• Energy Research
• Open Access close
• Closed Access close
• Open Source close
• Embargo close
• 11. Sustainability close
• DE close
• AU close

AbstractBioenergy projects can lead to direct and indirect land use change (LUC), which can substantially affect greenhouse gas balances with both beneficial and adverse outcomes for bioenergy's contribution to climate change mitigation. The causes behind LUC are multiple, complex, interlinked, and change over time. This makes quantification uncertain and sensitive to many factors that can develop in different directions—including land use productivity, trade patterns, prices and elasticities, and use of by‐products associated with biofuels production. Quantifications reported so far vary substantially and do not support the ranking of bioenergy options with regard to LUC and associated emissions. There are however several options for mitigating these emissions, which can be implemented despite the uncertainties. Long‐rotation forest management is associated with carbon emissions and sequestration that are not in temporal balance with each other and this leads to mitigation trade‐offs between biomass extraction for energy use and the alternative to leave the biomass in the forest. Bioenergy's contribution to climate change mitigation needs to reflect a balance between near‐term targets and the long‐term objective to hold the increase in global temperature below 2°C (Copenhagen Accord). Although emissions from LUC can be significant in some circumstances, the reality of such emissions is not sufficient reason to exclude bioenergy from the list of worthwhile technologies for climate change mitigation. Policy measures to minimize the negative impacts of LUC should be based on a holistic perspective recognizing the multiple drivers and effects of LUC.This article is categorized under: Bioenergy > Economics and Policy Bioenergy > Climate and Environment

AbstractBioenergy projects can lead to direct and indirect land use change (LUC), which can substantially affect greenhouse gas balances with both beneficial and adverse outcomes for bioenergy's contribution to climate change mitigation. The causes behind LUC are multiple, complex, interlinked, and change over time. This makes quantification uncertain and sensitive to many factors that can develop in different directions—including land use productivity, trade patterns, prices and elasticities, and use of by‐products associated with biofuels production. Quantifications reported so far vary substantially and do not support the ranking of bioenergy options with regard to LUC and associated emissions. There are however several options for mitigating these emissions, which can be implemented despite the uncertainties. Long‐rotation forest management is associated with carbon emissions and sequestration that are not in temporal balance with each other and this leads to mitigation trade‐offs between biomass extraction for energy use and the alternative to leave the biomass in the forest. Bioenergy's contribution to climate change mitigation needs to reflect a balance between near‐term targets and the long‐term objective to hold the increase in global temperature below 2°C (Copenhagen Accord). Although emissions from LUC can be significant in some circumstances, the reality of such emissions is not sufficient reason to exclude bioenergy from the list of worthwhile technologies for climate change mitigation. Policy measures to minimize the negative impacts of LUC should be based on a holistic perspective recognizing the multiple drivers and effects of LUC.This article is categorized under: Bioenergy > Economics and Policy Bioenergy > Climate and Environment

Abstract With promising benefits such as traffic emission reduction, traffic congestion alleviation, and parking problem solving, Electric Vehicle (EV)-sharing systems have attracted large attentions in recent years. Different from other business modes, customers in sharing economy systems are usually price sensitive. Therefore, it is possible to shift the usage of shared EVs through a well-designed Dynamic Pricing Scheme (DPS), with the objective of maximizing the system operator's total profit. In this study, we propose a novel DPS for a large-scale EV-sharing network to address the EV unbalancing issue and satisfy the vehicle-grid-integration (VGI) service based on accurate station-level demand prediction. The proposed DPS is formulated as a complex optimization problem, which includes two Price Adjustment Level (PAL) decision variables for every origin-destination pair of stations. The two PALs are employed to affect the EV-sharing demand and travel time between each station pair, respectively. Physical and operational constraints from both EV demand and VGI service aspects are also included in the proposed model. Two case study are conducted to validate the effectiveness of the proposed method.

Abstract With promising benefits such as traffic emission reduction, traffic congestion alleviation, and parking problem solving, Electric Vehicle (EV)-sharing systems have attracted large attentions in recent years. Different from other business modes, customers in sharing economy systems are usually price sensitive. Therefore, it is possible to shift the usage of shared EVs through a well-designed Dynamic Pricing Scheme (DPS), with the objective of maximizing the system operator's total profit. In this study, we propose a novel DPS for a large-scale EV-sharing network to address the EV unbalancing issue and satisfy the vehicle-grid-integration (VGI) service based on accurate station-level demand prediction. The proposed DPS is formulated as a complex optimization problem, which includes two Price Adjustment Level (PAL) decision variables for every origin-destination pair of stations. The two PALs are employed to affect the EV-sharing demand and travel time between each station pair, respectively. Physical and operational constraints from both EV demand and VGI service aspects are also included in the proposed model. Two case study are conducted to validate the effectiveness of the proposed method.

Points out that sustainability as such does not provide a clearcut guide to policy. First one has to decide what is to be sustained. If this is agreed, it must be in an operational from. However, difficulties may still emerge since opinions may differ about how to achieve. This is illustrated by differences in the views of economists about how sustainable development is to be achieved. Orthodox economists stress the importance of the accumulation of man-made capital to achieve this end whereas neo-Malthusians stress the importance of conserving natural resource and environmental capital. Both take an anthropocentric point of view. For political reasons the neo-Malthusian has had little support but it may eventually turn out to be correct. Economics is concerned with reducing economic scarcity and economists have traditionally suggested four main ways of doing this of which economic growth is one. However, neo-Malthusian economists believe that this may not be a sustainable strategy – it may result in future poverty. It should be noted that economic systems are embedded in social and natural systems and depend on these. Economic sustainability depends on the sustainability of these other systems. So from this point of view, it is just one of several bottom lines. Values must be considered in relation to sustainability. Economics is completely anthropocentric in its approach. Therefore, economic approaches to conservation and sustainability can be at odds with the values of deep ecologists or those willing to accord rights to other sentient beings or ecosystems independent of human wishes, or those who want to make use of value judgments other than those based on the measuring rod of money. Consequently economics evaluation is sometimes ineffective in resolving social conflict, including conflict about what should be sustained. As a rule economics alone should not be the final arbiter of social decisions. It is a part (often an important part) of the social evaluation process but not the bottom line, or just one of many lines.

Points out that sustainability as such does not provide a clearcut guide to policy. First one has to decide what is to be sustained. If this is agreed, it must be in an operational from. However, difficulties may still emerge since opinions may differ about how to achieve. This is illustrated by differences in the views of economists about how sustainable development is to be achieved. Orthodox economists stress the importance of the accumulation of man-made capital to achieve this end whereas neo-Malthusians stress the importance of conserving natural resource and environmental capital. Both take an anthropocentric point of view. For political reasons the neo-Malthusian has had little support but it may eventually turn out to be correct. Economics is concerned with reducing economic scarcity and economists have traditionally suggested four main ways of doing this of which economic growth is one. However, neo-Malthusian economists believe that this may not be a sustainable strategy – it may result in future poverty. It should be noted that economic systems are embedded in social and natural systems and depend on these. Economic sustainability depends on the sustainability of these other systems. So from this point of view, it is just one of several bottom lines. Values must be considered in relation to sustainability. Economics is completely anthropocentric in its approach. Therefore, economic approaches to conservation and sustainability can be at odds with the values of deep ecologists or those willing to accord rights to other sentient beings or ecosystems independent of human wishes, or those who want to make use of value judgments other than those based on the measuring rod of money. Consequently economics evaluation is sometimes ineffective in resolving social conflict, including conflict about what should be sustained. As a rule economics alone should not be the final arbiter of social decisions. It is a part (often an important part) of the social evaluation process but not the bottom line, or just one of many lines.

The ‘4 per mille Soils for Food Security and Climate’ was launched at the COP21 with an aspiration to increase global soil organic matter stocks by 4 per 1000 (or 0.4 %) per year as a compensation for the global emissions of greenhouse gases by anthropogenic sources. This paper surveyed the soil organic carbon (SOC) stock estimates and sequestration potentials from 20 regions in the world (New Zealand, Chile, South Africa, Australia, Tanzania, Indonesia, Kenya, Nigeria, India, China Taiwan, South Korea, China Mainland, United States of America, France, Canada, Belgium, England & Wales, Ireland, Scotland, and Russia). We asked whether the 4 per mille initiative is feasible for the region. The outcomes highlight region specific efforts and scopes for soil carbon sequestration. Reported soil C sequestration rates globally show that under best management practices, 4 per mille or even higher sequestration rates can be accomplished. High C sequestration rates (up to 10 per mille) can be achieved for soils with low initial SOC stock (topsoil less than 30 t C ha− 1), and at the first twenty years after implementation of best management practices. In addition, areas which have reached equilibrium will not be able to further increase their sequestration. We found that most studies on SOC sequestration only consider topsoil (up to 0.3 m depth), as it is considered to be most affected by management techniques. The 4 per mille number was based on a blanket calculation of the whole global soil profile C stock, however the potential to increase SOC is mostly on managed agricultural lands. If we consider 4 per mille in the top 1m of global agricultural soils, SOC sequestration is between 2-3 Gt C year− 1, which effectively offset 20–35% of global anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. As a strategy for climate change mitigation, soil carbon sequestration buys time over the next ten to twenty years while other effective sequestration and low carbon technologies become viable. The challenge for cropping farmers is to find disruptive technologies that will further improve soil condition and deliver increased soil carbon. Progress in 4 per mille requires collaboration and communication between scientists, farmers, policy makers, and marketeers.