Skip to main content

Transport electrification: A key element for energy system transformation and climate stabilization

Abstract

This paper analyzes the role of transport electrification in the broader context of energy system transformation and climate stabilization. As part of the EMF27 model inter-comparison exercise, we employ the MESSAGE integrated assessment modeling framework to conduct a systematic variation of availability, cost, and performance of particular energy supply technologies, thereby deriving implications for feasibility of climate stabilization goals and the associated costs of mitigation. In addition, we explore a wide range of assumptions regarding the potential degree of electrification of the transportation sector. These analyses allow us to (i) test the extent to which the feasible attainment of stringent climate policy targets depends on transport electrification, and (ii) assess the far-reaching impacts that transport electrification could have throughout the rest of the energy system. A detailed analysis of the transition to electricity within the transport sector is not conducted. Our results indicate that while a low-carbon transport system built upon conventional liquid-based fuel delivery infrastructures is destined to become increasingly reliant on biofuels and synthetic liquids, electrification opens up a door through which nuclear energy and non-biomass renewables can flow. The latter has important implications for mitigation costs.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Notes

  1. The maximum shares over the century for a given scenario are rounded to the nearest 5 % level so that the naming convention is consistent (e.g., ET5%, ET15%, ET35%, ET55%, and ET75%). In all scenarios, maximum values are reached in the second half of the century.

  2. Leakage from natural gas extraction, transport/distribution, storage, and use is accounted for in MESSAGE. Assumed leakage rates add up to <1 % of total gas throughput – in fact significantly less in certain regions utilizing newer infrastructure.

  3. For reference, total final energy consumption in the transport sector is ~87 EJ/yr today. In the 450 FullTech ET75% scenario, this grows to 109 EJ/yr in 2020 and 123 EJ/yr in 2050; in 450 FullTech ET5%, these numbers are 107 EJ/yr and 140 EJ/yr, respectively.

  4. MESSAGE accounts for these price-induced demand feedbacks through its linkage to an aggregated macro-economic model.

References

  • Anderson K, Bows A (2011) Beyond ‘dangerous’ climate change: Emission scenarios for a new world. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 369:20–44

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 74:47–79

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bosetti V, Longden T (2013) Light duty vehicle transportation and global climate policy: The importance of electric drive vehicles. Energy Policy 58:209–219

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Calvin K, Wise M, Klein D, McCollum D, Tavoni M, van der Zwaan B, van Vuuren D (2013) A multi-model analysis of the regional and sectoral roles of bioenergy in near-term and long-term carbon mitigation. Climate Change Economics.

  • Cherp A, Adenikinju A, Goldthau A, Hughes L, Jansen J, Jewell J, Olshanskaya M, Soares de Oliveira R, Sovacool B, Vakulenko S (2012) Chapter 5—energy and security. Global energy assessment—toward a sustainable future, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA and the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Laxenburg, Austria, pp. 325–384.

  • 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 Economics 31:S64–S81

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edenhofer O, Knopf B, Barker T, Baumstark L, Bellevrat E, Chateau B, Criqui P, Isaac M, Kitous A, Kypreos S, Leimbach M, Lessmann K, Magne B, Scrieciu Å, Turton H, Van Vuuren DP (2010) The economics of low stabilization: Model comparison of mitigation strategies and costs. Energy Journal 31:11–48

    Google Scholar 

  • Edmonds J, Wilson T, Wise M, Weyant J (2006) Electrification of the economy and CO2 emissions mitigation. Environmental Economics and Policy Studies 7:175–203

    Google Scholar 

  • Grahn M, Azar C, Lindgren K, Berndes G, Gielen D (2007) Biomass for heat or as transportation fuel? A comparison between two model-based studies. Biomass Bioenergy 31:747–758

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gül T, Kypreos S, Turton H, Barreto L (2009) An energy-economic scenario analysis of alternative fuels for personal transport using the Global Multi-regional MARKAL model (GMM). Energy 34:1423–1437

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hedenus F, Karlsson S, Azar C, Sprei F (2010) Cost-effective energy carriers for transport—The role of the energy supply system in a carbon-constrained world. Int J Hydrog Energy 35:4638–4651

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • IEA (2012) Energy technology perspectives 2012: Pathways to a clean energy system. International Energy Agency (IEA), Paris

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Krey V, Riahi K (2009) Implications of delayed participation and technology failure for the feasibility, costs, and likelihood of staying below temperature targets—greenhouse gas mitigation scenarios for the 21st century. Energy Economics 31:S94–S106

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

  • Kyle P, Kim SH (2011) Long-term implications of alternative light-duty vehicle technologies for global greenhouse gas emissions and primary energy demands. Energy Policy 39:3012–3024

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • McCollum DL, Krey V, Riahi K (2012) Beyond Rio: Sustainable energy scenarios for the 21st century. Natural Resources Forum.

  • OECD/ITF (2012) Transport outlook 2012: Seamless transport for greener growth. International Transport Forum (ITF) of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Ogden J, Anderson L (eds.) (2011) Sustainable transportation energy pathways: A research summary for decision makers, The Regents of the University of California, Davis campus.

  • Pacala S, Socolow R (2004) Stabilization wedges: Solving the climate problem for the next 50 years with current technologies. Science 305:968–972

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Riahi K, Dentener F, Gielen D, Grubler A, Jewell J, Klimont Z, Krey V, McCollum D, Pachauri S, Rao S, van Ruijven B, van Vuuren DP, Wilson C (2012) Chapter 17 - Energy Pathways for Sustainable Development. Global Energy Assessment—Toward a Sustainable Future, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA and the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Laxenburg, Austria, pp. 1203–1306.

  • Riahi K, Grübler A, Nakicenovic N (2007) Scenarios of long-term socio-economic and environmental development under climate stabilization. Technol Forecast Soc Chang 74:887–935

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rogelj J, McCollum DL, O’Neill BC, Riahi K (2013) 2020 emissions levels required to limit warming to below 2 C. Nat Clim Chang 3:405–412

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rose S, Kriegler E, Popp A (2013) Bioenergy in energy transformation and climate management. Climatic Change. doi:10.1007/s10584-013-0965-3

  • Skinner I, van Essen H, Smokers R, Hill N (2010) Towards the decarbonisation of EU’s transport sector by 2050. Final report produced under the contract ENV.C.3/SER/2008/0053 between European Commission Directorate-General Environment and AEA Technology plc; see www.eutransportghg2050.eu.

  • Sugiyama M (2012) Climate change mitigation and electrification. Energy Policy 44:464–468

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Teske S, Pregger T, Simon S, Naegler T, O’Sullivan M, Schmid S, Pagenkopf J, Frieske B, Graus W, Kermeli K, Zittel W, Rutovitz J, Harris S, Ackermann T, Ruwahata R, Martensen N (2012) Energy [R]evolution: A sustainable world energy outlook, 4th ed. Greenpeace international, European Renewable Energy Council (EREC), Global Wind Energy Council (GWEC)

  • Turton H (2006) Sustainable global automobile transport in the 21st century: An integrated scenario analysis. Technol Forecast Soc Chang 73:607–629

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Vliet O, Krey V, McCollum D, Pachauri S, Nagai Y, Rao S, Riahi K (2012) Synergies in the Asian energy system: Climate change, energy security, energy access and air pollution. Energy Economics.

  • van Vuuren D, den Elzen M, Lucas P, Eickhout B, Strengers B, van Ruijven B, Wonink S, van Houdt R (2007) Stabilizing greenhouse gas concentrations at low levels: An assessment of reduction strategies and costs. Clim Chang 81:119–159

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • WBCSD (2004) Mobility 2030: Meeting the challenges to sustainability. World business council for sustainable development.

  • Williams JH, DeBenedictis A, Ghanadan R, Mahone A, Moore J, Morrow WR, Price S, Torn MS (2012) The technology path to deep greenhouse gas emissions cuts by 2050: The pivotal role of electricity. Science 335:53–59

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yang C, Ogden J, Sperling D, Hwang R (2011) California’s energy future: Transportation energy Use in California. California council on science and technology.

Download references

Acknowledgments

We recognize the technical contributions of Patrick Sullivan to this analysis. The Sankey-type flow diagrams were developed using the Fineo software made available by the DensityDesign Research Lab of the Politecnico di Milano. The comments of the editor and anonymous reviewers helped to substantially improve this paper.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to David McCollum.

Additional information

David McCollum and Volker Krey contributed equally to this work.

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 512 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

McCollum, D., Krey, V., Kolp, P. et al. Transport electrification: A key element for energy system transformation and climate stabilization. Climatic Change 123, 651–664 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-013-0969-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-013-0969-z

Keywords

  • Transport Electrification
  • Transport Sector
  • Final Energy
  • Mitigation Cost
  • Climate Stabilization