Halving global GHG emissions by 2050 without depending on nuclear and CCS

In this paper, we assessed the technological feasibility and economic viability of the mid-term (until 2050) GHG emission reduction target required for stabilization of radiative forcing at 2.6 W/m2. Given the apparent uncertainty surrounding the future deployment of nuclear and CCS technologies, we intensively investigated emission reduction scenarios without nuclear and CCS. The analysis using AIM/Enduse[Global] shows the emission reduction target is technologically feasible, but the cost for achieving the target becomes very high if nuclear and CCS options are limited. The main reason for the cost rise is that additional investment for expensive technologies is required in order to compensate for emission increases in the steel, cement and power generation sectors in the absence of CCS. On the other hand, if material efficiency improvement measures, such as material substitution, efficient use of materials and recycling, are taken, the cost of achieving the emission reduction target is significantly reduced. The result indicates the potentially important role of material efficiency improvement in curbing the cost of significant GHG emission reductions without depending on nuclear and CCS.

[1]  Osamu Akashi,et al.  Technological feasibility and costs of achieving a 50 % reduction of global GHG emissions by 2050: mid- and long-term perspectives , 2012, Sustainability Science.

[2]  Alexei G. Sankovski,et al.  Special report on emissions scenarios , 2000 .

[3]  Bert Metz,et al.  Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage , 2005 .

[4]  Pushpam Kumar.  Agriculture (Chapter8) in IPCC, 2007: Climate change 2007: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change , 2007 .

[5]  Toshihiko Masui,et al.  GLOBAL GHG EMISSION SCENARIOS UNDER GHG CONCENTRATION STABILIZATION TARGETS , 2008 .

[6]  Keywan Riahi,et al.  Emission pathways consistent with a 2 ◦ C global temperature limit , 2011 .

[7]  Toshihiko Masui,et al.  GHG emission scenarios in Asia and the world: The key technologies for significant reduction , 2012 .

[8]  美紀子 甲斐沼,et al.  Climate policy assessment : Asia-Pacific integrated modeling , 2003 .

[9]  Aie,et al.  CO2 Capture and Storage: A Key Carbon Abatement Option , 2008 .

[10]  Mikiko Kainuma,et al.  A projection for global CO2 emissions from the industrial sector through 2030 based on activity level and technology changes , 2011 .

[11]  O. Edenhofer,et al.  Mitigation from a cross-sectoral perspective , 2007 .

[12]  J. D. Beer.  FUTURE TECHNOLOGIES FOR ENERGY-EFFICIENT IRON AND STEEL MAKING , 1998 .

[13]  L. Price,et al.  CARBON DIOXIDE EMISSIONS FROM THE GLOBAL CEMENT INDUSTRY , 2001 .

[14]  Keywan Riahi,et al.  Emission pathways consistent with a 2[thinsp][deg]C global temperature limit , 2011 .

[15]  Aie,et al.  Energy Technology Perspectives 2010 , 2009 .

[16]  Toshihiko Masui,et al.  Assessment of GHG emission reduction pathways in a society without carbon capture and nuclear technologies , 2012 .

[17]  Y. Matsuoka,et al.  A STUDY ON WORLD STEEL DEMANDS CONSIDERING SERVICE DEMAND CHANGE , 2012 .

[18]  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 .