| 1. |
- Grahn, Maria, 1963, et al.
(author)
-
Biomass for heat or as transportation fuel? A comparison between two model-based studies
- 2007
-
In: Biomass and Bioenergy. - : Elsevier BV. - 1873-2909 .- 0961-9534. ; 31:11-12, s. 747-758
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- In two different energy economy models of the global energy system, the cost-effective use of biomass under a stringent carbon constraint has been analyzed. Gielen et al. conclude that it is cost-effective to use biofuels for transportation, whereas Azar et al. find that it is more cost-effective to use most of the biomass to generate heat and process heat, despite the fact that assumptions about the cost of biofuels production is similar in the models. In this study, we compare the two models with the purpose of finding an explanation for these different results. It was found that both models suggest that biomass is most cost-effectively used for heat production for low carbon taxes (below 50-100 USD/tC, depending on the year in question). But for higher carbon taxes, the cost-effective choice reverses in the BEAP model, but not in the GET model. The reason for this is that GET includes hydrogen from carbon-free energy sources as a technology option, whereas that option is not allowed in the BEAP model. In all other sectors, both models include carbon-free options above biomass. Thus, with higher carbon taxes, biomass will eventually become the cost-effective choice in the transportation sector in BEAP, regardless of its technology cost parameters. © 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
|
|
| 2. |
- Grahn, Maria, 1963, et al.
(author)
-
The role of biofuels for transportation in CO2 emission reduction scenarios with global versus regional carbon caps
- 2009
-
In: Biomass and Bioenergy. - : Elsevier BV. - 1873-2909 .- 0961-9534. ; 33:3, s. 360-371
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- This study analyzes how international climate regimes affect cost-efficiency of fuel choices in the transportation sector. The analysis is carried out with a regionalized version of the Global Energy Transition model, GET-R 6.0. Two different carbon dioxide (CO2) reduction scenarios are applied, both meeting an atmospheric CO2 concentration target of 450 ppm by the year 2100. The first scenario, ‘‘global cap’’ (GC), uses a global cap on CO2 emissions, and global emissions trading is allowed. In the second scenario, ‘‘regional caps’’ (RC), industrialized regions start to reduce their CO2 emissions by 2010 while developing regions may wait several decades and emission reductions are not tradable across regions. In this second scenario, CO2 emissions are assumed to meet an equal per capita distribution of 1.0 tC/ capita, in all six regions, by 2040; emissions then follow a common reduction path, toward approximately 0.2 tC/capita by 2100. Three main results emerge from our analysis: (i) the use of biofuels in the industrialized regions is significantly higher in RC than in GC; (ii) the use of biofuels in RC actually increases the weaker (i.e., higher) the CO2 concentration target (up to 550 ppm); and (iii) biofuels never play a dominant role in the transportation sector. We find that biofuels may play a more important role in industrialized countries if these take on their responsibilities and reduce their emissions before developing countries start reducing their emissions, compared to the case in which all countries take action under a global cap and trade emission reduction regime.
|
|
| 3. |
- Hansson, Julia, 1978, et al.
(author)
-
Alternative marine fuels: Prospects based on multi-criteria decision analysis involving Swedish stakeholders
- 2019
-
In: Biomass and Bioenergy. - : Elsevier BV. - 1873-2909 .- 0961-9534. ; 126, s. 159-173
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- There is a need for alternative marine fuels in order to reduce the environmental and climate impacts of shipping, in the short and long term. This study assesses the prospects for seven alternative fuels for the shipping sector in 2030, including biofuels, by applying a multi-criteria decision analysis approach that is based on the estimated fuel performance and on input from a panel of maritime stakeholders and by considering, explicitly, the influence of stakeholder preferences. Seven alternative marine fuels—liquefied natural gas (LNG), liquefied biogas (LBG), methanol from natural gas, renewable methanol, hydrogen for fuel cells produced from (i) natural gas or (ii) electrolysis based on renewable electricity, and hydrotreated vegetable oil (HVO)—and heavy fuel oil (HFO) as benchmark are included and ranked by ten performance criteria and their relative importance. The criteria cover economic, environmental, technical, and social aspects. Stakeholder group preferences (i.e., the relative importance groups assign to the criteria) influence the ranking of these options. For ship-owners, fuel producers, and engine manufacturers, economic criteria, in particular the fuel price, are the most important. These groups rank LNG and HFO the highest, followed by fossil methanol, and then various biofuels (LBG, renewable methanol, and HVO). Meanwhile, representatives from Swedish government authorities prioritize environmental criteria, specifically GHG emissions, and social criteria, specifically the potential to meet regulations, ranking renewable hydrogen the highest, followed by renewable methanol, and then HVO. Policy initiatives are needed to promote the introduction of renewable marine fuels.
|
|
