The role of bioenergy in Ukraine's climate mitigation policy by 2050.

The development of renewable energy sources (RES) is considered to be a key instrument in addressing climate change. However, different RES have different potential and economic feasibility depending on country-specific conditions and mitigation ambitions. Understanding the relative importance of each RES could help policymakers focus their efforts on the most promising options. In this paper, we focus on Ukraine and explore the potential of biomass use under two mitigation scenarios – with 68% and 83% of greenhouse gas emissions reduction in 2050 relative to the 2010 level. First, using the TIMES-Ukraine energy system model, we show that biomass would play a major role in the future climate mitigation. If constrained at the baseline scenario level (due to political or other reasons), mitigation costs would be substantially higher – by 14.0–19.6 B € or 10.8–14.3 €/tCO 2 -eq., over the 2020–2050 time frame. Second, we quantify the importance of each biomass source. We show that woody biomass and bioliquids are the most important biofuels under the high-ambition climate scenario, while biowaste and bioliquids play a key role in the lower ambition pathway. Finally, we analyse the current policy environment in the context of future biomass development and conclude with a set of policy recommendations toward the realization of the biomass potential in Ukraine. We believe that findings presented in the paper would be relevant not only for supporting the decision-making process in Ukraine, but could also provide useful insights for other countries with similar conditions. • Two scenarios with 68% and 83% reduction in GHG emissions in 2050 relative to 2010. • Over 50% of all renewable energy is coming from biomass under both scenarios. • Bioenergy constraint increases mitigation costs by 10.8–14.3 EUR/tCO 2 or 2.4–3.2 times. • No significant impact of the biogas availability on the mitigation costs. • Constraining biowoods , bioliquids or biowaste increases costs by at least 35% each. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]