Asgeir Tomasgard, Kjetil Midthun & Christian Skar
Challenges and solutions Challenges for a Zero Emission power system Prediction of massive electrification increased demand Sector has major impact of economic growth and competitiveness Security of supply Solutions? Intermittent renewables like wind and solar (PV) Nuclear Hydro power and other storage Carbon Capture and Storage and Utilisation Integration of networks and services for heat, natural gas, electricty Demand response Policy: From subsidies to EU ETS? effect on carbon price. Winter package (Clean Energy for all): Energy efficiency, Active consumers, cross border trading, management of storage, flexibility services
4 38 36 34 32 3 Assumptions European demand for electricity [TWh/an] 12 1 8 6 4 2 Fuel Prices [ 21/GJ] IEA ETP 216 2DS Coal IEA ETP 216 2DS N Gas EU ref 216 Coal EU ref 216 N Gas EU reference scenario 216 IEA Energy Technology Perspective 216
Scenario assumptions 1. Baseline decarbonization: 9 % emission reduction from 21 to 25 2. Alternative scenario NoCCS: same as baseline but no carbon capture and storage available 14 12 1 8 6 4 2 Power sector direct emissions [MtCO 2 /an]
Baseline scenario: 9 % emission reduction Technology/fuel (25) Capacity [GW] Generation [TWh] CCS 196 (13%) 1155 (3 %) Wind 364 (24%) 922 (24 %) Solar 467 (31%) 532 (14 %) Coal (unabated) 31 (2%) 18 (%) Natural gas (unabated) 169 (11%) 111 (3%)
NoCCS scenario: 9 % emission reduction Technology/fuel (25) Capacity [GW] Generation [TWh] CCS Wind 62 (32%) 1481 (38%) Solar 739 (38%) 8 (2 %) Coal (unabated) 22 (1%) 2 (%) Natural gas (unabated) 238 (12%) 42 (11%)
Transmission Baseline Total exchange capacity from Norway in 25: 17.2 GW (of which 7.7 GW are cables) Total European interconnector capacity increase: 37 % from 21 to 25 NoCCS Total exchange capacity from Norway in 25: 38.4 GW (of which 2 GW are cables) Interconnector capacity increase: 64 % from 21 to 25
Baseline country results 25 Source: CenSES position paper Norway as a flexibility provider to Europe, in preparation.
NoCCS country results 25 Source: CenSES position paper Norway as a flexibility provider to Europe, in preparation.
Norway hydro power 25: Baseline vs NoCCS Baseline winter/spring [MWh/h] NoCCS winter/spring [MWh/h] 3 3 2 2 1 1 1 6 11 16 21 1 6 11 16 21 Baseline summer/autumn [MWh/h] NoCCS summer/autumn [MWh/h] 3 3 2 2 1 1 1 6 11 16 21 1 6 11 16 21 Day 1 Day 2 Day 3 Day 4 Day 5 Day 1 Day 2 Day 3 Day 4 Day 5 Day 6 Day 7 Day 8 Day 9 Day 1 Day 6 Day 7 Day 8 Day 9 Day 1
Solar investment cost sensitivity Solar PV investment cost [ /kw] 2 15 1 5 21 215 22 225 23 235 24 245 25 Current (high) Current (low) Installed solar PV [GW] 1 8 6 4 2 21 215 22 225 23 235 24 245 25 Installed wind [GW] 8 6 4 2 21 215 22 225 23 235 24 245 25 Installed CCS [GW] 2 15 1 5 21 215 22 225 23 235 24 245 25 Base PV high NoCCS PV high Base PV low NoCCS PV low
Solar investment cost sensitivity 2 Solar PV investment cost [ /kw] 1 Average Price [ /MWh] 15 1 5 21 215 22 225 23 235 24 245 25 Current (high) Current (low) 8 6 4 2 215 22 225 23 235 24 245 25 Base PV high NoCCS PV high Base PV low NoCCS PV low
Generation [TWh] Europe natural gas power production 12 1 8 6 Peak at 11 TWh/an (in 24) in the No CCS case 4 2 215 22 225 23 235 24 245 25 Baseline No CCS
Natural gas power production in Europe: Comparison with other recent scenarios Year Baseline* NoCCS* IEA WEO 216 Current Policies IEA WEO 216 New Policies IEA WEO 216 45 EU reference scenario 216 23 839 952 876 78 591 655 TWh 24 612 156 168 642 24 925 TWh 25 387 42 836 TWh *Europe defined as ENTSO-E members
Operation of natural gas fired-power plants I Steep ramps Results for Belgium, France, Great Britain and Germany
Operation of natural gas fired-power plants I Seasonally low utilization in No CCS case Results for Belgium, France, Great Britain and Germany
Operation of natural gas fired-power plants I Also, seasonally high utilization in No CCS case for some periods of the day Results for Belgium, France, Great Britain and Germany
Operation of natural gas fired-power plants I Some baseload generation in CCS case Results for Belgium, France, Great Britain and Germany
Operation of natural gas fired-power plants II Results for Belgium, France, Great Britain and Germany
Summary and conclusions Transmission seems to be more important than storage Flexibility has a high value, for example from hydro power With CCS coal may still play a large role in the European power sector Natural gas fired power plants with CCS is also a viable option, in particular in countries without indigenous coal resources Without CCS, natural gas continue to work as a bridge towards 25 Beyond 23 the role of gas is highly dependent on CCS deployment The highly fluctuating operation will occur regardless There has to be significant flexibility in the plants, but also in the fuel delivery Gas as baseload only with CCS Wind and solar does not seem to compete Solar plays a major role, but will not be price setting. If CCS is unavailable major impact on price. Challenge: How can system optimal investments be incentivized? Need new market design and new business models. Transition from energy to services?