Open Access Article
This Open Access Article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported Licence
Correction: Bridging capital discipline and energy scenarios
Sam
Uden
a,
Robert
Socolow
b and
Chris
Greig
*c
aConservation Strategy Group, LLC, Sacramento, CA, USA
bDepartment of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ, USA
cAndlinger Center for Energy and the Environment, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ, USA. E-mail: cgreig@princeton.edu
First published on 5th August 2022
Abstract
Correction for ‘Bridging capital discipline and energy scenarios’ by Sam Uden et al., Energy Environ. Sci., 2022, https://doi.org/10.1039/d2ee01244h.
The broader context section for this article was missing. It should have appeared as follows.
Modeled energy scenarios, such as those prepared by the IPCC's Working Group III, are the main analytical tools relied upon to inform climate change policies at global and national scales. It is important, then, that scenarios are feasible – meaning the modeled sequence of actions (i.e., progressive expansion in clean electricity, fuels, materials, etc.) resembles what could be delivered in reality. To the extent there is a disconnect, adopted policies may fail to assure mitigation targets. This Opinion highlights one important such disconnect related to asset mobilization. That is, the difference between the way models assume assets are mobilized, compared to the approach exhibited by risk-taking commercial enterprises. Bridging this fault-line is essential to reduce the risk of target shortfall. We describe a conceptual approach to do so, termed ‘reverse-engineering’, and highlight the value of cultivating a new community of applied researchers working with practitioners to advance the reverse-engineering technique.
The Royal Society of Chemistry apologises for these errors and any consequent inconvenience to authors and readers.
| This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2022 |