Two resources and a neat development

Skip to first unread message

Mark Howells

Sep 8, 2021, 7:37:26 AMSep 8
Dear Amazing Modellers, 

Just wanted to share two publications that may be of general use. Led out of KTH, they include a fully open simplified: Global Integrated Assessment Model called GLUCOSE.

and an Electricity Supply and Trade Model for all EU countries called OSEMBE.

And, something that is nice to see is the rise of African analysts using open tools for bleeding-edge analysis and publishing in the intl Literature. A recent addition is the application of CLEW/OSeMOSYS. Unfortunately, the chapter presents results with all the rest obscured. But it is really keen to see a growing and community where development trajectories will lockin much.
Best, Mark

Hauke Henke

Sep 8, 2021, 7:51:58 AMSep 8
Dear all,

Thanks for sharing Mark!

Just to add on this, the paper on OSeMBE is of course open access.

The easiest way to make use of the model is probably via it’s GitHub repository: 
There is also a (currently still rather basic) ReadTheDocs for the model available: 

On a site note, the journal pushed the paper out before it completed the editing of the proof. Hence the layout and perhaps some cross-references might still change within the next couple of days.

Best regards,

Hauke Henke


Hauke Henke
PhD candidate
KTH Royal Institute of Technology
ITM, division of Energy Systems
Brinellvägen 68, SE-100 44 Stockholm, Sweden

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
To view this discussion on the web, visit

Robbie Morrison

Sep 8, 2021, 8:18:07 AMSep 8

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 ..

with best wishes, Robbie

To view this discussion on the web, visit
Robbie Morrison
Address: Schillerstrasse 85, 10627 Berlin, Germany
Phone: +49.30.612-87617
Reply all
Reply to author
0 new messages