Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Bioenergy in energy transformation and climate management

  • Published:
Climatic Change Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study explores the importance of bioenergy to potential future energy transformation and climate change management. Using a large inter-model comparison of 15 models, we comprehensively characterize and analyze future dependence on, and the value of, bioenergy in achieving potential long-run climate objectives. Model scenarios project, by 2050, bioenergy growth of 1 to 10 % per annum reaching 1 to 35 % of global primary energy, and by 2100, bioenergy becoming 10 to 50 % of global primary energy. Non-OECD regions are projected to be the dominant suppliers of biomass, as well as consumers, with up to 35 % of regional electricity from biopower by 2050, and up to 70 % of regional liquid fuels from biofuels by 2050. Bioenergy is found to be valuable to many models with significant implications for mitigation and macroeconomic costs of climate policies. The availability of bioenergy, in particular biomass with carbon dioxide capture and storage (BECCS), notably affects the cost-effective global emissions trajectory for climate management by accommodating prolonged near-term use of fossil fuels, but with potential implications for climate outcomes. Finally, we find that models cost-effectively trade-off land carbon and nitrous oxide emissions for the long-run climate change management benefits of bioenergy. The results suggest opportunities, but also imply challenges. Overall, further evaluation of the viability of large-scale global bioenergy is merited.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

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

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Technical potential has been estimated at around 300 and 500 EJ/year in 2020 and 2050 respectively (Chum et al. 2011). The 100 EJ/year constraint is applied globally and does not apply to traditional uses of bioenergy (e.g., rural heating and cooking). This level is consistent with the lower end of past scenario results and analysis of the consequences of sustainability criteria on biomass supply.

  2. Three of the fifteen models included in this study have 2050 time horizons (models D, L, and U).

  3. Across the models, we find significant variation in 2005, the implications of which is a topic for further analysis.

  4. Five of the models did not model first generation feedstocks (see SM). Some, such as sugar cane for ethanol, have more appealing yield, cost, and GHG performance. However, we did not have decomposed results necessary for assessing the role of individual feedstocks.

  5. Biomass conversion losses vary by conversion process. Thus, in Fig. 2, a unit of biofuel energy does not imply the same amount of biomass feedstock as a unit of biopower.

References

  • 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 

  • Azar C, Lindren K, Obersteiner M, Riahi K, van Vuuren DP, den Elzen KMGJ, Möllersten K, Larson ED (2010) The feasibility of low CO2 concentration targets and the role of bio-energy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS). Clim Chang 101:195–202

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berndes G (2002) Bioenergy and water—the implications of large-scale bioenergy production for water use and supply. Glob Environ Chang 12:253–271

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blanford G, Merrick J, Richels R, Rose S (2013) Trade-offs between mitigation costs and temperature change. Climatic Change. doi:10.1007/s10584-013-0869-2

  • Chum H, Faaij A, Moreira J, Berndes G, Dhamija P, Dong H, Gabrielle B, Goss Eng A, Lucht W, Mapako M, Masera Cerutti O, McIntyre T, Minowa T, Pingoud K (2011) Bioenergy. In: Edenhofer O, Pichs-Madruga R, Sokona Y, Seyboth K, Matschoss P, Kadner S, Zwickel T, Eickemeier P, Hansen G, Schlömer S, von Stechow C (eds) IPCC special report on renewable energy sources and climate change mitigation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Fisher BS, N Nakicenovic, K Alfsen, J Corfee Morlot, F de la Chesnaye, J-C Hourcade, K Jiang et al (2007) Issues related to mitigation in the long term context. In: Climate change 2007: Mitigation. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK

  • Hertel TW, Tyner WE, Birur DK (2010) Global impacts of biofuels. Energy J 31(1):75–100

    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

  • Lemoine DM, Fuss S, Szolgayova J, Obersteiner M, Kammen DM (2012) The influence of negative emission technologies and technology policies on the optimal climate mitigation portfolio. Clim Chang 113:141–162

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lubowski RN, Rose SK (2013) The potential of REDD+: economic modeling insights and issues. Rev Environ Econ Policy 7(1):67–90

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luderer G, Krey V, Calvin K, Merrick J, Mima S, Pietzcker RC, Van Vliet J, Wada K (2013) The role of renewable energy in climate mitigation: results from the EMF 27 scenarios. Climatic Change. doi:10.1007/s10584-013-0924-z

  • Popp D, Dietrich JP, Lotze-Campen H, Klein D, Bauer N, Krause M, Beringer T, Gerten D, Edenhofer O (2011) The economic potential of bioenergy for climate change mitigation with special attention given to implications for the land system. Environ Res Lett 6(3):034017

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Popp A, Rose SK, Calvin K, van Vuuren DP, Dietrich JP, Wise M, Stehfest E, Humpenöder F, Kyle P, van Vliet J, Bauer N, Lotze-Campen H, Klein D, Kriegler E (2013) Land-use transition for bioenergy and climate stabilization: model comparison of drivers, impacts and interactions with other land use based mitigation options. Climatic Change. doi:10.1007/s10584-013-0926-x

  • Reilly J, Melillo J, Cai Y, Kicklighter D, Gurgel A, Paltsev S, Cronin T, Sokolov A, Schlosser A (2012) Using land to mitigate climate change: hitting the target, recognizing the trade-offs. Environ Sci Technol 46(11):5672–5679

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rose SK, Ahammad H, Eickhout B, Fisher B, Kurosawa A, Rao S, Keywan R, van Vuuren DP (2012) Land-based mitigation in climate stabilization. Energy Econ 34(1):365–380

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Searchinger T, Heimlich R, Houghton RA, Dong F, Elobeid A, Fabiosa J, Tokgoz S, Hayes D, Yu T-H (2008) Use of U.S. croplands for biofuels increased greenhouse gases through land use change. Science 319:1238–1240

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Vuuren D, den Elzen MGJ, Lucas PL, Eickhout B, Strengers BJ, Ruijven B, Wonink S, Houdt R (2007) Stabilizing greenhouse gas concentrations at low levels: an assessment of reduction strategies and costs. Clim Chang 81(2):119–159

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Vuuren DP, Bellevrat E, Kitous A, Isaac M (2010) Bio-energy use and low stabilization scenarios. Energy J 31:192–222

    Google Scholar 

  • Wise M, Calvin K, Thomson A, Clarke L, Bond-Lamberty B, Sands R, Smith SJ, Janetos A, Edmonds J (2009) Implications of limiting CO2 concentrations for land use and energy. Science 324(5931):1183–1186

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This article benefitted greatly from the comments of the anonymous reviewers, as well as from overall feedback from EMF-27 Study participants. The contribution of S.R. was supported by the Electric Power Research Institute. The contributions of E.K., A.P., and D.v.V. were supported by funding from the European Commission’s Seventh Framework Programme under the LIMITS project (grant agreement no. 282846). The contribution of R.B. was supported with funding from the Chair “Modeling for Sustainable Development.” The contribution of K.C. was supported by the Office of Science of the U.S. Department of Energy as part of the Integrated Assessment Research Program. The views expressed in this work are solely those of the authors and do not represent those of funding organizations. All errors are our own.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Steven K. Rose.

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

(PDF 318 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Rose, S.K., Kriegler, E., Bibas, R. et al. Bioenergy in energy transformation and climate management. Climatic Change 123, 477–493 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-013-0965-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-013-0965-3

Keywords

Navigation