Search

A rapid and deep decarbonization of power supply worldwide is required to limit global warming to well below 2 °C. Beyond greenhouse gas emissions, the power sector is also responsible for numerous other environmental impacts. Here we combine scenarios from integrated assessment models with a forward-looking life-cycle assessment to explore how alternative technology choices in power sector decarbonization pathways compare in terms of non-climate environmental impacts at the system level. While all decarbonization pathways yield major environmental co-benefits, we find that the scale of co-benefits as well as profiles of adverse side-effects depend strongly on technology choice. Mitigation scenarios focusing on wind and solar power are more effective in reducing human health impacts compared to those with low renewable energy, while inducing a more pronounced shift away from fossil and toward mineral resource depletion. Conversely, non-climate ecosystem damages are highly uncertain but tend to increase, chiefly due to land requirements for bioenergy.

The large majority of climate change mitigation scenarios that hold warming below 2 °C show high deployment of carbon dioxide removal (CDR), resulting in a peak-and-decline behavior in global temperature. This is driven by the assumption of an exponentially increasing carbon price trajectory which is perceived to be economically optimal for meeting a carbon budget. However, this optimality relies on the assumption that a finite carbon budget associated with a temperature target is filled up steadily over time. The availability of net carbon removals invalidates this assumption and therefore a different carbon price trajectory should be chosen. We show how the optimal carbon price path for remaining well below 2 °C limits CDR demand and analyze requirements for constructing alternatives, which may be easier to implement in reality. We show that warming can be held at well below 2 °C at much lower long-term economic effort and lower CDR deployment and therefore lower risks if carbon prices are high enough in the beginning to ensure target compliance, but increase at a lower rate after carbon neutrality has been reached. Many trajectories for reaching climate change mitigation targets exaggerate the long-term need for CO2 removal (CDR) because they assume an exponentially increasing carbon price. Here the authors analyse alternative carbon price pathways that halt warming while limiting CDR, and may be easier to implement. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Limiting global warming to "well below 2°C" as stated in the Paris Agreement requires ambitious emissions reductions from all sectors. Rapid technology cost declines in the energy sector are changing energy investment and emissions, even with the weak climate policies currently in place. We assess how energy supply costs and carbon dioxide removal (CDR) availability affect mitigation by performing a sensitivity analysis with the energy-economy-climate model REMIND. We use new scenarios with carbon price paths that aim to reduce the frequently seen temperature overshoot. Further, we measure the sensitivities of mitigation indicators to the costs of technologies across economic sectors. We assess the sensitivity to nine techno-economic parameters: the costs of wind, solar, biomass, gas, coal, oil, nuclear, and electric/hydrogen vehicles, as well as the injection rate of Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS). While technology costs play a role in shaping optimal pathways, we find that transport sector costs affect the economics of deep decarbonization, whereas costs of renewables are more important for scenarios under weak climate policies. This further highlights the value of renewable energy deployment as a no-regrets option in climate policy. In terms of the sensitivity of model outputs, economic indicators become more sensitive to costs than emissions, with increasing policy stringency. • The transport sector costs affect the economics of deep decarbonization. • The costs of renewables are more important for scenarios under weak climate policies. • Renewable energy deployment is a no-regrets option in climate policy. • Even in "favorable" price scenarios, optimal emissions need to reach zero by 2065. • Robust and broad policy support is needed for achieving the goals of the Paris Agreement. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]