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/DB9PR04MB82352628C7350CDB9A3B3079F8D49%40DB9PR04MB8235.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com.
Hi Mark, Hauke, all
I just want to explore briefly the overlap between integrated assessment models (IAM) and energy system models (ESM). There seems to be very little.
For instance, I recently witnessed a discussion between new build nuclear fission enthusiasts and energy system analysts. The pro‑nuclear folk argue that most, if not all, IPCC IAM scenarios have substantial new build nuclear, whereas most, if not all, ESM studies will not select for new build nuclear, even when the technology is on offer. While noting that ancillary considerations, like final low and high‑level waste storage, are not necessarily embedded in either approach.
The pro‑nuclear camp therefore conclude that most ESM studies are flawed and their results and insights next to useless.
Somewhat similar discussions ensued in the letters column after New Scientist ran a special issue on energy which explicitly ruled out new build nuclear (and which also represented a noticeable turn‑around for that publication):
Le Page, Michael (7 August 2021). "A new energy world". New Scientist. (3346): 34–44. ISSN 0262-4079. Web version titled: How we can transform our energy system to achieve net-zero emissions.
Anyone wish to comment ..
best wishes, Robbie
To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/openmod-initiative/FF6F3535-BBD7-46AB-BB3D-DB16FDC07499%40desa.kth.se.
-- Robbie Morrison Address: Schillerstrasse 85, 10627 Berlin, Germany Phone: +49.30.612-87617