Final energy versus energy services in Integrated Assessment Models
Tom Brown
I was shocked to find out from an Integrated Assessment Model (IAM)
expert that some models until recently defined energy demand in terms of
final energy rather than energy services. This means that energy for
transport gets defined in terms of liquid hydrocarbons (supply options:
fossil oil and biofuels) and heat in terms of gas. It means fuel
switching, e.g. from liquid hydrocarbons to electric vehicles in
transport, or in heating from gas boilers to heat pumps, is not
considered. These options then have a big effect on flexibility
available in the electricity sector.
Can anybody confirm how other IAMs treat energy demand, or point me
towards critical literature?
IAMs have come under criticism recently for representing renewables
poorly and being intransparent (references below), but I haven't seen so
much on sector coupling aspects.
Best wishes,
Tom
1. https://www.nature.com/articles/nenergy2017140
The underestimated potential of solar energy to mitigate climate change
"We propose that with coordinated advances in multiple components of the
energy system, PV could supply 30–50% of electricity in competitive
markets."
2. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2018.12.131
Looking under the hood: A comparison of techno-economic assumptions
across national and global integrated assessment models
"Beyond numerical differences, the representation of technologies also
differs among models, which needs to be taken into account when
comparing numerical parameters....Therefore, making techno-economic
parameters available in the future, together with of the technology
representation as well as the exact definitions of the parameters should
become the standard approach as it allows an open discussion of
appropriate assumptions."
--
Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT)
Institute for Automation and Applied Informatics (IAI)
Dr. Tom Brown
Research Group Leader, Energy System Modelling
Phone: +49 721 608 25737
Fax: +49 721 608 22602
Group website: https://www.iai.kit.edu/english/ESM.php
Personal website: https://nworbmot.org/
Visitor Address:
Office 309
Campus North Building 445
Hermann-von-Helmholtz-Platz 1
76344 Eggenstein-Leopoldshafen
Robbie Morrison
Hi Tom, all
Another aspect of IAMs is their treatment of the macroeconomy. Kuhnhenn (listed below) argues that integrated assessment models should be developed so that they can represent measures related to degrowth as part of the climate solution. At the moment, this is either not possible or the models avoid such solutions because their goal function effectively maximizes consumption (REMIND from PIK is discussed in this regard).
Those outside Germany might not realize that sufficiency (just using what you need) and degrowth are now openly discussed in academic circles.
Also listed below is an Extinction Rebellion (XR) Germany forum thread on modifying IAMs FYI. I would hazard a guess that open analysis for energy systems and climate policy will be well under way in Germany in a year or so's time.
Increasingly
off‑topic
The reason I make that remark is I watch XR Berlin recruit 50–100 volunteers per week, many are professionals and one or two will have PhDs. These volunteers are fully committed to providing themselves and their kids with some kind of future. Scientists for Future (S4F) is also consolidating, having now formed an incorporated society with two‑half time employees. And as with XR, there are local groups throughout Germany. S4F contributors will be at the Fridays for Future (FFF) climate strike on 20 September under their local banners. XR kicks off its international rebellion on 7 October. It is hard to overstate how determined XR supporters are. Sortition‑based citizens’ assemblies are also moving up the agenda. Müller (2019) (S4F Berlin/Brandenburg) compares XR to the civil society protests preceding the fall of the Berlin Wall in a charming blog.
with best wishes, Robbie
References
Kuhnhenn, Kai (19 June 2017). Analyse Wachstumsrücknahme in Klimaschutzszenarien. Leipzig, Germany: Konzeptwerk Neue Ökonomie (KNOE).
Kuhnhenn, Kai (September 2018). Wachstum in der Klimawissenschaft: Ein blinder Fleck Globale Szenarien aus wachstumskritischer Perspektive — E-paper [Economic growth in climate science: a blind spot in global scenarios from a growth-critical perspective — E-paper] (in German). Berlin, Germany: Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung.
Kuhnhenn, Kai (4 December 2018). Economic growth in mitigation scenarios: a blind spot in climate science — E-paper. Berlin, Germany: Heinrich Böll Foundation.
Müller, Stefan (8 September 2019). Fun with Extinction Rebellion. Hot climate topics. Germany. Personal blog.
XR-DE community (ongoing). Use of IPCC IAM models and similar. Extinction Rebellion Deutschland. Registration required.
-- Robbie Morrison Address: Schillerstrasse 85, 10627 Berlin, Germany Phone: +49.30.612-87617
Berit Müller
Hello Robby, Tom and all of you joining the EMP-E,
I wasn’t aware of this problem as well – I thought that they also implement useful energy (german: Nutzenergie – I’m never sure if the translation is right…).
EMP-E 2019 in October could be a good place to ask the modellers of IAMs how they integrate it!!
Best
Berit
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "openmod initiative" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to
openmod-initiat...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web, visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/openmod-initiative/28fd5221-1f54-59f8-80ab-ae3ddf6d0f16%40posteo.de.
Robbie Morrison
Hello Berit, Tom, all
From wikipedia DE
and the deepl translator on Nutzenergie:
Useful energy is an inconsistently or vaguely used term for energy that is available to end users for their needs. Due to transmission and conversion losses, the useful energy is lower than the final energy measured at the transfer point. Forms of useful energy are heat for room heating, cold for room cooling, light for workplace lighting or mechanical work.
The same concept as final energy
(consumption) in English, therefore. That is was what Tom was
complaining about: if you specify demand in terms of energy
services rather than Nutzenergie/final energy, then the
solution space expands. Particularly if sector coupling
technologies are present and/or consumers have a range of
choices about "fueling" their devices.
People have been complaining about this in the literature since 1995 and probably much earlier too.
But your point about limited contact and consistency between
energy system models and IAMs stands. And could be usefully
(whatever that means) discussed at EMP-E. :)
Robbie
To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/openmod-initiative/VI1PR10MB28138794355146A7AE9F02CA99B70%40VI1PR10MB2813.EURPRD10.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM.
Berit Müller
Hy Robbie,
useful energy is not the same as final energy (in german at least). Because I say what I need (light, heat, cold,…) but I don’t specify the energy carrier. And that is important for the models – I say I need heat as useful energy at a defined temperature for my house or process and then the model has the possibility to find the optimal solution (electricity, gas, or whatever, grid connected or stand alone…).
To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/openmod-initiative/af7b07d2-fab3-f4be-7ebc-7b1e62f6d3aa%40posteo.de.
Robbie Morrison
Hi Berit
Okay. The eurostat
definition of "final energy" is completely silent on the
issue of energy carrier. And Tom did indicate that for some
IAMs, thermal demand is defined in terms of gas provision,
rather rigid to say the least and certainly not a Nutzenergie
approach. One further advantage of specifying consumption in
terms of energy services is that energy‑passive means can be
potentially used to serve those needs: including building
thermal performance improvement (not limited to insulation),
daylighting, cycling, and walking. That lies beyond the Nutzenergie
concept, as I understand it. And I will intentionally avoid
mentioning exergy accounting here.
This discussion indicates the need for a
community-agreed ontology, which, as it happens, has its project
kickoff meeting scheduled for 19 September 2019.
with best wishes, Robbie
To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/openmod-initiative/VI1PR10MB2813A450E0C2D8A1B1E80F6899B70%40VI1PR10MB2813.EURPRD10.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM.
Berit Müller
Hi Robbie,
good point!
Let us take this into the Ontology Discussion (@Ludwig!!) – and we should switch results about it to the forum.
If anybody else has definitions that are more explicit about final and useful energy – welcome to point it out.
To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/openmod-initiative/9fd85fab-65f9-a8c1-7c8a-20839673948d%40posteo.de.
Tom Brown
The overall answer was that this was a problem until recently, but is
mostly fixed in recent version of the models. (Although I came across
this issue in a 2018 paper...)
A recent European project dedicated a Work Package to this topic for IAMs:
http://www.fp7-advance.eu/?q=content/modelling-energy-services-and-end-use
I've copied a comprehensive answer below from Herib Blanco of Groningen
University with his permission (thanks Herib!).
Note that the IAM community has dealt thoroughly with the definitions of
final energy / useful energy / energy services.
Best wishes,
Tom
On 10/09/2019 12:08, Blanco Reano, H.J. wrote:
Hi Tom,
The short answer is that I think most of the IAMs (different from one
model to the other) do use the energy services and make the endogenous
choice of energy carrier, but perhaps always good to ask one of the
people in that modeling community to make sure.
Some references:
* The ADVANCE project (FP7 - ended in 2016) [1] looked at improving
the representation of the energy services (WP2, but there were 6 in
total) and I think that helped to improve further this aspect in
many IAMs. You can see in deliverable 2.1 [2] and
the summary tables associated the way each model calculates the
technology mix (mostly based on logit function / cost).
* There is some IAM documentation and how they model the various parts
of the system [3]. I understand there are some constraints (not
specific shares) for some carriers depending on the SSP (Shared
Socio-economic Pathway), for example [4].
* I also find Table 2.SM.6 of the 1.5 C report (1st attachment) useful
to see both coverage of technology / options and endogenous /
exogenous character. For example, you can see that electrification
of transport and buildings (i.e. technology choice) is mostly
endogenous and explicit.
* Two examples (that I think show they use energy services):
o [5] is an example for transport that makes a comparison across 5
IAMs and I understand from the SI (section 2.3) that they do use
energy services (pkm/tkm in this case) and determine all the
shares endogenously (mostly logit functions). I guess the
transport sector is different in the sense that it is not purely
based on cost (also behavioral / preferences aspects), but that
also has been considered in IAMs [6].
o 2nd attachment looks at a 1.5 C scenario that does not use CDR
(Carbon Dioxide Removal) technologies and therefore relies
heavily on energy efficiency (and even hydrogen). This was done
with MESSAGE (i.e. only one IAM), but as part of the SI [7], it
specifies "demands are formulated at the level of useful energy,
with final energy determined endogenously in the model. The
respective final‐to‐useful energy conversion efficiency is
therefore determined by the choice of residential energy systems
and technologies"
I hope the above is useful and let me know if you reach a different
conclusion or get some expert input from someone working on the field.
Best regards,
Herib
[1]
http://www.fp7-advance.eu/?q=content/modelling-energy-services-and-end-use
[2]
http://www.fp7-advance.eu/sites/default/files/documents/WP2/ADVANCE_deliverable_2.1.pdf
[3] https://www.iamcdocumentation.eu/index.php/IAMC_wiki
[4]
https://www.iamcdocumentation.eu/index.php/Residential_and_commercial_sectors_-_MESSAGE-GLOBIOM
[5] DOI 10.1007/s10584-012-0663-6
[6] http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2016.04.003
[7]
https://static-content.springer.com/esm/art%3A10.1038%2Fs41560-018-0172-6/MediaObjects/41560_2018_172_MOESM1_ESM.pdf
Tom Brown
Someone asked me about the definitions of final energy / useful energy /
energy services. I don't want to open up a can-of-worms
everybody-spams-with-their-own-definition session, but from the
literature, i.e. what was linked below and e.g. this paper "Energy
services: A conceptual review"
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2017.02.010
the general understanding is:
final energy (German Endenergie): energy in the form delivered to
consumers for their use, e.g. electricity, gas/oil for heating,
petrol/diesel for internal combustion engine cars, fossil fuels
delivered to industry, etc
useful energy (German Nutzenergie): the part of final energy that the
consumer needs, e.g. light from a light bulb, heat from a radiator,
mechanical work from a motor/engine
energy services (German Energiedienstleistungen?): "functions performed
using energy which are means to obtain or facilitate desired end
services or states" (from paper above) - this is close to "useful
energy" but may be defined more abstractly, e.g. light (same), "a space
of 50 m^2 heated to a comfortable temperature", or for transport "a
certain number of passenger-km or tonne-km" (which allows substitution
of individual transport with public transport)
I'm sure not everyone will agree...