The role of technology for achieving climate policy objectives: overview of the EMF 27 study on global technology and climate policy strategies

Abstract

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Notes

  1. 1.

    Those models used endogenous climate modules that can differ significantly in their response to emissions trajectories, particularly for the climate policy cases. This adds an additional layer of uncertainty to climate outcomes and also affects the amount of residual emissions that models estimate to be consistent with the climate targets.

  2. 2.

    This is true in the context of this study, since no additional climate policy measures such as technology performance standards or subsidies are assumed.

  3. 3.

    Most of the EMF27 models assume an interest rate of around 5 % per year. The choice of discount rate affects the average price/net present value cost estimates. Lower discount rates lead to higher average prices/net present value costs, if prices/costs increase over time.

References

  1. 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 100:195–202

    Google Scholar 

  2. Bibas R, Méjean A (this issue) Potential and limitations of bioenergy options for low carbon transitions. Clim Chang, submitted

  3. Blanford GJ, Kriegler E, Tavoni M (this issue) Harmonization vs. Fragmentation: Overview of climate policy scenarios in EMF27. Clim Chang, submitted

  4. Calvin K et al (2012) The role of Asia in mitigating climate change: results from the Asia modeling exercise. Energy Econ 34(3):S251–S260

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Clarke L et al (2008) CO2 emissions mitigation and technological advance: an updated analysis of advanced technology scenarios. PNNL Report Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richmond

  6. Clarke L, Edmonds J, Krey V, Richels R, Rose S, Tavoni M (2009) International climate policy architectures: overview of the EMF 22 international scenarios. Energy Econ 31:S64–S81

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Edenhofer O et al (2010) The economics of low stabilization: Model comparison of mitigation strategies and costs. Energy J 31:11–48

    Google Scholar 

  8. 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

  9. Kim SH, Wada K, Kurosawa A, Roberts M (this issue) Nuclear energy response in the EMF27 study. Clim Chang, submitted

  10. 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, submitted

  11. Krey V, Clarke L (2011) Role of renewable energy in climate mitigation: a synthesis of recent scenarios. Clim Pol 11:1131–1158

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 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, submitted

  13. Luderer G, Bosetti V, Jakob M, Leimbach M, Steckel JC, Waisman H, Edenhofer O (2012) The economics of decarbonizing the energy system-results and insights from the RECIPE model intercomparison. Clim Chang 114:9–37

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Luderer G et al. (this issue) The role of renewable energy in climate mitigation: results from the EMF27 scenarios. Clim Chang submitted

  15. McCollum DL, Krey V, Riahi K (2011) An integrated approach to energy sustainability. Nat Clim Chang 1(9):428–429

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 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, submitted

  17. Meinshausen M et al (2009) Greenhouse-gas emission targets for limiting global warming to 2°C. Nature 458:1158–1162

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Nakicenovic N, Nordhaus W (2011) Editors' introduction: the economics of technologies to combat global warming. Energy Econ 33(4):565–571

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 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, submitted

  20. 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 1203–1306

  21. 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

  22. 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, submitted

  23. 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, submitted

  24. 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, submitted

  25. Tavoni M, Socolow R (2013) Modeling meets science and technology: an introduction to a special issue on negative emissions. Clim Chang 118(1):1–14

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Tavoni M, Tol R (2010) Counting only the hits? The risk of underestimating the costs of stringent climate policy. Clim Chang 100:769–778

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Weyant JP, de la Chesnaye FC, Blanford GJ (2006) Overview of EMF-21: Multigas Mitigation and Climate Policy. Energy J, Special Issue

  28. Weyant JP (2004) EMF 19: alternative technology strategies for climate change policy. Energy Econ 26(4):501–575

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

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).

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Elmar Kriegler.

Additional information

This article is part of the Special Issue on “The EMF27 Study on Global Technology and Climate Policy Strategies” edited by John Weyant, Elmar Kriegler, Geoffrey Blanford, Volker Krey, Jae Edmonds, Keywan Riahi, Richard Richels, and Massimo Tavoni.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

ESM 1

(DOCX 667 kb)

ESM 2

(XLSX 73.2 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kriegler, E., Weyant, J.P., Blanford, G.J. et al. The role of technology for achieving climate policy objectives: overview of the EMF 27 study on global technology and climate policy strategies. Climatic Change 123, 353–367 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-013-0953-7

Download citation

Keywords

  • Emission Reduction
  • Climate Policy
  • Integrate Assessment Model
  • Mitigation Cost
  • Mitigation Scenario