SwePub
Tyck till om SwePub Sök här!
Sök i LIBRIS databas

  Extended search

WFRF:(Cazzola G)
 

Search: WFRF:(Cazzola G) > Engineering and Technology > Detailed assessment...

  • 1 of 1
  • Previous record
  • Next record
  •    To hitlist

Detailed assessment of global transport-energy models' structures and projections

Yeh, Sonia, 1973 (author)
Chalmers tekniska högskola,Chalmers University of Technology
Mishra, G.S. (author)
Stanford University,University of California
Fulton, L. (author)
University of California
show more...
Kyle, P. (author)
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
McCollum, D.L. (author)
Internationales Institut fuer Angewandte Systemanalyse,International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis,University of Tennessee
Miller, J. (author)
Cazzola, P. (author)
International Energy Agency
Teter, J. (author)
International Energy Agency
show less...
 (creator_code:org_t)
Elsevier BV, 2017
2017
English.
In: Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment. - : Elsevier BV. - 1361-9209. ; 55, s. 294-309
  • Journal article (peer-reviewed)
Abstract Subject headings
Close  
  • This paper focuses on comparing the frameworks and projections from four global transportation models with considerable technology details. We analyze and compare the modeling frameworks, underlying data, assumptions, intermediate parameters, and projections to identify the sources of divergence or consistency, as well as key knowledge gaps. We find that there are significant differences in the base-year data and key parameters for future projections, especially for developing countries. These include passenger and freight activity, mode shares, vehicle ownership rates, and energy consumption by mode, particularly for shipping, aviation and trucking. This may be due in part to a lack of previous efforts to do such consistency-checking and "bench-marking." We find that the four models differ in terms of the relative roles of various mitigation strategies to achieve a 2. °C/450. ppm target: the economics-based integrated assessment models favor the use of low carbon fuels as the primary mitigation option followed by efficiency improvements, whereas transport-only and expert-based models favor efficiency improvements of vehicles followed by mode shifts. We offer recommendations for future modeling improvements focusing on (1) reducing data gaps; (2) translating the findings from this study into relevant policy implications such as gaps of current policy goals, additional policy targets needed, regional vs. global reductions; (3) modeling strata of demographic groups to improve understanding of vehicle ownership levels, travel behavior, and urban vs. rural considerations; and (4) conducting coordinated efforts in aligning historical data, and comparing input assumptions and results of policy analysis and modeling insights.

Subject headings

TEKNIK OCH TEKNOLOGIER  -- Naturresursteknik -- Energisystem (hsv//swe)
ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY  -- Environmental Engineering -- Energy Systems (hsv//eng)
NATURVETENSKAP  -- Geovetenskap och miljövetenskap -- Miljövetenskap (hsv//swe)
NATURAL SCIENCES  -- Earth and Related Environmental Sciences -- Environmental Sciences (hsv//eng)
NATURVETENSKAP  -- Geovetenskap och miljövetenskap -- Klimatforskning (hsv//swe)
NATURAL SCIENCES  -- Earth and Related Environmental Sciences -- Climate Research (hsv//eng)

Keyword

Energy use
Transportation scenarios
Transportation behaviors
Model comparison
GHG emissions
Climate mitigation
Transportation demand

Publication and Content Type

art (subject category)
ref (subject category)

Find in a library

To the university's database

  • 1 of 1
  • Previous record
  • Next record
  •    To hitlist

Search outside SwePub

Kungliga biblioteket hanterar dina personuppgifter i enlighet med EU:s dataskyddsförordning (2018), GDPR. Läs mer om hur det funkar här.
Så här hanterar KB dina uppgifter vid användning av denna tjänst.

 
pil uppåt Close

Copy and save the link in order to return to this view