REMIND2.1: Transformation and innovation dynamics of the energy-economic system within climate and sustainability limits

Abstract. This paper presents the new and now open-source version 2.1 of the REgional Model of INvestments and Development (REMIND). REMIND, as an Integrated Assessment Model (IAM), provides an integrated view on the global energy-economy-emissions system and explores self-consistent transformation pathways. It describes a broad range of possible futures and their relation to technical and socio-economic developments as well as policy choices. REMIND is a multi-regional model incorporating the economy and a detailed representation of the energy sector implemented in the General Algebraic Modeling System (GAMS). It uses non-linear optimization to derive welfare-optimal regional transformation pathways of the energy-economic system subject to climate and sustainability constraints for the time horizon 2005 to 2100. The resulting solution corresponds to the decentral market outcome under the assumptions of perfect foresight of agents and internalization of external effects. REMIND enables analyses of technology options and policy approaches for climate change mitigation with particular strength in representing the scale-up of new technologies, including renewables and their integration in power markets. The REMIND code is organized into modules that gather code relevant for specific topics. Interaction between different modules is made explicit via clearly defined sets of input/output variables. Each module can be represented by different realizations enabling flexible configuration and extension. The spatial resolution of REMIND is flexible and depends on the resolution of the input data. The framework can thus be used for a variety of applications in a customized form balancing requirements for detail and overall run-time and complexity.

[1]  K. Arrow,et al.  EXISTENCE OF AN EQUILIBRIUM FOR A COMPETITIVE ECONOMY , 1954 .

[2]  Gérard Debreu.  Economies with a Finite Set of Equilibria , 1970 .

[3]  B. Ohlin,et al.  Heckscher-Ohlin Trade Theory , 1991 .

[4]  A. S. Manne,et al.  International Trade in Oil, Gas and Carbon Emission Rights: An Intertemporal General Equilibrium Model* , 1994 .

[5]  Alan S. Manne,et al.  MERGE. A model for evaluating regional and global effects of GHG reduction policies , 1995 .

[6]  William D. Nordhaus,et al.  A Regional Dynamic General-Equilibrium Model of Alternative Climate-Change Strategies , 1996 .

[7]  H. Rogner.  AN ASSESSMENT OF WORLD HYDROCARBON RESOURCES , 1997 .

[8]  Alexei G. Sankovski,et al.  Special report on emissions scenarios : a special report of Working group III of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change , 2000 .

[9]  J. Penman,et al.  Good Practice Guidance and Uncertainty Management in National Greenhouse Gas Inventories CH 4 Emissions from Solid Waste Disposal 419 CH 4 EMISSIONS FROM SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL , 2022 .

[10]  A. Schäfer,et al.  The future mobility of the world population , 2000 .

[11]  H. Grassl,et al.  Welt im Wandel - Energiewende zur Nachhaltigkeit , 2003 .

[12]  M. Hoogwijk.  On the global and regional potential of renewable energy sources , 2004 .

[13]  John M. Barron,et al.  Understanding Macroeconomic Theory , 2006 .

[14]  Toshihiko Masui,et al.  Multi-gas Mitigation Analysis on Stabilization Scenarios Using Aim Global Model , 2006 .

[15]  Mark Jaccard,et al.  Hybrid Modeling: New Answers to Old Challenges Introduction to the Special Issue of The Energy Journal , 2006 .

[16]  Valentina Bosetti,et al.  The WITCH Model: Structure, Baseline, Solutions , 2007 .

[17]  Michel G.J. den Elzen,et al.  Long-term reduction potential of non-CO2 greenhouse gases , 2007 .

[18]  C. Müller,et al.  Global food demand, productivity growth, and the scarcity of land and water resources: a spatially explicit mathematical programming approach. , 2008 .

[19]  Y. Balasko.  The Equilibrium Manifold: Postmodern Developments in the Theory of General Economic Equilibrium , 2009 .

[20]  J. Kiviluoma,et al.  Global potential for wind-generated electricity , 2009, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[21]  Roderick G. Eggert,et al.  Depletion and the future availability of petroleum resources , 2009 .

[22]  J. Randerson,et al.  Global fire emissions and the contribution of deforestation, savanna, forest, agricultural, and peat fires (1997-2009) , 2010 .

[23]  William D. Nordhaus,et al.  Economic aspects of global warming in a post-Copenhagen environment , 2010, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[24]  Ottmar Edenhofer,et al.  Technological Change and International Trade -Insights from REMIND-R , 2010 .

[25]  O. Edenhofer,et al.  Mitigation Costs in a Globalized World: Climate Policy Analysis with REMIND-R , 2010 .

[26]  N. Bauer,et al.  The REMIND-R model: the role of renewables in the low-carbon transformation—first-best vs. second-best worlds , 2012, Climatic Change.

[27]  Jens Borken-Kleefeld,et al.  Cost-effective control of air quality and greenhouse gases in Europe: Modeling and policy applications , 2011, Environ. Model. Softw..

[28]  Jan Christoph Steckel,et al.  Time to act now? Assessing the costs of delaying climate measures and benefits of early action , 2012, Climatic Change.

[29]  Son H. Kim,et al.  Long-term implications of alternative light-duty vehicle technologies for global greenhouse gas emissions and primary energy demands , 2011 .

[30]  Tom M. L. Wigley,et al.  Emulating atmosphere-ocean and carbon cycle models with a simpler model, MAGICC6 – Part 2: Applications , 2011 .

[31]  Andrea Ramírez,et al.  Comparative assessment of CO2 capture technologies for carbon-intensive industrial processes , 2012 .

[32]  Karl E. Taylor,et al.  An overview of CMIP5 and the experiment design , 2012 .

[33]  Elmar Kriegler,et al.  Asia's role in mitigating climate change: A technology and sector specific analysis with ReMIND-R , 2012 .

[34]  Robert J. Brecha,et al.  Economics of nuclear power and climate change mitigation policies , 2012, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[35]  Global Energy Assessment Writing Team.  Global Energy Assessment: Toward a Sustainable Future , 2012 .

[36]  A. Grubler,et al.  Future capacity growth of energy technologies: are scenarios consistent with historical evidence? , 2013, Climatic Change.

[37]  Julian M. Allwood,et al.  The steel scrap age. , 2013, Environmental science & technology.

[38]  Kenichi Wada,et al.  The role of renewable energy in climate stabilization: results from the EMF27 scenarios , 2014, Climatic Change.

[39]  Sonia Yeh,et al.  Transportation Module of Global Change Assessment Model (GCAM): Model Documentation , 2013 .

[40]  J. Rockström,et al.  Policy: Sustainable development goals for people and planet , 2013, Nature.

[41]  Valeria Jana Schwanitz,et al.  Evaluating integrated assessment models of global climate change , 2013, Environ. Model. Softw..

[42]  Céline Guivarch,et al.  The transportation sector and low-carbon growth pathways: modelling urban, infrastructure, and spatial determinants of mobility , 2013 .

[43]  Elmar Kriegler,et al.  Economic mitigation challenges: how further delay closes the door for achieving climate targets , 2013 .

[44]  Keywan Riahi,et al.  Impacts of considering electric sector variability and reliability in the MESSAGE model , 2013 .

[45]  Sha Fu,et al.  Long-Term Transport Energy Demand and Climate Policy: Alternative Visions on Transport Decarbonization in Energy Economy Models , 2013 .

[46]  G. Luderer,et al.  Global fossil energy markets and climate change mitigation – an analysis with REMIND , 2012, Climatic Change.

[47]  Jessica Strefler,et al.  The value of bioenergy in low stabilization scenarios: an assessment using REMIND-MAgPIE , 2014, Climatic Change.

[48]  Keywan Riahi,et al.  A new scenario framework for climate change research: the concept of shared socioeconomic pathways , 2013, Climatic Change.

[49]  R. Tol,et al.  The uncertainty about the social cost of carbon: A decomposition analysis using fund , 2013, Climatic Change.

[50]  Volker Krey,et al.  Global energy‐climate scenarios and models: a review , 2014 .

[51]  W. Nordhaus.  Estimates of the Social Cost of Carbon: Concepts and Results from the DICE-2013R Model and Alternative Approaches , 2014, Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists.

[52]  R Core Team,et al.  R: A language and environment for statistical computing. , 2014 .

[53]  O. Edenhofer.  Challenges for low stabilization of climate change: The complementarity of non-CO2 greenhouse gas and aerosol abatement to CO2 emission reductions , 2014 .

[54]  Benjamin Leon Bodirsky,et al.  The global economic long-term potential of modern biomass in a climate-constrained world , 2014, Environmental Research Letters.

[55]  Robert C. Pietzcker,et al.  Using the sun to decarbonize the power sector : the economic potential of photovoltaics and concentrating solar power , 2014 .

[56]  Adolf Acquaye,et al.  Industry In: Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Technical Report. , 2014 .

[57]  N. Bauer,et al.  Techno-Economic Review of Direct Air Capture Systems for Large Scale Mitigation of Atmospheric CO2 , 2015 .

[58]  Charlie Wilson,et al.  Diagnostic indicators for integrated assessment models of climate policy , 2015 .

[59]  Elmar Kriegler,et al.  Complementing carbon prices with technology policies to keep climate targets within reach , 2015 .

[60]  Jessica Strefler,et al.  Description of the REMIND Model (Version 1.6) , 2015 .

[61]  Delavane B. Diaz,et al.  Temperature impacts on economic growth warrant stringent mitigation policy , 2015 .

[62]  M. Burke,et al.  Global non-linear effect of temperature on economic production , 2015, Nature.

[63]  D. Vuuren,et al.  Comparing future patterns of energy system change in 2 °C scenarios with historically observed rates of change , 2015 .

[64]  D. Klein.  Bioenergy markets in a climate constrained world , 2015 .

[65]  Thomas Sterner,et al.  Few and Not So Far Between: A Meta-analysis of Climate Damage Estimates , 2017 .

[66]  Robert J. Brecha,et al.  Assessing global fossil fuel availability in a scenario framework , 2016 .

[67]  Brian C. O'Neill,et al.  Spatially explicit global population scenarios consistent with the Shared Socioeconomic Pathways , 2016 .

[68]  M. Strubegger,et al.  Energy sector water use implications of a 2 °C climate policy , 2016 .

[69]  M. Rocha,et al.  The PRIMAP-hist national historical emissions time series , 2016 .

[70]  Lee M Miller,et al.  Wind speed reductions by large-scale wind turbine deployments lower turbine efficiencies and set low generation limits , 2016, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[71]  K. Calvin,et al.  A multi-model assessment of the co-benefits of climate mitigation for global air quality , 2016 .

[72]  Anne C. Lusk,et al.  Addressing electric vehicle (EV) sales and range anxiety through parking layout, policy and regulation , 2016 .

[73]  Jens Borken-Kleefeld,et al.  Global anthropogenic emissions of particulate matter including black carbon , 2016 .

[74]  Nadia Maïzi,et al.  Future demand for energy services through a quantitative approach of lifestyles , 2017 .

[75]  Donna Heimiller,et al.  An improved global wind resource estimate for integrated assessment models , 2017 .

[76]  Robert C. Pietzcker,et al.  Decarbonizing global power supply under region-specific consideration of challenges and options of integrating variable renewables in the REMIND model , 2017 .

[77]  Edgar G. Hertwich,et al.  Life cycle assessment demonstrates environmental co-benefits and trade-offs of low-carbon electricity supply options , 2017 .

[78]  P. Belton.  Why Doesn't Capital Flow from Rich to Poor Countries? , 2017 .

[79]  Wolfgang Lutz,et al.  The human core of the shared socioeconomic pathways: Population scenarios by age, sex and level of education for all countries to 2100 , 2017, Global environmental change : human and policy dimensions.

[80]  M. Strubegger,et al.  The marker quantification of the Shared Socioeconomic Pathway 2: A middle-of-the-road scenario for the 21st century , 2017 .

[81]  Jean Chateau,et al.  Long-term economic growth projections in the Shared Socioeconomic Pathways , 2017 .

[82]  G. Luderer,et al.  Water demand for electricity in deep decarbonisation scenarios: a multi-model assessment , 2018, Climatic Change.

[83]  R. Pietzcker,et al.  Application of a high-detail energy system model to derive power sector characteristics at high wind and solar shares , 2017 .

[84]  Gunnar Luderer,et al.  Solution algorithms for regional interactions in large-scale integrated assessment models of climate change , 2017, Ann. Oper. Res..

[85]  C. Müller,et al.  Energy, land-use and greenhouse gas emissions trajectories under a green growth paradigm , 2017 .

[86]  K. Calvin,et al.  Fossil-fueled development (SSP5): An energy and resource intensive scenario for the 21st century , 2017 .

[87]  E. Hertwich,et al.  Health benefits, ecological threats of low-carbon electricity , 2017 .

[88]  William D. Nordhaus,et al.  Revisiting the social cost of carbon , 2017, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[89]  A. Popp,et al.  Between Scylla and Charybdis: Delayed mitigation narrows the passage between large-scale CDR and high costs , 2018 .

[90]  H. Lotze-Campen,et al.  MAgPIE 4 – A modular open source framework for modeling global land-systems , 2018 .

[91]  M. Kalkuhl,et al.  The impact of climate conditions on economic production. Evidence from a global panel of regions , 2020 .

[92]  G. Luderer,et al.  Optimal international technology cooperation for the low-carbon transformation , 2018 .

[93]  M. V. Vilariño,et al.  Mitigation pathways compatible with 1.5°C in the context of sustainable development , 2018 .

[94]  J. Minx,et al.  Short term policies to keep the door open for Paris climate goals , 2018, Environmental Research Letters.

[95]  S. Rolinski,et al.  Large-scale bioenergy production: how to resolve sustainability trade-offs? , 2018 .

[96]  Keywan Riahi,et al.  Residual fossil CO2 emissions in 1.5–2 °C pathways , 2018, Nature Climate Change.

[97]  T. Amann,et al.  Potential and costs of carbon dioxide removal by enhanced weathering of rocks , 2018 .

[98]  William F. Lamb,et al.  Targeted policies can compensate most of the increased sustainability risks in 1.5 °C mitigation scenarios , 2018, Environmental Research Letters.

[99]  Edgar G. Hertwich,et al.  Chapter 2: Mitigation pathways compatible with 1.5°C in the context of sustainable development , 2018 .

[100]  Arnulf Grubler,et al.  How much energy will buildings consume in 2100? A global perspective within a scenario framework , 2018 .

[101]  R. Van Dingenen,et al.  Air quality co-benefits for human health and agriculture counterbalance costs to meet Paris Agreement pledges , 2018, Nature Communications.

[102]  John P. Weyant,et al.  Global energy sector emission reductions and bioenergy use: overview of the bioenergy demand phase of the EMF-33 model comparison , 2018, Climatic Change.

[103]  Pantelis Capros,et al.  Looking under the hood: A comparison of techno-economic assumptions across national and global integrated assessment models , 2019, Energy.

[104]  Jérôme Hilaire,et al.  Taking some heat off the NDCs? The limited potential of additional short-lived climate forcers’ mitigation , 2019, Climatic Change.

[105]  E. Hertwich,et al.  Environmental co-benefits and adverse side-effects of alternative power sector decarbonization strategies , 2019, Nature Communications.

[106]  L. Clarke,et al.  A new scenario logic for the Paris Agreement long-term temperature goal , 2019, Nature.

[107]  M. Meinshausen,et al.  A new scenario logic for the Paris Agreement long-term temperature goal , 2019, Nature.

[108]  M. Leimbach,et al.  Burden sharing of climate change mitigation: global and regional challenges under shared socio-economic pathways , 2019, Climatic Change.

[109]  G. Luderer,et al.  Halving energy demand from buildings: The impact of low consumption practices , 2019, Technological Forecasting and Social Change.

[110]  N. Höhne,et al.  Are the G20 economies making enough progress to meet their NDC targets? , 2019, Energy Policy.

[111]  Jérôme Hilaire,et al.  How uncertainty in technology costs and carbon dioxide removal availability affect climate mitigation pathways , 2020 .

[112]  Sven N. Willner,et al.  Paris Climate Agreement passes the cost-benefit test , 2020, Nature Communications.

[113]  F. Piontek,et al.  REMIND - REgional Model of INvestments and Development , 2020 .

[114]  Keywan Riahi,et al.  Taking stock of national climate policies to evaluate implementation of the Paris Agreement , 2020, Nature Communications.

[115]  G. Luderer,et al.  Bio-energy and CO2 emission reductions: an integrated land-use and energy sector perspective , 2020, Climatic Change.

[116]  G. Luderer,et al.  Coal-exit health and environmental damage reductions outweigh economic impacts , 2020, Nature Climate Change.

[117]  Lavinia Baumstark,et al.  En route to China's mid-century climate goal: comparison of emissions intensity versus absolute targets , 2020 .

[118]  M. Hajer,et al.  Anticipating futures through models: the rise of Integrated Assessment Modelling in the climate science-policy interface since 1970 , 2020 .

[119]  G. Luderer,et al.  Deep decarbonisation of buildings energy services through demand and supply transformations in a 1.5°C scenario , 2021 .

[120]  H. Lotze-Campen,et al.  MAgPIE - An Open Source land-use modeling framework , 2021 .

[121]  N. Bauer,et al.  Capital markets and the costs of climate policies , 2021, Environmental Economics and Policy Studies.

[122]  A. Popp,et al.  Combining ambitious climate policies with efforts to eradicate poverty , 2021, Nature Communications.

[123]  P. Kyle,et al.  Coupling a Detailed Transport Model to the Integrated Assessment Model REMIND , 2021, Environmental Modeling & Assessment.

[124]  G. Luderer,et al.  A sustainable development pathway for climate action within the UN 2030 Agenda , 2021, Nature Climate Change.

[125]  F. Piontek,et al.  Economic damages from on-going climate change imply deeper near-term emission cuts , 2020, Environmental Research Letters.

[126]  V. Weisskopf.  THE INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR APPLIED SYSTEMS ANALYSIS , 2022 .