160 likes | 296 Views
Preliminary comparison of IAM biomass modeling. Steven Rose (U.S. EPA) Energy Modeling Forum, Snowmass, Colorado, Aug. 2-3, 2006. Thank you Leon Clarke, Jae Edmonds, Rich Richels, Steve Smith, and Detlef van Vuuren for providing data! What’s here is very preliminary!
E N D
Preliminary comparison of IAM biomass modeling Steven Rose (U.S. EPA) Energy Modeling Forum, Snowmass, Colorado, Aug. 2-3, 2006
Thank you Leon Clarke, Jae Edmonds, Rich Richels, Steve Smith, and Detlef van Vuuren for providing data! What’s here is very preliminary! Data coming in last night, some data is draft, presentation has not yet been reviewed by the modellers Errors are mine!
Motivation: Survey the state of biomass modeling in IAMs via a multi-dimensional picture Outline • Data and model overview • Reference and stabilization scenarios • 3 Dimensions • Primary energy, Abatement, Acreage • Concluding thoughts Only a sample of the models, scenarios, and data!
Includes traditional biofuels Reference – biomass energy(liquids included) Note: All MESSAGE biomass energy results have been adjusted down by an estimated traditional biofuels share from IMAGE data. MiniCAM biomass energy still includes traditional biomass.
Change in Global Primary Energy – ~450 CO2e Stabilization MERGE IGSM MiniCAM IMAGE 2.3 IMAGE CCS data missing from this figure
Biomass GHG abatement – ~450 Stabilization (cont.) With tighter targets or higher emitting baselines, biomass mitigation levels increase, but abatement share falls.
Stabilization biomass acreage – only one example IMAGE 2.3 Here land is allocated to crops first. Other models allocate land differently.
Concluding thoughts • Stabilization and biomass mitigation • Total biomass GHG mitigation could be an important part of the long-run portfolio • Timing – little near-term, grows over time • Deployed earlier and faster (esp. mid-term) with tighter target and higher baseline emissions with constrained maximum exhibited • Exact role highly dependent on numerous reference and mitigation assumptions • Cellulosic Ethanol? • Needs an incentive • Stabilization • Short-run: Little sign of it if carbon prices are low • Long-run: Good abatement strategy as carbon prices rise, significantly less appealing if bioenergy+CCS (BECS) available
Concluding thoughts 2 • Further Investigation to better characterize what’s going on, e.g., • Usual suspects • Land • Acreage, competition (acreage requirements, availability, productivity) • Marginal emissions/sequestration responses • Abatement • Abatement costs – direct, equilibrium (land prices, commodity markets, welfare) • BECS assumptions/constraints • Energy • Conversion efficiencies • Alternatives and relative abatement costs • Technological change • Other integrated assessment model (IAM) issues • Climate change & biomass potential • Biofuel R&D and technological assumptions • Evaluation of IAM biomass energy technology in terms of detailed technologies