This paper investigates long-term transitions of the global energy system compatible with realizing low stabilization climate targets, using an enhanced MERGE model. The results indicate that stringent mitigation targets can be met under many technology scenarios, but major technological change is needed, highlighting important roles for R&D and learning-by-doing. The analysis explores the impact of limiting the set of available technology options (to account for technical uncertainties and issues of public acceptance) and identifies important influences on energy system development and economic costs under low stabilization. Biomass availability is seen to have a major influence on the characteristics of the energy system. Carbon capture and storage technologies also prove to be potentially critical for both electricity and fuel synthesis, particularly when combined with biomass to produce net negative emissions. Additionally, the availability of fast breeders provides a competitive zero-emissions option. Energy efficiency and large-scale application of renewables are also critical to realising low stabilization scenarios.
AdenA.RuthM.IbsenK.JerchuraJ.NeevesK.SheehanJ.WallaceB.MontagueL.SlaytonA.LukasJ. (2002). Lignocellulosic biomass to ethanol process design and economics utilizing co-current dilute acid prehydrolysis and enzymatic hydrolysis for corn stover: Golden National Renewable Energy Laboratory.
AzarC.LindgrenK.LarsonE.MollerstenK. (2006). “Carbon capture and storage from fossil fuels and biomass - costs and potential role in stabilizing the atmosphere”. Climatic Change 74: 47-79.
4.
BarretoL.KypreosS. (2004). “Endogenizing R&D and Market Experience in the “Bottom-Up” Energy-Systems ERIS Model ”. Technovation 24(8): 615-629.
5.
BosettiV.CarraroC.MassettiE.TavoniM. (2007). “Optimal Investment and R&D Strategies to stabilize GHG Atmospheric Concentrations”, FEEM Working paper # 95.2007.
6.
BerndesG.HoogwijkM.van den BroekR. (2003). “The contribution of biomass in the future global energy supply: a review of 17 studies”. Biomass and Bioenergy 25(1): 1-28.
7.
ChakravortyU.MagneB.MoreauxM. (2007). Could nuclear power solve the global warming problem? University of Alberta, School of Business Working Paper.
8.
The Energy Journal (2006). Special Issue on Hybrid Modeling of Energy-Environment Policies: Reconciling Bottom-up and Top-down.
9.
FAO (2006). Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Statistics Division database.
10.
GerlaghR.KverndokkS.RosendahlK.E. (2007). “Optimal Timing of Environmental Policy; Interaction between Environmental Taxes and Innovation Externalities”. FEEM Working Paper#35.2007.
11.
GrahamR.L.EnglishB.C.NoonC.E. (2000). “A Geographic Information System-based modeling system for evaluating the cost of delivered energy crop feedstock”. Biomass and Bioenergy 18(4): 309-329.
12.
HamelinckC.N.FaaijA.P.C.den UilH.BoerrigterH. (2004). “Production of FT transportation fuels from biomass; technical options, process analysis and optimisation, and development potential”. Energy 29(11): 1743-1771.
13.
HamelinckC.N.FaaijA.P.C. (2006). “Outlook for advanced biofuels”, Energy Policy 34(17): 3268-3283.
14.
HendriksC.GrausW.Van BergenF. (2002). “Global carbon dioxide storage potential and costs”. Ecofys & The Netherlands Institute of Applied Geoscience, Report EEP02002.
15.
Hirschberg S.DonesR. (2005). “Sustainability aspects of current and future electricity supply systems”. Chimia 59 (12): 887-893.
16.
HoogwijkM.FaaijA.van den BroekR.BerndesG.GielenD.TurkenburgW. (2003). “Exploration of the ranges of the global potential of biomass for energy”. Biomass and Bioenergy 25(2): 119-133.
17.
IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) (2001). Analysis of uranium supply to 2050.
18.
IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) (2008). Uranium 2007: Resources, Production and Demand, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development/IAEA.
19.
IEA (International Energy Agency) (2002). World Energy Outlook: OECD/IEA.
20.
IEA (2005). Biofuels for transports: OECD/IEA.
21.
IEA (2006). Energy Technology Perspectives: OECD/IEA.
22.
IEA (2008). Worldwide Trends in Energy Use and Efficiency Key Insights from IEA Indicator Analysis: OECD/IEA.
23.
IPCC (2000). Special report on emissions scenarios, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
24.
IPCC (2007). Climate Change 2007: Mitigation. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: Cambridge University Press.
25.
JamasbT. (2007). “Technical Change Theory and Learning Curves: Patterns of Progress in Electricity Generation Technologies”. Energy Journal 28(3): 51-72.
26.
KlassenG.MiketaA.LarsenK.SundqvistT. (2005). “The impact of R&D on innovation for wind energy in Denmark, Germany and the United Kingdom”. Ecological Economics 54(2-3): 227-240.
27.
KouvaritakisN.CriquiP.ThonetC. (2000). “World post-Kyoto scenarios: Benefits from accelerated technology progress”, I int. J. Global Energy Issues 14: 184-203.
28.
KypreosS. (2005a). “Modeling experience curves in MERGE”. Energy 30 (14): 2721-2737.
29.
KypreosS. (2005b). “Impacts of RD&D on Carbon Mitigation Cost”. PSI mimeo.
30.
KypreosS. (2007). “A MERGE model with endogenous technological change and the cost of carbon stabilization”. Energy Policy 35(11): 5327-36.
31.
KypreosS.BahnO. (2003). “A MERGE model with endogenous technological progress”. Environmental Modeling and Assessment 8: 249-259.
32.
ManneA.RichelsR. (2004a). “MERGE: An Integrated Assessment Model for Global Climate Change”. http://www.stanford.edu/group/MERGE/biblio.htm
33.
ManneA.RichelsR. (2004b). “The impact of learning-by-doing on the timing and costs of CO2 abatement”, Energy Economics 26(4): 603-619.
34.
McDonaldA.SchrattenholzerL. (2001). “Learning rates for energy technologies”, Energy Policy 29(4): 255-261.
35.
MeinshausenM.HareB.WigleyT. M. L.Van VuurenD.den ElzenM. G. J.SwartR. (2006). “Multi-gas emission pathways to meet climate targets”. Climatic Change 75(1): 151-194.
36.
RafajP. (2005). Analysis of policies contributing to sustainability of the global energy system using the Global Multi-regional MARKAL model (GMM). Diss., Technische Wissenschaften, Eidgenossische Technische Hochschule ETH Zurich, Nr. 16122.
37.
RognerH. (1997). “An assessment of world hydrocarbon resources”. Annual Review of Energy and the Environment, 22: 217-262.
38.
SeebregtsA.BosS.KramT.SchaefferG. (2000). “Endogenous Learning and Technology Clustering: Analysis with MARKAL Model of the Western European Energy System”. Int. J of Global Energy Issues 14(1/2/3/4): 289-319.
39.
SimsR.E.H.RognerH.H.GregoryK. (2003). “Carbon emission and mitigation cost comparisons between fossil fuel, nuclear and renewable energy resources for electricity generation”. Energy Policy 31(13): 1315-1326.
40.
US DOE (US Department Of Energy) (2004). International Energy Annual: US DOE.
41.
Van VuurenD.P.WeyantJ.de la ChesnayeF. (2006). “Multi-gas scenarios to stabilize radiative forcing”. Energy Economics 28(1): 102-120.
42.
Yamashita K.BarretoL. (2004). “Biomass gasification for the co-production of Fischer-Tropsch liquids and electricity”, IIASA Interim Report IR-04-047.
43.
Yamashita K.BarretoL. (2005). “Energyplexes for the 21st century: Coal gasification for coproducing hydrogen, electricity and liquid fuels”. Energy, 30(13): 2453-2473.
44.
WEC (World Energy Council)2004, Survey of Energy Resources: WEC.
