Keywan Riahi , Detlef P. Van Vuuren a Graduate School of Management of Technology, Sogan b Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Joint Global Ch c International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Sc d Fondazione ENI Enrico Mattei and Euro-Mediterranean e Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, Telegra f PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, PO g Utrecht University, Copernicus Institute for Sustainable
Received 1 February 2013 mitigation technologies would become extremely high in the 2030–2050 period. Yet the
Technological Forecasting & Social Change xxx (2013) xxx–xxx
TFS-17858; No of Pages 16
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Technological Forecast hompresence of CCS greatly alleviates the challenges to the transition particularly after the delayed climate policies, lowering the risk that the long-term goal becomes unattainable.
The results also highlight the important role of bioenergy with CO2 capture and storage (BECCS), which facilitates energy production with negative carbon emissions. If BECCS is available, transition pathways exceed the emission budget in the mid-term, removing the excess with BECCS in the long term. Excluding either BE or CCS from the technology portfolio implies that emission reductions need to take place much earlier. © 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Technology upscaling 1. Introduction
Technological implications of climate change mitigation policies have been an important area of research for the role of technology across a wide suite of IAMs, based on a coordinated set of technology assumptions. They examined the nature of energy system transformation under climate change mitigation policies and the influence of technology availabilityNear-term climate policy
Emission pathwayintegrated assessment modeling (IAM) com studies focused on the role of technology influence of technology availability on the cos mitigation policies [1–5]. A fewmodel inter-co such as ADAM , RECIPE , and EMF27  ⁎ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: firstname.lastname@example.org (J. Eom). 0040-1625/$ – see front matter © 2013 Elsevier Inc. A http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2013.09.017
Please cite this article as: J. Eom, et al., Th pathways, Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change (deployment measures indicate that the availability of CCS technology could play a critical role in facilitating the attainment of ambitious mitigation goals. Without CCS, deployment of otherReceived in revised form 23 September 2013
Accepted 24 September 2013
Available online xxxx
Keywords:g University, Mapo-gu, Seoul 121-742, Republic of Korea ange Research Institute, College Park, MD 20740, USA hlossplatz 1, A-2361 Laxenburg, Austria
Centre for Climate Change, Venice, Italy phenberg A31, D-14473 Potsdam, Germany
Box 303, 3720 AH Bilthoven, The Netherlands
Development, Utrecht, The Netherlands a b s t r a c t
This paper explores the implications of delays (to 2030) in implementing optimal policies for long-term transition pathways to limit climate forcing to 450 ppm CO2e on the basis of the
AMPERE Work Package 2 model comparison study.
The paper highlights the critical importance of the period 2030–2050 for ambitious mitigation strategies. In this period, the most rapid shift to low greenhouse gas emitting technology occurs. In the delayed response emission mitigation scenarios, an even faster transition rate in this period is required to compensate for the additional emissions before 2030. Our physicala r t i c l e i n f o
Article history:Jiyong Eoma,⁎, Jae Edmonds b, Volker Krey c, Nils Johnson c, Thomas Longden d, Gunnar Luderer e, c f,gThe impact of near-term climate poli transition pathways j ourna lmunity. Previous , particularly the t of climate change mparison studies, , also explored the ll rights reserved. e impact of near-term c 2013), http://dx.doi.org/choices on technology and emission ing & Social Change epage:on mitigation costs and on the feasibility of meeting ambitious climate goals.
The IAM studies agree that technology is indeed one of the key components of climate change mitigation and directly affects the attainability of low climate stabilization [6–8]. They suggest that more and better performance of the technology options available for mitigation leads to lower cost of mitigation and a higher likelihood of achieving limate policy choices on technology and emission transition 10.1016/j.techfore.2013.09.017 ambitious climate targets. It has also been shown that limiting climate change will undoubtedly require major changes to the global energy system, which takes the form of extensive deployment of new and existing low-carbon technologies [1,7–9]. Thus the availability of technology has the effect of shaping the optimal time path of emission mitigation, that is, the relative degree of near-term and longer-term emission reductions, which in turn influences the cost of achieving the climate targets [4,8].
Technological aspects of long-term mitigation policies are receiving renewed attention as current national emission reduction pledges are not consistent with the reductions required to meet the 2 °C target in a cost-minimizing way whether there is a critical set of technologies required to achieve the long-term stabilization goal. 2. What are the physical requirements of the transitions described in questions 1? For example, what are the land requirements; howmanypower plants need to be built; and what is the rate of capacity expansion? Are such transformations constrained by resource limits and how do they compare to historical technology deployment rates? 3. How do specific IAM characteristics affect the above questions? We will attempt to explain the results by identifying specific technologies on which different IAMs rely for mitigation and the abilities of the IAMs to do large technology upscaling or early retirement.
The paper is organized as follows. Section 2 provides a brief background on the study design and scenario set-up.