Cost degression in photovoltaics, wind-power and battery storage has been faster than previously anticipated. In the future, climate policy to limit global warming to 1.5–2 °C will make carbon-based fuels increasingly scarce and expensive. Here we show that further progress in solar- and wind-power technology along with carbon pricing to reach the Paris Climate targets could make electricity cheaper than carbon-based fuels. In combination with demand-side innovation, for instance in e-mobility and heat pumps, this is likely to induce a fundamental transformation of energy systems towards a dominance of electricity-based end uses. In a 1.5 °C scenario with limited availability of bioenergy and carbon dioxide removal, electricity could account for 66% of final energy by mid-century, three times the current levels and substantially higher than in previous climate policy scenarios assessed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The lower production of bioenergy in our high-electrification scenarios markedly reduces energy-related land and water requirements.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Subscribe to Journal
Get full journal access for 1 year
only $9.92 per issue
All prices are NET prices.
VAT will be added later in the checkout.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.
All prices are NET prices.
The specific model runs and scenario data for this study are archived at Zenodo under https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5546598 under a CC-BY-4.0 license.
The REMIND code is available under the GNU Affero General Public License, version 3 (AGPLv3) via GitHub (https://github.com/remindmodel/remind, last access: 30 June 2021). The technical model documentation is available under https://rse.pik-potsdam.de/doc/remind/2.1.3/ (last access: 1 December 2020). The source code and input data of MAgPIE v.4.3.1 (https://github.com/magpiemodel/magpie) are openly available at https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4231467. The technical model documentation is available at https://rse.pik-potsdam.de/doc/magpie/4.3.1/.
Clarke, L. et al. in Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change (eds Edenhofer, O. et al.) Ch. 6 (IPCC, Cambridge Univ. Press, 2014).
Kriegler, E. et al. The role of technology for achieving climate policy objectives: overview of the EMF 27 study on global technology and climate policy strategies. Climatic Change 123, 353–367 (2014).
Krey, V., Luderer, G., Clarke, L. & Kriegler, E. Getting from here to there – energy technology transformation pathways in the EMF27 scenarios. Climatic Change 123, 369–382 (2014).
Rogelj, J. et al. Energy system transformations for limiting end-of-century warming to below 1.5 °C. Nat. Clim. Change 5, 519–527 (2015).
Luderer, G. et al. Residual fossil CO2 emissions in 1.5–2 °C pathways. Nat. Clim. Change 8, 626–633 (2018).
Davis, S. J. et al. Net-zero emissions energy systems. Science 360, eaas9793 (2018).
Humpenöder, F. et al. Large-scale bioenergy production: how to resolve sustainability trade-offs? Environ. Res. Lett. 13, 024011 (2018).
Luderer, G. et al. Environmental co-benefits and adverse side-effects of alternative power sector decarbonization strategies. Nat. Commun. 10, 5229 (2019).
Heck, V., Gerten, D., Lucht, W. & Popp, A. Biomass-based negative emissions difficult to reconcile with planetary boundaries. Nat. Clim. Change 8, 151–155 (2018).
Grubler, A. Energy transitions research: insights and cautionary tales. Energy Policy 50, 8–16 (2012).
Haegel, N. M. et al. Terawatt-scale photovoltaics: transform global energy. Science 364, 836–838 (2019).
Renewable Power Generation Costs in 2019 (IRENA, 2020).
Nykvist, B. & Nilsson, M. Rapidly falling costs of battery packs for electric vehicles. Nat. Clim. Change 5, 329–332 (2015).
Schmidt, O., Hawkes, A., Gambhir, A. & Staffell, I. The future cost of electrical energy storage based on experience rates. Nat. Energy 2, 17110 (2017).
Trends and Developments in Electric Vehicle Markets – Global EV Outlook 2021 – Analysis (IEA, 2021).
Nykvist, B., Sprei, F. & Nilsson, M. Assessing the progress toward lower priced long range battery electric vehicles. Energy Policy 124, 144–155 (2019).
Wilson, C. et al. Granular technologies to accelerate decarbonization. Science 368, 36–39 (2020).
Fuss, S. et al. Betting on negative emissions. Nat. Clim. Change 4, 850–853 (2014).
Anderson, K. & Peters, G. The trouble with negative emissions. Science 354, 182–183 (2016).
Creutzig, F. et al. Reconciling top-down and bottom-up modelling on future bioenergy deployment. Nat. Clim. Change 2, 320–327 (2012).
Creutzig, F. et al. The underestimated potential of solar energy to mitigate climate change. Nat. Energy 2, 17140 (2017).
Wilson, C., Grubler, A., Gallagher, K. S. & Nemet, G. F. Marginalization of end-use technologies in energy innovation for climate protection. Nat. Clim. Change 2, 780–788 (2012).
Baumstark, L. et al. REMIND2.1: transformation and innovation dynamics of the energy-economic system within climate and sustainability limits. Geosci. Model Dev. 14, 6571–6603 (2021).
Levesque, A., Pietzcker, R. C., Baumstark, L. & Luderer, G. Deep decarbonisation of buildings energy services through demand and supply transformations in a 1.5 °C scenario. Environ. Res. Lett. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/abdf07 (2021).
Rottoli, M. et al. Coupling a detailed transport model to the integrated assessment model REMIND. Environ. Model Assess. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10666-021-09760-y (2021).
Rogelj, J., Forster, P. M., Kriegler, E., Smith, C. J. & Séférian, R. Estimating and tracking the remaining carbon budget for stringent climate targets. Nature 571, 335–342 (2019).
Rogelj, J. et al. in Global Warming of 1.5 °C Ch. 2 (IPCC, 2018).
Dietrich, J. P. et al. MAgPIE 4 – a modular open-source framework for modeling global land systems. Geoscientific Model Dev. 12, 1299–1317 (2019).
Vartiainen, E., Masson, G., Breyer, C., Moser, D. & Román Medina, E. Impact of weighted average cost of capital, capital expenditure, and other parameters on future utility‐scale PV levelised cost of electricity. Prog. Photovolt. Res. Appl. 28, 439–453 (2020).
Wiser, R. et al. Expert elicitation survey predicts 37% to 49% declines in wind energy costs by 2050. Nat. Energy https://doi.org/10.1038/s41560-021-00810-z (2021).
Roelfsema, M. et al. Taking stock of national climate policies to evaluate implementation of the Paris Agreement. Nat. Commun. 11, 2096 (2020).
Huppmann, D. et al. IAMC 1.5 °C Scenario Explorer and Data Hosted by IIASA (Integrated Assessment Modeling Consortium & International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, 2018); https://doi.org/10.22022/SR15/08-2018.15429
Bauer, N. et al. Shared socio-economic pathways of the energy sector – quantifying the narratives. Glob. Environ. Change 42, 316–330 (2017).
Ueckerdt, F. et al. Potential and risks of hydrogen-based e-fuels in climate change mitigation. Nat. Clim. Change 11, 384–393 (2021).
Madeddu, S. et al. The CO2 reduction potential for the European industry via direct electrification of heat supply (power-to-heat). Environ. Res. Lett. 15, 124004 (2020).
Schäfer, A. W. et al. Technological, economic and environmental prospects of all-electric aircraft. Nat. Energy 4, 160–166 (2019).
Balcombe, P. et al. How to decarbonise international shipping: options for fuels, technologies and policies. Energy Convers. Manag. 182, 72–88 (2019).
Halim, R. A., Kirstein, L., Merk, O. & Martinez, L. M. Decarbonization pathways for international maritime transport: a model-based policy impact assessment. Sustainability 10, 2243 (2018).
Levesque, A. et al. How much energy will buildings consume in 2100? A global perspective within a scenario framework. Energy 148, 514–527 (2018).
Arvesen, A., Luderer, G., Pehl, M., Bodirsky, B. L. & Hertwich, E. G. Deriving life cycle assessment coefficients for application in integrated assessment modelling. Environ. Model. Softw. 99, 111–125 (2018).
Jia, G. et al. in Climate Change and Land (eds Shukla, P. R. et al.) Ch. 2 (IPCC, Cambridge Univ. Press, 2019).
Wise, M. et al. Implications of limiting CO2 concentrations for land use and energy. Science 324, 1183–1186 (2009).
Scott, V., Gilfillan, S., Markusson, N., Chalmers, H. & Haszeldine, R. S. Last chance for carbon capture and storage. Nat. Clim. Change 3, 105–111 (2013).
Bui, M. et al. Carbon capture and storage (CCS): the way forward. Energy Environ. Sci. 11, 1062–1176 (2018).
Global Status Report of CCS (Global CCS Institute, 2020); https://www.globalccsinstitute.com/resources/global-status-report/
Fasihi, M., Bogdanov, D. & Breyer, C. Techno-economic assessment of power-to-liquids (PtL) fuels production and global trading based on hybrid PV-wind power plants. Energy Procedia 99, 243–268 (2016).
Huppmann, D. et al. The MESSAGEix Integrated Assessment Model and the ix modeling platform (ixmp): an open framework for integrated and cross-cutting analysis of energy, climate, the environment, and sustainable development. Environ. Model. Softw. 112, 143–156 (2019).
Loulou, R. & Labriet, M. ETSAP-TIAM: the TIMES integrated assessment model part I: model structure. Comput. Manag. Sci. 5, 7–40 (2008).
Edenhofer, O., Lessmann, K. & Bauer, N. Mitigation strategies and costs of climate protection: the effects of ETC in the hybrid model MIND. Energy J. 27, 207–222 (2006).
Bauer, N., Edenhofer, O. & Kypreos, S. Linking energy system and macroeconomic growth models. Comput. Manag. Sci. 5, 95–117 (2008).
Ueckerdt, F. et al. Decarbonizing global power supply under region-specific consideration of challenges and options of integrating variable renewables in the REMIND model. Energy Econ. 64, 665–684 (2017).
Nordhaus, W. D. & Yang, Z. A regional dynamic general-equilibrium model of alternative climate-change strategies. Am. Econ. Rev. 86, 741–765 (1996).
Manne, A., Mendelsohn, R. & Richels, R. A model for evaluating regional and global effects of GHG reduction policies. Energy Policy 23, 17–34 (1995).
Leimbach, M., Schultes, A., Baumstark, L., Giannousakis, A. & Luderer, G. Solution algorithms for regional interactions in large-scale integrated assessment models of climate change. Ann. Oper. Res. 255, 29–45 (2017).
Wilson, C., Grubler, A., Bauer, N., Krey, V. & Riahi, K. Future capacity growth of energy technologies: are scenarios consistent with historical evidence? Climatic Change 118, 381–395 (2013).
Bauer, N. et al. Assessing global fossil fuel availability in a scenario framework. Energy 111, 580–592 (2016).
Pietzcker, R. C., Stetter, D., Manger, S. & Luderer, G. Using the sun to decarbonize the power sector: the economic potential of photovoltaics and concentrating solar power. Appl. Energy 135, 704–720 (2014).
Eurek, K. et al. An improved global wind resource estimate for integrated assessment models. Energy Econ. 64, 552–567 (2017).
Scholz, Y., Gils, H. C. & Pietzcker, R. C. Application of a high-detail energy system model to derive power sector characteristics at high wind and solar shares. Energy Econ. 64, 568–582 (2017).
Brown, T., Schlachtberger, D., Kies, A., Schramm, S. & Greiner, M. Synergies of sector coupling and transmission reinforcement in a cost-optimised, highly renewable European energy system. Energy 160, 720–739 (2018).
Schill, W.-P. Electricity storage and the renewable energy transition. Joule 4, 2059–2064 (2020).
Sullivan, P., Krey, V. & Riahi, K. Impacts of considering electric sector variability and reliability in the MESSAGE model. Energy Strategy Rev. 1, 157–163 (2013).
Pauliuk, S., Wang, T. & Müller, D. B. Steel all over the world: estimating in-use stocks of iron for 200 countries. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 71, 22–30 (2013).
Staffell, I. et al. The role of hydrogen and fuel cells in the global energy system. Energy Environ. Sci. 12, 463–491 (2019).
Harmsen, J. H. M. et al. Long-term marginal abatement cost curves of non-CO2 greenhouse gases. Environ. Sci. Policy 99, 136–149 (2019).
van Vuuren, D. P. et al. Energy, land-use and greenhouse gas emissions trajectories under a green growth paradigm. Glob. Environ. Change 42, 237–250 (2017).
Amann, M. (ed.) The GAINS Integrated Assessment Model (EC4MACS, 2012).
Meinshausen, M., Wigley, T. M. L. & Raper, S. C. B. Emulating atmosphere-ocean and carbon cycle models with a simpler model, MAGICC6 – part 2: applications. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 11, 1457–1471 (2011).
Lotze-Campen, H. et al. Global food demand, productivity growth, and the scarcity of land and water resources: a spatially explicit mathematical programming approach. Agric. Econ. 39, 325–338 (2008).
Bondeau, A. et al. Modelling the role of agriculture for the 20th century global terrestrial carbon balance. Glob. Change Biol. 13, 679–706 (2007).
Müller, C. & Robertson, R. D. Projecting future crop productivity for global economic modeling. Agric. Econ. 45, 37–50 (2014).
Dietrich, J. P., Schmitz, C., Lotze-Campen, H., Popp, A. & Müller, C. Forecasting technological change in agriculture—an endogenous implementation in a global land use model. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 81, 236–249 (2014).
Popp, A. et al. Land-use protection for climate change mitigation. Nat. Clim. Change 4, 1095–1098 (2014).
Bodirsky, B. L. et al. Reactive nitrogen requirements to feed the world in 2050 and potential to mitigate nitrogen pollution. Nat. Commun. 5, 3858 (2014).
Popp, A., Lotze-Campen, H. & Bodirsky, B. Food consumption, diet shifts and associated non-CO2 greenhouse gases from agricultural production. Glob. Environ. Change 20, 451–462 (2010).
Dirnacher, A., Mutel, C. L., Terlouw, T. & Sacchi, R. Coupling integrated assessment models and ecoinvent for prospective environmental impact assessment. GitHub https://github.com/romainsacchi/premise/blob/master/docs/introduction.rst (accessed 1 November 2021).
Life Cycle Inventory Database v.3.7 (Ecoinvent, accessed 1 November 2021); https://ecoinvent.org/the-ecoinvent-database/data-releases/ecoinvent-3-7/
Goedkoop, M. et al. ReCiPe 2008 (version 1.08). Report I: characterisation (RIVM, Bilthoven, Netherlands, 2013); https://www.rivm.nl/documenten/a-lcia-method-which-comprises-harmonised-category-indicators-at-midpoint-and-endpoint
Rogelj, J. et al. A new scenario logic for the Paris Agreement long-term temperature goal. Nature 573, 357–363 (2019).
O’Neill, B. C. et al. The roads ahead: narratives for shared socioeconomic pathways describing world futures in the 21st century. Glob. Environ. Change 42, 169–180 (2017).
The research leading to these results has received funding from the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research under grant agreements no. 03SFK5A (Ariadne; G.L., F.U., M.P., R.P., M.R., F.S., A.D., A.L., R.R.) and no. 01LA1809A (DIPOL; L.M., N.B., J.S.) and from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreements no. 821124 (NAVIGATE; S.M., E.K.) and no. 821471 (ENGAGE; C.B.). We thank D. Soergel for editing and feedback as well as P. Agrawal and F. Benke for support in data analysis.
The authors declare no competing interests.
Peer review information Nature Energy thanks Stefan Vögele, Matthew Binsted and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Electrification shares in the transport, buildings and industry sectors in 1.5C-Elec and WB2C-Elec compared to overall electrification and electrification in corresponding IPCC SR15 scenarios.
Extended Data Fig. 2 Fossil carbon intensity of electricity and non-electric fuels (incl. hydrogen).
Fossil carbon intensity excludes negative emissions from BECCS. Thick solid and dashed lines indicate scenarios from this study, thin lines and shading corresponding SR15 scenarios. In all scenarios, the fossil carbon intensity of electricity declines much faster than the fossil carbon intensity of non-electric fuels.
Sectoral residual fossil CO2 (that is, not accounting for negative emissions from BECCS) emissions from the electricity supply, non-electric supply, transport, buildings and industry sectors (positive emissions). Carbon dioxide removals from BECCS (bioenergy with CCS) and DACCS (direct air carbon capture and storage) are displayed as negative emissions. Emissions from land use, land use change and forestry (LULUCF) are currently net positive but turn net negative in some periods and scenarios.
Energy flows are given in units of EJ per year and describe secondary energy generation by primary energy input (left to middle), and final energy provision by energy carrier (middle to right).
Shares of (a) sectors and energy carriers in final demand, (b) technologies in electricity generation, (c) primary energy supply across model regions.
About this article
Cite this article
Luderer, G., Madeddu, S., Merfort, L. et al. Impact of declining renewable energy costs on electrification in low-emission scenarios. Nat Energy 7, 32–42 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41560-021-00937-z
This article is cited by
Nature Energy (2022)
Nature Energy (2022)
Review Study of Energy Efficiency Measures in Favor of Reducing Carbon Footprint of Electricity and Power, Buildings, and Transportation
Circular Economy and Sustainability (2022)
A study of carbon peaking and carbon neutral pathways in China's power sector under a 1.5 °C temperature control target
Environmental Science and Pollution Research (2022)