IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/climat/v163y2020i3d10.1007_s10584-019-02539-x.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Biomass residues as twenty-first century bioenergy feedstock—a comparison of eight integrated assessment models

Author

Listed:
  • Steef V. Hanssen

    (Radboud University)

  • Vassilis Daioglou

    (PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency
    Utrecht University)

  • Zoran J. N. Steinmann

    (Radboud University)

  • Stefan Frank

    (IIASA, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis)

  • Alexander Popp

    (PIK Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research)

  • Thierry Brunelle

    (CIRAD, UMR CIRED)

  • Pekka Lauri

    (IIASA, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis)

  • Tomoko Hasegawa

    (IIASA, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis
    Center for Social & Environmental Systems Research, National Institute for Environmental Studies)

  • Mark A. J. Huijbregts

    (Radboud University
    PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency)

  • Detlef P. Vuuren

    (PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency
    Utrecht University)

Abstract

In the twenty-first century, modern bioenergy could become one of the largest sources of energy, partially replacing fossil fuels and contributing to climate change mitigation. Agricultural and forestry biomass residues form an inexpensive bioenergy feedstock with low greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, if harvested sustainably. We analysed quantities of biomass residues supplied for energy and their sensitivities in harmonised bioenergy demand scenarios across eight integrated assessment models (IAMs) and compared them with literature-estimated residue availability. IAM results vary substantially, at both global and regional scales, but suggest that residues could meet 7–50% of bioenergy demand towards 2050, and 2–30% towards 2100, in a scenario with 300 EJ/year of exogenous bioenergy demand towards 2100. When considering mean literature-estimated availability, residues could provide around 55 EJ/year by 2050. Inter-model differences primarily arise from model structure, assumptions, and the representation of agriculture and forestry. Despite these differences, drivers of residues supplied and underlying cost dynamics are largely similar across models. Higher bioenergy demand or biomass prices increase the quantity of residues supplied for energy, though their effects level off as residues become depleted. GHG emission pricing and land protection can increase the costs of using land for lignocellulosic bioenergy crop cultivation, which increases residue use at the expense of lignocellulosic bioenergy crops. In most IAMs and scenarios, supplied residues in 2050 are within literature-estimated residue availability, but outliers and sustainability concerns warrant further exploration. We conclude that residues can cost-competitively play an important role in the twenty-first century bioenergy supply, though uncertainties remain concerning (regional) forestry and agricultural production and resulting residue supply potentials.

Suggested Citation

  • Steef V. Hanssen & Vassilis Daioglou & Zoran J. N. Steinmann & Stefan Frank & Alexander Popp & Thierry Brunelle & Pekka Lauri & Tomoko Hasegawa & Mark A. J. Huijbregts & Detlef P. Vuuren, 2020. "Biomass residues as twenty-first century bioenergy feedstock—a comparison of eight integrated assessment models," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 163(3), pages 1569-1586, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:climat:v:163:y:2020:i:3:d:10.1007_s10584-019-02539-x
    DOI: 10.1007/s10584-019-02539-x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10584-019-02539-x
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10584-019-02539-x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Gustavsson, Leif & Haus, Sylvia & Ortiz, Carina A. & Sathre, Roger & Truong, Nguyen Le, 2015. "Climate effects of bioenergy from forest residues in comparison to fossil energy," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 138(C), pages 36-50.
    2. Global Energy Assessment Writing Team,, 2012. "Global Energy Assessment," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9781107005198, October.
    3. Nico Bauer & Steven K. Rose & Shinichiro Fujimori & Detlef P. van Vuuren & John Weyant & Marshall Wise & Yiyun Cui & Vassilis Daioglou & Matthew J. Gidden & Etsushi Kato & Alban Kitous & Florian Lebla, 2018. "Global energy sector emission reductions and bioenergy use: overview of the bioenergy demand phase of the EMF-33 model comparison," Post-Print hal-01972038, HAL.
    4. P. M. F. Elshout & R. van Zelm & J. Balkovic & M. Obersteiner & E. Schmid & R. Skalsky & M. van der Velde & M. A. J. Huijbregts, 2015. "Greenhouse-gas payback times for crop-based biofuels," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 5(6), pages 604-610, June.
    5. Jay Gregg & Steven Smith, 2010. "Global and regional potential for bioenergy from agricultural and forestry residue biomass," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Springer, vol. 15(3), pages 241-262, March.
    6. Global Energy Assessment Writing Team,, 2012. "Global Energy Assessment," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521182935, October.
    7. Steven Rose & Elmar Kriegler & Ruben Bibas & Katherine Calvin & Alexander Popp & Detlef Vuuren & John Weyant, 2014. "Bioenergy in energy transformation and climate management," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 123(3), pages 477-493, April.
    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. Constanze Werner & Wolfgang Lucht & Claudia Kammann & Johanna Braun, 2024. "Land-neutral negative emissions through biochar-based fertilization—assessing global potentials under varied management and pyrolysis conditions," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Springer, vol. 29(5), pages 1-28, June.
    2. Porcelli, Roberto & Gibon, Thomas & Marazza, Diego & Righi, Serena & Rugani, Benedetto, 2023. "Prospective environmental impact assessment and simulation applied to an emerging biowaste-based energy technology in Europe," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 176(C).
    3. Wu, Yazhen & Deppermann, Andre & Havlík, Petr & Frank, Stefan & Ren, Ming & Zhao, Hao & Ma, Lin & Fang, Chen & Chen, Qi & Dai, Hancheng, 2023. "Global land-use and sustainability implications of enhanced bioenergy import of China," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 336(C).

    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. Guivarch, Céline & Monjon, Stéphanie, 2017. "Identifying the main uncertainty drivers of energy security in a low-carbon world: The case of Europe," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 530-541.
    2. Holmatov, B. & Schyns, J.F. & Krol, M.S. & Gerbens-Leenes, P.W. & Hoekstra, A.Y., 2021. "Can crop residues provide fuel for future transport? Limited global residue bioethanol potentials and large associated land, water and carbon footprints," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 149(C).
    3. Giannousakis, Anastasis & Hilaire, Jérôme & Nemet, Gregory F. & Luderer, Gunnar & Pietzcker, Robert C. & Rodrigues, Renato & Baumstark, Lavinia & Kriegler, Elmar, 2021. "How uncertainty in technology costs and carbon dioxide removal availability affect climate mitigation pathways," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 216(C).
    4. Vassilis Stavrakas & Niki-Artemis Spyridaki & Alexandros Flamos, 2018. "Striving towards the Deployment of Bio-Energy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS): A Review of Research Priorities and Assessment Needs," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(7), pages 1-27, June.
    5. Mercure, J.-F. & Paim, M.A. & Bocquillon, P. & Lindner, S. & Salas, P. & Martinelli, P. & Berchin, I.I. & de Andrade Guerra, J.B.S.O & Derani, C. & de Albuquerque Junior, C.L. & Ribeiro, J.M.P. & Knob, 2019. "System complexity and policy integration challenges: The Brazilian Energy- Water-Food Nexus," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 230-243.
    6. Lauri, Pekka & Forsell, Nicklas & Korosuo, Anu & Havlík, Petr & Obersteiner, Michael & Nordin, Annika, 2017. "Impact of the 2°C target on global woody biomass use," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 121-130.
    7. Gunnar Luderer & Volker Krey & Katherine Calvin & James Merrick & Silvana Mima & Robert Pietzcker & Jasper Vliet & Kenichi Wada, 2014. "The role of renewable energy in climate stabilization: results from the EMF27 scenarios," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 123(3), pages 427-441, April.
    8. Paim, Maria-Augusta & Dalmarco, Arthur R. & Yang, Chung-Han & Salas, Pablo & Lindner, Sören & Mercure, Jean-Francois & de Andrade Guerra, José Baltazar Salgueirinho Osório & Derani, Cristiane & Bruce , 2019. "Evaluating regulatory strategies for mitigating hydrological risk in Brazil through diversification of its electricity mix," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 393-401.
    9. Tilmann Rave, 2013. "Innovationsindikatoren zum globalen Klimaschutz – FuE-Ausgaben und Patente," ifo Schnelldienst, ifo Institute - Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich, vol. 66(15), pages 34-41, August.
    10. Daniel Moran & Richard Wood, 2014. "Convergence Between The Eora, Wiod, Exiobase, And Openeu'S Consumption-Based Carbon Accounts," Economic Systems Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 26(3), pages 245-261, September.
    11. Lykke E. Andersen & Luis Carlos Jemio, 2016. "Decentralization and poverty reduction in Bolivia: Challenges and opportunities," Development Research Working Paper Series 01/2016, Institute for Advanced Development Studies.
    12. Inglesi-Lotz, Roula, 2017. "Social rate of return to R&D on various energy technologies: Where should we invest more? A study of G7 countries," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 101(C), pages 521-525.
    13. Tom Mikunda & Tom Kober & Heleen de Coninck & Morgan Bazilian & Hilke R�sler & Bob van der Zwaan, 2014. "Designing policy for deployment of CCS in industry," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 14(5), pages 665-676, September.
    14. Jun Nakatani & Tamon Maruyama & Kosuke Fukuchi & Yuichi Moriguchi, 2015. "A Practical Approach to Screening Potential Environmental Hotspots of Different Impact Categories in Supply Chains," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(9), pages 1-15, August.
    15. Fichter, Tobias & Soria, Rafael & Szklo, Alexandre & Schaeffer, Roberto & Lucena, Andre F.P., 2017. "Assessing the potential role of concentrated solar power (CSP) for the northeast power system of Brazil using a detailed power system model," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 121(C), pages 695-715.
    16. Selosse, Sandrine & Ricci, Olivia & Maïzi, Nadia, 2013. "Fukushima's impact on the European power sector: The key role of CCS technologies," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 305-312.
    17. Kamjoo, Azadeh & Maheri, Alireza & Putrus, Ghanim A., 2014. "Chance constrained programming using non-Gaussian joint distribution function in design of standalone hybrid renewable energy systems," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 677-688.
    18. Mokri, Alaeddine & Aal Ali, Mona & Emziane, Mahieddine, 2013. "Solar energy in the United Arab Emirates: A review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 28(C), pages 340-375.
    19. Perrihan Al-Riffai & Julian Blohmke & Clemens Breisinger & Manfred Wiebelt, 2015. "Harnessing the Sun and Wind for Economic Development? An Economy-Wide Assessment for Egypt," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(6), pages 1-27, June.
    20. Kim, Yeong Jae & Wilson, Charlie, 2019. "Analysing energy innovation portfolios from a systemic perspective," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 134(C).

    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:spr:climat:v:163:y:2020:i:3:d:10.1007_s10584-019-02539-x. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.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.