IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v10y2018i10p3685-d175627.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Deep Decarbonisation from a Biophysical Perspective: GHG Emissions of a Renewable Electricity Transformation in the EU

Author

Listed:
  • Louisa Jane Di Felice

    (Institute of Environmental Science and Technology, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, 08193 Bellaterra, Spain)

  • Maddalena Ripa

    (Institute of Environmental Science and Technology, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, 08193 Bellaterra, Spain)

  • Mario Giampietro

    (Institute of Environmental Science and Technology, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, 08193 Bellaterra, Spain
    Catalan Institution for Research and Advanced Studies (ICREA), Passeig Lluís Companys 23, 08010 Barcelona, Spain)

Abstract

In light of climate change and security concerns, decarbonisation has become a priority for industrialised countries. In the European Union (EU), decarbonisation scenarios used to support decision-making predict a steady decrease in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, mostly driven by changes in production mixes and improvements in efficiency. In the EU’s decarbonisation pathways, the power sector plays a large role, reaching zero emissions by 2050. From a biophysical perspective, decarbonisation becomes not just a matter of replacing carbon-intensive with carbon-neutral electricity flows, but also a matter of building and maintaining new infrastructure (funds) which, in turn, is associated with GHG emissions. By not accounting for the emissions associated with funds, particularly those required to increase grid flexibility, scenarios used to inform decarbonisation narratives in the EU are missing a key part of the picture. We show that a rapid and deep decarbonisation of the EU’s power sector through a production-side transition between the years 2020 and 2050 leads to cumulative emissions of the order of 21–25 Gt of CO 2 equivalent, within a range of approximately 35–45%. The results are obtained by modelling two decarbonisation pathways where grid flexibility increases either through storage or through curtailment. The analysis suggests that scenarios informing decarbonisation policies in the EU are optimistic and may lead to a narrow focus on sustainable production transformations. This minimises the perceived urgency of reducing overall energy consumption to stay within safe carbon budgets.

Suggested Citation

  • Louisa Jane Di Felice & Maddalena Ripa & Mario Giampietro, 2018. "Deep Decarbonisation from a Biophysical Perspective: GHG Emissions of a Renewable Electricity Transformation in the EU," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(10), pages 1-17, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:10:y:2018:i:10:p:3685-:d:175627
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/10/3685/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/10/3685/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Tim Jackson, 2004. "Negotiating Sustainable Consumption: A Review of the Consumption Debate and its Policy Implications," Energy & Environment, , vol. 15(6), pages 1027-1051, November.
    2. Giampietro, Mario & Mayumi, Kozo & Ramos-Martin, Jesus, 2009. "Multi-scale integrated analysis of societal and ecosystem metabolism (MuSIASEM): Theoretical concepts and basic rationale," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 34(3), pages 313-322.
    3. Kougias, Ioannis & Szabó, Sándor, 2017. "Pumped hydroelectric storage utilization assessment: Forerunner of renewable energy integration or Trojan horse?," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 140(P1), pages 318-329.
    4. Scholz, Reinhard & Beckmann, Michael & Pieper, Christoph & Muster, Marc & Weber, Roman, 2014. "Considerations on providing the energy needs using exclusively renewable sources: Energiewende in Germany," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 109-125.
    5. Aneke, Mathew & Wang, Meihong, 2016. "Energy storage technologies and real life applications – A state of the art review," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 179(C), pages 350-377.
    6. Court, Victor & Fizaine, Florian, 2017. "Long-Term Estimates of the Energy-Return-on-Investment (EROI) of Coal, Oil, and Gas Global Productions," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 138(C), pages 145-159.
    7. Esteban, Miguel & Zhang, Qi & Utama, Agya, 2012. "Estimation of the energy storage requirement of a future 100% renewable energy system in Japan," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 22-31.
    8. Steinke, Florian & Wolfrum, Philipp & Hoffmann, Clemens, 2013. "Grid vs. storage in a 100% renewable Europe," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 826-832.
    9. Kondziella, Hendrik & Bruckner, Thomas, 2016. "Flexibility requirements of renewable energy based electricity systems – a review of research results and methodologies," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 10-22.
    10. Court, Victor & Fizaine, Florian, 2017. "Long-Term Estimates of the Energy-Return-on-Investment (EROI) of Coal, Oil, and Gas Global Productions," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 138(C), pages 145-159.
    11. Oebels, Kerstin B. & Pacca, Sergio, 2013. "Life cycle assessment of an onshore wind farm located at the northeastern coast of Brazil," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 60-70.
    12. Guezuraga, Begoña & Zauner, Rudolf & Pölz, Werner, 2012. "Life cycle assessment of two different 2 MW class wind turbines," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 37(1), pages 37-44.
    13. Pehnt, Martin, 2006. "Dynamic life cycle assessment (LCA) of renewable energy technologies," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 55-71.
    14. Francisco F. C. Mello & Carlos E. P. Cerri & Christian A. Davies & N. Michele Holbrook & Keith Paustian & Stoécio M. F. Maia & Marcelo V. Galdos & Martial Bernoux & Carlos C. Cerri, 2014. "Payback time for soil carbon and sugar-cane ethanol," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 4(7), pages 605-609, July.
    15. Denholm, Paul & Hand, Maureen, 2011. "Grid flexibility and storage required to achieve very high penetration of variable renewable electricity," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(3), pages 1817-1830, March.
    16. Nugent, Daniel & Sovacool, Benjamin K., 2014. "Assessing the lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions from solar PV and wind energy: A critical meta-survey," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 229-244.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Aljoša Slameršak & Giorgos Kallis & Daniel W. O’Neill, 2022. "Energy requirements and carbon emissions for a low-carbon energy transition," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 13(1), pages 1-15, December.
    2. Di Felice, Louisa Jane & Pérez-Sánchez, Laura & Manfroni, Michele & Giampietro, Mario, 2024. "Towards nexus thinking in energy systems modelling: A multi-scale, embodied perspective," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 187(C).
    3. Manfroni, Michele & Bukkens, Sandra G.F. & Giampietro, Mario, 2021. "The declining performance of the oil sector: Implications for global climate change mitigation," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 298(C).
    4. Manfroni, Michele & Bukkens, Sandra G.F. & Giampietro, Mario, 2022. "Securing fuel demand with unconventional oils: A metabolic perspective," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 261(PB).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Blanco, Herib & Faaij, André, 2018. "A review at the role of storage in energy systems with a focus on Power to Gas and long-term storage," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 81(P1), pages 1049-1086.
    2. Gallo, A.B. & Simões-Moreira, J.R. & Costa, H.K.M. & Santos, M.M. & Moutinho dos Santos, E., 2016. "Energy storage in the energy transition context: A technology review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 800-822.
    3. Weber, Sylvain & Puddu, Stefano & Pacheco, Diana, 2017. "Move it! How an electric contest motivates households to shift their load profile," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 255-270.
    4. Parra, Rony & Di Felice, Louisa Jane & Giampietro, Mario & Ramos-Martin, Jesus, 2018. "The metabolism of oil extraction: A bottom-up approach applied to the case of Ecuador," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 63-74.
    5. Zerrahn, Alexander & Schill, Wolf-Peter, 2017. "Long-run power storage requirements for high shares of renewables: review and a new model," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 1518-1534.
    6. Heggarty, Thomas & Bourmaud, Jean-Yves & Girard, Robin & Kariniotakis, Georges, 2020. "Quantifying power system flexibility provision," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 279(C).
    7. Cebulla, F. & Fichter, T., 2017. "Merit order or unit-commitment: How does thermal power plant modeling affect storage demand in energy system models?," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 117-132.
    8. Chowdhury, Jahedul Islam & Balta-Ozkan, Nazmiye & Goglio, Pietro & Hu, Yukun & Varga, Liz & McCabe, Leah, 2020. "Techno-environmental analysis of battery storage for grid level energy services," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 131(C).
    9. Kondziella, Hendrik & Bruckner, Thomas, 2016. "Flexibility requirements of renewable energy based electricity systems – a review of research results and methodologies," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 10-22.
    10. Diana Enescu & Gianfranco Chicco & Radu Porumb & George Seritan, 2020. "Thermal Energy Storage for Grid Applications: Current Status and Emerging Trends," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(2), pages 1-21, January.
    11. Eveloy, Valerie, 2019. "Hybridization of solid oxide electrolysis-based power-to-methane with oxyfuel combustion and carbon dioxide utilization for energy storage," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 550-571.
    12. Valerie Eveloy & Tesfaldet Gebreegziabher, 2018. "A Review of Projected Power-to-Gas Deployment Scenarios," Energies, MDPI, vol. 11(7), pages 1-52, July.
    13. Summerfield-Ryan, Oliver & Park, Susan, 2023. "The power of wind: The global wind energy industry's successes and failures," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 210(C).
    14. Jesuina Chipindula & Venkata Sai Vamsi Botlaguduru & Hongbo Du & Raghava Rao Kommalapati & Ziaul Huque, 2018. "Life Cycle Environmental Impact of Onshore and Offshore Wind Farms in Texas," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-18, June.
    15. Kaldellis, J.K. & Apostolou, D., 2017. "Life cycle energy and carbon footprint of offshore wind energy. Comparison with onshore counterpart," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 72-84.
    16. Gerbaulet, Clemens & von Hirschhausen, Christian & Kemfert, Claudia & Lorenz, Casimir & Oei, Pao-Yu, 2019. "European electricity sector decarbonization under different levels of foresight," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 141, pages 973-987.
    17. Shalini Verma & Akshoy Ranjan Paul & Nawshad Haque, 2022. "Selected Environmental Impact Indicators Assessment of Wind Energy in India Using a Life Cycle Assessment," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(11), pages 1-16, May.
    18. Luciano Celi & Claudio Della Volpe & Luca Pardi & Stefano Siboni, 2020. "Spruce budworm and oil price: a biophysical analogy," Papers 2004.14898, arXiv.org.
    19. Francisco Haces-Fernandez, 2020. "GoWInD: Wind Energy Spatiotemporal Assessment and Characterization of End-of-Life Activities," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(22), pages 1-20, November.
    20. Jenkins, J.D. & Zhou, Z. & Ponciroli, R. & Vilim, R.B. & Ganda, F. & de Sisternes, F. & Botterud, A., 2018. "The benefits of nuclear flexibility in power system operations with renewable energy," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 222(C), pages 872-884.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:10:y:2018:i:10:p:3685-:d:175627. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.