissions when combined with carbon dioxide capture and storage (CCS). With a strong economic foundation, and broad coverage of economic activity, computable general equilibrium models have proven useful for analysis of alternative climate change policies. However, embedding energy technologies in a general equilibrium model is a challenge, especially for a negative emissions technology with joint products of electricity and carbon dioxide storage. We provide a careful implementation of bio-electricity with CCS in a general equilibrium context, and apply it to selected EMF-27 mitigation scenarios through 2100. Representing bio-electricity and its land requirements requires consideration of competing land uses, including crops, pasture, and forests. Land requirements for bio-electricity start at 200 kilohectares per terawatt-hour declining to approximately 70 kilohectares per terwatt-hour by year 2100 in scenarios with high bioenergy potential.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Model output is interpolated to 10-year time steps, starting in 2010, for submission to the EMF-27 data base.

  2. Policy scenario G19 is paired with reference scenario G01.

  3. The SSP data are available for download at https://secure.iiasa.ac.at/web-apps/ene/SspDb

  4. Income comparisons in the base year of 2004 are calculated using market exchange rates.

  5. The idea of using a floor of $1 per tCO2 comes from Hyman et al. (2002) in the context of non-CO2 greenhouse gas abatement in a CGE model.

  6. A fixed-coefficient constant-elasticity-of-transformation (CET) nest is used to represent joint products of electricity and CO2 permits in Fig. 4.

  7. We use a CO2 capture rate of 95 % for fossil-generated electricity.

  8. We do not use permit revenue to offset other tax rates in the economy.

  9. The five field crops are wheat, rice, coarse grains, oil seeds, and sugar. The three crop types are vegetables and fruit, plant-based fibers, and other crops.

  10. Labor productivity in each FARM region is adjusted to align GDP growth rates with the SSP2 scenario. Capital productivity changes are zero for all production sectors in all regions, with two exceptions: electricity from wind and electricity from solar.

Abbreviations

AgMIP:

Agricultural Model Inter-comparison and Improvement Project

CCS:

Carbon dioxide capture and storage

CES:

Constant elasticity of substitution

CGE:

Computable general equilibrium

EMF:

Energy Modeling Forum

EV:

Equivalent variation

FARM:

Future Agricultural Resources Model

FAO:

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

GTAP:

Global Trade Analysis Project

IEA:

International Energy Agency

kha:

Kilohectare

SAM:

Social accounting matrix

SSP:

Shared Socio-economic Pathway

TWh:

Terawatt-hour

References

  • Avetisyan M, Baldos U, Hertel T (2011) Development of the GTAP Version 7 Land Use Data Base. GTAP Research Memorandum No. 19, Global Trade Analysis Project, Purdue University, https://www.gtap.agecon.purdue.edu/

  • Burney JA, Davis SJ, Lobell DB (2010) Greenhouse gas mitigation by agricultural intensification. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 107(26):12052–12057

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Choi S, Sohngen B, Rose S, Hertel T, Golub A (2011) Total factor productivity change in agriculture and emissions from deforestation. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 93(2):349–355

    Google Scholar 

  • Hertel TW (1997) Global trade analysis: Modeling and applications. Cambridge University Press, New York

  • Hertel TW, Rose SK, Tol RSJ (2009) Land use in computable general equilibrium models: An overview. In: Hertel TW, Rose SK, Tol RSJ (eds) Economic analysis of land use in global climate change policy. Routledge, London, pp 3–30

  • Hyman RC, Reilly JM, Babiker MH, De Masin A, Jacoby HD (2002) Modeling non-CO2 greenhouse gas abatement. MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change, Report No. 94

  • Kriegler E, O’Neill BC, Hallegatte S, Kram T, Lempert RJ, Moss RH, Wilbanks T (2012) The need for and use of socio-economic scenarios for climate change analysis: a new approach based on shared socio-economic pathways. Global Environmental Change 22:807–822

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rutherford TF (2010) GTAP7inGAMS. Available at http://svn.mpsge.org/GTAP7inGAMS/doc/

  • Sands RD, Schumacher K, Förster H (2013) U.S. CO2 mitigation in a global context: Welfare, trade and land use. Special issue of The Energy Journal, forthcoming

  • Schmer MR, Vogel KP, Mitchell RB, Perrin RK (2008) Net energy of cellulosic ethanol from switchgrass. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 105(2):464–469

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schumacher K, Sands RD (2007) Where are the industrial technologies in energy-economy models? An innovative CGE approach to steel production in Germany. Energy Economics 29:799–825

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division (2011) World Population Prospects: The 2010 Revision, CD-ROM Edition

  • Williams JH, DeBenedictis A, Ghanadan R, Mahone A, Moore J, Morrow III WR, Price S, Torn MS (2013) The technology path to deep greenhouse gas emissions cuts by 2050: The pivotal role of electricity. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Paper LBNL-5529E

  • Wise M, Calvin K, Thomson A, Clarke L, Bond-Lamberty E, Sands R, Smith SJ, Janetos A, Edmonds JA (2009) Implications of limiting CO2 concentration for land use and energy. Science 324:1183–1186

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1400 Independence Ave., SW, Mail Stop 1800, Washington, DC, 20250-1800, USA

    Ronald D. Sands & Carol A. Jones

  2. Öko-Institut, Schicklerstr. 5-7, 10179, Berlin, Germany

    Hannah Förster & Katja Schumacher

Authors
  1. Ronald D. Sands
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Hannah Förster
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Carol A. Jones
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Katja Schumacher
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ronald D. Sands.

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.

The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Economic Research Service, USDA, or the Öko-Institut.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Sands, R.D., Förster, H., Jones, C.A. et al. Bio-electricity and land use in the Future Agricultural Resources Model (FARM). Climatic Change 123, 719–730 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-013-0943-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-013-0943-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation