Looking under the hood: A comparison of techno-economic assumptions across national and global integrated assessment models
Abstract
Integrated assessment models are extensively used in the analysis of climate change mitigation and are informing national decision makers as well as contribute to international scientific assessments. This paper conducts a comprehensive review of techno-economic assumptions in the electricity sector among fifteen different global and national integrated assessment models. Particular focus is given to six major economies in the world: Brazil, China, the EU, India, Japan and the US. The comparison reveals that techno-economic characteristics are quite different across integrated assessment models, both for the base year and future years. It is, however, important to recognize that techno-economic assessments from the literature exhibit an equally large range of parameters as the integrated assessment models reviewed. Beyond numerical differences, the representation of technologies also differs among models, which needs to be taken into account when comparing numerical parameters. While desirable, it seems difficult to fully harmonize techno-economic parameters across a broader range of models due to structural differences in the representation of technology. Therefore, making techno-economic parameters available in the future, together with of the technology representation as well as the exact definitions of the parameters should become the standard approach as it allows an open discussion of appropriate assumptions.
- Authors:
-
[1];
[2];
[3];
[7];
[8];
[11];
[12];
[13];
more »
- International Inst. for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), Laxenburg (Austria); Norwegian Univ. of Science and Technology (NTNU), Trondheim (Norway). Industrial Ecology and Energy Transitions Programmes
- International Inst. for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), Laxenburg (Austria)
- Univ. Federal do Rio de Janeiro (COPPE-UFRJ), Rio de Janeiro (Brazil)
- Energy and Resources Inst. (TERI), New Delhi (India)
- Potsdam Inst. for Climate Impact Research (PIK), Potsdam (Germany)
- PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, The Hague (the Netherlands); Univ. of Utrecht (Netherlands). Copernicus Inst. for Sustainable Development
- Inst. of Communications and Computer Systems (ICCS), Athina (Greece)
- Kyoto Univ. (Japan). Dept. Environmental Engineering; National Inst. for Environmental Studies (NIES), Tsukuba, Ibaraki (Japan)
- Energy Research Inst. (ERI), Hebei (China)
- Pacific Northwest National Lab. (PNNL), Richland, WA (United States). Joint Global Change Research Inst.
- European Commission, Seville (Spain). Joint Research Centre
- Univ. Federal do Rio de Janeiro (COPPE-UFRJ), Rio de Janeiro (Brazil); Imperial College, London (United Kingdom). Grantham Inst.
- Mizuho Information & Research Inst., Inc. (MHIR), Tokyo (Japan)
- RFF-CMCC European Inst. on Economics and the Environment (EIEE), Milan (Italy). Centro Euro-Mediterraneo sui Cambiamenti Climatici (CMCC)
- Research Inst. of Innovative Technology for the Earth (RITE), Kizugawa (Japan)
- Indian Inst. of Management Ahmedabad (IIMA), Ahmedabad (India)
- Energy and Resources Inst. (TERI), New Delhi (India)
- National Renewable Energy Lab. (NREL), Golden, CO (United States)
- Publication Date:
- Research Org.:
- National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), Golden, CO (United States)
- Sponsoring Org.:
- USDOE Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE)
- OSTI Identifier:
- 1503159
- Report Number(s):
- NREL/JA-5400-73534
Journal ID: ISSN 0360-5442
- Grant/Contract Number:
- AC36-08GO28308
- Resource Type:
- Accepted Manuscript
- Journal Name:
- Energy
- Additional Journal Information:
- Journal Volume: 172; Journal Issue: C; Journal ID: ISSN 0360-5442
- Publisher:
- Elsevier
- Country of Publication:
- United States
- Language:
- English
- Subject:
- 29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY; integrated assessment models; techno-economic assumptions; capital and O&M costs; conversion efficiency; lifetime; levelised cost of energy
Citation Formats
Krey, Volker, Guo, Fei, Kolp, Peter, Zhou, Wenji, Schaeffer, Roberto, Awasthy, Aayushi, Bertram, Christoph, de Boer, Harmen-Sytze, Fragkos, Panagiotis, Fujimori, Shinichiro, He, Chenmin, Iyer, Gokul, Keramidas, Kimon, Köberle, Alexandre C., Oshiro, Ken, Reis, Lara Aleluia, Shoai-Tehrani, Bianka, Vishwanathan, Saritha, Capros, Pantelis, Drouet, Laurent, Edmonds, James E., Garg, Amit, Gernaat, David E. H. J., Jiang, Kejun, Kannavou, Maria, Kitous, Alban, Kriegler, Elmar, Luderer, Gunnar, Mathur, Ritu, Muratori, Matteo, Sano, Fuminori, and van Vuuren, Detlef P. Looking under the hood: A comparison of techno-economic assumptions across national and global integrated assessment models. United States: N. p., 2018.
Web. doi:10.1016/j.energy.2018.12.131.
Krey, Volker, Guo, Fei, Kolp, Peter, Zhou, Wenji, Schaeffer, Roberto, Awasthy, Aayushi, Bertram, Christoph, de Boer, Harmen-Sytze, Fragkos, Panagiotis, Fujimori, Shinichiro, He, Chenmin, Iyer, Gokul, Keramidas, Kimon, Köberle, Alexandre C., Oshiro, Ken, Reis, Lara Aleluia, Shoai-Tehrani, Bianka, Vishwanathan, Saritha, Capros, Pantelis, Drouet, Laurent, Edmonds, James E., Garg, Amit, Gernaat, David E. H. J., Jiang, Kejun, Kannavou, Maria, Kitous, Alban, Kriegler, Elmar, Luderer, Gunnar, Mathur, Ritu, Muratori, Matteo, Sano, Fuminori, & van Vuuren, Detlef P. Looking under the hood: A comparison of techno-economic assumptions across national and global integrated assessment models. United States. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2018.12.131
Krey, Volker, Guo, Fei, Kolp, Peter, Zhou, Wenji, Schaeffer, Roberto, Awasthy, Aayushi, Bertram, Christoph, de Boer, Harmen-Sytze, Fragkos, Panagiotis, Fujimori, Shinichiro, He, Chenmin, Iyer, Gokul, Keramidas, Kimon, Köberle, Alexandre C., Oshiro, Ken, Reis, Lara Aleluia, Shoai-Tehrani, Bianka, Vishwanathan, Saritha, Capros, Pantelis, Drouet, Laurent, Edmonds, James E., Garg, Amit, Gernaat, David E. H. J., Jiang, Kejun, Kannavou, Maria, Kitous, Alban, Kriegler, Elmar, Luderer, Gunnar, Mathur, Ritu, Muratori, Matteo, Sano, Fuminori, and van Vuuren, Detlef P. Fri .
"Looking under the hood: A comparison of techno-economic assumptions across national and global integrated assessment models". United States. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2018.12.131. https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/1503159.
@article{osti_1503159,
title = {Looking under the hood: A comparison of techno-economic assumptions across national and global integrated assessment models},
author = {Krey, Volker and Guo, Fei and Kolp, Peter and Zhou, Wenji and Schaeffer, Roberto and Awasthy, Aayushi and Bertram, Christoph and de Boer, Harmen-Sytze and Fragkos, Panagiotis and Fujimori, Shinichiro and He, Chenmin and Iyer, Gokul and Keramidas, Kimon and Köberle, Alexandre C. and Oshiro, Ken and Reis, Lara Aleluia and Shoai-Tehrani, Bianka and Vishwanathan, Saritha and Capros, Pantelis and Drouet, Laurent and Edmonds, James E. and Garg, Amit and Gernaat, David E. H. J. and Jiang, Kejun and Kannavou, Maria and Kitous, Alban and Kriegler, Elmar and Luderer, Gunnar and Mathur, Ritu and Muratori, Matteo and Sano, Fuminori and van Vuuren, Detlef P.},
abstractNote = {Integrated assessment models are extensively used in the analysis of climate change mitigation and are informing national decision makers as well as contribute to international scientific assessments. This paper conducts a comprehensive review of techno-economic assumptions in the electricity sector among fifteen different global and national integrated assessment models. Particular focus is given to six major economies in the world: Brazil, China, the EU, India, Japan and the US. The comparison reveals that techno-economic characteristics are quite different across integrated assessment models, both for the base year and future years. It is, however, important to recognize that techno-economic assessments from the literature exhibit an equally large range of parameters as the integrated assessment models reviewed. Beyond numerical differences, the representation of technologies also differs among models, which needs to be taken into account when comparing numerical parameters. While desirable, it seems difficult to fully harmonize techno-economic parameters across a broader range of models due to structural differences in the representation of technology. Therefore, making techno-economic parameters available in the future, together with of the technology representation as well as the exact definitions of the parameters should become the standard approach as it allows an open discussion of appropriate assumptions.},
doi = {10.1016/j.energy.2018.12.131},
journal = {Energy},
number = C,
volume = 172,
place = {United States},
year = {Fri Dec 21 00:00:00 EST 2018},
month = {Fri Dec 21 00:00:00 EST 2018}
}
Free Publicly Available Full Text
Publisher's Version of Record
Other availability
Search WorldCat to find libraries that may hold this journal
Cited by: 73 works
Citation information provided by
Web of Science
Web of Science
Save to My Library
You must Sign In or Create an Account in order to save documents to your library.
Works referenced in this record:
Coupling national and global models to explore policy impacts of NDCs
journal, July 2018
- Fragkos, Panagiotis; Fragkiadakis, Kostas; Paroussos, Leonidas
- Energy Policy, Vol. 118
A low energy demand scenario for meeting the 1.5 °C target and sustainable development goals without negative emission technologies
journal, June 2018
- Grubler, Arnulf; Wilson, Charlie; Bento, Nuno
- Nature Energy, Vol. 3, Issue 6
Research on global carbon abatement driven by R&D investment in the context of INDCs
journal, April 2018
- Gu, Gaoxiang; Wang, Zheng
- Energy, Vol. 148
An integrated assessment of pathways for low-carbon development in Africa
journal, June 2018
- van der Zwaan, Bob; Kober, Tom; Longa, Francesco Dalla
- Energy Policy, Vol. 117
Energy, land-use and greenhouse gas emissions trajectories under a green growth paradigm
journal, January 2017
- van Vuuren, Detlef P.; Stehfest, Elke; Gernaat, David E. H. J.
- Global Environmental Change, Vol. 42
Global energy-climate scenarios and models: a review: Global energy-climate scenarios and models
journal, February 2014
- Krey, Volker
- Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Energy and Environment, Vol. 3, Issue 4
The importance of open data and software: Is energy research lagging behind?
journal, February 2017
- Pfenninger, Stefan; DeCarolis, Joseph; Hirth, Lion
- Energy Policy, Vol. 101
Innovation and technology transfer through global value chains: Evidence from China's PV industry
journal, July 2016
- Zhang, Fang; Gallagher, Kelly Sims
- Energy Policy, Vol. 94
Residual fossil CO2 emissions in 1.5–2 °C pathways
journal, June 2018
- Luderer, Gunnar; Vrontisi, Zoi; Bertram, Christoph
- Nature Climate Change, Vol. 8, Issue 7
Enhancing global climate policy ambition towards a 1.5 °C stabilization: a short-term multi-model assessment
journal, April 2018
- Vrontisi, Zoi; Luderer, Gunnar; Saveyn, Bert
- Environmental Research Letters, Vol. 13, Issue 4
Locked into Copenhagen pledges — Implications of short-term emission targets for the cost and feasibility of long-term climate goals
journal, January 2015
- Riahi, Keywan; Kriegler, Elmar; Johnson, Nils
- Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 90
Making or breaking climate targets: The AMPERE study on staged accession scenarios for climate policy
journal, January 2015
- Kriegler, Elmar; Riahi, Keywan; Bauer, Nico
- Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 90
Energy investment needs for fulfilling the Paris Agreement and achieving the Sustainable Development Goals
journal, June 2018
- McCollum, David L.; Zhou, Wenji; Bertram, Christoph
- Nature Energy, Vol. 3, Issue 7
Technological Change and International Trade - Insights from REMIND-R
journal, September 2010
- Leimbach, Marian; Bauer, Nico; Baumstark, Lavinia
- The Energy Journal, Vol. 31, Issue 01
Fossil resource and energy security dynamics in conventional and carbon-constrained worlds
journal, October 2013
- McCollum, David; Bauer, Nico; Calvin, Katherine
- Climatic Change, Vol. 123, Issue 3-4
The Shared Socioeconomic Pathways and their energy, land use, and greenhouse gas emissions implications: An overview
journal, January 2017
- Riahi, Keywan; van Vuuren, Detlef P.; Kriegler, Elmar
- Global Environmental Change, Vol. 42
Regional energy system variation in global models: Results from the Asian Modeling Exercise scenarios
journal, December 2012
- Clarke, Leon; Krey, Volker; Weyant, John
- Energy Economics, Vol. 34
Works referencing / citing this record:
A Review of Criticisms of Integrated Assessment Models and Proposed Approaches to Address These, through the Lens of BECCS
journal, May 2019
- Gambhir, Ajay; Butnar, Isabela; Li, Pei-Hao
- Energies, Vol. 12, Issue 9
Reply to ‘Bias in energy system models with uniform cost of capital assumption’
journal, October 2019
- Bogdanov, Dmitrii; Child, Michael; Breyer, Christian
- Nature Communications, Vol. 10, Issue 1
Impact of weighted average cost of capital, capital expenditure, and other parameters on future utility‐scale PV levelised cost of electricity
journal, August 2019
- Vartiainen, Eero; Masson, Gaëtan; Breyer, Christian
- Progress in Photovoltaics: Research and Applications, Vol. 28, Issue 6
A multi-model assessment of food security implications of climate change mitigation
journal, May 2019
- Fujimori, Shinichiro; Hasegawa, Tomoko; Krey, Volker
- Nature Sustainability, Vol. 2, Issue 5
Early transformation of the Chinese power sector to avoid additional coal lock-in
journal, January 2020
- Wang, Huan; Chen, Wenying; Bertram, Christoph
- Environmental Research Letters, Vol. 15, Issue 2
Bias in energy system models with uniform cost of capital assumption
journal, October 2019
- Egli, Florian; Steffen, Bjarne; Schmidt, Tobias S.
- Nature Communications, Vol. 10, Issue 1