The U.S. power sector decarbonization: Investigating technology options with MARKAL nine-region model

The U.S. economy decarbonization over the next 35 years requires a large transformation of the energy system. The main finding of this study is that it is technically feasible to achieve 80% greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduction below the 2005 levels by 2050 through deployment of existing or near-commercially available technologies. GHG reductions are primarily achieved through high levels of electricity sector decarbonization, electrification of end uses, and exchange of the remaining end-uses to lower carbon fuels such as natural gas. However, deep decarbonization by 2050 triggers very high marginal CO2 reduction costs, unless significant cost reductions of zero and near-zero carbon technologies occur.

[1]  Martin Junginger,et al.  Technological Learning in the Energy Sector , 2008 .

[2]  Emanuele Borgonovo,et al.  Sensitivity to energy technology costs: a multi-model comparison analysis. , 2015 .

[3]  Socrates Kypreos,et al.  Flexible Carbon Mitigation Policies: Analysis with a Global Multi-Regional MARKAL Model , 2005 .

[4]  Alexander R. Barron,et al.  Electric sector policy, technological change, and U.S. emissions reductions goals: Results from the EMF 32 model intercomparison project. , 2018, Energy economics.

[5]  Sergey Paltsev,et al.  Assessment of U.S. Cap-and-Trade Proposals , 2007 .

[6]  D. Klein.  CO2 emission trends for the US and electric power sector , 2016 .

[7]  K. Caldeira,et al.  Greenhouse gases, climate change and the transition from coal to low-carbon electricity , 2012 .

[8]  M. I. Hoffert,et al.  Farewell to Fossil Fuels? , 2010, Science.

[9]  Corinne Le Quéré,et al.  Betting on negative emissions , 2014 .

[10]  Leo Schrattenholzer,et al.  Learning rates for energy technologies , 2001 .

[11]  K. Annan,et al.  Toward a Sustainable Future , 2002 .

[12]  Keywan Riahi,et al.  Implications of delayed participation and technology failure for the feasibility, costs, and likelihood of staying below temperature targets—Greenhouse gas mitigation scenarios for the 21st century , 2009 .

[13]  William D. Nordhaus,et al.  Economic aspects of global warming in a post-Copenhagen environment , 2010, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[14]  K. Arrow,et al.  Determining Benefits and Costs for Future Generations , 2013, Science.

[15]  Leslie G. Fishbone,et al.  Markal, a linear‐programming model for energy systems analysis: Technical description of the bnl version , 1981 .

[16]  Richard S.J. Tol,et al.  The marginal damage costs of carbon-dioxide emissions’ , 2005 .

[17]  John P. Weyant,et al.  Modeling for insights, not numbers: the experiences of the energy modeling forum , 1982 .

[18]  Daniel H. Loughlin,et al.  ESP v1.0: methodology for exploring emission impacts of future scenarios in the United States , 2011 .

[19]  Tasneem Abbasi,et al.  Biomass energy and the environmental impacts associated with its production and utilization , 2010 .

[20]  Valentina Bosetti,et al.  The Economics of Decarbonization – Results from the RECIPE model intercomparison , 2009 .

[21]  D. Loughlin,et al.  Exploring the role of natural gas power plants with carbon capture and storage as a bridge to a low-carbon future , 2017, Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy.

[22]  B. Solomon,et al.  Biofuels and sustainability , 2010, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences.

[23]  Steven J. Davis,et al.  Drivers of the US CO2 emissions 1997–2013 , 2015, Nature Communications.

[24]  Socrates Kypreos,et al.  The Economics of Low Stabilization: Model Comparison of Mitigation Strategies and Costs , 2010 .

[25]  Mark Bolinger,et al.  Utility-Scale Solar 2016: An Empirical Analysis of Project Cost, Performance, and Pricing Trends in the United States , 2017 .

[26]  Edward S. Rubin,et al.  Use of experience curves to estimate the future cost of power plants with CO2 capture , 2007 .