This Title All WIREs
How to cite this WIREs title:
WIREs Energy Environ.

Global energy‐climate scenarios and models: a review

Full article on Wiley Online Library:   HTML PDF

Can't access this content? Tell your librarian.

Long‐term energy scenarios are an important input to policy‐relevant assessment reports on climate change such as those produced by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change or the United Nations Environment Programme to just name a few examples. They are also used by government agencies to support their decision making in the context of climate change mitigation and other energy‐related challenges. In response to this demand, two broader categories of model development are currently pursued by the scientific community: (1) the degree of integration is increasing, in other words, the system boundaries of models are being extended, in particular to address the interlinkages between the energy, land, food, water, and climate more comprehensively and (2) the heterogeneity of the representation of various entities (e.g., spatial, sectoral, socio‐economic) is increasing to adequately address distributional effects (e.g., countries within regions, urban vs rural areas, different types of households). Moreover, the energy‐climate scenarios that are being developed are designed to be more ‘realistic’ by going beyond very stylized designs and integrate features that are observed in the real world. This includes delayed action on climate mitigation or fragmented approaches to mitigation that not only exclude major emitters from climate action, but also the exclusion of specific technologies from the portfolio of mitigation options in response to technical challenges or public acceptance issues. Finally, an attempt is made to summarize robust insights that have emerged from individual studies and particularly from modeling comparison exercises. WIREs Energy Environ 2014, 3:363–383. doi: 10.1002/wene.98

Illustration of typical system boundaries frequently used in energy‐economic and integrated assessment (IA) modeling. Note that the system boundaries shown above are illustrative, i.e., in reality models may have boundaries that are different from the ones shown. Adapted from Refs and .
[ Normal View | Magnified View ]
Reductions of global CO2 emission from fossil fuels and industrial processes in 2050 across scenarios participating in the EMF22 study. Dots outside the figure range indicate scenarios that were found to be infeasible under the specified criteria. Note that atmospheric global greenhouse gas (GHG) concentration profiles are either overshoot (O.S.) or not‐to‐exceed (N.T.E.) profiles. Cases with full and delayed participation have been examined in the study. (NO)BECS refers to the availability of bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (CCS). Reprinted from Ref with permission from Elsevier.
[ Normal View | Magnified View ]
Mitigation costs from the ADAM and RECIPE model comparison projects, under varying assumptions regarding constraints on technology deployment. Note that costs are expressed differently between studies and models. RECIPE measured costs as the decrease in discounted (3% p.a.) cumulative consumption through 2100 relative to baseline no‐policy scenario consumption. Mitigation costs in the ADAM project are presented in terms of discounted (3% p.a.) aggregated gross domestic product (GDP) losses (MERGE and REMIND) or increase of abatement costs (POLES) through 2100 relative to the respective no‐policy scenarios under identical technology assumptions. All scenarios described as ‘Baseline’ restrict technology deployment to its baseline levels. The nuclear phase‐out scenarios assume no new investments in nuclear power. The ‘XXX’ indicates that the CO2 concentration target for the scenario was not achieved. Note that climate targets in ADAM are defined in terms of CO2‐equiv concentration of all greenhouse gases while in RECIPE the climate target is defined for CO2‐only concentration. Data from Refs and .
[ Normal View | Magnified View ]
Electricity generation portfolio in China, India, Indonesia, Japan, Korea, and the OECD 90 across models in the CO2 price $30 (5% p.a.) scenario of the Asian Modeling Exercise in 2050. Reprinted from Ref with permission from Elsevier.
[ Normal View | Magnified View ]
Development of global final electricity use (a) and global electricity share in final energy (b) in the reference and different CO2 price scenarios across model participating in the Asian Modeling Exercise. The thick black line corresponds to the median, the colored box to the inter‐quartile range (25th to 75th percentile) and the ends of the whiskers to the full range across all models. The dots show values of the 17 individual models to give a sense of their distribution.
[ Normal View | Magnified View ]
Carbon intensity of primary energy versus final energy intensity reduction compared to 2010 for the period 2010 to 2100 across different models in the CO2 price $30 (5% p.a.) scenario of the Asian Modeling Exercise. Note that some models only run until 2050 and therefore have fewer dots shown on the graph.
[ Normal View | Magnified View ]

Browse by Topic

Energy Systems Economics > Climate and Environment
Energy and Climate > Economics and Policy
Energy and Climate > Systems and Infrastructure
Energy and Climate > Climate and Environment
blog comments powered by Disqus

Access to this WIREs title is by subscription only.

Recommend to Your
Librarian Now!

The latest WIREs articles in your inbox

Sign Up for Article Alerts

Twitter: GCB_Bioenergy Follow us on Twitter

    Ethanol developers push back against government on new railcar regulations for both crude oil and the corn-based fuel http://t.co/b5YSyd5M7A