Bioenergy in energy transformation and climate management

By S. Rose, Elmar Kriegler, Ruben Bibas, Katherine Calvin, A. Popp, D. V. van Vuuren, John P. Weyant. Climatic Change, 2014

196 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Biomedical Engineering, Environmental Engineering, Renewable Energy, Sustainability and the Environment

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/d02fadeaef72c33ce4b5075949ed2784c4f8600d

How researchers see this paper

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

In Biomedical Engineering

1. M. Junginger
2. André P. C. Faaij
3. S. Barrett
4. Mark D. Staples
5. R. Malina
6. John P. Weyant
7. R. Pietzcker

In Environmental Engineering

1. Pete Smith
2. Gunnar Luderer
3. Volker Krey
4. Felix Creutzig
5. D. V. van Vuuren
6. Elmar Kriegler
7. R. Pietzcker
8. D. P. Vuuren

In Renewable Energy, Sustainability and the Environment

1. Gunnar Luderer
2. Volker Krey
3. Keywan Riahi
4. Felix Creutzig
5. D. V. van Vuuren
6. David McCollum
7. Elmar Kriegler
8. D. P. Vuuren

Citations in the corpus

• Shared Socio-Economic Pathways of the Energy Sector – Quantifying the Narratives (2017, unknown): “Moreover, as in previous studies (Rose et al., 2013) the allocation of bio-energy is dominated by liquid fuel production rather than power generation.”
• Negative emissions—Part 1: Research landscape and synthesis (2018, background): “…pathways: (1) the exploration of the impact of excluding individual technologiesor technology clusters (Krey et al 2014, Kriegler et al 2016, Rose et al 2014, Kriegler et al 2014), and (2) the exploration of the impact of less optimal policy trajectories (delayed action; fragmented action)…”
• Negative emissions—Part 3: Innovation and upscaling (2018, background): “However, since so few plants and infrastructure have actually been built, projections rely on models (Azar et al 2013, Kriegler et al 2013, van Vuuren et al 2013, Klein et al 2014, Rose et al 2014) and in exceptional cases on expert elicitations (Vaughan and Gough 2016).”
• Fossil-fueled development (SSP5): An energy and resource intensive scenario for the 21st century (2017, unknown): “Emissions in the land-use and energy sectors are interlinked by overarching climate policy objectives and the deployment of bioenergy (Klein et al., 2014b; Popp et al., 2014a; Rose et al., 2014).”
• Land-use transition for bioenergy and climate stabilization: model comparison of drivers, impacts and interactions with other land use based mitigation options (2014, methodology): “See Rose et al. (2013) for additional analysis of global bioenergy deployment for these and other models.”
• Cost optimization of biofuel production – The impact of scale, integration, transport and supply chain configurations (2017, background): “Bioenergy is expected to have a significant contribution in climate change mitigation strategies, especially for electricity, liquid fuel and biochemical purposes [1].”
• Integrated assessment of biomass supply and demand in climate change mitigation scenarios (2019, background): “This finding is consistent with several other IAM models (Popp et al., 2014; Rose et al., 2014).”
• The role of renewable energy in climate stabilization: results from the EMF27 scenarios (2014, background): “Rose et al. (2013) provide an in-depth discussion of bioenergy use in the EMF27 scenarios.”
• Transport electrification: A key element for energy system transformation and climate stabilization (2014, background): “(See Grahn et al. (2007), Rose et al. (2013), and Calvin et al. (2013) for cross-model comparisons on this topic.)”
• A multi-model assessment of food security implications of climate change mitigation (2019, unknown): “47 48 Acknowledgement; 49 SFu, TH, and KT are supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grant Number JP16K18177, JSPS 50 Overseas Research Fellowships, and the Environment Research and Technology 51 Development Fund (2-1702) of the Environmental Restoration and Conservation Agency of 52 Japan.”