Reply to the 'Comment on "Powering sustainable development within planetary boundaries"' by Y. Yang, Energy Environ. Sci., 2020, 13, DOI:10.1039/C9EE01176E

• Published in: Energy & Environmental Science
• Main Authors: Algunaibet, IM, Pozo, C, Galan-Martin, A, Huijbregts, MAJ, Mac Dowell, N, Guillen-Gosalbez, G
• Other Authors: Natural Environment Research Council (NERC)
• Format: Article in Journal/Newspaper
• Language: English
• Published: Royal Society of Chemistry 2019
• Subjects: Science & Technology; Physical Sciences; Technology; Life Sciences & Biomedicine; Chemistry; Multidisciplinary; Energy & Fuels; Engineering; Chemical; Environmental Sciences; Environmental Sciences & Ecology; LIFE-CYCLE ASSESSMENT; Energy; Ocean acidification
• Online Access: http://hdl.handle.net/10044/1/86795; https://doi.org/10.1039/c9ee03146d

In our recently published work, we incorporated planetary boundaries in the optimization of the United States (US) power sector in 2030. Yang claims there is a double-counting error in our results and encourages us to minimize direct emissions instead of life cycle emissions in our model. Here, we argue that Yang's main criticism based on the risk of double-counting emissions when multiple sectors are simultaneously optimized does not apply to our case study, in which only one sector – the power sector – is analyzed. To assess the implications of Yang's suggestion to minimize direct emissions, we repeated the calculations optimizing direct emissions instead of life cycle emissions. We found that this approach is unable to discriminate effectively between electricity production technologies and, consequently, leads to a suboptimal mix with impacts on climate change, ocean acidification and freshwater use 102, 33 and 1.5 times the limits, respectively, whereas our original solution meets all planetary boundaries concurrently. Our findings imply that Yang's suggestion of optimizing direct emissions in energy systems models might not the best way forward in single-sector studies like ours.