Simulating the deep decarbonisation of residential heating for limiting global warming to 1.5C

Whole-economy scenarios for limiting global warming to 1.5C suggest that direct carbon emissions in the buildings sector should decrease to almost zero by 2050, but leave unanswered the question how this could be achieved by real-world policies. We take a modelling-based approach for simulating which policy measures could induce an almost-complete decarbonisation of residential heating, the by far largest source of direct emissions in residential buildings. Under which assumptions is it possible, and how long would it take? Policy effectiveness highly depends on behavioural decision- making by households, especially in a context of deep decarbonisation and rapid transformation. We therefore use the non-equilibrium bottom-up model FTT:Heat to simulate policies for a transition towards low-carbon heating in a context of inertia and bounded rationality, focusing on the uptake of heating technologies. Results indicate that the near-zero decarbonisation is achievable by 2050, but requires substantial policy efforts. Policy mixes are projected to be more effective and robust for driving the market of efficient low-carbon technologies, compared to the reliance on a carbon tax as the only policy instrument. In combination with subsidies for renewables, near-complete decarbonisation could be achieved with a residential carbon tax of 50-200Euro/tCO2. The policy-induced technology transition would increase average heating costs faced by households initially, but could also lead to cost reductions in most world regions in the medium term. Model projections illustrate the uncertainty that is attached to household behaviour for prematurely replacing heating systems

The impact of land-use change emissions on the potential of bioenergy as climate change mitigation option for a Brazilian low-carbon energy system

Land-use change (LUC)-related greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions determine largely whether bioenergy is a suitable option for climate change mitigation. This study assesses how LUC emissions influence demand for bioenergy to mitigate GHG emissions, and how this affects the energy mix, using Brazil as a case study. A methodological framework is applied linking bioenergy supply curves, with associated costs and spatially explicit LUC emissions, to a bottom-up energy system model. Furthermore, the influence of four key determining parameters is assessed: agricultural productivity, time horizon, natural succession (NS), and the use of dynamic emission factors (EFs). Demand for new bioenergy plantations range from 0.5 to 6.7 EJ in 2050, and is avoided when its EF reaches above 15 kg CO2/GJbiomass. Dynamic EFs result in earlier and larger use of bioenergy. Static EFs attenuate all emissions evenly over time, resulting in relative high emissions around 2050 when the carbon budget is most stringent. This in contrast to dynamic EFs, having early high peaks because of clearance of natural vegetation, but relatively small long-term emissions when the carbon budget is most stringent. Exclusion of NS, in combination with spared agricultural land, results in a demand of 6.7 EJ, because of its low carbon penalty. Assuming that land is spared due to continuous yield increase (which is the reason to include NS as and EF component), bypasses the fact that yield improvements (that make those lands available) take place because of demand for bioenergy. When low-carbon biomass is in limited availability, increasing electrification is observed, leading to electric capacity increase of 62% (mainly wind and solar energy), and a 12% energy system costs increase. Inclusion of spatiotemporal explicit supply potential and LUC emissions leads to improved bioenergy deployment pathways that come closer to the real situation as the dynamic nature of LUC emissions is included

Energy use in the global food system

The global food system is a major energy user and a relevant contributor to climate change. To date, the literature on the energy profile of food systems addresses individual countries and/or food products, and therefore a comparable assessment across regions is still missing. This paper uses a global multi‐regional environmentally extended input–output database in combination with newly constructed net energy‐use accounts to provide a production and consumption‐based stock‐take of energy use in the food system across different world regions for the period 2000–2015. Overall, the ratio between energy use in the food system and the economy is slowly decreasing. Likewise, the absolute values point toward a relative decoupling between energy use and food production, as well as to relevant differences in energy types, users, and consumption patterns across world regions. The use of (inefficient) traditional biomass for cooking substantially reduces the expected gap between per capita figures in high‐ and low‐income countries. The variety of energy profiles and the higher exposure to energy security issues compared to the total economy in some regions suggests that interventions in the system should consider the geographical context. Reducing energy use and decarbonizing the supply chains of food products will require a combination of technological measures and behavioral changes in consumption patterns. Interventions should consider the effects beyond the direct effects on energy use, because changing production and consumption patterns in the food system can lead to positive spillovers in the social and environmental dimensions outlined in the Sustainable Development Goals.Industrial EcologyGlobal Challenges (FGGA

Study Report on Reporting Requirements on Biofuels and Bioliquids stemming from the Directive (EU) 2015/1513

This report was commissioned to gather comprehensive information on, and to provide systematic analysis of the latest available scientific research and the latest available scientific evidence on indirect land use change (ILUC) greenhouse gas emissions associated with production of biofuels and bioliquids. The EU mandatory sustainability criteria for biofuels and bioliquids do not allow the raw material for biofuel production to be obtained from land with high carbon stock or high biodiversity value. However, this does not guarantee that as a consequence of biofuels production such land is not used for production of raw materials for other purposes. If land for biofuels is taken from cropland formerly used for other purposes, or by conversion of grassland in arable land for biofuel production, the former agricultural production on this land has to be grown somewhere else. And if there is no regulation that this must happen sustainably, conversion of land may happen, which is not allowed to be used under the EU sustainability criteria for biofuels. This conversion may take place in other countries than where the biofuel is produced. This is called indirect land use change (ILUC). According to Article 3 of the European Union’s Directive (EU) 2015/1513 of 9 September 2015, the European Commission has to provide information on, and analysis of the available and the best available scientific research results, scientific evidence regarding ILUC emissions associated to the production of biofuels, and in relation to all production pathways. Besides, according to Article 23 of the revised European Union’s Directive 2009/28/EC (RES Directive), the Commission also has to provide the latest available information with regard to key assumptions influencing the results from modelling ILUC GHG emissions, as well as an assessment of whether the range of uncertainty identified in the analysis underlying the estimations of ILUC emissions can be narrowed down, and if the possible impact of the EU policies, such as environment, climate and agricultural policies, can be factored in. An assessment of a possibility of setting out criteria for the identification and certification of low ILUCrisk biofuels that are produced in accordance with the EU sustainability criteria is also required

Current and future technical, economic and environmental feasibility of maize and wheat residues supply for biomass energy application:Illustrated for South Africa

AbstractThis study assessed the feasibility of mobilising maize and wheat residues for large-scale bioenergy applications in South Africa by establishing sustainable residue removal rates and cost of supply based on different production regions. A key objective was to refine the methodology for estimating crop residue harvesting for bioenergy use, while maintaining soil productivity and avoiding displacement of competing residue uses. At current conditions, the sustainable bioenergy potential from maize and wheat residues was estimated to be about 104 PJ. There is potential to increase the amount of crop residues to 238 PJ through measures such as no till cultivation and adopting improved cropping systems. These estimates were based on minimum residues requirements of 2 t ha−1 for soil erosion control and additional residue amounts to maintain 2% SOC level.At the farm gate, crop residues cost between 0.9 and 1.7 $GJ−1. About 96$ GJ−1. In the improved scenario, up to 85% of the biomass is below 1.3 $GJ−1. For biomass deliveries at the conversion plant, about 36$ GJ−1 while in the optimised scenario, about 87% is delivered below 5$ GJ−1. Co-firing residues with coal results in lower cost of electricity compared to other renewables and significant GHG (CO2 eq) emissions reduction (up to 0.72 tons MWh−1). Establishing sustainable crop residue supply systems in South Africa could start by utilising the existing agricultural infrastructure to secure supply and develop a functional market. It would then be necessary to incentivise improvements across the value chain

Modeling the Effects of Future Growing Demand for Charcoal in the Tropics

Global demand for charcoal is increasing mainly due to urban population in developing countries. More than half the global population now lives in cities, and urban-dwellers are restricted to charcoal use because of easiness of production, access, transport, and tradition. Increasing demand for charcoal, however, may lead to increasing impacts on forests, food, and water resources, and may even create additional pressures on the climate system. Here we assess how different charcoal scenarios based on the Shared Socio-economic Pathways (SSP) relate to potential biomass supply. For this, we use the energy model TIMER to project the demand for fuelwood and charcoal for different socio-economic pathways for urban and rural populations, globally, and for four tropical regions (Central America, South America, Africa and Indonesia). Second, we assess whether the biomass demands for each scenario can be met with current and projected forest biomass estimated with remote sensing and modeled Net Primary Productivity (NPP) using a Dynamic Global Vegetation Model (LPJ-GUESS). Currently one third of residential energy use is based on traditional bioenergy, including charcoal. Globally, biomass needs by urban households by 2100 under the most sustainable scenario, SSP1, are of 14.4 mi ton biomass for charcoal plus 17.1 mi ton biomass for fuelwood (31.5 mi ton biomass in total). Under SSP3, the least sustainable scenario, we project a need of 205 mi tons biomass for charcoal plus 243.8 mi ton biomass for fuelwood by 2100 (total of 450 mi ton biomass). Africa and South America contribute the most for this biomass demand, however, all areas are able to meet the demand. We find that the future of the charcoal sector is not dire. Charcoal represents a small fraction of the energy requirements, but its biomass demands are disproportionate and in some regions require a large fraction of forest. This could be because of large growing populations moving to urban areas, conversion rates, production inefficiencies, and regions that despite available alternative energy sources still use a substantial amount of charcoal. We present a framework that combines Integrated Assessment Models and local conditions to assess whether a sustainable sector can be achieved

Tradeoffs in the quest for climate smart agricultural intensification in Mato Grosso, Brazil.

Low productivity cattle ranching, with its linkages to rural poverty, deforestation and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, remains one of the largest sustainability challenges in Brazil and has impacts worldwide. There is a nearly universal call to intensify extensive beef cattle production systems to spare land for crop production and nature and to meet Brazil?s Intended Nationally Determined Contribution to reducing global climate change. However, different interventions aimed at the intensification of livestock systems in Brazil may involve substantial social and environmental tradeoffs. Here we examine these tradeoffs using a whole-farm model calibrated for the Brazilian agricultural frontier state ofMato Grosso, one of the largest soybean and beef cattle production regions in the world. Specifically, we compare the costs and benefits of a typical extensive, continuously grazed cattle system relative to a specialized soybean production system and two improved cattle management strategies (rotational grazing and integrated soybean-cattle) under different climate scenarios.We found clear tradeoffs in GHG and nitrogen emissions, climate resilience, and water and energy use across these systems. Relative to continuously grazed or rotationally grazed cattle systems, the integreated soybean-cattle system showed higher food production and lower GHG emissions per unit of human digestible protein, as well as increased resilience under climate change (both in terms of productivity and financial returns). All systems suffered productivity and profitability losses under severe climate change, highlighting the need for climate smart agricultural development strategies in the region. By underscoring the economic feasibility of improving the performance of cattle systems, and by quantifying the tradeoffs of each option, our results are useful for directing agricultural and climate policy

The role of bioenergy and biochemicals in CO2 mitigation through the energy system - a scenario analysis for the Netherlands

Bioenergy as well as bioenergy with carbon capture and storage are key options to embark on cost-efficient trajectories that realize climate targets. Most studies have not yet assessed the influence on these trajectories of emerging bioeconomy sectors such as biochemicals and renewable jet fuels (RJFs). To support a systems transition, there is also need to demonstrate the impact on the energy system of technology development, biomass and fossil fuel prices. We aim to close this gap by assessing least-cost pathways to 2030 for a number of scenarios applied to the energy system of the Netherlands, using a cost-minimization model. The type and magnitude of biomass deployment are highly influenced by technology development, fossil fuel prices and ambitions to mitigate climate change. Across all scenarios, biomass consumption ranges between 180 and 760 PJ and national emissions between 82 and 178 Mt CO2. High technology development leads to additional 100-270 PJ of biomass consumption and 8-20 Mt CO2 emission reduction compared to low technology development counterparts. In high technology development scenarios, additional emission reduction is primarily achieved by bioenergy and carbon capture and storage. Traditional sectors, namely industrial biomass heat and biofuels, supply 61-87% of bioenergy, while wind turbines are the main supplier of renewable electricity. Low technology pathways show lower biochemical output by 50-75%, do not supply RJFs and do not utilize additional biomass compared to high technology development. In most scenarios the emission reduction targets for the Netherlands are not met, as additional reduction of 10-45 Mt CO2 is needed. Stronger climate policy is required, especially in view of fluctuating fossil fuel prices, which are shown to be a key determinant of bioeconomy development. Nonetheless, high technology development is a no-regrets option to realize deep emission reduction as it also ensures stable growth for the bioeconomy even under unfavourable conditions.</p

Global implications of crop-based bioenergy with carbon capture and storage for terrestrial vertebrate biodiversity

Bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) based on purpose-grown lignocellulosic crops can provide negative CO 2 emissions to mitigate climate change, but its land requirements present a threat to biodiversity. Here, we analyse the implications of crop-based BECCS for global terrestrial vertebrate species richness, considering both the land-use change (LUC) required for BECCS and the climate change prevented by BECCS. LUC impacts are determined using global-equivalent, species–area relationship-based loss factors. We find that sequestering 0.5–5 Gtonne of CO 2 per year with lignocellulosic crop-based BECCS would require hundreds of Mha of land, and commit tens of terrestrial vertebrate species to extinction. Species loss per unit of negative emissions decreases with: (i) longer lifetimes of BECCS systems, (ii) less overall deployment of crop-based BECCS and (iii) optimal land allocation, that is prioritizing locations with the lowest species loss per negative emission potential, rather than minimizing overall land use or prioritizing locations with the lowest biodiversity. The consequences of prevented climate change for biodiversity are based on existing climate response relationships. Our tentative comparison shows that for crop-based BECCS considered over 30 years, LUC impacts on vertebrate species richness may outweigh the positive effects of prevented climate change. Conversely, for BECCS considered over 80 years, the positive effects of climate change mitigation on biodiversity may outweigh the negative effects of LUC. However, both effects and their interaction are highly uncertain and require further understanding, along with the analysis of additional species groups and biodiversity metrics. We conclude that factoring in biodiversity means lignocellulosic crop-based BECCS should be used early to achieve the required mitigation over longer time periods, on optimal biomass cultivation locations, and most importantly, as little as possible where conversion of natural land is involved, looking instead to sustainably grown or residual biomass-based feedstocks and alternative strategies for carbon dioxide removal