EMF28 model comparison: The effects of technology choices on EU climate policy
AMPERE Stakeholder Workshop 12 June 2013, Brussels
Brigitte Knopf (PIK)
Brigitte Knopf, Yen‐Heng Henry Chen, Enrica De Cian, Hannah Förster, Amit Kanudia, Ioanna Karkatsouli, Ilkka Keppo, Tiina Koljonen, Katja Schumacher, Detlef P. van Vuuren
Brigitte Knopf
EMF28 Model Comparison on the European Energy Transformation
• Putting the EU Energy Roadmap into perspective: Model comparision with 12 models (including PRIMES)
• Core scenarios: • BASE: no policy baseline
• 40%DEF: Reference with 40% reduction until 2050
• 80%DEF: Mitigation with 80% reduction until 2050
• Sensitivity analysis with a set of technology scenarios (similar to
those in the EU Energy Roadmap)
• Sensitivity analysis with different levels of global participation
• Evaluation of infrastructure requirements
Brigitte Knopf
2
Primary Energy 2030
90% interval
50% interval
Oil
Gas
Coal
Foss‐CCS Nuclear
Bio
Other renew
•
Compared to BASE: already strucutural change until 2030
•
Technology strategy is robust across models
•
Until 2030: strategy does not depend strongly on the level of ambition
Brigitte Knopf
3
Primary Energy 2050
90% interval
50% interval
Oil
Gas
Coal
Foss‐CCS Nuclear
Bio
Other renew
•
The major structural change in the years 2040‐2050: considerable upscaling is
required for some technologies for 80%DEF
•
Phase‐out of coal w/o CCS; strong increase of bioenergy and other renewables
Brigitte Knopf
4
Electricity Mix 2050
90% interval
50% interval
Nuclear Foss‐CCS
•
Bio
Hydro
Solar
Wind
In the power sector, wind will become the most important renewable
energy; wind catches up with today‘s level of nuclear deployment
Brigitte Knopf
5
Costs for different technology settings
•
Cost are low until 2030 but increase by 2050
•
Scenario without CCS (and w/o nuclear) is possible at limited additional costs
•
Difference between models is more significant than technology setting
Brigitte Knopf
6
Cost of Mitigation: The effect of international cooperation
Global but separated
participation
Fully integrated
carbon market
GDP reduction [%]
EU alone
80% reduction
Decreasing costs with increasing cooperation
Costs of 80%DEF vs. 40%DEF
Brigitte Knopf
EU Green paper: A 2030 framework for climate and energy policies
Two indicative numbers in the green paper refer to the EU Energy and Climate Roadmaps:
•
•
•
By 2030 GHG emissions would need to be reduced by 40% in the EU to be on track to reach a GHG reduction of between 80‐95% by 2050, consistent with the internationally agreed target to limit atmospheric warming to below 2°C.
For renewables, the policy scenarios in the Energy Roadmap 2050 indicate a share of around 30% in 2030. Higher shares of renewable energy, energy efficiency improvements and better and smarter energy infrastructure are "no regrets" options for transforming the EU's energy system.
EU Commission 2013
Brigitte Knopf
8
CO2 reduction against 1990 [%]
EU 2030 targets: GHG and CO2 reduction
x PRIMES
•
Models show higher reduction than 20% by 2020 •
GHG reduction of 40% by 2030 is in line with what the other models say
Brigitte Knopf
9
EU 2030 targets: Renewable energy
Share of renewables at primary energy (NOT final energy!)
2020
2030
2050
•
Renewables share varies considerably with technology setting
•
PRIMES is at the upper level of all models
•
Models consider only the objective of GHG mitigation
Brigitte Knopf
x PRIMES
10
Infrastructure requirements with increasing
share of renewables
40%DEF
2050
80%DEF
•
Grid expansion is a no regret option
•
Investment in generation dwarfs infrastructure investment Brigitte Knopf
Bakken et al. (2013), Sintef
Conclusions
•
With some exceptions EMF28 supports the main findings of the EU Energy
Roadmap
•
Energy efficiency is key; bioenergy is the major game changer in the energy
system and wind in the power system; CCS is not mandatory
•
The major challenge is the technology upscaling in the years 2040‐2050
•
Costs are below 0.7% until 2030 and below 2.3% until 2040. However, in some models costs increase substantially after 2040. •
Global participation decreases costs considerably
•
EU 2030 framework: a GHG reduction of 40% by 2030 is in line with what the models say; a share of renewables of 30% as in the Energy Roadmap is at the upper level compared to the other models
•
Infrastructure expansion is necessary for integrating the increasing share of variable renewables. Grid expansion is a no‐regret option
Brigitte Knopf
12
BACKUP
Brigitte Knopf
References
•
Knopf, Brigitte; Yen‐Heng Henry Chen, Enrica De Cian, Hannah Förster, Amit Kanudia, Ioanna Karkatsouli, Ilkka Keppo , Tiina Koljonen, Katja Schumacher, Detlef P. van Vuuren. Beyond 2020 ‐ Strategies and costs for transforming the European energy system. Overview paper of the EMF28 model comparison of the EU Energy
Roadmap, submitted to Climate Change Economics
•
Knopf, Brigitte; Bjorn Bakken, Samuel Carrara, Amit Kanudia, Ilkka Keppo, Tiina
Koljonen, Silvana Mima, Eva Schmid, Detlef van Vuuren. Transforming the energy
system: The relationship between Europe and its Member States. Paper of the
EMF28 model comparison of the EU Energy Roadmap, submitted to Climate Change Economics
Brigitte Knopf
14
Huge diversity across Member States is
important for the design of policy instruments
Share of primary energy in 2050 for 80%DEF
EU value
Brigitte Knopf
15
Models only take into account the objective of
GHG reduction
• Descrepancy between models results and actual renewable
deployment, especially for solar PV
• Multiple‐objectives are not taken into account
• The effect of policy instruments is not covered
Brigitte Knopf
16
Infrastructure Requirements 2050 80%DEF
•
Grid expansion is a no regret option
•
Investment in generation dwarfs infrastructure investment Brigitte Knopf
Bakken et al. (2013), Sintef