Energy conversion/Policy issues: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{ComponentPolicyIssueTemplate | {{ComponentPolicyIssueTemplate | ||
|Reference=Kruyt et al., 2009; PBL, 2012; | |Reference=Kruyt et al., 2009; PBL, 2012; | ||
|Description=The conversion | |Description=The energy conversion module may be used to generate scenarios with and without climate policy. The results for a typical baseline scenario are shown in Figure below. At present, coal is the main feedstock for power generation globally. In high-income regions, coal faces competition from natural gas, but in emerging economies, such as China and India, coal is still by far the largest resource used. The baseline scenario projects coal use to expand. The underlying reasons for this expansion are the rapid increase in electricity use in emerging economies, and the stronger price increases for natural gas than for coal. The latter, clearly, also depends on the uncertainty in future natural gas supply. On a global scale, wind power and biomass-fired power plants are rapidly expanding in total capacity. | ||
|Example=Model analyses show that a high proportion of emission reductions would be achieved through supply side changes.The figure below shows the capacity for different supply side options under the baseline scenario and various pathways consistent with the 2 <sup>o</sup>C climate change target. Although the share of unabated fossil-fuel use is still 80% of total primary energy under the baseline scenario (see above), by 2050 this would need to be around 15% to 20% according to the 2 <sup>o</sup>C scenarios. The results show that pathways can be identified in which the remaining energy comes from bio-energy, other renewable energy, nuclear energy, and from fossil-fuel energy combined with {{AbbrTemplate|CSS}}. There is flexibility in the choice of these options, as illustrated here in the Decentralised Solutions and Global Technology pathways with very different patterns for nuclear power and renewable energy. In the IMAGE model, however, under nearly all scenarios, the combination of bio-energy and CCS, and CCS in general, plays a critical role in achieving the 2 <sup>o</sup>C target ([[PBL, 2012]]). | |Example=Model analyses show that a high proportion of emission reductions would be achieved through supply side changes.The figure below shows the capacity for different supply side options under the baseline scenario and various pathways consistent with the 2 <sup>o</sup>C climate change target. Although the share of unabated fossil-fuel use is still 80% of total primary energy under the baseline scenario (see above), by 2050 this would need to be around 15% to 20% according to the 2 <sup>o</sup>C scenarios. The results show that pathways can be identified in which the remaining energy comes from bio-energy, other renewable energy, nuclear energy, and from fossil-fuel energy combined with {{AbbrTemplate|CSS}}. There is flexibility in the choice of these options, as illustrated here in the Decentralised Solutions and Global Technology pathways with very different patterns for nuclear power and renewable energy. In the IMAGE model, however, under nearly all scenarios, the combination of bio-energy and CCS, and CCS in general, plays a critical role in achieving the 2 <sup>o</sup>C target ([[PBL, 2012]]). | ||
}} | }} |
Revision as of 13:02, 22 May 2014
Parts of Energy conversion/Policy issues
Component is implemented in: |
|
Related IMAGE components |
Projects/Applications |
Models/Databases |
Key publications |
References |