4.8 Article

Energy requirements and carbon emissions for a low-carbon energy transition

期刊

NATURE COMMUNICATIONS
卷 13, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41467-022-33976-5

关键词

-

资金

  1. la Caixa Foundation [100010434, LCF/BQ/IN17/11620039]
  2. Maria de Maeztu Unit of Excellence grant from the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation [CEX2019-000940-M]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Achieving the Paris Agreement requires massive deployment of low-carbon energy, but the transition itself may consume energy and result in substantial carbon emissions. Research finds that the transition will decrease the available net energy and increase the carbon emissions from the energy system.
Achieving the Paris Agreement will require massive deployment of low-carbon energy. However, constructing, operating, and maintaining a low-carbon energy system will itself require energy, with much of it derived from fossil fuels. This raises the concern that the transition may consume much of the energy available to society, and be a source of considerable emissions. Here we calculate the energy requirements and emissions associated with the global energy system in fourteen mitigation pathways compatible with 1.5 degrees C of warming. We find that the initial push for a transition is likely to cause a 10-34% decline in net energy available to society. Moreover, we find that the carbon emissions associated with the transition to a low-carbon energy system are substantial, ranging from 70 to 395 GtCO(2) (with a cross-scenario average of 195 GtCO(2)). The share of carbon emissions for the energy system will increase from 10% today to 27% in 2050, and in some cases may take up all remaining emissions available to society under 1.5 degrees C pathways. A low-carbon energy transition consistent with 1.5 degrees C of warming may result in substantial carbon emissions. Moreover, the initial push to substitute fossil fuels with low-carbon alternatives will reduce the net energy available to society.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据