Climatic Change

, Volume 123, Issue 3–4, pp 583–596 | Cite as

Role of end-use technologies in long-term GHG reduction scenarios developed with the BET model

  • Hiromi Yamamoto
  • Masahiro Sugiyama
  • Junichi Tsutsui


In this study, we develop a new integrated assessment model called the BET model (Basic Energy systems, Economy, Environment, and End-use Technology Model). It is a multi-regional, global model based on Ramsey’s optimal growth theory and includes not only traditional end-use technologies but also advanced end-use technologies such as heat-pump water heaters and electric vehicles. Using the BET model, we conduct simulations and obtain the following results. (1) Advanced end-use technologies have an important role in containing carbon prices as well as GDP losses when GHG (greenhouse gas) constraints are stringent. (2) Electrification based on energy services progresses rapidly in scenarios with stringent GHG constraints. This is because electricity can be supplied by various methods of non-fossil power generation, and advanced end-use technologies can drastically improve energy-to-service efficiencies. The BET’s results indicate the importance of analyses that systematically combine environmental constraints, end-use technologies, supply energy technologies, and economic development.


Carbon Price Base Scenario Energy Service Carbon Prex Climate Target 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



We greatly appreciate the kindness of the MERGE group to make a version of the code available online, which helped us develop the BET model.

Supplementary material

10584_2013_938_MOESM1_ESM.docx (127 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 127 kb)


  1. Akimoto K, Sano F, Oda J, Homma T, Rout UK, Tomoda T (2008) Global emission reductions through a sectoral intensity target scheme. Clim Pol 8:S46–S59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bosetti V, Carraro C, Galeotti M, Massetti E, Tavoni M (2006) WITCH: a world induced technical change hybrid model. The Energy J, Special Issue Hybrid Model 27:13–38Google Scholar
  3. Brooke A, Kendrick D, Murows A (1992) GAMS release 2.25: a user’s guide. Scientific Press IncGoogle Scholar
  4. Criqui P, Mima S, Vigular L (1999) Marginal abatement costs of CO2 emission reductions, geographical flexibility and concrete ceilings: an assessment using the POLES model. Energy Policy 27:585–601CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Edmonds J, Wilson T, Marshall W, Weyant J (2006) Electrification of the economy and CO2 emissions mitigation. Environ Econ Policy Stud 7:175–203Google Scholar
  6. UK Energy Research Centre (2010) UK MARKAL Model: documentation., accessed 8 August 2012
  7. IEA (2010) Extended world energy balances 2010. International Energy AgencyGoogle Scholar
  8. Kainuma M, Matsuoka Y, Morita T (2000) The AIM/end-use model and its application to forecast Japanese carbon dioxide emissions. Eur J Oper Res 122:416–425CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Kriegler E, Weyant J, Blanford G, Clarke L, Tavoni M, Krey V, Riahi K, Fawcett A, Richels R, Edmonds J (2013) The role of technology for achieving climate policy objectives: overview of the EMF 27 study on global technology and climate policy strategies. doi: 10.1007/s10584-013-0953-7
  10. Kyle P, Clarke L, Smith SJ, Kim S, Nathan M, Wise M (2011) The value of advanced end-use energy technologies in meeting U.S. climate policy goals. Energy J 32(Special Issue):61–87Google Scholar
  11. Leimbach M, Toth FL (2003) Economic development and emission control over the long term: the ICLIPS aggregated economic model. Clim Change 56:139–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Leimbach M, Bauer N, Baumstark L, Edenhofer O (2010) Mitigation cost in a globalize world: climate policy analysis with REMIND-R. Environ Model Assess 15:155–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Loulou R, Labriet M (2008) ETSAP-TIAM: the TIMES integrated assessment model Part I: model structure. Comput Manag Sci 5:7–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Loulou R, Goldstein G, Noble K (2004) Documentation for the MARKAL family of models. Energy Technology Systems Analysis ProgrammeGoogle Scholar
  15. Manne AS, Richels RG (1992) Buying greenhouse insurance: the economic costs of CO2 emission limits. MIT PressGoogle Scholar
  16. Manne A, Mendelsohn R, Richels R (1995) MERGE - A model for evaluating regional and global effects of GHG reduction policies. Energy Policy 23:17–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Messner S, Schrattenholzer L (2000) MESSAGE–MACRO: linking an energy supply model with a macroeconomic module and solving it iteratively. Energy 25:267–282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Negishi T (1960) Welfare economics and existence of an equilibrium for a competitive economy. Metroeconomica 12:92–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Nordhaus WD (1994) Managing the global commons: the economics of climate change. MIT PressGoogle Scholar
  20. Richels RG, Blanford GJ (2008) The value of technological advance in decarbonizing the U.S. economy. Energy Econ 30:2930–2946CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Schrattenholzer L (1981) The energy supply model MESSAGE. Research report RR-81-31, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA)Google Scholar
  22. Sugiyama M (2012) Climate change mitigation and electrification. Energy Policy 44:464–468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Sugiyama M, Akashi O, Wada K, Kanudia A, Li J, Weyant J (2013) Energy efficiency potentials for global climate change mitigation. Clim Change (this issue). doi: 10.1007/s10584-013-0874-5
  24. Tsutsui J (2011) SEEPLUS: a simple online climate model. J Jpn Soc Civ Eng, Ser G (Environ Res) 67:134–149Google Scholar
  25. Weyant JP (ed.) (1999) The costs of the Kyoto Protocol: a multi-model evaluation. Energy J Special Issue 20Google Scholar
  26. Weyant JP (ed.) (2004) EMF 19 alternative technology strategies for climate change policy. Energy Econ 26:501–755Google Scholar
  27. Weyant JP, de la Chesnaye FC, Blanford GJ (2006) Overview of EMF-21: multigas mitigation and climate policy. Energy J Special Issue 27(3):1–32Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hiromi Yamamoto
    • 1
  • Masahiro Sugiyama
    • 1
  • Junichi Tsutsui
    • 2
  1. 1.Socioeconomic Research CenterCentral Research Institute of Electric Power IndustryTokyoJapan
  2. 2.Environmental Science Research LaboratoryCentral Research Institute of Electric Power IndustryChibaJapan

Personalised recommendations