| 1. |
- Grahn, Maria, 1963, et al.
(författare)
-
Biomass for heat or as transportation fuel? - a comparison between two model based studies
- 2007
-
Ingår i: Biomass & Bioenergy. ; 31, s. 747-758
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)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.
|
|
| 2. |
- Grahn, Maria, 1963, et al.
(författare)
-
BIOMASS FOR HEAT OR AS TRANSPORTATION FUEL? A COMPARISON BETWEEN TWO MODEL BASED STUDIES
- 2005
-
Ingår i: The 14th European Conference and Technology Exhibition on Biomass for Energy, Industry and Climate in Paris, 17-21 October.
-
Konferensbidrag (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)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 rather similar in the models. In this study, we compare the two models with the purpose to find an explanation for these different results. It is 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 that 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 allother 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.
|
|
| 3. |
- Grahn, Maria, 1963, et al.
(författare)
-
Cost effective fuel choices in the transportation sector under different international climate regimes – results from a regionalized version of the global energy transition model, GET-R
- 2007
-
Ingår i: Proceedings Book of 15th European Biomass Conference and Exhibition from Research to Market Deployment, Industry and Climate, Berlin, Germany, 7-11 May.
-
Konferensbidrag (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- ABSTRACT: The aim of this study is to analyze cost-effective fuel choices in the transportation sector, given that the industrialized regions take the lead in mitigating global warming. The analysis is carried out with a regionalized version of the global energy transition model, GET-R 6.0. It is a linear programming model and it has three end-use sectors: electricity, heat and transportation fuels. It is set up to generate the energy supply mix that meets exogenously given energy demands and carbon constraints at the lowest global energy system cost under different international climate regimes. Two different CO2 reduction scenarios are applied, both meeting an atmospheric CO2 concentration target of 450 ppm by the year 2100. In the first scenario, global CO2 emissions trading are allowed. In the second scenario, it is assumed that emission reductions are not tradable across regions and that the industrialized regions take the lead in mitigating global warming. They start to reduce their CO2 emissions from 2010 while developing regions wait several decades. In this second scenario CO2 emissions are assumed to meet an equal per capita distribution of 1.0 tC/capita, in all six regions, in 2050 and then jointly follow an emission reduction path, towards 0.17 tC/capita (equal to a global emission of 2 GtC) in 2100. The results show that biofuels for transport in industrialized regions reach a mean value of 16% of the total fuel use over this century in the second scenario compared to less than half of that, 6%, in the first scenario.
|
|
| 4. |
- Grahn, Maria, 1963, et al.
(författare)
-
Cost-effective use of biomass - A comparison between two model based studies
- 2006
-
Ingår i: Book of Proceedings, RIO6, World Climate and Energy Event, Nov 17-18, 2006, Hotel Othon Palace, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. - 8590271048 ; , s. 149-153
-
Konferensbidrag (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)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 rather similar in the models. In this study, we compare the two models with the purpose to find an explanation for these different results. It is 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 that 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.
|
|
| 5. |
- Grahn, Maria, 1963, et al.
(författare)
-
Fuel and Vehicle Technology Choices for Passenger Vehicles in Achieving Stringent CO2 Targets: Connections between Transportation and Other Energy Sectors
- 2009
-
Ingår i: Environmental Science and Technology. - 1382-3124. ; 43:9, s. 3365-3371
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- The regionalized Global Energy Transition (GET-R 6.0) modelhas been modified to include a detailed description of light-duty vehicle options and used to investigate the potential impact of carbon capture and storage (CCS) and concentrating solar power (CSP) on cost-effective fuel/vehicle technologies in a carbon-constrained world. Total CO2 emissions were constrained to achieve stabilization at 400-550 ppm, by 2100, at lowest total system cost. The dominant fuel/vehicle technologies varied significantly depending on CO2 constraint, future cost of vehicle technologies, and availability of CCS and CSP. For many cases, no one technology dominated on a global scale. CCS provides relatively inexpensive low-CO2 electricity and heat which prolongs the use of traditional ICEVs. CSP displaces fossil fuel derived electricity, prolongs the use of traditional ICEVs, and promotes electrification of passenger vehicles. In all cases considered, CCS and CSP availability had a major impact on the lowest cost fuel/vehicle technologies, and alternative fuels are needed in response to expected dwindling oil and natural gas supply potential by the end of the century.
|
|
| 6. |
- Grahn, Maria, 1963, et al.
(författare)
-
Regionalized Global Energy Scenarios Meeting Stringent Climate Targets - cost effective fuel choices in the transportation sector
- 2003
-
Ingår i: Risö international energy conference in Denmark, 19-21 May 2003.
-
Konferensbidrag (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- The aim of this study is to analyze the world's future energy supply, in general, and cost-effective fuel choices in the transportation sector, in particular, under stringent CO2 abatement targets. The analysis is carried out with the help of a global energy systems model GET-R 1.0, developed specifically for this project. It is a linear programming model and it has three end-use sectors: electricity, heat and transportation fuel. It is set up to generate the energy supply mix that would meet exogenously givenenergy demands at the lowest global energy system cost. We have chosen an upper limit on CO2 emissions corresponding to an atmospheric CO2 concentration target of 400 ppm, by the year 2100. We find that it is cost-effective to carry out the transition from gasoline/diesel in the middle of the century and that hydrogen becomes the most cost-efficient fuel in the long run. Within the electricity production sector all renewable energy sources show a pattern of increasing contributions during the century and solar produced hydrogen will dominate by year 2100. Biomass is the dominant fuel in the heat sector. Scenarios are also presented which show the effects of different way of regionalizing the model. Here significant changes may occur, in particular when it comes to the where solar hydrogen is being produced. Further, we compare our results with those generated using a globally aggregated version of the model. We find that the regionalization only marginally affects the general pattern.
|
|
| 7. |
- Grahn, Maria, 1963, et al.
(författare)
-
Regionalized Global Energy Scenarios Meeting Stringent CO2 Constraints - Cost-effective Fuel Choices for Transport
- 2003
-
Ingår i: EnerEnv'2003, the first conference on energy and environment in Changsha, China, 11-14 October 2003.
-
Konferensbidrag (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- The aim of this study is to analyze the worlds future energy supply, in general, and cost-effective fuel choicesin the transportation sector, in particular, under stringent CO2 constraints. The analysis is carried out with the help of a global energy system model GET-R 1.0, developed specifically for this project. It is a linear programming model and it has three end-use sectors: electricity, heat and transportation fuel. It is set up to generate the energy supply mix that would meet exogenously given energy demands at the lowest global cost. We have chosen an upper limit on CO2 emissions corresponding to an atmospheric CO2 concentration target of 400 ppm, by the year 2100. We find that it is cost-effective to carry out the transition from gasoline/diesel in the middle of the century and that hydrogen becomes the most costefficient fuel in the long run. Within the electricity production sector all renewable energy sources show a pattern of increasing contributions during the century and solar produced hydrogen will dominate by year 2100. Biomass is the dominant fuel in the heat sector. Further, we compare our results with those generated using a globally aggregated version of the model. We find that the regionalization only marginally affects the general pattern.
|
|
| 8. |
- Grahn, Maria, 1963, et al.
(författare)
-
The role of biofuels for transportation in CO2 emission reduction scenarios with global versus regional carbon caps
- 2009
-
Ingår i: Biomass and Bioenergy. - : Elsevier BV. - 1873-2909 .- 0961-9534. ; 33:3, s. 360-371
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)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.
|
|
