Climatic Change

, Volume 114, Issue 1, pp 9–37 | Cite as

The economics of decarbonizing the energy system—results and insights from the RECIPE model intercomparison

  • Gunnar Luderer
  • Valentina Bosetti
  • Michael Jakob
  • Marian Leimbach
  • Jan C. Steckel
  • Henri Waisman
  • Ottmar Edenhofer
Article

Abstract

This paper synthesizes the results from the model intercomparison exercise among regionalized global energy-economy models conducted in the context of the RECIPE project. The economic adjustment effects of long-term climate policy are investigated based on the cross-comparison of the intertemporal optimization models ReMIND-R and WITCH as well as the recursive dynamic computable general equilibrium model IMACLIM-R. A number of robust findings emerge. If the international community takes immediate action to mitigate climate change, the costs of stabilizing atmospheric CO2 concentrations at 450 ppm (roughly 530–550 ppm-e) discounted at 3% are estimated to be 1.4% or lower of global consumption over the twenty-first century. Second best settings with either a delay in climate policy or restrictions to the deployment of low-carbon technologies can result in substantial increases of mitigation costs. A delay of global climate policy until 2030 would render the 450 ppm target unachievable. Renewables and CCS are found to be the most critical mitigation technologies, and all models project a rapid switch of investments away from freely emitting energy conversion technologies towards renewables, CCS and nuclear. Concerning end use sectors, the models consistently show an almost full scale decarbonization of the electricity sector by the middle of the twenty-first century, while the decarbonization of non-electric energy demand, in particular in the transport sector remains incomplete in all mitigation scenarios. The results suggest that assumptions about low-carbon alternatives for non-electric energy demand are of key importance for the costs and achievability of very low stabilization scenarios.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Ang BW (2004) Decomposition analysis for policymaking in energy: which is the preferred method? Energy Policy 32:1131–1139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bauer N, Baumstark L, Leimbach M (2011) The REMIND-R model: The Role of Renewables in the low-carbon transformation. Clim Change (this issue)Google Scholar
  3. Bosetti V, Carraro C, Galeotti M, Massetti E, Tavoni M (2006) WITCH: a world induced technical change hybrid model. Energy J 27(Special Issue 2):13–38Google Scholar
  4. Bosetti V, Carraro C, Galeotti, Massetti E, Tavoni M (2007) The WITCH model: Structure, Baseline and Solution. FEEM Working Paper N. 10.2007, MilanGoogle Scholar
  5. CCSP (2007): Scenarios of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Atmospheric Concentrations. U.S. Climate Change Science Program, Synthesis and Assessment Product 2.1aGoogle Scholar
  6. Clarke L, Edmonds J, Krey V, Richels R, Rose S, Tavoni M (2009) International climate policy architectures: overview of the EMF22 international scenarios. Energy Econ 31:S64-S81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. De Cian E, Bosetti V, Tavoni M (2011) Technological innovation and diffusion in “less than ideal” climate policies: an assessment with the WITCH model. Clim Change (this issue)Google Scholar
  8. Edenhofer O, Lessmann K, Kemfert C, Grubb M, Köhler J (2006) Induced technological change: exploring its implications for the economics of athmospheric stabilization. Synthesis Report from Innovation Modeling Comparison Project. Energy J 27(Special Issue 2):57–107Google Scholar
  9. Edenhofer O, Knopf B, Barker T, Baumstark L, Bellevrat E, Chateau B, Criqui P, Isaac M, Kitous A, Kypreos S, Leimbach M, Lessmann K, Magné B, Scrieciu S, Turton H, van Vuuren DP (2010) The economics of low stabili-zation: model comparison of mitigation strategies and costs. Energy J 31(Special Issue 1):11–48Google Scholar
  10. Fisher BS, Nakicenovic N et al. (2007) Issues related to mitigation in the long term context. In: Metz B, Davidson OR, Bosch PR, Dave R, Meyer LA (eds) Climate change 2007: mitigation. Contribution of working group III to the fourth assessment report of the inter-governmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  11. Hotelling H (1931) The economics of exhaustible resources. J Polit Econ 39:137–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. International Energy Agency IEA (2008) World Energy Outlook 2008. IEA, ParisCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. International Energy Agency IEA (2009) World Energy Outlook 2009. IEA, ParisCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. IPCC (2007a) Climate change 2007: the physical science basis. In: Solomon S, Qin D, Manning M, Chen Z, Marquis M, Averyt KB, Tignor M, Miller HL (eds) Contribution of working group I to the fourth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  15. IPCC (2007b) 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 IPCC. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  16. Jakob M, Bosetti V, Waisman H, De Cian E, Steckel J, Leimbach M, Baumstark L (2009) The RECIPE reference scenarios. RECIPE Backgound Paper. http://www.pik-potsdam.de/members/jakob/publications/recipe-baseline-scenarios
  17. Jakob M, Luderer G, Steckel J, Bosetti V, Tavoni M, Waisman H (2011) Time to act now? Assessing the costs of delaying climate measures and benefits of early action. Clim Change (this issue)Google Scholar
  18. Kaya Y (1990) Impact of carbon dioxide emission control on GNP growth: interpretation of proposed scenarios. Paper presented to the IPCC Energy and Industry subgroup, Responses strategies working group, Paris (mimeo)Google Scholar
  19. Klein D, Bauer N, Bodirsky B, Dietrich JP, Popp A (2011) Bio-IGCC with CCS as a long-term mitigation option in a coupled energy-system and land-use model. Energy Procedia 4:2933–2940CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Knopf B et al. (2009) The Economics of low stabilization: impolications for technological change and policy. In: Hulme M, Neufeldt H (eds) Making climate change work for us—ADAM synthesis book. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  21. Leimbach M, Bauer N, Baumstark L, Edenhofer O (2010) Mitigation costs in a globalized world: climate policy analysis with ReMIND-R. Environ Model Assess 15(3):155–173. doi:10.1007/s10666-009-9204-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Luderer G et al. (2011) The regional distribution of mitigation costs—a tale of scarcity rents. Clim Change (this issue)Google Scholar
  23. Luckow P, Wise MA, Dooley JJ, Kim SH (2010) Large-scale utilization of biomass energy and carbon dioxide capture and storage in the transport and electricity sectors under stringent CO2 concentration limit scenarios. Int J Greenhouse Gas Control. doi:10.1016/j.ijggc.2010.06.002 Google Scholar
  24. Nakicenovic N et al. (2000) Special report on emissions scenarios. Working Group III, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 595Google Scholar
  25. Nordhaus WD, Boyer J (2000) Warming the world. MIT, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  26. Olivier JGJ, Peters JAHW (2010) No growth in total global CO2 emissions in 2009. Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, BilthovenGoogle Scholar
  27. Petschel-Held G, Schellnhuber HJ, Bruckner T, Toth FL, Hasselmann K (1999) The tolerable windows approach: theoretical and methodological foundations. Clim Change 41:303–331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Raupach, MR, Marland G, Ciais P, Le Quéré C, Canadell JG, Klepper G, Field CB (2007) Global and regional drivers of accelerating CO2 emissions. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 104:10288–10293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Sassi O, Crassous R, Hourcade JC, Gitz V, Waisman H, Guivarch C (2010) IMACLIM-R: a modelling framework to simulate sustainable development pathways. Int J Global Environ Iss 10:5–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Tavoni M et al. (2011) Technology option values and technological change towards a low carbon economy. Clim Change (this issue)Google Scholar
  31. Van Vuuren DP, Bellevrat E, Kitous A, Issac M (2010) Bio-energy use and low stabilization scenarios. Energy J 31(Special Issue 1):193–221Google Scholar
  32. Waisman H, Hourcade JC, Guivarch C, Grazi F (2011) The IMACLIM-R model: the role of infrastructures, technical inertia and imperfect foresight in the costs of low carbon futures. Clim Change (this issue)Google Scholar
  33. Weyant JP, de la Chesnaye FC, Blanford GJ (2006) Overview of EMF21: multigas mitigation and climate policy. Energy J 27(Special Issue3):1–32Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gunnar Luderer
    • 1
  • Valentina Bosetti
    • 2
  • Michael Jakob
    • 1
  • Marian Leimbach
    • 1
  • Jan C. Steckel
    • 1
  • Henri Waisman
    • 3
  • Ottmar Edenhofer
    • 1
  1. 1.Research Domain III: Sustainable SolutionsPotsdam Institute for Climate Impact ResearchPotsdamGermany
  2. 2.Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei, CESifo and Euro-Mediterranean Centre for Climate ChangeMilanItaly
  3. 3.Centre International de Recherche sur l’Environment et le DévelopmentParisFrance

Personalised recommendations