4.8 Article

Long-term energy scenarios: Bridging the gap between socioeconomic storylines and energy modeling

期刊

TECHNOLOGICAL FORECASTING AND SOCIAL CHANGE
卷 91, 期 -, 页码 161-178

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.techfore.2014.02.006

关键词

Storylines; Participatory process; Quantitative scenario; Energy modeling; Energy scenario

资金

  1. Portuguese Science and Technology Foundation [SFRH/BD/27549/2006]
  2. HybCO2 [PTDC/AAC-CLI/105164/2008]
  3. Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia [SFRH/BD/27549/2006] Funding Source: FCT

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The development of scenarios to explore energy and low carbon futures has been widely applied. Although some studies combine qualitative scenarios with quantitative outcomes from modeling exercises, the two approaches have been extensively and separately used. Many energy scenarios are sustained only by the results of the models, which allow great technological details but neglect the interaction with social and economic factors. Using Portugal as a case study, this paper presents a framework to link socio-economic storylines, sustained by national stakeholders' workshops, with the development of quantitative energy scenarios through 2050, generated by the technology-based TIMES_PT model. The storylines highlight different visions of the country's development, including the energy system. A comparison between the energy profile from the storylines and the energy modeling outcomes was performed to assess the extent of their differences. This analysis revealed generally similar visions, with the exception of the importance of some technologies, which may affect future energy planning. We conclude that a combined method that links socio-economic storylines and energy modeling increases the robustness of energy scenario development because providing a coherent context for modeling assumptions allows better reasoning, which is most valued for the decision-making process. (C) 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据