MODELLING OF THE EU LONG-TERM STRATEGY TOWARDS A CARBON NEUTRAL - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
MODELLING OF THE EU LONG-TERM STRATEGY TOWARDS A CARBON NEUTRAL ENERGY SYSTEM A. De Vita, Prof. P. Capros, G. Zazias, et al. Dresden, 12 April, 2019 The presentation reflects purely personal opinions M ODELLING SUITE FOR EU L ONG - TERM STRATEGY
Dresden, 12 April, 2019
The presentation reflects purely personal opinions
MODELLING SUITE FOR EU LONG-TERM STRATEGY
PRIMES MODEL OVERVIEW
PRIMES energy system model
PRIMES Overview
Temporal resolution: to 2070, in 5-year time steps Geographic resolution: 28 EU MS + 10 European non-EU countries Mathematically: concatenation of mixed-complementarity problems with equilibrium conditions and overall constraints (e.g. carbon constraint with associated shadow carbon value) - EPEC
THE CHALLENGE TOWARDS CARBON NEUTRALITY IN 2050 AND BEYOND
Going from 2°C to 1.5°C
for 9%
Remaining emissions in 2°C
Industry Buildings Transport Power and Heat Energy branch Non-energy CO2 Non-CO2
400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 Mt CO2-eq.
GHG Emissions remaining in 2050
GHG Emissions reduction 2005-2050
STORYLINE
No-regret options
Prosumers Advanced sustainable biofuels Use nuclear and CCS where acceptable
urban environments
climates
Electrification of transport and heating
renewables
integration of renewables
Enhanced renewable power generation Energy efficiency effort in buildings, equipment and vehicles
Disruptive options
conventional energy savings, e.g. circular economy, sharing of vehicles, materials sequestering CO2
electrification in industry and transport, direct use of distributed hydrogen
commodities, e.g.:
i. e.g. mix hydrogen and biogas in gas distribution ii. replace fossil gas by renewable gas
hydrogen and captured or biogenic CO2)
i. establish circuits of CO2 capturing ii. use and sequestering in storage areas, materials and/or fuels, e.g. CO2 captured in industrial processes used in ammonia or petrochemicals, replacing reforming of fossil fuels, biomass CCS and CO2 capture from the air
ALTERNATIVE PATHWAYS-ILLUSTRATION
LOGIC OF SCENARIOS
Pros and cons
Environment-friendly Reduces costs Relaxes investment and resource constraints in the supply side Positive economic and jobs impacts Uncertainty about investment by individuals Uncertainty about needed disruptive changes in industry and circular economy Difficulty in inducing large modal shifts in transport Low demand growth discourages investment in technology progress
High efficiency in end-use Convenience-cleanness Can be self-produced Implies relatively small growth
Not fully applicable in all end- uses, including in transport Lack of competition in the supply of energy carriers as lack
Without chemical storage electricity storage cannot be seasonal
Can cover all end-uses including transport Chemical storage of electricity Less expensive and less electricity intensive than e-fuels New infrastructure for distribution and storage Uncertainty about economies of scale of electrolyzers Blue hydrogen is attractive but depends on geological storage Not fully convenient in some energy uses Uncertain success of learning- by-doing for fuel cells
Use of existing infrastructure Convenience in end-use: no disruption in transport Chemical storage of electricity Competition among carriers CO2 capture from air and biogenic not yet mature Uncertainty about future costs
significant learning and economies of scale of the industry producing e-fuels Too high increase of total power generation challenging the potential of resources
PROS CONS
SCENARIO DEFINITION
Key features
Targets for 2030 GHG target 2050 Main feature Transport sector Baseline Achieved No BaU after 2030 BaU after 2030 ELEC
Max electrification CO2 -60% at least H2 Max hydrogen P2X E-fuels GHG free EE Max Energy Efficiency CIRC Circular economy, bio-energy COMBO
Combination of ELEC, H2, P2X and EE CO2 -75% at least 1.5TECH
Same as COMBO but more ambitious decarbonisation
1.5LIFE Same as COMBO, plus CIRC, and more ambitious decarbonisation
sink, the 1.5°C scenarios achieve carbon neutrality
beyond
technologies are BioCCS and CCU for sequestration in materials
small in magnitude, compensate for remaining GHG emissions in 2050, notably as non-CO2 emissions in agriculture and few fossils in energy demand sectors and small remaining industrial- process emissions
TYPICAL GHG EMISSION PROFILE
Emissions for 1.5°C
5058 5058 4629 4629 4347 4347 4024 4024 3544 3544 2855 2855 1894 1894 1011 1011 509 509 190 190 2005 2005 2010 2010 2015 2015 2020 2020 2025 2025 2030 2030 2035 2035 2040 2040 2045 2045 2050 2050
GHG Emi mission
O2-eq.
Power Industry Transport Tertiary Residential Non-CO2 Carbon Remo moval Technologies Net emi missions
imply a minimum increase in the volume of power generation despite electrification. Among the scenarios focusing on the supply sector, the maximum electricity scenario is the most efficient regarding total electricity generation.
considerable increase in total power generation, up to almost a doubling of total volume.
massively in all strategy
showed that ensuring sufficient RES supply in the e-fuel scenarios require unobstructed access to remotely located RES from all places in the EU grid.
POWER SECTOR
Capacity and mix of power generation
500 500 1000 1000 1500 1500 2000 2000 2500 2500 3000 3000 2015 2015 2030 2030 2050 2050 GW GW Bioma mass with CCS Fo Fossil fuels with CCS Fo Fossil fuels without CCS Nuclear Other renewables Solar Wind 1000 1000 2000 2000 3000 3000 4000 4000 5000 5000 6000 6000 7000 7000 8000 8000 9000 9000 2010 2010 2015 2015 2030 2030 2050 2050 TWh
Biomass wi with CCS Fossil fuels with CCS Fossil fuels without CCS Nuclear Other RES Biomass wi without CCS Hydro Solar Wind
huge deployment of RES in the power sector (>80% in 2050) with variable RES getting a share above 70% in 2050.
ensuring flexibility in the system; thus, high development of electricity storage capacities in all strategy scenarios.
although the scenarios assume maximum integration of batteries in mobility, batteries in dispersed RES applications and demand-response.
capacities of multi-day and seasonal storage, which are possible via chemical storage, primarily based on hydrogen.
demand provide considerably important indirect storage (not shown in the figures) thanks to the fuel storage facilities in fuel distribution.
reaches economic optimality when maximizing hydrogen and e-fuel consumption at times of high variable RES, with lowest marginal system costs, due to the excess of RES.
POWER SECTOR
RES and Storage
0% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 2010 2015 2030 Baseline ne 2050
Shares in n pow
neration
Renewables (all) Wind d & Solar Nuclear Fos
50 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 2030 Baseline EE EE CIRC ELEC H2 H2 P2X COMBO 1.5TECH 1.5LIFE 2050 TWh H2 H2 & e-fue uels Batteries Pumping 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 2030 Baseline EE EE CIRC ELEC H2 H2 P2X COMBO 1.5TECH 1.5LIFE 2050 GW GW
CONCLUDING REMARKS