Training Webinar #8

En-ROADS Testing and
Confidence Building
Andrew P. Jones
9 July 2020
The En-ROADS Climate Ambassador Program
The En-ROADS Climate Ambassador Program is a unique leadership opportunity to
become a climate leader in your field.
Our Guide to Testing – Chapter 21
Purpose of En-ROADS
• Improve decision-maker and citizen

understanding of energy, land, and climate
dynamics as a means to effective action
Our Primary Confidence-Building Tests
1. Peer Review
2. Robustness to Extreme Conditions
3. Comparison of Behavior to Measured Historical Data
4. Comparison of Behavior to Other Models’ Future Projections
5. Comparison Against Experts’ Mental Models
6. Relevance to Policy-makers
Peer Review
Robustness to
Extreme Conditions
To Test Robustness, We Vary 23 Parameters to
Their Extremes
We Check Output for Anomalies
Primary Energy Demand of Coal Primary Energy Demand of Renewables
Comparison of
Behavior to Measured
Historical Data
Coal Powered Electricity, 1990-2020
Electricity Generated by Coal

40
35
30
Exajoules per Year
25
20
15
10
0
1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
CI En-ROADS SSP2 Baseline (2020) IEA WEO History (2018) BP (2018)

Oil Powered Electricity, 1990-2020
Electricity Generated by Oil

6
4
Exajoules per Year
0
1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020

Natural Gas Powered Electricity, 1990-2020
Electricity Generated by Gas

25
20
Exajoules per Year
15
10
0
1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020

Nuclear Powered Electricity, 1990-2020
Electricity Generated by Nuclear

12
10
8
Exajoules per Year
0
1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
CI En-ROADS SSP2 Baseline (2020) IEA WEO History (2018)

Renewables Powered Electricity, 1990-2020
Electricity Generated by Renewables and Hydro

25
20
Exajoules per Year
15
10
0
1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
CI En-ROADS History (2020) IEA WEO History (2018) BP (2018)

Total Electricity, 1990-2020
Total Electricity
100
90
80
70
Exajoules per year
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
1990 2000 2010 2020
CI En-ROADS History (2020) IEA WEO History (2018) BP (2018)

Comparison of
Behavior to Other
Models’ Future
Projections
The Integrated Assessment Models Against Which We Compare En-ROADS
Model Comparisons for SSPs
AIM/CGE WITCH-GLOBIOM IMAGE

 “Asia-Pacific Integrated  “World Induced Technical Change  “Integrated Model to Assess the Global
Model/Computable General Hybrid-Global Biosphere Management Environment.”
Equilibrium” Model ”
 Developed by the PBL Netherlands
 Developed by the National Institute for  Developed by the European Institute on Environmental Assessment Agency in the
Environmental Studies in Japan Economics and the Environment in Italy, Netherlands
and the IIASA in Austria
 Shinichiro Fujimori  Detlef van Vuuren, David Gernaat, Elke
 Massimo Tavoni, Johannes Emmerling Stehfest
GCAM4 MESSAGE-GLOBIOM REMIND-MAGPIE

 “Global Change Assessment Model”  “Model for Energy Supply Strategy  “Regional Model of Investments and
Alternatives and their General Development-Model of Agricultural
 Developed by the Joint Global Change Environmental Impact-Global Biosphere Production and its Impact on the
Research Institute at PNNL in Management Model ” Environment.”
Maryland, USA
 Developed by IIASA in Austria  Developed by the Potsdam Institut für
 Kate Calvin and Jae Edmonds Klimafolgenforschung in Germany
 Keywan Riahi, Oliver Fricko, Petr Havlik
 Elmar Kriegler, Alexander Popp, Nico
Bauer
Example: Disaggregation in GCAM
http://jgcri.github.io/gcam-doc/energy.html#electricity
En-ROADS is Designed to Complement
Disaggregated Models such as IAMs
Complex disaggregated
Scope and Detail
models - GCMs, most

large-scale IAMs
Simple models - En-

ROADS, C-ROADS,
FAIR, JCM, DICE
Speed, Simplicity of Use, Transparency

Calibrating Temperature, 1990-2100
Temperature Change from Preindustrial • Very close to the

5 IAMs
• Slightly below
4.5
4
3.5 RCP 8.5
3
• Well above RCP
Degrees C
2.5
2
6.0
1.5
1
0.5
0
1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100
CI En-ROADS Ref (2019) PBL IMAGE SSP2 Baseline (2016)

IIASA MESSAGE-GLOBIOM SSP2 Baseline (2016) NIES AIM/CGE SSP2 Baseline (2016)
PNNL GCAM4 SSP2 Baseline (2016) PIK REMIND-MAGPIE SSP2 Baseline (2016)
EIEE WITCH-GLOBIOM SSP2 Baseline (2016) RCP6.0 (2011)
RCP8.5 (2011)
Starting with the Kaya Drivers of CO2
Emissions
Relevant to graphs, below, from En-ROADS
Gross World Product (Global GDP), 1990-2100
Gross World Product • Tight match

800 • But this isn’t
700 much of a test
600 of anything
Trillion $2011 PPP
500
400
300
200
100
0
1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100

EIEE WITCH-GLOBIOM SSP2 Baseline (2016)
Energy per unit of global GDP, 1990-2100
Primary Energy Intensity of GDP • Related to energy

8
efficiency of
7
global economy
• How much
Exajoule per Trillion $2011 PPP
5 energy it takes to
4 deliver a dollar
3
of GDP
2 • Captured in
1 “Kaya” view in
0
1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100
En-ROADS
CO2 emissions per unit of energy, 1990-2100
CO2 Intensity of Primary Energy • How much gets

80
emitted per unit
70
of energy
• Driven by the fuel
Megatons CO2 per Exajoule
60
50 mix
40
• Captured in
30
“Kaya” view in
20
En-ROADS
10
0
1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100

Carbon dioxide emissions from energy, 1990-2100
CO2 Emissions from Energy • At the high end

90
of the range
80
70
Gigatons CO2 per year
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100

Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry emissions,
1990-2100
CO2 Emissions from LULUCF • We differ from
8 IAMs for SSP2
7 Baseline
6
• Given abundant
Gigatons CO2 per year
5
4
standing
3
biomass and
2
high possibility
1 of future
0 deforestation, we
1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100
-1 keep emissions
-2 constant
Methane emissions, 1990-2100
Total CH4 emissions
700
600
500
Megatons CH4/Year
400
300
200
100
0
1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100

N2O Emissions, 1990-2100
Total N2O Anthropogenic Emissions
16
14
12
Megatons N2O per Year
10
0
1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100

F-gas Emissions, 1990-2100
CO2eq emissions from F-Gases

7
6
Gigatons CO2e per year
0
1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100

Now, exploring the sources of energy
Relevant to the graph, below, from En-ROADS
We compare coal “BAU” against history and future SSP2
projections from IAMs, 1990-2100
• Tracks history.
Primary Energy from Coal
600
• Slightly higher
than IEA and
500
Shell
Exajoules per Year
400
Mountain.
300
• In the middle
200
of the IAMs
100 for SSP2.
0
1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100
CI En-ROADS Ref (2019) IEA WEO History (2018)

IEA WEO Current Policy (2018) BP (2018)
Shell History (2018) Shell Mountain (2013)
PBL IMAGE SSP2 Baseline (2016) IIASA MESSAGE-GLOBIOM SSP2 Baseline (2016)
NIES AIM/CGE SSP2 Baseline (2016) PNNL GCAM4 SSP2 Baseline (2016)
PIK REMIND-MAGPIE SSP2 Baseline (2016) EIEE WITCH-GLOBIOM SSP2 Baseline (2016)
We compare oil “BAU” against history and future SSP2
Primary Energy from Oil • Upper end
450
of the
400 range.
350
Exajoules per Year
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100

We compare gas “BAU” against history and future SSP2
Primary Energy from Gas • Close match
400
350 • High end in last
300 three decades
Exajoules per Year
250
200
150
100
50
0
1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100

We compare renewables “BAU” against history and future
SSP2 projections from IAMs, 1990-2100
Primary Energy from Renewables and Hydro • En-ROADS is
higher than most.
350
300
250
Exajoules per Year
200
150
100
50
0
1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100
CI En-ROADS Ref (2019) WEO (2018) History

The IEA Has Long Underestimated Renewables Growth: Graph
of Additions to Electrical Capacity from Wind and Solar
https://www.vox.com/2015/10/12/9510879/iea-underestimate-renewables
We compare bioenergy “BAU” against history and
future SSP2 projections from IAMs, 1990-2100
Primary Energy from Bio
160
140
120
Exajoules per Year
100
80
60
40
20
0
1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100

IEA WEO Current Policy (2018) Shell History (2018)
Shell Mountain (2013) PBL IMAGE SSP2 Baseline (2016)
We compare nuclear ”BAU” against history and future
SSP2 projections from IAMs, 1990-2100
Primary Energy from Nuclear
200
180
160
140
Exajoules per Year
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100

IEA WEO Current Policy (2018) Shell History (2018)
Confidence-Building: We compare En-ROADS (in blue) against IEA, Shell, BP, and
six IAM Baselines (for SSP2) from 1990-2100
M e g a to n s C O 2 p e r E J
E x a j o u le p e r T r i ll io n $
Gross World Product CO2 Emissions from Energy
CO2 per year

$2011 PPP
Primary Energy Intensity of GDP CO2 Intensity of Primary Energy
G i g a t o n s C O 2 e p e rGigatons
G i g a t o n s C O 2 p e r Y Trillion
M e g a to n s N 2 O p e r Y e a r
M e g a ton s C H 4 p e r Y e a r
Year
ear
CO2 Emissions from LULUCF Total CH4 emissions Total N2O Anthropogenic Emissions CO2eq emissions from F-Gases
E x a jo u le s p e r Y e a r
Primary Energy from Coal Primary Energy from Oil Primary Energy from Gas Primary Energy from Renewables and
Hydro
Degrees C
Temperature Change from Preindustrial
Further details on en-roads.org
Primary Energy from Bio Primary Energy from Nuclear
Comparison of
Behavior to Other
Models’ Future
Projections –
Reduction Scenarios
Temperature for Various Radiative Forcing (RF) Levels
Temperature Change from Preindustrial for SSP2
4.5
SSP2
4 Baseline
Degrees C
3.5
SSP2 6.0
3
2.5 SSP2 4.5
SSP2 3.4
2
SSP2 2.6
1.5
SSP2 1.9
1
0.5
0
2000 2020 2040 2060 2080 2100
Net GHG Emissions for RF Levels for SSP2
G ig a to n s C O 2 e E m is s io n s / Y e a r
Greenhouse Gas Net Emissions for SSP2

120
100 SSP2
Baseline
80
60 SSP2 6.0
40
SSP2 4.5
20
SSP2 3.4
0 SSP2 2.6
SSP2 1.9
-20
We compare bioenergy in En-ROADS against the IAMs’
2.6 scenario
SSP2 2.6 Primary Energy from Bio • Testing C price
450
and GDP
400
assumptions
350
300
from IAM SSP2
Exajoules per Year
250
scenarios
200
150
100
50
0
1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100
CI En-ROADS SSP2 26 (2020) PBL IMAGE SSP2 26 (2018)

IIASA MESSAGE-GLOBIOM SSP2 26 (2018) NIES AIM/CGE SSP2 26 (2018)
PNNL GCAM4 SSP2 26 (2018) PIK REMIND-MAGPIE SSP2 26 (2018)
EIEE WITCH-GLOBIOM SSP2 26 (2018)
We compare natural gas in En-ROADS against the IAMs’
2.6 scenario
SSP2 2.6 Primary Energy from Gas • Testing C price
250
and GDP
200
assumptions
from IAM SSP2
Exajoules per Year
150 scenarios
100
50
0
1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100

We compare oil in En-ROADS against the IAMs’ 2.6
scenario
SSP2 2.6 Primary Energy from Oil • Note – one
250 reason the En-
ROADS
200
scenario is high
is because the
Exajoules per Year
150
other models
100 build more
bioenergy as a
50
substitute
0
1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100

We compare renewables plus hydro in En-ROADS against
the IAMs’ 2.6 scenario
SSP2 2.6 Primary Energy from Renewables and Hydro • Testing C price
600 and GDP
500 assumptions
from IAM SSP2
400
Exajoules per Year
scenarios
300
200
100
0
1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100

We compare nuclear in En-ROADS against the IAMs’ 2.6
scenario
• Testing C price
SSP2 2.6 Primary Energy from Nuclear
700
and GDP
600
assumptions
from IAM SSP2
500
scenarios
Exajoules per Year
400
300
200
100
0
1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100

We compare coal in En-ROADS against the IAMs’ 2.6 scenario
SSP2 2.6 Primary Energy from Coal • Testing C price
300
and GDP
250 assumptions
200
from IAM
Exajoules per Year
SSP2 scenarios
150
100
50
0
1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100

Coal Use for Three RF Levels for SSP2
Exajoules per year
SSP2 Primary Energy from Coal

500
450
400 SSP2 Baseline
350
300
250
200
150
SSP2 4.5
100
50
0 SSP2 2.6
2000 2020 2040 2060 2080 2100
How We Learn Via
Model Comparison
2019 version
SSP2 RCP 2.6 Primary Energy from Coal • Testing C price

300 and GDP
250 assumptions
200
from IAM
Exajoules per Year
SSP2 scenarios
150
100
50
0
1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100

2020 version
SSP2 2.6 Primary Energy from Coal • Testing C price
300
and GDP
250 assumptions
200
from IAM
Exajoules per Year
SSP2 scenarios
150
100
50
0
1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100

Comparison of
Behavior to Other
Models’ Future
Projections – Adding
More SSPs
Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (SSPs)
“Fossil-fueled “Regional rivalry

development” – a rocky road”
“Middle of
the road”
“Sustainability” “Inequality – A
road divided” (Chart via WITCH model documentation
- European Institute on Economics and
the Environment. Adapted.)
GDP per Capita
Baseline GDP per Capita SSP1 “…more inclusive development…inequality is reduced both
200000 across and within countries.”
SSP2 “Development and income growth proceeds unevenly, with

180000 some countries making relatively good progress while others fall short
of expectations. Income inequality persists or improves only slowly.”
160000
SSP3 “Economic development is slow…and inequalities persist or
$ 2011 PPP per year per person
140000 worsen over time.”
SSP4 “…increasing inequalities and stratification both across and

120000
within countries. Over time, a gap widens between an internationally-
100000
5 connected society…and a fragmented collection of lower-income,
poorly educated societies that work in a labor intensive, low-tech
economy.”
80000 1
SSP5 “Global markets are increasingly integrated…rapid growth of the
60000 2 global economy.”
40000
4 2018 Rate
3
20000 SSP1 2.9
SSP2 2.5
0 SSP3 1.7
1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100 SSP4 2.3
SSP5 3.5
CI En-ROADS SSP1 Baseline (2020) CI En-ROADS SSP2 Baseline (2020) CI En-ROADS SSP3 Baseline (2020)
CI En-ROADS SSP4 Baseline (2020) CI En-ROADS SSP5 Baseline (2020)
Coal
SSP1 "a more sustainable path…that respects perceived
environmental boundaries…”
Baseline Primary Energy Demand of Coal SSP2 “Environmental systems experience degradation…and challenges
to reducing vulnerability to societal and environmental changes
1000 remain.”
900 SSP3 “A low international priority for addressing environmental

concerns leads to strong environmental degradation in some regions.”
800
5 SSP4 “…investments in both carbon-intensive fuels like coal and
700 unconventional oil, but also low-carbon energy sources.”
Exajoules per year
SSP5 “…the push for economic and social development is coupled with
600
the exploitation of abundant fossil fuel resources.”
500
3
400
Exogenous Attractiveness Factor *
2 Coal
300
SSP1 0.5
200 4
SSP2 1
SSP3 3
100 1
SSP4 0.5
0 SSP5 2
1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100
CI En-ROADS SSP1 Baseline (2020) CI En-ROADS SSP2 Baseline (2020) CI En-ROADS SSP3 Baseline (2020)
*Ramping linearly between 2020 to 2100
CI En-ROADS SSP4 Baseline (2020) CI En-ROADS SSP5 Baseline (2020)
from no effect, i.e., factor = 1, to full
effect.
We compared En-ROADS against results from 6
IAMs for 5 SSPs for 6 RF levels for 30 variables
(Note – some IAMs don’t share all 6 RF levels)
G ig a to n s C O 2 e E m is s io n s / Y e a r
Net GHG Emissions for Baseline Scenarios SSP 1-5
Greenhouse Gas Net Emissions for SSPs 1-5

Baseline Scenario
180
160
SSP5 Baseline
140
120 SSP3 Baseline
100
SSP2 Baseline
80
60
SSP4 Baseline
40 SSP1 Baseline
20
0
2000 2020 2040 2060 2080 2100
Coal for Baseline Scenarios SSP 1-5
Exajoules per year

500
450
400 SSP2
Baseline
350
300
250
200
150
SSP2 4.5
100
50
0 SSP2 2.6
2000 2020 2040 2060 2080 2100
Comparison Against
Experts’ Mental Models
And
Relevance to Policy-
makers
Purpose of En-ROADS
• Improve decision-maker and citizen

understanding of energy, land use, and climate
dynamics as a means to effective action
“What I like about En-
ROADS is how it can support
a really thoughtful
conversation – I can see the
ways that policy actions
could be worth the pain.”
Rep. John Curtis

U.S. House of Representatives
Republican, Utah: 3rd District
Rep. Lisa Blunt
Rochester
U.S. House of
Representatives
Delaware:
At-large District
“En-ROADS is a hands-on,
science-based way to
demonstrate both the urgency
and possibilities for ambitious
climate action.”
Gernot Wagner
Economist and Author
New York University
“This tool will guide policy makers as
we make critical decisions to reduce
carbon pollution and save our planet
from the devastating impact of climate
change.”
Rep. Ann McLane Kuster

New Hampshire: 2nd District
Rep. Kathy Castor
Florida: 14th District
“This is an incredible tool that every
Congress member, every State legislator
and every County and local official should
use to formulate the most effective, data
driven decisions around our planet’s
climate crisis.”
Rep. Julia Brownley

California: 26th District
“This MIT/CI simulator is a
terrific, fantastic tool —
absolutely wonderful. What I like:
it is honest, shows the interesting
interplay between policies, and is
a bugle call about how aggressive
we need to be.”
Jay Inslee
Washington State Governor
Former presidential candidate
Other Approaches for Confidence Building
• Updating with the latest in climate, energy, and land science

• Change log -
https://docs.climateinteractive.org/projects/en-roads/en/latest/guide/chang
elog.html
What are the biggest limitations of En-ROADS?
1. Global aggregation (as opposed to regional disaggregation) limits treatment of heterogeneity

2. Detail limits tactical planning of energy system (not a bottom-up model)
3. Economy is not fully endogenous; not modeling welfare
1. Growth of GDP per capita specified by the user; assumes regional convergence of GDP per capita at
1%/year over time
2. Sources and uses of funds for subsidies and taxes are not accounted for (e.g., revenue recycling from a
carbon price)
3. Some technology policies are costless
4. Implicit, transient non-conservation of money
4. Equity, non-climate environment, health and other effects excluded

The En-ROADS Climate Ambassador Program
The En-ROADS Climate Ambassador Program is a unique leadership opportunity to
become a climate leader in your field.
How to Become an En-ROADS Climate Ambassador
✓ Attend the webinars (or watch recordings)
✓ Read the suggested materials
✓ Watch two others lead the workshop and/or game (in
person or video)
✓ Lead two sessions with anyone and register them
✓ Receive feedback from five participants
✓ Complete a (learning-oriented, not evaluative)
practice test
✓ Pledge to register 100% of games and workshops
✓ Submit your application to become an En-ROADS
Climate Ambassador & receive your certificate!
Who will you run your first
session with?
(answer in “Questions”)
with
Andrew P. Jones
apjones@climateinteractive.org
@AndrewPJones
@ClimateInteract
Other Slides
What is En-ROADS? How does the software work?
• En-ROADS is a System Dynamics model – a high-order, non-

linear differential equation model – built in Vensim modeling
software.
• The model is translated into WebAssembly via a tool we built
with Todd Fincannon called SDEverywhere, which allows it to
run in your web browser.
• Every time you move a slider, the software calculates the
results from ~14,000 equations, every ~45 simulated days, over
110 simulated years starting in 1990, and draws new lines on
graphs in 60 milliseconds. The output is not driven by any other
models.
Settings to Compare to SSP Output
Exogenous Attractiveness
GDP per Capita (%/year)* Annual Improvement in Factor **
Population Energy Intensity of New

Capita (%/year)
Scenario Converging Coal Renewables
2018 Rate Rate
Stationary Transport
SSP1 1.1 2.9 1.8 3.4 3.4 0.5 2
SSP2 1.6 2.5 1.5 1.8 0.8 1 1
SSP3 2.3 1.7 0.0 0.3 0.0 3 0.5
SSP4 1.6 2.3 0.7 1.4 0.7 0.5 2
SSP5 1.2 3.5 2.3 3 2 2 0.5
* Rate starting in 2018, converging to long-term rate over various region-specific durations.
** Ramping linearly between 2020 to 2100 from no effect, i.e., factor = 1, to fullofeffect.
Rate change of agriculture production
RS Annual emissions intensity (%/year)
Rate of change
rate of land
Afforestation of production
use (% of Max) ratio (%/year)
emissions CH4 N2O
(%/year)
SSP1 -3 30 -1 -1 -1
SSP2 -3 0 0 -0.1 -0.1
SSP3 -0.1 0 0 0 -0
SSP4 -3 0 -1 --0.5 -0.1
SSP5 -3 0 0 0 0
Settings to Compare to SSP Output
Target change in other GHGs (% of Max Target CDR

Action) (%)
SSP1, SSP1,
SSP2, SSP3 SSP5 SSP2, SSP3 SSP5
SSP4 SSP4
Baseline 0 0 0 0* 0 0
RF 6.0 10 10 20 30 30 40
RF 4.5 40 20 40 40 40 50
RF 3.4 50 20 50 60 50 60
RF 2.6 50 70 70 80
RF 1.9 70 90 100 100
*For SSP1, Target afforestation = 30% for Baseline

En-ROADS Compared with Other Models:
Primary Energy Demand from Renewables - Baseline Scenario*
350
PIKREMIND-MAGPIE
300
250 EIEE WITCH-GLOBIOM

CI En-ROADS
baseline
Exajoules/ year
IIASA MESSAGE-
200 GLOBIOM
Shell Mountains
150 PBLIMAGE
IEA WEO
100 Current Policies PNNLGCAM4
BP history NIES AIM/ CGE

50
* En-ROADS baseline
scenario compared to
0 2018 IAM SSP2 Baseline
2000 2020 2040 2060 2080 2100 scenarios
Primary Energy Demand from Renewables - Low Emissions Scenario*
600
Shell Sky
PIKREMIND-MAGPIE
500
EIEE WITCH-GLOBIOM
CI En-ROADS high renewables IIASA MESSAGE-

400 GLOBIOM
Exajoules/ year
300
NIES AIM/ CGE
PNNLGCAM4
200 PBLIMAGE
IEA WEO SDS
BP history * En-ROADS scenario with highly
100 subsidized renewables
(-$0.07/kWh) starting 2020 and
energy storage R&D breakthrough
cost reduction of 50% starting
IEA WEO New Policies 2030; compared to 2018 IAM
0
SSP2 2.6 scenarios
2000 2020 2040 2060 2080 2100
SSP2 2.6 Carbon Tax
12000
10000
8000
$/tonC
6000
4000
2000
0
1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100
Sensitivity to Varying
Assumptions
Key Uncertain Parameters for Sensitivity Testing
Parameter Reference Min Max Notes
Short-term elasticity (negative) of end-use
Reference demand demand to effective energy price (i.e., price
0.2 0.1 0.3 adjusted for end-use energy efficiency).
elasticity of fuels Affects expressed energy demand and market-
clearing prices.
Sensitivity of end use Exponent (negative) for the effect of carrier
2 1 3 choice for new end use capital as a function of
carrier share to cost market price of energy services.
GDP per capita Initial Global GDP per capita growth rate from
2.5 1.5 3.5 2016 to 2100.
growth rate
Initial available Coal: 100,000, Oil Coal: 70,000, Oil: Coal: 150,000, Oil:
resource remaining 45,000 and Gas: Recoverable resource remaining as of 1990,
measured in exajoules.
(x 3 fossil fuels) and Gas 15,000 7000, Gas: 6500 31,500
Sensitivity of desired
Determines the rate of expansion for
extracted fuel 0.5 0.3 0.7 extraction capacity in response to profitability.
capacity to profit
Sensitivity of desired
Determines the rate of expansion for electric
elec capacity to 0.5 0.3 0.7 capacity in response to profitability.
profit
Progress ratio Ratio of unit cost per doubling of cumulative
renewables 0.80 0.75 0.9 production. Equals 1 minus the learning rate.
Efficiency of Elec Ratio of energy service output to energy
0.8 0.6 0.95 carrier input for electric transport capital; vs
Transpor default value for oil carrier for transport = 0.4
Annual CO2 % Reduction vs. BAU in 2100
100%
Percent reduction vs. BAU 80%
60%
Reference
40%
20%
0%
Carbon tax high Electrify new New EII high Renewables Tax coal high
stationary high subsidy high
-20%
Where Did You Get Your Data?
(Short Answer)
Climate Interactive and MIT Sloan built En-ROADS using

the best available science and data, with sources such
as the IEA, the EIA, and IPCC.
Where Did You Get Your Data?
(Longer Answer)
1. Climate Interactive and MIT Sloan built En-ROADS using the

best available science and data
2. With sources such as the IEA, the EIA, and IPCC
3. All parameters and equations are available in our ~389 page
Reference Guide on our website
4. The model was externally reviewed by a team of scientists
and modelers, chaired by Dr. John Weyant, who leads the
Energy Modeling Forum out of Stanford University
5. And if a user disagrees with any parameters or assumptions,
many can be easily changed in the “Assumptions” pane of the
online simulator
The Implicit Questions Underneath
1. (Who built it?) Climate Interactive and MIT Sloan …

2. (Their literal question) With sources such as …
3. (Are you hiding anything?) All parameters and equations are
available …
4. (Who checked you?) The model was externally reviewed by …
5. (What if I disagree?) And if a user disagrees ….
Deeper Dive Topics We Will Address
In Other Videos and Materials
1. Confidence-building. Why should I trust it? How did you test

En-ROADS? How do you build confidence in a model like this?
• Sub-topic: How do En-ROADS results compare to others such as in the
EMF, the SSPs, and the RCPs?
2. Sources. No, really, Where did you get the data?
• “Data” we assume means: Parameters, equations/structure, data for
calibration and testing
3. Operation. I’ve never seen a model like this. How does it even
work?
• If it runs so fast, it must be a “toy” model
• Seems like it might be a database with an interactive skin. Is it?
EXPERIMENT:
STEP CARBON TAX
Setup – CO2 Tax
• $100/tonCO2 emissions price, phased in over 10 years
(2020-2030)
Delivered coal price, after tax
Electricity price after tax
Primary Coal Coal Electricity
Coal production
Oil & Gas Production
Renewables
Side effects: depletion & supply
+ Cumulative
Production
Production
+ +
- Depletion
Site Quality +
- - Extraction
Capacity
Cost
-
+
Installation -
+
Market Share
Side effects: learning
+ Cumulative
Production Production
+ +
Learning
Capacity +
+
Cost
+
Installation
+ -
Market Share
New capital uses less energy
Average intensity falls slowly
Total energy demand is lower
CO2 emissions from energy
Some limitations
• Global aggregation limits treatment of heterogeneity
• Detail limits tactical planning of energy system (not a bottom-up model)
• Economy is not fully endogenous; not modeling welfare

• Growth of GDP per capita specified by the user; assumes regional convergence of GDP per capita at
1%/year over time
• Sources and uses of funds for subsidies and taxes are not accounted for (e.g., revenue recycling
from a carbon price)
• Some technology policies are costless
• Implicit, transient nonconservation of money and unserved demand possible
• Equity, non-climate environment, health and other effects excluded

Model Comparison
How do En-ROADS results compare to
others such as in the EMF, the SSPs, and
the RCPs?
Andrew P. Jones
Climate Interactive
Comparison to Other Models
(The SSPs, Energy Modeling Forum, Shell, WEO…)

The En-ROADS Renewables Scenario Is Higher than Most Forecasts
Primary Energy Demand from Renewables
350
300
250
Exajoules/year
200
150
100
50
0
2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100
Year
En-ROADS Ref WEO (2016) Shell Mountains IMAGE SSP2 MESSAGE SSP2 AIM/CGE SSP2 GCAM4 SSP2
REMIND-MAGPIE SSP2 WITCH SSP2 GCAM EMF27 Base DNV GL
The En-ROADS Coal Scenario is in the Middle of Most
“IAM” Forecasts
Primary Energy of Coal
600
450
EJ/Year
300
150
0
1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100
EnROADS SSP2 AIM/CGE

WEO SSP2 GCAM4
BP SSP2 REMIND-MAGPIE
Shell Mountain SSP2 WIT CH-GLOBIOM
SSP2 IMAGE EMF Minicam Base
SSP2 MESSAGE-GLOBIOM EMF27 GCAM
Sources
How do you choose parameters,
equations/structure, data for calibration
and testing
Andrew P. Jones
Climate Interactive
Three Types of “Data”
1. Parameters in the model

2. Equations and model structure
3. Data for calibration and testing
Incorporate structure, equations, and data from diverse
research teams
 DOE
• EMF Model Suite
 UN
• BP Energy Outlook
 IEA
• HYDE (PBL)  GISS
• US EIA WEO  CDIAC NCDC NOAA
• LBL  MIT EPPA
• HADCRUT  V. Smil
• IPCC  Maddison
 Houghton
Useful Historical Data and Projections
GDP and Population - World Bank, World Development Indicators, 1960-2016.
- United Nations Population Division (2018). World Population Prospects: The 2017
Revision. Medium, Low, and High Scenarios, 2010-2100.
Energy use, production, - Hyde energy consumption by fuel type, 1925-1965

and prices by source - World Energy Outlook (WEO 2016), energy by source, 1990-2040
- BP Statistical Review of World Energy (BP 2017)
- Hyde historical data for Kaya identity, 1800-2000

Kaya identity and energy - Socia-Economic Pathways (SSPs) Database
intensity - Energy Modeling Forum Studies 24 and 27 (EMF 2014), 2005-2100
- World Resources Institute (WRI 2011)
- US Energy Information Administration (EIA 2014)
- International Energy Agency (IEA 2011)
- Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL 1998)
CO2 emissions and - EIA International Energy Outlook (2014)
atmospheric
- Special Report on Emissions Scenarios (SRES)
- Representative Concentration Pathways (RCP)
concentrations - Socia-Economic Pathways (SSPs) Database
Studies Providing Key Parameter Estimates
Akiner, S. & Aldis, A. (2004)
Commercialization Time
Smil,V. (2006)
Junginger, M., et al. (2010)
Progress Ratios
McDonald, A., Schrattenholzer, L (2001)
Non-Renewable Energy IPCC. (2007)
Resources World Energy Council. (2010)
Renewable Energy IPCC. (2011)
Resources Jacobson, M. Z. (2009)
J. Sullivan, et al. (2010)
Construction Materials
Kris R. Voorspools, et al. (2000)
Jacobson, M. Z. (2009)
Development Time
US Department of Energy (2008)
Jacobson, M. Z. (2009)
Construction Time
US Department of Energy (2008)
Hiroki, H. (2005)
Lifecycle Emissions
White, S. & Kulcinski, G. (1998)
Building Efficiency US Department of Energy (2011)
Transportation US Bureau of Transportation Statistics (2011)

Ca
ld
ec GtCO2 per year
o
va ,e
n t.
Vu al
ur .2
en 01
0
5
10
15
20
25
et 5
.a M (2
l. cL 10
20 a 0)
13 re n
(2 2
0 5 01 2
0,
2
CI Wo 100
M o )
od lf e
Ca es t
ld t E . al.
ec s
o m
Ca at
e
3
ld et
Modest Estimates
ec .a
o l.
20
Ed e
m t 1
on . al 2 (2
Hu d .2 0
pe s e 01 50)
no t.
a 2
d (
Ko e r l. 2 210
or e 0 0
nn t. a 12 ( )
ee l. 2
2 0 10 0
Kr f e t
ie 14 )
gl . al. (2
er 2 0 1 00
et
. a 12 ( )
l. 2
Le 20 05
nt 13 0)
va o n (2
n 20 100
Vu )
va u re
NR 10
C (2
n n 20 100
Vu et 1 )
ur . al 5 (2
removal of 3 – 10 GtCO2/year
en .2 1
et 01 00 )
.a 3
Major Estimates
l. (2
2 0 0 50
Global Annual Sequestra on Poten al of BECCS
CI 1 )
M 3 (2
aj
o r 1 00
Es )
m
at
e
10
Climate Interactive imagines BECCS
Operation
Under the Hood.
I’ve never seen a model like this. How
does it even work?
Andrew P. Jones
Climate Interactive
Key Model Dynamics to 2100
Energy
efficiencies
Improvements in of end uses
end-use energy
efficiencies
Energy intensity
of GDP
Depletion & Energy prices for
learning effects Fossil fuel stationary and mobile GDP
Fossil fuel for FF production prices end uses Energy use
production costs
FF
learning
and
Electricity CO2 emissions
FF
depletion
price shares of from energy
cycles Electricity price
end uses
Fossil fuel
production
capacity & Non-FF electricity
utilization
production costs Carbon intensity
Network & of energy
Non-FF share
flow-limit effects of electricity
Non-FF
Learning effect learning, production
Fossil fuel for non-FF network,
demand electricity
Non-FF electricity production and
costs flow-limits
production
Curtailment,
Rebound,
Non-FF
electricity and
ultimately Efficiency
substitutes responses
for FFs
Where the Levers Fit In: 4 Examples
Energy
efficiencies
Policies for end-use of end uses
energy efficiency Improvements in
end-use energy
Carbon tax efficiencies
Energy intensity
of GDP
Depletion & Energy prices for
learning effects Fossil fuel stationary and mobile GDP
Fossil fuel for FF production prices end uses Energy use
production costs
FF
Tax on coal learning
producers and
Electricity CO2 emissions
FF
depletion from energy
price
Electricity price shares of
cycles end uses
Fossil fuel Subsidy to renewable
production Subsidy to
capacity & electricity users Non-FF electricity electricity producers
utilization
production costs Carbon intensity
Network & of energy
Non-FF share
flow-limit effects of electricity
Non-FF
Learning effect learning, production
Fossil fuel for non-FF network,
demand Non-FF electricity electricity and
production costs flow-limits
production
Curtailment,
Rebound,
Non-FF
electricity and
ultimately Efficiency
substitutes responses
for FFs
Where the Levers Fit In: 4 Examples
C-ROADS Model
User Input Climate Impacts
Radiative Forcing,
CO2, Other GHG Carbon Cycle Sea Level Rise,
Global Mean
Emissions Other GHG Stocks Ocean pH
Surface Temperature
• CO2 emissions from fossil • Stocks and budget for CO2, • Net Radiative Forcing • Sea Level Rise based on
fuels and LULUCF other long-lived GHGs, • Contribution to Forcing semi-empirical models
• Other GHGs: including CH4, N2O, PFCs from each GHG species • Ocean pH based on
CH4 • C in biosphere (2 • Net heat transfer to ocean response surface
N2O compartments), oceans (4 Layers) estimated from
(4 Layers) • Carbon Cycle- GCMs/ocean chemistry
SF6
• C sequestered by Temperature Feedbacks models
PFCs (3 categories) • Output: Global Mean
CFCs (16 categories) afforestation policies
Surface Temperature
HFCs (9 categories)
Aerosols
Black Carbon
C-ROADS is freely available & fully documented. See e.g.:

Sterman, J., et al. (2013). Management Flight Simulators to Support Climate Negotiations.
Environmental Modelling and Software 44: 122-135.
125
Sterman, J., et al. (2012). Climate Interactive: The C-ROADS Climate Policy Model. System Dynamics Review 28(3): 295-305.
Fiddaman, T., et al. (2011). C-ROADS Simulator Reference Guide. Available at http://climateinteractive.org
Watson, R., et al. (2009). Summary Statement of the C-ROADS Scientific Review Panel.
https://www.climateinteractive.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/C-ROADS-Scientific-Review-Summary1.pdf
Carbon Cycle and
Radiative Balance
Other
Forcings
• CO2
• CH4, N2O
• PFCs, HFCs, SF6 etc.
• Aerosols, Black
carbon
• Carbon & heat
transfer between
surface & deep ocean
(10 layers)
126
Other
Forcings
127
128
Renewables don’t get the chance to build up
complementary infrastructure
Relative
attractiveness of
renewables
Percent of new R2 - Network Complementary

capacity met by infrastructure and
renewables resources
Installations of
renewables
Both Reinforcing loops together
Relative
attractiveness
of renewables
Relative price of
renewables
R1 - Learning
Percent of new Complementary

capacity met by infrastructure and
renewables resources
R2 - Network
Installations of Progress down

renewables learning curve
Structure
E n e rg y
E n e rg y
P r o d u c t io n
C a p a c ity U n d e r P r o d u c t io n
O rd e rs C o n s tr u c tio n A c q u is itio n C a p a c it y in U s e R e tir e m e n ts
A c c e le r a te d
S o u rc e r e tir e m e n t
a tt r a c t iv e n e s s
Structure
E n e rg y
E n e rg y
P r o d u c tio n
P r o d u c t io n
C a p a c ity U n d e r
O rd e rs C o n s t r u c t io n A c q u is itio n C a p a c ity in U s e R e tir e m e n ts
A c c e le r a te d
S o u rc e r e tir e m e n t
a tt r a c t iv e n e s s D e v e lo p m e n t
in d u s t r y c a p a c ity
u t iliz a tio n
P e rfo rm a n c e S o u rc e c o s t
s ta n d a rd S o u rc e
s h a re c o s t In te rn a l
s e n s itiv ity s o u rc e c o s t
R e m a in in g
r e s o u r c e s e ffe c t
E m is s io n s
p r ic e
S u b s id y
P ro g re s s d o w n
B re a k th ro u g h
le a r n in g c u r v e
c o s t r e d u c tio n
C ost of P ro g re s s
d is p a tc h a b ility r a tio P u r p le =
a s s u m p tio n s
B lu e = A c tio n s
o r P o lic ie s
Structure
E n e rg y
E n e rg y
P r o d u c tio n
C a p a c ity U n d e r P r o d u c t io n
O rd e rs C o n s tr u c t io n A c q u is itio n C a p a c ity in U s e R e tir e m e n ts
B D e v e lo p m e n t
S o u rc e in d u s tr y c a p a c ity
O v e r h e a t in g
a ttr a c tiv e n e s s D e v e lo p m e n t
in d u s t r y c a p a c ity
u tiliz a tio n
S o u rc e c o s t
In te rn a l
s o u rc e c o s t
Structure
E n e rg y
E n e rg y
P r o d u c t io n
P r o d u c tio n
O rd e rs A c q u is itio n C a p a c ity in U s e R e tir e m e n ts
C o n s tr u c tio n
S o u rc e
a ttr a c tiv e n e s s B
R e s o u rc e
e ffe c t
S o u rc e c o s t C u m u la tiv e
U s e fu l s ite s
p r o d u c tio n
In te rn a l r e m a in in g
s o u rc e c o s t T o ta ls
R e m a in in g
r e s o u r c e s e ffe c t R e s o u rc e s
r e m a in in g
Structure
E n e rg y
E n e rg y
P r o d u c t io n
P r o d u c tio n
O rd e rs A c q u is itio n C a p a c it y in U s e R e t ir e m e n t s
C o n s t r u c t io n
S o u rc e
a tt r a c tiv e n e s s R
L e a r n in g
S o u rc e c o s t C u m u la tiv e
p r o d u c tio n
In te rn a l
s o u rc e c o s t
C o m p le m e n ta r y B re a k th ro u g h
in fr a s tr u c tu r e c o s t r e d u c t io n
P ro g re s s
r a tio P u r p le =
R
a s s u m p tio n s
N e tw o rk e ffe c t B lu e = A c tio n s
o r P o lic ie s
E n e rg y
P r o d u c tio n E n e rg y
C a p a c ity U n d e r P r o d u c tio n
O rd e rs A c q u is itio n C a p a c ity in U s e R e t ir e m e n t s
C o n s tr u c tio n
B D e v e lo p m e n t A c c e le r a te d
S o u rc e in d u s t r y c a p a c it y r e tir e m e n t
O v e r h e a t in g
a ttr a c t iv e n e s s D e v e lo p m e n t
in d u s tr y c a p a c it y R e s o u rc e
u t iliz a t io n B e ffe c t
P e rfo rm a n c e S o u rc e c o s t C u m u la tiv e
U s e fu l s ite s
s ta n d a rd S o u rc e p r o d u c t io n
In te rn a l r e m a in in g
s h a re c o s t
s e n s itiv ity s o u rc e c o s t T o ta ls
R e m a in in g
r e s o u r c e s e ffe c t R e s o u rc e s
E m is s io n s
p r ic e r e m a in in g
R L e a r n in g
S u b s id y
C o m p le m e n ta r y B re a k th ro u g h
in fr a s tr u c tu r e c o s t r e d u c t io n
C ost of P ro g re s s
d is p a t c h a b ilit y r a t io P u r p le =
R a s s u m p t io n s
N e tw o rk e ffe c t B lu e = A c t io n s
o r P o lic ie s
Structure
G ro w th ra te
G D P
G ro w th
N e w D is c a r d s M id D is c a r d s O ld D is c a r d s
C a p ita l
in s ta lls E n e rg y
E n e rg y r e q u ir e m e n ts E n e rg y
r e q u ir e m e n ts o f o f m id a g e r e q u ir e m e n ts
N ew n e w c a p it a l A g e to m id c a p it a l A g e t o o ld o f o ld c a p it a l N a tu ra l
r e q u ir e m e n ts r e tir e m e n t
N e w r e tr o f it s M id r e tr o f its O ld r e tr o f its
A v e ra g e 7 0 % o f s ta tio n a r y
e n e rg y c a p ita l is r e tr o fitt a b le .
in te n s it y o f n e w 2 0 % o f m o b ile .
c a p ita l R e d u c t io n
R e tr o f it p o lic y
Im p ro v e m e n t ra te o f D e fa u lt h a s 5 0 % o f g a p b e tw e e n
e n e r g y in te n s ity o f n e w c u r r e n t a n d p o te n tia l s ta tio n a r y
c a p ita l e n e r g y r e q u ir e m e n t s c lo s e d e v e r y
y e a r. 2 0 % fo r m o b ile .
Why don’t renewables grow faster, sooner, and larger?
Main reason: Slow capital stock turnover
Other factors:
• Large-scale use of renewables requires energy storage
• Lack of electrification: Most of our energy system powers things through directly
burning fuels, rather than converting fuels to electricity.
• The rebound effect: When renewables are cheaper, energy demand increases.
Ex a jo u les p er Y e a
Building Confidence Through
Model Inter-comparison – History
Electricity Generated by Coal - History
40
Data from IEA and
an Example with Coal BP
En-ROADS
En-ROADS
We compare En-ROADS against historical data

and results from Integrated Assessment Models
for SSP2
0
1990 BP (2018) IEA WEO Current Policy (2018) 2015
CI En-ROADS Ref (2019)
Exajoules per Year
Ex ajo ules p er Year

Baseline
Primary Energy from Coal - Baseline 300
Carbon pricefrom
Primary Energy test
Coal – High Carbon Price
OADS
600
ent n- R
s sessm E
dA
teg rate others
In En-ROADS
o d els &
M
Integrated
Assessment Models
0 0
PBL IMAGE SSP2 Baseline (2016)
2000 IEA WEO Current Policy (2018) BP (2018) 2100 2000 2100
IIASA MESSAGE-GLOBIOM SSP2 Baseline (2016)
NIES AIM/CGE SSPE Baseline (2016)
IIASA MESSAGE-GLOBIOM SSP2 Baseline (2016) NIES AIM/CGE SSPE Baseline (2016)
PNNL GCAM4 SSP2 26 (2016)
Shell Mountain (2013) PIK REMIND-MAGPIE SSP2 Baseline (2016)
PIK REMIND-MAGPIE SSP2 Baseline (2016)
EIEE WITCH-GLOBIOM SSP2 Baseline (2016) CI En-ROADS Ref (2019) EIEE WITCH-GLOBIOM SSP2 Baseline (2016)
CI En-ROADS SSP2 26 (2019)
40
Data from IEA and
En-ROADS

for SSP2
0
Exajoules per Year

Baseline
Carbon pricefrom
Primary Energy test
600
ent
s sessm
dA
teg rate others
In
o d els &
M
Integrated
Assessment Models
0 0
EIEE WITCH-GLOBIOM SSP2 Baseline (2016) EIEE WITCH-GLOBIOM SSP2 Baseline (2016)
40
Data from IEA and
En-ROADS

for SSP2
0
Exajoules per Year

Baseline
Carbon pricefrom
Primary Energy test
600
ent
s sessm
dA
teg rate others
In
o d els &
M
Integrated
Assessment Models
0 0
EIEE WITCH-GLOBIOM SSP2 Baseline (2016) EIEE WITCH-GLOBIOM SSP2 Baseline (2016)
40
Data from IEA and
En-ROADS
En-ROADS

for SSP2
0
CI En-ROADS Ref (2019)
Exajoules per Year

Baseline
Carbon pricefrom
Primary Energy test
OADS
600
ent n- R
s sessm E
dA
teg rate others
In En-ROADS
o d els &
M
Integrated
Assessment Models
0 0
EIEE WITCH-GLOBIOM SSP2 Baseline (2016) CI En-ROADS Ref (2019) EIEE WITCH-GLOBIOM SSP2 Baseline (2016)
CI En-ROADS SSP2 26 (2019)
(Chart via WITCH model documentation - European Institute on Economics and the (Chart via Glen Peters and Robbie Andrews and the Global Carbon Project.)
Environment.)
We Tested En-ROADS Against the Integrated
Assessment Models (IAMs) for Other Scenarios
SSP2 6.0 SSP2 4.5 SSP2 2.6 SSP2 1.9
IAMs: AIM, GCAM, WITCH-GLOBIOM, IMAGE, REMIND-

MAGPIE, MESSAGE-GLOBIOM
4.5
SSP2
4 Baseline
Degrees C
3.5
SSP2 6.0
3
2.5 SSP2 4.5
2 SSP2 3.4
SSP2 2.6
1.5
SSP2 1.9
1
0.5
0
2000 2020 2040 2060 2080 2100
G ig atons CO 2 e Em issions/
Greenhouse Gas Net Emissions

120
100 SSP2
Baseline
80
SSP2 6.0
60
40
SSP2 4.5
20
SSP2 3.4
0 SSP2 2.6
2000 2020 2040 2060 2080 2100
SSP2 1.9
-20

120
100 SSP2
Baseline
80
SSP2 6.0
60
40
SSP2 4.5
20
SSP2 3.4
0 SSP2 2.6
2000 2020 2040 2060 2080 2100
SSP2 1.9
-20

120
100 SSP2
Baseline
80
SSP2 6.0
60
40
SSP2 4.5
20
SSP2 3.4
0 SSP2 2.6
2000 2020 2040 2060 2080 2100
SSP2 1.9
-20

120
100 SSP2
Baseline
80
SSP2 6.0
60
40
SSP2 4.5
20
SSP2 3.4
0 SSP2 2.6
2000 2020 2040 2060 2080 2100
SSP2 1.9
-20
Primary Energy Demand from Coal - Baseline Scenario*
600
PBLIMAGE
500 PNNLGCAM4
CI En-ROADS baseline PIKREMIND-

400 MAGPIE
Exajoules/ year
NIES AIM/ CGE
300 IIASA MESSAGE-

GLOBIOM
BP history Shell Mountains
200 EIEE WITCH-
GLOBIOM
IEA WEO MIT EPPA
100
Current Policies
* En-ROADS baseline
scenario compared to
0 2018 IAM SSP2 Baseline
scenarios
2000 2020 2040 2060 2080 2100
Our Approach to Confidence-Building
• Climate Interactive and MIT Sloan built En-ROADS using the best available
science and data
• With sources such as the IEA, the EIA, and IPCC
• All parameters and equations are available in our ~389 page Reference
Guide on our website
• We calibrated and tested the model against the suite of Integrated
Assessment Models (IAMs) such as GCAM and IMAGE, using their “SSP2”
scenario
• And if a user disagrees with any parameters or assumptions, many can be
easily changed in the “Assumptions” pane of the online simulator
(Chart via WITCH model documentation - European Institute on Economics and the (Chart via Glen Peters and Robbie Andrews and the Global Carbon Project.)
Environment.)
Definitions
Sustainability – Taking the Green Road (Low challenges to mitigation and adaptation)
The world shifts gradually, but pervasively, toward a more sustainable path, emphasizing more inclusive development that respects perceived environmental boundaries. Management of the
SSP1 global commons slowly improves, educational and health investments accelerate the demographic transition, and the emphasis on economic growth shifts toward a broader emphasis on human
well-being. Driven by an increasing commitment to achieving development goals, inequality is reduced both across and within countries. Consumption is oriented toward low material growth and
lower resource and energy intensity.
Middle of the Road (Medium challenges to mitigation and adaptation)

The world follows a path in which social, economic, and technological trends do not shift markedly from historical patterns. Development and income growth proceeds unevenly, with some
SSP2 countries making relatively good progress while others fall short of expectations. Global and national institutions work toward but make slow progress in achieving sustainable development goals.
Environmental systems experience degradation, although there are some improvements and overall the intensity of resource and energy use declines. Global population growth is moderate and
levels off in the second half of the century. Income inequality persists or improves only slowly and challenges to reducing vulnerability to societal and environmental changes remain.
Regional Rivalry – A Rocky Road (High challenges to mitigation and adaptation)

A resurgent nationalism, concerns about competitiveness and security, and regional conflicts push countries to increasingly focus on domestic or, at most, regional issues. Policies shift over time to
become increasingly oriented toward national and regional security issues. Countries focus on achieving energy and food security goals within their own regions at the expense of broader-based
SSP3 development. Investments in education and technological development decline. Economic development is slow, consumption is material-intensive, and inequalities persist or worsen over time.
Population growth is low in industrialized and high in developing countries. A low international priority for addressing environmental concerns leads to strong environmental degradation in some
regions.
Inequality – A Road Divided (Low challenges to mitigation, high challenges to adaptation)

Highly unequal investments in human capital, combined with increasing disparities in economic opportunity and political power, lead to increasing inequalities and stratification both across and
SSP4 within countries. Over time, a gap widens between an internationally-connected society that contributes to knowledge- and capital-intensive sectors of the global economy, and a fragmented
collection of lower-income, poorly educated societies that work in a labor intensive, low-tech economy. Social cohesion degrades and conflict and unrest become increasingly common. Technology
development is high in the high-tech economy and sectors. The globally connected energy sector diversifies, with investments in both carbon-intensive fuels like coal and unconventional oil, but
also low-carbon energy sources. Environmental policies focus on local issues around middle and high income areas.
Fossil-fueled Development – Taking the Highway (High challenges to mitigation, low challenges to adaptation)
This world places increasing faith in competitive markets, innovation and participatory societies to produce rapid technological progress and development of human capital as the path to
SSP5 sustainable development. Global markets are increasingly integrated. There are also strong investments in health, education, and institutions to enhance human and social capital. At the same
time, the push for economic and social development is coupled with the exploitation of abundant fossil fuel resources and the adoption of resource and energy intensive lifestyles around the world.
All these factors lead to rapid growth of the global economy, while global population peaks and declines in the 21st century. Local environmental problems like air pollution are successfully
managed. There is faith in the ability to effectively manage social and ecological systems, including by geo-engineering if necessary.
Three Examples of Our Confidence-Building Tests
1. Extreme Conditions
• Is simulation robust to combinations of highest and lowest policy inputs?
2. Assumption Sensitivity
• Do insights change when parameters change?
3. Behavior Reproduction - Historical Behavior and

Others’ Future Projections
• How do outputs compare?
The Integrated Assessment Models Against Which We Compare En-ROADS
Model Comparisons for SSPs
AIM/CGE WITCH-GLOBIOM IMAGE

 “Asia-Pacific Integrated  “World Induced Technical Change  “Integrated Model to Assess the Global
Hybrid-Global Biosphere Management Environment.”
Model/Computable General
Model ”
Equilibrium”  Developed by the PBL Netherlands
 Developed by the European Institute on Environmental Assessment Agency in the
 Developed by the National Institute Economics and the Environment in Italy, Netherlands
for Environmental Studies in Japan and the IIASA in Austria
 Detlef van Vuuren, David Gernaat, Elke
 Shinichiro Fujimori  Massimo Tavoni, Johannes Emmerling Stehfest
GCAM4 MESSAGE-GLOBIOM REMIND-MAGPIE

 “Global Change Assessment Model”  “Model for Energy Supply Strategy  “Regional Model of Investments and
Alternatives and their General Development-Model of Agricultural
 Developed by the Joint Global Change Environmental Impact-Global Biosphere Production and its Impact on the
Research Institute at PNNL in Management Model ” Environment.”
Maryland, USA
 Developed by IIASA in Austria  Developed by the Potsdam Institut für
 Kate Calvin and Jae Edmonds Klimafolgenforschung in Germany
 Keywan Riahi, Oliver Fricko, Petr Havlik
 Elmar Kriegler, Alexander Popp, Nico
Bauer
Confidence-Building: We compare En-ROADS (in blue) against IEA, Shell, BP, and
six IAM Baselines (for SSP2) from 1990-2100
M e g a to n s C O 2 p e r E J
E x a j o u le p e r T r i ll io n $
Gross World Product CO2 Emissions from Energy
CO2 per year

$2011 PPP
Primary Energy Intensity of GDP CO2 Intensity of Primary Energy
G i g a t o n s C O 2 e p e rGigatons
G i g a t o n s C O 2 p e r Y Trillion
M e g a to n s N 2 O p e r Y e a r
M e g a ton s C H 4 p e r Y e a r
Year
ear
CO2 Emissions from LULUCF Total CH4 emissions Total N2O Anthropogenic Emissions CO2eq emissions from F-Gases
Primary Energy from Coal Primary Energy from Oil Primary Energy from Gas Primary Energy from Renewables and
Hydro
Degrees C
Further details on en-roads.org
Primary Energy from Bio Primary Energy from Nuclear
We Tested En-ROADS Against the Integrated
Assessment Models (IAMs) for Other Scenarios
SSP2 6.0 SSP2 4.5 SSP2 2.6 SSP2 1.9
IAMs: AIM, GCAM, WITCH-GLOBIOM, IMAGE, REMIND-

MAGPIE, MESSAGE-GLOBIOM
We Tested the Carbon Cycle and Climate Sector
Against the CMIP5 Models Behind RCP Scenarios
Answering “Where Did You
Get Your Data?”
Andrew P. Jones
Climate Interactive
We compare oil in En-ROADS against the IAMs’ 2.6
scenario 2019 version
SSP2 RCP 2.6 Primary Energy from Oil • Note – one

300
reason the En-
ROADS
250
scenario is high
200 is because the
Exajoules per Year
other models
150
build more
100 bioenergy as a
50 substitute
0
1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100

We compare oil in En-ROADS against the IAMs’ 2.6 2020 version
scenario
SSP2 2.6 Primary Energy from Oil • Note – one
250 reason the En-
ROADS
200
scenario is high
is because the
Exajoules per Year
150
other models
100 build more
bioenergy as a
50
substitute
0
1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100

Bio Powered Electricity, 1990-2020
Electricity Generated by Bio

2.5
2
Exajoules per Year
1.5
0.5
0
1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
CI En-ROADS SSP2 Baseline (2020) IEA WEO History (2018)

SSP2 Baseline
SSP2 2.6
SSP1 Baseline
SSP1 2.6
SSP3 Baseline
SSP3 3.4
SSP4 Baseline
SSP4 2.6
SSP5 Baseline
SSP5 2.6
*Includes renewables (solar,
En-ROADS output wind, geothermal) but excludes
Historical data, WEO 2018 hydropower and biomass
British Petroleum, 2017

Coal Use for Various RF Levels for SSP2
Exajoules per year

500
450 SSP2
Baseline
400
350
SSP2 6.0
300
250
200 SSP2 4.5
150
SSP2 3.4
100
50 SSP2 2.6
0 SSP2 1.9
2000 2020 2040 2060 2080 2100

Training Webinar #8

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Training Webinar #8

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

En-ROADS Testing and

• Improve decision-maker and citizen

Electricity Generated by Coal

CI En-ROADS SSP2 Baseline (2020) IEA WEO History (2018) BP (2018)

Electricity Generated by Oil

CI En-ROADS SSP2 Baseline (2020) IEA WEO History (2018) BP (2018)

Electricity Generated by Gas

CI En-ROADS SSP2 Baseline (2020) IEA WEO History (2018) BP (2018)

Electricity Generated by Nuclear

CI En-ROADS SSP2 Baseline (2020) IEA WEO History (2018)

Electricity Generated by Renewables and Hydro

CI En-ROADS History (2020) IEA WEO History (2018) BP (2018)

CI En-ROADS History (2020) IEA WEO History (2018) BP (2018)

AIM/CGE WITCH-GLOBIOM IMAGE

GCAM4 MESSAGE-GLOBIOM REMIND-MAGPIE

models - GCMs, most

Simple models - En-

Speed, Simplicity of Use, Transparency

Temperature Change from Preindustrial • Very close to the

CI En-ROADS Ref (2019) PBL IMAGE SSP2 Baseline (2016)

Gross World Product • Tight match

CI En-ROADS Ref (2019) PBL IMAGE SSP2 Baseline (2016)

Primary Energy Intensity of GDP • Related to energy

CO2 Intensity of Primary Energy • How much gets

CI En-ROADS Ref (2019) PBL IMAGE SSP2 Baseline (2016)

CO2 Emissions from Energy • At the high end

CI En-ROADS Ref (2019) PBL IMAGE SSP2 Baseline (2016)

CI En-ROADS Ref (2019) PBL IMAGE SSP2 Baseline (2016)

CI En-ROADS Ref (2019) PBL IMAGE SSP2 Baseline (2016)

CO2eq emissions from F-Gases

CI En-ROADS Ref (2019) PBL IMAGE SSP2 Baseline (2016)

CI En-ROADS Ref (2019) IEA WEO History (2018)

CI En-ROADS Ref (2019) IEA WEO History (2018)

CI En-ROADS Ref (2019) IEA WEO History (2018)

CI En-ROADS Ref (2019) WEO (2018) History

CI En-ROADS Ref (2019) IEA WEO History (2018)

CI En-ROADS Ref (2019) IEA WEO History (2018)

CO2 per year

Primary Energy Intensity of GDP CO2 Intensity of Primary Energy

Greenhouse Gas Net Emissions for SSP2

CI En-ROADS SSP2 26 (2020) PBL IMAGE SSP2 26 (2018)

CI En-ROADS SSP2 26 (2020) PBL IMAGE SSP2 26 (2018)

CI En-ROADS SSP2 26 (2020) PBL IMAGE SSP2 26 (2018)

CI En-ROADS SSP2 26 (2020) PBL IMAGE SSP2 26 (2018)

CI En-ROADS SSP2 26 (2020) PBL IMAGE SSP2 26 (2018)

CI En-ROADS SSP2 26 (2020) PBL IMAGE SSP2 26 (2018)

SSP2 Primary Energy from Coal

SSP2 RCP 2.6 Primary Energy from Coal • Testing C price

CI En-ROADS SSP2 26 (2019) PBL IMAGE SSP2 26 (2016)

CI En-ROADS SSP2 26 (2020) PBL IMAGE SSP2 26 (2018)

“Fossil-fueled “Regional rivalry

SSP2 “Development and income growth proceeds unevenly, with

140000 worsen over time.”

SSP4 “…increasing inequalities and stratification both across and

900 SSP3 “A low international priority for addressing environmental

Greenhouse Gas Net Emissions for SSPs 1-5

SSP2 Primary Energy from Coal

• Improve decision-maker and citizen

Rep. John Curtis

Rep. Ann McLane Kuster

Rep. Julia Brownley

• Updating with the latest in climate, energy, and land science

1. Global aggregation (as opposed to regional disaggregation) limits treatment of heterogeneity