IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/enejou/v35y2014i1_supplp229-247.html

Impacts of Technology Uncertainty on Energy Use, Emission and Abatement Cost in USA: Simulation results from Environment Canada’s Integrated Assessment Model

Author

Listed:
  • Yunfa Zhu
  • Madanmohan Ghosh

Abstract

To what extent could various technological advancements in the coming decades potentially help greenhouse gas mitigation in the U.S.? What could the potential contribution of end-use technology and other key clean electric energy technologies such as CCS, Nuclear power, wind & solar, and biomass be? This paper presents simulation results from an Integrated Assessment Model that suggest that, in the absence of policy measures, even under the most optimistic state of technology development and deployment scenarios, the U.S. energy system would still be dominated by fossil fuels and GHG emissions would increase significantly between 2010 and 2050. A pessimistic scenario in end-use technology would result in increased electric and non-electric energy use and GHG emissions compared to the advanced technology scenario, while a pessimistic scenario in any one of the four clean technologies examined would result in reduced electric and non-electric energy use and a small increase in GHG emissions. However, if all technologies are in pessimistic status, GHG emissions would increase significantly as more fossil fuels would be used in the energy system. Technology alone cannot achieve the abatement levels required. A market-based policy targeting the reduction of U.S. GHG emissions to 50% below 2005 levels by 2050 would result in dramatic decrease in coal-fired generation. With abatement policies in place, favorable technology scenarios reduce abatement costs and facilitate the energy system transition from fossil fuels to clean energy.

Suggested Citation

  • Yunfa Zhu & Madanmohan Ghosh, 2014. "Impacts of Technology Uncertainty on Energy Use, Emission and Abatement Cost in USA: Simulation results from Environment Canada’s Integrated Assessment Model," The Energy Journal, , vol. 35(1_suppl), pages 229-247, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:enejou:v:35:y:2014:i:1_suppl:p:229-247
    DOI: 10.5547/01956574.35.SI1.12
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.5547/01956574.35.SI1.12
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.5547/01956574.35.SI1.12?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Massimo Tavoni & Enrica Cian & Gunnar Luderer & Jan Steckel & Henri Waisman, 2012. "The value of technology and of its evolution towards a low carbon economy," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 114(1), pages 39-57, September.
    2. Elizabeth Stanton, 2011. "Negishi welfare weights in integrated assessment models: the mathematics of global inequality," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 107(3), pages 417-432, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. repec:aen:journl:ej35-si1-12 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Fujii, Hidemichi & Managi, Shunsuke, 2013. "Which industry is greener? An empirical study of nine industries in OECD countries," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 381-388.
    3. Awaworyi Churchill, Sefa & Inekwe, John & Smyth, Russell & Zhang, Xibin, 2019. "R&D intensity and carbon emissions in the G7: 1870–2014," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 30-37.
    4. Yang, Lin & Hou, Huiyun & Lv, Haodong & Wu, Guanqi & Xu, Bang & Li, Yiming, 2025. "Exploring the development path of bioenergy carbon capture and storage for achieving carbon neutrality in China: A systematic review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 216(C).
    5. Michael Hoel & Sverre A.C. Kittelsen & Snorre Kverndokk, 2015. "Pareto Improving Climate Policies: Distributing the Benefits across Generations and Regions," CESifo Working Paper Series 5487, CESifo.
    6. Criqui, P. & Mima, S. & Menanteau, P. & Kitous, A., 2015. "Mitigation strategies and energy technology learning: An assessment with the POLES model," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 90(PA), pages 119-136.
    7. Stern, Nicholas, 2014. "Ethics, equity and the economics of climate change paper 2: economics and politics," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 62704, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    8. Hanna Obracht-Prondzyńska & Ewa Duda & Helena Anacka & Jolanta Kowal, 2022. "Greencoin as an AI-Based Solution Shaping Climate Awareness," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(18), pages 1-25, September.
    9. Waisman, Henri & Rozenberg, Julie & Hourcade, Jean Charles, 2013. "Monetary compensations in climate policy through the lens of a general equilibrium assessment: The case of oil-exporting countries," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 951-961.
    10. He, Xu & Sun, Shiquan & Leong, Lin Woon & Cong, Phan The & Abu-Rumman, Ayman & Halteh, Khaled, 2023. "Does clean energy and technological innovation matter for economic growth? An Asian countries perspective," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 1195-1208.
    11. John M. Gowdy, 2013. "Valuing nature for climate change policy: from discounting the future to truly social deliberation," Chapters, in: Roger Fouquet (ed.), Handbook on Energy and Climate Change, chapter 25, pages 547-560, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    12. Ottmar Edenhofer & Susanne Kadner & Christoph von Stechow & Gregor Schwerhoff & Gunnar Luderer, 2014. "Linking climate change mitigation research to sustainable development," Chapters, in: Giles Atkinson & Simon Dietz & Eric Neumayer & Matthew Agarwala (ed.), Handbook of Sustainable Development, chapter 30, pages 476-499, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    13. Guivarch, Céline & Monjon, Stéphanie, 2017. "Identifying the main uncertainty drivers of energy security in a low-carbon world: The case of Europe," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 530-541.
    14. Chen, Hong & Long, Ruyin & Niu, Wenjing & Feng, Qun & Yang, Ranran, 2014. "How does individual low-carbon consumption behavior occur? – An analysis based on attitude process," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 376-386.
    15. Marcucci, Adriana & Panos, Evangelos & Kypreos, Socrates & Fragkos, Panagiotis, 2019. "Probabilistic assessment of realizing the 1.5 °C climate target," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 239(C), pages 239-251.
    16. Hurlbert, Margot & Osazuwa-Peters, Mac, 2023. "Carbon capture and storage in Saskatchewan: An analysis of communicative practices in a contested technology," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 173(C).
    17. Rising, James A. & Taylor, Charlotte & Ives, Matthew C. & Ward, Robert E.t., 2022. "Challenges and innovations in the economic evaluation of the risks of climate change," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 114941, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    18. Allouch, Nizar & King, Maia, 2021. "Welfare targeting in networks," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 96(C).
    19. Oshiro, Ken & Fujimori, Shinichiro, 2022. "Role of hydrogen-based energy carriers as an alternative option to reduce residual emissions associated with mid-century decarbonization goals," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 313(C).
    20. Yang, F. & Meerman, J.C. & Faaij, A.P.C., 2021. "Carbon capture and biomass in industry: A techno-economic analysis and comparison of negative emission options," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 144(C).
    21. Ingmar Schumacher, 2018. "The Aggregation Dilemma In Climate Change Policy Evaluation," Climate Change Economics (CCE), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 9(03), pages 1-20, August.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:enejou:v:35:y:2014:i:1_suppl:p:229-247. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.