Climatic Change

, Volume 123, Issue 3–4, pp 477–493 | Cite as

Bioenergy in energy transformation and climate management

  • Steven K. RoseEmail author
  • Elmar Kriegler
  • Ruben Bibas
  • Katherine Calvin
  • Alexander Popp
  • Detlef P. van Vuuren
  • John Weyant


This study explores the importance of bioenergy to potential future energy transformation and climate change management. Using a large inter-model comparison of 15 models, we comprehensively characterize and analyze future dependence on, and the value of, bioenergy in achieving potential long-run climate objectives. Model scenarios project, by 2050, bioenergy growth of 1 to 10 % per annum reaching 1 to 35 % of global primary energy, and by 2100, bioenergy becoming 10 to 50 % of global primary energy. Non-OECD regions are projected to be the dominant suppliers of biomass, as well as consumers, with up to 35 % of regional electricity from biopower by 2050, and up to 70 % of regional liquid fuels from biofuels by 2050. Bioenergy is found to be valuable to many models with significant implications for mitigation and macroeconomic costs of climate policies. The availability of bioenergy, in particular biomass with carbon dioxide capture and storage (BECCS), notably affects the cost-effective global emissions trajectory for climate management by accommodating prolonged near-term use of fossil fuels, but with potential implications for climate outcomes. Finally, we find that models cost-effectively trade-off land carbon and nitrous oxide emissions for the long-run climate change management benefits of bioenergy. The results suggest opportunities, but also imply challenges. Overall, further evaluation of the viability of large-scale global bioenergy is merited.


Biogas Climate Policy Biomass Feedstock Climate Target Climate Change Management 
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.



This article benefitted greatly from the comments of the anonymous reviewers, as well as from overall feedback from EMF-27 Study participants. The contribution of S.R. was supported by the Electric Power Research Institute. The contributions of E.K., A.P., and D.v.V. were supported by funding from the European Commission’s Seventh Framework Programme under the LIMITS project (grant agreement no. 282846). The contribution of R.B. was supported with funding from the Chair “Modeling for Sustainable Development.” The contribution of K.C. was supported by the Office of Science of the U.S. Department of Energy as part of the Integrated Assessment Research Program. The views expressed in this work are solely those of the authors and do not represent those of funding organizations. All errors are our own.

Supplementary material

10584_2013_965_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (318 kb)
ESM 1 (PDF 318 kb)


  1. Azar C, Lindgren K, Larson E, Möllersten K (2006) Carbon capture and storage from fossil fuels and biomass–Costs and potential role in stabilizing the atmosphere. Clim Chang 74:47–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Azar C, Lindren K, Obersteiner M, Riahi K, van Vuuren DP, den Elzen KMGJ, Möllersten K, Larson ED (2010) The feasibility of low CO2 concentration targets and the role of bio-energy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS). Clim Chang 101:195–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Berndes G (2002) Bioenergy and water—the implications of large-scale bioenergy production for water use and supply. Glob Environ Chang 12:253–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Blanford G, Merrick J, Richels R, Rose S (2013) Trade-offs between mitigation costs and temperature change. Climatic Change. doi: 10.1007/s10584-013-0869-2
  5. Chum H, Faaij A, Moreira J, Berndes G, Dhamija P, Dong H, Gabrielle B, Goss Eng A, Lucht W, Mapako M, Masera Cerutti O, McIntyre T, Minowa T, Pingoud K (2011) Bioenergy. In: Edenhofer O, Pichs-Madruga R, Sokona Y, Seyboth K, Matschoss P, Kadner S, Zwickel T, Eickemeier P, Hansen G, Schlömer S, von Stechow C (eds) IPCC special report on renewable energy sources and climate change mitigation. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  6. Fisher BS, N Nakicenovic, K Alfsen, J Corfee Morlot, F de la Chesnaye, J-C Hourcade, K Jiang et al (2007) Issues related to mitigation in the long term context. In: 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, Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
  7. Hertel TW, Tyner WE, Birur DK (2010) Global impacts of biofuels. Energy J 31(1):75–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Kriegler E, Weyant JP, Blanford GJ, Krey V, Clarke L, Edmonds J, Fawcett A, Luderer G, Riahi K, Richels R, Rose SK, Tavoni M, van Vuuren DP (2013) The role of technology for achieving climate policy objectives: overview of the EMF 27 study on global technology and climate policy strategies. Climatic Change. doi: 10.1007/s10584-013-0953-7
  9. Lemoine DM, Fuss S, Szolgayova J, Obersteiner M, Kammen DM (2012) The influence of negative emission technologies and technology policies on the optimal climate mitigation portfolio. Clim Chang 113:141–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Lubowski RN, Rose SK (2013) The potential of REDD+: economic modeling insights and issues. Rev Environ Econ Policy 7(1):67–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Luderer G, Krey V, Calvin K, Merrick J, Mima S, Pietzcker RC, Van Vliet J, Wada K (2013) The role of renewable energy in climate mitigation: results from the EMF 27 scenarios. Climatic Change. doi: 10.1007/s10584-013-0924-z
  12. Popp D, Dietrich JP, Lotze-Campen H, Klein D, Bauer N, Krause M, Beringer T, Gerten D, Edenhofer O (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):034017CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Popp A, Rose SK, Calvin K, van Vuuren DP, Dietrich JP, Wise M, Stehfest E, Humpenöder F, Kyle P, van Vliet J, Bauer N, Lotze-Campen H, Klein D, Kriegler E (2013) Land-use transition for bioenergy and climate stabilization: model comparison of drivers, impacts and interactions with other land use based mitigation options. Climatic Change. doi: 10.1007/s10584-013-0926-x
  14. Reilly J, Melillo J, Cai Y, Kicklighter D, Gurgel A, Paltsev S, Cronin T, Sokolov A, Schlosser A (2012) Using land to mitigate climate change: hitting the target, recognizing the trade-offs. Environ Sci Technol 46(11):5672–5679CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Rose SK, Ahammad H, Eickhout B, Fisher B, Kurosawa A, Rao S, Keywan R, van Vuuren DP (2012) Land-based mitigation in climate stabilization. Energy Econ 34(1):365–380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Searchinger T, Heimlich R, Houghton RA, Dong F, Elobeid A, Fabiosa J, Tokgoz S, Hayes D, Yu T-H (2008) Use of U.S. croplands for biofuels increased greenhouse gases through land use change. Science 319:1238–1240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. van Vuuren D, den Elzen MGJ, Lucas PL, Eickhout B, Strengers BJ, Ruijven B, Wonink S, Houdt R (2007) Stabilizing greenhouse gas concentrations at low levels: an assessment of reduction strategies and costs. Clim Chang 81(2):119–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. van Vuuren DP, Bellevrat E, Kitous A, Isaac M (2010) Bio-energy use and low stabilization scenarios. Energy J 31:192–222Google Scholar
  19. 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

  • Steven K. Rose
    • 1
    Email author
  • Elmar Kriegler
    • 2
  • Ruben Bibas
    • 3
  • Katherine Calvin
    • 4
  • Alexander Popp
    • 2
  • Detlef P. van Vuuren
    • 5
    • 6
  • John Weyant
    • 7
  1. 1.Energy and Environmental Analysis Research GroupElectric Power Research InstituteWashingtonUSA
  2. 2.Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact ResearchPotsdamGermany
  3. 3.Centre International de Recherche sur l’Environnement et le Développement (CIRED)Nogent-sur-MarneFrance
  4. 4.Pacific Northwest National LaboratoryJoint Global Change Research Institute at the University of Maryland–College ParkCollege ParkUSA
  5. 5.PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment AgencyBilthovenThe Netherlands
  6. 6.Department of GeosciencesUtrecht UniversityUtrechtThe Netherlands
  7. 7.Stanford UniversityPalo AltoUSA

Personalised recommendations