Energy Transition

Abstract: If goals set under the Paris Agreement are met, the world may hold warming well below 2°C; however, parties are not on track to deliver these commitments, increasing focus on policy implementation to close the gap between ambition and action. Recently, the US government passed its most prominent piece of climate legislation to date—the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (IRA)—designed to invest in a wide range of programs that, among other provisions, incentivize clean energy and carbon management, encourage electrification and efficiency measures, reduce methane emissions, promote domestic supply chains, and address environmental justice concerns. IRA’s scope and complexity make modeling important to understand impacts on emissions and energy systems. We leverage results from nine independent, state-of-the-art models to examine potential implications of key IRA provisions, showing economy-wide emissions reductions between 43 and 48% below 2005 levels by 2035.

This multimodel analysis provides a range of decision-relevant information. For example, international policy-makers and negotiators need to track progress toward Paris Agreement pledges, and assessing IRA’s impacts is important to monitor US efforts and to provide a template for measuring the performance of other sectors and jurisdictions. Federal and state policy-makers can use this IRA analysis to compare updated baselines with policy targets—for emissions, electric vehicle deployment, and others—to understand the magnitude of additional policies and private-sector actions needed to narrow implementation gaps. Electric companies need to know how long IRA incentives will be available, because these subsidies can continue until electricity emissions are below 25% of their 2022 levels, which requires national models to evaluate. Industry- and technology-specific deployment can support investors, technology developers, researchers, and companies to quantify market opportunities.

Abstract: To limit global warming to well below 2°C, immediate emissions reductions must be coupled with active removal of greenhouse gases from the atmosphere. ‘Natural Climate Solutions’ (NCS) achieve atmospheric CO2 reduction through the conservation, restoration or altered management of natural ecosystems with enormous potential to deliver ‘win-win-win’ outcomes for climate, nature and society. Yet the supply of high-quality NCS projects does not meet market demand, and projects already underway often fail to deliver their promised benefits, due to a complex set of interacting ecological, social and financial constraints. How can these cross-sectoral challenges be surmounted?

Here we draw from expert elicitation surveys and workshops with professionals across the ecological, sociological and economic sciences, evaluating differing perspectives on NCS, and suggesting how these might be integrated to address urgent environmental challenges. We demonstrate that funders’ perceptions of operational, political and regulatory risk strongly shape the kinds of NCS projects that are implemented, and the locations where they occur. Because of this, greenhouse gas removal through NCS may fall far short of technical potential. Moreover, socioecological co-benefits of NCS are unlikely to be realized unless the local communities engaged with these projects are granted ownership over implementation and outcomes.

Abstract: Hydrogen is increasingly being seized upon as a widespread decarbonization solution. There are a number of potential applications for hydrogen and investments are being funneled into demonstration projects. In this thesis work I explore the economic competitiveness of hydrogen in two heavy industry applications; steelmaking and high temperature heating. These processes rely on fossil fuels for multiple attributes and there is not another low carbon alternative fuel that has all of these characteristics. I find that in all regions, low carbon hydrogen production costs are currently more expensive than fossil fuels. High temperature heating with hydrogen increases the cost of clinker by 58-225%, and raw glass by 16-73%. Applications of hydrogen in steelmaking increase steel costs by 24-90%. Cost ranges represent the different costs when using Blue or Green H2. As a competing low carbon steel production pathway, I also assessed steelmaking with CCS which increased steelmaking costs by (∼14%). Using the MIT Economic Projection and Policy Analysis (EPPA) model, I examined the deployment of H2 based steelmaking and steelmaking with CCS under a deep decarbonization policy scenario. Results show that at current costs deployment is limited prior to 2050. However, if costs are reduced then these technologies can deploy rapidly (achieving up to 100% of the share of global steel production by 2050). Adoption of decarbonization technologies is regionally specific and there can be regional advantages to deploying certain production pathways.

Highlights

  • The efficiency benefit of carbon pricing exhibits diminishing marginal returns.

  • Modest carbon pricing delivers relatively large efficiency improvements.

  • Partial reliance on clean energy standards entails a relatively small efficiency loss.

  • Policy mixes combining standards and pricing can be near-cost-optimal.

  • Policy mixes allow policy makers to leverage the distinct advantages of each policy.

 

Abstract

A matter of debate in climate policy is whether lawmakers should rely on carbon pricing or regulations, such as low-carbon standards, to reach emission reduction goals. Past research showed that pricing is more cost-effective. However, previous work studied the two policies when implemented separately, in effect comparing two policy extremes. In contrast, we explore the full spectrum of climate policy mixes that include both types of policies but vary in how much they rely on each. We do this both analytically by extending previous theory and numerically with two energy system models.

In line with past work, increasing reliance on pricing increases the cost-effectiveness of the policy mix. However, we show that this benefit exhibits diminishing marginal returns. Thus the gain in cost-effectiveness from complementing stringent standards with modest pricing is relatively large. Our results show that relying on pricing for 20% of emission reductions (and on a standard for 80%) reduces costs by 32%–57% compared to a standard-only approach. Importantly, trading off more of the standard for pricing delivers smaller and smaller gains in cost-effectiveness. For example, a policy mix that relies on each policy for 50% of emission reductions decreases costs by 60%–81%, which is already 71%–88% as cost-effective as the theoretically most cost-effective pricing-only policy.

Abstract: About 140 countries have announced or are considering net zero targets. To explore the implications of such targets, we apply an integrated earth system–economic model to investigate illustrative net zero emissions scenarios.

Given the technologies as characterized in our modeling framework, we find that with net zero targets, afforestation in earlier years and biomass energy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) technology in later years are important negative emissions technologies, allowing continued emissions from hard-to-reduce sectors and sources.

With the entire world achieving net zero by 2050 a very rapid scale-up of BECCS is required, increasing mitigation costs through mid-century substantially, compared with a scenario where some countries achieve net zero by 2050 while others continue some emissions in the latter half of the century. The scenarios slightly overshoot 1.5 degrees C at mid-century but are at or below 1.5 degrees C by 2100 with median climate response.

Pages

Subscribe to Energy Transition