Abstract: . . .  like nature conservation, are higher than in the A1 scenario. However, there is still a high potential left in this scenario. The A2 scenario has the lowest geographical Table I: The regional geographical potential at different land-use categories for the year 2050 At abandoned agricultural land A1 A2 B1 Canada USA C.-America S.-America North-Africa West- Africa East- Africa South- Africa W. Europe E.- Europe F. USSR Middle East South Asia East Asia S.-East Asia Oceania Japan World 14 32 8 53 2 20 . . .
. . .  values. Therefore, competing land-use options, like nature conservation, are higher than in the A1 scenario. However, there is still a high potential left in this scenario. The A2 scenario has the lowest geographical Table I: The regional geographical potential at different land-use categories for the year 2050 At abandoned agricultural land A1 A2 B1 Canada USA C.-America S.-America North-Africa West- Africa East- Africa South- Africa W. Europe E.- Europe F. USSR Middle East South Asia East Asia S.-East . . .
. . .  consumption (EJ y ) 1800 1600 1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 1970 A1 A2 B1 B2 1800 1600 1400 1200 Total primary production Total geographical p o tential 1000 800 600 400 200 0 1990 2010 2030 2050 2070 2090 Figure 5: Geographical potential of woody biomass energy crops as assessed for the four SRES scenarios over time, as well as the simulated total primary energy consumption. The latter is differentiated from the graphs of the geographical potential by circles in the graphs. The difference between . . .
. . .  different assumptions for the land-claim exclusion factor 6. CONCLUSIONS The geographical potential at abandoned agricultural land is found to be the largest for the A1 and B1 scenario. For these scenarios, the potentials are comparable to the present energy consumption of about 400 EJ y–1 (Goldemberg, 2000). Absolute values at regional scale for the year 2050 are presented in Table I. At a regional level, significant potentials are found in the Former USSR, East Asia and South America. A1 and B1 have . . .
. . .  Bioenergy, 25(2), 119 – 133. Hoogwijk, M. (2004) On the global and regional potential of renewable energy sources, PhD thesis, Utrecht University, March 2004, pp: 256. Hoogwijk, M. A. Faaij, B. de Vries, W. Turkenburg (2004) Potential of biomass energy under four land-use scenarios. Part B:Exploration of regional and global costsupply curves, World biomass conference, this proceedings. IMAGEteam (2001) The IMAGE 2.2 implementation of the SRES scenarios: A comprehensive analysis of emissions, climate . . .
. . .  1000 800 600 400 200 0 1970 A1 A2 B1 B2 1800 1600 1400 1200 Total primary production Total geographical p o tential 1000 800 600 400 200 0 1990 2010 2030 2050 2070 2090 Figure 5: Geographical potential of woody biomass energy crops as assessed for the four SRES scenarios over time, as well as the simulated total primary energy consumption. The latter is differentiated from the graphs of the geographical potential by circles in the graphs. The difference between scenarios B1 and B2 compared to A1 and . . .
--3000,6,250,3438,22767