4.7 Article Proceedings Paper

Contribution of global GHG reduction pledges to bioenergy expansion

期刊

BIOMASS & BIOENERGY
卷 111, 期 -, 页码 142-153

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.biombioe.2017.05.017

关键词

Bioenergy; Climate policy; Energy system; Long-term modelling

资金

  1. MINES ParisTech
  2. Ecole des Ponts ParisTech
  3. AgroParisTech
  4. ADEME
  5. EDF
  6. GRTgaz
  7. SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC
  8. French Ministry of Ecology, Sustainable Development and Energy

向作者/读者索取更多资源

With growing concerns about climate change, countries are increasing efforts to reduce dependency on fossil energy sources, the major source of CO2, by replacing them with cleaner energy sources including bioenergy. In this context, the global bioenergy market has grown massively during the last few decades. In addition, under the aegis of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the Paris Agreement, 162 countries have already submitted their intended nationally determined contributions (INDCs) to mitigate climate change, including greenhouse gas emissions pledges and action plans. Hence, the effect of these GHG restrictions on the bioenergy sector in the new expected global decarbonized energy system needs to be addressed. In this study, we estimate what role the international climate agreement could play in bioenergy sector expansion using the bottom-up energy system optimization model, TIAM-FR, a TIMES family model from ETSAP/IEA. As results, GHG restrictions promoted global bioenergy supply over the time horizon 2010-2050. In 2050, global biomass supply reaches 131-138 EJ under these climate scenarios, which is more than double biomass supply in the BAU scenario (60 EJ). In final bioenergy consumption, in 2050, only 3-5 EJ is consumed as biofuel in transport sector while 60 EJ of biomass is consumed for different uses in other sectors and more than 40% of total supplied biomass produces heat and electricity. (c) 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据