The project relied heavily on the use of interlinked models. These including the energy systems UK MARKAL Elastic Demand model, as well as sectoral models in the electricity and gas sectors (CGEN, WASP) and end-use buildings and transport sectors (UKDCM, UKTCM).
Two datasets are presented here.
The "original" set cover all 32
scenarios listed below. Please reference this data source as:
Strachan N., Anandarajah G., Hughes N., and Ekins P. (2010). UKERC Energy 2050 energy systems scenario data, UKERC Energy Data Centre,
http://ukerc.rl.ac.uk/DC (formerly http://ukedc.rl.ac.uk).
The "revised" set covers 16 of these scenarios with modifications, and includes graphical summaries. Reference this data source as: Keppo I Skea J. and Ekins P. (2013) UK Energy 2050 Revised Scenario Set Data UKERC Energy Data Centre http://ukerc.rl.ac.uk/DC (formerly http://ukedc.rl.ac.uk)
Any use made of this data should acknowledge the UKERC Energy Systems Theme.
The table below lists the UKERC Energy 2050 scenarios, report chapters, scenario names (and alternate names from earlier reports) and an overview description of key features.
| Name | Scenario | Previous names | Description of Key Features | |
| CORE SCENARIOS (Chapters 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12) | ||||
| REF | Reference | Base | Only policies as of 2008 Energy Bill; No CO2 price | |
| LC | Low carbon | CAM, LC Core 80% | 26% CO2 reduction by 2020 (CCC interim target equivalent), exponentially extrapolated to -80% by 2050 (118MtCO2) | |
| CARBON REDUCTION (Chapters 5, 12) | ||||
| LC-40 | Faint-heart | CFH | 15% CO2 reduction by 2020, extrapolated to -40% by 2050 (355MtCO2) | |
| LC-60 | Low-carbon-60 | CLC, LC Core 60% | 26% CO2 reduction by 2020, extrapolated to -60% by 2050 (237MtCO2) | |
| LC-90 | Super ambition | CSAM | 32% CO2 reduction by 2020 (CCC intended target equivalent), extrapolated to -90% by 2050 (59MtCO2) | |
| LC-EA | Early action | CEA | 32% CO2 reduction by 2020 (CCC intended target equivalent), extrapolated to -80% by 2050 (118MtCO2) | |
| LC-LCP | Least-cost path | CCP | Same cumulative emissions as LC-EA (19.24GtCO2), but a least-cost cumulative path | |
| LC-SO | Socially optimal least-cost path | CCSP | Same cumulative emissions as LC-EA (19.24GtCO2), with a least-cost cumulative path, and social discount rate (3.5%) | |
| RESILIENT SCENARIOS (Chapters 4, 6, 12) | ||||
| R | Resilient | Primary energy resilience – 40% market share per fuel; Electricity generation and capacity resilience – 40% maximum market share per technology class; Final energy resilience – 3.2% p.a. reduction from 2010 | ||
| LCR | Low-Carbon Resilient | Combination of LC and R scenarios | ||
| ACCELERATED TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT (Chapters 7, 12) | ||||
| LC-Acctech | Accelerated technology | As LC (80% CO2 reduction by 2050), with acceleration of all low carbon supply technologies | ||
| LC-Renew | Accelerated renewables | As LC (80% CO2 reduction by 2050), with acceleration of renewable technologies | ||
| LC-60 Acctech | LC-60 accelerated technology | As LC-60 (60% CO2 reduction by 2050), with acceleration of all low carbon supply technologies | ||
| LC-60 Renew | LC-60 accelerated renewables | As LC-60 (60% CO2 reduction by 2050), with acceleration of renewable technologies | ||
| LC-60 Bio | LC-60 accelerated biomass | As LC-60, with exogenous technology narrative – selective bio energy chain improvements based around: Bioengineering (a doubling of average energy crop yield by 2050); Agro-machinery (increasing yield of energy crops); Gasification technology (reduced capital costs and improved availability); Ligno-cellulosic ethanol (reduced capital and O&M costs, and increased efficiency): Fast pyrolysis (bio-oil process and quality improvements for reduced capital and O&M costs) | ||
| LC-60 CCS | LC-60 accelerated carbon capture and storage | As LC-60, with exogenous technology narrative – reduced off-shore storage costs for depleted oil and gas fields and saline aquifers. Same CCS plant costsm, as model data for LC scenario already considered optimistic | ||
| LC-60 Nuclear | LC-60 accelerated nuclear | As LC-60, with exogenous technology narrative – moderately lower costs, higher load factors, improved efficiencies and earlier availabilities for Gen III, III+ and IV fission plant. Gen. III technology available from 2017 for an first-of-a-kind (FOAK) plant, with next-of-a-kind (NOAK) plants from 2020 | ||
| LC-60 FC | LC-60 accelerated fuel cells | As LC-60, with exogenous technology narrative – PEM fuel cell stack cost reductions for bus and car modes; natural gas (SOFC-CHP, MCFC-CHP) and hydrogen (PEMFC -CHP ) cost reductions for electricity generation | ||
| LC-60 Marine | LC-60 accelerated marine | As LC-60, with exogenous technology narrative – supported niche learning on marine energy giving capital costs for wave and tidal of around £1100/kW by 2015. After 2015 to 2050, annual cost reductions from global learning rate of 10% | ||
| LC-60 PV | LC-60 accelerated photo-voltaics | As LC-60, with exogenous technology narrative – worldwide R&D efforts, policy support and market developments for advanced learning rates for 1st gen. crystalline silicon, 2nd gen. thin film module technologies and 3rd gen. organic PV, leading to capital cost range of (£600-£200)/kW by 2050 | ||
| LC-60 Wind | LC-60 accelerated wind | As LC-60, with exogenous technology narrative – higher UK onshore wind capacity of 18GW; raised offshore wind learning rates (of 10%) equivalent to investment cost reduction rate of 3% p.a. to 2020, and 1% p.a. post 2020 | ||
| ENVIRONMENTAL SENSITIVITIES (Chapters 10, 12) | ||||
| LC-DREAD | DREAD | LC with narrative on unfamiliar technologies constrained – 10GW onshore wind, 80GW offshore wind, no tidal barrage, 30.4GW nuclear, 10.5GW CCS, total biomass resource only 37% of Ref scenario and restricted to transport only | ||
| LC-ECO | ECO | LC with narrative on technologies that impinge on ecosystem services constrained – 10GW onshore wind, 80GW offshore wind, no tidal barrage, 13.5TWh pa tidal stream, 37.5TWh pa wave. No open cast coal mines from 2010, total domestic bio-energy resource only 11% of Ref scenario and restricted to end-use heat and power only (no bio-transport), no imported bio-fuel, high fossil fuel prices | ||
| LC-NIMBY | NIMBY | LC with narrative on technologies with high local impact constrained – no nuclear, no CCS, no hydrogen | ||
| ENERGY LIFESTYLES (Chapters 9, 12) | ||||
| LS-REF | Reference lifestyle | LS REF |
An iterative linkage with the UK MARKAL and sectoral UKDCM and UKTCM model to model lifestyle drivers. Residential: internal demand temperature peaks at 20C in 2010, then stabilises at 17C in 2025, demolition rate remain at 17,000 pa, whilst new build stabilises at 120,000 pa, air conditioning remains negligible, hot-water use falls linearly by 1.25% annually from 2010 to 2050, electricity for lights and appliances stabilizes in 2014 and then decreases by 58% in 2050, full penetration of cavity wall insulation by 2020 and loft top-up by 2040, increased use of external solid wall insulation (35%) and cladding walls (37%), wall insulation delivers U-values of 0.25 and windows 0.8 (ie best practice), no new conventional heating systems post 2030, district CHP take-up between 10% and 25% by 2050, micro CHP take-up between 10% and 60% by 2050, heat pump take-up between 10% and 60% by 2050, micro biomass limited to 20%, solar thermal on 50% of dwellings by 2050, solar PV panels on 15% of dwellings by 2050, micro-wind turbines on 5% of dwellings by 2050 Transport: Mode shift of 74% reduction in distance travelled by car, 12% fall in HGVs , 184% increase in bus travel, shift to cycling and walking; specific load factors also increase relative to the reference case for cars (about 23%), LGV and HGV; drivers practice eco-driving with an average 8% improvement in fuel efficiency;, more favourable preferences (hurdle rates) and performance parameters (but keeping cost factors the same) for battery electric, hybrid electric and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles |
|
| LS-LC | Low-carbon lifestyle | LS LC | As LS-REF with 80% CO2 reduction by 2050 | |
| GLOBAL SENSITIVITIES (Chapters 11, 12) | ||||
| LC-HI | High fossil prices | CAM-HI | As LC, but with high fossil fuel price imports | |
| LCR-HI | Resilient high fossil priced | LCR-HI | As LCR, but with high fossil fuel price imports | |
| LC-CC | Central cost credits | CAM-CC | As LC, but with CCC central cost and availability of international emissions credits (from CCC) | |
| LCR-CC | Resilient central cost credits | LCR-CC | As LCR, but with central cost and availability of international emissions credits (from CCC) | |
| LC-HI-LC | High prices/cheap credits | CAM-HI-LC | As LC, but with high fossil fuel price imports, and low cost (central availability) of international emissions credits (from CCC). This represents a “best case” for the UK from international drivers | |
| LCR-NB | Resilient/no credits/no biomass imports | LCR-NB | As LCR (resilience constraints, central fossil fuel prices, no emissions credits) and with no biomass imports). This represents a “worst case” for the UK from international drivers | |