• Energy Research
• 11. Sustainability close
• US close
• DE close
• Aurora Universities Network close

Project: Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6) datasets - These data have been generated as part of the internationally-coordinated Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6; see also GMD Special Issue: http://www.geosci-model-dev.net/special_issue590.html). The simulation data provides a basis for climate research designed to answer fundamental science questions and serves as resource for authors of the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC-AR6). CMIP6 is a project coordinated by the Working Group on Coupled Modelling (WGCM) as part of the World Climate Research Programme (WCRP). Phase 6 builds on previous phases executed under the leadership of the Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison (PCMDI) and relies on the Earth System Grid Federation (ESGF) and the Centre for Environmental Data Analysis (CEDA) along with numerous related activities for implementation. The original data is hosted and partially replicated on a federated collection of data nodes, and most of the data relied on by the IPCC is being archived for long-term preservation at the IPCC Data Distribution Centre (IPCC DDC) hosted by the German Climate Computing Center (DKRZ). The project includes simulations from about 120 global climate models and around 45 institutions and organizations worldwide. Summary: These data include the subset used by IPCC AR6 WGI authors of the datasets originally published in ESGF for 'CMIP6.AerChemMIP.HAMMOZ-Consortium.MPI-ESM-1-2-HAM' with the full Data Reference Syntax following the template 'mip_era.activity_id.institution_id.source_id.experiment_id.member_id.table_id.variable_id.grid_label.version'. The MPI-ESM1.2-HAM climate model, released in 2017, includes the following components: aerosol: HAM2.3, atmos: ECHAM6.3 (spectral T63; 192 x 96 longitude/latitude; 47 levels; top level 0.01 hPa), atmosChem: sulfur chemistry (unnamed), land: JSBACH 3.20, ocean: MPIOM1.63 (bipolar GR1.5, approximately 1.5deg; 256 x 220 longitude/latitude; 40 levels; top grid cell 0-12 m), ocnBgchem: HAMOCC6, seaIce: unnamed (thermodynamic (Semtner zero-layer) dynamic (Hibler 79) sea ice model). The model was run by the ETH Zurich, Switzerland; Max Planck Institut fur Meteorologie, Germany; Forschungszentrum Julich, Germany; University of Oxford, UK; Finnish Meteorological Institute, Finland; Leibniz Institute for Tropospheric Research, Germany; Center for Climate Systems Modeling (C2SM) at ETH Zurich, Switzerland (HAMMOZ-Consortium) in native nominal resolutions: aerosol: 250 km, atmos: 250 km, atmosChem: 250 km, land: 250 km, ocean: 250 km, ocnBgchem: 250 km, seaIce: 250 km.

Abstract. Reliable quantification of the sources and sinks of greenhouse gases, together with trends and uncertainties, is essential to monitoring the progress in mitigating anthropogenic emissions under the Paris Agreement. This study provides a consolidated synthesis of CH4 and N2O emissions with consistently derived state-of-the-art bottom-up (BU) and top-down (TD) data sources for the European Union and UK (EU27+UK). We integrate recent emission inventory data, ecosystem process-based model results, and inverse modelling estimates over the period 1990–2018. BU and TD products are compared with European National GHG Inventories (NGHGI) reported to the UN climate convention secretariat UNFCCC in 2019. For uncertainties, we used for NGHGI the standard deviation obtained by varying parameters of inventory calculations, reported by the Member States following the IPCC guidelines recommendations. For atmospheric inversion models (TD) or other inventory datasets (BU), we defined uncertainties from the spread between different model estimates or model specific uncertainties when reported. In comparing NGHGI with other approaches, a key source of bias is the activities included, e.g. anthropogenic versus anthropogenic plus natural fluxes. In inversions, the separation between anthropogenic and natural emissions is sensitive to the geospatial prior distribution of emissions. Over the 2011–2015 period, which is the common denominator of data availability between all sources, the anthropogenic BU approaches are directly comparable, reporting mean emissions of 20.8 Tg CH4 yr−1 (EDGAR v5.0) and 19.0 Tg CH4 yr−1 (GAINS), consistent with the NGHGI estimates of 18.9 ± 1.7 Tg CH4 yr−1. TD total inversions estimates give higher emission estimates, as they also include natural emissions. Over the same period regional TD inversions with higher resolution atmospheric transport models give a mean emission of 28.8 Tg CH4 yr−1. Coarser resolution global TD inversions are consistent with regional TD inversions, for global inversions with GOSAT satellite data (23.3 Tg CH4yr−1) and surface network (24.4 Tg CH4 yr−1). The magnitude of natural peatland emissions from the JSBACH-HIMMELI model, natural rivers and lakes emissions and geological sources together account for the gap between NGHGI and inversions and account for 5.2 Tg CH4 yr−1. For N2O emissions, over the 2011–2015 period, both BU approaches (EDGAR v5.0 and GAINS) give a mean value of anthropogenic emissions of 0.8 and 0.9 Tg N2O yr−1 respectively, agreeing with the NGHGI data (0.9 ± 0.6 Tg N2O yr−1). Over the same period, the average of the three total TD global and regional inversions was 1.3 ± 0.4 and 1.3 ± 0.1 Tg N2O yr−1 respectively, compared to 0.9 Tg N2O yr−1 from the BU data. The TU and BU comparison method defined in this study can be operationalized for future yearly updates for the calculation of CH4 and N2O budgets both at EU+UK scale and at national scale. The referenced datasets related to figures are visualized at https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4288969 (Petrescu et al., 2020).

Abstract. Regional land carbon budgets provide insights on the spatial distribution of the land uptake of atmospheric carbon dioxide, and can be used to evaluate carbon cycle models and to define baselines for land-based additional mitigation efforts. The scientific community has been involved in providing observation-based estimates of regional carbon budgets either by downscaling atmospheric CO2 observations into surface fluxes with atmospheric inversions, by using inventories of carbon stock changes in terrestrial ecosystems, by upscaling local field observations such as flux towers with gridded climate and remote sensing fields or by integrating data-driven or process-oriented terrestrial carbon cycle models. The first coordinated attempt to collect regional carbon budgets for nine regions covering the entire globe in the RECCAP-1 project has delivered estimates for the decade 2000–2009, but these budgets were not comparable between regions, due to different definitions and component fluxes reported or omitted. The recent recognition of lateral fluxes of carbon by human activities and rivers, that connect CO2 uptake in one area with its release in another also requires better definition and protocols to reach harmonized regional budgets that can be summed up to the globe and compared with the atmospheric CO2 growth rate and inversion results. In this study, for the international initiative RECCAP-2 coordinated by the Global Carbon Project, which aims as an update of regional carbon budgets over the last two decades based on observations, for 10 regions covering the globe, with a better harmonization that the precursor project, we provide recommendations for using atmospheric inversions results to match bottom-up carbon accounting and models, and we define the different component fluxes of the net land atmosphere carbon exchange that should be reported by each research group in charge of each region. Special attention is given to lateral fluxes, inland water fluxes and land use fluxes.

Project: Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6) datasets - These data have been generated as part of the internationally-coordinated Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6; see also GMD Special Issue: http://www.geosci-model-dev.net/special_issue590.html). The simulation data provides a basis for climate research designed to answer fundamental science questions and serves as resource for authors of the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC-AR6). CMIP6 is a project coordinated by the Working Group on Coupled Modelling (WGCM) as part of the World Climate Research Programme (WCRP). Phase 6 builds on previous phases executed under the leadership of the Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison (PCMDI) and relies on the Earth System Grid Federation (ESGF) and the Centre for Environmental Data Analysis (CEDA) along with numerous related activities for implementation. The original data is hosted and partially replicated on a federated collection of data nodes, and most of the data relied on by the IPCC is being archived for long-term preservation at the IPCC Data Distribution Centre (IPCC DDC) hosted by the German Climate Computing Center (DKRZ). The project includes simulations from about 120 global climate models and around 45 institutions and organizations worldwide. Summary: These data include the subset used by IPCC AR6 WGI authors of the datasets originally published in ESGF for 'CMIP6.CMIP.HAMMOZ-Consortium.MPI-ESM-1-2-HAM.historical' with the full Data Reference Syntax following the template 'mip_era.activity_id.institution_id.source_id.experiment_id.member_id.table_id.variable_id.grid_label.version'. The MPI-ESM1.2-HAM climate model, released in 2017, includes the following components: aerosol: HAM2.3, atmos: ECHAM6.3 (spectral T63; 192 x 96 longitude/latitude; 47 levels; top level 0.01 hPa), atmosChem: sulfur chemistry (unnamed), land: JSBACH 3.20, ocean: MPIOM1.63 (bipolar GR1.5, approximately 1.5deg; 256 x 220 longitude/latitude; 40 levels; top grid cell 0-12 m), ocnBgchem: HAMOCC6, seaIce: unnamed (thermodynamic (Semtner zero-layer) dynamic (Hibler 79) sea ice model). The model was run by the ETH Zurich, Switzerland; Max Planck Institut fur Meteorologie, Germany; Forschungszentrum Julich, Germany; University of Oxford, UK; Finnish Meteorological Institute, Finland; Leibniz Institute for Tropospheric Research, Germany; Center for Climate Systems Modeling (C2SM) at ETH Zurich, Switzerland (HAMMOZ-Consortium) in native nominal resolutions: aerosol: 250 km, atmos: 250 km, atmosChem: 250 km, land: 250 km, ocean: 250 km, ocnBgchem: 250 km, seaIce: 250 km.

Abstract Coal energy landscapes have changed dramatically over the last decades, including geographic shifts in production and consumption, technological changes that have reduced labour demand and led to relatively new mining practices (e.g. invasive mountain-top approaches), changed economic footprints, a shutdown of capacities or a complete end of mining in many regions with massive impacts on regional and local economies, community well-being, social capital, et cetera. Then the Covid-19 pandemic and Russia´s invasion of Ukraine have fundamentally affected the global economy, disrupted energy markets, and shattered existing estimates about development trends, challenging the progress and speed of the low-carbon energy transition and coal phase-out. This article provides a brief reflection on the changing landscapes of coal and their possible futures, and serves as an introduction to the Special Issue of Moravian Geographical Reports on “The death of coal in the energy transition? Regional perspectives”.

Abstract In recent years, distributed energy systems (DESs) have been recognized as a promising option for sustainable development of future energy systems, and their application has increased rapidly with supportive policies and financial incentives. With growing concerns on global warming and depletion of fossil fuels, design optimization of DESs through economic assessments for short-run benefits only is not sufficient, while application of exergy principles can improve the efficiency in energy resource use for long-run sustainability of energy supply. The innovation of this paper is to investigate exergy in DES design to attain rational use of energy resources including renewables by considering energy qualities of supply and demand. By using low-temperature sources for low-quality thermal demand, the waste of high-quality energy can be reduced, and the overall exergy efficiency can be increased. The goal of the design optimization problem is to determine types, numbers and sizes of energy devices in DESs to reduce the total annual cost and increase the overall exergy efficiency. Based on a pre-established DES superstructure with multiple energy devices such as combined heat and power and PV, a multi-objective linear problem is formulated. In modeling of energy devices, the novelty is that the entire available size ranges and the variation of their efficiencies, capital and operation and maintenance costs with sizes are considered. The operation of energy devices is modeled based on previous work on DES operation optimization. By minimizing a weighted sum of the total annual cost and primary exergy input, the problem is solved by branch-and-cut. Numerical results show that the Pareto frontier provides good balancing solutions for planners based on economic and sustainability priorities. The total annual cost and primary exergy input of DESs with optimized configurations are reduced by 21–36% as compared with conventional energy supply systems, where grid power is used for the electricity demand, and gas-fired boilers and electric chillers fed by grid power for thermal demand. A sensitivity analysis is also carried out to analyze the influence of energy prices and energy demand variation on the optimized DES configurations.

Abstract Fostering the global development of low-carbon technology is crucial to mitigating greenhouse gas emissions. This paper analyzes the effect of energy-efficiency policies on lighting patenting between 1992 and 2007, using data for 19 OECD countries. We examine levels of energy-efficiency RDD however, the technology-push policy does not. These findings suggest that demand-pull policies can help to transform international markets for low-carbon technology innovation, and they underscore the importance of the often-overlooked international dimension of domestic energy-efficiency policies. To the extent that our findings are generalizable, our research suggests that governance processes that strengthen energy performance standards and steady investment in RD&D could spur energy innovation in industrialized nations across the world.