Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Assessing qualitative and quantitative dimensions of uncertainty in energy modelling for policy support in the United Kingdom
Show others and affiliations
2018 (English)In: Energy Research & Social Science, ISSN 2214-6296, E-ISSN 2214-6326, Vol. 46, no June, p. 332-344Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Strategic planning for the low carbon energy transition is characterised by a high degree of uncertainty across many knowledge domains and by the high stakes involved in making decisions. Energy models can be used to assist decision makers in making robust choices that reflect the concerns of many interested stakeholders. Quantitative model insights alone, however, are insufficient as some dimensions of uncertainty can only be assessed via qualitative approaches. This includes the strength of the knowledge base underlying the models, and the biases and value-ladenness brought into the process based on the modelling choices made by users. To address this deficit in current modelling approaches in the UK context, we use the NUSAP (Numeral Unit Spread Assessment Pedigree) approach to qualify uncertainty in the energy system model, ESME. We find that a range of critical model assumptions that are highly influential on quantitative model results have weaknesses, or low pedigree scores, in aspects of the knowledge base that underpins them, and are subject to potential value-ladenness. In the case of the UK, this includes assumptions around CCS deployment and bioenergy resources, both of which are highly influential in driving model outcomes. These insights are not only crucial for improving the use of models in policy-making and providing a more comprehensive understanding of uncertainty in models, but also help to contextualise quantitative results, and identify priority future research areas for improving the knowledge base used in modelling. The NUSAP approach also promotes engagement across a broader set of stakeholders in the analytical process, and opens model assumptions up to closer scrutiny, thereby contributing to transparency.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Elsevier, 2018. Vol. 46, no June, p. 332-344
Keywords [en]
Decarbonisation, Energy systems modelling, NUSAP, Qualitative dimension of uncertainty, Uncertainty analysis
National Category
Energy Systems
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:kth:diva-257698DOI: 10.1016/j.erss.2018.07.028ISI: 000454169200032Scopus ID: 2-s2.0-85051662659OAI: oai:DiVA.org:kth-257698DiVA, id: diva2:1387262
Note

QC 20200121

Available from: 2020-01-21 Created: 2020-01-21 Last updated: 2020-01-21Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

Other links

Publisher's full textScopus

Authority records BETA

Usher, William

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Usher, William
In the same journal
Energy Research & Social Science
Energy Systems

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
urn-nbn
Total: 4 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf