Delivering the Paris Agreement?

Transcription

1 Delivering the Paris Agreement? Modelling least cost pathways to European energy and climate objectives Zero Emission Platform Energy Transition Trondheim Norway 7 March 217 Charles Soothill Vice Chair

2 Delivering the Paris Agreement? Introduction Modelling the whole energy system Business case for action Conclusions 2

3 Introduction - Size of the challenge M. Meinshausen Nature 3

4 Energy system model Energy Sources Conversion Utilisation Energy Storage CO2 Storage Heat Energy Intensive Industries Transport Power Thanks to NTNU, SINTEF and other team members for the model and input data. 4

5 Costs Efficiency Integrated Energy system model Consumption Weather Investment optimizer Invests in Heat, Transport, Industry and Power assets Delivers fleet composition from 21 to 25 Evaluates CAPEX Fleet composition OPEX & CO 2 Dispatch optimizer Linear programming 876 hours Minimizes OPEX & CO 2 Lowest Cost Pathway to meet CO2 target and maintain lifestyles 5

6 The 1 countries Modelled United Kingdom Norway Poland Netherlands Germany France Switzerland Spain Greece Italy 6

7 CO2 emissions Target base line EU target 8-95% Reduction ref 199 Model of Energy from 21 85% from 21 to 25 for Energy equiv 8% ref % reduction target also tested 7

8 Gas CC CCS C&L CCS Biomass CHP Recip CHP Gas CC CHP C&L CHP Biomass Gas CC Gas SC C&L Nuclear Hydro River Hydro Lakes Electrical capacity 12 8 Model 6 chooses dispatchable power 6 to better integrate Solar and Wind 12 4 With 4 CCS the backup power does not emit CO2 2 2 Electricity Generation in 1 countries Wind and Solar capacity factors increased by CCS Growth in demand for electricity for Transport and Heat achieved Wind PV Biomass CCS CHP Gas CC CCS CHP C&L CCS CHP Biomass CCS Gas CC CCS C&L CCS Biomass CHP Recip CHP Gas CC CHP C&L CHP Biomass Gas CC Gas SC C&L Nuclear Hydro River Hydro Lakes Generated electricity (TWh) With CCS No CCS 8

9 C&L CCS CHP Biomass CHP Recip CHP Generated Heat in 1 Countries Gas CC CHP 8 8 C&L CHP Solar heater Heat is currently 6 the most important CO2 emitter (outside 6 Norway) and at system level Electric heatercan help energy system integration because it can be stored cheaply 4 4 Hydrogen Model heater replaces simple Gas, Oil and Coal heating with District Heating, CHP, Heat Pumps, Biomass Biomass, heater Solar 2 Thermal and Hydrogen 2 Heatpump Centralised Heat with CO2 capture and renewable biomass almost eliminates emissions Fuel heater from this biggest and distributed sector Without CCS simple fuel heaters remain Biomass CCS CHP Gas CC CCS CHP C&L CCS CHP Biomass CHP Recip CHP Gas CC CHP C&L CHP Solar heater Electric heater Hydrogen heater Biomass heater Heatpump Fuel heater Heating capacity (G Generated heat (TWh) Simple Fuel Heaters District Heating with CCS Biomass Heat Pumps With CCS No CCS 9

10 Transport in 1 Countries Transport causes distributed emissions. Switching to Electricity and Hydrogen can centralize emissions sources for CO2 capture, if available Only road transport considered, 75% conversion limit at 25 Early adopters: Norway & Switzerland because low CO2 is electricity used 6 6 Fuel cell vehicles Battery vehicles IC Vehicles Mechanical energy (TWh) Liquid Fuel Hydrogen 5 Battery With CCS No CCS 1

11 Cost benefit for emissions reduction in 1 countries 3 UK, ES, DE, PL, IT, FR, NL, GR, CH, NO Without CCS With CCS 25 EU reduction target 8-95% ref. 199 Total CO2 emissions (MT CO2 /y) Total levelized system costs (b /y) Fuel savings, efficiency improvements and technology cost reduction give fairly flat costs curves. No inflation & 21 Euros District Heating and CHP give cost reductions in early years 95% emission reduction can only be achieved with CCS Without CCS emissions 3-4 times higher in 25 Series2 ALL Savings up to 25 ALL_CCS 1 Trillion Euro for EU Saving >5 Billion Euro per year ongoing 1 countries The more you want to reduce emissions the stronger the business case for CCS Early investment in CO2 hubs and clusters has strong business case 11

12 Per Capita CO2 Emissions 21 to 25 1 Countries 9 of 1 Countries can cut emissions below 1 Tonne CO2 per capita per year. But only with CCS. Without CCS emmisions are 3-4 times higher Conservative modelling assumptions for offshore industry in Norway offshore and low population indicate a challenge for Norway to get to 1 Tonne per year Germany, UK, Netherlands and Poland emissions reductions benefit hugely from CCS Per capita CO2 emissions (t CO2 /p) , with CCS 25, no CCS 1 Tonne Target Germany France United Kingdom Spain Italy Poland Netherlands Switzerland Greecce Norway All countries 12

13 CO2 Balance in 1 Countries Strong reductions non industry (heat, transport & Electricity) Industrial reductions are limited because many small sources area for action Major contribution by CCS and Sustainable biomass Net emissions with CCS 3 to 4 times lower 3 3 Emitted (industry) Emitted (excl. ind.) Captured (industry) Captured (excl. ind.) From atmosphere CO2 balance (MTCO 2 / y) With CCS Reduction with CCS CO2 captured 2 - CO2 absorbed No CCS 13

14 CO2 Storage volumes 21 to 25 by country Volumes needed are less than those reported in EU 29 storage project Germany would need to export CO2 to North sea? 7 Cumulated storage (MtCO2) Germany France United Kingdom Spain Italy Poland Netherlands Switzerland Greecce Norway 14

15 Wind PV Thermal RES Ambient Biomass Nuclear Gas Oil Coal Lignite Primary energy input ( 8 Energy Utilisation in 1 8 Countries 6 Strong reductions in use of Oil and Gas for heating and transport Gas use switches from heating to electricity 4 4with CHP and with CCS for heat pumps Continued use of local fuels with CCS to integrate wind and solar Strong 2growth of sustainable biomass similar 2 volumes in two scenarios Hydro, wind solar, biomass and ambient heat (for heat pumps) - continued growth to above EU renewables targets Cold Hydro_ROR Hydro_REG Wind PV Thermal RES Ambient Biomass Nuclear Gas Oil Coal Lignite Final energy consumption (TWh) With CCS No CCS 15

16 Making CCS happen a regional focus Countries of Europe have different views and opportunities Solutions vary and are regional Each needs to develop solution with what exists 16

17 Making these reductions happen hubs & clusters Clusters & storage hubs reduce costs and risks for industry to connect Sized to accommodate local industrial emitters and their connection when possible EU funds for infrastructure, innovation and modernisation 17

18 Conclusions CCS is urgent - 25 targets are only achieved, with CCS Without CCS, emissions would continue 3-4 times higher in 25 CCS is not expensive saves Europe 1 Trillion Euros, up to 25 CCS is not short term - 5 Billion Euro per year from 25 on Our jobs in Energy Intensive Industries rely on CCS Like trains and water systems - Infrastructure investment required Strong Business case for member states to invest in Hubs/Clusters CCS facilitates EU renewables targets and raises capacity factors Bio mass with CCS the only realistic route to 1.5c 18