• Energy Research
• 7. Clean energy close
• 11. Sustainability close
• DE close
• ZENODO close

{"references": ["UNSD Demographic Statistics, available at http://data.un.org", "The World Bank GDP data, available at https://data.worldbank.org/", "UNFCCC: Greenhouse Gas Inventory Data, available at https://unfccc.int/process/transparency-and-reporting/greenhouse-gas-data/what-is-greenhouse-gas-data"]} Dataset containing all greenhouse gas emissions data submitted by countries under climate change convention (including CRF data) as published by the UNFCCC secretariat at 2021-12-03. The dataset is also available via datalad. To obtain the dataset with datalad, see the instructions at https://github.com/mikapfl/unfccc_di_data .

This climate change impact data (future scenarios on temperature-induced GDP losses) and climate change mitigation cost data (REMIND model scenarios) is published under doi: 10.5281/zenodo.3541809 and used in this paper: Ueckerdt F, Frieler K, Lange S, Wenz L, Luderer G, Levermann A (2018) The economically optimal warming limit of the planet. Earth System Dynamics. https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-10-741-2019 Below the individual file contents are explained. For further questions feel free to write to Falko Ueckerdt (ueckerdt@pik-potsdam.de). Climate change impact data File 1: Data_rel-GDPpercapita-changes_withCC_per-country_all-RCP_all-SSP_4GCM.csv Content: Data of relative change in absolute GDP/CAP levels (compared to the baseline path of the respective SSP in the SSP database) for each country, RCP (and a zero-emissions scenario), SSP and 4 GCMs (spanning a broad range of climate sensitivity). Negative (positive) values indicate losses (gains) due to climate change. For figure 1a of the paper, this data was aggregated for all countries. File 2: Data_rel-GDPpercapita-changes_withCC_per-country_all-SSP_4GCM_interpolated-for-REMIND-scenarios.csv Content: Data of relative change in absolute GDP/CAP levels (compared to the baseline path of the respective SSP in the SSP database) for each country, SSP and 4 GCMs (spanning a broad range of climate sensitivity). The RCP (and a zero-emissions scenario) are interpolated to the temperature pathways of the ten REMIND model scenarios used for climate change mitigation costs. Hereby the set of scenarios for climate impacts and climate change mitigation are consistent and can be combined to total costs of climate change (for a broad range of mitigation action). File 3: Data_rel-GDPpercapita-changes_withCC_per-country_SSP2_12GCM_interpolated-for-REMIND-scenarios.csv Content: Same as file 2, but only for the SSP2 (chosen default scenario for the study) and for all 12 GCMs. Data of relative change in absolute GDP/CAP levels (compared to the baseline path of the respective SSP in the SSP database) for each country, SSP-2 and 12 GCMs (spanning a broad range of climate sensitivity). The RCP (and a zero-emissions scenario) are interpolated to the temperature pathways of the ten REMIND model scenarios used for climate change mitigation costs. Hereby the set of scenarios for climate impacts and climate change mitigation are consistent and can be combined to total costs of climate change (for a broad range of mitigation action). In addition, reference GDP and population data (without climate change) for each country until 2100 was downloaded from the SSP database, release Version 1.0 (March 2013, https://tntcat.iiasa.ac.at/SspDb/, last accessed 15Nov 2019). Climate change mitigation cost data The scenario design and runs used in this paper have first been conducted in [1] and later also used in [2]. File 4: REMIND_scenario_results_economic_data.csv File 5: REMIND_scenarios_climate_data.csv Content: A broad range of climate change mitigation scenarios of the REMIND model. File 4 contains the economic data of e.g. GDP and macro-economic consumption for each of the countries and world regions, as well as GHG emissions from various economic sectors. File 5 contains the global climate-related data, e.g. forcing, concentration, temperature. In the scenario description “FFrunxxx” (column 2), the code “xxx” specifies the scenario as follows. See [1] for a detailed discussion of the scenarios. The first dimension specifies the climate policy regime (delayed action, baseline scenarios): 1xx: climate action from 2010 5xx: climate action from 2015 2xx climate action from 2020 (used in this study) 3xx climate action from 2030 4x1 weak policy baseline (before Paris agreement) The second dimension specifies the technology portfolio and assumptions: x1x Full technology portfolio (used in this study) x2x noCCS: unavailability of CCS x3x lowEI: lower energy intensity, with final energy demand per economic output decreasing faster than historically observed x4x NucPO: phase out of investments into nuclear energy x5x Limited SW: penetration of solar and wind power limited x6x Limited Bio: reduced bioenergy potential p.a. (100 EJ compared to 300 EJ in all other cases) x6x noBECCS: unavailability of CCS in combination with bioenergy The third dimension specifies the climate change mitigation ambition level, i.e. the height of a global CO2 tax in 2020 (which increases with 5% p.a.). xx1 0$/tCO2 (baseline) xx2 10$/tCO2 xx3 30$/tCO2 xx4 50$/tCO2 xx5 100$/tCO2 xx6 200$/tCO2 xx7 500$/tCO2 xx8 40$/tCO2 xx9 20$/tCO2 xx0 5$/tCO2 For figure 1b of the paper, this data was aggregated for all countries and regions. Relative changes of GDP are calculated relative to the baseline (4x1 with zero carbon price). [1] Luderer, G., Pietzcker, R. C., Bertram, C., Kriegler, E., Meinshausen, M. and Edenhofer, O.: Economic mitigation challenges: how further delay closes the door for achieving climate targets, Environmental Research Letters, 8(3), 034033, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/8/3/034033, 2013a. [2] Rogelj, J., Luderer, G., Pietzcker, R. C., Kriegler, E., Schaeffer, M., Krey, V. and Riahi, K.: Energy system transformations for limiting end-of-century warming to below 1.5 °C, Nature Climate Change, 5(6), 519–527, doi:10.1038/nclimate2572, 2015.

Comprehensive and reliable information on anthropogenic sources of greenhouse gas emissions is required to track progress towards keeping warming well below 2°C as agreed upon in the Paris Agreement. Here we provide a dataset on anthropogenic GHG emissions 1970-2019 with a broad country and sector coverage. We build the dataset from recent releases from the “Emissions Database for Global Atmospheric Research” (EDGAR) for CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion and industry (FFI), CH4 emissions, N2O emissions, and fluorinated gases and use a well-established fast-track method to extend this dataset from 2018 to 2019. We complement this with information on net CO2 emissions from land use, land-use change and forestry (LULUCF) from three available bookkeeping models.

QTDIAN - Quantification of Technological DIffusion and sociAl constraiNts - is a toolbox of qualitative and quantitative descriptions of socio-technical and political aspects of the energy transition that influence the overall potential, the rate of energy-related technology and service diffusion and the design of the future energy system. The output of QTIDIAN is empirically founded datasets of social and political drivers and barriers of the transition, both in the form of raw data describing past and current developments and manipulated to constitute consistent quantifications of the storylines. Here you can download the data for six QTDIAN themes: Socially feasible scaling of energy technologies Policy preferences & dynamics Barriers to infrastructural development (wind energy, grid development) Citizen energy Private energy demand Further information on the QTDIAN modelling toolbox and the data can be found in the SENTINEL Deliverable 2.3 and Deliverable 2.4: S��sser, D., al Rakouki, H., & Lilliestam, J.(2021). The QTDIAN modelling toolbox���Quantification of social drivers and constraints of the diffusion of energy technologies. Deliverable 2.3. Sustainable Energy Transitions Laboratory (SENTINEL) project. Potsdam: Institute for Advanced Sustainability Studies (IASS). S��sser, D., Pickering, B., Chatterjee, S., Oreggioni, G., Stavrakas, V., & Lilliestam, J.(2021). Integration of socio-technological transition constraints into energy demand and systems models. Deliverable 2.5. Sustainable Energy Transitions Laboratory (SENTINEL) project. Potsdam: Institute for Advanced Sustainability Studies (IASS).

Material compiled for analysis in this paper: Ueckerdt F, Bauer C, Dirnaichner A, Everall J, Sacchi R, Luderer R (2021) Potential and risks of hydrogen-based e-fuels in climate change mitigation. Nature Climate Change. The material includes: 1) a spreadsheet file with technoeconomic data 2) an R Markdown script which is the source code for an interactive dashboard used to visualise (1) 3) a README file to assist with navigation of the data in (1) 1) The spreadsheet data contains CAPEX, efficiency and other supplementary data for small to large scale electrolysers for current, and future years. Data was collected based on a Literature Review of a variety of academic and industry sources conducted during the course of the title paper development. The data are differentiated by several categories including electrolysis method, source publication year and literature type. Care was taken to avoid recycled cost values, and to focus on the currency of the data, with values included to indicate the oldest reference year of any cited literature. 2) The R Markdown script in combination with the spreadsheet data is used as a basis for an interactive dashboard which can be run with an R installation and the supporting packages, or viewed online at https://h2.pik-potsdam.de/H2Dash/

Natural potentials for future cropland expansion The potential for the expansion of cropland is restricted by the availability of land resources and given local natural conditions. As a result, area that is highly suitable for agriculture according to the prevailing local biophysical conditions but is not under cultivation today has a high natural potential for expansion. Policy regulations can further restrict the availability of land for expansion by designating protected areas, although they may be suitable for agriculture. Conversely, by applying e.g. irrigation practices, land can be brought under cultivation, although it may naturally not be suitable. Here, we investigate the potentials for agricultural expansion for near future climate scenario conditions to identify the suitability of non-cropland areas for expansion according to their local natural conditions. We determine the available energy, water and nutrient supply for agricultural suitability from climate, soil and topography data, by using a fuzzy logic approach according to Zabel et al. (2014). It considers the 16 globally most important staple and energy crops. These are: barley, cassava, groundnut, maize, millet, oil palm, potato, rapeseed, rice, rye, sorghum, soy, sugarcane, sunflower, summer wheat, winter wheat. The parameterization of the membership functions that describe each of the crops’ specific natural requirements is taken from Sys et al. (1993). The considered natural conditions are: climate (temperature, precipitation, solar radiation), soil properties (texture, proportion of coarse fragments and gypsum, base saturation, pH content, organic carbon content, salinity, sodicity), and topography (elevation, slope). As a result of the fuzzy logic approach, values in a range between 0 and 1 describe the suitability of a crop for each of the prevailing natural conditions at a certain location. The smallest suitability value over all parameters finally determines the suitability of a crop. The daily climate data is provided by simulation results from the global climate model ECHAM5 (Jungclaus et al. 2006) for near future (2011-2040) SRES A1B climate scenario conditions. Soil data is taken from the Harmonized World Soil Database (HWSD) (FAO et al. 2012), and topography data is applied from the Shuttle Radar Topography Mission (SRTM) (Farr et al. 2007). In order to gather a general crop suitability, which does not refer to one specific crop, the most suitable crop with the highest suitability value is chosen at each pixel. In addition the natural biophysical conditions, we consider today’s irrigated areas according to (Siebert et al. 2013). We assume that irrigated areas globally remain constant until 2040, since adequate data on the development of irrigated areas do not exist, although it is likely that freshwater availability for irrigation could be limited in some regions, while in other regions surplus water supply could be used to expand irrigation practices (Elliott et al. 2014). However, it is difficult to project where irrigation practices will evolve, since it is driven by economic investment costs that are required to establish irrigation infrastructure. In principle, all agriculturally suitable land that is not used as cropland today has the natural potential to be converted into cropland. We assume that only urban and built-up areas are not available for conversion, although more than 80% of global urban areas are agriculturally suitable (Avellan et al. 2012). However, it seems unlikely that urban areas will be cleared at the large scale due to high investment costs, growing cities and growing demand for settlements. Concepts of urban and vertical farming usually are discussed under the aspects of cultivating fresh vegetables and salads for urban population. They are not designed to extensively grow staple crops such as wheat or maize for feeding the world in the near future. Urban farming would require one third of the total global urban area to meet only the global vegetable consumption of urban dwellers (Martellozzo et al. 2015). Thus, urban agriculture cannot substantially contribute to global agricultural production of staple crops. Protected areas or dense forested areas are not excluded from the calculation, in order not to lose any information in the further combination with the biodiversity patterns (see chapter 2.3). We use data on current cropland distribution by Ramankutty et al. (2008) and urban and built-up area according to the ESA-CCI land use/cover dataset (ESA 2014). From this data, we calculate the ‘natural expansion potential index’ (Iexp) that expresses the natural potential for an area to be converted into cropland as follows: Iexp = S * Aav The index is determined by the quality of agricultural suitability (S) (values between 0 and 1) multiplied with the amount of available area (Aav) for conversion (in percentage of pixel area). The available area includes all suitable area that is not cultivated today, and not classified as urban or artificial area. The index ranges between 0 and 100 and indicates where the conditions for cropland expansion are more or less favorable, when taking only natural conditions into account, disregarding socio-economic factors, policies and regulations that drive or inhibit cropland expansion. The index is a helpful indicator for identifying areas where cropland expansion could take place in the near future. Further information Detailled information are available in the following publication: Delzeit, R., F. Zabel, C. Meyer and T. Václavík (2017). Addressing future trade-offs between biodiversity and cropland expansion to improve food security. Regional Environmental Change 17(5): 1429-1441. DOI: 10.1007/s10113-016-0927-1 Contact Please contact: Dr. Florian Zabel, f.zabel@lmu.de, Department für Geographie, LMU München (www.geografie.uni-muenchen.de) This research was carried out within the framework of the GLUES (Global Assessment of Land Use Dynamics, Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Ecosystem Services) Project, which has been supported by the German Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) program on sustainable land management (grant number: 01LL0901E).

This contribution provides the simulated data and surrogate models for the DTU 10 MW reference wind turbine in an onshore configuration simulated with FAST v8.16.00. The dimensions include mean wind speed, turbulence intensity, and power level, as well as the application of an individual blade control (IBC) loop. Down-regulation up to 50% is considered using two controller trajectories. The constTSR trajectory considers only pitching for down-regulation, maintaining a constant tip speed ratio, and the lin70 trajectory considers both pitch and rotational speed reduction to achieve down-regulation. Power boosting is performed up to 130% power level by following the optimal Cp trajectory until the requested power level is reached. The regression is done with two methods: a spline-based interpolation and a Gaussian Process Regression (GPR). The raw data, smoothened data, and the trained GPR models are provided along with scripts for generating the surrogate model's predictions with both methods. A short description of the simulation parameters and variables considered is given in the supplementary pdf file. The dataset is part of the doctoral thesis 'Wind Turbine Operational Optimization Considering Revenue and Fatigue Objectives' by Vasilis Pettas at the University of Stuttgart (http://dx.doi.org/10.18419/opus-13959) and the journal publication 'Surrogate Modeling and Aeroelastic Analysis of a Wind Turbine with Down-Regulation, Power Boosting, and IBC Capabilities' (https://doi.org/10.3390/en17061284). Detailed analysis of the controller design and validation of the surrogate models can be found in these publications.