The role of technology for achieving climate policy objectives: overview of the EMF 27 study on global technology and climate policy strategies
- 3.9k Downloads
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.
KeywordsEmission Reduction Climate Policy Integrate Assessment Model Mitigation Cost Mitigation Scenario
Jae Edmonds and Leon Clarke are grateful for research support provided by the Integrated Assessment Research Program in the Office of Science of the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract No. DE-AC05-76RL01830. Results reported for the GCAM model used Evergreen computing resources at the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory’s Joint Global Change Research Institute at the University of Maryland in College Park, which is supported by the Integrated Assessment Research Program in the Office of Science of the U.S. Department of Energy. The views and opinions expressed in this paper are those of the authors alone.
The contribution of Elmar Kriegler, Volker Krey, Gunnar Luderer, Keywan Riahi, Massimo Tavoni and Detlev van Vuuren to this research was supported by funding from the European Commission's Seventh Framework Programme under the LIMITS project (grant agreement no. 282846).
- Azar C et al (2010) The feasibility of low CO2 concentration targets and the role of bio-energy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS). Clim Chang 100:195–202Google Scholar
- Bibas R, Méjean A (this issue) Potential and limitations of bioenergy options for low carbon transitions. Clim Chang, submittedGoogle Scholar
- Blanford GJ, Kriegler E, Tavoni M (this issue) Harmonization vs. Fragmentation: Overview of climate policy scenarios in EMF27. Clim Chang, submittedGoogle Scholar
- Clarke L et al (2008) CO2 emissions mitigation and technological advance: an updated analysis of advanced technology scenarios. PNNL Report Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, RichmondGoogle Scholar
- Edenhofer O et al (2010) The economics of low stabilization: Model comparison of mitigation strategies and costs. Energy J 31:11–48Google Scholar
- European Commission, Joint Research Centre (JRC)/PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (2011) Emission Database for Global Atmospheric Research (EDGAR), release version 4.2. http://edgar.jrc.ec.europe.eu
- Kim SH, Wada K, Kurosawa A, Roberts M (this issue) Nuclear energy response in the EMF27 study. Clim Chang, submittedGoogle Scholar
- Koelbl BS, van den Broek MA, Faaij APC, van Vuuren DP (this issue) Uncertainty in Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) deployment projections: a cross-model comparison exercise. Clim Chang, submittedGoogle Scholar
- Krey V, Luderer L, Clarke L, Kriegler E (this issue) Getting from here to there: energy technology transformation pathways in the EMF27 scenarios. Clim Chang, submittedGoogle Scholar
- Luderer G et al. (this issue) The role of renewable energy in climate mitigation: results from the EMF27 scenarios. Clim Chang submittedGoogle Scholar
- McCollum D, Bauer N, Calvin K, Kitous A, Riahi K (this issue) Fossil resource and energy security dynamics in conventional and carbon-constrained worlds. Clim Chang, submittedGoogle Scholar
- Popp A et al. (this issue) Land-use transition for bioenergy and climate stabilization: model comparison of drivers, impacts and interactions with other land use based mitigation options. Clim Chang, submittedGoogle Scholar
- Riahi K et al (2012) Chapter 17 - Energy pathways for sustainable development. Global energy assessment - toward a sustainable future. IIASA and Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 1203–1306Google Scholar
- Riahi K et al (2013) Locked into Copenhagen pledges - Implications of short-term emission targets for the cost and feasibility of long-term climate goals. Technological Forecasting and Social Change. doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2013.09.016
- Rose SK, Kriegler E, Bibas R, Calvin K, Popp A, van Vuuren DP, Weyant J (this issue, (a)), Bioenergy in energy transformation and climate management. Clim Chang, submittedGoogle Scholar
- Rose SK, Richels R, Smith S, Riahi K, Strefler J, van Vuuren D (this issue, (b)) Non-Kyoto radiative forcing in long-run greenhouse gas emissions and climate change scenarios. Clim Chang, submittedGoogle Scholar
- Sugiyama M, Akashi O, Wada K, Kanudia A, Li J, Weyant J (this issue) Role of energy efficiency in climate change mitigation policy for India: Assessment of co-benefits and opportunities within an integrated assessment modeling framework. Clim Chang, submittedGoogle Scholar
- Weyant JP, de la Chesnaye FC, Blanford GJ (2006) Overview of EMF-21: Multigas Mitigation and Climate Policy. Energy J, Special IssueGoogle Scholar