Advertisement

Climatic Change

, Volume 123, Issue 3–4, pp 705–718 | Cite as

The value of bioenergy in low stabilization scenarios: an assessment using REMIND-MAgPIE

  • David Klein
  • Gunnar Luderer
  • Elmar Kriegler
  • Jessica Strefler
  • Nico Bauer
  • Marian Leimbach
  • Alexander Popp
  • Jan Philipp Dietrich
  • Florian Humpenöder
  • Hermann Lotze-Campen
  • Ottmar Edenhofer
Article

Abstract

This study investigates the use of bioenergy for achieving stringent climate stabilization targets and it analyzes the economic drivers behind the choice of bioenergy technologies. We apply the integrated assessment framework REMIND-MAgPIE to show that bioenergy, particularly if combined with carbon capture and storage (CCS) is a crucial mitigation option with high deployment levels and high technology value. If CCS is available, bioenergy is exclusively used with CCS. We find that the ability of bioenergy to provide negative emissions gives rise to a strong nexus between biomass prices and carbon prices. Ambitious climate policy could result in bioenergy prices of 70 $/GJ (or even 430 $/GJ if bioenergy potential is limited to 100 EJ/year), which indicates a strong demand for bioenergy. For low stabilization scenarios with BECCS availability, we find that the carbon value of biomass tends to exceed its pure energy value. Therefore, the driving factor behind investments into bioenergy conversion capacities for electricity and hydrogen production are the revenues generated from negative emissions, rather than from energy production. However, in REMIND modern bioenergy is predominantly used to produce low-carbon fuels, since the transport sector has significantly fewer low-carbon alternatives to biofuels than the power sector. Since negative emissions increase the amount of permissible emissions from fossil fuels, given a climate target, bioenergy acts as a complement to fossils rather than a substitute. This makes the short-term and long-term deployment of fossil fuels dependent on the long-term availability of BECCS.

Keywords

Carbon Price Supplementary Online Material Climate Target Negative Emission Primary Energy Supply 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgments

The research leading to these results has received support from the ERMITAGE project funded by the Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013) under grant agreement n° 265170.

Supplementary material

10584_2013_940_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (772 kb)
ESM 1 (PDF 771 kb)

References

  1. Azar et al (2010) The feasibility of low CO2 concentration targets and the role of bio-energy with carbon capture and storage. Clim Chang 100:195–202Google Scholar
  2. Bauer N et al (2012a) The REMIND–R model: the role of renewables in the low–carbon transformation—first–best vs. second–best worlds. Clim Chang 114:145–168Google Scholar
  3. Bauer N et al (2012b) Economics of nuclear power and climate change mitigation policies. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 109(42):16805–16810Google Scholar
  4. Bodirsky B et al (2012) Current state and future scenarios of the global agricultural nitrogen cycle. Biogeosci Discuss 9:2755–2821Google Scholar
  5. Bondeau A et al (2007) Modelling the role of agriculture for the 20th century global terrestrial carbon balance. Glob Chang Biol 13(3):679–706Google Scholar
  6. Calvin K et al (2009) Limiting climate change to 450 ppm CO2 equivalent in the 21st century. Energy Econ 31:S107–S120Google Scholar
  7. Chum H et al (2011) Bioenergy. In: IPCC special report on renewable energy sources and climate change mitigation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, p 1075Google Scholar
  8. Creutzig F et al (2012) Reconciling top-down and bottom-up modelling on future bioenergy deployment. Nat Clim Chang 2:320–327Google Scholar
  9. Dietrich JP et al (2013) Forecasting technological change in agriculture—an endogenous implementation in a global land use model. Technol Forecast Soc Chang. doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2013.02.003
  10. Edenhofer O et al (2010) The economics of low stabilization: model comparison of mitigation strategies and costs. Q J IAEE’s Energy Econ Educ Found 31:11–48 (Special Issue)Google Scholar
  11. Fargione J et al (2008) Land clearing and the biofuel carbon debt. Science 319:1235–1238Google Scholar
  12. Fischedick M et al (2011) Mitigation potential and costs. In: IPCC special report on renewable energy sources and climate change mitigation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USAGoogle Scholar
  13. Haberl H et al (2010) The global technical potential of bio-energy in 2050 considering sustainability constraints. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 2:394–403Google Scholar
  14. Krause M et al (2012) Conservation of undisturbed natural forests and economic impacts on agriculture. Land Use Policy 30:344–354Google Scholar
  15. Kriegler E et al (2013a) Is atmospheric carbon dioxide removal a game changer for climate change mitigation? Clim Chang 118:45–57Google Scholar
  16. Kriegler E et al (2013b) The role of technology for achieving climate policy objectives: overview of EMF27 study on technology and climate policy strategies. Clim Chang (this issue)Google Scholar
  17. Leimbach M et al (2010a) Mitigation costs in a globalized world: climate policy analysis with REMIND–R. Environ Model Assess 15:155–173Google Scholar
  18. Leimbach M et al (2010b) Technological change and international trade – insights from REMIND–R. Energy J 31:109–136Google Scholar
  19. Lotze-Campen H et al (2008) Food demand, productivity growth and the spatial distribution of land and water use: a global modeling approach. Agric Econ 39:325–338Google Scholar
  20. Lotze-Campen H et al (2010) Scenarios of global bioenergy production: the trade-offs between agricultural expansion, intensification and trade. Ecol Model 221:2188–2196Google Scholar
  21. Lucas PL et al (2007) Long-term reduction potential of non-CO2 greenhouse gases. Environ Sci Policy 10:85–103Google Scholar
  22. Luckow P et al (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 Greenh Gas Control 4:865–877Google Scholar
  23. Luderer G et al (2012) Asia’s role in mitigating climate change: a technology and sector specific analysis with REMIND–R. Energy Econ 34:S378–S390Google Scholar
  24. Luderer G et al (2013) Description of the REMIND-R model. Technical Report, Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research. http://www.pik-potsdam.de/research/sustainable-solutions/models/remind/description-of-remind-v1.5
  25. Meinshausen M et al (2011) Emulating coupled atmosphere–ocean and carbon cycle models with a simpler model, MAGICC6—Part 1: model description and calibration. Atmos Chem Phys 11:1417–1456Google Scholar
  26. Obersteiner M et al (2001) Managing climate risk. Science 294:786–787Google Scholar
  27. Popp A et al (2011) The economic potential of bioenergy for climate change mitigation with special attention given to implications for the land system. Environ Res Lett 6(3):034017. doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/6/3/034017
  28. Popp A et al (2012) Additional CO2 emissions from land use change: forest conservation as a precondition for sustainable production of second-generation bioenergy. Ecol Econ 74:64–70Google Scholar
  29. Popp A et al (2013) Land-use transition for bioenergy and climate stabilization: model comparison of drivers, impacts and interactions with other land use based mitigation options. Clim Chang (this issue)Google Scholar
  30. Riahi K et al (2007) Scenarios of long-term socio-economic and environmental development under climate stabilization. Technol Forecast Soc Sci 74:887–935Google Scholar
  31. Searchinger T et al (2008) Use of U.S. croplands for biofuels increases greenhouse gases through emissions from land-use change. Science 319:1238–1240Google Scholar
  32. Sims R et al (2010) An overview of second-generation biofuel technologies. Bioresour Technol 101:1570–1580Google Scholar
  33. Tavoni M et al (2013) Modeling meets science and technology: an introduction to a special issue on negative emissions. Clim Chang 118:1–14Google Scholar
  34. van Vuuren D et al (2009) Future bio-energy potential under various natural constraints. Energy Policy 37:4220–4230Google Scholar
  35. van Vuuren D et al (2010a) Bioenergy use and low stabilization scenarios. Energy J 31:193–221Google Scholar
  36. van Vuuren D et al (2010b) The relationship between short-term emissions and long-term concentration targets. Clim Chang 104:793–801Google Scholar
  37. van Vuuren D et al (2010c) Exploring IMAGE model scenarios that keep greenhouse gas radiative forcing below 3 W/m2 in 2100. Energy Econ 32:1105–1120Google Scholar
  38. Wise M et al (2009) Implications of limiting CO2 concentrations for land use and energy. Science 324:1183–1186Google Scholar
  39. Zoback MD, Gorelick StM (2012) Earthquake triggering and large-scale geologic storage of carbon dioxide. PNAS 109(26):10164–10168Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • David Klein
    • 1
  • Gunnar Luderer
    • 1
  • Elmar Kriegler
    • 1
  • Jessica Strefler
    • 1
  • Nico Bauer
    • 1
  • Marian Leimbach
    • 1
  • Alexander Popp
    • 1
  • Jan Philipp Dietrich
    • 1
  • Florian Humpenöder
    • 1
  • Hermann Lotze-Campen
    • 1
  • Ottmar Edenhofer
    • 1
  1. 1.Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK)PotsdamGermany

Personalised recommendations