Comparing future patterns of energy system change in 2 °C scenarios with historically observed rates of change

Abstract

A B S T R A C TThis paper systematically compares modeled rates of change provided by global integrated assessment models aiming for the 2 C objective to historically observed rates of change. Such a comparison can provide insights into the difficulty of achieving such stringent climate stabilization scenarios. The analysis focuses specifically on the rates of change for technology expansion and diffusion, emissions and energy supply investments. The associated indicators vary in terms of system focus (technology-specific or energy system wide), temporal scale (timescale or lifetime), spatial scale (regional or global) and normalization (accounting for entire system growth or not). Although none of the indicators provide conclusive insights as to the achievability of scenarios, this study finds that indicators that look into absolute change remain within the range of historical growth frontiers for the next decade, but increase to unprecedented levels before mid-century. Indicators that take into account or normalize for overall system growth find future change to be broadly within historical ranges. This is particularly the case for monetary-based normalization metrics like GDP compared to energy-based normalization metrics like primary energy. By applying a diverse set of indicators alternative, complementary insights into how scenarios compare with historical observations are acquired but they do not provide further insights on the possibility of achieving rates of change that are beyond current day practice.

On the political feasibility of climate change mitigation pathways: Is it too late to keep warming below 1.5°C?

“…The different “what's” comprising decarbonization pathways have received unequal attention in the literature. It is more common to study the feasibility of expanding low‐carbon technologies (Loftus, Cohen, Long, & Jenkins, ; van Sluisveld et al, ; C. Wilson, Grubler, Bauer, Krey, & Riahi, ), but meeting stringent climate targets also requires phasing‐out carbon‐intensive sectors, possibly deploying negative emission technologies and radical energy demand reduction as well as many other actions (IPCC, ; Rogelj et al, ; Rogelj, Shindell, et al, ). The “what” question should not only address these actions, but also their interactions for example, the feasibility of simultaneously expanding low‐carbon energy supply and reducing the overall energy demand.…”

Exploring the Feasibility of Low-Carbon Scenarios Using Historical Energy Transitions Analysis

“…These tests are not completely independent of each other but they provide insights at different levels and perspectives, from deployment profiles at an individual technology level (Test 4) to deployment within the context of the whole energy system (Tests 5 and 6). This paper builds on similar studies in the literature (e.g., Sluisveld et al [39]) in two key ways: (1) it combines the tests into stepwise diagnostic approach and (2) it applies this diagnostic tool to successively constrain the model to generate scenarios that do not break certain feasibility criteria. Table 3.…”

Transition of Växjö and Sønderborg towards becoming fossil-fuel-free communities

“…Set within a largely neoliberal political landscape, the focus has mainly been on a techno-economic model involving the rapid deployment of renewable energy technologies ranging from wind to biomass, hydro and solar power (Edenhofer et al, 2010a(Edenhofer et al, , 2010bvan Sluisveld et al, 2015;von Stechow et al, 2016;Webb et al, 2016). Yet successful deployment of urban energy initiatives is not a matter of technoeconomic optimisation but a process in which the 'social' and the 'technical' are inextricably intertwined, and technologies co-evolve with programmes of governing (Webb et al, 2016).…”

“…Published scientific research mostly focuses on technical solutions and economic models (Dovì and Battaglini, 2015;Edenhofer et al, 2010b;Rizzi et al, 2014;van Sluisveld et al, 2015) when deploying new or improved renewable energy technologies for reductions in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and consumption of fossil fuels to limit global warming to less than 2°C. There is still little in the way of published research into public participation and public acceptance when deploying renewable energy, such as new wind energy farms in Japan (Motosu and Maruyama, 2016), constructing new overhead electrical transmission lines (Dovì and Battaglini, 2015;Komendantova et al, 2015) or grass-roots initiatives for community energy sectors (Webb et al, 2016).…”