Is Bioenergy with CCS Essential toLimiting Radiative Forcing to 2.6 Wm-2?
Jae Edmonds
Asia Integrated Modeling Meeting
Tsukuba, JAPAN18 February 2012

Acknowledgements
Thanks to NIES and Toshi for the invitation to participate
in the AIM workshop and the AIM program.
Thanks to the U.S. DOE’s Office of Science’s IntegratedAssessment Research Program for research support.
The GCAM team

Leon Clarke

Tony Janetos

Sonny Kim

George Hurtt

Jae Edmonds

AllisonThomsonMarshall WiseOVERVIEW

Why are we interested in bioenergy with CCS?

ENERGY with NEGATIVE emissions are a majorfeature of the new low-climate-forcing scenarios.

Source: Rao, Shilpa, Keywan Riahi and CheolhungCho, Detlef van Vuuren, Elke Stehfest, Michel den
Elzen, Jasper van Vliet and Morna Isaac. 2008.
IMAGE and MESSAGE Scenarios Limiting GHG
Concentrations to Low Levels. Framework
Contract ENV.C5/FRA/2006/0071. International
Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Laxenburg,Austria.

4

Bioenergy and CCS
Both bioenergy and CCS aretechnologies that exist today.
The combination of both is also
being explored.

CCS is not deployed at scale.
Deployment of each depends
on the institutionalenvironment.
Carbon priceInstitutional framework thatfacilitates a business model for
deployment.
5Sequestration of CO2 from bioethanol synthesis
University of Illinois – DOE –Archer Daniels Midland

Two Key Questions

Is it possible to limit radiative forcing to2.6 Wm-2 in 2100 without bioenergy andCCS?

Do resource limits preclude successful
deployment of either bioenergy or CCSor both?
Bioenergy is constrained by competition
for land.
CCS is constrained by storage reservoirs.

THE PNNL GLOBAL CHANGEASSESSMENT MODEL—GCAM

GCAM is an integrated assessment model
GCAM human Earth systems
EnergyDemandEnergy
Markets

Regional
Resource
Bases

The Economy
Regional
Labor ForceRegional
EnergyConversion
Technologies

Regional GDP

Regional
LaborProductivity

Demand•Crops•Livestock
Forests products

EnergySupplyTechnology

Regional Land
Categories andCharacteristics

EnergyProduction.
Transformation& Use

GHG
EmissionsLand Use Change
Emissions

Production

Supply•Crops•Livestock•Biocrops•Foresty Products•Crops•Livestock•Forests products•Biomass energy

Ag-Land Markets•Land rent
•Crop prices•Livestock prices•Forest product prices•Biomass prices

The GCAM human Earthsystems model has
Economic, Energy andLand-use systems.
Technologically detail.

Commercial
Biomass

Agriculture andLand Use

Research model.
Dynamic-recursive model.

The Energy System
EnergyDemandTechnologies

Open source model.

Land Use•Crops•Livestock•Managed Forests•Unmanaged

Emissions of 16 greenhousegases and short-lived
species
151 region land-use model.
Runs through 2095 in 5-yeartime-steps (time step isvariable).

GCAM Human and Natural Earth Systems

In general GCAM uses MAGICC as its
reduced form representation of theatmosphere, ocean and climate systems.
We are also working with LBNL, UNH,and ORNL to combine the CESM, theGLM, and the CLM with GCAM(humanEarth systems) to develop an
integrated Earth Systems Model(iESM).

Ocean Carbon Cycle

The Energy SystemEnergy
DemandTechnologies

EnergyDemandEnergy
Markets

Regional
Resource
Bases

The Economy
Regional
Labor ForceRegional
EnergyConversion
Technologies

Regional GDP

Regional
Labor
Productivity

Demand•Crops•Livestock
Forests products

EnergySupplyAgriculture andLand Use

Land Use Change
Emissions

Production

Supply•Crops•Livestock•Biocrops•Foresty Products•Crops•Livestock•Forests products•Biomass energy

Ag-Land Markets•Land rent
•Crop prices•Livestock prices•Forest product prices•Biomass prices

AtmosphericComposition,
Radiative Forcing, &Climate

GHG
Emissions

Commercial
Biomass

Technology

Regional Land
Categories andCharacteristics

EnergyProduction.
Transformation& Use

Land Use•Crops•Livestock•Managed Forests•Unmanaged

Terrestrial CarbonCycle

GCAM Human and Natural Earth Systems
GCAM is adding climate
impacts on buildings,
agriculture, and ecosystems.

We are also integrating
fresh water supply and use.

Ocean Carbon Cycle

The Energy System
EnergyDemandTechnologies

EnergyDemandEnergyProduction.
Transformation& Use

EnergyMarkets

Hydrology & Fresh Water Systems
Agricultural Sector
Demands

Regional
Resource
Bases

The Economy
RegionalLabor ForceRegional
EnergyConversion
Technologies

Regional GDP

Energy Sector
Demands

GHG
Emissions

Industrial Sector

Energy Demands
Supply Household Sector

Water
DemandDemands

Commercial Sector
Demands
Ecosystem,
Navigation, Interbasin Transfers(prescribed)

Regional
LaborProductivity

Demand•Crops•Livestock
Forests products

Agriculture andLand Use

Technology

Regional Land
Categories andCharacteristics

Water
Markets

CommercialBiomass

Surface Water
Land Use Change
Emissions

ClimateGround Water
Recharge

ProductionDesalinization

Supply•Crops•Livestock•Biocrops•Foresty Products•Crops•Livestock•Forests products•Biomass energy

Ag-Land Markets•Land rent
•Crop prices•Livestock prices•Forest product prices•Biomass prices

Land Use•Crops•Livestock•Managed Forests•UnmanagedWater
SupplyEnergy DemandWater
Allocationand Use

Terrestrial Carbon
Cycle

AtmosphericComposition,
Radiative Forcing, &Climate

CO2 CAPTURE AND GEOLOGIC
STORAGEPotential Storage—Global
Reservoir Type
Deep Saline Reservoirs On Shore

Deep Saline Reservoirs Off Shore
Depleted Gas Reservoirs
Depleted Oil Reservoirs
Unminable Coal
TOTAL

Capacity(PgCO2)5,650
3,875
695115
175
10,510Regional Distribution of Geologic Storage
PotentialUSAIndiaCanada
Western Europe

Korea
USAChinaJapan

Eastern Europe
Former Soviet Union
Australia_NZ

Australia

JapanKorea
China

Former Soviet
Union

India

CanadaW. EurSoutheast Asia
Middle EastAfrica
Latin America

EXPERIMENTAL DESIGNPolicy regimes
Idealized Accession

Delayed Accession

All regions initiate emissions
mitigation simultaneously in theyear 2020;
The price of carbon emissions,both from industrial activities andland-use change, is equal in all
regions and across all sectors inevery period;
The price of carbon rises at therate of interest plus the averagerate of removal of carbon byoceans, the Hotelling-Peck-Wan
path (Hotelling, 1931; Peck andWan, 1996).

Year
2015

Regions Joining
Mitigation Regime
Western Europe,
Eastern Europe, Japan

Years
Between
Joining &Common
CarbonPrice

NA2030Australia/NZ, Canada,
China, Korea, USA

102050India, L. America, Other
South & East Asia

202070Africa, FSU, Middle
East30An Additional Delay Scenario
Delayed Accession 2We created an additional
scenario in which tworegions never undertake
emissions mitigation.

Year
2015

Regions Joining
Mitigation Regime
Western Europe,
Eastern Europe, Japan

Years
Between
Joining &Common
CarbonPrice

NA2030Australia/NZ, Canada,China, Korea, USA

102050India, L. America, Other
South & East Asia

202070Africa30

Never

FSU, Middle EastNATechnology Regimes
Other
Technology

Technology SetCCS

Bioenergy

NuclearPowerRef

Yes

Yes

Ref

Ref

NoCCS

No

Yes

Ref

Ref

NoBio

Yes

No

Ref

Ref

NoBioNoCCS

No

No

Ref

LowTechNo

No

Phased out

Ref
Ref

FEASIBILITY AND COST OF
LIMITING RADIATIVE FORCING
TO 2.6 WM-2

Radiative Forcing Paths: All technologies
and all policy regimes can reach 2.6 Wm-2
4.5
Baseline
Baseline
NO BIO

4.0

Climate Forcing (W/m2)

3.5

NO CCSNO BIONO BIO or CCS

3.0
2.5

NO BIO or CCS or NUCLEAR
NO CCS
Baseline (delay)

2.0

NO BIO (delay)
NO BIO or CCS
NO CCS (delay)

1.5

1.0

NO BIO or CCS (delay)
NO BIO or CCS or NUCLEAR
NO BIO or CCS or NUCLEAR (delay)

0.5
0.0
2000

2020

2040

2060

2080

2100

Delayed Accession 2
When two regions never participated inemissions mitigation it was not possible tolimit radiative forcing to 2.6 Wm-2 for any
technology suite.

Carbon Price in the Mitigation Coalition$16,000$15,000

USD per ton CO2$14,000$13,000$12,000$11,000

Baseline
NO BIONO CCSNO BIO or CCS
NO BIO or CCS or NUCLEAR
Baseline (delay)
NO BIO (delay)
NO CCS (delay)
NO BIO or CCS (delay)
NO BIO or CCS or NUCLEAR (delay)$10,000$9,000$8,000$2,500

USD per ton CO2$2,000$1,500$1,000
$500

$0
2020

2040

2060

2080

2100

Fossil Fuel Emissions

Fossil Fuel & Industrial CO2 Emissions(MT CO2 )50,000Baseline
Baseline
NO BIO

40,000NO CCSNO BIONO BIO or CCS

30,00020,000NO BIO or CCS or NUCLEAR
NO CCS
Baseline (delay)

10,00002000-10,000-20,00020202040

2060

2080

2100

NO BIO (delay)
NO BIO or CCS
NO CCS (delay)
NO BIO or CCS (delay)
NO BIO or CCS or NUCLEAR
NO BIO or CCS or NUCLEAR (delay)

Land Use Change Emissions

Fossil Fuel & Industrial CO2 Emissions(MT CO2)

30,000Baseline
Baseline
NO BIO

20,000NO CCSNO BIONO BIO or CCS

10,00002000-10,000-20,000-30,000-40,000

2020

2040

2060

2080

2100

NO BIO or CCS or NUCLEAR
NO CCS
Baseline (delay)
NO BIO (delay)
NO BIO or CCS
NO CCS (delay)
NO BIO or CCS (delay)
NO BIO or CCS or NUCLEAR
NO BIO or CCS or NUCLEAR (delay)CARBON STORAGE

Geologic Storage through 2100
12,00010,000Unminable Coal Seams
Depleted Oil Wells
Depleted Gas Wells

4,000
2,0000Baseline
Baseline NO BIO (delay) NO BIO(delay)

Deep Saline
Reservoirs on Shore

TgCO2

6,000

Maximum Potential

Deep Saline
Reservoirs offShore

8,000

Land use Change—Net Cumulative
Sequestration 2020 through 2100
Cumulative Terrestrial Sequestration

1,000

Baseline
NO BIONO CCSNO BIO or CCS
NO BIO or CCS or NUCLEAR
Baseline (delay)
NO BIO (delay)
NO CCS (delay)
NO BIO or CCS (delay)
NO BIO or CCS or NUCLEAR (delay)

900800

PgCO27006005004003002001000Baseline

NO BIONO CCSNO BIO or NO BIO or Baseline
CCS
CCS or(delay)
NUCLEARNO BIO(delay)

NO CCS NO BIO or NO BIO or(delay) CCS (delay) CCS or
NUCLEAR(delay)CCS Geologic Storage and Land use
Sequestration: 2020 through 2100
2,000

1,800
1,600
1,400
1,000
800700

PgCO21,000Baseline
NO BIONO CCSNO BIO or CCS
NO BIO or CCS or NUCLEAR
Baseline (delay)
NO BIO (delay)
NO CCS (delay)
NO BIO or CCS (delay)
NO BIO or CCS or NUCLEAR (delay)

90080060060050040040030020020010001,200TgCO2Cumulative Terrestrial Sequestration

Baseline

NO BIONO CCSNO BIO or NO BIO or Baseline
CCSCCS or(delay)
NUCLEARNO BIO(delay)NO CCS NO BIO or NO BIO or(delay) CCS (delay) CCS or
NUCLEAR(delay)0Baseline

NO BIO

Baseline(delay)

NO BIO(delay)SUMMARYFinal remarks
We used the GCAM integrated assessment model toassess two questions:
Is it possible to limit radiative forcing to 2.6 Wm-2 in 2100 withoutbioenergy and CCS?
Do resource limits preclude successful deployment of either
bioenergy or CCS or both?

We find the following:
A variety of technology regimes including technology portfoliosthat have neither Bioenergy, CCS, or nuclear power are feasible.
However, the lowest costs are found when bioenergy with CCS isavailable.
Delays in mitigation participation can raise costs substantially.
If two key regions never joined, then it was impossible to limit
radiative forcing to 2.6 Wm-2 in 2100.
Neither limits to geologic storage or available land provided ameaningful constraint to limiting radiative forcing to 2.6 Wm-2 in
2100.

DISCUSSION