Advertisement

Climatic Change

, Volume 123, Issue 3–4, pp 731–761 | Cite as

Potential and limitations of bioenergy for low carbon transitions

  • Ruben Bibas
  • Aurélie Méjean
Article

Abstract

Sustaining low CO 2 emissions pathways to 2100 may rely on electricity production from biomass. We analyze the economic effect of the availability of biomass resources and technologies with and without CCS within a general equilibrium framework. We assess the robustness of bioenergy with and without CCS for reaching the RCP 3.7 target with the hybrid model Imaclim-R. Global consumption is affected by the absence of CCS or biomass options, and biomass is shown to be a possible technological answer to the absence of CCS. As the use of biomass on a large scale might prove unsustainable, we show that early action is a strategy to reduce the need for biomass and enhance economic growth in the long term.

Keywords

Electricity Price Carbon Price Computable General Equilibrium Biomass Resource Mitigation Cost 
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

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank Henri Waisman, Thierry Brunelle, Patrice Dumas, François Souty and two anonymous reviewers for their careful examination of results, as well as the EMF27 study participants for their helpful comments. The authors acknowledge funding from the Chair “Modeling for Sustainable Development” led by ParisTech.

Supplementary material

References

  1. Arango S, Larsen E (2011) Cycles in deregulated electricity markets: empirical evidence from two decades. Energy Policy 39(5):2457–2466CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Atkeson A, Kehoe PJ (1999) Models of energy use: putty-putty versus putty-clay. Am Econ Rev 89(4):1028–1043CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Azar C, Lindgren K, Larson E, Mllersten K (2006) Carbon capture and storage from fossil fuels and biomassCosts and potential role in stabilizing the atmosphere. Climatic Change 74(1):47–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Berndt ER, Wood DO (1975) Technology, prices, and the derived demand for energy. Rev Econ Stat 57(3):259–268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bhattacharyya SC (1996) Applied general equilibrium models for energy studies: a survey. Energy Econ 18(3):145–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bunn DW, Larsen ER (1992) Sensitivity of reserve margin to factors influencing investment behaviour in the electricity market of england and wales. Energy Policy 20(5):420–429CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chapman L (2007) Transport and climate change: a review. J Transp Geogr 15(5):354–367CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Clarke L, Kyle P, Wise M, Calvin K, Edmonds J, Kim S, Placet M, Smith S (2009) CO2 emissions mitigation and technological advance: an updated analysis of advanced technology scenarios. Technical Report PNNL-18075Google Scholar
  9. Corrado C, Mattey J (1997) Capacity utilization. J Econ Perspect 11(1):151–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dimaranan BV (2006) The GTAP 6 data base. Center for Global Trade Analysis, Department of Agricultural Economics, Purdue UniversityGoogle Scholar
  11. Downing T, Anthoff D, Butterfield R, Ceronsky M, Grubb M, Guo J, Hepburn C, Hope C, Hunt A, Li A (2005) Social cost of carbon: a closer look at uncertainty. Final Report. Stockholm Environment Institute. Oxford, UKGoogle Scholar
  12. Edenhofer O, Knopf B, Barker T, Baumstark L, Bellevrat E, Chateau B, Criqui P, Isaac M, Kitous A, Kypreos S (2010) The economics of low stabilization: model comparison of mitigation strategies and costs. Energy J 31(1):11–48Google Scholar
  13. Finn MG (2000) Perfect competition and the effects of energy price increases on economic activity. J Money Credit Bank 32(3):400–416CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fisher BS, Nakicenovic N, Alfsen K, Morlot JC, De la Chesnaye F, Hourcade JC, Jiang K, Kainuma M, La Rovere E, Matysek A (2007) Issues related to mitigation in the long term context. Climate change, In: Metz B et al (eds) Climate Change 2007: Mitigation of Climate Change. (Contribution of Working Group III to the 4th Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, United States), pp 169–250Google Scholar
  15. Ford A (1999) Cycles in competitive electricity markets: a simulation study of the western united states. Energy Policy 27(11):637–658CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fritz S, See L, van der Velde M, Nalepa RA, Perger C, Schill C, McCallum I, Schepaschenko D, Kraxner F, Cai X (2013) Downgrading recent estimates of land available for biofuel production. Environ Sci Technol 47(3):1688–1694Google Scholar
  17. Frondel M, Schmidt CM (2002) The capital-energy controversy: an artifact of cost shares? Energy J 23(3):53–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gallagher E, Berry A, Archer G (2008) The Gallagher review of the indirect effects of biofuels production. Renewable Fuels Agency Ashdown House, East Sussex, UKGoogle Scholar
  19. Guivarch C, Crassous R, Sassi O, Hallegatte S (2011) The costs of climate policies in a second-best world with labour market imperfections. Climate Policy 11(1):768–788CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Haberl H, Beringer T, Bhattacharya SC, Erb KH, Hoogwijk M (2010) The global technical potential of bio-energy in 2050 considering sustainability constraints. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 2(5):394–403CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hoogwijk M, Faaij A, de Vries B, Turkenburg W (2009) Exploration of regional and global costsupply curves of biomass energy from short-rotation crops at abandoned cropland and rest land under four IPCC SRES land-use scenarios. Biomass Bioenergy 33(1):26–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hourcade J-C, Ghersi F (2006) Macroeconomic consistency issues in E3 modeling: the continued fable of the elephant and the rabbit. Energy J 27(Special Issue# 2): 39–62Google Scholar
  23. Hourcade JC, Jaccard M, Bataille C, Ghersi F (2006) Hybrid modeling: new answers to old challenges. Energy J 2(Special issue):1–12Google Scholar
  24. IEA and OECD (2006) World Energy Outlook. IEA, International Energy Agency: OECD, ParisGoogle Scholar
  25. International Energy Agency (2011) Combining bioenergy with CCS—reporting and accounting for negative emissions under UNFCCC and the kyoto protocol. Working paper, International Energy Agency. http://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/bioenergy_ccs.pdf
  26. Jorgenson DW, Fraumeni BM (1981) Relative prices and technical change. Modeling and Measuring Natural Resources Substitution, MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  27. Lefèvre J, Combet E, Hourcade J-C (2013) Construction de matrices entres-sorties en indicateurs physiques et en valeur montaire pour les modles dquilibre gnral hybrides: application lconomie brsilienne. Working Paper 2013-02-09, Chaire “Modlisation prospective au service du dveloppement durable”Google Scholar
  28. Luckow P, Wise MA, Dooley JJ, Kim SH (2010) Biomass energy for transport and electricity: large scale utilization under low CO2 concentration scenarios. Technical report, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL), Richland, WA, USAGoogle Scholar
  29. Magné B, Kypreos S, Turton H (2010) Technology options for low stabilization pathways with MERGE. Energy J 31(Special Issue):83–108Google Scholar
  30. McFarland JR, Reilly JM, Herzog HJ (2004) Representing energy technologies in top-down economic models using bottom-up information. Energy Econ 26(4):685–707CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Metz B, Davidson O, De Coninck HC, Loos M, Meyer LA (2005) IPCC special report on carbon dioxide capture and storage: prepared by working group III of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. IPCC, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, USAGoogle Scholar
  32. Metzger RA, Benford G (2001) Sequestering of atmospheric carbon through permanent disposal of crop residue. Climatic Change 49(1):11–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Nakicenovic N, Alcamo J, Davis G, de Vries B, Fenhann J, Gaffin S, Gregory K, Grubler A, Jung TY, Kram T (2000) Special report on emissions scenarios: a special report of working group III of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Technical report, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, WA, USA, Environmental Molecular Sciences Laboratory (USA)Google Scholar
  34. Neij L (2008) Cost development of future technologies for power generation a study based on experience curves and complementary bottom-up assessments. Energy Policy 36(6):2200–2211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Olsina F, Garces F, Haubrich H-J (2006) Modeling long-term dynamics of electricity markets. Energy Policy 34(12):1411–1433CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Rostow WW (1993) Nonlinear dynamics and economics: a historians perspective. In: Day RH, Chen P (eds) Nonlinear dynamics and evolutionary economics. Oxford, Oxford, pp 14–17Google Scholar
  37. Rotemberg JJ, Woodford M (1996) Imperfect competition and the effects of energy price increases on economic activity. J Money Credit Bank 28(4 Part 1):549–577Google Scholar
  38. Sands RD, Leimbach M (2003) Modeling agriculture and land use in an integrated assessment framework. Climatic Change 56(1):185–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Sands RD, Miller S, Kim MK (2005) The second generation model: comparison of SGM and GTAP approaches to data development. PNNL report 15467Google Scholar
  40. Schafer A, Victor DG (2000) The future mobility of the world population. Transp Res A Policy Pract 34(3):171–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Schafer A (2012) Introducing behavioral change in transportation into energy/economy/ environment models. Draft Report for green development knowledge assessment of the World BankGoogle Scholar
  42. Silk JI, Joutz FL (1997) Short and long-run elasticities in US residential electricity demand: a co-integration approach. Energy Econ 19(4):493–513CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Solow RM (1956) A contribution to the theory of economic growth. Q J Econ 70(1):65–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Sterman JD (2000) Business dynamics: systems thinking and modeling for a complex world. Irwin/McGraw-HillGoogle Scholar
  45. Sue Wing I (2008) The synthesis of bottom-up and top-down approaches to climate policy modeling: electric power technology detail in a social accounting framework. Energy Econ 30(2):547–573CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Tavoni M, Tol RSJ (2010) Counting only the hits? The risk of underestimating the costs of stringent climate policy. Climatic Change 100(3–4):769–778CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Taylor LD (1975) The demand for electricity: a survey. Bell J Econ 6(1):74–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. The Royal Society (2009) Geoengineering the climate: science, governance and uncertainty. Royal SocietyGoogle Scholar
  49. van Vuuren DP, Bellevrat E, Kitous A, Isaac M (2010) Bio-energy use and low stabilization scenarios. Energy J 31(Special Issue):192–222Google Scholar
  50. Waisman H, Guivarch C, Grazi F, Hourcade JC (2012a) The IMACLIM-R model: infrastructures, technical inertia and the costs of low carbon futures under imperfect foresight. Climatic Change 114(1):1–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Waisman H, Rozenberg J, Sassi O et al (2012b) Peak Oil profiles through the lens of a general equilibrium assessment. Energy Policy 48:744–753CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Waisman H-D, Guivarch C, Lecocq F (2013) The transportation sector and low-carbon growth pathways: modelling urban, infrastructure, and spatial determinants of mobility. Climate Policy 13:106–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Wise M, Calvin K, Thomson A, Clarke L, Bond-Lamberty B, Sands R, Smith SJ, Janetos A, Edmonds J (2009) Implications of limiting CO2 concentrations for land use and energy. Science 324(5931):1183–1186CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.CIRED – International Research Center on the Environment and DevelopmentNogent-sur-MarneFrance

Personalised recommendations