Assessing qualitative and quantitative dimensions of uncertainty in energy modelling for policy support in the United Kingdom

Abstract 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.

[1]  Arthur C. Petersen,et al.  A method for the analysis of assumptions in model-based environmental assessments , 2011, Environ. Model. Softw..

[2]  Evelina Trutnevyte,et al.  UKERC Energy Systems Theme Reflecting on Scenarios , 2014 .

[3]  Gabrial Anandarajah,et al.  Pathways to a Low Carbon Economy: Energy Systems Modelling , 2008 .

[4]  S. Pfenninger Energy scientists must show their workings , 2017, Nature.

[5]  Steve Pye,et al.  Modelling sustainable urban travel in a whole systems energy model , 2015 .

[6]  Gabrial Anandarajah,et al.  The UK Energy System in 2050: Comparing Low-Carbon, Resilient Scenarios , 2013 .

[7]  Felix Cebulla,et al.  Raising awareness in model-based energy scenario studies—a transparency checklist , 2016 .

[8]  S. Ruutu,et al.  Prospects of modelling societal transitions : position paper of an emerging community , 2015 .

[9]  B. Wynne Uncertainty and environmental learning: reconceiving science and policy in the preventive paradigm. , 1992 .

[10]  B. Truffer,et al.  Sustainability transitions: An emerging field of research and its prospects , 2012 .

[11]  Gregory C. Unruh Escaping carbon lock-in , 2002 .

[12]  R. Kannan,et al.  Hybrid modelling of long-term carbon reduction scenarios for the UK , 2008 .

[13]  Clair Gough,et al.  Expert assessment concludes negative emissions scenarios may not deliver , 2016 .

[14]  Emily Cox,et al.  Opening the black box of energy security: A study of conceptions of electricity security in the United Kingdom , 2016 .

[15]  Saltelli Andrea,et al.  Global Sensitivity Analysis: The Primer , 2008 .

[16]  T. Kuhn,et al.  The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. , 1964 .

[17]  Xiaobo Zhou,et al.  Global Sensitivity Analysis , 2017, Encyclopedia of GIS.

[18]  Peter A. Vanrolleghem,et al.  Uncertainty in the environmental modelling process - A framework and guidance , 2007, Environ. Model. Softw..

[19]  Will McDowall,et al.  Energy scenario choices: Insights from a retrospective review of UK energy futures , 2016 .

[20]  Jerome R. Ravetz,et al.  Uncertainty and Quality in Science for Policy , 1990 .

[21]  Evelina Trutnevyte,et al.  Investment appraisal of cost-optimal and near-optimal pathways for the UK electricity sector transition to 2050 , 2017 .

[22]  Jonathan G. Koomey,et al.  WHAT CAN HISTORY TEACH US? A Retrospective Examination of Long-Term Energy Forecasts for the United States* , 2002 .

[23]  Pascal Lesage,et al.  Empirically based uncertainty factors for the pedigree matrix in ecoinvent , 2016, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment.

[24]  Arthur C. Petersen,et al.  Guidance for Uncertainty Assessment and Communication, second edition , 2013 .

[25]  R. Gillard,et al.  Unravelling the United Kingdom’s climate policy consensus: The power of ideas, discourse and institutions , 2016 .

[26]  G. G. Stokes "J." , 1890, The New Yale Book of Quotations.

[27]  Refractor Uncertainty , 2001, The Lancet.

[28]  Max D. Morris,et al.  Factorial sampling plans for preliminary computational experiments , 1991 .

[29]  James H. Williams,et al.  The need for national deep decarbonization pathways for effective climate policy , 2016 .

[30]  Jeroen P. van der Sluijs,et al.  A framework for dealing with uncertainty due to model structure error , 2004 .

[31]  Evelina Trutnevyte,et al.  Does cost optimization approximate the real-world energy transition? , 2016 .

[32]  Neil Strachan,et al.  The uncertain but critical role of demand reduction in meeting long-term energy decarbonisation targets , 2014 .

[33]  J. A. Wardekker,et al.  Uncertainty communication in environmental assessments: views from the Dutch science-policy interface , 2008 .

[34]  Will Usher,et al.  An expert elicitation of climate, energy and economic uncertainties , 2013 .

[35]  Nicholas J. Rowland,et al.  The scenario planning paradox , 2017 .

[36]  Brian Wynne,et al.  The institutional context of science, models, and policy: The IIASA energy study , 1984 .

[37]  Joseph Alcamo,et al.  Chapter Six The SAS Approach: Combining Qualitative and Quantitative Knowledge in Environmental Scenarios , 2008 .

[38]  Steve Pye,et al.  The iterative contribution and relevance of modelling to UK energy policy , 2009 .

[39]  Neil Strachan,et al.  An integrated systematic analysis of uncertainties in UK energy transition pathways , 2015 .

[40]  Neil Strachan,et al.  Regional winners and losers in future UK energy system transitions , 2016 .

[41]  Warren E. Walker,et al.  Defining Uncertainty: A Conceptual Basis for Uncertainty Management in Model-Based Decision Support , 2003 .

[42]  Steve Pye,et al.  Uncertainty, politics, and technology: Expert perceptions on energy transitions in the United Kingdom , 2018 .

[43]  Will Usher,et al.  SALib: An open-source Python library for Sensitivity Analysis , 2017, J. Open Source Softw..

[44]  Mary C Zwart The Energy Model. , 2016, Midwifery today with international midwife.

[45]  S. Funtowicz,et al.  Combining Quantitative and Qualitative Measures of Uncertainty in Model‐Based Environmental Assessment: The NUSAP System , 2005, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[46]  Bo Pedersen Weidema,et al.  Data quality management for life cycle inventories—an example of using data quality indicators☆ , 1996 .

[47]  Stefano Tarantola,et al.  Sensitivity Analysis in Practice: A Guide to Assessing Scientific Models , 2004 .

[48]  Chris Heaton Modelling Low-Carbon Energy System Designs with the ETI ESME Model , 2014 .

[49]  George Wright,et al.  The origins and evolution of scenario techniques in long range business planning , 2005 .

[50]  Christophe McGlade,et al.  The future role of natural gas in the UK , 2016 .

[51]  R. Gross,et al.  The impact of uncertainties on the UK's medium-term climate change targets , 2015 .

[52]  J. Sluijs 29. The NUSAP approach to uncertainty appraisal and communication , 2017 .

[53]  Bruce Edmonds,et al.  The Aqua Book: Guidance on Producing Quality Analysis for Government by HM Treasury , 2016, J. Artif. Soc. Soc. Simul..

[54]  Steve Pye,et al.  Improving deep decarbonization modelling capacity for developed and developing country contexts , 2016 .

[55]  N. Strachan,et al.  Critical mid-term uncertainties in long-term decarbonisation pathways , 2012 .

[56]  Jeroen P. van der Sluijs,et al.  Critical appraisal of assumptions in chains of model calculations used to project local climate impacts for adaptation decision support—the case of Baakse Beek , 2015 .

[57]  S. Funtowicz,et al.  Science for the PostNormal Age , 2001 .

[58]  Arthur C. Petersen,et al.  Uncertainty assessment of the IMAGE/TIMER B1 CO2 emissions scenario, using the NUSAP method , 2002 .

[59]  B. Keepin A technical appraisal of the IIASA energy scenarios , 1984 .

[60]  Paul Upham,et al.  Original research articleEnergy model, boundary object and societal lens: 35 years of the MARKAL model in the UK , 2014 .

[61]  Neil Strachan,et al.  Reinventing the energy modelling–policy interface , 2016, Nature Energy.

[62]  Arthur C. Petersen,et al.  Post-Normal Science in Practice at the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency , 2011, Science, technology & human values.