Gaps between costs and potentials estimated by bottom-up assessments versus integrated assessment models

IF 7.9 2区 工程技术 Q1 ENERGY & FUELS
Keigo Akimoto, Miyuki Nagashima, Fuminori Sano, Teruhisa Ando
{"title":"Gaps between costs and potentials estimated by bottom-up assessments versus integrated assessment models","authors":"Keigo Akimoto,&nbsp;Miyuki Nagashima,&nbsp;Fuminori Sano,&nbsp;Teruhisa Ando","doi":"10.1016/j.esr.2024.101521","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>There are large gaps between the costs and potentials of emissions reductions estimated by technology bottom-up assessments and those estimated by integrated assessment models (IAMs). This study estimates the costs and potentials by sector and technologies in 2030 and 2050 using a technology-rich IAM. The estimated costs and potentials are largely consistent with the medium range of the IAM assessments of the sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). However, larger emission reduction potentials are estimated through the technology bottom-up assessments in the IPCC report. The gaps, approximately 6–17 GtCO<sub>2</sub>/yr in 2030 under carbon prices of 100 USD/tCO<sub>2</sub>, arise mainly from differences in the treatment of several hidden costs, and costs for variable renewable energy, such as solar photovoltaic and wind power, arise from considerations of grid integration costs. To recognize the gaps and implement better policies to achieve deep emissions reductions, it is necessary to understand the hidden costs and systems costs, including the grid integration costs, and to consider opportunities for limiting the costs.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":11546,"journal":{"name":"Energy Strategy Reviews","volume":"55 ","pages":"Article 101521"},"PeriodicalIF":7.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211467X2400230X/pdfft?md5=f83bac2c04cefcfe4a92be81a165d280&pid=1-s2.0-S2211467X2400230X-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Energy Strategy Reviews","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211467X2400230X","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENERGY & FUELS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

There are large gaps between the costs and potentials of emissions reductions estimated by technology bottom-up assessments and those estimated by integrated assessment models (IAMs). This study estimates the costs and potentials by sector and technologies in 2030 and 2050 using a technology-rich IAM. The estimated costs and potentials are largely consistent with the medium range of the IAM assessments of the sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). However, larger emission reduction potentials are estimated through the technology bottom-up assessments in the IPCC report. The gaps, approximately 6–17 GtCO2/yr in 2030 under carbon prices of 100 USD/tCO2, arise mainly from differences in the treatment of several hidden costs, and costs for variable renewable energy, such as solar photovoltaic and wind power, arise from considerations of grid integration costs. To recognize the gaps and implement better policies to achieve deep emissions reductions, it is necessary to understand the hidden costs and systems costs, including the grid integration costs, and to consider opportunities for limiting the costs.

自下而上的评估与综合评估模型估计的成本和潜力之间的差距
技术自下而上评估所估计的减排成本和潜力与综合评估模型 (IAM) 所估计的减排成本和潜力之间存在巨大差距。本研究利用技术丰富的综合评估模型,按部门和技术估算了 2030 年和 2050 年的成本和潜力。估计的成本和潜力与政府间气候变化专门委员会(IPCC)第六次评估报告中综合评估模型评估的中等范围基本一致。然而,IPCC 报告中自下而上的技术评估估计了更大的减排潜力。在碳价格为 100 美元/吨CO2 的情况下,2030 年的差距约为 6-17 GtCO2/年,这主要是由于对几种隐性成本的处理方法不同,而可变可再生能源(如太阳能光伏发电和风力发电)的成本则来自对并网成本的考虑。为了认识差距并实施更好的政策以实现深度减排,有必要了解隐性成本和系统成本,包括并网成本,并考虑限制成本的机会。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Energy Strategy Reviews
Energy Strategy Reviews Energy-Energy (miscellaneous)
CiteScore
12.80
自引率
4.90%
发文量
167
审稿时长
40 weeks
期刊介绍: Energy Strategy Reviews is a gold open access journal that provides authoritative content on strategic decision-making and vision-sharing related to society''s energy needs. Energy Strategy Reviews publishes: • Analyses • Methodologies • Case Studies • Reviews And by invitation: • Report Reviews • Viewpoints
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信