Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of contributors
- Preface
- Part I Climate system science
- Part II Impacts and adaptation
- Part III Mitigation of greenhouse gases
- 15 Bottom-up modeling of energy and greenhouse gas emissions: approaches, results, and challenges to inclusion of end-use technologies
- 16 Technology in an integrated assessment model: the potential regional deployment of carbon capture and storage in the context of global CO2 stabilization
- 17 Hydrogen for light-duty vehicles: opportunities and barriers in the United States
- 18 The role of expectations in modeling costs of climate change policies
- 19 A sensitivity analysis of forest carbon sequestration
- 20 Insights from EMF-associated agricultural and forestry greenhouse gas mitigation studies
- 21 Global agricultural land-use data for integrated assessment modeling
- 22 Past, present, and future of non-CO2 gas mitigation analysis
- 23 How (and why) do climate policy costs differ among countries?
- 24 Lessons for mitigation from the foundations of monetary policy in the United States
- Part IV Policy design and decisionmaking under uncertainty
- Index
- Plate section
- References
15 - Bottom-up modeling of energy and greenhouse gas emissions: approaches, results, and challenges to inclusion of end-use technologies
from Part III - Mitigation of greenhouse gases
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 06 December 2010
Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of contributors
- Preface
- Part I Climate system science
- Part II Impacts and adaptation
- Part III Mitigation of greenhouse gases
- 15 Bottom-up modeling of energy and greenhouse gas emissions: approaches, results, and challenges to inclusion of end-use technologies
- 16 Technology in an integrated assessment model: the potential regional deployment of carbon capture and storage in the context of global CO2 stabilization
- 17 Hydrogen for light-duty vehicles: opportunities and barriers in the United States
- 18 The role of expectations in modeling costs of climate change policies
- 19 A sensitivity analysis of forest carbon sequestration
- 20 Insights from EMF-associated agricultural and forestry greenhouse gas mitigation studies
- 21 Global agricultural land-use data for integrated assessment modeling
- 22 Past, present, and future of non-CO2 gas mitigation analysis
- 23 How (and why) do climate policy costs differ among countries?
- 24 Lessons for mitigation from the foundations of monetary policy in the United States
- Part IV Policy design and decisionmaking under uncertainty
- Index
- Plate section
- References
Summary
Introduction
Two general approaches have been used for the integrated assessment of energy demand and supply – the so-called “bottom-up” and “top-down” approaches. The bottom-up approach focuses on individual technologies for delivering energy services, such as household durable goods and industrial process technologies. For such technologies, the approach attempts to estimate the costs and benefits associated with investments in alternative fuels and technologies, and increased energy efficiency, often in the context of reductions in greenhouse gas (GHG) emission or other environmental impacts. The top-down method assumes a general equilibrium or macroeconomic perspective, wherein costs are defined in terms of changes in economic output, income, or GDP, typically from the imposition of energy or emissions taxes.
A fundamental difference between the two approaches is in the perspective each typically takes on consumer and firm behavior, and the performance of markets for energy efficiency. The bottom-up approach typically assumes that various market factors (“barriers”) prevent consumers from taking actions that would be in their private self-interest, that is, would result in the provision of energy services at lower cost. These market barriers include lack of information about energy efficiency opportunities, lack of access to capital to finance energy efficiency investment, and misplaced incentives which separate responsibilities for making capital investments and paying operating costs. In contrast, the top-down approach typically assumes that consumers and firms correctly perceive, and act in, their private self-interest (are utility and profit maximizers), and that unregulated markets serve to deliver optimal investments in energy efficiency as a function of prevailing prices.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Human-Induced Climate ChangeAn Interdisciplinary Assessment, pp. 171 - 180Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2007
References
Boero, G., Clarke, R. and Winters, L. (1991). The Macro-economic Consequences of Controlling Greenhouse Gases: A Survey. UK Department of the Environment.
Brown, R. (1993). Estimates of the Achievable Potential for Electricity Efficiency Improvements in US Residences. Unpublished ERG Masters thesis, University of California Berkeley.
and (2002). Electricity use in California: past trends and present usage patterns. Energy Policy 31(9), 849–864.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Feber, M. A. P. C., Schaeffer, G. J., Seebregts, A. J. and Smekens, K. E. L. (2003). Enhancements of Endogenous Technology Learning in the Western European MARKAL Model: Contributions to the EU SAPIENT project. ECN-C-03–032, April 2003.
Eto, J., Prahl, R. and Schlegel, J. (1997). A Scoping Study on Energy-efficiency Market Transformation by California Utility DSM Programs. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.
, , and (2004). What is driving China's decline in energy intensity?Resource and Energy Economics 26 (1), 77–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gielen, D., Unander, F., Mattsson, N. and Sellers, R. (2004). Technology learning in the ETP model. Paper presented at the 6th IAEE European Conference, Zurich, Switzerland.
Goldstein, D. and Rosenfeld, A. (1976). Projecting an Energy-efficient California. LBL-3274/EEB 76–1. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.
and (1996). Market Barriers to Energy Efficiency: A Critical Reappraisal of the Rationale for Public Policies to Promote Energy Efficiency. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and (2004). An integrated analysis of policies that increase investments in advanced energy-efficiency/low-carbon technologies. Energy Economics 26(4), 739–755.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hourcade, J. and Shukla, P. (2001). Global, regional, and national costs and ancillary benefits of mitigation. In Climate Change 2001: Mitigation. Contribution of Working Group III to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, ed. , , and . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Interlaboratory Working Group (2000). Scenarios for a Clean Energy Future. Oak Ridge, TN: Oak Ridge National Laboratory; and Berkeley, CA: Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory), ORNL/CON-476 and LBNL-44029, November.
IPCC (2001). Climate Change 2001: Synthesis Report. Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, ed. . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
, , and (2003). Modeling the cost of climate policy: distinguishing between alternative cost definitions and long-run cost dynamics. The Energy Journal 24(1), 49–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and (1994). The energy efficiency gap: what does it mean?Energy Policy 22(10), 804–810.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and (1998). Robust response to climate change via stochastic MARKAL: the case of Quebec. European Journal of Operations Research 106, 15–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , , and (1998). Technology and GHG Emission: An Integrated Analysis Using the LBNL-NEMS Model. Berkeley, CA: LBNL Report 42054.Google Scholar
, , and (1993). Cutting Carbon Emissions: Burden or Benefit? The Economics of Energy-tax and Non-price Policies. El Cerrito, CA: International Project for Sustainable Energy.Google Scholar
Krause, F., Koomey, J. and Olivier, D. (1999). Cutting Carbon Emissions while Saving Money: Low Risk Strategies for the European Union. Executive Summary in Energy Policy in the Greenhouse. Vol. II, Part 2IPSEP, International Project for Sustainable Energy Paths, El Cerrito CA. November 33 p.
Krause, F., De Canio, S., Hoerner, J. A. and Baer, P. (2003). Cutting carbon emissions at a profit (Part II): Impacts on US competitiveness and jobs. Contemporary Economic Policy, 21 (No. 1), 90–105.CrossRef
and (2004). Learning-by-doing on both the demand and the supply sides: implications for electric utility investments in a heuristic model. International Journal of Energy Technology and Policy 2(1–2), 142–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loulou, L., Kanudia, A., Labriet, M., Margolick, M. and Vaillancourt, K. (2000). Integration of GHG Abatement Options for Canada with the MARKAL Model. Report prepared for the National Process on Climate Change and the Analysis and Modeling Group, Canadian Government.
, , and (2003). Transaction costs of the Kyoto mechanisms. Climate Policy 3(3), 261–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, and (eds.) (1998). Global Energy Perspectives.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
National Audit Office (2004). The UK Emissions Trading Scheme: A New Way to Combat Climate Change. Ordered by the House of Commons.
(1991). Barriers to improvements in energy efficiency. Energy Policy 19, 953–961.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1999). The art of energy efficiency: protecting the environment with better technology. Annual Review of Energy and the Environment 24, 33–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and (1991). CO2 emissions from major developing countries: better understanding the role of energy in the long term. The Energy Journal 12(1), 161–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sathaye, J. and Murtishaw, S. (2004). Market Failures, Consumer Preferences, and Transaction Costs in Energy Efficiency Purchase Decisions. CEC-500–2005–020/LBNL-57318. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory for the California Energy Commission, PIER Energy-Related Environmental Research.
and (2004). Cost and carbon emissions of coal and combined cycle power plants in India: implications for costs of climate mitigation projects in a nascent market. Energy Policy 34, 1619–1629.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sathaye, J., Schipper L. and Levine, M. (1986). Growth in LDC Oil Demand: Implications and Opportunities for the US. Presentations to William F. Martin, Deputy Secretary, US Department of Energy, Washington DC.
, and (1987). Energy demand in developing countries: a sectoral analysis of recent trends. Annual Review of Energy 12, 253–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sathaye, J., Bouille D., Biswas, D. et al. (2001a). Barriers, opportunities, and market potential of technologies and practices. In Climate Change 2001: Mitigation. Contribution of Working Group III to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, ed. , , and . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
, , et al. (2001b). Carbon mitigation potential and costs of forestry options in Brazil, China, India, Indonesia, Mexico, the Philippines, and Tanzania. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 6 (3–4), 185–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , and (1992). Energy Efficiency and Human Activity: Past Trends, Future Prospects. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
and (1999). Carbon emissions trends for developing countries and countries with economies in transition. Quarterly Journal of Economic Research 4, Special Issue: Energy Structures Past 2000.Google Scholar
(1995). The economics of conserved-energy supply curves. The Energy Journal 16 (4), 109–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , and (2003). Productivity benefits of industrial energy efficiency measures. Energy 28 (11), 1081–1098.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 1
- Cited by