Refine
Has Fulltext
- no (4) (remove)
Document Type
- Peer-Reviewed Article (2)
- Report (2)
Language
- English (4) (remove)
Energy system optimization models (ESOMs) such as MARKAL/TIMES are used to support energy policy analysis worldwide. ESOMs cover the full life-cycle of fuels from extraction to end-use, including the associated direct emissions. Nevertheless, the life-cycle emissions of energy equipment and infrastructure are not modelled explicitly. This prevents analysis of questions relating to the relative importance of emissions associated with the build-up of infrastructure and other equipment required for decarbonization.
Consumption-based CO2 emissions, which are commonly calculated by means of environmentally extended input-output analysis, are gaining wider recognition as a way to complement territorial emission inventories. Although their use has increased significantly in the last years, insufficient attention has been paid to the methodological soundness of the underlying environmental extension. This should follow the internationally agreed accounting rules of the System of Environmental-Economic Accounting, which addresses the activities undertaken by the residents of a country, independent from where these take place. Nonetheless, some footprint calculations use extensions that account for all the activities within the territory, which leads to methodological inconsistencies. Thus, this article introduces the most relevant conceptual differences between these accounting frameworks and shows the magnitude of the gap between them building on the data generated for the EXIOBASE model. It concludes that the differences are high for many countries and their magnitude is increasing over time.