4.6 Article

European decarbonisation pathways under alternative technological and policy choices: A multi-model analysis

Journal

ENERGY STRATEGY REVIEWS
Volume 2, Issue 3-4, Pages 231-245

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.esr.2013.12.007

Keywords

EU decarbonisation pathways; Climate policy delays; Energy roadmap; EU energy policy; Technological limitations

Categories

Funding

  1. European Union [265139]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This paper explores in a systematic manner the required energy system transformations and the associated costs incurred for the EU in order to meet the decarbonisation targets as specified in the EU Roadmap 2050, i.e. the 80% GHG emissions reduction target and the equivalent carbon budget by 2050. Seven large-scale energy-economy models, namely PRIMES, TIMES-PanEu, GEM-E3, NEMESIS, WorldScan, Green-X and GAINS, which have been extensively used in EU climate and energy policy analysis are employed for the simulation and quantification of alternative EU decarbonisation pathways under technological limitations and climate policy delays. The multi-model perspective provides valuable insights for the formulation of robust policies. The model results show that the EU emissions reduction target is feasible with currently known technological options at low costs (lower than 1% of GDP in the period 2015-2050). Models confirm the EU Roadmap priorities for 2050 with regard to accelerated energy efficiency, transport electrification and supply-side restructuring with high RES, CCS and nuclear deployment. Decarbonisation targets are found feasible even in cases with technological limitations regarding CCS and nuclear technologies and delays in transport electrification albeit with higher costs. Delaying emission reduction action until 2030 has significant adverse effects on energy system costs and stresses the system capabilities for decarbonisation. (C) 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available