Background: Energy system models based on linear programming have been growing in size with the increasing need to model renewables with high spatial and temporal detail. Larger models lead to high computational requirements. Furthermore, seemingly small changes in a model can lead to drastic differences in runtime. Here, we investigate measures to address this issue. Results: We review the mathematical structure of a typical energy system model, and discuss issues of sparsity, degeneracy and large numerical range. We introduce and test a method to automatically scale models to improve numerical range. We test this method as well as tweaks to model formulation and solver preferences, finding that adjustments can have a substantial impact on runtime. In particular, the barrier method without crossover can be very fast, but affects the structure of the resulting optimal solution. Conclusions: We conclude with a range of recommendations for energy system modellers: first, on large and difficult models, manually select the barrier method or barrier+crossover method. Second, use appropriate units that minimize the model’s numerical range or apply an automatic scaling procedure like the one we introduce here to derive them automatically. Third, be wary of model formulations with cost-free technologies and dummy costs, as those can dramatically worsen the numerical properties of the model. Finally, as a last resort, know the basic solver tolerance settings for your chosen solver and adjust them if necessary.

@en

The authors wish to point out a typesetting error in Equation (1) of the above paper, published as [1] in this journal. An addition sign “+” was mistakenly replaced with a multiplication sign “∙” in this equation, as shown in Equation (1a) below. [Formula presented] There correct version of this equation is given in Equation (1b): [Formula presented]where n is the lifetime of the technology, I0 the investment [$], Mt the annual costs in year t [$/year], Et energy produced in year t [MWh/year] and i the interest rate. The authors apologise for any inconveince caused. This minor error has no implications for the validity of the conclusions and recommendations presented in section 6 of the original paper.@en

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.

@en

The European potential for renewable electricity is sufficient to enable fully renewable supply on different scales, from self-sufficient, subnational regions to an interconnected continent. We not only show that a continental-scale system is the cheapest, but also that systems on the national scale and below are possible at cost penalties of 20% or less. Transmission is key to low cost, but it is not necessary to vastly expand the transmission system. When electricity is transmitted only to balance fluctuations, the transmission grid size is comparable to today's, albeit with expanded cross-border capacities. The largest differences across scales concern land use and thus social acceptance: in the continental system, generation capacity is concentrated on the European periphery, where the best resources are. Regional systems, in contrast, have more dispersed generation. The key trade-off is therefore not between geographic scale and cost, but between scale and the spatial distribution of required generation and transmission infrastructure.@en

A recent article in this journal claimed to assess the socio-technical potential for onshore wind energy in Europe. We find the article to be severely flawed and raise concerns in five general areas. Firstly, the term socio-technical is not precisely defined, and is used by the authors to refer to a potential that others term as merely technical. Secondly, the study fails to account for over a decade of research in wind energy resource assessments. Thirdly, there are multiple issues with the use of input data and, because the study is opaque about many details, the effect of these errors cannot be reproduced. Fourthly, the method assumes a very high wind turbine capacity density of 10.73 MW/km2 across 40% of the land area in Europe with a generic 30% capacity factor. Fifthly, the authors find an implausibly high onshore wind potential, with 120% more capacity and 70% more generation than the highest results given elsewhere in the literature. Overall, we conclude that new research at higher spatial resolutions can make a valuable contribution to wind resource potential assessments. However, due to the missing literature review, the lack of transparency and the overly simplistic methodology, Enevoldsen et al. (2019) potentially mislead fellow scientists, policy makers and the general public.@en

Because solar and wind resources are available throughout Europe, a transition to an electricity system based on renewables could simultaneously be a transition to an autarkic one. We investigate to which extent electricity autarky on different levels is possible in Europe, from the continental, to the national, regional, and municipal levels, assuming that electricity autarky is only possible when the technical potential of renewable electricity exceeds local demand. We determine the technical potential of roof-mounted and open field photovoltaics, as well as on- and offshore wind turbines through an analysis of surface eligibility, considering land cover, settlements, elevation, and protected areas as determinants of eligibility for renewable electricity generation. In line with previous analyses we find that the technical-social potential of renewable electricity is greater than demand on the European and national levels. For subnational autarky, the situation is different: here, demand exceeds potential in several regions, an effect that is stronger the higher population density is. To reach electricity autarky below the national level, regions would need to use very large fractions or all of their non-built-up land for renewable electricity generation. Subnational autarky requires electricity generation to be in close proximity to demand and thus increases the pressure on non-built-up land especially in densely populated dense regions where pressure is already high. Our findings show that electricity autarky below the national level is often not possible in densely populated areas in Europe.@en

The global energy system is undergoing a major transition, and in energy planning and decision-making across governments, industry and academia, models play a crucial role. Because of their policy relevance and contested nature, the transparency and open availability of energy models and data are of particular importance. Here we provide a practical how-to guide based on the collective experience of members of the Open Energy Modelling Initiative (Openmod). We discuss key steps to consider when opening code and data, including determining intellectual property ownership, choosing a licence and appropriate modelling languages, distributing code and data, and providing support and building communities. After illustrating these decisions with examples and lessons learned from the community, we conclude that even though individual researchers’ choices are important, institutional changes are still also necessary for more openness and transparency in energy research.@en