@article{ChatterjeeStavrakasOreggionietal.2022,
  author    = {Chatterjee, Souran and Stavrakas, Vassilis and Oreggioni, Gabriel and S{\"u}sser, Diana and Staffell, Iain and Lilliestam, Johan and Molnar, Gergely and Flamos, Alexandros and {\"U}rge-Vorsatz, Diana},
  title     = {Existing tools, user needs and required model adjustments for energy demand modelling of a carbon-neutral Europe},
  series = {Energy research \& social science},
  volume    = {90},
  journal   = {Energy research \& social science},
  publisher = {Elsevier},
  address   = {Amsterdam},
  issn      = {2214-6296},
  doi       = {10.1016/j.erss.2022.102662},
  pages     = {20},
  year      = {2022},
  abstract  = {To achieve the European Union's target for climate neutrality by 2050 reduced energy demand will make the transition process faster and cheaper. The role of policies that support energy efficiency measures and demand-side management practices will be critical and to ensure that energy demand models are relevant to policymakers and other end-users, understanding how to further improve the models and whether they are tailored to user needs to support efficient decision-making processes is crucial. So far though, no scientific studies have examined the key user needs for energy demand modelling in the context of the climate neutrality targets. In this article we address this gap using a multi-method approach based on empirical and desk research. Through survey and stakeholder meetings and workshops we identify user needs of different stakeholder groups, and we highlight the direction in which energy demand models need to be improved to be relevant to their users. Through a detailed review of existing energy demand models, we provide a full understanding of the key characteristics and capabilities of existing tools, and we identify their limitations and gaps. Our findings show that classical demand-related questions remain important to model users, while most of the existing models can answer these questions. Furthermore, we show that some of the user needs related to sectoral demand modelling, dictated by the latest policy developments, are under-researched and are not addressed by existing tools.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{McKennaPfenningerHeinrichsetal.2022,
  author    = {McKenna, Russell and Pfenninger, Stefan and Heinrichs, Heidi and Schmidt, Johannes and Staffell, Iain and Bauer, Christian and Gruber, Katharina and Hahmann, Andrea N. and Jansen, Malte and Klingler, Michael and Landwehr, Natascha and Lars{\´e}n, Xiaoli Guo and Lilliestam, Johan and Pickering, Bryn and Robinius, Martin and Tr{\"o}ndle, Tim and Turkovska, Olga and Wehrle, Sebastian and Weinand, Jann Michael and Wohland, Jan},
  title     = {High-resolution large-scale onshore wind energy assessments},
  series = {Renewable energy},
  volume    = {182},
  journal   = {Renewable energy},
  publisher = {Elsevier},
  address   = {Amsterdam},
  issn      = {0960-1481},
  doi       = {10.1016/j.renene.2021.10.027},
  pages     = {659 -- 684},
  year      = {2022},
  abstract  = {The rapid uptake of renewable energy technologies in recent decades has increased the demand of energy researchers, policymakers and energy planners for reliable data on the spatial distribution of their costs and potentials. For onshore wind energy this has resulted in an active research field devoted to analysing these resources for regions, countries or globally. A particular thread of this research attempts to go beyond purely technical or spatial restrictions and determine the realistic, feasible or actual potential for wind energy. Motivated by these developments, this paper reviews methods and assumptions for analysing geographical, technical, economic and, finally, feasible onshore wind potentials. We address each of these potentials in turn, including aspects related to land eligibility criteria, energy meteorology, and technical developments of wind turbine characteristics such as power density, specific rotor power and spacing aspects. Economic aspects of potential assessments are central to future deployment and are discussed on a turbine and system level covering levelized costs depending on locations, and the system integration costs which are often overlooked in such analyses. Non-technical approaches include scenicness assessments of the landscape, constraints due to regulation or public opposition, expert and stakeholder workshops, willingness to pay/accept elicitations and socioeconomic cost-benefit studies. For each of these different potential estimations, the state of the art is critically discussed, with an attempt to derive best practice recommendations and highlight avenues for future research.},
  language  = {en}
}