Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 96 (2018) 156–166

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/rser

A review of current challenges and trends in energy systems modeling T

a,⁎ a a a,b
Peter Lopion , Peter Markewitz , Martin Robinius , Detlef Stolten
a
Institute of Electrochemical Process Engineering (IEK-3), Forschungszentrum Jülich GmbH, Wilhelm-Johnen-Str., 52428 Jülich, Germany
b
RWTH Aachen University, c/o Institute of Electrochemical Process Engineering (IEK-3), Forschungszentrum Jülich GmbH, Wilhelm-Johnen-Str., 52428 Jülich, Germany

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The requirements made on energy system models have changed during the last few decades. New challenges
Energy systems modeling have arisen with the implementation of high shares of Renewable Energies. Along with the climate goals of the
Energy models Paris Agreement, the national greenhouse gas strategies of industrialized countries involve the total re-
Energy policy structuring of their energy systems. In order to archive these climate goals, fitted and customized models are
Greenhouse gas reduction
required. For that reason, this paper focuses on national energy system models that incorporate all energy sectors
and can support governmental decision making processes. The reviewed models are evaluated in terms of their
characteristics, like their underlying methodology, analytical approach, time horizon and transformation path
analysis, spatial and temporal resolution, licensing and modeling language. These attributes are set in the
context of the region and time in which they were developed in order to identify trends in modeling.
Furthermore, the revealed trends are set in the context of current challenges in energy systems modeling.
Combining specified research questions and specific greenhouse gas reduction strategies, this paper will help
researchers and decision makers find appropriate energy system models.

1. Introduction
In order to achieve the climate goals of the Paris Agreement of 2015
[1], established structures of national energy supply systems will be
subject to comprehensive changes in future [2,3]. These efforts are vital
to limit global warming to ‘well below 2 °C above pre-industrial levels’
[1]. The extension of Renewable Energies represents a crucial factor for
the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions [4,5]. In addition, the share
of alternative, carbon-free technologies and energy efficiency must be
increased in end use sectors [6–10]. Due to the interconnection be-
tween these sectors and the different technologies, the development of a
national decarbonization strategy becomes very complex [11]. More-
over, the projection of future energy demand and supply is bound to
uncertainties based on the influence of climate and weather, socio-
economic variables, technological developments and potentials, etc.
[12–14]. For this reason, forecasting is always related to a scenario tree
of potential future developments [13,15].
The analysis of existing national energy systems, as well as the
prediction of potential future scenarios, is usually performed with the
aid of an energy system model [16,17]. First, systematic approaches are
presented by Barnett (1950) [17,18]. Along with an increase in com-
puting power, as computer-aided modeling grew in importance, the
first notable energy system models were developed in the 1970s and
1980s [19–22]. Till the end of 1970s, national energy supply was
generally a governmental monopoly, or at least strictly regulated by the
government [23]. This situation is also reflected in the purpose of en-
ergy system models from this period. Governmental mismanagement
and the demand for security of supply were key drivers for the need of
strategic reserves and long-term planning in the energy sector [23,24].
As a consequence, model frameworks like the Brookhaven Energy
System Optimization Model (BESOM) were designed to evaluate energy
technologies and policies [20]. Its derivatives, the ‘Market Allocation’
(MARKAL) model and the ‘Time-stepped Energy System Optimization
Model’ (TESOM) were developed with the objective of investigating
long-term scenarios in the context of new technologies in the energy
system [21,22]. Driven by the 1973 Oil Crisis and the liberalization of
energy markets in the 1980s and 1990s, new needs arose alongside a
new generation of energy system models [25–28]. During this time
period, there was an additional shift in the research focus from en-
vironmental pollution, like acidification, towards climate protection
and the assessment of greenhouse gas strategies [29,30]. The emer-
gence of greenhouse gas reduction as a major research theme was later
fostered by the adoption of the Kyoto Protocol in 1997 [31–33]. As a
result, the first models appeared that had a focus on greenhouse gases
[34,35]. However, the common focus of models developed in this
period was still on the economy, market behavior, technological issues

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: p.lopion@fz-juelich.de (P. Lopion).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2018.07.045
Received 22 February 2018; Received in revised form 5 July 2018; Accepted 26 July 2018
Available online 07 August 2018
1364-0321/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
P. Lopion et al.
and environmental pollution [30]. In the 2000s and 2010s, however,
this purpose changed in favor of the assessment of the implementation
of Renewable Energies and the associated demand for flexibility within
the energy system [30]. Consequently, greenhouse gas reduction be-
came a major objective of energy system analysis and modeling.
Moreover, computing power reached a level that enabled some energy
system models to be run on desktop computers. Thus, a significant
expansion of the modeling community can be registered since 2000 (see
results section). However, fluctuating renewable energy technologies,
such as solar and wind power, are highly dependent on weather con-
ditions. This dependency led to the need for high temporal and spatial
resolutions in energy system models for the appropriate implementa-
tion of these technologies [36–39]. Correspondingly, the demand for
computing power is increasing in accordance with the degree of detail
needed for the modeling renewable energy systems [40–42].
Given the complexity and variety of energy system models with
diverging purposes, reviews are a tool for researchers and decision
makers for gaining an overview of the existing model landscape and to
help them find suitable models for a corresponding research question.
Due to the small amount of modeling approaches in the 1970s and
1980s, the first noteworthy model reviews were published by Beaver
(1993) [43] and Grubb et al. [44]. They gave a summary of the most
important models of this period, which were predominantly economic
in focus. Along with an increasing amount of different models, there
was a need for the categorization and classification of energy system
models [44]. The first model review that tried to meet this demand was
published by van Beeck [45]. He systematically classified existing
models and generalized his approach to apply it to other models. Je-
baraj and Iniyan [46] gave a general review on energy models based on
a different classification approach that focused on the model's purpose.
An application-related review of energy models was published by Sahir
and Qureshi [47]. As a result of the increasing number of models,
Connolly et al. [48] investigated 68 tools/models and gave a detailed
analysis and description for 37 of these. A year later, Bhattacharyya and
Timilsina [49] published a general model overview with a focus on the
utilization of the reviewed energy system models. They investigated
computing and data requirements or gave a qualitative evaluation of
the needed skills to use and run each model. In contrast, Nakata
et al. [50] reviewed energy models based on their specific application.
Moreover, a small and very specific review was conducted by Zeng et al.
[51], in which they analyzed optimization models for energy system
planning and greenhouse gas emission mitigation under uncertainty. In
2012, another short overview about optimization models was given by
Weijermars et al. [52]. Pfenninger et al. [30] noted diverse energy
models addressing the challenges in energy modeling, which they tried
to overcome. Another comprehensive model review was published by
Hall and Buckley [53], who performed a meta-analysis for models in
the UK and identified nearly 100 that they then categorized. The latest
methodological review also introduces and compares energy models
from Collins et al. [54].
Most previous reviews of energy system models tried to give a
general overview of the whole model landscape and to classify them in
a second step based on their functionality. This approach helps to
register the status quo of modeling, but cannot give advice or support
finding suitable models for a specific purpose. Jebaraj and Iniyan [46]
published a review based on the model's objective. However, their
applied classification approach is not applicable to the current chal-
lenges and research questions of energy systems modeling. With the
aim of answering recurring questions and the emerging requirements of
modeling relating to the Paris Agreement, this paper will highlight
trends, challenges and needs for future developments in energy systems
modeling. Furthermore, appropriate models are determined, evaluated
and compared in order to enable researchers and decision makers to
choose an appropriate model for their purposes.
For this reason, the method section of this paper explains which
models are investigated and how they were chosen. Moreover,
157
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 96 (2018) 156–166
categories for the classification and later comparison of the models are
described. The following results show the identified trends and chal-
lenges of energy systems modeling. The six major criteria are analyzed
in the subchapters. Afterwards, a table with an overview of the in-
vestigated models is given, followed by a presentation of conclusions
and a discussion of the results.
2. Method
A basic idea for the selection of models and model generators is
their ability to support governments with strategic decisions on the
future of their countries’ energy supply and to accomplish climate goals
based on the Paris Agreement of 2015. In a first step, it is necessary to
filter appropriate models which are able to handle this task [42]. In a
second step, criteria for the evaluation of the models must be de-
termined [52].
In order to find models that can answer the initial question of
finding the best strategy to accomplish climate goals, a set of minimum
requirements must be defined. For that reason, the models analyzed in
chapter 3 are reduced to a set of models that are:
▪ Calculated on a national geographic horizon;
▪ Applicable to all energy sectors of a country; and
▪ Supportive of governmental decision making processes.
The kind of support is not specified and could manifest in various
ways depending on the model's purpose and corresponding research
questions. In the literature, the purpose of an energy system model is
often used for differentiation between the modeling approaches
[30,46,55]. Van Beeck (2000) presents a scheme to categorize different
purposes in forecasting, exploring and back-casting [45]. This was re-
fined by Hall and Buckley [56], who defined the mentioned purposes as
a general category and added a more specific classification. As possible
examination aims, they mention the interactions within the energy
system and its sectors, decarbonization pathways, the impacts of policy
and climate goals, as well as the associated costs of energy scenarios
[56].
Applying these eligibility criteria, 24 models and model generators
are suitable and part of the following evaluation. The appropriate se-
lected models are: Balmorel, BESOM, Calliope, CIMS, DynEMo, E4Cast,
EnergyPLAN, ENPEP-BALANCE, ESME, IKARUS, LEAP, MARKAL (de-
rivative of BESOM), MESSAGE, NEMS, OEMOF, OSeMOSYS, PRIMES,
REMIND-D, REMix, REMod-D, SCOPE, Temoa, TIMES (derivative of
MARKAL and EFOM), TESOM (derivative of BESOM).1
For the general characterization and later assessment of energy
system models, there are diverse possibilities. Van Beeck (2000) sug-
gested a classification approach that consists of nine criteria that can be
described with qualitative attributes (see Table 1) [45]. Connolly et al.
(2010) applied most of these and added the research question of whe-
ther models are able to calculate a scenario with a share of 100% of
Renewable Energy in the electricity supply and energy supply in gen-
eral [48]. Furthermore, Bhattacharyya and Timilsina (2010) added
some categories concerning the model's internal structures and scope,
as well as application-oriented criteria like the required skill and
computing effort to run the model [49]. Hall and Buckley (2016)
decided for 14 categories and listed possible attributes for each cate-
gory, which can describe all reviewed energy system models [56].
Like van Beeck (2000), they decided for the same characterization
pattern and added four criteria for the implementation of specific
technologies and model aspects. In this case, their focus is on renewable
and storage technologies, as well as the implementation of demand
characteristics and costs [56]. However, the published results only
answered what kinds of technologies are implemented in the models
1
Detailed description in the appendix A.
P. Lopion et al.
Table 1
Comparison of evaluation criteria for model characterization.
Criteria van Beeck [45] Connolly et al. [48]
Purpose of the model x x
Structure of the model x x
Geographical coverage x x
Sectoral coverage x x
Time horizon x x
Time step (temporal resolution) x x
Spatial resolution
Renewable technology inclusion
Storage technology inclusion
Demand characteristic inclusion
Cost inclusion
Analytical approach x x
Underlying Methodology x x
Mathematical approach x x
Data requirements x x
100% Renewable Energies consideration x
Transformation path analysis
Licensing / Availability x x
Programming environment
a
Criteria for the preselection of models for further analysis.
but not how these are integrated [56]. Furthermore, the energy system
model reviews of Sahir and Qureshi [47], Connolly et al. [48], Bhat-
tacharyya and Timilsina [49] and Zeng et al. [51] allocate qualitative
attributes. This procedure enables an overview of the described models
to be obtained, but cannot answer the question of whether these models
are applicable for future research questions.
Criteria for the selection of appropriate models in the context of the
national climate goals based on the Paris Agreement are the geo-
graphical and sectoral coverage, as well as the capability of evaluating a
potential future energy system. The latter corresponds to the general
and specific purposes of the energy models. For the evaluation of future
energy systems, forecasting, the exploration of scenarios and back-
casting are available options. Thus, all of these model types are taken
into account. Consequently, the models mentioned in the appendix are
filtered by their purpose, capability to address the four energy demand
sectors and their reference to a national geographical horizon.
In contrast to van Beeck [45], the model's structure and data re-
quirements are not part of this analysis. This is based on the fact that, at
a comparative level, only qualitative statements are possible. Moreover,
the classifications of the model's analytical approach, the underlying
methodology and the time horizon by van Beeck [45] are adapted at
some points (see chapters 3.2–3.4). The mathematical approach of the
models is not considered because of the wide diversity of possible ap-
proaches and the fact that most models use different options for the
generation of results [57]. In addition to van Beecks’ [45] criteria, the
transformation path consideration, the temporal and special resolution,
as well as the licensing and programming environment are taken into
account (see appendix A). In light of the information about the region
and time of the model's development, it becomes possible to determine
general trends in energy systems modeling and find correlations with
upcoming research questions.
In order to find adequate models to address future research topics
and handle current challenges in energy systems modeling, it is ne-
cessary to classify the models in terms of their capability of answering
the specific research questions [58]. Pfenninger et al. (2014) define five
challenges of energy system models for the twenty-first century [30].
The first aspect is ‘time and space’, which implies the potential of
considering different regions and technologies requiring high temporal
resolution. The high spatial resolution is essential to modeling infra-
structural aspects and international trade, which both have a high de-
gree of influence on future energy systems [59]. Depending on the
temporal resolution, models can investigate different aspects of
158
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 96 (2018) 156–166
Hall and Buckley [56] Own Approach
x Preselectiona
x Preselection
x x
x Preselection
x x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x x
x x
x
x
technologies supplying balancing power or grid services, as well as
Demand Side Management (DSM) potentials [60,61]. According to
Zerrahn and Schill [62], the investigation of DSM and storage tech-
nologies grows in importance in the context of energy systems mod-
eling. Moreover, cross-sectoral technologies and the interaction be-
tween different energy sectors in general is considered a key future
research topic [63]. The numerous facets of this field demand distinct
temporal resolutions to be analyzed. Another challenge is dealing with
uncertainties [64]. The influence of uncertainties is strongly related to
the time horizon and analytical approach of model, which are discussed
in chapters 3.3 and 3.4. Furthermore, transparency and flexibility are
important topics for future energy models [65]. For that reason, the
licensing and programming environments of the models are evaluated
in chapter 3.6. Moreover, the model's complexity represents a current
and future limitation and challenge in energy systems modeling
[30,66]. This issue is mainly linked to the underlying methodology of
the models (see chapter 3.2). The last aspect mentioned by Pfenninger
et al. (2014), which is also addressed in Mancarella et al. (2016), is the
human or social dimension [30,65]. Hilpert et al. (2017) [67,68] con-
sider the human dimension as part of the interdisciplinary modeling
challenge. Other challenges according to Hilpert et al. [68] include
complexity, uncertainty, scientific standards and model utilization. In
contrast to the other challenges, the implementation of human behavior
and social factors is hard to quantify. Furthermore, it is not related to a
specific attribute of an energy system model. Instead, it has an impact at
various points in modeling and cannot be allocated to the individual
attributes of the models. For that reason, the implementation of the
human dimension is not part of the following assessment.
Before illustrating the results of actual trends and challenges of
energy systems modeling, it is necessary to explain the method of data
selection that was used. Due to ongoing development, most of the re-
viewed models are subject to continuous modifications and extensions.
These changes to the models are not always documented and published.
For that reason, the following results represent the state of each model
at the time when the referred source was published. Moreover, the
quoted sources usually only comprise parts of the required model's in-
formation. This leads to the fact that the various depicted aspects of the
models might stem from distinct sources and, consequently, from di-
verging years. This would be the case if the implementation of a new
feature of one model was published without mentioning accompanying
changes in other attributes.
P. Lopion et al.
3. Trends and challenges in energy systems modeling
The analysis of the trends and challenges is structured across six
subchapters for better illustration. In the case of corresponding histor-
ical developments or challenges, some of the attributes are covered in
one chapter. This will help in drawing conclusions and demonstrate
parallels. For that reason, the models’ regions of development are
analyzed, as well as their underlying methodology and analytical ap-
proach. Moreover, the time horizon is shown, in combination with the
transformation path analysis of the models, followed by the spatial and
temporal resolution. Ultimately, licensing issues and programming or
modeling languages are investigated. The 24 reviewed models (men-
tioned in the method chapter) are sorted by the decade of their first
publication. In accordance with this approach, the first suitable na-
tional energy system model was developed in the 1970s. From 1980 to
1989, the modeling landscape grew, with six additional models that can
be related to the higher demand for energy modeling due to market
liberalizations and the oil crisis [23,25]. Only two models were pub-
lished in the 1990s. However, the number of suitable energy models
increased by six in the 2000s. On the back of higher desktop computing
power and new challenges caused by the need of decarbonization and
Renewable Energies, in the 2010s, thus far, eight additional models
have been developed [36]. This historical evolution of models and their
characteristics are evaluated in the following results in the context of
current trends and challenges in national energy systems modeling.
3.1. Region of development
Looking to the continents whose countries have expended efforts on
the development of energy system models, Europe and North America
have the highest share. Fig. 1 reveals that in Europe in particular,
various different models have been developed since 2000. The reasons
for this trend include the divergent conditions and different climate
protections strategies in the European countries. Fig. 1 shows that there
was an increase in the developed models, starting in the year 2000. This
might be based on better computational capacities and new research
questions on greenhouse gas reduction strategies.
3.2. Underlying methodology
In contrast to van Beeck [45], only optimization, simulation and
hybrid models are differentiated in the assessment. The category ‘Op-
timization’ encompasses all linear (LP), mixed-integer linear (MILP)
and non-linear (NLP) programming models, as well as every kind of
equilibrium model that is solved to optimality. Simulation models
comprise all dynamic and stochastic approaches. In some cases, simu-
lation approaches are combined with a post-processing optimization
based on heuristics or stochastics.
The results of the simulation models represent the outcome of
complex systems based on its input values. Consequently, the solution
does not achieve optimality. On the contrary, optimization models are
developed to find the best solution out of a definite sample space based
Fig. 1. Regions of development.
159
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 96 (2018) 156–166
Fig. 2. Underlying methodology.
on defined criteria. In order to keep the required computational re-
quirements low, optimization models are usually less complex than si-
mulations [56]. Other distinctions in the structural differences between
both approaches are the research questions they try to answer. Simu-
lations can investigate the system's operation and behavior directly,
which makes them suitable to finding solutions for short-term decisions
[69]. On the other side, optimization models can be used to directly
investigate the total system costs and support long-term investment
decisions [11]. As is shown in Fig. 2, there has been a trend towards the
development of optimization models since 2010 [45,56].
3.3. Analytical approach
The analytical approaches in integral energy system models can be
separated into bottom-up, top-down and hybrid attempts. While
bottom-up approaches come from the technological side, top-down
models represent the economic point of view. Thus, the technologies
and components of energy systems are implemented individually or
aggregated in bottom-up models. The interactions of the system's
components usually then rely on energy and mass flows. In conclusion,
these models are equipped to answer research questions concerning the
technological feasibility of a potential energy system. Moreover, they
are used to support decision making processes on the choice of the most
efficient or cheapest technology mix. Input for this kind of analysis is
from a broad database of technological and economic parameters, as
well as the potentials for each technology. The high amount of required
input data is accompanied with high computation efforts. In contrast to
this, top-down approaches focus on economic aspects. These models are
usually based on more aggregated data and economic relations. As a
consequence, they are able to consider real market behavior and find
solutions for corresponding research questions. However, only bottom-
up models are used to investigate cross-sectoral technologies and in-
teractions. Starting in 2000, most of the developed models were based
on a bottom-up approach (see Fig. 3) [45].
3.4. Time horizon and transformation path analysis
Besides the general attributes of energy system models, it is im-
portant to look into their scope. One of the key aspects considered is the
Fig. 3. Analytical approach.
P. Lopion et al.
Fig. 4. Time horizon.
time horizon. In general, the time horizon of energy system models can
be fixed or flexible. Furthermore, models bound to a predefined time
horizons either analyze only a single year or a span of multiple years. In
relation to the Paris Agreement, the year 2050 is one of the most im-
portant target years. Hence, models with a specified time period
through 2050 are classified separately in Fig. 4. In general, there is an
overarching trend towards more flexible models.
Along with the time horizon, there are two corresponding options to
analyze the transformation of a potential future energy system. On the
one hand, a perfect-foresight approach can be implemented in optimi-
zation models. In that case, all required boundaries and information are
part of the optimization. As a result, it is possible to evaluate the most
cost-efficient transformation of the current energy supply and demand
with respect to a potential future system. On the other hand, myopic
approaches simulate or optimize the energy system for individual time
steps based on the results of the former time step. Thus, the transfor-
mation path and final systems are not guaranteed to be the most cost-
efficient. However, this procedure is more related to the real economy
[70]. Finally, models with a time horizon of only one year are not
meant for a transformation path analysis and are marked separately in
Fig. 5. As revealed in this figure, myopic models dominate the field of
national integral energy system models. However, eight reviewed
models have implemented a perfect-foresight method for the transfor-
mation path analysis [71].
3.5. Spatial and temporal resolution
While the time horizon and transformation path analysis describe
the model's approach to evaluating the long-term changes of the energy
system, the temporal resolution is responsible for the evaluation of the
system's behavior within one specific year. Moreover, the temporal
resolution is an important indicator of what kind of research questions
can be answered by the calculations. The higher the temporal resolu-
tion, the more detailed the fluctuations of renewable energy sources can
be implemented in the model. On the other hand, the temporal re-
solution increases the computation time. This is the major reason why
models with flexible or high resolutions (of 8760 h per year) were de-
veloped in the 2000s and 2010s. Prior to then, most models were based
on typical days or a few time slices per year (compare Fig. 6). [72,73]
Fig. 5. Transformation path analysis.
160
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 96 (2018) 156–166
Fig. 6. Temporal resolution.
Fig. 7. Spatial resolution.
Like the temporal resolution, the spatial resolution is bound to an
increase in computation time. Thus, there will always be trade off
temporal against spatial resolution. Looking at Fig. 7, it can be seen that
there is also a general trend towards more flexible models, like in the
temporal resolution.
3.6. Licensing and programming / modeling language
The availability of the evaluated energy system models depends on
their licensing. Some of the models utilize the proprietary software of
the developing institutions. In this case, their utilization is limited to
these institutions and they can decide on every modification of the
corresponding model. Consequently, the published results, quality
control and development are reserved for the original developers. The
disadvantage of this publishing approach is that the model and its
structures cannot be reviewed by a third party. In contrast to this
procedure, the publication of a model as open source or open access
enables third parties to modify and extend it, or at least to generate
their own results. This represents an opportunity to develop a more
sophisticated energy system model in cooperation with other institu-
tions. As a third option and middle course, it is also possible to sell a
commercial user license. Fig. 8 shows that there has been a trend to-
wards open source/access models since the year 2000.
Another important aspect for the utilization of an energy system
model is its corresponding programming or modeling language. In
order to assess the reviewed models, the three most common languages
were identified. These programming or modeling languages are Python,
Fig. 8. Licensing.
P. Lopion et al.
Fig. 9. Programming environment.
General Algebraic Modeling System (GAMS) and Visual Basic for
Applications (VBA), respectively. In addition to these languages, many
others were utilized, such as C, FORTRAN, Pascal, etc. Thus, coopera-
tion during the model's development and the scientific exchange was
difficult. However, Fig. 9 reveals that the Python programming lan-
guage has established itself as a standard for newly developed models
since the year 2010.
4. Discussion and conclusions
In this paper, various energy system models were analyzed. The
spectrum of these models ranges from applications for individual en-
ergy processes to global perspectives, from economic to technological
approaches, and from electric power flow to cross-sectoral. All con-
tribute to the exploration and forecasting of energy systems. However,
only a few of these models can provide holistic solutions for national
greenhouse gas reduction strategies. The review and evaluation of 24
models, which are appropriate for supporting the national decision-
making process, showed that each model has different strengths and
weaknesses. Not all of them are able to support energy policy in ful-
filling the climate goals of the Paris Agreement. The analysis revealed
that every model was developed with different purposes. In general, the
need for greenhouse gas reduction has grown more prominent since the
1990s and the Kyoto Protocol. This is reflected in models from that
period in time and subsequently. Affected by a massive cost reduction
of fluctuating renewable energy systems, these technologies took on a
modeling focus in the 2010s, alongside the need for high temporal and
spatial resolutions.
The detailed investigation of the models’ characteristics confirmed
the general trend towards Renewable Energies and decarbonization.
Accordingly, the major result of the assessment of underlying meth-
odologies showed that optimization models dominate the latest devel-
opments. This is paired with a distinctive tendency towards technology-
focused, bottom-up models. Both facts are attributable to the increasing
complexity when implementing renewable energy sources into national
energy systems. Their weather-dependency implies a need for com-
pensation and flexibility, for example with the help of storage systems,
alternative drivetrains or flexible industrial processes. Furthermore, the
analysis revealed that newly-developed models are more flexible in
terms of spatial and temporal resolution. An increase in resolution en-
ables more detailed assessments of the impact of Renewable Energies.
However, computing efforts must also increase in equal measure. This
circumstance has led to approaches for complexity reduction, like the
aggregation of time series on the temporal side and regions on the
spatial side. Depending on the research question, it is necessary to trade
off the temporal against the spatial resolution of the model setup. In
addition to these functional attributes of the models, it is necessary to
Appendix A. : Model overview
see:Table A.1
161
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 96 (2018) 156–166
decide on an adequate time horizon and transformation path analysis
depending on the research purpose. In contrast to the previous criteria,
none of the discussed aspects has a clear benefit for modeling future
decarbonization scenarios. For the time horizon of a decent model, two
options are suitable, either the investigation of the target year 2050 or
of a transformation till then. Concerning the path analysis, both pre-
sented approaches show advantages as well as disadvantages. While
perfect-foresight models have the benefit of offering cost-optimal so-
lutions, myopic-foresight models’ results are closer to the real economy
and market behavior.
In addition to the models’ attributes, the modeling community
changes as well. For example, development became more transparent.
Most of the upcoming energy models are open source or at least open
access. Moreover, the latest trends show that Python has become the
most popular programming language in energy systems modeling. Both
trends enable knowledge sharing and cooperative development. In fu-
ture, this might help to introduce standards in modeling and to promote
international cooperation. Furthermore, it will support the generation
of more robust results that are also more comparable.
Summarizing the evolution of energy system models, their latest
development corresponds to current and future research questions. In
order to answer these diverging questions, models must be more flex-
ible and transparent, with a focus on the technological issues of today's
approaches to solve the impending problems of the future energy
supply. Open source and open access, as well as data transparency,
represent a major trend in energy systems modeling that will improve
future model development. For the extrapolation of current trends and
with regard to future challenges, models will be subject to increasing
computing effort. Due to higher shares of Renewable Energies, emer-
ging cross-sectoral technologies, energy storage needs and growing
international energy markets, model complexity will increase in unison.
In addition, the technological properties and costs of alternative future
technologies, as well as future weather conditions, represent significant
uncertainties. The implementation of these uncertainties embodies a
massive challenge in modeling energy scenarios, which will increase
model complexity even further. This intricacy is capable of reversing
the current trend towards desktop computer models back towards the
utilization of super computers for calculations. Moreover, globalization
and further interconnections between countries will serve to increase
the problem's complexity. Observing the climate goals of the Paris
Agreement, national greenhouse gas strategies must fit to global in-
terests. For that reason, future energy system models must be able to
evaluate the whole process chain of greenhouse gas emissions.
Consequently, life cycle assessments, handling of limited resources and
material cycles will grow in importance. Hence, future national energy
system models have to be technology-focused, flexible in relation to
temporal and spatial resolution, connected to the energy systems of
neighboring countries and transparent. Along with these developments,
corresponding data requirements are continuously increasing. In order
to improve the quality of supply and demand profile data or predicted
data sets, methods like cluster analysis or the utilization of artificial
neuronal networks are promising options. A review on data processing
and the improvement of data quality with regard to energy system
models is still missing and would be very helpful to assess the reviewed
models in this context.
Declarations of interest
None.
P. Lopion et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 96 (2018) 156–166

Table A.1
Investigated energy system models.
Model Balmorel BESOM Calliope

Full Name – Brookhaven energy system optimization model [74] –

Author / Institute Elkraft System, Denmark (leading) [75] Brookhaven National Laboratories (BNL) [74] ETH Zürich, Switzerland [76]
Developed in Denmark (2000s) [75] USA (1970s) [74] Switzerland (2010s) [76]
Methodology Optimization [75] Optimization [20,74] Optimization [76]
Analytical Approach Bottom-up [75,77,78] Bottom-up [20] Bottom-up [79]
Transformation Path Analysis Myopic-foresight [75] None [20] None [76]
Time Horizon Flexible [75,77] 1 year [20] 1 year [76]
Temporal Resolution Flexible [75,77] 1 time step [20] Flexible [76]
Spatial Resolution Flexible [75] 1 region [20] Flexible [79]
Licensing Open source / access [75] Proprietarya Open source / access [79]
Software / Programming Language GAMS [75,78] Othersa Python [76]

Model CIMS DynEMo E4cast

Full Name Canadian Integrated Modeling System [80] Dynamic Energy Model [81] –
Author / Institute Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and University College London Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource
Simon Fraser University [80] (UCL) [82] Economics (ABARE) [83]
Developed in Canada, USA (1980s) [80] UK (2010s) [82] Australia (2000s) [83]
Methodology Simulation [84–86] Simulation and optimization Simulation [83,87]
[82]
Analytical Approach Hybrid [84,85] Bottom-up [81] Bottom-up [83]
Transformation Path Analysis Myopic-foresight [86] Myopic-foresight [88] Myopic-foresight [83,89]
Time Horizon 35 years [84] Till 2050 [81,88] Flexible [83,89,90]
Temporal Resolution 1 year [84] Flexible [81] 1 year [89,90]
Spatial Resolution 1–2 regions [47,84,91] 1 node [88] Multiple regions [89]
Licensing Proprietarya Proprietarya Proprietary [92]
Software / Programming Language Othersa VBA [81] GAMS [89]

Model EnergyPLAN ENPEP-BALANCE ESME

Full Name
Author / Institute
Developed in
Methodology
Analytical Approach
Transformation Path Analysis
Time Horizon
Temporal Resolution
Spatial Resolution
Licensing
Software / Programming Language
– Energy and Power Evaluation Program – BALANCE [93]
Aalborg University [95,96]
Denmark (2000s) [95,96]
Simulation [48,95,96]
Bottom-up [95,96]
None [103,104]
1 year [103,104]
1 h [103,104]
Flexible [95]
Open source / access [96]
VBA [96]
Energy System Modeling Environment [94]
Argonne National Laboratory [93] Energy Technologies Institute (ETI) [94]
USA (2000s) [93] UK (2000s) [94]
Simulation [97–99] Simulation and optimization [94,100]
Top-down [101] Bottom-up [94,102]
Myopic-foresight [101] Perfect-foresight [94]
75 years [101] Till 2050 [94,105]
1 year [101] 2 seasons and 5 intraday times [94]
Multiple regions [101] 24 regions [94]
Open source / access [106] Commercial [107]
Others [98] Others [94]

Model IKARUS LEAP MARKAL

Full Name
Author / Institute
Developed in
Methodology
Analytical Approach
Transformation Path Analysis
Time Horizon
Temporal Resolution
Spatial Resolution
Licensing
Software / Programming Language
Instrumente für Kilmagas-Reduktionsstrategien [34] Long-range Energy Alternatives Planning [27] MARKet and Allocation [108]
Forschungszentrum Jülich [34] Stockholm Environment Institute [27] IEA-ETSAP [109]
Germany (1980s) [34] USA / Sweden (1980s) [27,48] International, (1980s) [22]
Optimization [110,111] Simulation [27] Optimization [22,108,112]
Bottom-up [110,111] Hybrid [48] Bottom-up [22,112,113]
Myopic-foresight [110,111,114] Myopic-foresight [48] Perfect-foresight [109]
Till 2050 [115] Flexible [48] Flexible [109,116]
Typical days / time slices [34] 1 year [56] Flexible [116]
1 region [111] Flexible [27] Flexible [109]
Commercial [34,48] Commercial [48] Commercial [117]
GAMS (+FORTRAN) [34] Others [27] GAMS [109]

Model MESSAGE NEMS OEMOF

Full Name Model for Energy Supply Strategy National Energy Modeling Open Energy Modeling Framework [118]
Alternatives and their General Environmental System [26]
Impact [32]
Author / Institute International Institute for Applied Systems Energy Information Zentrums für nachhaltige Energiesysteme (ZNES - Uni/
Analysis (IIASA) [119] Administration (EIS) [48] Hochschule Flensburg), Universität Magdeburg und Reiner
Lemone Institut (RLI) [118]
Developed in Austria (1980s) [119] USA (1990s) [48] Germany (2010s) [118]
Methodology Optimization [120] Simulation [121] Optimization [68,122]
Analytical Approach Bottom-up [123,124] Hybrid [125] Bottom-up [126]
Transformation Path Perfect-foresight [124] Myopic-foresight [26] None [122]
Analysis
Time Horizon Flexible [124] Till 2040 [26] 1 year [122]
Temporal Resolution 5 or 10 years [56,127] 9 time slices [128] Flexible [118]
Spatial Resolution Flexible [127] 22 regions [128] Flexible [118]
Licensing Open source / access [48] Open source / access [48] Open source / access [118,126]
Software / Programming Others (FORTRAN) [129] Others (FORTRAN) [48] Python [68,126,130]
Language

162
P. Lopion et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 96 (2018) 156–166

Model OSEMoSYS PRIMES REMIND-D

Full Name Open Source Energy Modeling System [131] Price-Induced Market Equilibrium Refined Model of long-term Investment
System [132] Decisions – Germany [133]
Author / Institute International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the National Technical University of Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact
UK Energy Research Center [134] Athens (NTUA) [135] Research [136]
Developed in UK, International (2010s) [134] Greece (1990s) [135] Germany (2010s) [136,137]
Methodology Optimization [131,138] Simulation [135] Optimization [133,136]
Analytical Approach Bottom-up [123] Hybrid [132,139,140] Hybrid [136]
Transformation Path Analysis Myopic-foresighta [138] Myopic-foresighta [139,140] Perfect-foresight [141]
Time Horizon Flexible [138] Till 2050 [132,139] Till 2050 [141]
Temporal Resolution Flexible [138] 5 year [135] 5 years [141]
Spatial Resolution Flexible [131] Flexible [135] 1 region [136]
Licensing Open source / access [131] Proprietary [48] Proprietary [142]
Software / Programming Others (MathProg) [131,134] Othersa GAMS [136,142]
Language

Model REMix REMod-D SCOPE

Full Name Renewable Energy Mix for sustainable energy supply in Regenerative Energien Modell – Deutschland –
Europe [143] [144]
Author / Institute Deutsches Zentrum für Luft- und Raumfahrt (DLR) [146] Fraunhofer ISE [144] Fraunhofer IWES [147]
Developed in Germany (2010s) [146] Germany (2010s) [144] Germany (2010s) [148,149]
Methodology Optimization [150,151] Optimization [40,41,144] Optimization [147]
Analytical Approach Bottom-up [153] Bottom-up [40,144,154] Bottom-up [149]
Transformation Path Analysis Perfect-foresight [150,155] Perfect-foresight [144] Myopic-foresight [147]
Time Horizon Till 2050 [153] Flexible [144,156] Flexible [147]
Temporal Resolution 1 h [150,151,153] 1 h [40,41,144] 1 h [147,157]
Spatial Resolution Flexible [143,150] 1 region [40,41,144] Flexible [147,158]
Licensing Proprietary [143] Proprietary [144] Proprietary [147]
Software / Programming Language GAMS [143,150] Delphi / Python [144] Others (MATLAB) [147]

Model Temoa TESOM TIMES

Full Name Tools for Energy Model Optimization and Time-stepped Energy System Optimization The Integrated MARKAL-EFOM System
Assessment [145] Model [21] [159]
Author / Institute North Carolina State University [145] Brookhaven National Laboratory [21] IEA-ETSAP [159]
Developed in USA (2010s) [145] USA (1980s) [21] International (2000s) [159]
Methodology Optimization [145,152] Optimization [21] Optimization [160]
Analytical Approach Bottom-up [145] Bottom-up [21] Bottom-up [123,160]
Transformation Path Analysis Myopic-foresight [145] Myopic-foresight [21] Perfect-foresight [160]
Time Horizon Flexible [145] Flexible [21] Flexible [160]
Temporal Resolution Typical days / time slices [145,152] 1 year [20,161] Flexible [160]
Spatial Resolution 1 region [145,152] 1 region [21] Flexible [160]
Licensing Open source / access [145,152] Proprietaryb Open source (source code) [162]
Software / Programming Language Python [145,152] Othersb GAMS [163]
a
Not mentioned explicitly – author’s assumption.
b
Not mentioned – author's assumption.

Appendix B. Supporting information

Supplementary data associated with this article can be found in the online version at doi:10.1016/j.rser.2018.07.045.

References
[1] UNFCCC. Adoption of the Paris Agreement. Report No. FCCC/CP/2015/L.9/Rev.1.
UNFCCC; 2015.
[2] Rogelj J, Den Elzen M, Höhne N, Fransen T, Fekete H, Winkler H, et al. Paris
agreement climate proposals need a boost to keep warming well below 2 °C. Nature
2016;534:631–9.
[3] Meinshausen M, Meinshausen N, Hare W, Raper SC, Frieler K, Knutti R, et al.
Greenhouse-gas emission targets for limiting global warming to 2 °C. Nature
2009;458:1158–62.
[4] Hafeznia H, Aslani A, Anwar S, Yousefjamali M. Analysis of the effectiveness of
national renewable energy policies: a case of photovoltaic policies. Renew Sustain
Energy Rev 2017;79:669–80.
[5] Tsai S-B, Xue Y, Zhang J, Chen Q, Liu Y, Zhou J, et al. Models for forecasting
growth trends in renewable energy. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2017;77:1169–78.
[6] Camara NF, Xu D, Binyet E. Enhancing household energy consumption: how
should it be done? Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2018;81:669–81.
[7] Blesl M, Kessler A. Energieeffizienz in der Industrie. Berlin, Germany: Springer;
2013.
[8] Robinius M, Otto A, Heuser P, Welder L, Syranidis K, Ryberg D, et al. Linking the
power and transport sectors—Part 1: the principle of sector coupling. Energies
2017;10:956.
[9] Olsthoorn M, Schleich J, Hirzel S. Adoption of energy efficiency measures for non-
residential buildings: technological and organizational heterogeneity in the trade,
commerce and services sector. Ecol Econ 2017;136:240–54.
[10] Robinius M, Otto A, Syranidis K, Ryberg DS, Heuser P, Welder L, et al. Linking the
power and transport sectors—Part 2: modelling a sector coupling scenario for
Germany. Energies 2017;10:957.
[11] DeCarolis J, Daly H, Dodds P, Keppo I, Li F, McDowall W, et al. Formalizing best
practice for energy system optimization modelling. Appl Energy 2017;194:184–98.
[12] Wang W, Zeng W, Yao B. An energy-economy-environment model for simulating
the impacts of socioeconomic development on energy and environment. Sci World
J 2014:2014.
[13] Moret S, Codina Gironès V, Bierlaire M, Maréchal F. Characterization of input
uncertainties in strategic energy planning models. Appl Energy
2017;202:597–617.
[14] Fu X, Sun H, Guo Q, Pan Z, Xiong W, Wang L. Uncertainty analysis of an integrated
energy system based on information theory. Energy 2017;122:649–62.
[15] DeCarolis JF, Babaee S, Li B, Kanungo S. Modelling to generate alternatives with
an energy system optimization model. Environ Model Softw 2016;79:300–10.
[16] Mirakyan A, De Guio R. Modelling and uncertainties in integrated energy plan-
ning. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2015;46:62–9.
[17] Hoffman KC, Wood DO. Energy system modeling and forecasting. Annu Rev
Energy 1976;1:423–53.
[18] Barnett HJ. Energy uses and supplies, 1939, 1947, 1965. Washington, DC (USA):
Bureau of Mines; 1950.
[19] Robison RA. Moore's law: predictor and driver of the silicon era. World Neurosurg
2012;78:399–403.
[20] Kydes AS. The brookhaven energy system optimization model: its variants and
uses. Energy Policy modeling: United States and Canadian experiences. Boston,
USA: Springer; 1980. p. 110–36.

163
P. Lopion et al.
[21] Kydes AS, Rabinowitz J. Overview and special features of the time-stepped energy
system optimization model (TESOM). resources and Energy. 1981;3:65–92.
[22] Fishbone LG, Abilock H. Markal, a linear‐programming model for energy systems
analysis: technical description of the bnl version. Int J Energy Res 1981;5:353–75.
[23] Helm D. Energy policy: security of supply, sustainability and competition. Energy
Policy 2002;30:173–84.
[24] Lubell H. Security of supply and energy policy in Western Europe. World Polit
1961;13:400–22.
[25] Krapels EN. Oil Crisis Manag: Strateg Stock Int Secur 1980.
[26] EIA US. Integrating Module of the National Energy Modeling System: Model
Documentation 2013; 2013.
[27] Heaps C. User guide for LEAP 2008. Stockholm Environment Institute–US Center,
Somerville, USA; 2010.
[28] Hoffman KC, Jorgenson DW. Economic and technological models for evaluation of
energy policy. Bell J Econ 1977:444–66.
[29] Alcamo J, Amann M, Hettelingh J-P, Holmberg M, Hordijk L, Kämäri J, et al.
Acidification in Europe: a simulation model for evaluating control strategies.
Ambio 1987:232–45.
[30] Pfenninger S, Hawkes A, Keirstead J. Energy systems modeling for twenty-first
century energy challenges. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2014;33:74–86.
[31] Oberthür S, Ott HE. Kyoto Protoc: Int Clim Policy 21st Century: Springe Sci Bus
Media 1999.
[32] Nakicenovic N, Riahi K. Model runs with MESSAGE in the context of the further
development of the Kyoto-Protocol. 2003.
[33] The Terrestrial Carbon Cycle: Implications for the Kyoto Protocol.
Science;280:1393–1394; 1998.
[34] Markewitz P, Stein G. Das IKARUS-Projekt: Energietechnische Perspektiven für
Deutschland. Schriften des Forschungszentrums Jülich Reihe Umwelt. environ-
ment. Band 2003:39.
[35] Hoffert MI, Caldeira K, Jain AK, Haites EF, Harvey LDD, Potter SD, et al. Energy
implications of future stabilization of atmospheric CO2 content. Nature
1998;395:881.
[36] Haller M, Ludig S, Bauer N. Decarbonization scenarios for the EU and MENA power
system: considering spatial distribution and short term dynamics of renewable
generation. Energy Policy 2012;47:282–90.
[37] Biberacher M. Modelling and optimisation of future energy systems using spatial
and temporal methods. 2007.
[38] Angelis-Dimakis A, Biberacher M, Dominguez J, Fiorese G, Gadocha S,
Gnansounou E, et al. Methods and tools to evaluate the availability of renewable
energy sources. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2011;15:1182–200.
[39] Heide D, von Bremen L, Greiner M, Hoffmann C, Speckmann M, Bofinger S.
Seasonal optimal mix of wind and solar power in a future, highly renewable
Europe. Renew Energy 2010;35:2483–9.
[40] Palzer A, Henning H-M. A comprehensive model for the German electricity and
heat sector in a future energy system with a dominant contribution from renew-
able energy technologies – Part II: results. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
2014;30:1019–34.
[41] Henning H-M, Palzer A. A comprehensive model for the German electricity and
heat sector in a future energy system with a dominant contribution from renew-
able energy technologies—Part I: methodology. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
2014;30:1003–18.
[42] Keles D, Jochem P, McKenna R, Ruppert M, Fichtner W. Meeting the modeling
needs of future energy systems. Energy Technol 2017.
[43] Beaver R. Structural comparison of the models in EMF 12. Energy Policy
1993;21:238–48.
[44] Grubb M, Edmonds J, Ten Brink P, Morrison M. The costs of limiting fossil-fuel
CO2 emissions: a survey and analysis. Annu Rev Energy Environ 1993;18:397–478.
[45] Van Beeck N. Classification of energy models: Tilburg University, Faculty of
Economics and Business Administration; 2000.
[46] Jebaraj S, Iniyan S. A review of energy models. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
2006;10:281–311.
[47] Sahir MH, Qureshi AH. Energy modeling applications for analysis of policy op-
tions-an overview. In: Proceedings of the 6th WSEAS international conference on
simulation, modelling and optimization, Lisbon, Portugal; 2006.
[48] Connolly D, Lund H, Mathiesen BV, Leahy M. A review of computer tools for
analysing the integration of renewable energy into various energy systems. Appl
Energy 2010;87:1059–82.
[49] Bhattacharyya SC, Timilsina GR. A review of energy system models. Int J Energy
Sect Manag 2010;4:494–518.
[50] Nakata T, Silva D, Rodionov M. Application of energy system models for designing
a low-carbon society. Progress Energy Combust Sci 2011;37:462–502.
[51] Zeng Y, Cai Y, Huang G, Dai J. A review on optimization modeling of energy
systems planning and GHG emission mitigation under uncertainty. Energies
2011;4:1624–56.
[52] Weijermars R, Taylor P, Bahn O, Das SR, Wei Y-M. Review of models and actors in
energy mix optimization – can leader visions and decisions align with optimum
model strategies for our future energy systems? Energy Strategy Rev 2012;1:5–18.
[53] Hall LM, Buckley AR. A review of energy systems models in the UK: prevalent
usage and categorisation. Appl Energy 2016;169:607–28.
[54] Collins S, Deane JP, Poncelet K, Panos E, Pietzcker RC, Delarue E, et al. Integrating
short term variations of the power system into integrated energy system models: a
methodological review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2017;76:839–56.
[55] Bazmi AA, Zahedi G. Sustainable energy systems: role of optimization modeling
techniques in power generation and supply—a review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
2011;15:3480–500.
[56] Hall LMH, Buckley AR. A review of energy systems models in the UK: prevalent
164
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 96 (2018) 156–166
usage and categorisation. Appl Energy 2016;169:607–28.
[57] Banos R, Manzano-Agugliaro F, Montoya F, Gil C, Alcayde A, Gómez J.
Optimization methods applied to renewable and sustainable energy: a review.
Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2011;15:1753–66.
[58] Gargiulo M, Gallachóir BÓ. Long-term energy models: principles, characteristics,
focus, and limitations. Wiley Interdiscip Rev: Energy Environ 2013;2:158–77.
[59] Lunz B, Stöcker P, Eckstein S, Nebel A, Samadi S, Erlach B, et al. Scenario-based
comparative assessment of potential future electricity systems – a new methodo-
logical approach using Germany in 2050 as an example. Appl Energy
2016;171:555–80.
[60] Steurer M, Haasz T, Fahl U, Voß A. Analysing demand side management in energy
system models. In: Proceedings of the 14th IAEE European conference on sus-
tainable energy policy and strategies for Europe, October 28-31, 2014:
International association for energy economics; 2014.
[61] Lund PD, Lindgren J, Mikkola J, Salpakari J. Review of energy system flexibility
measures to enable high levels of variable renewable electricity. Renew Sustain
Energy Rev 2015;45:785–807.
[62] Zerrahn A, Schill W-P. Long-run power storage requirements for high shares of
renewables: review and a new model. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
2017;79:1518–34.
[63] Pregger T, Nitsch J, Naegler T. Long-term scenarios and strategies for the de-
ployment of renewable energies in Germany. Energy Policy 2013;59:350–60.
[64] Ventosa M, Baıllo A, Ramos A, Rivier M. Electricity market modeling trends.
Energy Policy 2005;33:897–913.
[65] Mancarella P, Andersson G, Peças-Lopes J, Bell KR. Modelling of integrated multi-
energy systems: drivers, requirements, and opportunities. In: Proceedings of the
power systems computation conference (PSCC), IEEE. 2016. pp. 1–22.
[66] Mirjat NH, Uqaili MA, Harijan K, Valasai GD, Shaikh F, Waris M. A review of
energy and power planning and policies of Pakistan. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
2017;79:110–27.
[67] Hilpert S, Günther S, Kaldemeyer C, Krien U, Plessmann G, Wiese F, et al.
Addressing energy system modelling challenges: The contribution of the Open
Energy Modelling Framework (oemof); 2017.
[68] Hilpert S, Kaldemeyer C, Wiese F, Plessmann G. A Qualitative Evaluation
Approach for Energy System Modelling Software—Case Study Results for the Open
Energy Modelling Framework (Oemof); 2017.
[69] Lund H, Arler F, Østergaard PA, Hvelplund F, Connolly D, Mathiesen BV, et al.
Simulation versus optimisation: theoretical positions in energy system modelling.
Energies 2017;10:840.
[70] Poncelet K, Delarue E, Six D, D'haeseleer W. Myopic optimization models for si-
mulation of investment decisions in the electric power sector. In: Proceedings of
the 13th international conference on the European energy market (EEM): IEEE.
2016. pp. 1–9.
[71] Krey V. Vergleich kurz-und langfristig ausgerichteter Optimierungsansätze mit
einem multi-regionalen Energiesystemmodell unter Berücksichtigung stochas-
tischer Parameter. Bochum: Ruhr-Universität Bochum; 2006.
[72] Kotzur L, Markewitz P, Robinius M, Stolten D. Impact of different time series ag-
gregation methods on optimal energy system design. Renew Energy
2018;117:474–87.
[73] Kotzur L, Markewitz P, Robinius M, Stolten D. Time Series Aggregation for Energy
System Design: Modeling Seasonal Storage. arXiv preprint arXiv:171007593.
2017.
[74] Shapiro JF, White DE, Wood DO. Sensitivity analysis of the Brookhaven energy
system optimization model. 1976.
[75] Ravn HF, Munksgaard J, Ramskov J, Grohnheit P, Larsen H. Balmorel: a model for
analyses of the electricity and CHP markets in the Baltic Sea region. Append
Elkraft Syst 2001.
[76] Pfenninger S. Calliope Documentation. Available: 〈https://calliope.readthedocs.
io/en/stable/〉 (20-09-2017).
[77] Ravn HF. The balmorel model: Theoretical background; 2001.
[78] Grohnheit PE, Larsen HV. Balmorel-data and calibration; 2001.
[79] Pfenninger S. Dealing with multiple decades of hourly wind and PV time series in
energy models: a comparison of methods to reduce time resolution and the plan-
ning implications of inter-annual variability. Appl Energy 2017;197:1–13.
[80] Jaccard MK. The Canadian integrated modelling system (CIMS) - appendix D.
Developed and maintained by the energy research group. Canada: Simon Fraser
University; 2000.
[81] Barrett Mark, Spataru C. DynEMo - dynamic energy model - model documentation.
UCL Energy Institute; 2011.
[82] Barrett M, Spataru C. DyneMo: A Dynamic energy Model for the exploration of
energy, Society and environment. 2015 In: Proceedings of the 17th UKSim-AMSS
international conference on modelling and simulation (UKSim). IEEE. 2015. pp.
255–260.
[83] Australian Energy Projections to 2049–50 Bureau of Resources and Energy
Economics, Canberra, Canada; 2014.
[84] Roop JM, Tubbs B, Bataille C. ModelingClimate Change Policies in the US and
Canada: Preliminary Results. ACEEE Summer Study on Energy Efficiency in
Industry. Panel 4. Analysis and Modeling of Industrial Energy Use; 2007.
[85] Jaccard M. Hybrid energy-economy models and endogenous technological change.
Energy Environ 2005:81–109.
[86] Murphy R, Rivers N, Jaccard M. Hybrid modeling of industrial energy consump-
tion and greenhouse gas emissions with an application to Canada; 2007.
[87] Kimura S. Energy outlook and analysis of energy saving potential in East Asia.
Books. 2014.
[88] Barrett M, Spataru C. Dynamic simulation of energy system. Adv Mater Res: Trans
Tech Publ 2013:1017–21.
P. Lopion et al.
[89] Akmal M, Thorpe S, Klijn N, Dickson A. Energy MCo, Burg G. Australian energy:
national and state projections to 2019-20: ABARE; 2004.
[90] ArifSyed JM, Thorpe S, Penney K. Australian energy projections to 2029-30.
ABARE Res Report 2010:10.
[91] Tubss W. A Simulation Model of Energy Supply and Demand for Climate Policy
Analysis; 2009.
[92] EnergyPLAN - E4Cast. EnergyPLAN; Available: 〈http://www.energyplan.eu/
othertools/national/e4cast/〉 (26-09-2017).
[93] Energy and Power Evaluation Program. (ENPEP-BALANCE) - Brief Model
Overview - Version 2.25. Argonne: Argonne National Laboratory, Center for
Energy, Environmental, and Economic Systems Analysis (CEEESA); 2008.
[94] Heaton C. Modelling low-carbon energy system designs with the ETI ESME model.
Energy Technologies Institute; 2014.
[95] Child M, Breyer C. Vision and initial feasibility analysis of a recarbonised Finnish
energy system for 2050. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2016;66:517–36.
[96] Lund H. EnergyPLAN documentation version 12. Denmark: Aalborg; 2015.
[97] Jusko M, Cirillo R, Macal C. Energy and power evaluation program (ENPEP),
Documentation and users manual. Argonne: Argonne National Laboratory; 1987.
[98] Conzelmann G. Greenhouse gas mitigation analysis using ENPEP - a modeling
guide. Center for energy, environmental, and economic systems analysis
(CEEESA), Decision and information sciences division. Argonne, USA: Argonne
National Laboratory; 2001.
[99] Kumar JA, Radhakrishna C. Sustainable energy future by AD2030-India case study.
In: Proceedings of the energy 2030 conferenc on Energy. IEEE: IEEE. 2008.
pp. 1–8.
[100] Pye S, Usher W, Strachan N. The uncertain but critical role of demand reduction in
meeting long-term energy decarbonisation targets. Energy Policy 2014;73:575–86.
[101] Hamilton BP, Cirillo RR, Buehring WA. ENPEP: an integrated approach to energy
planning. United States: Argonne National Lab., IL; 1992.
[102] Pye S, Sabio N, Strachan N. An integrated systematic analysis of uncertainties in
UK energy transition pathways. Energy Policy 2015;87:673–84.
[103] Child M, Haukkala T, Breyer C. The role of solar photovoltaics and energy storage
solutions in a 100% renewable energy system for Finland in 2050. Sustainability
2017;9:1358.
[104] Østergaard PA. Reviewing EnergyPLAN simulations and performance indicator
applications in energyPLAN simulations. Appl Energy 2015;154:921–33.
[105] Day G. Modelling the UK energy system: practical insights for technology devel-
opment and policy making; 2013.
[106] Energy and Power Evaluation Program. (ENPEP-BALANCE) Center for Energy,
Environmental, and Economic Systems Analysis (CEEESA). 2017. Available:
〈http://ceeesa.es.anl.gov/projects/Enpepwin.html〉.
[107] Heaton C. Energy System Modelling Environment (ESME) Overview Energy
Technologies Institute (ETI); 2017. Available: 〈http://www.eti.co.uk/
programmes/strategy/esme〉.
[108] Zonooz MRF, Nopiah ZM, Yusof AM, Sopian K. A review of MARKAL energy
modeling. Eur J Sci Res 2009;26:352–61.
[109] Loulou R, Goldstein G, Noble K. Documentation for the MARKAL family of models.
Energy Technol Syst Anal Program 2004:65–73.
[110] Martinsen D, Krey V, Markewitz P, Vögele S. A New Dynamical Bottom-Up Energy
Model for Germany-Model Structure and Model Results. In: Proceedings of the
IAEE .2004. pp.1–3.
[111] Martinsen D, Krey V, Markewitz P, Vögele S. A time step energy process model for
Germany-model structure and results. Energy Stud Rev 2006:14.
[112] Taylor PG, Upham P, McDowall W, Christopherson D. Energy model, boundary
object and societal lens: 35 years of the MARKAL model in the UK. Energy Res
Social Sci 2014;4:32–41.
[113] Seebregts AJ, Goldstein GA, Smekens K. Energy/Environmental Modeling with the
MARKAL Family of Models. In: Chamoni P, Leisten R, Martin A, Minnemann J,
Stadtler H, editors. Operations Research Proceedings 2001: Selected Papers of the
International Conference on Operations Research (OR 2001) Duisburg, September
3–5, 2001. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg; 2002. p. 75-82.
[114] Martinsen D, Krey V. Compromises in energy policy—using fuzzy optimization in
an energy systems model. Energy Policy 2008;36:2983–94.
[115] Heinrichs HU, Schumann D, Vögele S, Biß KH, Shamon H, Markewitz P, et al.
Integrated assessment of a phase-out of coal-fired power plants in Germany.
Energy 2017;126:285–305.
[116] Kannan R. The development and application of a temporal MARKAL energy
system model using flexible time slicing. Appl Energy 2011;88:2261–72.
[117] MARKet ALlocation (MARKAL). OpenEI; 2017. 〈https://openei.org/wiki/
MARKet_ALlocation_(MARKAL)#cite_note-markal-1〉 (29-09-2017).
[118] Open Energy Modelling Framework (oemof) - A modular open source framework
to model energy supply systems. oemof Developer Group; 2017. Available:
〈https://oemof.org/〉 .
[119] Agnew M, Schrattenholzer L, Voß A. User’s guide for the MESSAGE computer
program; 1978.
[120] Messner S, Golodnikov A, Gritsevskii A. A stochastic version of the dynamic linear
programming model MESSAGE III. Energy 1996;21:775–84.
[121] Gabriel SA, Kydes AS, Whitman P. The National Energy Modeling System: a large-
scale energy-economic equilibrium model. Oper Res 2001;49:14–25.
[122] Arnhold O, Fleck M, Goldammer K, Grüger F, Hoch O, Schachler B.
Transformation of the German energy and transport sector–a national analysis.
Netzintegration der Elektromobilität 2017. Springer; 2017. p. 9–21.
[123] Li FG, Trutnevyte E. Investment appraisal of cost-optimal and near-optimal
pathways for the UK electricity sector transition to 2050. Appl Energy
2017;189:89–109.
[124] Keppo I, Strubegger M. Implications of limited foresight and sequential decision
165
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 96 (2018) 156–166
making for long-term energy system planning: an application of the myopic
MESSAGE model; 2009.
[125] Geisbrecht R, Dipietro P. Evaluating options for US coal fired power plants in the
face of uncertainties and greenhouse gas caps: the economics of refurbishing,
retrofitting, and repowering. Energy Procedia 2009;1:4347–54.
[126] Hilpert S, Kaldemeyer C, Krien U, Günther S, Wingenbach C, Plessmann G. The
Open Energy Modelling Framework (oemof)-A novel approach in energy system
modelling. Preprints; 2017.
[127] Messner S, Strubegger M. User’s Guide for MESSAGE III; 1995.
[128] Assumptions to the Annual Energy Outlook. US Energy Information
Administration; 2017; 2016.
[129] Schrattenholzer L. The energy supply model MESSAGE; 1981.
[130] Open Energy Modelling Framework - Base packages for energy system modelling
and optimisation. oemof developer group; 2017. Available: 〈https://github.com/
oemof/oemof〉.
[131] Howells M, Rogner H, Strachan N, Heaps C, Huntington H, Kypreos S, et al.
OSeMOSYS: the open source energy modeling system: an introduction to its ethos,
structure and development. Energy Policy 2011;39:5850–70.
[132] PRIMES MODEL - VERSION 6, 2016 - 2017 - Detailed model description, E3MLab/
ICCS at National Technical University of Athens, 27‐09‐2017.
[133] Ueckerdt F, Luderer G, Müller-Hansen F. Analyse des Klimaschutzpotenzials der
Nutzung von erneuerbarem Wasserstoff und Methan. Abschlussbericht DVGW-
Forschungsvorhaben; 2013.
[134] Gutierrez-Miravete E. Energy capacity planning and modeling; 2013.
[135] Capros P. The PRIMES Energy System Model: Short Description. Athens, Institute
of Communication and Computer Systems of National Technical University of
Athens; 2005.
[136] Schmid E, Knopf B, Bauer N. REMIND-D: a hybrid energy-economy model of
Germany; 2012.
[137] Ueckerdt F, Brecha RJ, Luderer G, Sullivan P, Schmid E, Bauer N. et al. Variable
Renewable Energy in modeling climate change mitigation scenarios. In:
Proceedings of the 2011 international energy workshop; 2011.
[138] Welsch M, Howells M, Bazilian M, DeCarolis JF, Hermann S, Rogner HH.
Modelling elements of Smart Grids–enhancing the OSeMOSYS (Open Source
Energy Modelling System) code. Energy 2012;46:337–50.
[139] EC4MACS. Modelling methodology–the PRIMES energy model. European con-
sortium for modelling of air pollution and climate strategies [EC4MACS Editors:
E3MLab]. Athens, Greece: National Technical University of Athens (NTUA); 2012.
[140] Capros P, Paroussos L, Fragkos P, Tsani S, Boitier B, Wagner F, et al. Description of
models and scenarios used to assess European decarbonisation pathways. Energy
Strategy Rev 2014;2:220–30.
[141] Ueckerdt F, Brecha R, Luderer G, Sullivan P, Schmid E, Bauer N, et al.
Representing power sector variability and the integration of variable renewables
in long-term energy-economy models using residual load duration curves. Energy
2015;90:1799–814.
[142] REMIND. PIK Potsdam; 2017. Available: 〈https://www.pik-potsdam.de/research/
sustainable-solutions/models/remind〉.
[143] Scholz Y. Renewable energy based electricity supply at low costs: development of
the REMix model and application for Europe; 2012.
[144] Palzer A. Sektorübergreifende Modellierung und Optimierung eines zukünftigen
deutschen Energiesystems unter Berücksichtigung von
Energieeffizienzmaßnahmen im Gebäudesektor: Fraunhofer Verlag; 2016.
[145] Hunter K, Sreepathi S, DeCarolis JF. Modeling for insight using tools for energy
model optimization and analysis (Temoa). Energy Econ 2013;40:339–49.
[146] Nitsch J, Pregger T, Naegler T, Heide D, Luca de Tena D, Trieb F. et al.
Langfristszenarien und Strategien für den Ausbau der erneuerbaren Energien in
Deutschland bei Berücksichtigung der Entwicklung in Europa und global.
[147] SCOPE. Sektorenübergreifende Einsatz-und Ausbauoptimierung für Analysen des
zukünftigen Energieversorgungssystems. Fraunhofer IWES 2017.
[148] Pape C, Gerhardt N, Härtel P, Scholz A, Schwinn R, Drees T, et al. Roadmap
Speicher-Bestimmung des Speicherbedarfs in Deutschland im europäischen
Kontext und Ableitung von technisch-ökonomischen sowie rechtlichen
Handlungsempfehlungen für die Speicherförderung. Fraunhofer IWES 2014.
[Kassel].
[149] Von Oehsen A. Entwicklung und Anwendung einer Kraftwerks-und
Speicherinsatzoptimierung für die Untersuchung von
Energieversorgungsszenarien mit hohem Anteil erneuerbarer
Energieversorgungsszenarien mit hohem Anteil erneuerbarer Energien in
Deutschland. Dissertation; 2012.
[150] Gils HC, Scholz Y, Pregger T, Luca de Tena D, Heide D. Integrated modelling of
variable renewable energy-based power supply in Europe. Energy
2017;123:173–88.
[151] Climate-friendly, reliable, affordable: 100% renewable electricity supply by 2050.
Technical report, German Advisory Council on the Environment (SRU); 2010.
[152] DeCarolis J, Hunter K, Sreepathi S. Temoa Project Documentation - Release 2017-
07-16. The TEMOA Project; 2017.
[153] Stetter D. Enhancement of the REMix energy system model: Global renewable
energy potentials, optimized power plant siting and scenario validation; 2014.
[154] Henning H, Palzer A. Energiesystem Deutschland 2050. Sektor-und
Energieträgerübergreifende, modellbasierte, ganzheitliche Untersuchung zur
langfristigen Reduktion energiebedingter CO2-Emissionen durch Energieeffizienz
und den Einsatz Erneuerbarer Energien. FhG-ISE, Studie im Rahmen eines BMWi-
Projektes, Freiburg; 2013.
[155] Gils HC. Balancing of intermittent renewable power generation by demand re-
sponse and thermal energy storage; 2015.
[156] Henning H-M, Palzer A. 100% erneuerbare Energien für Strom und Wärme in
P. Lopion et al.
Deutschland. Freiburg (Germany) Fraunhofer-Institut für Solare Energiesysteme
ISE; 2012.
[157] Gerhardt N, Böttger D, Trost T, Scholz A, Pape C, Gerlach A-K. et al. Analyse eines
europäischen -95%-Klimazielszenarios über mehrere Wetterjahre. Teilbericht im
Rahmen des Projektes: KLIMAWIRKSAMKEIT ELEKTROMOBILITÄT -
Entwicklungsoptionen des Straßenverkehrs unter Berücksichtigung der
Rückkopplung des Energieversorgungssystems in Hinblick auf mittel- und lang-
fristige Klimaziele. Fraunhofer IWES, Kassel; 2017.
[158] Sandau F, Scholz A, Hahn H, Schumacher P, Sager C, Bergk F. et al. Interaktion EE-
Strom, Wärme und Verkehr. Analyse der Interaktion zwischen den Sektoren
Strom, Wärme/Kälte und Verkehr in Deutschland in Hinblick auf steigende Anteile
fluktuierender Erneuerbarer Energien im Strombereich unter Berücksichtigung der
166
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 96 (2018) 156–166
europäischen Entwicklung. Fraunhofer-Institut für Windenergie und
Energiesystemtechnik, et al Kassel, Heidelberg, Würzburg; 2015.
[159] Loulou R, Remne U, Kanudia A, Lehtila A, Goldstein G. Documentation for the
TIMES Model, PART I: Energy Technology Systems Analysis Programme. ed; 2005.
[160] Loulou R, Remme U, Kanudia A, Lehtila A, Goldstein G. Documentation for the
TIMES model Part II. Energy Technol Syst Anal Program (ETSAP) 2005.
[161] Beller M. Reference energy system methodology. Upton, NY (USA): Brookhaven
National Lab.; 1976.
[162] Acquiring ETSAP Tools. IEA ETSAP; 2017.
[163] Loulou R, Remme U, Kanudia A, Lehtila A, Goldstein G. Documentation for the
TIMES model - part III: GAMS implementation. Energy Technol Syst Anal Program
(ETSAP) 2005.