Literature DB >> 31073254

Electric sector policy, technological change, and U.S. emissions reductions goals: Results from the EMF 32 model intercomparison project.

John E Bistline1, Elke Hodson2, Charles G Rossmann3, Jared Creason4, Brian Murray5, Alexander R Barron6.   

Abstract

The Energy Modeling Forum (EMF) 32 study compares a range of coordinated scenarios to explore implications of U.S. climate policy options and technological change on the electric power sector. Harmonized policy scenarios (including mass-based emissions limits and various power-sector-only carbon tax trajectories) across 16 models provide comparative assessments of potential impacts on electric sector investment and generation outcomes, emissions reductions, and economic implications. This paper compares results across these policy alternatives, including a variety of technological and natural gas price assumptions, and summarizes robust findings and areas of disagreement across participating models. Under a wide range of policy, technology, and market assumptions, model results suggest that future coal generation will decline relative to current levels while generation from natural gas, wind, and solar will increase, though the pace and extent of these changes vary by policy scenario, technological assumptions, region, and model. Climate policies can amplify trends already under way and make them less susceptible to future market changes. The model results provide useful insights to a range of stakeholders, but future research focused on intersectoral linkages in emission reductions (e.g., the role of electrification), effects of energy storage, and better coverage of bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) can improve insights even further.

Entities:  

Keywords:  C6; Climate policy; Electric sector; Energy-economic modeling; L94; Market-based environmental policy; Model intercomparison; Q41; Q42; Q48; Q55; Technology

Year:  2018        PMID: 31073254      PMCID: PMC6503684          DOI: 10.1016/j.eneco.2018.04.012

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Energy Econ        ISSN: 0140-9883


  7 in total

1.  Greater focus needed on methane leakage from natural gas infrastructure.

Authors:  Ramón A Alvarez; Stephen W Pacala; James J Winebrake; William L Chameides; Steven P Hamburg
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2012-04-09       Impact factor: 11.205

2.  Damage cost of the Dan River coal ash spill.

Authors:  A Dennis Lemly
Journal:  Environ Pollut       Date:  2014-12-09       Impact factor: 8.071

3.  Our knowledge of the world is often not simple: policymakers should not duck that fact, but should deal with it.

Authors:  M Granger Morgan
Journal:  Risk Anal       Date:  2015-01-12       Impact factor: 4.000

4.  Wildlife and the coal waste policy debate: proposed rules for coal waste disposal ignore lessons from 45 years of wildlife poisoning.

Authors:  A Dennis Lemly; Joseph P Skorupa
Journal:  Environ Sci Technol       Date:  2012-08-09       Impact factor: 9.028

5.  INTRODUCTION TO THE EMF 32 STUDY ON U.S. CARBON TAX SCENARIOS.

Authors:  Allen A Fawcett; James R McFarland; Adele C Morris; John P Weyant
Journal:  Clim Chang Econ (Singap)       Date:  2018-03-20

6.  Co-benefits of Global Greenhouse Gas Mitigation for Future Air Quality and Human Health.

Authors:  J Jason West; Steven J Smith; Raquel A Silva; Vaishali Naik; Yuqiang Zhang; Zachariah Adelman; Meridith M Fry; Susan Anenberg; Larry W Horowitz; Jean-Francois Lamarque
Journal:  Nat Clim Chang       Date:  2013-10-01

7.  An Analysis of Costs and Health Co-Benefits for a U.S. Power Plant Carbon Standard.

Authors:  Jonathan J Buonocore; Kathleen F Lambert; Dallas Burtraw; Samantha Sekar; Charles T Driscoll
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-06-07       Impact factor: 3.240

  7 in total
  5 in total

1.  Implications of variations in renewable cost projections for electric sector decarbonization in the United States.

Authors:  John E T Bistline; Robin Bedilion; Naga Srujana Goteti; Neil Kern
Journal:  iScience       Date:  2022-05-13

2.  Could congressionally mandated incentives lead to deployment of large-scale CO2 capture, facilities for enhanced oil recovery CO2 markets and geologic CO2 storage?

Authors:  James Edmonds; Christopher Nichols; Misha Adamantiades; John Bistline; Jonathan Huster; Gokul Iyer; Nils Johnson; Pralit Patel; Sharon Showalter; Nadja Victor; Stephanie Waldhoff; Marshall Wise; Frances Wood
Journal:  Energy Policy       Date:  2020       Impact factor: 7.576

3.  POLICY INSIGHTS FROM THE EMF 32 STUDY ON U.S. CARBON TAX SCENARIOS.

Authors:  Alexander R Barron; Allen A Fawcett; Marc A C Hafstead; James R McFarland; Adele C Morris
Journal:  Clim Chang Econ (Singap)       Date:  2018-03-20

4.  The role of natural gas in reaching net-zero emissions in the electric sector.

Authors:  John E T Bistline; David T Young
Journal:  Nat Commun       Date:  2022-08-12       Impact factor: 17.694

5.  Impact of carbon dioxide removal technologies on deep decarbonization of the electric power sector.

Authors:  John E T Bistline; Geoffrey J Blanford
Journal:  Nat Commun       Date:  2021-06-17       Impact factor: 14.919

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.