This graph shows the emissions (not including carbon dioxide removal) in the projection end year against the average GDP growth rate from base year to end year for each scenario covered, with the size of the bubble denoting the primary energy demand in the end year.

IEA’s exploratory projections indicate annual emissions of between approximately 1.5986927 to 4 GtCO2 in 2040 at annual GDP growth rates of 5-6% across various scenarios. Emissions under the STEPS and IVC scenarios aren’t significantly higher than present, and emissions under SDS appear to be broadly in line with mid-century decarbonisation efforts. CEEW projections are built on higher assumed average growth rates over much longer time horizons, and their residual emissions are higher than IEA’s SDS and TERI-Shell projections. CEEW’s 2070 net-zero scenario has high residual emissions despite the lowest primary energy demand, relative to the other studies. TERI-Shell has the lowest assumed growth rate and the lowest residual emissions, despite the highest primary energy demand.

This graph shows the current (2019) and projected ‘final energy demand’ along the vertical axis, and the corresponding projections of GDP growth rate along the horizontal axis. The points are classified by sectors, indicated in the 4 panels: Buildings, Industry, Transport, and Total. Unfortunately, only the IEA study presented the data in this form, and comparable data was not available from the other studies.

Building energy demand is relatively constant across IEA scenarios, and does not increase materially above current estimates, indicating successful demand side measures offsetting the increase in building stock and the swapping of newer energy sources for traditional biomass. Transport energy demand increases marginally. However, increases are seen in industrial and therefore total energy demand.

This graph shows the electricity capacity (in GWs) along the vertical axis, and study-scenario instances along the horizontal axis. The bar graphs indicate the total capacity in each scenario, and the colours within represent different generation technologies.

Installed electricity capacity increases from appr. 1500 GW in the 2040 scenarios to, and further to appr. 7000 GW in the 2070 scenarios. Much of the increase in capacity is driven by solar and wind capacity, with declines seen in coal capacity over time. We also observe that while all three studies concur regarding the key role of solar and wind, there is far less consensus regarding technologies which can viably provide flexible or firm sources of low-carbon power to balance out the intermittency of renewable energy. While IEA highlights the role of batteries, TERI-Shell is hopeful of hydrogen-based technologies, and CEEW cautiously considers roles for carbon capture and storage, or hydrogen across various scenarios.

This graph highlights the total electricity generation in the projected end year for each scenario, stacked by the generation source.

In IEA’s 2040 scenarios, electricity generation ranges from 2,980 TWh to 3,146 TWh, and in TERI-Shell’s 2050 scenario, 8800 TWh (less than 6000 TWh in 2040, not shown). about twice as high as the IEA scenarios. Interestingly, although about half the generation in the IEA scenarios comes from wind and solar, these two constitute nearly 90% of total generation in the TERI-Shell scenario. . Nuclear appears to play a larger role in IEA’s 2040 scenarios than in TERI-Shell’s 2050. Unfortunately, comparable values were not available in the CEEW study.