Reconciling top-down and bottom-up modelling on future bioenergy deployment

By Felix Creutzig, A. Popp, R. Plevin, Gunnar Luderer, J. Minx, Ottmar Edenhofer. 2012

154 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Environmental Engineering, Renewable Energy, Sustainability and the Environment, Water Science and Technology

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/c5b43c762865fde2272708d48bb18bc87c6017b7

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Environmental Engineering

In Renewable Energy, Sustainability and the Environment

In Water Science and Technology

Citations in the corpus

Long-term Transport Energy Demand and Climate Policy: Alternative Visions on Transport Decarbonization in Energy Economy Models (2014, background): “Some authors have argued, however, that due to direct and indirect land-use change effects, emission reductions from biomass might be much smaller than expected [52]–[55].”
Negative emissions—Part 3: Innovation and upscaling (2018, background): “…it less acceptable than CCS. Open issues in accounting of land-use change emissions render the climate benefits of bioenergy and BECCS highly uncertain (Creutzig et al 2012, Plevin et al 2014); this uncertainty in climate benefits translates directly into investment uncertainty into BECCS as a NET.”
The Emissions Gap Report 2012 (2012, background): “Many IAMs do not yet fully represent relevant processes that may limit the availability of bioenergy (Creutzig et al., 2012).”
Integrating Global Climate Change Mitigation Goals with Other Sustainability Objectives: A Synthesis (2015, unknown): “The latter could, for instance, cce ss p r ov given the uncertainties involved (24, 27, 29, 67, 102–105).”
Land-use transition for bioenergy and climate stabilization: model comparison of drivers, impacts and interactions with other land use based mitigation options (2014, background): “Most analyses so far have been single-model studies (e.g.Popp et al. 2011a, van Vuuren et al. 2009, Wise et al. 2009) that do not accommodate a comparison of the various models’ land use drivers, assumptions and impacts of large scale bioenergy deployment in a consistent way (Creutzig et al. 2012).”
Using Attributional Life Cycle Assessment to Estimate Climate‐Change Mitigation Benefits Misleads Policy Makers (2014, background): “In fact, the more comprehensive the consideration of consequential effects, the more uncertain are 78 Journal of Industrial Ecology the results (Creutzig et al. 2012), with the result that no model should be expected to produce a single, definitive quantitative assessment of environmental outcomes…”
2 °C and SDGs: united they stand, divided they fall? (2016, methodology): “It is highly debated in the literature whether these can be provided sustainably: food security, place-specific livelihoods, water availability and biodiversity are amongst the critical issues being discussed (Creutzig et al 2012, Smith et al 2014).”
Inventories and scenarios of nitrous oxide emissions (2014, methodology): “Using this approach, N2O emissions were estimated to be 0.08–4.9 Tg N2O-N yr −1, depending on the amount of land devoted to biofuel crop cultivation, with a central estimate of 0.5 Tg N2O-N yr −1 based on the mean of the cluster of land-use estimates cited in Creutzig et al (2012).”
Making or breaking climate targets: : The AMPERE study on staged accession scenarios for climate policy (2015, unknown): “However, a few models show substantial carbon leakage via coal and uranium markets [34] and uncertainty about carbon leakage effects through bioenergy markets [38,73].”
Quantifying the potential for climate change mitigation of consumption options (2020, background): “If system boundaries are expanded to include indirect LUC, physical land constraints from food and feed, and biodiversity conservation as well as the temporal effects on natural carbon stocks, biofuels are revealed as less attractive if not detrimental option for climate change mitigation [84, 85].”