Wir schaffen Wissen – heute für morgen

(1)

Wir schaffen Wissen – heute für morgen 14^th IAEE European Energy Conference, Rome, 31^st Oct 2014

Exploring uncertainties in CCS – De-carbonization of the power sector & country-wise opportunities

Rajesh Mathew Pattupara, Kannan Ramachandran Paul Scherrer Institute, Switzerland

(2)

• Introduction – European nuclear phase-out and its consequences

• CROSSTEM Model

• Scenarios & Key Assumptions

• Results

• Conclusions

• Model limitations, issues and challenges

Outline

04.11.2014

PSI, Seite 2

(3)

European Nuclear phase-out - Background

• Low carbon pathway for electricity – EU Roadmap 2050

• “Nuclear Renaissance” – Switzerland and France to continue with its nuclear program. Italy to have 25% of net generation from nuclear by 2030. Germany to extend life times of existing plans¹.

• Fukushima Accident – Socio-political consequences

• Nuclear phase-out

• Germany by 2022

• Switzerland by 2034

• Italy to continue with its nuclear moratorium

• France to reduce share from 75% to 50% by 2025 (?)

. 1. http://www.world-nuclear.org

(4)

European Nuclear phase-out - Background

04.11.2014

PSI, Seite 4

• Alternative supply options – Germany substituting nuclear power with coal based generation → 43% (2010) to 52%(2013)

• Green house gas (GHG) reductions – Complete de-carbonization of power sector by 2050

.

Alternative low carbon sources of electricity

• Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) and Renewables

• Technical, Economical and Social challenges and uncertainties

(5)

Lohwasser, R. and R. Madlener (2012). "Economics of CCS for coal plants: Impact of investment costs and efficiency on market diffusion in Europe." Energy Economics 34(3): 850-863.

Viebahn, P., et al. (2012). "Integrated assessment of carbon capture and storage (CCS) in the German power sector and comparison with the deployment of renewable energies." Applied Energy 97: 238-248.

Selosse, S., et al. (2013). "Fukushima's impact on the European power sector: The key role of CCS technologies." Energy Economics 39: 305-312.

Kjärstad, J., et al. (2013). "Modelling Large-scale CCS Development in Europe Linking Techno- economic Modelling to Transport Infrastructure." Energy Procedia 37: 2941-2948.

Lohwasser, R. and R. Madlener (2009). Simulation of the European Electricity Market and CCS

Development with the HECTOR Model, E.ON Energy Research Center, Future Energy Consumer Needs and Behavior (FCN).

Martinsen, D., et al. (2007). "CCS: A future CO2 mitigation option for Germany?—A bottom-up approach."

Energy Policy 35(4): 2110-2120.

Literature review – Other modelling frameworks

(6)

• CROSs border Swiss TIMES Electricity Model

• Extension of the STEM-E model to include the four neighbouring countries

• Time horizon: 2010 – 2070

• An hourly timeslice (288 timeslices)

• Detailed reference electricity system with resource supply, renewable potentials and demands for 5 countries

• Calibrated for electricity demand and supply data between 2000-2010

• Endogenous electricity import / export based on costs and technical characteristics

2 0 1 0

201 1- 201 2

201 3- 201 7

203 3- 203 7

2068-2073 Milesone year 2070

CROSSTEM Model

04.11.2014

PSI, Seite 6

(7)

• How can these countries decarbonise their power sector ?

• What would be the role of CCS ?

• How can countries with higher CCS potentials help in the decarbonisation of the neighbouring countries ?

Research Questions

(8)

2 basic scenarios and 3 CCS scenario variants selected for Analysis

• Reference Scenario (REF) – Nuclear policies of 5 countries

implemented. No CO₂ emission targets. Nuclear phase-out in Switzerland by 2034, Germany by 2022. France has the option to invest in nuclear.

• CO2 reduction scenario (CO2-Base) – REF scenario with a cap on the total CO₂ emission from electricity generation is applied across all

regions. Level of decarbonisation to reach 60% of 1990 levels by 2030, 95% by 2050.

2. EU Roadmap 2050 - http://ec.europa.eu/energy/energy2020/roadmap/doc/com_2011_8852_en.pdf

Scenarios

04.11.2014

PSI, Seite 8

(9)

CCS Scenario variants

• High CCS scenario (CO2-CCS-H) – Upper variant of CCS potentials.

(Aquefiers + Hydrocarbon fields)

• Low CCS scenario (CO2-CCS-L) – Lower variant of CCS potentials.

(Hydrocarbon fields only)

• No CCS scenario (CO2-NoCCS) – No investment in CCS technology.

Free trade allowed in this scenario.

(10)

CCS Scenario variants

04.11.2014

PSI, Seite 10

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000

CH AT FR DE IT

CO2 capture capacities (Mt CO2)

CO2 storage potentials

High Base Low

(11)

Input Assumptions

• Electricity Demand – EU Trends to 2050 (Reference scenario), BAU demands for CH (SES 2050)

• Trade with “fringe regions” – Historical limits applied

• CO2 price – European ETS prices implemented (SES 2050, Bfe)

• Fuel Prices – International fuel prices from WEO 2010.

Methodological Assumptions

• Copper Plate regions – No transmission and distribution infrastructure within each country. Interconnectors between regions, with no trade loss.

• Endogenous trade limits – Based on historical trends. Net importers cannot become net exporters and vice versa. Not applied to NoCCS.

.

Key assumptions

(12)

Electricity generation mix – 5 countries aggregated

-1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000

2010 2050 2050 2050 2050 2050

Ref CO2-Base CO2-CCS-H CO2-CCS-L CO2-NoCCS*

PJ

Net Import Wood

Waste & Biogas Wind

Solar

Geothermal Oil

Gas-CCS Gas (Flex) Gas (CHP) Gas (Base) Coal-CCS Coal Nuclear Hydro (P) Hydro (D) Hydro (R) Pumps

Total Demand

Aggregated Results

04.11.2014

PSI, Seite 12

(13)

-50 0 50 100 150 200 250 300

2010 2050 2050 2050 2050 2050

Ref CO2-Base CO2-CCS-H CO2-CCS-L CO2-NoCCS

PJ

Net Import Wood

Waste & Biogas Wind

Solar

Geothermal Oil

Total Demand

Country wise Results

Electricity generation mix - Switzerland

(14)

-500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000

2010 2050 2050 2050 2050 2050

PJ

Net Import Wood

Waste & Biogas Wind

Solar

Geothermal Oil

Total Demand

Electricity generation mix - France

Country wise Results

04.11.2014

PSI, Seite 14

(15)

-500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000

2010 2050 2050 2050 2050 2050

PJ

Net Import Wood

Waste & Biogas Wind

Solar

Geothermal Oil

Total Demand

Country wise Results

Electricity generation mix - Germany

(16)

-200 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

2010 2050 2050 2050 2050 2050

PJ

Net Import Wood

Waste & Biogas Wind

Solar

Geothermal Oil

Total Demand

Country wise Results

04.11.2014

PSI, Seite 16

Electricity generation mix - Italy

(17)

-50 0 50 100 150 200 250 300

2010 2050 2050 2050 2050 2050

PJ

Net Import Wood

Waste & Biogas Wind

Solar

Geothermal Oil

Total Demand

Country wise Results

Electricity generation mix - Austria

(18)

Load Curves

04.11.2014

PSI, Seite 18

(19)

Load Curve – Winter Weekday 2050 (CO2-CCS-L)

(20)

Load Curve – Summer Weekday 2050 (CO2-CCS-L)

04.11.2014

PSI, Seite 20

(21)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

2050 2050 2050 2050

CO2-Base CO2-CCS-H CO2-CCS-L CO2-NoCCS

Mt CO2

Switzerland Austria Italy France Germany

CO₂ emissions – Regional disaggregation

CO2 emissions

(22)

• Possibilities for alternative low carbon electricity generation pathways for the five countries has been explored.

• Sensitivity of various CCS potentials analysed.

• High potentials favour Coal based CCS plants, low potentials prefer Gas based.

• Renewable technologies preferred over Gas based generation wherever plausible

• Decarbonisation of the power sector is plausible, but significant investments necessary in both renewable technologies as well as CCS.

• CO2 targets achievable without CCS as well, but high impetus on cross border trade – Market liberalization.

Conclusions

04.11.2014

PSI, Seite 22

(23)

4. November 2014 PSI,

Limitations & Uncertainties

• CROSSTEM is not a pure dispatch model.

• Modelling of representative days – Overall simplifications

• T&D infrastructure not explicitly modelled.

• CO2 transport across countries not modelled

• Trade with fringe regions – Inclusion of surrounding countries

• Model assumes perfect information, perfect foresight, well functioning markets and economically rational decisions – Optimal solution for 5 countries together, not for each country

Model Limitations

4. November 2014

PSI, Seite 23

(24)

4. November 2014 PSI, 4. November 2014

PSI, Seite 24

Thank you for your attention !!!

(25)

Energy Economics Group

Laboratory for Energy Systems Analysis

General Energy Research department & Nuclear Energy and Safety Research Department