The Experts below are selected from a list of 64227 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Alexander Popp - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Bio-energy and CO_2 emission reductions: an integrated land-use and energy sector perspective
Climatic Change, 2020Co-Authors: Nico Bauer, Florian Humpenöder, David Klein, Alexander Popp, Elmar Kriegler, Gunnar Luderer, Jessica StreflerAbstract:Biomass feedstocks can be used to substitute fossil fuels and effectively remove carbon from the atmosphere to offset residual CO_2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion and other sectors. Both features make biomass valuable for climate change mitigation; therefore, CO_2 emission mitigation leads to complex and dynamic interactions between the energy and the land-use sector via emission pricing policies and Bioenergy markets. Projected Bioenergy deployment depends on climate target stringency as well as assumptions about context variables such as technology development, energy and land markets as well as policies. This study investigates the intra- and intersectorial effects on physical quantities and prices by coupling models of the energy (REMIND) and land-use sector (MAgPIE) using an iterative soft-link approach. The model framework is used to investigate variations of a broad set of context variables, including the harmonized variations on Bioenergy technologies of the 33^rd model comparison study of the Stanford Energy Modeling Forum (EMF-33) on climate change mitigation and large scale Bioenergy deployment. Results indicate that CO_2 emission mitigation triggers strong decline of fossil fuel use and rapid growth of Bioenergy deployment around midcentury (~ 150 EJ/year) reaching saturation towards end-of-century. Varying context variables leads to diverse changes on mid-century Bioenergy markets and carbon pricing. For example, reducing the ability to exploit the carbon value of Bioenergy increases Bioenergy use to substitute fossil fuels, whereas limitations on Bioenergy supply shift Bioenergy use to conversion alternatives featuring higher carbon capture rates. Radical variations, like fully excluding all technologies that combine Bioenergy use with carbon removal, lead to substantial intersectorial effects by increasing Bioenergy demand and increased economic pressure on both sectors. More gradual variations like selective exclusion of advanced bioliquid technologies in the energy sector or changes in diets mostly lead to substantial intrasectorial reallocation effects. The results deepen our understanding of the land-energy nexus, and we discuss the importance of carefully choosing variations in sensitivity analyses to provide a balanced assessment.
-
Food security under high Bioenergy demand toward long-term climate goals
Climatic Change, 2020Co-Authors: Tomoko Hasegawa, Thierry Brunelle, Stefan Frank, Shinichiro Fujimori, Ronald D. Sands, Alexander PoppAbstract:Bioenergy is expected to play an important role in the achievement of stringent climate-change mitigation targets requiring the application of negative emissions technology. Using a multi-model framework, we assess the effects of high Bioenergy demand on global food production, food security, and competition for agricultural land. Various scenarios simulate global Bioenergy demands of 100, 200, 300, and 400 exajoules (EJ) by 2100, with and without a carbon price. Six global energy-economy-agriculture models contribute to this study, with different methodologies and technologies used for Bioenergy supply and greenhouse-gas mitigation options for agriculture. We find that the large-scale use of Bioenergy, if not implemented properly, would raise food prices and increase the number of people at risk of hunger in many areas of the world. For example, an increase in global Bioenergy demand from 200 to 300 EJ causes a − 11% to + 40% change in food crop prices and decreases food consumption from − 45 to − 2 kcal person^−1 day^−1, leading to an additional 0 to 25 million people at risk of hunger compared with the case of no Bioenergy demand (90th percentile range across models). This risk does not rule out the intensive use of Bioenergy but shows the importance of its careful implementation, potentially including regulations that protect cropland for food production or for the use of Bioenergy feedstock on land that is not competitive with food production.
-
Food security under high Bioenergy demand toward long-term climate goals
Climatic Change, 2020Co-Authors: Tomoko Hasegawa, Thierry Brunelle, Stefan Frank, Shinichiro Fujimori, Yiyun Cui, Ronald D. Sands, Alexander PoppAbstract:Bioenergy is expected to play an important role in the achievement of stringent climate-change mitigation targets requiring the application of negative emissions technology. Using a multi-model framework, we assess the effects of high Bioenergy demand on global food production, food security, and competition for agricultural land. Various scenarios simulate global Bioenergy demands of 100, 200, 300, and 400 exajoules (EJ) by 2100, with and without a carbon price. Six global energy-economy-agriculture models contribute to this study, with different methodologies and technologies used for Bioenergy supply and greenhouse-gas mitigation options for agriculture. We find that the large-scale use of Bioenergy, if not implemented properly, would raise food prices and increase the number of people at risk of hunger in many areas of the world. For example, an increase in global Bioenergy demand from 200 to 300 EJ causes a − 11% to + 40% change in food crop prices and decreases food consumption from − 45 to − 2 kcal person^−1 day^−1, leading to an additional 0 to 25 million people at risk of hunger compared with the case of no Bioenergy demand (90th percentile range across models). This risk does not rule out the intensive use of Bioenergy but shows the importance of its careful implementation, potentially including regulations that protect cropland for food production or for the use of Bioenergy feedstock on land that is not competitive with food production.
-
Mapping the yields of lignocellulosic Bioenergy crops from observations at the global scale
Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 2020Co-Authors: Fulvio Di Fulvio, Florian Humpenöder, Alexander Popp, Philippe Ciais, Elke Stehfest, Detlef Van Vuuren, Almut Arneth, Jonathan Doelman, Anna Harper, Taejin ParkAbstract:Most scenarios from integrated assessment models (IAMs) that project greenhouse gas emissions include the use of Bioenergy as a means to reduce CO 2 emissions or even to achieve negative emissions (together with CCS-carbon capture and storage). The potential amount of CO 2 that can be removed from the atmosphere depends, among others, on the yields of Bioenergy crops, the land available to grow these crops and the efficiency with which CO 2 produced by combustion is captured. While Bioenergy crop yields can be simulated by models, estimates of the spatial distribution of Bioenergy yields under current technology based on a large number of observations are currently lacking. In this study, a random-forest (RF) algorithm is used to upscale a Bioenergy yield dataset of 3963 observations covering Miscanthus, switchgrass, eucalypt, poplar and willow using climatic and soil conditions as explanatory variables. The results are global yield maps of five important lignocellulosic Bioenergy crops under current technology, climate and atmospheric CO 2 conditions at a 0.5 • × 0.5 • spatial resolution. We also provide a combined "best Bioenergy crop" yield map by selecting one of the five crop types with the highest yield in each of the grid cells, eucalypt and Miscanthus in most cases. The global median yield of the best crop is 16.3 t DM ha −1 yr −1 (DM-dry matter). High yields mainly occur in the Amazon region and southeastern Asia. We further compare our empirically derived maps with yield maps used in three IAMs and find that the median yields in our maps are > 50 % higher than those in the IAM maps. Our estimates of gridded Published by Copernicus Publications. 790 W. Li et al.: Mapping the yields of lignocellulosic Bioenergy crops Bioenergy crop yields can be used to provide Bioenergy yields for IAMs, to evaluate land surface models or to identify the most suitable lands for future Bioenergy crop plantations. The 0.5 • × 0.5 • global maps for yields of different Bioenergy crops and the best crop and for the best crop composition generated from this study can be download from https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3274254 (Li, 2019).
-
Biomass residues as twenty-first century Bioenergy feedstock—a comparison of eight integrated assessment models
Climatic Change, 2019Co-Authors: Steef V Hanssen, Vassilis Daioglou, Thierry Brunelle, Alexander Popp, Zoran J N Steinmann, Pekka Lauri, Stefan Frank, Tomoko Hasegawa, Mark A J Huijbregts, Detlef P Van VuurenAbstract:In the twenty-first century, modern Bioenergy could become one of the largest sources of energy, partially replacing fossil fuels and contributing to climate change mitigation. Agricultural and forestry biomass residues form an inexpensive Bioenergy feedstock with low greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, if harvested sustainably. We analysed quantities of biomass residues supplied for energy and their sensitivities in harmonised Bioenergy demand scenarios across eight integrated assessment models (IAMs) and compared them with literature-estimated residue availability. IAM results vary substantially, at both global and regional scales, but suggest that residues could meet 7–50% of Bioenergy demand towards 2050, and 2–30% towards 2100, in a scenario with 300 EJ/year of exogenous Bioenergy demand towards 2100. When considering mean literature-estimated availability, residues could provide around 55 EJ/year by 2050. Inter-model differences primarily arise from model structure, assumptions, and the representation of agriculture and forestry. Despite these differences, drivers of residues supplied and underlying cost dynamics are largely similar across models. Higher Bioenergy demand or biomass prices increase the quantity of residues supplied for energy, though their effects level off as residues become depleted. GHG emission pricing and land protection can increase the costs of using land for lignocellulosic Bioenergy crop cultivation, which increases residue use at the expense of lignocellulosic Bioenergy crops. In most IAMs and scenarios, supplied residues in 2050 are within literature-estimated residue availability, but outliers and sustainability concerns warrant further exploration. We conclude that residues can cost-competitively play an important role in the twenty-first century Bioenergy supply, though uncertainties remain concerning (regional) forestry and agricultural production and resulting residue supply potentials.
Shinichiro Fujimori - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Implications of climate change mitigation strategies on international Bioenergy trade
Climatic Change, 2020Co-Authors: Vassilis Daioglou, Nico Bauer, Shinichiro Fujimori, Etsushi Kato, Martin Junginger, Matteo Muratori, Patrick Lamers, Alban Kitous, Alexandre C. Köberle, Florian LeblancAbstract:Most climate change mitigation scenarios rely on increased use of Bioenergy to decarbonize the energy system. Here we use results from the 33rd Energy Modeling Forum study (EMF-33) to investigate projected international Bioenergy trade for different integrated assessment models across several climate change mitigation scenarios. Results show that in scenarios with no climate policy, international Bioenergy trade is likely to increase over time, and becomes even more important when climate targets are set. More stringent climate targets, however, do not necessarily imply greater Bioenergy trade compared to weaker targets, as final energy demand may be reduced. However, the scaling up of Bioenergy trade happens sooner and at a faster rate with increasing climate target stringency. Across models, for a scenario likely to achieve a 2 °C target, 10–45 EJ/year out of a total global Bioenergy consumption of 72–214 EJ/year are expected to be traded across nine world regions by 2050. While this projection is greater than the present trade volumes of coal or natural gas, it remains below the present trade of crude oil. This growth in Bioenergy trade largely replaces the trade in fossil fuels (especially oil) which is projected to decrease significantly over the twenty-first century. As climate change mitigation scenarios often show diversified energy systems, in which numerous world regions can act as Bioenergy suppliers, the projections do not necessarily lead to energy security concerns. Nonetheless, rapid growth in the trade of Bioenergy is projected in strict climate mitigation scenarios, raising questions about infrastructure, logistics, financing options, and global standards for Bioenergy production and trade.
-
Food security under high Bioenergy demand toward long-term climate goals
Climatic Change, 2020Co-Authors: Tomoko Hasegawa, Thierry Brunelle, Stefan Frank, Shinichiro Fujimori, Ronald D. Sands, Alexander PoppAbstract:Bioenergy is expected to play an important role in the achievement of stringent climate-change mitigation targets requiring the application of negative emissions technology. Using a multi-model framework, we assess the effects of high Bioenergy demand on global food production, food security, and competition for agricultural land. Various scenarios simulate global Bioenergy demands of 100, 200, 300, and 400 exajoules (EJ) by 2100, with and without a carbon price. Six global energy-economy-agriculture models contribute to this study, with different methodologies and technologies used for Bioenergy supply and greenhouse-gas mitigation options for agriculture. We find that the large-scale use of Bioenergy, if not implemented properly, would raise food prices and increase the number of people at risk of hunger in many areas of the world. For example, an increase in global Bioenergy demand from 200 to 300 EJ causes a − 11% to + 40% change in food crop prices and decreases food consumption from − 45 to − 2 kcal person^−1 day^−1, leading to an additional 0 to 25 million people at risk of hunger compared with the case of no Bioenergy demand (90th percentile range across models). This risk does not rule out the intensive use of Bioenergy but shows the importance of its careful implementation, potentially including regulations that protect cropland for food production or for the use of Bioenergy feedstock on land that is not competitive with food production.
-
Food security under high Bioenergy demand toward long-term climate goals
Climatic Change, 2020Co-Authors: Tomoko Hasegawa, Thierry Brunelle, Stefan Frank, Shinichiro Fujimori, Yiyun Cui, Ronald D. Sands, Alexander PoppAbstract:Bioenergy is expected to play an important role in the achievement of stringent climate-change mitigation targets requiring the application of negative emissions technology. Using a multi-model framework, we assess the effects of high Bioenergy demand on global food production, food security, and competition for agricultural land. Various scenarios simulate global Bioenergy demands of 100, 200, 300, and 400 exajoules (EJ) by 2100, with and without a carbon price. Six global energy-economy-agriculture models contribute to this study, with different methodologies and technologies used for Bioenergy supply and greenhouse-gas mitigation options for agriculture. We find that the large-scale use of Bioenergy, if not implemented properly, would raise food prices and increase the number of people at risk of hunger in many areas of the world. For example, an increase in global Bioenergy demand from 200 to 300 EJ causes a − 11% to + 40% change in food crop prices and decreases food consumption from − 45 to − 2 kcal person^−1 day^−1, leading to an additional 0 to 25 million people at risk of hunger compared with the case of no Bioenergy demand (90th percentile range across models). This risk does not rule out the intensive use of Bioenergy but shows the importance of its careful implementation, potentially including regulations that protect cropland for food production or for the use of Bioenergy feedstock on land that is not competitive with food production.
-
Bioenergy technologies in long-run climate change mitigation: results from the EMF-33 study
Climatic Change, 2020Co-Authors: Vassilis Daioglou, Nico Bauer, Steven K. Rose, Shinichiro Fujimori, Matthew J. Gidden, Etsushi Kato, Matteo Muratori, Alban Kitous, Fuminori Sano, Kimon KeramidasAbstract:Bioenergy is expected to play an important role in long-run climate change mitigation strategies as highlighted by many integrated assessment model (IAM) scenarios. These scenarios, however, also show a very wide range of results, with uncertainty about Bioenergy conversion technology deployment and biomass feedstock supply. To date, the underlying differences in model assumptions and parameters for the range of results have not been conveyed. Here we explore the models and results of the 33rd study of the Stanford Energy Modeling Forum to elucidate and explore Bioenergy technology specifications and constraints that underlie projected Bioenergy outcomes. We first develop and report consistent Bioenergy technology characterizations and modeling details. We evaluate the Bioenergy technology specifications through a series of analyses—comparison with the literature, model intercomparison, and an assessment of Bioenergy technology projected deployments. We find that Bioenergy technology coverage and characterization varies substantially across models, spanning different conversion routes, carbon capture and storage opportunities, and technology deployment constraints. Still, the range of technology specification assumptions is largely in line with bottom-up engineering estimates. We then find that variation in Bioenergy deployment across models cannot be understood from technology costs alone. Important additional determinants include biomass feedstock costs, the availability and costs of alternative mitigation options in and across end-uses, the availability of carbon dioxide removal possibilities, the speed with which large scale changes in the makeup of energy conversion facilities and integration can take place, and the relative demand for different energy services.
-
Global energy sector emission reductions and Bioenergy use: overview of the Bioenergy demand phase of the EMF-33 model comparison
Climatic Change, 2018Co-Authors: Nico Bauer, Vassilis Daioglou, Steven K. Rose, Shinichiro Fujimori, Detlef P. Van Vuuren, John Weyant, Marshall Wise, Yiyun Cui, Matthew J. Gidden, Etsushi KatoAbstract:We present an overview of results from 11 integrated assessment models (IAMs) that participated in the 33rd study of the Stanford Energy Modeling Forum (EMF-33) on the viability of large-scale deployment of Bioenergy for achieving long-run climate goals. The study explores future Bioenergy use across models under harmonized scenarios for future climate policies, availability of Bioenergy technologies, and constraints on biomass supply. This paper provides a more transparent description of IAMs that span a broad range of assumptions regarding model structures, energy sectors, and Bioenergy conversion chains. Without emission constraints, we find vastly different CO2 emission and Bioenergy deployment patterns across models due to differences in competition with fossil fuels, the possibility to produce large-scale bio-liquids, and the flexibility of energy systems. Imposing increasingly stringent carbon budgets mostly increases Bioenergy use. A diverse set of available Bioenergy technology portfolios provides flexibility to allocate Bioenergy to supply different final energy as well as remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere by combining Bioenergy with carbon capture and sequestration (BECCS). Sector and regional Bioenergy allocation varies dramatically across models mainly due to Bioenergy technology availability and costs, final energy patterns, and availability of alternative decarbonization options. Although much Bioenergy is used in combination with CCS, BECCS is not necessarily the driver of Bioenergy use. We find that the flexibility to use biomass feedstocks in different energy sub-sectors makes large-scale Bioenergy deployment a robust strategy in mitigation scenarios that is surprisingly insensitive with respect to reduced technology availability. However, the achievability of stringent carbon budgets and associated carbon prices is sensitive. Constraints on biomass feedstock supply increase the carbon price less significantly than excluding BECCS because carbon removals are still realized and valued. Incremental sensitivity tests find that delayed readiness of Bioenergy technologies until 2050 is more important than potentially higher investment costs.
Nico Bauer - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Bio-energy and CO_2 emission reductions: an integrated land-use and energy sector perspective
Climatic Change, 2020Co-Authors: Nico Bauer, Florian Humpenöder, David Klein, Alexander Popp, Elmar Kriegler, Gunnar Luderer, Jessica StreflerAbstract:Biomass feedstocks can be used to substitute fossil fuels and effectively remove carbon from the atmosphere to offset residual CO_2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion and other sectors. Both features make biomass valuable for climate change mitigation; therefore, CO_2 emission mitigation leads to complex and dynamic interactions between the energy and the land-use sector via emission pricing policies and Bioenergy markets. Projected Bioenergy deployment depends on climate target stringency as well as assumptions about context variables such as technology development, energy and land markets as well as policies. This study investigates the intra- and intersectorial effects on physical quantities and prices by coupling models of the energy (REMIND) and land-use sector (MAgPIE) using an iterative soft-link approach. The model framework is used to investigate variations of a broad set of context variables, including the harmonized variations on Bioenergy technologies of the 33^rd model comparison study of the Stanford Energy Modeling Forum (EMF-33) on climate change mitigation and large scale Bioenergy deployment. Results indicate that CO_2 emission mitigation triggers strong decline of fossil fuel use and rapid growth of Bioenergy deployment around midcentury (~ 150 EJ/year) reaching saturation towards end-of-century. Varying context variables leads to diverse changes on mid-century Bioenergy markets and carbon pricing. For example, reducing the ability to exploit the carbon value of Bioenergy increases Bioenergy use to substitute fossil fuels, whereas limitations on Bioenergy supply shift Bioenergy use to conversion alternatives featuring higher carbon capture rates. Radical variations, like fully excluding all technologies that combine Bioenergy use with carbon removal, lead to substantial intersectorial effects by increasing Bioenergy demand and increased economic pressure on both sectors. More gradual variations like selective exclusion of advanced bioliquid technologies in the energy sector or changes in diets mostly lead to substantial intrasectorial reallocation effects. The results deepen our understanding of the land-energy nexus, and we discuss the importance of carefully choosing variations in sensitivity analyses to provide a balanced assessment.
-
Implications of climate change mitigation strategies on international Bioenergy trade
Climatic Change, 2020Co-Authors: Vassilis Daioglou, Nico Bauer, Shinichiro Fujimori, Etsushi Kato, Martin Junginger, Matteo Muratori, Patrick Lamers, Alban Kitous, Alexandre C. Köberle, Florian LeblancAbstract:Most climate change mitigation scenarios rely on increased use of Bioenergy to decarbonize the energy system. Here we use results from the 33rd Energy Modeling Forum study (EMF-33) to investigate projected international Bioenergy trade for different integrated assessment models across several climate change mitigation scenarios. Results show that in scenarios with no climate policy, international Bioenergy trade is likely to increase over time, and becomes even more important when climate targets are set. More stringent climate targets, however, do not necessarily imply greater Bioenergy trade compared to weaker targets, as final energy demand may be reduced. However, the scaling up of Bioenergy trade happens sooner and at a faster rate with increasing climate target stringency. Across models, for a scenario likely to achieve a 2 °C target, 10–45 EJ/year out of a total global Bioenergy consumption of 72–214 EJ/year are expected to be traded across nine world regions by 2050. While this projection is greater than the present trade volumes of coal or natural gas, it remains below the present trade of crude oil. This growth in Bioenergy trade largely replaces the trade in fossil fuels (especially oil) which is projected to decrease significantly over the twenty-first century. As climate change mitigation scenarios often show diversified energy systems, in which numerous world regions can act as Bioenergy suppliers, the projections do not necessarily lead to energy security concerns. Nonetheless, rapid growth in the trade of Bioenergy is projected in strict climate mitigation scenarios, raising questions about infrastructure, logistics, financing options, and global standards for Bioenergy production and trade.
-
Bioenergy technologies in long-run climate change mitigation: results from the EMF-33 study
Climatic Change, 2020Co-Authors: Vassilis Daioglou, Nico Bauer, Steven K. Rose, Shinichiro Fujimori, Matthew J. Gidden, Etsushi Kato, Matteo Muratori, Alban Kitous, Fuminori Sano, Kimon KeramidasAbstract:Bioenergy is expected to play an important role in long-run climate change mitigation strategies as highlighted by many integrated assessment model (IAM) scenarios. These scenarios, however, also show a very wide range of results, with uncertainty about Bioenergy conversion technology deployment and biomass feedstock supply. To date, the underlying differences in model assumptions and parameters for the range of results have not been conveyed. Here we explore the models and results of the 33rd study of the Stanford Energy Modeling Forum to elucidate and explore Bioenergy technology specifications and constraints that underlie projected Bioenergy outcomes. We first develop and report consistent Bioenergy technology characterizations and modeling details. We evaluate the Bioenergy technology specifications through a series of analyses—comparison with the literature, model intercomparison, and an assessment of Bioenergy technology projected deployments. We find that Bioenergy technology coverage and characterization varies substantially across models, spanning different conversion routes, carbon capture and storage opportunities, and technology deployment constraints. Still, the range of technology specification assumptions is largely in line with bottom-up engineering estimates. We then find that variation in Bioenergy deployment across models cannot be understood from technology costs alone. Important additional determinants include biomass feedstock costs, the availability and costs of alternative mitigation options in and across end-uses, the availability of carbon dioxide removal possibilities, the speed with which large scale changes in the makeup of energy conversion facilities and integration can take place, and the relative demand for different energy services.
-
Global energy sector emission reductions and Bioenergy use: overview of the Bioenergy demand phase of the EMF-33 model comparison
Climatic Change, 2018Co-Authors: Nico Bauer, Vassilis Daioglou, Steven K. Rose, Shinichiro Fujimori, Detlef P. Van Vuuren, John Weyant, Marshall Wise, Yiyun Cui, Matthew J. Gidden, Etsushi KatoAbstract:We present an overview of results from 11 integrated assessment models (IAMs) that participated in the 33rd study of the Stanford Energy Modeling Forum (EMF-33) on the viability of large-scale deployment of Bioenergy for achieving long-run climate goals. The study explores future Bioenergy use across models under harmonized scenarios for future climate policies, availability of Bioenergy technologies, and constraints on biomass supply. This paper provides a more transparent description of IAMs that span a broad range of assumptions regarding model structures, energy sectors, and Bioenergy conversion chains. Without emission constraints, we find vastly different CO2 emission and Bioenergy deployment patterns across models due to differences in competition with fossil fuels, the possibility to produce large-scale bio-liquids, and the flexibility of energy systems. Imposing increasingly stringent carbon budgets mostly increases Bioenergy use. A diverse set of available Bioenergy technology portfolios provides flexibility to allocate Bioenergy to supply different final energy as well as remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere by combining Bioenergy with carbon capture and sequestration (BECCS). Sector and regional Bioenergy allocation varies dramatically across models mainly due to Bioenergy technology availability and costs, final energy patterns, and availability of alternative decarbonization options. Although much Bioenergy is used in combination with CCS, BECCS is not necessarily the driver of Bioenergy use. We find that the flexibility to use biomass feedstocks in different energy sub-sectors makes large-scale Bioenergy deployment a robust strategy in mitigation scenarios that is surprisingly insensitive with respect to reduced technology availability. However, the achievability of stringent carbon budgets and associated carbon prices is sensitive. Constraints on biomass feedstock supply increase the carbon price less significantly than excluding BECCS because carbon removals are still realized and valued. Incremental sensitivity tests find that delayed readiness of Bioenergy technologies until 2050 is more important than potentially higher investment costs.
-
on sustainability of Bioenergy production integrating co emissions from agricultural intensification
Biomass & Bioenergy, 2011Co-Authors: Alexander Popp, Nico Bauer, Hermann Lotzecampen, Marian Leimbach, Brigitte Knopf, Tim Beringer, Benjamin Leon BodirskyAbstract:Biomass from cellulosic Bioenergy crops is seen as a substantial part of future energy systems, especially if climate policy aims at stabilizing CO2 concentration at low levels. However, among other concerns of sustainability, the large-scale use of Bioenergy is controversial because it is hypothesized to increase the competition for land and therefore raise N2O emissions from agricultural soils due to intensification. We apply a global land-use model that is suited to assess agricultural non-CO2 GHG emissions. First, we describe how fertilization of cellulosic Bioenergy crops and associated N2O emissions are implemented in the land-use model and how future Bioenergy demand is derived by an energy-economy-climate model. We then assess regional N2O emissions from the soil due to large-scale Bioenergy application, the expansion of cropland and the importance of technological change for dedicated Bioenergy crops. Finally, we compare simulated N2O emissions from the agricultural sector with CO2 emissions from the energy sector to investigate the real contribution of Bioenergy for low stabilization scenarios. As a result, we find that N2O emissions due to energy crop production are a minor factor. Nevertheless, these co-emissions can be significant for the option of removing CO2 from the atmosphere (by combining Bioenergy use with carbon capture and storage (CCS) options) possibly needed at the end of the century for climate mitigation. Furthermore, our assessment shows that Bioenergy crops will occupy large shares of available cropland and will require high rates of technological change at additional costs.
Raj Cibin - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
evaluation of Bioenergy crop growth and the impacts of Bioenergy crops on streamflow tile drain flow and nutrient losses in an extensively tile drained watershed using swat
Science of The Total Environment, 2018Co-Authors: Margaret W Gitau, Raj Cibin, Jeffrey G Arnold, Indrajeet Chaubey, James R. Kiniry, R Srinivasan, Bernard A EngelAbstract:Abstract Large quantities of biofuel production are expected from Bioenergy crops at a national scale to meet US biofuel goals. It is important to study biomass production of Bioenergy crops and the impacts of these crops on water quantity and quality to identify environment-friendly and productive biofeedstock systems. SWAT2012 with a new tile drainage routine and improved perennial grass and tree growth simulation was used to model long-term annual biomass yields, streamflow, tile flow, sediment load, and nutrient losses under various Bioenergy scenarios in an extensively agricultural watershed in the Midwestern US. Simulated results from Bioenergy crop scenarios were compared with those from the baseline. The results showed that simulated annual crop yields were similar to observed county level values for corn and soybeans, and were reasonable for Miscanthus , switchgrass and hybrid poplar. Removal of 38% of corn stover (3.74 Mg/ha/yr) with Miscanthus production on highly erodible areas and marginal land (17.49 Mg/ha/yr) provided the highest biofeedstock production (279,000 Mg/yr). Streamflow, tile flow, erosion and nutrient losses were reduced under Bioenergy crop scenarios of Bioenergy crops on highly erodible areas and marginal land. Corn stover removal did not result in significant water quality changes. The increase in sediment and nutrient losses under corn stover removal could be offset with the combination of other Bioenergy crops. Potential areas for Bioenergy crop production when meeting the criteria above were small (10.88 km 2 ), thus the ability to produce biomass and improve water quality was not substantial. The study showed that corn stover removal with Bioenergy crops both on highly erodible areas and marginal land could provide more biofuel production relative to the baseline, and was beneficial to water quality at the watershed scale, providing guidance for further research on evaluation of Bioenergy crop scenarios in a typical extensively tile-drained watershed in the Midwestern U.S.
Vassilis Daioglou - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Implications of climate change mitigation strategies on international Bioenergy trade
Climatic Change, 2020Co-Authors: Vassilis Daioglou, Nico Bauer, Shinichiro Fujimori, Etsushi Kato, Martin Junginger, Matteo Muratori, Patrick Lamers, Alban Kitous, Alexandre C. Köberle, Florian LeblancAbstract:Most climate change mitigation scenarios rely on increased use of Bioenergy to decarbonize the energy system. Here we use results from the 33rd Energy Modeling Forum study (EMF-33) to investigate projected international Bioenergy trade for different integrated assessment models across several climate change mitigation scenarios. Results show that in scenarios with no climate policy, international Bioenergy trade is likely to increase over time, and becomes even more important when climate targets are set. More stringent climate targets, however, do not necessarily imply greater Bioenergy trade compared to weaker targets, as final energy demand may be reduced. However, the scaling up of Bioenergy trade happens sooner and at a faster rate with increasing climate target stringency. Across models, for a scenario likely to achieve a 2 °C target, 10–45 EJ/year out of a total global Bioenergy consumption of 72–214 EJ/year are expected to be traded across nine world regions by 2050. While this projection is greater than the present trade volumes of coal or natural gas, it remains below the present trade of crude oil. This growth in Bioenergy trade largely replaces the trade in fossil fuels (especially oil) which is projected to decrease significantly over the twenty-first century. As climate change mitigation scenarios often show diversified energy systems, in which numerous world regions can act as Bioenergy suppliers, the projections do not necessarily lead to energy security concerns. Nonetheless, rapid growth in the trade of Bioenergy is projected in strict climate mitigation scenarios, raising questions about infrastructure, logistics, financing options, and global standards for Bioenergy production and trade.
-
Bioenergy technologies in long-run climate change mitigation: results from the EMF-33 study
Climatic Change, 2020Co-Authors: Vassilis Daioglou, Nico Bauer, Steven K. Rose, Shinichiro Fujimori, Matthew J. Gidden, Etsushi Kato, Matteo Muratori, Alban Kitous, Fuminori Sano, Kimon KeramidasAbstract:Bioenergy is expected to play an important role in long-run climate change mitigation strategies as highlighted by many integrated assessment model (IAM) scenarios. These scenarios, however, also show a very wide range of results, with uncertainty about Bioenergy conversion technology deployment and biomass feedstock supply. To date, the underlying differences in model assumptions and parameters for the range of results have not been conveyed. Here we explore the models and results of the 33rd study of the Stanford Energy Modeling Forum to elucidate and explore Bioenergy technology specifications and constraints that underlie projected Bioenergy outcomes. We first develop and report consistent Bioenergy technology characterizations and modeling details. We evaluate the Bioenergy technology specifications through a series of analyses—comparison with the literature, model intercomparison, and an assessment of Bioenergy technology projected deployments. We find that Bioenergy technology coverage and characterization varies substantially across models, spanning different conversion routes, carbon capture and storage opportunities, and technology deployment constraints. Still, the range of technology specification assumptions is largely in line with bottom-up engineering estimates. We then find that variation in Bioenergy deployment across models cannot be understood from technology costs alone. Important additional determinants include biomass feedstock costs, the availability and costs of alternative mitigation options in and across end-uses, the availability of carbon dioxide removal possibilities, the speed with which large scale changes in the makeup of energy conversion facilities and integration can take place, and the relative demand for different energy services.
-
Biomass residues as twenty-first century Bioenergy feedstock—a comparison of eight integrated assessment models
Climatic Change, 2019Co-Authors: Steef V Hanssen, Vassilis Daioglou, Thierry Brunelle, Alexander Popp, Zoran J N Steinmann, Pekka Lauri, Stefan Frank, Tomoko Hasegawa, Mark A J Huijbregts, Detlef P Van VuurenAbstract:In the twenty-first century, modern Bioenergy could become one of the largest sources of energy, partially replacing fossil fuels and contributing to climate change mitigation. Agricultural and forestry biomass residues form an inexpensive Bioenergy feedstock with low greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, if harvested sustainably. We analysed quantities of biomass residues supplied for energy and their sensitivities in harmonised Bioenergy demand scenarios across eight integrated assessment models (IAMs) and compared them with literature-estimated residue availability. IAM results vary substantially, at both global and regional scales, but suggest that residues could meet 7–50% of Bioenergy demand towards 2050, and 2–30% towards 2100, in a scenario with 300 EJ/year of exogenous Bioenergy demand towards 2100. When considering mean literature-estimated availability, residues could provide around 55 EJ/year by 2050. Inter-model differences primarily arise from model structure, assumptions, and the representation of agriculture and forestry. Despite these differences, drivers of residues supplied and underlying cost dynamics are largely similar across models. Higher Bioenergy demand or biomass prices increase the quantity of residues supplied for energy, though their effects level off as residues become depleted. GHG emission pricing and land protection can increase the costs of using land for lignocellulosic Bioenergy crop cultivation, which increases residue use at the expense of lignocellulosic Bioenergy crops. In most IAMs and scenarios, supplied residues in 2050 are within literature-estimated residue availability, but outliers and sustainability concerns warrant further exploration. We conclude that residues can cost-competitively play an important role in the twenty-first century Bioenergy supply, though uncertainties remain concerning (regional) forestry and agricultural production and resulting residue supply potentials.
-
Global energy sector emission reductions and Bioenergy use: overview of the Bioenergy demand phase of the EMF-33 model comparison
Climatic Change, 2018Co-Authors: Nico Bauer, Vassilis Daioglou, Steven K. Rose, Shinichiro Fujimori, Detlef P. Van Vuuren, John Weyant, Marshall Wise, Yiyun Cui, Matthew J. Gidden, Etsushi KatoAbstract:We present an overview of results from 11 integrated assessment models (IAMs) that participated in the 33rd study of the Stanford Energy Modeling Forum (EMF-33) on the viability of large-scale deployment of Bioenergy for achieving long-run climate goals. The study explores future Bioenergy use across models under harmonized scenarios for future climate policies, availability of Bioenergy technologies, and constraints on biomass supply. This paper provides a more transparent description of IAMs that span a broad range of assumptions regarding model structures, energy sectors, and Bioenergy conversion chains. Without emission constraints, we find vastly different CO2 emission and Bioenergy deployment patterns across models due to differences in competition with fossil fuels, the possibility to produce large-scale bio-liquids, and the flexibility of energy systems. Imposing increasingly stringent carbon budgets mostly increases Bioenergy use. A diverse set of available Bioenergy technology portfolios provides flexibility to allocate Bioenergy to supply different final energy as well as remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere by combining Bioenergy with carbon capture and sequestration (BECCS). Sector and regional Bioenergy allocation varies dramatically across models mainly due to Bioenergy technology availability and costs, final energy patterns, and availability of alternative decarbonization options. Although much Bioenergy is used in combination with CCS, BECCS is not necessarily the driver of Bioenergy use. We find that the flexibility to use biomass feedstocks in different energy sub-sectors makes large-scale Bioenergy deployment a robust strategy in mitigation scenarios that is surprisingly insensitive with respect to reduced technology availability. However, the achievability of stringent carbon budgets and associated carbon prices is sensitive. Constraints on biomass feedstock supply increase the carbon price less significantly than excluding BECCS because carbon removals are still realized and valued. Incremental sensitivity tests find that delayed readiness of Bioenergy technologies until 2050 is more important than potentially higher investment costs.
-
Future perspectives of international Bioenergy trade.
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 2015Co-Authors: Julian Matzenberger, Vassilis Daioglou, Lukas Kranzl, Eric Tromborg, Martin Junginger, Chun Sheng Goh, Kimon KeramidasAbstract:Abstract According to the IEA World Energy Outlook 2012, primary demand for Bioenergy will strongly increase up to the year 2035: the demand for biofuels and biomass for electricity is expected to triple. These changes will have an impact on the regional balance of demand and supply of Bioenergy leading to both increasing trade flows and changes in trade patterns. The GFPM, TIMER and POLES models have been selected for a detailed comparison of scenarios and their impact on global Bioenergy trade: In ambitious scenarios, 14–26% of global Bioenergy demand is traded between regions in 2030. The model scenarios show a huge range of potential Bioenergy trade: for solid biomass, in ambitious scenarios Bioenergy trade ranges from 700 Mt to more than 2,500 Mt in 2030. For liquid biomass, the ambitious scenarios show a Bioenergy trade in the range of 65 - >360 Mt in 2030. Considering the currently very small share of internationally traded Bioenergy, this would result in huge challenges and require tremendous changes in terms of production, pretreatment of biomass and development of logistic chains.
