Abstract
The deployment of solar photovoltaic (PV) technology has consistently outpaced expectations over the past decade. However, long-term prospects for PV remain deeply uncertain, as recent global scenarios span two orders of magnitude in installed PV capacity by 2050. Here we systematically compile an ensemble of 1,550 scenarios from peer-reviewed and influential grey literature, including IPCC and non-IPCC scenarios, and apply a statistical learning framework to link scenario characteristics with foreseen PV outcomes. We show that a large portion of the uncertainty in the global scenarios is associated with general features such as the type of organization, energy model and policy assumptions, without referring to specific techno-economic assumptions. IPCC scenarios consistently project lower PV adoption pathways and higher capital costs than non-IPCC scenarios. We thus recommend increasing the diversity of models and scenario methods included in IPCC assessments to represent the multiple perspectives present in the PV scenario literature.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Access options
Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals
Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription
$29.99 / 30 days
cancel any time
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 12 print issues and online access
$209.00 per year
only $17.42 per issue
Buy this article
- Purchase on Springer Link
- Instant access to full article PDF
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
Similar content being viewed by others
Code availability
The code used for analysis in this study is available from the corresponding author upon request. A code notebook presenting key steps of the analysis is available for download74.
References
Rogelj, J. et al. in Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5 °C (eds Masson-Delmotte, V. et al.) Ch. 2 (IPCC, WMO, 2018).
Davis, S. J. et al. Net-zero emissions energy systems. Science 360, eaas9793 (2018).
Global Trends in Renewable Energy Investment 2019 (Frankfurt School-UNEP Centre/BNEF, 2019).
World Energy Outlook 2010 (International Energy Agency, 2010).
Arvizu, D. et al. in Special Report on Renewable Energy Sources and Climate Change Mitigation (eds Edenhofer, O. et al.) 34–212 (IPCC, Cambridge Univ. Press, 2011).
Bogdanov, D. et al. Radical transformation pathway towards sustainable electricity via evolutionary steps. Nat. Commun. 10, 1077 (2019).
Haegel, N. M. et al. Terawatt-scale photovoltaics: transform global energy. Science 364, 836–838 (2019).
Jacobson, M. Z. et al. Impacts of green new deal energy plans on grid stability, costs, jobs, health, and climate in 143 countries. One Earth 1, 449–463 (2019).
Hansen, J. P., Narbel, P. A. & Aksnes, D. L. Limits to growth in the renewable energy sector. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 70, 769–774 (2017).
World Energy Outlook 2019 (International Energy Agency, 2019).
Future of Solar Photovoltaic: Deployment, Investment, Technology, Grid Integration and Socio-Economic Aspects (A Global Energy Transformation) (International Renewable Energy Agency, 2019).
DeCarolis, J. et al. Formalizing best practice for energy system optimization modelling. Appl. Energy 194, 184–198 (2017).
Strachan, N., Fais, B. & Daly, H. Reinventing the energy modelling–policy interface. Nat. Energy 1, 16012 (2016).
Trutnevyte, E., Guivarch, C., Lempert, R. & Strachan, N. Reinvigorating the scenario technique to expand uncertainty consideration. Climatic Change 135, 373–379 (2016).
Craig, P. P., Gadgil, A. & Koomey, J. G. What can history teach us? A retrospective examination of long-term energy forecasts for the United States. Annu. Rev. Energy Environ. 27, 83–118 (2002).
Morgan, M. G. & Keith, D. W. Improving the way we think about projecting future energy use and emissions of carbon dioxide. Climatic Change 90, 189–215 (2008).
Konrad, K., Van Lente, H., Groves, C. & Selin, C. in The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies (eds Felt, U. et al.) 465–493 (MIT Press, 2017).
Wüstenhagen, R. & Menichetti, E. Strategic choices for renewable energy investment: conceptual framework and opportunities for further research. Energy Policy 40, 1–10 (2012).
Creutzig, F. et al. The underestimated potential of solar energy to mitigate climate change. Nat. Energy 2, 17140 (2017).
Pietzcker, R., Stetter, D., Manger, S. & Luderer, G. Using the Sun to decarbonize the power sector: the economic potential of photovoltaics and concentrating solar power. Appl. Energy 135, 704–720 (2014).
Cole, W. et al. Variable Renewable Energy in Long-Term Planning Models: A Multi-Model Perspective (National Renewable Energy Laboratory, 2017).
Pietzcker, R. et al. System integration of wind and solar power in integrated assessment models: a cross-model evaluation of new approaches. Energy Econ. 64, 583–599 (2017).
Trutnevyte, E., McDowall, W., Tomei, J. & Keppo, I. Energy scenario choices: insights from a retrospective review of UK energy futures. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 55, 326–337 (2016).
Carrington, G. & Stephenson, J. The politics of energy scenarios: are International Energy Agency and other conservative projections hampering the renewable energy transition? Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 46, 103–113 (2018).
Huppmann, D. et al. IAMC 1.5 °C Scenario Explorer and Data Hosted by IIASA (IAMC and IIASA, 2018); https://doi.org/10.22022/SR15/08-2018.15429
IAMC AR5 Scenario Database (IAMC and IIASA, 2014).
Lundberg, S. M. et al. From local explanations to global understanding with explainable AI for trees. Nat. Mach. Intell. 2, 56–67 (2020).
Wilson, C., Grubler, A., Bauer, N., Krey, V. & Riahi, K. Future capacity growth of energy technologies: are scenarios consistent with historical evidence? Climatic Change 118, 381–395 (2013).
O’Neill, B. C. & Desai, M. Accuracy of past projections of US energy consumption. Energy Policy 33, 979–993 (2005).
O’Neill, B. C. et al. A new scenario framework for climate change research: the concept of shared socioeconomic pathways. Climatic Change 122, 387–400 (2014).
Breyer, C. et al. On the role of solar photovoltaics in global energy transition scenarios. Prog. Photovoltaics 25, 727–745 (2017).
Weber, C. et al. Mitigation scenarios must cater to new users. Nat. Clim. Change 8, 845–848 (2018).
Gilbert, A. Q. & Sovacool, B. K. Looking the wrong way: bias, renewable electricity, and energy modelling in the United States. Energy 94, 533–541 (2016).
van Vuuren, D. P. et al. What do near-term observations tell us about long-term developments in greenhouse gas emissions? Climatic Change 103, 635–642 (2010).
Wilson, C. et al. Evaluating Process-Based Integrated Assessment Models of Climate Change Mitigation (IIASA, 2017).
Trutnevyte, E. Does cost optimization approximate the real-world energy transition? Energy 106, 182–193 (2016).
Lempert, R. J. Values and uncertainty. Nat. Clim. Change 5, 914–915 (2015).
Wilson, C. et al. Granular technologies to accelerate decarbonization. Science 368, 36–39 (2020).
McCollum, D. L. et al. Improving the behavioral realism of global integrated assessment models: an application to consumers’ vehicle choices. Transportation Res. D 55, 322–342 (2017).
Breyer, C. in Future Energy 3rd edn (ed. Letcher, T. M.) 727–756 (Elsevier, 2020).
Newell, R. G. & Raimi, D. Global Energy Outlook Comparison Methods: 2019 Update (Resources for the Future, 2019).
World Energy Insights Brief 2019: Global Energy Scenarios Comparison Review (World Energy Council, 2019).
Rohatgi, A. WebPlotDigitizer https://automeris.io/WebPlotDigitizer/ (2019).
Africa Energy Outlook 2019 (International Energy Agency, 2019).
World Energy Outlook 2011 (International Energy Agency, 2011).
Exchange Rates (Indicator). OECD iLibrary https://doi.org/10.1787/067eb6ec-en (OECD, 2020).
McKinney, W. in Proceedings of the 9th Python in Science Conference (eds van der Walt, S. & Millman, J.) 51–56 (SciPy, 2010).
Hunter, J. D. Matplotlib: a 2D graphics environment. Comput. Sci. Eng. 9, 90–95 (2007).
Densing, M., Panos, E. & Hirschberg, S. Meta-analysis of energy scenario studies: example of electricity scenarios for Switzerland. Energy 109, 998–1015 (2016).
Krey, V. Global energy–climate scenarios and models: a review. WIREs Energy Environ. 3, 363–383 (2014).
Li, F. G. N., Trutnevyte, E. & Strachan, N. A review of socio-technical energy transition (STET) models. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 100, 290–305 (2015).
Seabold, S. & Perktold, J. in Proceedings of the 9th Python in Science Conference (eds van der Walt, S. & Millman, J.) 92–96 (SciPy, 2010).
Lucińska, M. & Wierzchoń, S. T. in Computer Information Systems and Industrial Management (eds Cortesi, A. et al.) 254–265 (Springer, 2012).
Rousseeuw, P. J. Silhouettes: a graphical aid to the interpretation and validation of cluster analysis. J. Comput. Appl. Math. 20, 53–65 (1987).
Pedregosa, F. et al. scikit-learn: machine learning in Python. J. Mach. Learn. Res. 12, 2825–2830 (2011).
Steyvers, M. & Griffiths, T. in Handbook of Latent Semantic Analysis (eds Landauer, T. K. et al.) 424–440 (Routledge, 2007).
Blei, D. M., Ng, A. Y. & Jordan, M. I. Latent Dirichlet allocation. J. Mach. Learn. Res. 3, 993–1022 (2003).
Lee, D. D. & Seung, H. S. Learning the parts of objects by non-negative matrix factorization. Nature 401, 788–791 (1999).
Bakharia, A. Interactive Content Analysis: Evaluating Interactive Variants of Non-Negative Matrix Factorisation and Latent Dirichlet Allocation as Qualitative Content Analysis Aids. PhD thesis, Queensland Univ. Technology (2014).
Řehůřek, R. & Sojka, P. in Proceedings of the LREC 2010 Workshop on New Challenges for NLP Frameworks (eds Calzolari, N. et al.) 45–50 (ELRA, 2010).
Honnibal, M. & Montani, I. spaCy 2: natural language understanding with bloom embeddings, convolutional neural networks and incremental parsing. spaCy https://spacy.io/ (2017).
McCallum, A. K. MALLET: A Machine Learning for Language Toolkit http://mallet.cs.umass.edu/ (2002).
Röder, M., Both, A. & Hinneburg, A. in Proceedings of the 8th ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining (eds Cheng, X. et al.) 399–408 (Association for Computing Machinery, 2015).
Griffiths, T. L. & Steyvers, M. Finding scientific topics. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 101, 5228–5235 (2004).
Heinrich, G. Parameter Estimation for Text Analysis (vsonix GmbH and University of Leipzig, 2005).
Eker, S., Rovenskaya, E., Obersteiner, M. & Langan, S. Practice and perspectives in the validation of resource management models. Nat. Commun. 9, 5359 (2018).
Torgerson, W. S. Multidimensional scaling: I. Theory and method. Psychometrika 17, 401–419 (1952).
Sievert, C. & Shirley, K. in Proceedings of the Workshop on Interactive Language Learning, Visualization, and Interfaces (eds Chuang, J. et al.) 63–70 (Association for Computational Linguistics, 2014).
Taddy, M. in Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics (AISTATS) (eds Lawrence, N. et al.) 1184–1193 (PMLR, 2012).
Chen, T. & Guestrin, C. in Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (eds Krishnapuram, B. et al.) 785–794 (Association for Computing Machinery, 2016).
Altmann, A., Tolosi, L., Sander, O. & Lengauer, T. Permutation importance: a corrected feature importance measure. Bioinformatics 26, 1340–1347 (2010).
Strobl, C., Boulesteix, A.-L., Kneib, T., Augustin, T. & Zeileis, A. Conditional variable importance for random forests. BMC Bioinformatics 9, 307 (2008).
Lundberg, S. et al. From local explanations to global understanding with explainable AI for trees. Nat. Mach. Intell. 2, 56–67 (2020).
Jaxa-Rozen, M. & Trutnevyte, E. Scenario analysis workflow for the manuscript ‘Sources of uncertainty in long-term global scenarios of solar photovoltaic technology’. Zenodo https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4297227 (2020).
Acknowledgements
This work received funding from the University of Geneva as well as from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement no. 821124 (NAVIGATE). We thank G. Luderer and L. Hirt for their helpful comments on the analysis.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
M.J.-R. and E.T. designed the research; M.J.-R. performed the analysis; M.J.-R. and E.T. wrote the article.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Peer review information Nature Climate Change thanks Wesley Cole, Felix Creutzig, Sibel Eker and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary information
Supplementary Information
Supplementary Tables 1–4 and Figs. 1–18.
Supplementary Data 1
References for non-IPCC scenarios included in the analysis.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Jaxa-Rozen, M., Trutnevyte, E. Sources of uncertainty in long-term global scenarios of solar photovoltaic technology. Nat. Clim. Chang. 11, 266–273 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-021-00998-8
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-021-00998-8
This article is cited by
-
A novel silver-doped nickel oxide hole-selective contact for crystalline silicon heterojunction solar cells
Frontiers of Chemical Science and Engineering (2024)
-
Embracing a culture of talk: STEM teachers’ engagement in small-group discussions about photovoltaics
International Journal of STEM Education (2023)
-
Global fossil fuel reduction pathways under different climate mitigation strategies and ambitions
Nature Communications (2023)
-
The momentum of the solar energy transition
Nature Communications (2023)
-
Perceived feasibility and potential barriers of a net-zero system transition among Japanese experts
Communications Earth & Environment (2023)