Modelling EU‐GCC energy systems and trade corridors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose This article is based on the REACCESS research project, sponsored by the European Commission, with the objectives of evaluating the technical, economic, and environmental aspects of present and future energy corridors between the European countries (EU27) and their main energy suppliers. GCC countries have an important role to play given their role in EU energy supply and in greenhouse gas emissions. The paper aims to discuss these issues. Design/methodology/approach A single energy model was built by hard‐linking the TIMES integrated assessment model (TIAM‐World), the Pan European TIMES model (PET), and the RECOR model (REaccess CORridors), including more than 1,000 possible energy corridors supplying the European countries. Another major methodology advance was to create a hybrid objective function, combining the usual cost objective and a metric representing the supply risk incurred by EU27. The risk component was constructed via a novel approach that aggregates the elemental risk parameters of each corridor using a Min‐Max function. Four contrasted scenarios were assessed, based on security and climate objectives. Findings Among the many results, it appears that a large reduction of the supply risk may be achieved at a very modest increase of the total energy system cost for EU27. Cross‐effects of climate mitigation and security objectives are also observed. Due to the diversification requirement, the contribution of GCC countries to EU energy imports increases under risk scenario. Sensitivity analyses show that the European energy system seems unable to reduce the market shares of fossil fuels import from MENA countries, including GCC countries, much below the reference case, proving the strong dependency of EU27 energy system from these countries. However, total fossil fuels imports, as well as total energy consumed, are decreased under the risk adverse scenarios. Originality/value Methodological developments, as described above, result in an advanced tool to assess how to increase the “energy system security”, by reducing the concentration of supply countries, diversifying import sources but also reducing the energy dependence at the end‐use side.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".