Assessment of global warming mitigation options with integrated assessment model DNE21

Akimoto, Keigo; Tomoda, Toshimasa; Fujii, Yasumasa; Yamaji, Katsuhiko

doi:10.1016/j.eneco.2004.04.021

Cited by 51 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…CCS attracts a lot of attention because it could allow "to reduce our CO2 emissions to the atmosphere whilst continuing to use fossil fuels" [10]. More precisely, analyses of the optimal timing of CO2 abatement suggest that, after 2050, carbon dioxide emissions could be significantly and increasingly curbed thanks to sequestration [22,1]. Results in these publications show that, in 2100, sequestration could account for around 40% of the reduction required to stabilize carbon atmospheric concentration to 550 ppmv.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Results in these publications show that, in 2100, sequestration could account for around 40% of the reduction required to stabilize carbon atmospheric concentration to 550 ppmv. In particular, Akimoto et al [1] present a sensitivity analysis and suggest that this 40% contribution is relatively robust against changes in the CCS costs. In addition, few abatement efforts should be undertaken before 2030 to reach the 550 ppmv stabilization target [22,1].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In particular, Akimoto et al [1] present a sensitivity analysis and suggest that this 40% contribution is relatively robust against changes in the CCS costs. In addition, few abatement efforts should be undertaken before 2030 to reach the 550 ppmv stabilization target [22,1]. This result is confirmed even under an hypothesis of high baseline emissions [1].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Carbon Capture and Sequestration: How Much Does this Uncertain Option Affect Near-Term Policy Choices?

Gilotte

Bosetti

2005

SSRN Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen:Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden.Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen.Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in SummaryOne of the main issues in the climate policy agenda, the timing of abatement efforts, hinges on the uncertainties of climate change risks and technological evolution. We use a stochastic optimization framework and jointly explore these two features. First, we embed in the model future potential large-scale availability of Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) technologies. While non-CCS mitigation that reduces fossil energy use is modelled as exerting inertia on the economic system, mainly due to the durability of the capital in energy systems and to technology lock-in and lock-out phenomena, the implementation of CCS technologies is modelled as implying less resilience of the system to changes in policy directions. Second, climate uncertainty is related in the model to the atmospheric temperature response to an increase in GHGs concentration.Performing different simulation experiments, we find that the environmental target, derived from a cost-benefit analysis, should be more ambitious when CCS is included in the picture. Moreover, the possible future availability of CCS is not a reason to significantly reduce near-term optimal abatement efforts. Finally, the availability of better information on the climate cycle is in general more valuable than better information on the CCS technological option.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Carbon Capture and Sequestration: How Much Does this Uncertain Option Affect Near-Term Policy Choices?

Gilotte

Bosetti

2005

SSRN Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The Dynamic New Earth 21 (DNE21) model (14), composed of three fully integrated submodels of energy systems, the macroeconomy, and climate change is an intertemporal nonlinear optimization model with 10 world regions, and its energy supply system is formulated in a bottom-up fashion with ∼50 types of technology. Non-CO 2 greenhouse gas emission scenarios are exogenously assumed on the basis of ref.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Estimating option values of solar radiation management assuming that climate sensitivity is uncertain

Arino

Akimoto

Sano

et al. 2016

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although solar radiation management (SRM) might play a role as an emergency geoengineering measure, its potential risks remain uncertain, and hence there are ethical and governance issues in the face of SRM's actual deployment. By using an integrated assessment model, we first present one possible methodology for evaluating the value arising from retaining an SRM option given the uncertainty of climate sensitivity, and also examine sensitivities of the option value to SRM's side effects (damages). Reflecting the governance challenges on immediate SRM deployment, we assume scenarios in which SRM could only be deployed with a limited degree of cooling (0.5°C) only after 2050, when climate sensitivity uncertainty is assumed to be resolved and only when the sensitivity is found to be high (T2x = 4°C). We conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis with constraining temperature rise as the objective. The SRM option value is originated from its rapid cooling capability that would alleviate the mitigation requirement under climate sensitivity uncertainty and thereby reduce mitigation costs. According to our estimates, the option value during 1990-2049 for a +2.4°C target (the lowest temperature target level for which there were feasible solutions in this model study) relative to preindustrial levels were in the range between $2.5 and $5.9 trillion, taking into account the maximum level of side effects shown in the existing literature. The result indicates that lower limits of the option values for temperature targets below +2.4°C would be greater than $2.5 trillion.solar radiation management | option value | climate sensitivity | uncertainty | decision tree analysis U ncertainties surrounding equilibrium climate sensitivity (T2x) (1) pose a challenge to mitigation policymaking aimed at achieving the goal of limiting the temperature rise below certain levels (e.g., +2°C relative to preindustrial levels). The inertia of temperature rise would demand more stringent mitigation policy over the period of climate sensitivity uncertainty in preparation for possible occurrence of high climate sensitivity, because it is difficult to reduce emissions sufficiently rapidly even with all of the currently available technologies of mitigation.The possibility of higher climate sensitivity (2) and the inability to instantaneously control the temperature via mitigation have sparked positive debates about solar radiation management (SRM), especially about conducting research and development (R&D) on the topic (3, 4). SRM has been regarded as a rapid (5) and relatively inexpensive geoengineering measure compared with mitigation; in this study, our cost estimates are based on albedo enhancement via stratospheric sulfur injections (Materials and Methods). However, SRM's overall costs would be higher than simply the deployment costs alone when its environmental risks (6, 7) [e.g., polar ozone depletion (4, 8), changes in precipitation patterns (9)] are factored in, although the true magnitude of all of the risks is still unknown. Moreover, SRM cann...

show abstract

“…Since THERESIA explicitly includes the physical energy flow, both the primary and the secondary energy can be disaggregated into more detailed primary energy sources and conversion technologies similar to the existing bottom-up energy technology models such as MARKAL (Loulou et al 2004) and DNE-21 (Akimoto et al 2004). In Fig.…”

Section: Fig 1 Conceptual Framework Of Theresia (Simplified)mentioning

confidence: 99%

A new approach of carbon emission allocation among stakeholders: an expansion of Multiregional and Multisectoral Dynamic Energy-Economic Model THERESIA

Mori

2016

Economic Structures

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundUniform carbon tax and cap-and-trade system are the first choices according to the Kyoto protocol when the policy makers consider the carbon control policies. As is well known, these two options theoretically give identical carbon emission distribution. However, in reality, carbon tax has hardly been accepted by industries while emission certificate as a part of cap-and-trade system such as EU-ETS has been implemented in AbstractThis paper aims at the assessment of the sectoral/regional partial participation in the global warming coalition applying the Multiregional and Multisectoral Dynamic Energy-Economic Model THERESIA based on GTAP database, dealing with 15 world regions and 12 non-energy industry sectors and 7 energy sectors to assess the middle-to long-term global warming policies. This study consists of the following three steps: Firstly, I distribute the carbon emission of power generation sector to the consumer and the generator according to the conversion efficiency, i.e., the generator is responsible for (1.0 − efficiency)*(total carbon emission) and the consumer is for the rest. Secondly, based on the above carbon emission allocation, the carbon emission of the certain industry is embodied in the products. Thus, indirect carbon trading embodied in the commodities can be calculated. Finally, THERESIA simulations generate and compare the outcomes of regional/sectoral participation where (1) only iron and steel industry, chemical industry and power generation industry participate, (2) only ANNEX-I regions in Kyoto protocol participate in the warming coalition, and (3) there are other various participation scenarios. The simulation results suggest that (1) this method clearly shows the indirect carbon emission embodied in the production structure reflecting the difference in the energy supply structure, (2) the carbon emission accounting method influences the international industry structure and GDP losses under the global carbon emission policies, and (3) when carbon emission is embodied in the products, indirect "carbon export" often exceeds the "carbon import" embodied in the commodities in the OECD regions.

show abstract

Assessment of global warming mitigation options with integrated assessment model DNE21

Cited by 51 publications

References 6 publications

Carbon Capture and Sequestration: How Much Does this Uncertain Option Affect Near-Term Policy Choices?

Carbon Capture and Sequestration: How Much Does this Uncertain Option Affect Near-Term Policy Choices?

Estimating option values of solar radiation management assuming that climate sensitivity is uncertain

A new approach of carbon emission allocation among stakeholders: an expansion of Multiregional and Multisectoral Dynamic Energy-Economic Model THERESIA

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About