IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/enepol/v51y2012icp662-672.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Ambitious mitigation scenarios for Germany: A participatory approach

Author

Listed:
  • Schmid, Eva
  • Knopf, Brigitte

Abstract

This paper addresses the challenge of engaging civil society stakeholders in the development process of ambitious mitigation scenarios that are based on formal energy system modeling, allowing for the explicit attachment of normative considerations to technology-focused mitigation options. It presents the definition and model results for a set of mitigation scenarios for Germany that achieve 85% CO2 emission reduction in 2050 relative to 1990. During consecutive dialogues, civil society stakeholders from the transport and electricity sector framed the definition of boundary conditions for the energy-economy model REMIND-D and evaluated the scenarios with regard to plausibility and social acceptance implications. Even though the limited scope of this research impedes inferential conclusions on the German energy transition as a whole, it demonstrates that the technological solutions to the mitigation problem proposed by the model give rise to significant societal and political implications that deem at least as challenging as the mere engineering aspects of innovative technologies. These insights underline the importance of comprehending mitigation of energy-related CO2 emissions as a socio-technical transition embedded in a political context.

Suggested Citation

  • Schmid, Eva & Knopf, Brigitte, 2012. "Ambitious mitigation scenarios for Germany: A participatory approach," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 662-672.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:enepol:v:51:y:2012:i:c:p:662-672
    DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2012.09.007
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421512007653
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.enpol.2012.09.007?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Gillingham, Kenneth & Newell, Richard G. & Palmer, Karen L., 2004. "Retrospective Examination of Demand-Side Energy Efficiency Policies," Discussion Papers 10477, Resources for the Future.
    2. Schmid, Eva & Knopf, Brigitte & Bauer, Nico, 2012. "REMIND-D: A Hybrid Energy-Economy Model of Germany," Climate Change and Sustainable Development 121911, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM).
    3. Gunnar Luderer & Valentina Bosetti & Michael Jakob & Marian Leimbach & Jan Steckel & Henri Waisman & Ottmar Edenhofer, 2012. "The economics of decarbonizing the energy system—results and insights from the RECIPE model intercomparison," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 114(1), pages 9-37, September.
    4. Kusiak, Andrew & Li, Mingyang, 2009. "Optimal decision making in ventilation control," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 34(11), pages 1835-1845.
    5. Elmar Kriegler & Brian-C O'Neill & Stéphane Hallegatte & Tom Kram & Richard-H Moss & Robert Lempert & Thomas J Wilbanks, 2010. "Socio-economic Scenario Development for Climate Change Analysis," CIRED Working Papers hal-00866437, HAL.
    6. Unruh, Gregory C., 2000. "Understanding carbon lock-in," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 28(12), pages 817-830, October.
    7. Rayner, Steve, 2010. "Trust and the transformation of energy systems," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(6), pages 2617-2623, June.
    8. Li Hao & Wing Suen, 2009. "Viewpoint: Decision‐making in committees," Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 42(2), pages 359-392, May.
    9. Schulz, Thorsten F. & Barreto, Leonardo & Kypreos, Socrates & Stucki, Samuel, 2007. "Assessing wood-based synthetic natural gas technologies using the SWISS-MARKAL model," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 32(10), pages 1948-1959.
    10. Zoellner, Jan & Schweizer-Ries, Petra & Wemheuer, Christin, 2008. "Public acceptance of renewable energies: Results from case studies in Germany," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(11), pages 4136-4141, November.
    11. Malte Meinshausen & Nicolai Meinshausen & William Hare & Sarah C. B. Raper & Katja Frieler & Reto Knutti & David J. Frame & Myles R. Allen, 2009. "Greenhouse-gas emission targets for limiting global warming to 2 °C," Nature, Nature, vol. 458(7242), pages 1158-1162, April.
    12. Sorrell, Steve & Dimitropoulos, John & Sommerville, Matt, 2009. "Empirical estimates of the direct rebound effect: A review," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(4), pages 1356-1371, April.
    13. Meyerhoff, Jürgen & Ohl, Cornelia & Hartje, Volkmar, 2010. "Landscape externalities from onshore wind power," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(1), pages 82-92, January.
    14. Nico Bauer & Ottmar Edenhofer & Socrates Kypreos, 2008. "Linking energy system and macroeconomic growth models," Computational Management Science, Springer, vol. 5(1), pages 95-117, February.
    15. Grubb,Michael & Jamasb,Tooraj & Pollitt,Michael G. (ed.), 2008. "Delivering a Low Carbon Electricity System," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521888844.
    16. Musall, Fabian David & Kuik, Onno, 2011. "Local acceptance of renewable energy--A case study from southeast Germany," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(6), pages 3252-3260, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Koppelaar, Rembrandt H.E.M. & Keirstead, James & Shah, Nilay & Woods, Jeremy, 2016. "A review of policy analysis purpose and capabilities of electricity system models," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 1531-1544.
    2. Ernst, Anna & Biß, Klaus H. & Shamon, Hawal & Schumann, Diana & Heinrichs, Heidi U., 2018. "Benefits and challenges of participatory methods in qualitative energy scenario development," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 245-257.
    3. Rodrigues, Renato & Pietzcker, Robert & Fragkos, Panagiotis & Price, James & McDowall, Will & Siskos, Pelopidas & Fotiou, Theofano & Luderer, Gunnar & Capros, Pantelis, 2022. "Narrative-driven alternative roads to achieve mid-century CO2 net neutrality in Europe," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 239(PA).
    4. Schmid, Eva & Knopf, Brigitte & Bauer, Nico, 2012. "REMIND-D: A Hybrid Energy-Economy Model of Germany," Climate Change and Sustainable Development 121911, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM).
    5. Schmid, Eva & Pahle, Michael & Knopf, Brigitte, 2013. "Renewable electricity generation in Germany: A meta-analysis of mitigation scenarios," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 1151-1163.
    6. Mathy, Sandrine & Fink, Meike & Bibas, Ruben, 2015. "Rethinking the role of scenarios: Participatory scripting of low-carbon scenarios for France," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 176-190.
    7. Jorge M. Islas-Samperio & Fabio Manzini & Genice K. Grande-Acosta, 2019. "Toward a Low-Carbon Transport Sector in Mexico," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(1), pages 1-27, December.
    8. McGookin, Connor & Ó Gallachóir, Brian & Byrne, Edmond, 2021. "Participatory methods in energy system modelling and planning – A review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 151(C).
    9. M. AlSabbagh & Y. L. Siu & A. Guehnemann & J. Barrett, 2017. "Mitigation of CO2 emissions from the road passenger transport sector in Bahrain," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Springer, vol. 22(1), pages 99-119, January.
    10. Ueckerdt, Falko & Brecha, Robert & Luderer, Gunnar & Sullivan, Patrick & Schmid, Eva & Bauer, Nico & Böttger, Diana & Pietzcker, Robert, 2015. "Representing power sector variability and the integration of variable renewables in long-term energy-economy models using residual load duration curves," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 90(P2), pages 1799-1814.
    11. Anna Scolobig & Johan Lilliestam, 2016. "Comparing Approaches for the Integration of Stakeholder Perspectives in Environmental Decision Making," Resources, MDPI, vol. 5(4), pages 1-16, November.
    12. Steve Pye & Chris Bataille, 2016. "Improving deep decarbonization modelling capacity for developed and developing country contexts," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 16(sup1), pages 27-46, June.
    13. AlSabbagh, Maha & Siu, Yim Ling & Guehnemann, Astrid & Barrett, John, 2017. "Integrated approach to the assessment of CO2e-mitigation measures for the road passenger transport sector in Bahrain," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 203-215.
    14. van Sluisveld, Mariësse A.E. & Hof, Andries F. & Carrara, Samuel & Geels, Frank W. & Nilsson, Måns & Rogge, Karoline & Turnheim, Bruno & van Vuuren, Detlef P., 2020. "Aligning integrated assessment modelling with socio-technical transition insights: An application to low-carbon energy scenario analysis in Europe," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 151(C).
    15. Mikova, Nadezhda & Eichhammer, Wolfgang & Pfluger, Benjamin, 2019. "Low-carbon energy scenarios 2050 in north-west European countries: Towards a more harmonised approach to achieve the EU targets," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 448-460.
    16. Xexakis, Georgios & Hansmann, Ralph & Volken, Sandra P. & Trutnevyte, Evelina, 2020. "Models on the wrong track: Model-based electricity supply scenarios in Switzerland are not aligned with the perspectives of energy experts and the public," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 134(C).
    17. Stefan Lechtenböhmer & Clemens Schneider & María Yetano Roche & Samuel Höller, 2015. "Re-Industrialisation and Low-Carbon Economy—Can They Go Together? Results from Stakeholder-Based Scenarios for Energy-Intensive Industries in the German State of North Rhine Westphalia," Energies, MDPI, vol. 8(10), pages 1-26, October.
    18. Steve Pye & Christophe McGlade & Chris Bataille & Gabrial Anandarajah & Amandine Denis-Ryan & Vladimir Potashnikov, 2016. "Exploring national decarbonization pathways and global energy trade flows: a multi-scale analysis," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 16(sup1), pages 92-109, June.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Zhang, Shuwei & Bauer, Nico & Yin, Guangzhi & Xie, Xi, 2020. "Technology learning and diffusion at the global and local scales: A modeling exercise in the REMIND model," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 151(C).
    2. Bauwens, Thomas & Devine-Wright, Patrick, 2018. "Positive energies? An empirical study of community energy participation and attitudes to renewable energy," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 612-625.
    3. Sigurd Hilmo Lundheim & Giuseppe Pellegrini-Masini & Christian A. Klöckner & Stefan Geiss, 2022. "Developing a Theoretical Framework to Explain the Social Acceptability of Wind Energy," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(14), pages 1-24, July.
    4. Zerrahn, Alexander, 2017. "Wind Power and Externalities," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 245-260.
    5. Luderer, Gunnar & Pietzcker, Robert C. & Kriegler, Elmar & Haller, Markus & Bauer, Nico, 2012. "Asia's role in mitigating climate change: A technology and sector specific analysis with ReMIND-R," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(S3), pages 378-390.
    6. Schmid, Eva & Pahle, Michael & Knopf, Brigitte, 2013. "Renewable electricity generation in Germany: A meta-analysis of mitigation scenarios," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 1151-1163.
    7. Friedl, Christina & Reichl, Johannes, 2016. "Realizing energy infrastructure projects – A qualitative empirical analysis of local practices to address social acceptance," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 184-193.
    8. Langer, Katharina & Decker, Thomas & Roosen, Jutta & Menrad, Klaus, 2016. "A qualitative analysis to understand the acceptance of wind energy in Bavaria," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 248-259.
    9. Arvesen, Anders & Bright, Ryan M. & Hertwich, Edgar G., 2011. "Considering only first-order effects? How simplifications lead to unrealistic technology optimism in climate change mitigation," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(11), pages 7448-7454.
    10. Koecklin, Manuel Tong & Longoria, Genaro & Fitiwi, Desta Z. & DeCarolis, Joseph F. & Curtis, John, 2021. "Public acceptance of renewable electricity generation and transmission network developments: Insights from Ireland," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 151(C).
    11. Audoly, Richard & Vogt-Schilb, Adrien & Guivarch, Céline & Pfeiffer, Alexander, 2018. "Pathways toward zero-carbon electricity required for climate stabilization," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 225(C), pages 884-901.
    12. Chaim Fershtman & Uzi Segal, 2018. "Preferences and Social Influence," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 10(3), pages 124-142, August.
    13. Hübner, Gundula & Leschinger, Valentin & Müller, Florian J.Y. & Pohl, Johannes, 2023. "Broadening the social acceptance of wind energy – An Integrated Acceptance Model," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 173(C).
    14. Tong Koecklin, Manuel & Fitiwi, Desta & de Carolis, Joseph F. & Curtis, John, 2020. "Renewable electricity generation and transmission network developments in light of public opposition: Insights from Ireland," Papers WP653, Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI).
    15. Lennox, James A. & Witajewski-Baltvilks, Jan, 2017. "Directed technical change with capital-embodied technologies: Implications for climate policy," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 400-409.
    16. Jin Xue & Hans Jakob Walnum & Carlo Aall & Petter Næss, 2016. "Two Contrasting Scenarios for a Zero-Emission Future in a High-Consumption Society," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(1), pages 1-25, December.
    17. Aalbers, Rob & Shestalova, Victoria & Kocsis, Viktória, 2013. "Innovation policy for directing technical change in the power sector," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 1240-1250.
    18. Salm, Sarah & Hille, Stefanie Lena & Wüstenhagen, Rolf, 2016. "What are retail investors' risk-return preferences towards renewable energy projects? A choice experiment in Germany," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 310-320.
    19. Adams, Michelle & Wheeler, David & Woolston, Genna, 2011. "A participatory approach to sustainable energy strategy development in a carbon-intensive jurisdiction: The case of Nova Scotia," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(5), pages 2550-2559, May.
    20. Sen, Suphi & von Schickfus, Marie-Theres, 2020. "Climate policy, stranded assets, and investors’ expectations," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 100(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:enepol:v:51:y:2012:i:c:p:662-672. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/enpol .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.