4.8 Review

Transition pathways for a UK low-carbon electricity system: Comparing scenarios and technology implications

期刊

RENEWABLE & SUSTAINABLE ENERGY REVIEWS
卷 82, 期 -, 页码 2779-2790

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.rser.2017.10.007

关键词

Transition pathways; Scenarios; Energy systems modelling; Whole systems appraisal; United Kingdom

资金

  1. UK Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC)
  2. E.On UK (the integrated energy company) [EP/F022832/1]
  3. EPSRC [EP/K005316/1, EP/G036608/1]
  4. EPSRC [EP/K005316/1, EP/F022832/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  5. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council [EP/K005316/1, 1222255, EP/F022832/1] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The United Kingdom (UK) has placed itself on a transition towards a low-carbon economy and society, through the imposition of a goal of reducing its 'greenhouse' gas emissions by 80% by 2050. A set of three low-carbon 'Transition Pathways' were developed to examine the influence of different governance arrangements on achieving a low-carbon future. They focus on the power sector, including the potential for increasing use of low-carbon electricity for heating and transport. These transition pathways were developed by starting from narrative storylines regarding different governance framings, drawing on interviews and workshops with stake-holders and analysis of historical analogies. Here the quantified pathways are compared and contrasted with the main scenarios developed in the UK Government's 2011 Carbon Plan. This can aid an informed debate on the technical feasibility and social acceptability of realising transition pathways for decarbonising the UK energy sector by 2050. The contribution of these pathways to meeting Britain's energy and carbon reduction goals are therefore evaluated on a 'whole systems' basis, including the implications of 'upstream emissions' arising from the 'fuel supply chain' ahead of power generators themselves.

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