\n \n \n
\n
\n\n \n \n \n \n \n Trends in Tools and Approaches for Modelling the Energy Transition.\n \n \n \n\n\n \n Chang, M., Thellufsen, J. Z., Zakeri, B., Pickering, B., Pfenninger, S., Lund, H., & Østergaard, P. A.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n
Applied Energy, 290: 116731. May 2021.\n
\n\n
\n\n
\n\n
\n\n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n
\n
@article{Chang_Trends_2021,\n abstract = {Energy system models are crucial to plan energy transition pathways and understand their impacts. A vast range of energy system modelling tools is available, providing modelling practitioners, planners, and decision-makers with multiple alternatives to represent the energy system according to different technical and methodological considerations. To better understand this landscape, here we identify current trends in the field of energy system modelling. First, we survey previous review studies, identifying their distinct focus areas and review methodologies. Second, we gather information about 54 energy system modelling tools directly from model developers and users. Unlike previous questionnaire-based studies solely focusing on technical descriptions, we include application aspects of the modelling tools, such as perceived policy-relevance, user accessibility, and model linkages. We find that, to assess the possible applications and to build a common understanding of the capabilities of these modelling tools, it is necessary to engage in dialogue with developers and users. We identify three main trends of increasing modelling of cross-sectoral synergies, growing focus on open access, and improved temporal detail to deal with planning future scenarios with high levels of variable renewable energy sources. However, key challenges remain in terms of representing high resolution energy demand in all sectors, understanding how tools are coupled together, openness and accessibility, and the level of engagement between tool developers and policy/decision-makers.},\n author = {Chang, Miguel and Thellufsen, Jakob Zink and Zakeri, Behnam and Pickering, Bryn and Pfenninger, Stefan and Lund, Henrik and Østergaard, Poul Alberg},\n doi = {10.1016/j.apenergy.2021.116731},\n issn = {0306-2619},\n journal = {Applied Energy},\n keywords = {Energy models,Energy system analysis,Energy system modelling tool,Review,Survey},\n language = {en},\n month = {May},\n pages = {116731},\n title = {Trends in Tools and Approaches for Modelling the Energy Transition},\n volume = {290},\n year = {2021}\n}\n\n
\n
\n\n\n
\n Energy system models are crucial to plan energy transition pathways and understand their impacts. A vast range of energy system modelling tools is available, providing modelling practitioners, planners, and decision-makers with multiple alternatives to represent the energy system according to different technical and methodological considerations. To better understand this landscape, here we identify current trends in the field of energy system modelling. First, we survey previous review studies, identifying their distinct focus areas and review methodologies. Second, we gather information about 54 energy system modelling tools directly from model developers and users. Unlike previous questionnaire-based studies solely focusing on technical descriptions, we include application aspects of the modelling tools, such as perceived policy-relevance, user accessibility, and model linkages. We find that, to assess the possible applications and to build a common understanding of the capabilities of these modelling tools, it is necessary to engage in dialogue with developers and users. We identify three main trends of increasing modelling of cross-sectoral synergies, growing focus on open access, and improved temporal detail to deal with planning future scenarios with high levels of variable renewable energy sources. However, key challenges remain in terms of representing high resolution energy demand in all sectors, understanding how tools are coupled together, openness and accessibility, and the level of engagement between tool developers and policy/decision-makers.\n
\n\n\n
\n\n\n
\n
\n\n \n \n \n \n \n Reviewing Methods and Assumptions for High-Resolution Large-Scale Onshore Wind Energy Potential Assessments.\n \n \n \n\n\n \n McKenna, R., Pfenninger, S., Heinrichs, H., Schmidt, J., Staffell, I., Gruber, K., Hahmann, A. N., Jansen, M., Klingler, M., Landwehr, N., Larsén, X. G., Lilliestam, J., Pickering, B., Robinius, M., Tröndle, T., Turkovska, O., Wehrle, S., Weinand, J. M., & Wohland, J.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n
arXiv:2103.09781 [econ, q-fin]. March 2021.\n
\n\n
\n\n
\n\n
\n\n \n\n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n
\n
@article{McKenna_Reviewing_2021,\n abstract = {The rapid uptake of renewable energy technologies in recent decades has increased the demand of energy researchers, policymakers and energy planners for reliable data on the spatial distribution of their costs and potentials. For onshore wind energy this has resulted in an active research field devoted to analysing these resources for regions, countries or globally. A particular thread of this research attempts to go beyond purely technical or spatial restrictions and determine the realistic, feasible or actual potential for wind energy. Motivated by these developments, this paper reviews methods and assumptions for analysing geographical, technical, economic and, finally, feasible onshore wind potentials. We address each of these potentials in turn, including aspects related to land eligibility criteria, energy meteorology, and technical developments relating to wind turbine characteristics such as power density, specific rotor power and spacing aspects. Economic aspects of potential assessments are central to future deployment and are discussed on a turbine and system level covering levelized costs depending on locations, and the system integration costs which are often overlooked in such analyses. Non-technical approaches include scenicness assessments of the landscape, expert and stakeholder workshops, willingness to pay / accept elicitations and socioeconomic cost-benefit studies. For each of these different potential estimations, the state of the art is critically discussed, with an attempt to derive best practice recommendations and highlight avenues for future research.},\n archiveprefix = {arXiv},\n author = {McKenna, Russell and Pfenninger, Stefan and Heinrichs, Heidi and Schmidt, Johannes and Staffell, Iain and Gruber, Katharina and Hahmann, Andrea N. and Jansen, Malte and Klingler, Michael and Landwehr, Natascha and Larsén, Xiaoli Guo and Lilliestam, Johan and Pickering, Bryn and Robinius, Martin and Tröndle, Tim and Turkovska, Olga and Wehrle, Sebastian and Weinand, Jann Michael and Wohland, Jan},\n eprint = {2103.09781},\n eprinttype = {arxiv},\n journal = {arXiv:2103.09781 [econ, q-fin]},\n keywords = {Economics - General Economics},\n month = {March},\n primaryclass = {econ, q-fin},\n title = {Reviewing Methods and Assumptions for High-Resolution Large-Scale Onshore Wind Energy Potential Assessments},\n year = {2021}\n}\n\n
\n
\n\n\n
\n The rapid uptake of renewable energy technologies in recent decades has increased the demand of energy researchers, policymakers and energy planners for reliable data on the spatial distribution of their costs and potentials. For onshore wind energy this has resulted in an active research field devoted to analysing these resources for regions, countries or globally. A particular thread of this research attempts to go beyond purely technical or spatial restrictions and determine the realistic, feasible or actual potential for wind energy. Motivated by these developments, this paper reviews methods and assumptions for analysing geographical, technical, economic and, finally, feasible onshore wind potentials. We address each of these potentials in turn, including aspects related to land eligibility criteria, energy meteorology, and technical developments relating to wind turbine characteristics such as power density, specific rotor power and spacing aspects. Economic aspects of potential assessments are central to future deployment and are discussed on a turbine and system level covering levelized costs depending on locations, and the system integration costs which are often overlooked in such analyses. Non-technical approaches include scenicness assessments of the landscape, expert and stakeholder workshops, willingness to pay / accept elicitations and socioeconomic cost-benefit studies. For each of these different potential estimations, the state of the art is critically discussed, with an attempt to derive best practice recommendations and highlight avenues for future research.\n
\n\n\n
\n\n\n
\n
\n\n \n \n \n \n \n Modelling in Support to the Transition to a Low-Carbon Energy System in Europe: Model Development to Match System Design Models to User Needs.\n \n \n \n\n\n \n Pickering, B., Chang, M., Thellufsen, J. Z., Roelfsema, M., Mikropoulos, S., & van Vuuren, D.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Technical Report Deliverable 4.2 of the SENTINEL project funded under the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 837089, February 2021.\n
\n\n
\n\n
\n\n
\n\n \n\n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n\n\n\n
\n
@techreport{Pickering_Modelling_2021,\n author = {Pickering, Bryn and Chang, Miguel and Thellufsen, Jakob Zinck and Roelfsema, Mark and Mikropoulos, Stratos and van Vuuren, Detlef},\n month = {February},\n number = {Deliverable 4.2 of the SENTINEL project funded under the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 837089},\n title = {Modelling in Support to the Transition to a Low-Carbon Energy System in Europe: Model Development to Match System Design Models to User Needs},\n type = {Deliverable},\n year = {2021}\n}\n\n
\n
\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n
\n
\n\n \n \n \n \n \n Quantifying Resilience in Energy Systems with Out-of-Sample Testing.\n \n \n \n\n\n \n Pickering, B., & Choudhary, R.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n
Applied Energy, 285: 116465. March 2021.\n
\n\n
\n\n
\n\n
\n\n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n
\n
@article{Pickering_Quantifying_2021,\n abstract = {The need to design resilient energy systems becomes ever more apparent as we face the challenge of decarbonising through reliance on non-dispatchable technologies and sectoral integration. Increasingly, modelling efforts focus on improving system resilience, but fail to quantify the improvements. In this paper, we propose a novel workflow that allows increases in resilience to be measured quantitatively. It incorporates out-of-sample testing following optimisation, and compares the impacts of demand and power interruption uncertainty on both risk-unaware and risk-aware district energy system models. To ensure we encompass the full range of impacts caused by uncertainty, we consider nine distinct objectives encompassing differences in: investment and operation costs, CO2 emissions, and aversion to risk. We apply the workflow in a case study in Bangalore, India, and demonstrate that scenario optimisation improves system resilience by one to two orders of magnitude. However, systems designed for resilience to demand uncertainty are not able to gracefully extend to managing risk from extreme shocks to the system, such as power interruptions. We show that shock-induced instability can be addressed by specific measures to reduce grid dependence. Finally, by studying out-of-sample test results, we identify an objective which balances cost, CO2 emissions, and system resilience; this balance is achieved by novel application of the Conditional Value at Risk measure. These results expose the need for out-of-sample testing whenever uncertainty is considered in energy system modelling, and we provide the framework with which it can be undertaken.},\n author = {Pickering, Bryn and Choudhary, Ruchi},\n doi = {10.1016/j.apenergy.2021.116465},\n issn = {0306-2619},\n journal = {Applied Energy},\n keywords = {District energy systems,Mixed integer linear optimisation,Out-of-sample testing,Resilient systems,Scenario optimisation,Two-stage stochastic programming},\n language = {en},\n month = {March},\n pages = {116465},\n title = {Quantifying Resilience in Energy Systems with Out-of-Sample Testing},\n volume = {285},\n year = {2021}\n}\n\n
\n
\n\n\n
\n The need to design resilient energy systems becomes ever more apparent as we face the challenge of decarbonising through reliance on non-dispatchable technologies and sectoral integration. Increasingly, modelling efforts focus on improving system resilience, but fail to quantify the improvements. In this paper, we propose a novel workflow that allows increases in resilience to be measured quantitatively. It incorporates out-of-sample testing following optimisation, and compares the impacts of demand and power interruption uncertainty on both risk-unaware and risk-aware district energy system models. To ensure we encompass the full range of impacts caused by uncertainty, we consider nine distinct objectives encompassing differences in: investment and operation costs, CO2 emissions, and aversion to risk. We apply the workflow in a case study in Bangalore, India, and demonstrate that scenario optimisation improves system resilience by one to two orders of magnitude. However, systems designed for resilience to demand uncertainty are not able to gracefully extend to managing risk from extreme shocks to the system, such as power interruptions. We show that shock-induced instability can be addressed by specific measures to reduce grid dependence. Finally, by studying out-of-sample test results, we identify an objective which balances cost, CO2 emissions, and system resilience; this balance is achieved by novel application of the Conditional Value at Risk measure. These results expose the need for out-of-sample testing whenever uncertainty is considered in energy system modelling, and we provide the framework with which it can be undertaken.\n
\n\n\n
\n\n\n
\n
\n\n \n \n \n \n \n Wind Speed Stilling and Its Recovery Due to Internal Climate Variability.\n \n \n \n\n\n \n Wohland, J., Folini, D., & Pickering, B.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n
Earth System Dynamics Discussions,1–27. April 2021.\n
\n\n
\n\n
\n\n
\n\n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n\n\n\n
\n
@article{Wohland_Wind_2021,\n abstract = {$<$p$><$strong class="journal-contentHeaderColor"$>$Abstract.$<$/strong$>$ Near-surface winds affect many processes on planet Earth, ranging from fundamental biological mechanisms such as pollination to man-made infrastructure that is designed to resist or harness wind. The observed systematic wind speed decline up to around 2010 (stilling) and its subsequent recovery have therefore attracted much attention. While this sequence of downward and upwards trends and good connections to well established modes of climate variability suggest that stilling could be a manifestation of multidecadal climate variability, a systematic investigation is currently lacking. Here, we use the Max Planck Institute Grand Ensemble (MPI-GE) to decompose internal variability from forced changes in wind speeds. We report that wind speed changes resembling observed stilling and its recovery are well in line with internal climate variability, both under current and future climate conditions. Moreover, internal climate variability outweighs forced changes in wind speeds on 20 year timescales by one order of magnitude. Albeit smaller, forced changes become relevant in the long run as they represent alterations of mean states. In this regard, we reveal that land use change plays a pivotal role in explaining MPI-GE ensemble mean wind changes in the representative concentration pathways 2.6, 4.5, and 8.5. Our results demonstrate that multidecadal wind speed variability is of greater relevance than forced changes over the 21st century, in particular for wind related infrastructure like wind energy.$<$/p$>$},\n author = {Wohland, Jan and Folini, Doris and Pickering, Bryn},\n doi = {10.5194/esd-2021-29},\n issn = {2190-4979},\n journal = {Earth System Dynamics Discussions},\n language = {English},\n month = {April},\n pages = {1--27},\n publisher = {Copernicus GmbH},\n title = {Wind Speed Stilling and Its Recovery Due to Internal Climate Variability},\n year = {2021}\n}\n\n
\n
\n\n\n
\n $<$p$><$strong class=\"journal-contentHeaderColor\"$>$Abstract.$<$/strong$>$ Near-surface winds affect many processes on planet Earth, ranging from fundamental biological mechanisms such as pollination to man-made infrastructure that is designed to resist or harness wind. The observed systematic wind speed decline up to around 2010 (stilling) and its subsequent recovery have therefore attracted much attention. While this sequence of downward and upwards trends and good connections to well established modes of climate variability suggest that stilling could be a manifestation of multidecadal climate variability, a systematic investigation is currently lacking. Here, we use the Max Planck Institute Grand Ensemble (MPI-GE) to decompose internal variability from forced changes in wind speeds. We report that wind speed changes resembling observed stilling and its recovery are well in line with internal climate variability, both under current and future climate conditions. Moreover, internal climate variability outweighs forced changes in wind speeds on 20 year timescales by one order of magnitude. Albeit smaller, forced changes become relevant in the long run as they represent alterations of mean states. In this regard, we reveal that land use change plays a pivotal role in explaining MPI-GE ensemble mean wind changes in the representative concentration pathways 2.6, 4.5, and 8.5. Our results demonstrate that multidecadal wind speed variability is of greater relevance than forced changes over the 21st century, in particular for wind related infrastructure like wind energy.$<$/p$>$\n
\n\n\n
\n\n\n
\n
\n\n \n \n \n \n \n How Clean Is Your \"Clean\" Energy? The ENVIRO Module for Energy System Models.\n \n \n \n\n\n \n Martin, N., Madrid-López, C., Talens-Peiró, L., & Pickering, B.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n In
EGU21, March 2021. Copernicus Meetings\n
\n\n
\n\n
\n\n
\n\n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n\n\n\n
\n
@inproceedings{Martin_How_2021,\n author = {Martin, Nicholas and Madrid-López, Cristina and Talens-Peiró, Laura and Pickering, Bryn},\n booktitle = {EGU21},\n doi = {10.5194/egusphere-egu21-16017},\n language = {en},\n month = {March},\n publisher = {Copernicus Meetings},\n shorttitle = {How Clean Is Your "Clean" Energy?},\n title = {How Clean Is Your "Clean" Energy? The ENVIRO Module for Energy System Models},\n year = {2021}\n}\n\n
\n
\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n
\n
\n\n \n \n \n \n \n Decision Support for Renewables Deployment through Spatially Explicit Energy System Alternatives.\n \n \n \n\n\n \n Pickering, B., Lombardi, F., & Pfenninger, S.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n In
EGU21, March 2021. Copernicus Meetings\n
\n\n
\n\n
\n\n
\n\n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n\n\n\n
\n
@inproceedings{Pickering_Decision_2021,\n abstract = {A decarbonised European energy system will require a number of potentially contested decisions on where best to locate renewable generation capacity. Typically, modellers determine the &#8220;best&#8221; system based on the least cost to society, focussing on a cost-minimising energy system model result to inform planning and policy. This approach neglects potentially more desirable alternative results which might, for example, avoid problematic concentrations of onshore wind power deployment, increase national supply security, or lower the risk of system failure in adverse weather conditions.</p><p>In response, we have developed a method to generate spatially explicit, practically optimal results (SPORES) in the context of energy system optimisation. SPORES can be used to explore energy systems which may offer more socially, politically, or environmentally acceptable alternatives. Furthermore, we have developed metrics to aid identification of interesting alternatives, like those which maximise the spatial distribution of wind generation capacity or minimise exposure to multi-year demand and weather uncertainty.</p><p>In this presentation, we will detail the application of the SPORES method in two cases of energy system decarbonisation: &#160;the Italian power system and the European energy system. We will present technology deployment strategies which are prevalent across SPORES, such as solar photovoltaics coupled with battery storage, as well as those which offer flexibility of choice in location and extent of deployment. To help with the urgent task of planning socially and politically acceptable energy system decarbonisation strategies, our implementation of SPORES in the open-source energy systems modelling framework Calliope makes it accessible to a wide range of potential users; we will also discuss how other research groups can further build on this to accelerate the energy transition.</p>},\n author = {Pickering, Bryn and Lombardi, Francesco and Pfenninger, Stefan},\n booktitle = {EGU21},\n doi = {10.5194/egusphere-egu21-16205},\n month = {March},\n publisher = {Copernicus Meetings},\n title = {Decision Support for Renewables Deployment through Spatially Explicit Energy System Alternatives},\n year = {2021}\n}\n\n
\n
\n\n\n
\n A decarbonised European energy system will require a number of potentially contested decisions on where best to locate renewable generation capacity. Typically, modellers determine the “best” system based on the least cost to society, focussing on a cost-minimising energy system model result to inform planning and policy. This approach neglects potentially more desirable alternative results which might, for example, avoid problematic concentrations of onshore wind power deployment, increase national supply security, or lower the risk of system failure in adverse weather conditions.</p><p>In response, we have developed a method to generate spatially explicit, practically optimal results (SPORES) in the context of energy system optimisation. SPORES can be used to explore energy systems which may offer more socially, politically, or environmentally acceptable alternatives. Furthermore, we have developed metrics to aid identification of interesting alternatives, like those which maximise the spatial distribution of wind generation capacity or minimise exposure to multi-year demand and weather uncertainty.</p><p>In this presentation, we will detail the application of the SPORES method in two cases of energy system decarbonisation:  the Italian power system and the European energy system. We will present technology deployment strategies which are prevalent across SPORES, such as solar photovoltaics coupled with battery storage, as well as those which offer flexibility of choice in location and extent of deployment. To help with the urgent task of planning socially and politically acceptable energy system decarbonisation strategies, our implementation of SPORES in the open-source energy systems modelling framework Calliope makes it accessible to a wide range of potential users; we will also discuss how other research groups can further build on this to accelerate the energy transition.</p>\n
\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n