Do current energy policies in Germany promote the use of biomass in areas where it is particularly beneficial to the system? Analysing short- and long-term energy scenarios

IF 4.6 3区 工程技术 Q2 ENERGY & FUELS Energy, Sustainability and Society Pub Date : 2024-06-10 DOI:10.1186/s13705-024-00464-1
Matthias Jordan, Kathleen Meisel, Martin Dotzauer, Harry Schindler, Jörg Schröder, Karl-Friedrich Cyffka, Niels Dögnitz, Karin Naumann, Christopher Schmid, Volker Lenz, Jaqueline Daniel-Gromke, Gabriel Costa de Paiva, Danial Esmaeili Aliabadi, Nora Szarka, Daniela Thrän
{"title":"Do current energy policies in Germany promote the use of biomass in areas where it is particularly beneficial to the system? Analysing short- and long-term energy scenarios","authors":"Matthias Jordan,&nbsp;Kathleen Meisel,&nbsp;Martin Dotzauer,&nbsp;Harry Schindler,&nbsp;Jörg Schröder,&nbsp;Karl-Friedrich Cyffka,&nbsp;Niels Dögnitz,&nbsp;Karin Naumann,&nbsp;Christopher Schmid,&nbsp;Volker Lenz,&nbsp;Jaqueline Daniel-Gromke,&nbsp;Gabriel Costa de Paiva,&nbsp;Danial Esmaeili Aliabadi,&nbsp;Nora Szarka,&nbsp;Daniela Thrän","doi":"10.1186/s13705-024-00464-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Policymakers are tasked with both driving the rapid expansion of renewable energy technologies and, additionally channelling the limited national potential of biomass into areas where it can provide the greatest benefit to the energy system. But do current policy instruments promote the use of biomass in these areas? As biomass is limited, its use must be sustainable without leading to further biodiversity loss or depleting forest or soil resources. In this study, short-term energy scenarios are generated using the BenOpt model, which take into account both current and alternative policy instruments under limited biomass utilisation. The results are compared with long-term, cost-optimal energy scenarios for the use of biomass.</p><h3>Results</h3><p>The analysis reveals that the instrument of a GHG quota does not promote the use of biofuels in hard-to-electrify areas of the transport sector, where they should be cost-optimally allocated according to long-term energy scenarios. Biofuels are promoted for use in passenger road transport and not in the shipping or aviation sector. In contrast, alternative policy scenarios indicate that the sole instrument of a high CO2 price is more conducive to direct electrification and could displace more fossil fuels by 2030 than the GHG quota alone. This instrument also promotes the optimal use of biogas plants in the power sector in accordance with long-term cost-optimal developments.</p><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>The instrument of a GHG quota might lead to counterproductive developments in passenger road transport, but it also helps to ramp up the biofuel capacities required in shipping and aviation in the long term. However, it does not provide the necessary incentives for the ramp-up of battery electric vehicles, which would be the cost optimal solution in passenger road transport according to the long-term scenarios. Even though alternative policy scenarios show that the sole instrument of a high CO2-price is more conducive to direct electrification, a high CO2 price alone is not enough (e.g. in the heat sector) to promote the efficient use of biomass instead of simply covering the base load demand.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":539,"journal":{"name":"Energy, Sustainability and Society","volume":"14 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://energsustainsoc.biomedcentral.com/counter/pdf/10.1186/s13705-024-00464-1","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Energy, Sustainability and Society","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s13705-024-00464-1","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ENERGY & FUELS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Policymakers are tasked with both driving the rapid expansion of renewable energy technologies and, additionally channelling the limited national potential of biomass into areas where it can provide the greatest benefit to the energy system. But do current policy instruments promote the use of biomass in these areas? As biomass is limited, its use must be sustainable without leading to further biodiversity loss or depleting forest or soil resources. In this study, short-term energy scenarios are generated using the BenOpt model, which take into account both current and alternative policy instruments under limited biomass utilisation. The results are compared with long-term, cost-optimal energy scenarios for the use of biomass.

Results

The analysis reveals that the instrument of a GHG quota does not promote the use of biofuels in hard-to-electrify areas of the transport sector, where they should be cost-optimally allocated according to long-term energy scenarios. Biofuels are promoted for use in passenger road transport and not in the shipping or aviation sector. In contrast, alternative policy scenarios indicate that the sole instrument of a high CO2 price is more conducive to direct electrification and could displace more fossil fuels by 2030 than the GHG quota alone. This instrument also promotes the optimal use of biogas plants in the power sector in accordance with long-term cost-optimal developments.

Conclusions

The instrument of a GHG quota might lead to counterproductive developments in passenger road transport, but it also helps to ramp up the biofuel capacities required in shipping and aviation in the long term. However, it does not provide the necessary incentives for the ramp-up of battery electric vehicles, which would be the cost optimal solution in passenger road transport according to the long-term scenarios. Even though alternative policy scenarios show that the sole instrument of a high CO2-price is more conducive to direct electrification, a high CO2 price alone is not enough (e.g. in the heat sector) to promote the efficient use of biomass instead of simply covering the base load demand.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
德国目前的能源政策是否促进在对系统特别有利的领域使用生物质?分析短期和长期能源方案
背景政策制定者的任务既包括推动可再生能源技术的快速发展,也包括将全国有限的生物质能潜力引导到能为能源系统带来最大利益的领域。但目前的政策工具是否促进了生物质在这些领域的使用?由于生物质是有限的,其使用必须是可持续的,不会导致生物多样性进一步丧失或森林或土壤资源枯竭。在本研究中,使用 BenOpt 模型生成了短期能源情景,其中考虑了生物质利用有限情况下的现行政策工具和替代政策工具。结果分析表明,温室气体配额工具并不能促进生物燃料在交通部门难以电气化领域的使用,在这些领域,生物燃料应该根据长期能源方案进行成本优化分配。生物燃料被推广用于公路客运,而不是海运或航空部门。与此相反,其他政策方案表明,高二氧化碳价格这一唯一手段更有利于直接电气化,到 2030 年可取代更多化石燃料,而不仅仅是温室气体配额。结论温室气体配额可能会导致公路客运的反向发展,但从长远来看,也有助于提高航运和航空业所需的生物燃料产能。然而,它并没有为电池电动汽车的推广提供必要的激励,而根据长期方案,电池电动汽车将是公路客运成本最优的解决方案。尽管其他政策方案显示,仅靠高二氧化碳价格更有利于直接电气化,但仅靠高二氧化碳价格还不足以(例如在供热领域)促进生物质的有效利用,而不是仅仅满足基本负荷需求。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Energy, Sustainability and Society
Energy, Sustainability and Society Energy-Energy Engineering and Power Technology
CiteScore
9.60
自引率
4.10%
发文量
45
审稿时长
13 weeks
期刊介绍: Energy, Sustainability and Society is a peer-reviewed open access journal published under the brand SpringerOpen. It covers topics ranging from scientific research to innovative approaches for technology implementation to analysis of economic, social and environmental impacts of sustainable energy systems.
期刊最新文献
Safe-and-sustainable-by-design redox active molecules for energy storage applications No easy way out: towards a framework concept of long-term governance Development of a GIS-based register of biogas plant sites in Lower Saxony, Germany: a foundation for identifying P2G potential Correction: Energy efficiency as a driver of the circular economy and carbon neutrality in selected countries of Southern Europe: a soft computing approach Empirical case study of a digitally enabled energy community with prosumers and P2P trading
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1