LONG-TERM ENERGY MODELING
FOR THE FRENCH ELECTRICITY
SECTOR
a nuclear story
1
Edi ASSOUMOU – CMA – ETSAP meeting Firenze 2004 – http://www.cma.ensmp.fr
OBJECTIVES:
ELECTRICITY SECTOR’S MODELING ISSUES
2
Edi ASSOUMOU – CMA – ETSAP meeting Firenze 2004 – http://www.cma.ensmp.fr
Objectives : Electricity sector’s modeling issues
Overview of French electricity sector today
Electricity Generation Shares
1.4%
0.4%
4.5%
0.7%
Nuclear
Hydropower
Coal
Natural gas
Oil
Other REN
14.0%
79.0%
 Dominated today by nuclear power (79%)
 Fossil plants mainly for peak and system operation
3
Edi ASSOUMOU – CMA – ETSAP meeting Firenze 2004 – http://www.cma.ensmp.fr
Objectives : Electricity sector’s modeling issues
Difficult to bring flexibility into plants’ production criteria

For fossil plants, a recent RTE (TSO) simulation
showed: 8TWh vs. 25 - 30TWh observed
• 7 - 8TWh : dynamic constraints
25 – 8 =
• 6TWh : Adjusting nuclear unscheduled changes
• 2 - 4TWh : congestion and reserve
• 2TWh : Economic stop and go cycles decision
4
Edi ASSOUMOU – CMA – ETSAP meeting Firenze 2004 – http://www.cma.ensmp.fr
Objectives : Electricity sector’s modeling issues
Nuclear power replacement is the main driver
for the future
RESIDUAL INSTALLED CAPACITY
120000
100000
MW
80000
60000
OTHER REN
THERMAL
STOR
HYDRO
NUCLEAR
40000
20000
0
2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030

Replacement of existing capacities

Future mix: Nuclear + Hydro + Fossil + Wind ?
5
Edi ASSOUMOU – CMA – ETSAP meeting Firenze 2004 – http://www.cma.ensmp.fr
Objectives : Electricity sector’s modeling issues
The “delicate” question: Are we able to do prospective
studies for fossil plants at low production shares?

Flexibility is an important criteria for small use

Only plants that causes emissions

Impact of nuclear choices on future fossil share

Future impact of wind power production
6
Edi ASSOUMOU – CMA – ETSAP meeting Firenze 2004 – http://www.cma.ensmp.fr
Objectives : Electricity sector’s modeling issues
Milestones for this presentation: How we …?

Include flexibility in the model

Explore the effects of different nuclear choices

Include the impact of growing wind power
7
Edi ASSOUMOU – CMA – ETSAP meeting Firenze 2004 – http://www.cma.ensmp.fr
ISSUE1: FLEXIBILITY FOR FOSSIL PLANTS
SUPPLYING POWER OR ENERGY
8
Edi ASSOUMOU – CMA – ETSAP meeting Firenze 2004 – http://www.cma.ensmp.fr
Issue1: flexibility for fossil plants – supplying power or energy
We strongly underestimate fossil plants use
Electric production by resource options
600
500
TWh
400
Fossil plants
Hydro
Nuclear
300
200
100
0
TSO (1999-2001)
basic Markal

First solution: Minimum share for fossil plants

Our solution: Differentiated plant operation mode
9
Edi ASSOUMOU – CMA – ETSAP meeting Firenze 2004 – http://www.cma.ensmp.fr
Issue1: flexibility for fossil plants - supplying power or energy
Fossil plant minimum share

6% minimum of total production
PJ
FOSSIL PLANTS PRODUCTION
France 2000-2030

200
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
2000
GAS CC
GAS STEAM
COA FB_N
COA FB_R
COA STEAM
2005
2010
2015
2020
2025
2030
Good for activity - Bad for technical choice
10
Edi ASSOUMOU – CMA – ETSAP meeting Firenze 2004 – http://www.cma.ensmp.fr
Issue1: flexibility for fossil plants - supplying power or energy
Differentiated plant operation mode

A method to guide the results toward flexibility

Additional constraints for supply choice

3 steps to find new winners
(hopefully the right fossil plants!)
11
Edi ASSOUMOU – CMA – ETSAP meeting Firenze 2004 – http://www.cma.ensmp.fr
Issue1: flexibility for fossil plants - supplying power or energy
Step1: Define flexibility by needed “type” of plant
Maximum length (hours)
8760
Base
Semi-base
Peak

Semi-base2
6000
Semi-base1
Peak
4000
2000
Strong peak
800
Extreme peak
200
Frequency based definition
12
Edi ASSOUMOU – CMA – ETSAP meeting Firenze 2004 – http://www.cma.ensmp.fr
Issue1: flexibility for fossil plants - supplying power or energy
Step2: Quantify the need of each “type” of plant
LOAD CURVE
Area is extreme peak production
80000
70000
Area is peak production
50000
40000
30000
20000
10000
277
265
253
241
229
217
205
193
181
169
157
145
133
121
109
97
85
73
61
49
37
25
13
0
1
Power MW
60000
Hours
13
Edi ASSOUMOU – CMA – ETSAP meeting Firenze 2004 – http://www.cma.ensmp.fr
Issue1: flexibility for fossil plants - supplying power or energy
Step3: Allow competition to fulfil those needs

Duplicating technologies database for competition
in each supply segment

Specific hour constraints for each database
14
Edi ASSOUMOU – CMA – ETSAP meeting Firenze 2004 – http://www.cma.ensmp.fr
Issue1: flexibility for fossil plants - supplying power or energy
Result: Thermal production
FOSSIL PLANTS PRODUCTION
France 2000-2030
250
200
COA FB_N
GAS CC
GAS STEAM
OIL
COA FB_R
COA STEAM
PJ
150
100
50
0
2000

2005
2010
2015
2020
2025
2030
Effective use of residual peaking plants
15
Edi ASSOUMOU – CMA – ETSAP meeting Firenze 2004 – http://www.cma.ensmp.fr
Issue1: flexibility for fossil plants - supplying power or energy
Result: Additional information
Normal, strong and extreme peak production
ELECTRICITY PRODUCTION FOR PEAK
France 2000-2030
80
70
GAS CC20
GAS CC10
GAS CC
GAS STEAM
OIL
COA FB_R
STOR
60
PJ
50
40
30
20
10
0
2000
2005
2010
2015
2020
2025
2030
16
Edi ASSOUMOU – CMA – ETSAP meeting Firenze 2004 – http://www.cma.ensmp.fr
ISSUE2: ALTERNATIVE NUCLEAR FUTURE
SCENARIO SIMULATION
17
Edi ASSOUMOU – CMA – ETSAP meeting Firenze 2004 – http://www.cma.ensmp.fr
Issue2: alternative nuclear future – scenario simulation
Common hypotheses

Time horizon: 2000-2030

Discount rate: 5%

Fuel cost: Conservative UE prospective

Trade: Fixed 252 PJ electricity exportation

Renewable: 21% of domestic demand in 2010

Demand: RTE (TSO’s) aggregated scenario
18
Edi ASSOUMOU – CMA – ETSAP meeting Firenze 2004 – http://www.cma.ensmp.fr
Issue2: alternative nuclear future – scenario simulation
Simplified view of the supply competition MARKAL model
Sources
IMPCOAL
IMPFUL
CON
Coal
Fuel
IMPGAS
Gas
IMPURN
Uranium
DMD
Coal
ELC
Fuel
ELC
Gas
ELC
Nuclear
ELC
Hydro
ELC
Wind
ELC
Aggregated
demand
DMDELC
EXPELC
Hydro
Storage
ELC
ELC
19
Edi ASSOUMOU – CMA – ETSAP meeting Firenze 2004 – http://www.cma.ensmp.fr
Issue2: alternative nuclear future – scenario simulation
Simulated scenarios

Reference scenario: Nuclear no limit
No limit on future nuclear development

Alternative scenario: “Low” nuclear share
By 2030, 50% max. of domestic demand
20
Edi ASSOUMOU – CMA – ETSAP meeting Firenze 2004 – http://www.cma.ensmp.fr
Issue2: alternative nuclear future – scenario simulation
Results : Nuclear no limit
ELECTRICITY SUPPLY France 2000-2030
Nuclear no limit
2500
2000
OIL
GAS STEAM
GAS CC
IGCC
FB
COA STEAM
HYD2
WIND
EPR
LWR
HYD1
PJ
1500
1000
500
0
2000
2005
2010
2015
2020
2025
2030
21
Edi ASSOUMOU – CMA – ETSAP meeting Firenze 2004 – http://www.cma.ensmp.fr
Issue2: alternative nuclear future – scenario simulation
Remarks: Nuclear no limit

Fossil plants still have a small share
But ...

Is the EPR growth feasible?

Is the subsequent wind power production coherent
with thermal plants share?
22
Edi ASSOUMOU – CMA – ETSAP meeting Firenze 2004 – http://www.cma.ensmp.fr
Issue2: alternative nuclear future – scenario simulation
Result : “Low” nuclear share
ELECTRICITY SUPPLY France 2000-2030
Low nuclear share
2500
2000
OIL
GAS STEAM
GAS CC
IGCC
FB
COA STEAM
HYD2
WIND
EPR
LWR
HYD1
PJ
1500
1000
500
0
2000
2005
2010
2015
2020
2025
2030
23
Edi ASSOUMOU – CMA – ETSAP meeting Firenze 2004 – http://www.cma.ensmp.fr
Issue2: alternative nuclear future – scenario simulation
Remarks : “Low” nuclear share

Fossil plants do have a more consistent share now
But

Wind power: Is the new fossil plants production
more coherent with wind power growth ?

Emissions: New emission constraints for growing
FP share!
24
Edi ASSOUMOU – CMA – ETSAP meeting Firenze 2004 – http://www.cma.ensmp.fr
ISSUE3: WIND POWER IMPACT
25
Edi ASSOUMOU – CMA – ETSAP meeting Firenze 2004 – http://www.cma.ensmp.fr
Issue3: assessing wind power impact
Advantages for EU renewable targets and wind power
limits

A great wind power potential : around 27 GW
Wind power: the designed “hero” for renewables

Balancing WP and need for adjusting plants
A real system operation concern
26
Edi ASSOUMOU – CMA – ETSAP meeting Firenze 2004 – http://www.cma.ensmp.fr
Issue3: assessing wind power impact
Modeling with a fixed capacity factor: What errors we
make with growing WP share?

WP creates new flexibility requirement

The new order of magnitude can be decisive for
small fossil plants share

Our approach: Modify WP impacts in MARKAL
27
Edi ASSOUMOU – CMA – ETSAP meeting Firenze 2004 – http://www.cma.ensmp.fr
Issue3: assessing wind power impact
Include WP effects on plants’ operation mode

TSO: Can ’t help
WP effect

S2
0
S1
0
P
0
SP
0
XP
0
P
+
SP
+
XP
+
P
-
SP
-
XP
-
AVOID C: Strongly helps
WP effect

Base
+
Base
+
S2
+
S1
+
INTERM: Contrasted reality
WP effect
Base
+
S2
+
S1
+
28
Edi ASSOUMOU – CMA – ETSAP meeting Firenze 2004 – http://www.cma.ensmp.fr
Issue3: assessing wind power impact
Quantifying the intermediate view: INTERM

Frequency shares : “one for one rule”
Repartition curve for Wind production
180
160
HOURS
140
X
PF
P
S1
S2
BASE
Puissance MW
120
100
80
60
40
%
200
800
2000
4000
6000
8760
1.654%
5.148%
10.240%
17.147%
23.187%
42.624%
20
0
1
471 941 1411 1881 2351 2821 3291 3761 4231 4701 5171 5641 6111 6581 7051 7521 7991 8461
29
Edi ASSOUMOU – CMA – ETSAP meeting Firenze 2004 – http://www.cma.ensmp.fr
Issue3: assessing wind power impact
Results (1)- Nuclear no limit + WP impact
WP and thermal plants production
WIND POWER & FOSSIL PLANTS PRODUCTION
600
500
400
FOSSIL
WIND
300
200
100
0
2000
2005
2010
2015
2020
2025
2030
2000
2005
2010
2015
2020
2025
2030
2000
2005
2010
2015
2020
2025
2030
PJ

TSO
AVOIDC
INTERM
30
Edi ASSOUMOU – CMA – ETSAP meeting Firenze 2004 – http://www.cma.ensmp.fr
Issue3: assessing wind power impact
WIND POWER & FOSSIL PLANTS PRODUCTION
Results (1)- Nuclear no limit + WP impact
600

WP and thermal plants production
500
FOSSIL
WIND
300
200
100
0
2000
2005
2010
2015
2020
2025
2030
2000
2005
2010
2015
2020
2025
2030
2000
2005
2010
2015
2020
2025
2030
PJ
400
TSO
AVOIDC
INTERM
Edi ASSOUMOU – CMA – ETSAP meeting Firenze 2004 – http://www.cma.ensmp.fr
31
Issue3: assessing wind power impact
Results (2)- Technical choices for production
Thermal plants technologies
THERMAL PLANTS PRODUCTION
100%
OIL
GAS STEAM
GAS CC
IGCC
FBN
FBR
COA STEAM
80%
60%
%
40%
20%
TSO
AVOIDC
2000
2005
2010
2015
2020
2025
2030
2000
2005
2010
2015
2020
2025
2030
0%
2000
2005
2010
2015
2020
2025
2030

INTERM
32
Edi ASSOUMOU – CMA – ETSAP meeting Firenze 2004 – http://www.cma.ensmp.fr
Issue3: assessing wind power impact
THERMAL PLANTS PRODUCTION
100%
 80% Thermal plants technologies
OIL
GAS STEAM
GAS CC
IGCC
FBN
FBR
COA STEAM
%
60%
40%
20%
TSO
AVOIDC
2000
2005
2010
2015
2020
2025
2030
2000
2005
2010
2015
2020
2025
2030
2000
2005
2010
2015
2020
2025
2030
0%
INTERM
33
Edi ASSOUMOU – CMA – ETSAP meeting Firenze 2004 – http://www.cma.ensmp.fr
Concluding remarks

Used alone, MARKAL can give meaningful
insights for the identified issues for France
With small fossil plants supply share in France, a better representation of
criteria for plants selection is crucial to be sound

The flexible RES can be a powerful tool for
problems formulation & knowledge management
 We need energy, flexibility and environment at low cost
 Nuclear produces base electricity at low cost, sets the “scale” for fossil
plants supply and emits wastes;
 Wind power supply green electricity, “emits” flexibility
 Fossil plants, provides decentralized flexibility and emits GHG

As new modelers, this study points the modeling
risks and the limited solutions
34
Edi ASSOUMOU – CMA – ETSAP meeting Firenze 2004 – http://www.cma.ensmp.fr