Refine
Has Fulltext
- yes (3)
Year of Publication
- 2024 (3) (remove)
Document Type
- Peer-Reviewed Article (3) (remove)
Language
- English (3)
Division
- Energie-, Verkehrs- und Klimapolitik (3) (remove)
This paper presents a novel governance concept for sustainable development, introducing the "Safe System Approach" as a transformative model that shifts focus from individual behavioural change to systemic transformation. This approach challenges traditional governance models that emphasize individual responsibility in achieving sustainable development and decarbonization. Instead, it advocates for creating an enabling environment that inherently guides individuals and communities towards sustainable actions. The Safe System Approach is centred on delivering low-carbon services across essential sectors, including electricity, mobility, industry, buildings, human settlements, and agriculture, thereby embedding sustainability as a default choice in societal systems. Drawing parallels with successful models in road safety, the paper explores the potential of this approach in urban development and climate action. It emphasizes the need for a broad coalition and integrated approaches in managing shared resources, highlighting the significance of systemic adjustments over individual behavioral change. By proposing a structure where sustainability is facilitated by the system's design, the paper builds on key concepts from seminal works by scholars like Garrett Hardin, Mancur Olson, Elinor Ostrom, and Ahrend Lijphart. It discusses the challenges and opportunities in creating safe operating spaces for sustainable development, emphasizing the need for multi-actor, multilevel governance systems that can manage shared resources sustainably and are resilient to political volatility. The paper aims to offer a robust, efficient, and inclusive pathway to sustainable development, contributing to the global discourse on environmental and social resilience.
This paper examines the current and prospective greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of e-fuels produced via electrolysis and Fischer-Tropsch synthesis (FTS) for the years 2021, 2030, and 2050 for use in Germany. The GHG emissions are determined by a scenario approach as a combination of a literature-based top-down and bottom-up approach. Considered process steps are the provision of feedstocks, electrolysis (via solid oxide co-electrolysis; SOEC), synthesis (via Fischer-Tropsch synthesis; FTS), e-crude refining, eventual transport to, and use in Germany. The results indicate that the current GHG emissions for e-fuel production in the exemplary export countries Saudi Arabia and Chile are above those of conventional fuels. Scenarios for the production in Germany lead to current GHG emissions of 2.78-3.47 kgCO2-eq/L e-fuel in 2021 as the reference year and 0.064-0.082 kgCO2-eq/L e-fuel in 2050. With a share of 58-96%, according to the respective scenario, the electrolysis is the main determinant of the GHG emissions in the production process. The use of additional renewable energy during the production process in combination with direct air capture (DAC) are the main leverages to reduce GHG emissions.
Demand-side mitigation strategies have been gaining momentum in climate change mitigation research. Still, the impact of different approaches in passenger transport, one of the largest energy demand sectors, remains unclear. We couple a transport simulation model to an energy system optimisation model, both highly disintegrated in order to compare those impacts. Our scenarios are created for the case of Germany in an interdisciplinary, qualitative-quantitative research design, going beyond techno-economic assumptions, and cover Avoid, Shift, and Improve strategies, as well as their combination. The results show that sufficiency - Avoid and Shift strategies - have the same impact as the improvement of propulsion technologies (i.e. efficiency), which is reduction of generation capacities by one quarter. This lowers energy system transformation cost accordingly, but requires different kinds of investments: Sufficiency measures require public investment for high-quality public services, while efficiency measures require individuals to purchase more expensive vehicles at their own cost. These results raise socio-political questions of system design and well-being. However, all strategies are required to unleash the full potential of climate change mitigation.