Assesses industrial decarbonization pathways in Kampala, indicating significant emissions reductions through RCE scenario.
This study assesses industrial decarbonization pathways for Kampala using the KAMPALA-TIMES model, a bottom-up energy systems optimization framework aligned with Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change scenario logic and designed to minimize total discounted system costs. Four policy-relevant scenarios: business-as-usual (BAU), efficient industrial futures (EIF), green technology leapfrogging (GTL), and resilient circular economy (RCE), are examined for the period 2022–2060. The model is calibrated to the Uganda Energy Balance (2022), incorporates locally relevant techno-economic parameters, including harmonized cost data and emission factors, and features stakeholder co-creation input. Results show that under BAU, industrial energy demand rises by about 50%, with emissions reaching 8.3 MtCO₂e, primarily driven by charcoal use in the Food and Drink subsector. The RCE scenario provides the greatest transformation, cutting final energy demand by 35% and emissions by 74% compared to BAU. These improvements come from an 86% reduction in charcoal use, faster electrification, the adoption of waste-to-energy technologies, and industrial symbiosis. In contrast, EIF yields small efficiency gains with limited structural change, whereas GTL enables faster technology adoption but is less effective than RCE due to weaker system integration. Sensitivity analysis confirms the robustness of RCE outcomes amid changes in fuel prices, technology costs, and discount rates. The results emphasize the importance of biomass phase-out, grid modernization, and coordinated policy tools, including clean technology incentives and enforceable efficiency standards, for achieving cost-effective decarbonization. This study offers a thoroughly validated, city-scale application of TIMES-VEDA, providing a transferable decision-support framework for industrial energy transitions in rapidly urbanizing regions of the Global South.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kimuli et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: