4.7 Review

Cooling demand in integrated assessment models: a methodological review

Journal

ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LETTERS
Volume 15, Issue 11, Pages -

Publisher

IOP Publishing Ltd
DOI: 10.1088/1748-9326/abb90a

Keywords

climate change; adaptation; space cooling; energy demand; integrated assessment models

Funding

  1. European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union [756194]
  2. European Research Council (ERC) [756194] Funding Source: European Research Council (ERC)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The paper systematically reviews and compares 88 scenarios of energy demand in commercial and residential buildings that include the additional energy use or savings induced by thermal adaptation in heating and cooling needs at global level. The resulting studies are grouped in a novel classification that makes it possible to systematically understand why the energy projections of integrated assessment models vary depending on how changes in climatic conditions and the associated adaptation needs are modeled. Projections underestimate the energy demand of the building sector when it is driven only by income, population, unchanging climatic conditions and their associated adaptation needs. Across the studies reviewed, already by 2050 climate change will induce a median 30% (90%) percentage variation of a building's energy demand for cooling and a median -8% (-24%) percentage variation for heating, leading to a 2% (13%) increase when cooling and heating are combined, under the Representative Concentration Pathway 1.9 (8.5). The results underscore that models lacking extensive margin adjustments, and models that focus on residential demand, highly underestimate the additional cooling needs of the building sector. Topics that deserve further investigation regard improving the characterization of adopting energy-using goods that provide thermal adaptation services and better articulating the heterogeneous needs across sectors.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available