The economics of decarbonizing the energy system—results and insights from the RECIPE model intercomparison

This paper synthesizes the results from the model intercomparison exercise among regionalized global energy-economy models conducted in the context of the RECIPE project. The economic adjustment effects of long-term climate policy are investigated based on the cross-comparison of the intertemporal optimization models ReMIND-R and WITCH as well as the recursive dynamic computable general equilibrium model IMACLIM-R. A number of robust findings emerge. If the international community takes immediate action to mitigate climate change, the costs of stabilizing atmospheric CO2 concentrations at 450 ppm (roughly 530–550 ppm-e) discounted at 3% are estimated to be 1.4% or lower of global consumption over the twenty-first century. Second best settings with either a delay in climate policy or restrictions to the deployment of low-carbon technologies can result in substantial increases of mitigation costs. A delay of global climate policy until 2030 would render the 450 ppm target unachievable. Renewables and CCS are found to be the most critical mitigation technologies, and all models project a rapid switch of investments away from freely emitting energy conversion technologies towards renewables, CCS and nuclear. Concerning end use sectors, the models consistently show an almost full scale decarbonization of the electricity sector by the middle of the twenty-first century, while the decarbonization of non-electric energy demand, in particular in the transport sector remains incomplete in all mitigation scenarios. The results suggest that assumptions about low-carbon alternatives for non-electric energy demand are of key importance for the costs and achievability of very low stabilization scenarios.

[1]  A. Chambers,et al.  World Energy Outlook 2008 , 2008 .

[2]  James J. Dooley,et al.  Large-scale utilization of biomass energy and carbon dioxide capture and storage in the transport and electricity sectors under stringent CO2 concentration limit scenarios , 2010 .

[3]  Valentina Bosetti,et al.  The WITCH Model: Structure, Baseline, Solutions , 2007 .

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

[5]  Y. Kaya Impact of carbon dioxide emission control on GNP growth : Interpretation of proposed scenarios , 1989 .

[6]  Valentina Bosetti,et al.  A World induced Technical Change Hybrid Model , 2006 .

[7]  Michael Grubb,et al.  Induced Technological Change: Exploring its Implications for the Economics of Atmospheric Stabilization: Synthesis Report from the innovation Modeling Comparison Project , 2006 .

[8]  J. Edmonds,et al.  Scenarios of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Atmospheric Concentrations , 2007 .

[9]  B. W. Ang,et al.  Decomposition analysis for policymaking in energy:: which is the preferred method? , 2004 .

[10]  Jan Christoph Steckel,et al.  The value of technology and of its evolution towards a low carbon economy , 2012, Climatic Change.

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

[12]  Rebekah Levin,et al.  Less than Ideal , 2001 .

[13]  R. Venterea Climate Change 2007: Mitigation of Climate Change , 2009 .

[14]  William J. Nuttall,et al.  Nuclear Power: A Hedge against Uncertain Gas and Carbon Prices? , 2006 .

[15]  Alexei G. Sankovski,et al.  Special report on emissions scenarios : a special report of Working group III of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change , 2000 .

[16]  M. Tavoni,et al.  Technology innovation and diffusion in “less than ideal” climate policies: An assessment with the WITCH model , 2012, Climatic Change.

[17]  O. Edenhofer,et al.  Mitigation Costs in a Globalized World: Climate Policy Analysis with REMIND-R , 2010 .

[18]  Vincent Gitz,et al.  IMACLIM-R: a modelling framework to simulate sustainable development pathways , 2010 .

[19]  Corinne Le Quéré,et al.  Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis , 2013 .

[20]  Detlef P. van Vuuren,et al.  Bio-Energy Use and Low Stabilization Scenarios , 2010 .

[21]  A. Popp,et al.  Bio-IGCC with CCS as a long-term mitigation option in a coupled energy-system and land-use model , 2011 .

[22]  J. Canadell,et al.  Global and regional drivers of accelerating CO2 emissions , 2007, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[23]  Jan Christoph Steckel,et al.  Time to act now? Assessing the costs of delaying climate measures and benefits of early action , 2012, Climatic Change.

[24]  M. Tavoni,et al.  A World Induced Technical Change Hybrid Model , 2006 .

[25]  O. Edenhofer,et al.  The economics of low stabilisation: implications for technological change and policy , 2010 .

[26]  N. Bauer,et al.  The REMIND-R model: the role of renewables in the low-carbon transformation—first-best vs. second-best worlds , 2012, Climatic Change.

[27]  John P. Weyant,et al.  Overview of EMF-21: Multigas Mitigation and Climate Policy , 2006 .

[28]  H. Hotelling The economics of exhaustible resources , 1931, Journal of Political Economy.

[29]  L. Clarke,et al.  International climate policy architectures: Overview of the EMF 22 International Scenarios , 2009 .

[30]  Céline Guivarch,et al.  The Imaclim-R model: infrastructures, technical inertia and the costs of low carbon futures under imperfect foresight , 2012, Climatic Change.

[31]  Aie World Energy Outlook 2009 , 2000 .

[32]  William D. Nordhaus,et al.  Warming the World: Economic Models of Global Warming , 2000 .

[33]  Thomas Bruckner,et al.  The Tolerable Windows Approach: Theoretical and Methodological Foundations , 1999 .

[34]  J. Olivier,et al.  No Growth in Total Global CO2 Emissions in 2009 , 2010 .

[35]  M. Thring World Energy Outlook , 1977 .

[36]  N. Nakicenovic,et al.  Issues related to mitigation in the long-term context , 2007 .