Climatic Change

, Volume 123, Issue 3–4, pp 719–730 | Cite as

Bio-electricity and land use in the Future Agricultural Resources Model (FARM)

  • Ronald D. Sands
  • Hannah Förster
  • Carol A. Jones
  • Katja Schumacher
Article

Abstract

Bio-electricity is an important technology for Energy Modeling Forum (EMF-27) mitigation scenarios, especially with the possibility of negative carbon dioxide emissions when combined with carbon dioxide capture and storage (CCS). With a strong economic foundation, and broad coverage of economic activity, computable general equilibrium models have proven useful for analysis of alternative climate change policies. However, embedding energy technologies in a general equilibrium model is a challenge, especially for a negative emissions technology with joint products of electricity and carbon dioxide storage. We provide a careful implementation of bio-electricity with CCS in a general equilibrium context, and apply it to selected EMF-27 mitigation scenarios through 2100. Representing bio-electricity and its land requirements requires consideration of competing land uses, including crops, pasture, and forests. Land requirements for bio-electricity start at 200 kilohectares per terawatt-hour declining to approximately 70 kilohectares per terwatt-hour by year 2100 in scenarios with high bioenergy potential.

Abbreviations

AgMIP

Agricultural Model Inter-comparison and Improvement Project

CCS

Carbon dioxide capture and storage

CES

Constant elasticity of substitution

CGE

Computable general equilibrium

EMF

Energy Modeling Forum

EV

Equivalent variation

FARM

Future Agricultural Resources Model

FAO

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

GTAP

Global Trade Analysis Project

IEA

International Energy Agency

kha

Kilohectare

SAM

Social accounting matrix

SSP

Shared Socio-economic Pathway

TWh

Terawatt-hour

References

  1. Avetisyan M, Baldos U, Hertel T (2011) Development of the GTAP Version 7 Land Use Data Base. GTAP Research Memorandum No. 19, Global Trade Analysis Project, Purdue University, https://www.gtap.agecon.purdue.edu/
  2. Burney JA, Davis SJ, Lobell DB (2010) Greenhouse gas mitigation by agricultural intensification. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 107(26):12052–12057CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Choi S, Sohngen B, Rose S, Hertel T, Golub A (2011) Total factor productivity change in agriculture and emissions from deforestation. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 93(2):349–355Google Scholar
  4. Hertel TW (1997) Global trade analysis: Modeling and applications. Cambridge University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  5. Hertel TW, Rose SK, Tol RSJ (2009) Land use in computable general equilibrium models: An overview. In: Hertel TW, Rose SK, Tol RSJ (eds) Economic analysis of land use in global climate change policy. Routledge, London, pp 3–30Google Scholar
  6. Hyman RC, Reilly JM, Babiker MH, De Masin A, Jacoby HD (2002) Modeling non-CO2 greenhouse gas abatement. MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change, Report No. 94Google Scholar
  7. Kriegler E, O’Neill BC, Hallegatte S, Kram T, Lempert RJ, Moss RH, Wilbanks T (2012) The need for and use of socio-economic scenarios for climate change analysis: a new approach based on shared socio-economic pathways. Global Environmental Change 22:807–822CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Rutherford TF (2010) GTAP7inGAMS. Available at http://svn.mpsge.org/GTAP7inGAMS/doc/
  9. Sands RD, Schumacher K, Förster H (2013) U.S. CO2 mitigation in a global context: Welfare, trade and land use. Special issue of The Energy Journal, forthcomingGoogle Scholar
  10. Schmer MR, Vogel KP, Mitchell RB, Perrin RK (2008) Net energy of cellulosic ethanol from switchgrass. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 105(2):464–469CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Schumacher K, Sands RD (2007) Where are the industrial technologies in energy-economy models? An innovative CGE approach to steel production in Germany. Energy Economics 29:799–825CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division (2011) World Population Prospects: The 2010 Revision, CD-ROM EditionGoogle Scholar
  13. Williams JH, DeBenedictis A, Ghanadan R, Mahone A, Moore J, Morrow III WR, Price S, Torn MS (2013) The technology path to deep greenhouse gas emissions cuts by 2050: The pivotal role of electricity. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Paper LBNL-5529EGoogle Scholar
  14. Wise M, Calvin K, Thomson A, Clarke L, Bond-Lamberty E, Sands R, Smith SJ, Janetos A, Edmonds JA (2009) Implications of limiting CO2 concentration for land use and energy. Science 324:1183–1186CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht (outside the USA) 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ronald D. Sands
    • 1
  • Hannah Förster
    • 2
  • Carol A. Jones
    • 1
  • Katja Schumacher
    • 2
  1. 1.Economic Research ServiceU.S. Department of AgricultureWashingtonUSA
  2. 2.Öko-InstitutBerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations