The role of bioenergy in Ukraine's climate mitigation policy by 2050
被引:7
|
作者:
Chepeliev, Maksym
论文数: 0引用数: 0
h-index: 0
机构:
Purdue Univ, Ctr Global Trade Anal, Dept Agr Econ, 403 West State St,KRAN 684, W Lafayette, IN 47907 USAPurdue Univ, Ctr Global Trade Anal, Dept Agr Econ, 403 West State St,KRAN 684, W Lafayette, IN 47907 USA
Chepeliev, Maksym
[1
]
Diachuk, Oleksandr
论文数: 0引用数: 0
h-index: 0
机构:
Ukrainian Natl Acad Sci, Inst Econ & Forecasting, Kiev, UkrainePurdue Univ, Ctr Global Trade Anal, Dept Agr Econ, 403 West State St,KRAN 684, W Lafayette, IN 47907 USA
Diachuk, Oleksandr
[2
]
论文数: 引用数:
h-index:
机构:
Podolets, Roman
[2
]
论文数: 引用数:
h-index:
机构:
Trypolska, Galyna
[2
]
机构:
[1] Purdue Univ, Ctr Global Trade Anal, Dept Agr Econ, 403 West State St,KRAN 684, W Lafayette, IN 47907 USA
The development of renewable energy sources (RES) is considered to be a key instrument in addressing climate change. However, different RES have different potential and economic feasibility depending on country-specific conditions and mitigation ambitions. Understanding the relative importance of each RES could help policymakers focus their efforts on the most promising options. In this paper, we focus on Ukraine and explore the potential of biomass use under two mitigation scenarios - with 68% and 83% of greenhouse gas emissions reduction in 2050 relative to the 2010 level. First, using the TIMES-Ukraine energy system model, we show that biomass would play a major role in the future climate mitigation. If constrained at the baseline scenario level (due to political or other reasons), mitigation costs would be substantially higher - by 14.0-19.6 B euro or 10.8-14.3 euro /tCO2-eq., over the 2020-2050 time frame. Second, we quantify the importance of each biomass source. We show that woody biomass and bioliquids are the most important biofuels under the high-ambition climate scenario, while biowaste and bioliquids play a key role in the lower ambition pathway. Finally, we analyse the current policy environment in the context of future biomass development and conclude with a set of policy recommendations toward the realization of the biomass potential in Ukraine. We believe that findings presented in the paper would be relevant not only for supporting the decision-making process in Ukraine, but could also provide useful insights for other countries with similar conditions.