Energy system transition pathways to meet the global electricity demand for ambitious climate targets and cost competitiveness

This study presents a novel energy system modelling approach for the analysis and comparison of global energy transition pathways for the decarbonisation of the electricity sector. The results of the International Energy Agency (IEA), and the Teske/DLR scenarios are each reproduced. Additionally, five new energy transition tra-jectories, called LUT, are presented. The research examines the feasibility of each scenario across nine major regions in 5-year intervals, from 2015 to 2050, under a uniform modelling environment with identical technical and financial assumptions. The main differences between the energy transition paths are identified across: (1) the average electricity generation costs; (2) energy diversity; (3) system flexibility; (4) energy security; and, (5) transition dynamics. All LUT and Teske/DLR scenarios are transitioned to zero CO2 emissions and a 100% renewable energy system by 2050 at the latest. Results reveal that the LUT scenarios are the least-cost pathways, while the Teske/DLR scenarios are centred around energy diversity with slightly higher LCOE of around 10-20%. The IEA shares similarities with the Teske/DLR scenarios in terms of energy diversity yet depends on the continued use of fossil fuels with carbon capture and storage, and nuclear power. The IEA scenario based on current governmental policies presents a worst-case situation regarding CO2 emissions reduction, climate change and overall system costs.

Automated summary

This study introduces a novel energy system modelling approach to analyze and compare global energy transition pathways for decarbonizing the electricity sector. Existing scenarios from the IEA and Teske/DLR are replicated, and new LUT scenarios are presented. The research evaluates the feasibility of each scenario across nine major regions in 5-year intervals from 2015 to 2050. Results demonstrate that LUT scenarios are the most cost-effective, while Teske/DLR scenarios prioritize energy diversity with slightly higher costs. The IEA scenario shares similarities with Teske/DLR scenarios but relies on continued use of fossil fuels with carbon capture and storage, and nuclear power.