Comparing REmap results with integrated modeling approaches Ruud Kempener and Asami Miketa IRENA Innovation and Technology Centre

Transcription

1 Comparing REmap results with integrated modeling approaches Ruud Kempener and Asami Miketa IRENA Innovation and Technology Centre ETSAP Meeting: 2-3 June, Beijing, China

2 REmap 2030 Methodology: Global gap analysis based on collective country/regional analysis What is RE outlook by 2030 in BAU scenario? What are the additional technology deployment options? What are the costs and benefits of the options? Global roadmap and benchmarking national RE plans and targets 2

3 REmap Tool Accounting framework based on national energy balance One-for-one substitution of conventional with renewable energy technologies (based on country experts opinion) Technology break-down by end-use sector Average cost of substitution per technology based on: Technology cost and performance projections Commodity price projections 3

4 IRENA-ETSAP collaboration REMAP analysis is based on Excel spreadsheet Simple, replicable, and transparent Good representation of end-use technologies Technology substitution is analyzed without fully considering system constrains and infrastructure needs Objective: assess if technology substitutions and the cost for increasing shares of RE are similar in MARKAL/TIMES type models and REMAP tool 4

5 Methodology Starting point is reference case IRENA provides total TFEC and RE consumption per end-use sector for 2030 IRENA provided commodity prices for 2030 ETSAP teams run cluster of runs with increasing RE shares The range of the RE share is comparable to REMAP analysis Each step increase result in multiple substitution technologies or efficiency measures Discontinuities among runs are highlighted Comparison of results Difference in sequence and choice of RE technologies Role of energy efficiency in achieving RE targets Difference in total system costs System changes 5

6 SELECTED RESULTS 6

7 Global results - REmap EJ Biogas power Concentrated solar power Geothermal power Biomass power Solar PV Wind The use of RE increase 50% in the Reference case Still the share of RE is 21%; far from the doubling goal Hydroelectricity Liquid Biofuels Geothermal buildings 20 Geothermal industry Solar thermal heat Biogas industry/buildings Traditional biomass (buildings) Biomass heat buildings Reference case Biomass heat industry 7

8 Global results - REmap 90 EJ Biogas power Concentrated solar power Geothermal power Biomass power Contribution to the doubling the RE share by Solar PV Wind Hydroelectricity Liquid Biofuels Geothermal buildings 30 Geothermal industry Solar thermal heat 20 Biogas industry/buildings REMAP Traditional biomass (buildings) Biomass heat buildings Biomass heat industry 60% is biomass RE shares incl. electricity from RE Buildings 38% Industry 26% Transport 17% 8 Power generation 44%

9 Energy system costs [bln USD(2005)] Global results - ETSAP ECN Other RE Biomass Solar Wind Hydro % 22% 24% 26% 28% 30% 32% 34% 36% Share of renewable energy of final energy consumption 9

10 Global results - ETSAP ECN Remainder is due to energy efficiency 10

11 Energy system costs [bln USD(2005)] Global results - ETSAP Other RE Biomass Solar Wind Hydro ECN TIAM model 0 20% 22% 24% 26% 28% 30% 32% 34% 36% Share of renewable energy of final energy consumption 11

12 Japan Wind Solar PV Hydro JMRT model 12

13 Cost (USD 2010 /GJ TFEC) France Mines Paristech 40 Country REMAP Options, breakdown by RE resource ( ) (local) 20 0 Country Reference case projections biomass cofiring biogas for heating 2nd gen. biofuels -20 biodiesel Solar PV bioethanol PV (small scale) Hydro wind offshore wind onshore -80 water heating (solar) -100 Renewable energy share in TFEC (%) 13

14 Next step Preparation of a book chapter Evaluating a Doubling of the Renewable Energy Share by 2030; A Comparative Analysis of System Engineering Models versus Simple Substitution Analysis Introduction Methodology Results Comparison of main findings (Global comparison/japan/france/usa) Case studies of system changes in different countries (Portugal/Ireland) Discussion Differences between findings Strength and weakness of models (?) Conclusion 14

15 IEA-ETSAP team Global cost supply curves Edi Assoumou & Nadia Maizi, MINES ParisTech Tom Kober, ECN Maryse Labriet, Eneris Consultants Regional cost supply curves Kari Espregen, Institute for Energy Technology (Nordic) Sophia Simoes, JRC Petten (EC) National cost supply curves Edi Assoumou & Nadia Maizi, MINES ParisTech (France) Maria Gaeta, ENEA (Italy) Hiroshi Hamasaki, Fujitsu Research Institute, CIPPS (Japan) Amit Kanudia, KanORS-EMR (India/US) Brian O Gallachoir, University College Cork (Ireland) Julia Seixas, Universidade Nova de Lisboa (Portugal) Thank you! 15

16 Global results - REmap Contribution to the doubling the RE share by 2030 REmap Options 16

17 Portugal: preliminary results 17

18 Ireland: preliminary results 18

19 Global results - REMAP 19