Cost-optimal vs. policy-driven scenarios for a decarbonised European energy system
脱炭素化された欧州エネルギーシステムのためのコスト最適 vs 政策主導シナリオ (AI 翻訳)
Natasha Frilingou, D. van de Ven, Jon Sampedro, Alexandre Torné, E. Trutnevyte, Russell Horowitz, Clàudia Rodés-Bachs, K. Koasidis, S. Mittal, George Xexakis, A. Nikas
🤖 gxceed AI 要約
日本語
本研究は、EUの気候政策（欧州グリーンディール、Fit-for-55、NECP）を反映した4つのシナリオを、統合評価モデルGCAM-Europeと電力システムモデルEXPANSEを用いて分析。すべてのシナリオで2030年までにCO2排出量55%削減を達成するが、コスト最適シナリオでは少数の資源豊富な地域に発電容量が集中するのに対し、政策主導シナリオでは広く分散し、より高い投資が必要となる。電力価格や負担配分のトレードオフが明らかとなり、EU全体の調整とインフラ計画の重要性を示唆。
English
This study analyzes four scenarios reflecting EU climate policies (Green Deal, Fit-for-55, NECPs) using integrated assessment model GCAM-Europe and power system model EXPANSE. All scenarios achieve 55% CO2 reduction by 2030, but cost-optimal scenarios concentrate generation capacity in few resource-rich regions, while policy-driven scenarios distribute capacity more broadly with higher investment. Trade-offs between economic efficiency and equitable burden-sharing highlight the need for coordinated EU governance and infrastructure planning.
Unofficial AI-generated summary based on the public title and abstract. Not an official translation.
📝 gxceed 編集解説 — Why this matters
日本のGX文脈において
欧州の政策主導とコスト最適シナリオの比較は、日本のGX政策（GXリーグ、カーボンプライシング）の設計にも示唆を与える。特に、地域間の公平性と投資配分のバランスは、日本の電力システム改革や再生可能エネルギー導入拡大において重要な論点。
In the global GX context
This paper provides a rigorous comparison between policy-driven and cost-optimal scenarios for EU decarbonization, offering valuable insights for global climate governance. The trade-offs between efficiency and equity are directly relevant to ongoing debates about carbon pricing, infrastructure planning, and just transition in regions like the US, China, and Japan.
👥 読者別の含意
🔬研究者:The modeling framework linking IAM and power system model with high spatial detail is a methodological reference for similar national/regional studies.
🏢実務担当者:Utilities and investors can use the scenario analysis to assess risks and opportunities in renewable and grid investments under different policy regimes.
🏛政策担当者:The results highlight critical trade-offs between cost-efficiency and regional equity, informing the design of coordinated policies and infrastructure investments.
📄 Abstract（原文）
The European Union’s (EU) climate strategy, anchored in the European Green Deal, the Fit-for-55 package, and the updated National Energy and Climate Plans (NECPs), requires a rapid transformation of the energy system to meet the legally binding target of net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 and a 55% reduction by 2030 relative to 1990 levels. Yet, how national plans align with EU-wide ambition, alongside the implications for investment, infrastructure, and power-system operation, remain insufficiently assessed. We address this gap by linking an EU-specific implementation of a prominent integrated assessment model with Member State-level disaggregation (GCAM-Europe) with a higher-resolution European electricity system model (EXPANSE). This modelling framework captures national heterogeneity, sectoral detail, and spatiotemporal variability in electricity demand, renewable supply, and storage, enabling the assessment of grid investments and infrastructure. We analyse four scenarios representing EU-wide (Fit-for-55) or national (NECP) targets, implemented through explicit policies (POLICY) or cost-optimal carbon caps (COST_OPTIMAL). Results show all scenarios achieve the −55% fossil CO2 reduction by 2030, with the electricity sector driving the largest chunk. Renewable energy nearly doubles, with POLICY scenarios accelerating electrification and heat pump deployment, while COST_OPTIMAL scenarios leaning more on biofuels. Efficiency targets are partially met, with POLICY scenarios distributing savings more evenly across Member States compared to concentrated reductions of COST_OPTIMAL scenarios. By 2035, power system transformation diverges strongly: COST_OPTIMAL scenarios expand ~1250 GW of new capacity, concentrated in few resource-rich regions, while POLICY scenarios reach ~1750 GW with broader spatial distribution, requiring higher investments in renewables and grids. Average wholesale electricity prices are higher and more heterogeneous under POLICY scenarios, reflecting carbon costs, transmission bottlenecks, and reliance on fossil backup. Results highlight trade-offs between economic efficiency and equitable burden-sharing, underscoring the importance of coordinated EU governance, infrastructure planning, and complementary policies to balance cost-effectiveness with political feasibility and social acceptance.
🔗 Provenance — このレコードを発見したソース
- semanticscholar https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ae3f45first seen 2026-05-15 17:34:17
🔔 こうした論文の新着を逃したくない方は キーワードアラート に登録（無料・3キーワードまで）。
gxceed は公開メタデータに基づく研究支援データセットです。要約・翻訳・解説は AI 支援で生成されています。 最終的な解釈・検証は利用者が原典資料に基づいて行うことを前提とします。