IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/journl/hal-02061441.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The scope for better industry representation in long-term energy models: Modeling the cement industry

Author

Listed:
  • Katerina Kermeli
  • Oreane Edelenbosch
  • Wina Crijns-Graus
  • Bas van Ruijven
  • Silvana Mima

    () (GAEL - Laboratoire d'Economie Appliquée de Grenoble - Grenoble INP - Institut polytechnique de Grenoble - Grenoble Institute of Technology - INRA - Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique - UGA [2016-2019] - Université Grenoble Alpes [2016-2019])

  • Detlef van Vuuren

    (Utrecht University [Utrecht])

  • Ernst Worrell

    (Copernicus Institute for Sustainable Development - Utrecht University [Utrecht])

Abstract

Although the cement industry emits around 6% of global CO2 emissions, most global Integrated Assessment Models (IAMs) barely represent this industrial subsector or do not cover all important processes. This study, describes the state-of-the-art of cement modelling in IAMs, suggests possible improvements and discusses the impacts of these on energy and greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) in the IMAGE global IAM. It is found that two cement-sector specific GHG mitigation measures are often not explicitly accounted for in IAMs, namely: (i) retrofitting and (ii) reducing the clinker to cement ratio. For retrofitting, many measures are identified as cost-effective and when incorporating these in the IMAGE model overall energy use reduces between 2010 and 2035 by 9.8 and 11 EJ (4% and 5%) under the baseline and GHG mitigation scenarios, respectively. When incorporating the clinker to cement ratio by linking material availability to the activities in the steel industry and coal-fired power plants, the 2050 energy use reduces by 15% under the baseline scenario and increases by 9% under the GHG mitigation scenario as fewer coal-fired power plants are in operation. This is even more prominent in the long term. The 2100 energy use is 14% higher in the GHG mitigation scenario as even fewer coal-fired power plants are used drastically limiting the potential for clinker substitution with fly ash. These results highlight the importance of capturing cross-sectoral relationships between industries and of including sector specific mitigation measures in long-term energy models.

Suggested Citation

  • Katerina Kermeli & Oreane Edelenbosch & Wina Crijns-Graus & Bas van Ruijven & Silvana Mima & Detlef van Vuuren & Ernst Worrell, 2019. "The scope for better industry representation in long-term energy models: Modeling the cement industry," Post-Print hal-02061441, HAL.
  • Handle: RePEc:hal:journl:hal-02061441
    DOI: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2019.01.252
    Note: View the original document on HAL open archive server: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-02061441
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Xu, Jin-Hua & Fleiter, Tobias & Eichhammer, Wolfgang & Fan, Ying, 2012. "Energy consumption and CO2 emissions in China's cement industry: A perspective from LMDI decomposition analysis," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 821-832.
    2. Rosen, Richard A. & Guenther, Edeltraud, 2015. "The economics of mitigating climate change: What can we know?," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 93-106.
    3. van Vuuren, D. P. & Strengers, B. J. & De Vries, H. J. M., 1999. "Long-term perspectives on world metal use--a system-dynamics model," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 25(4), pages 239-255, December.
    4. Volker Krey, 2014. "Global energy-climate scenarios and models: a review," Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Energy and Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 3(4), pages 363-383, July.
    5. Akashi, Osamu & Hanaoka, Tatsuya & Matsuoka, Yuzuru & Kainuma, Mikiko, 2011. "A projection for global CO2 emissions from the industrial sector through 2030 based on activity level and technology changes," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 36(4), pages 1855-1867.
    6. Fujimori, Shinichiro & Masui, Toshihiko & Matsuoka, Yuzuru, 2014. "Development of a global computable general equilibrium model coupled with detailed energy end-use technology," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 296-306.
    7. Edelenbosch, O.Y. & Kermeli, K. & Crijns-Graus, W. & Worrell, E. & Bibas, R. & Fais, B. & Fujimori, S. & Kyle, P. & Sano, F. & van Vuuren, D.P., 2017. "Comparing projections of industrial energy demand and greenhouse gas emissions in long-term energy models," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 701-710.
    8. van der Werf, Edwin, 2008. "Production functions for climate policy modeling: An empirical analysis," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(6), pages 2964-2979, November.
    9. Pardo, Nicolás & Moya, José Antonio & Mercier, Arnaud, 2011. "Prospective on the energy efficiency and CO2 emissions in the EU cement industry," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 36(5), pages 3244-3254.
    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. Branger, Frédéric & Quirion, Philippe, 2015. "Reaping the carbon rent: Abatement and overallocation profits in the European cement industry, insights from an LMDI decomposition analysis," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 189-205.
    2. Gao, Tianming & Shen, Lei & Shen, Ming & Liu, Litao & Chen, Fengnan & Gao, Li, 2017. "Evolution and projection of CO2 emissions for China's cement industry from 1980 to 2020," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 522-537.
    3. Mikulčić, Hrvoje & Vujanović, Milan & Fidaros, Dimitris K. & Priesching, Peter & Minić, Ivica & Tatschl, Reinhard & Duić, Neven & Stefanović, Gordana, 2012. "The application of CFD modelling to support the reduction of CO2 emissions in cement industry," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 45(1), pages 464-473.
    4. Edelenbosch, O.Y. & van Vuuren, D.P. & Blok, K. & Calvin, K. & Fujimori, S., 2020. "Mitigating energy demand sector emissions: The integrated modelling perspective," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 261(C).
    5. Ansari, Nastaran & Seifi, Abbas, 2013. "A system dynamics model for analyzing energy consumption and CO2 emission in Iranian cement industry under various production and export scenarios," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 75-89.
    6. Fujimori, S. & Kainuma, M. & Masui, T. & Hasegawa, T. & Dai, H., 2014. "The effectiveness of energy service demand reduction: A scenario analysis of global climate change mitigation," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 379-391.
    7. Xu, Bin & Lin, Boqiang, 2015. "How industrialization and urbanization process impacts on CO2 emissions in China: Evidence from nonparametric additive regression models," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 188-202.
    8. Onat, Nuri Cihat & Kucukvar, Murat, 2020. "Carbon footprint of construction industry: A global review and supply chain analysis," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 124(C).
    9. Hala Abu-Kalla & Ruslana Rachel Palatnik & Ofira Ayalon & Mordechai Shechter, 2020. "Hoard or Exploit? Intergenerational Allocation of Exhaustible Natural Resources," Energies, MDPI, Open Access Journal, vol. 13(24), pages 1-20, December.
    10. Carlo Carraro & Enrica De Cian & Lea Nicita, 2009. "Modeling Biased Technical Change. Implications For Climate Policy," Working Papers 2009_27, Department of Economics, University of Venice "Ca' Foscari".
    11. Thé, Jesse & Yu, Hesheng, 2017. "A critical review on the simulations of wind turbine aerodynamics focusing on hybrid RANS-LES methods," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 138(C), pages 257-289.
    12. Emanuele Massetti & Lea Nicita, 2010. "The Optimal Climate Policy Portfolio when Knowledge Spills across Sectors," CESifo Working Paper Series 2988, CESifo.
    13. Lu, Shibao & Bai, Xiao & Li, Wei & Wang, Ning, 2019. "Impacts of climate change on water resources and grain production," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 143(C), pages 76-84.
    14. Cai, Yiyong & Newth, David & Finnigan, John & Gunasekera, Don, 2015. "A hybrid energy-economy model for global integrated assessment of climate change, carbon mitigation and energy transformation," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 148(C), pages 381-395.
    15. Aaron B. Gertz & James B. Davies & Samantha L. Black, 2019. "A CGE Framework for Modeling the Economics of Flooding and Recovery in a Major Urban Area," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(6), pages 1314-1341, June.
    16. Kun He & Li Wang & Hongliang Zhu & Yulong Ding, 2018. "Energy-Saving Potential of China’s Steel Industry According to Its Development Plan," Energies, MDPI, Open Access Journal, vol. 11(4), pages 1-16, April.
    17. Johnson, Nils & Strubegger, Manfred & McPherson, Madeleine & Parkinson, Simon C. & Krey, Volker & Sullivan, Patrick, 2017. "A reduced-form approach for representing the impacts of wind and solar PV deployment on the structure and operation of the electricity system," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 651-664.
    18. Perrier, Quentin & Quirion, Philippe, 2018. "How shifting investment towards low-carbon sectors impacts employment: Three determinants under scrutiny," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 464-483.
    19. Dai, Hancheng & Mischke, Peggy & Xie, Xuxuan & Xie, Yang & Masui, Toshihiko, 2016. "Closing the gap? Top-down versus bottom-up projections of China’s regional energy use and CO2 emissions," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 162(C), pages 1355-1373.
    20. Trotta, Gianluca, 2020. "Assessing energy efficiency improvements and related energy security and climate benefits in Finland: An ex post multi-sectoral decomposition analysis," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 86(C).

    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:hal:journl:hal-02061441. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (CCSD). General contact details of provider: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/ .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.