Large-scale utilization of biomass energy and carbon dioxide capture and storage in the transport and electricity sectors under stringent CO2 concentration limit scenarios

Luckow, Patrick; Wise, Marshall; Dooley, James J.; Kim, Son H.

doi:10.1016/j.ijggc.2010.06.002

Cited by 129 publications

(73 citation statements)

References 48 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The potentials for additional supply of biomass to the transportation sector are however low in Austria if power and heat production are based on biomass. Luckow et al (2010) conclude that mainly biomass based power production with CCS is a major mitigation option with very stringent GHG emission targets. We conclude in contrast that methanol CCS can also contribute to GHG emission reductions because very significant reductions in the transportation sector can be achieved that are otherwise not possible.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 95%

“…the application of CCS to bioenergy plants, is considered a possible major contributor to future climate mitigation efforts Luckow et al, 2010). However, it is not clear by now, how much these technologies can contribute to carbon mitigation and renewable energy targets and how the respective policy instruments will perform in attaining these policy targets at least costs, if these technologies become available.…”

Section: Policy Instrumentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…(iii) Transportation costs have significant impact on the final cost of the bioenergy supply chain and vary with the technology, plant size, and the distance from plant to production sites (Eriksson and Björheden, 1989;Luckow et al, 2010;Richard, 2010). Spatial variation of biomass supply and heat demand is high in Austria (Schmidt et al, 2010b).…”

Section: Challenges In Bioenergy Modelingmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Cost-effective policy instruments for greenhouse gas emission reduction and fossil fuel substitution through bioenergy production in Austria

et al. 2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Climate change mitigation and security of energy supply are important targets of Austrian energy policy. Bioenergy production based on resources from agriculture and forestry is an important option to attain these targets. In order to increase the share of bioenergy, supporting policy instruments are necessary. The cost-effectiveness of these instruments in attaining policy targets depends on the availability of bioenergy technologies. Advanced technologies such as second generation biofuels, biomass gasification for power * Correspondence to: Johannes Schmidt, Institute for Sustainable Economic Development, University of Natural Ressources and Life Sciences, Feistmantelstraße 4, A-1180 Vienna, Austria. E-Mail: johannes.schmidt@boku.ac.at 2 production and bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) will likely change the performance of policy instruments. This article assesses the cost-effectiveness of energy policy instruments with respect to greenhouse gas emission (GHG) reduction and fossil fuel substitution under consideration of new bioenergy technologies for the year 2030. Instruments that directly subsidize bioenergy are compared with instruments that aim at reducing GHG emissions. A spatially explicit modeling approach is used to account for biomass supply and energy distribution costs in Austria. Results indicate that a carbon tax performs cost effective with respect to both policy targets if BECCS is not available. However, the availability of BECCS creates a tradeoff between GHG emission reduction and fossil fuel substitution. Biofuel blending obligations are costly in attaining the policy targets.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 95%

Section: Policy Instrumentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Challenges In Bioenergy Modelingmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Cost-effective policy instruments for greenhouse gas emission reduction and fossil fuel substitution through bioenergy production in Austria

et al. 2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Moreover, BECCS could have an important role in the future energy mix. It has the potential to reduce the mitigation costs of achieving low atmospheric CO 2 concentration targets (Azar et al, 2010;Katofsky et al, 2010;Luckow et al, 2010;van den Broek et al, 2011).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Providing adequate economic incentives for bioenergies with CO2 capture and geological storage

Ricci

2012

Energy Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Knowing that carbon capture and storage (CCS) could play an important role in reducing CO2 emissions, it is important to have a good understanding of this role and the importance of environmental policies to support carbon capture and geological storage from bioenergies (BECCS). To date CCS technologies are not deployed on a commercial level, and policy instruments should be used to provide incentives to firms to use these technologies to reduce pollution. The aim of this paper is to compare the cost-efficiency of several incentive-based instruments (a fossil fuel tax, an emissions tax, a cap and trade system that recognize negative emissions, and a subsidy on captured emissions) needed to spur the adoption of CCS of the emissions from fossil fuel as well as from biomass, using a dynamic general equilibrium model. The study shows that BECCS will be deployed only if a specific subsidy per unit of biomass emissions captured with a CCS technology is available. We show also that the two most cost-efficient instruments for achieving a given emissions reduction target are a specific subsidy that rewards captured emissions and a carbon tax whose revenues are recycled to subsidize BECCS. Keywords:Bioenergies with carbon capture and storage, dynamic computable general equilibrium model, policy instruments efficiency. RésuméLa capture et le stockage du carbone (CCS) à un rôle important à jouer dans la réduction des émissions de CO2. Elle peut s'appliquer aux énergies fossiles et aux bioénergies (BECCS). A l'heure actuelle, ces technologies ne sont pas encore au stade de la commercialisation. Il existe donc une nécessité de mettre en place des incitations économiques claires et crédibles pour faciliter leur développement. L'objectif de ce papier est de comparer l'efficacité-économique de plusieurs instruments économiques (une taxe fossile, une taxe sur les émissions, un système de permis négociable qui reconnait les émissions négatives et une subvention à la capture des émissions) capables de stimuler le CCS et le BECCS. Cette analyse est conduite grâce à un modèle dynamique d'équilibre général calculable. Les résultats montrent que la technologie BECCS, compte tenu de sa singularité, sera développée uniquement si une subvention à la capture des émissions issues de la biomasse est mise en place. De plus, les deux instruments les plus efficace-économiquement pour atteindre un niveau donné de réduction d'émissions sont la subvention à la capture des émissions et la taxe carbone dont les revenus sont recyclés sous forme de subvention au BECCS. Mots-clés :Capture et Stockage du Carbone, bioénergies, modèle d'équilibre général calculable, efficacité-économique, incitation-économique.3

show abstract

“…In particular, questions arise about potential conflicts between "natural areas" and managed lands in climate mitigation scenarios that envision large--scale landuse changes for large--scale deployment of bioenergy production (see for example, Luckow et al, 2010) or the preservation of terrestrial carbon stocks by avoiding deforestation (see for example, Wise et al, 2009). A next logical question arises as to what specific kinds of lands are being modified in these scenarios.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Explicitly Accounting for Protected Lands within the GCAM 3.0

Dooley¹,

Zhou²

2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

3 Abstract: The Global Change Assessment Model Version 3.0 defines three different levels of "Protected Lands" within the agricultural and landuse component. These three different scenarios effectively cordon off 3.2% (5.0 million km 2 ) of the Earth's lands in the de minimus Protected Land Scenario, 4.9% (7.2 million km 2 ) in the Core Protected Land Scenario, and 8.4% (11.8 million km 2 ) in the Expanded Protected Land Scenario. None of these scenarios represents the "right" level of Protected Lands for the planet today or tomorrow. Rather, the goal is to create a range of scenarios that can be used in modeling demands for agricultural land for food and bioenergy crops, responses to climate change and the impact those would have on managed and unmanaged lands. These scenarios harness the wealth of information in the United Nations Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre's World Database on Protected Areas and its categories of explicit degrees of protection.

show abstract

Large-scale utilization of biomass energy and carbon dioxide capture and storage in the transport and electricity sectors under stringent CO2 concentration limit scenarios

Cited by 129 publications

References 48 publications

Cost-effective policy instruments for greenhouse gas emission reduction and fossil fuel substitution through bioenergy production in Austria

Cost-effective policy instruments for greenhouse gas emission reduction and fossil fuel substitution through bioenergy production in Austria

Providing adequate economic incentives for bioenergies with CO2 capture and geological storage

Explicitly Accounting for Protected Lands within the GCAM 3.0

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About