Comparing net zero pathways across the Atlantic A model inter-comparison exercise between the Energy Modeling Forum 37 and the European Climate and Energy Modeling Forum
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Europe and North America account for 32 % of current carbon emissions. Due to distinct legacy systems, energy infrastructure, socioeconomic development, and energy resource endowment, both regions have different policy and technological pathways to reach net zero by the mid-century. Against this background, our paper examines the results from the net zero emission scenarios for Europe and North America that emerged from the collaboration of the European and American Energy Modeling Forums. In our analysis, we perform an inter-comparison of various integrated assessments and bottom-up energy system models. A clear qualitative consensus emerges on five main points. First, Europe and the United States reach net zero targets with electrification, demand-side reductions, and carbon capture and sequestration technologies. Second, the use of carbon capture and sequestration is more predominant in the United States due to a steeper decarbonization schedule. Third, the buildings sector is the easiest to electrify in both regions. Fourth, the industrial sector is the hardest to electrify in the United States and transportation in Europe. Fifth, in both regions, the transition in the energy mix is driven by the substitution of coal and natural gas with solar and wind, but to a different extent.
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".