Abstract
Summary The energy demand and supply projections of the Swiss government funded by the Swiss Federal Office of Energy and carried out by a consortium of institutes and consulting companies are based on two types of energy models: macroeconomic general equilibrium models and bottom-up models for each sector. While the macroeconomic models are used to deliver the economic, demographic and policy framework conditions as well as the macroeconomic impacts of particular scenarios, the bottom-up models simulate the technical developments in the final energy sectors and try to optimise electricity generation under the given boundary conditions of a particular scenario. This introductory article gives an overview of some of the energy models used in Switzerland and — more importantly — some insights into current advanced energy system modelling practice pointing to the characteristics of the two modelling types and their advantages and limitations.
Highlights
Introduction to Energy Systems ModellingAndrea Herbst, Felipe Toro, Felix Reitze, and Eberhard JochemJEL-Classification: C63, L61 Keywords: energy modelling, bottom-up, top-down, hybrid energy system modelling, Switzerland
There is no doubt that combining the advantages of both types of energy models into a hybrid model will more adequately describe and project the changes of the energy system, which may improve the quality of discussions on future energy perspectives by being able to differentiate among technologies and sectors, and to analyse the macroeconomic implications of large policy portfolios and major changes of the energy system in a consistent and transparent manner (Böhringer, 1998)
To overcome the above mentioned weaknesses and limitations of conventional top-down and bottom-up energy models, energy modelling is currently moving in the direction of hybrid energy system modelling combining at least one macroeconomic model with at least one set of bottom-up models for each final energy sector and the conversion sector
Summary
Controversial discussions in energy science and energy policy communities about the perspectives, feasibility and impacts of future energy demand and supply can often be traced back to the different types of energy models used and their results (e.g. Krause 1996). Detailed techno-economic (or process-oriented) models can simulate the market penetration and related cost changes of a new energy technology or policy with a certain degree of technical detail (which is why they are called “bottom-up” models) They cannot project the corresponding economic, structural, or employment net impacts or net cost for society. Macroeconomic models ( called top-down models) can simulate sector-specific future energy demand and supply including the impacts on economic growth, employment or foreign trade They rely very much on energy price changes and financial policies and are not well suited to describe the development of specific technologies or sectoral policies and related changes in energy demand, related emissions, and investments at a sufficiently detailed level. There is no doubt that combining the advantages of both types of energy models into a hybrid model will more adequately describe and project the changes of the energy system, which may improve the quality of discussions on future energy perspectives by being able to differentiate among technologies and sectors, and to analyse the macroeconomic implications of large policy portfolios and major changes of the energy system in a consistent and transparent manner (Böhringer, 1998)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
