A model intercomparison exercise is at the centre of the research performed by the European Climate and Energy Modelling Forum. But what is a model intercomparison and how is such an exercise performed? Below, we highlight the papers which introduce the key concepts.
|Kriegler et al. “Diagnostic indicators for integrated assessment models of climate policy”. Technological Forecasting & Social Change 90 (2015) 45–61||This is a seminal work on the characterization of IAM model behaviour based on the response of the model to policy scenarios in terms of a set of indicators|
|Mathijs Harmsen et al “Integrated assessment model diagnostics: key indicators and model evolution” 2021 Environ. Res. Lett. 16 054046||This work is based on that by Kriegler et al, 2015. It provides the general methodology applied in the ECEMF project to carry out a diagnostic analysis of IAM models|
|Ron Beaver “A Structural Comparison of Models used in EMF 12 to Analyze the Costs of Policies|
for Reducing Energy-Sector C02 Emissions” Energy Modeling Forum12. 1992
|This work represents a pioneer attempt to identify the main model features that affect the IAM behaviour related to the model structure|
Closely related to model intercomparison, model linking is the practice of coupling models. Below we provide a curated list of recommended reading.
|A. M. Geoffrion, “An introduction to structured modeling”, Management Science, pp.: 547-588, 1987.||This is the first reference in model linking, started by one of the founding fathers of optimisation. Structured modelling is one of the few formal methodologies for the linking of models.|
|C. V. Jones, “An introduction to graph-based modeling systems, part I: Overview”, ORSA Journal on Computing, Bd. 2, Nr. 2, pp. 136-151, 1990||Graph-based modelling is one of the tools that can be used to design model manipulation strategies with several models. This is a foundational and rather tutorial paper.|
|L.M.H. Hall and R. B. Alastair, “A review of energy systems models in the UK: Prevalent usage and categorization”, Applied Energy 169, pp. 607-628, 2016.||This paper is one of the most cited reviews on the most used energy models in the UK. The classification they propose is also interesting.|
|Wene, C-O. “Energy-Economy Analysis: Linking the Macroeconomic and Systems-Engineering Approaches.” (1995).||This paper has the merit of analyzing the main issues that can arise when using several models concurrently, either in top-down or bottom-up approaches.|
|Deane, J. P., Alessandro Chiodi, Maurizio Gargiulo, and Brian P. Ó. Gallachóir. “Soft-linking of a power systems model to an energy systems model.” 42.1 (2012): 303-312.||This paper shows a detailed case study based on linking TIMES with a power system model. It is very illustrative of how soft linking can complement an energy systems model.|
|Krook-Riekkola, A., Berg, C., Ahlgren, E.O., Söderholm, P. “Challenges in top-down and bottom-up soft-linking: Lessons from linking a Swedish energy system model with a CGE model.” Energy 141 (2017): 803-817.||This paper gives another good illustration of linking TIMES with EMEC (Environmental Medium Term Model). It is a good example of good practices when linking models.|
|del Granado, Pedro Crespo, Renger H. van Nieuwkoop, Evangelos G. Kardakos, and Christian Schaffner. “Modelling the energy transition: A nexus of energy system and economic models.” Energy strategy reviews 20 (2018): 229-235.||This paper shows how models need to complement each other when modelling complex questions related to climate change and the energy system. It describes the integrated framework|