| It has a ~10x growth on energy usage until 2080 backed in, you can increase it to ~15x or decrease it to ~8x, but nothing else. The only way to reasonably decrease it is growing energy efficiency, the population and GDP growth settings do not change enough to make a difference. The ramp-up and total of renewables have an unrealistic low ceiling. No matter what, one can not get a clean exponential growth until they dominate the electricity generation, and the only way to make them actually dominate the generation is to destroy every fossil fuel capacity (that last one is highly not realistic). Fossil fuels are assumed to be available on unlimited amounts. One can simulate their limits, but it takes a lot of care about the integral of the curves. Honestly, I think that the idea that we can double the production of any one that is not coal highly unrealistic. Technological carbon capture is hilariously underpowered. For a slide that represents "stuff people may invent", it looks like they do not accept anything that wasn't invented yet. On the other side, they completely ignored all of the huge natural methane reserves around the Earth. If you imagined you could simulate the ocean methane hydrates volatilizing on some rate, well, tough luck. Overall, it's a restricted simulator around the "business as usual" analysis people do on climate. It is highly unreasonable to expect business to stay as usual for a century, but analysis is tippicaly done that way because there is no better baseline to use. A simulator does not have this restriction, so imposing it by parameter limits is unsettling. |