  This paper explores how the modelling of energy systems may lead to undue
closure of alternatives by generating an excess of certainty around some of the
possible policy options. We exemplify the problem with two cases: first, the
International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) global modelling
in the 1980s; and second, the modelling activity undertaken in support of the
construction of a radioactive waste repository at Yucca Mountain (Nevada, USA).
We discuss different methodologies for quality assessment that may help remedy
this issue, which include NUSAP (Numeral Unit Spread Assessment Pedigree),
diagnostic diagrams, and sensitivity auditing. We demonstrate the potential of
these reflexive modelling practices in energy policy making with four
additional cases: (i) stakeholders evaluation of the assessment of the external
costs of a potential large-scale nuclear accident in Belgium in the context of
the ExternE (External Costs of Energy) project; (ii) the case of the ESME
(Energy System Modelling Environment) for the creation of UK energy policy;
(iii) the NETs (Negative Emission Technologies) uptake in Integrated Assessment
Models (IAMs); and (iv) the Ecological Footprint (EF) indicator. We encourage
modellers to widely adopt these approaches to achieve more robust and inclusive
modelling activities in the field of energy modelling.
