100% renewable electricity by 2050 - diw · 100% renewable electricity by 2050 dlr-scenarios for...

1

100% Renewable Electricity by 2050 DLR-Scenarios for the SRU

Dr. Christian Hey

German Advisory Council on the Environment (SRU)/

European Environment and Sustainable Development Councils (EEAC)

CPI Berlin Seminar on Energy and Climate Policy Berlin, May 6th 2010

Thank you for invitation;

.

2

The German Advisory Council on the Environment

2

Overview

• The SRU and its task• Why 100% renewable electricity by 2050?• Methodology: Potential, Scenarios • The potential• Hourly results for 2050• The transition• The costs in comparison• The bottlenecks• Conclusions

33


3

Independent, scientific Council nominated byFederal Cabinet

7 University Professors (Natural Sciences, Engineering, Economics, Law, PoliticalSciences)

Broad Mandate: Early warning on negative trends, new ideas for environmental policy, inform the wider public

Active Member of EEAC

The German Advisory Council on the Environment: Scientific Policy Advice since 1971

My Council is an Independent, scientific and interdisciplinary CouncilConsisting of 7 university professors and a scientific staff of 20 scientists,

The Council is established by the Federal German Governent

As watchdog, with an early warning function and as sciencebased „judge“ in the political debate on environmental issues;

4


4

The Challenge: full decarbonisation

WBGU, 2009: Solving the Climate Dilemma: the Budget Approach

If we take the 2 degrees guardrail as starting point – and fair distribution of per capita emissions – we come to radicaltransformation needs; Electricity Sector easiest to switch to low carbon sources ; sector withlong lead-times; early decisions necessary in order to avoid lock-in

55


5compatibity?

RenewableEnergy

GridStorage

X

CoalwithoutCCS

Missing climatetargets

Fossil withCCS

CostStorageCapacity

Containment

Nuclear

Acceptanceof Risk

ResourcesWaste

X?

Renewable Electricity as the least controversialand most sustainable option for decarbonisation

Starting point of our scenarios:

Other technological options for decarbonisation have seriousshortcomingsAt best: intermediate options

Only sustainable solution: Renewables

Therefore question: can they manage?

6


6

Methodology of DLR Scenarios for SRU: a backcasting approach

Inventory of RessourcesGIS, C

Linear OptimisationGAMS (General Algebraic Modeling System)

Power Needs and LoadGIS, C

REMix-Europe(Renewable Energy Mix for Sustainable Electricity Supply in Europe)

Key point: adopt a backcasting approach;

Design an optimal REN Mix in 2050

3 Key Elements: -GIS based Potential analysis for EUNA: identification of mustsuitable areas/Identification of excluded areas/ assumption on max . Use of remaining areas

-An hourly model of demand in 2050

- A linear optimisation model: aiming at most cost-effectivecombination of ren sources and storage options for fluctuatingdemand

7


7

Key Assumption: Learning Cost Curves – in themiddle range of literature (Abbildung 4-27)

0,00

0,05

0,10

0,15

0,20

0,25

0,30

0,35

0,40

0,45

0,50

2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050

€/k

Wh

Jahr

Photovoltaik

Biomasse gesamt

Wind Offshore

Wind Onshore

Wasserkraft gesamt

Geothermie

Key Component: Learning cost curves: -Cost for many ren reduce with market penetration – as result of ECS and learning effects;

- Assumptions on learning cost curve in the middle range of estimatesin literature, partly even conservative

8


8

Low cost potential (<5ct/Kwh) at 45 000 TWh in EUNA (ca. factor 8-10 of forecast demand)

Forecast Demand

Low cost potential

A first result:

Low Cost Economic Potential in EUNA is high

9


9

100% renewable electricity8 scenarios

Scenario 3.bDE-EUNA-85 % SS-700

Scenario 3.aDE-EUNA-85 % SS-500

Max 15% Net importfrom EUNA

Scenario 2.2.bDE-NO/DK-85 % SS-700

Scenario 2.2.aDE-NO/DK-85 % SS-500

Max 15% Net importfrom DK/NO

Scenario 2.1.bDE-NO/DK-100 % SS-700

Scenario 2.1.aDE-NO/DK-100 % SS-500

Net self-sufficiency including tradewith DK/NO

Scenario 1.bDE-100 % SS-700

Scenario 1.aDE-100 % SS-500

Self-Sufficiency

Demand Germany 2050: 700 TWh

Demand Germany 2050: 500 TWh

8 Scenarios:

Logic: start with an extremely conservative and restrictive theoreticalassumption: Electrical Island Germany as theoretical reference – than graduallyopen to European Market

Check both cost for an efficiency world and for a high demand worldallowing for the electrification of other sectors

10


10

System Cost can be kept below 7ct/Kwh,if stabilisation of electricity consumtion and/or some trade

0,00

2,00

4,00

6,00

8,00

10,00

12,00

ct/kWh

1.a: DE-100% SV-

500

2.1.a: DE-NO/DK-100%

SV-500

2.2.a: DE-NO/DK-85%

SV-500

3.a: DE-EUNA-85%

SV-500

1.b: DE-100% SV-

700

2.1.b: DE-NO/DK-100%

SV700

2.2.b: DE-NO/DK-85%

SV-700Szenario

Zusammensetzung der Stromgestehungskosten pro kWh für Deutschland (2050)

Importierte ElektrizitätDruckluftspeicherPumpspeicherSpeicherwasserLaufwasserBiogas KWKBiomasse KWKBiomasseGeo KWKGeothermieWind – OffWind – OnPhotovoltaik

7,0 ct/kWh

0,00

2,00

4,00

6,00

8,00

10,00

12,00

ct/kWh

1.a: DE-100% SV-

500

2.1.a: DE-NO/DK-100%

SV-500

2.2.a: DE-NO/DK-85%

SV-500

3.a: DE-EUNA-85%

SV-500

1.b: DE-100% SV-

700

2.1.b: DE-NO/DK-100%

SV700

2.2.b: DE-NO/DK-85%

SV-700Szenario

Zusammensetzung der Stromgestehungskosten pro kWh für Deutschland (2050)

Importierte ElektrizitätDruckluftspeicherPumpspeicherSpeicherwasserLaufwasserBiogas KWKBiomasse KWKBiomasseGeo KWKGeothermieWind – OffWind – OnPhotovoltaik

Interesting results:

Electricity Island Germany is technically feasible but expensive

High demand can be met but it is expensive

Major leap forward by Nordic cooperation: Reduces considerably costand Is less cost-elastic to high demand

A Nordic Scenario is slightly cheaper than the European Scenario: ifall countries make use of the nordic storage potential – someadditional storage takes place on basis of more expensivetechnologies (CAES)

11


11

The cost in comparison to a conventional supply scenario (Germany)

S pec ific elc tric ity c os t over time (S z enario 2.1a)

0

5

10

15

20

2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050

J ahr

€ ce

nt/k

Wh

K onventionelle E nerg ieträ ger (L eits tudie 2008, S zenario A)

E rneuerba re E nerg ien (inkl. S peicher & Tra ns port)

Anteil S peicher & Trans port

K onventionelle E nerg ieträ ger( L eits tudie 2008 S zena rio B )

HVD C innerha lb D euts chlands

E rneruerba re E nerg ien (inkl. S peicher, nationalem und interna tionalemHVD C Trans port)

Cost of conventional electricity high price scenario

Cost of conventional electricitymoderate price scenario

Costs of renewables including storage,

international transport and national grid

enforcement

Costs of renewables including storage and international transport

International transport

Additional national grid costs

Overall cost for REN may be lower than for conventional power:

Simple reason: no fuel demand – as fuel becomes more expensiveover time, cónventional power becomes more expensive

Whereas REN cost go down as consequence of learning cost curve

So early decision in REN future is investment for a low cost future ..

12


12

Hourly results 2050 DE-DK-N100% national production, 15% exchange

Scenario 2.1.a: DE-DK-NO 100% EE / 100% SV, max. 15% exchange / 509 TWh

-80000

-40000

0

40000

80000

120000

160000

1 1001 2001 3001 4001 5001 6001 7001 8001

hour

MW

Hydrogen dischargingCAES dischargingPumped hydro dischargingResidual loadCSPPVWind offshoreWind onshoreGaseous biomassSolid biomassHydro ReservoirRun off river hydroGeothermal, CHPGeothermalSurplusPumped hydro chargingCAES ChargingHydrogen chargingLoad

Norwegian pump storage reduces costs and overproduction

… also security of supply is ensured: at each our fluctuationg supplymeets demand

As you see from scenario 2.1: key role plays norwegian pump storagecapacity

See good preconditions:

Conventional hydropower: 84 TWH in Norway

Many cascade types of lakes – easy conversion –

Bottleneck is: grid and planning security

Little doubt: interesting business concept for Statkraft!

13


13

TEN-E Needs by 2050 and the key role of the nordic „power house“

DK

NO

SE

PL

FR

UKIE

ES

PT

DE

CH/LIAT

IT

CZ

NL

BELU

EE/LT/LV

AL/CS/MK

BA/HR/SI

BG

CY

FI

GR

HU

SK

MT

RO

TR

U/MD

BY

DZMA

TN

LY EG

20,3

Maximale Transportkapazitäten in GW (Szenario 3a)

26,8

52,2

115,7

20,35,1

2,2 4,089,4

73,4

48,7

45,1

14,4

16,8

18,5

26,911,3

20,5

86,8

81,6

40,921,9

17,1

19,1

8,9

12,2

8,3

9,0

42,3

4,9

18,5

3,7

9,1

4,7

3,0

61,4

11,2

3,6

8,6

5,4

3,7

18,9

5,6

2,1

2,1

3,0

6,2

6,62,6

4,6

5,5

9,43,4

4,9

10,1

8,8

This gives you an impression of the GRID needs for the EUNA Scenario – only assuming for all EU countries the same trade-intensity as for Germany

14


14

Development of renewable energy mix in Germany until 2050

Entwicklung der Bruttostromerzeugung 2005 bis 2050 konventionelle Erzeugung und regenerative Energiequellen (für 509 TWh/a in 2050)

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050

Jahr

TWh/

a

KernE BK SKEG Sonstige konventionelle Energieträger Wasserkraft gesamtWind Onshore Wind Offshore Biomasse gesamtPV Geothermie Zubau ErdgasZubau Steinkohle Zubau Braunkohle

Modelled Transition for Germany: Simple intrapolation – no economic optimisation:

Assumption: 35 years of economic life time of a power installation

Result: continue capacity growth rate of last decade for next decade

If Meseberg targets are assumed: less than 6 GW capacity increaseannually . This can be managed;

15


15

Fluctuating supply overstretches nuclearplant flexibility already in 2020

Nuclear ca. 20 GW

Complete run down below 10 GW

A final remark to the compatibility of conventional power withrenewables: This is a 2020 situation: What you see here – maximum nuclear flexibility (10GW will be) veryfrequently needed – but quite offen – full nuclear capacity has to berun down:

If you stick to priority REN access – frequent run downs of nuclearplants may eat up parts of the lifetime dividend – and also may cause safety concerns;

An attractive solution for nuclear power might be – to stop volatile renewables at peak supply hours

In any case there will be at least an economic problem from 2020 onwards – and later certainly a technical problem to maintaincoexistence between intermitting and conventional sources

16


16

6 Conclusions

• 100% renewable electricity is achievable by 2050, while ensuring security of supply at competitive cost

• Transitional higher cost compared to conventional system is investment in the least cost solution

• (Offshore) Wind energy will be the most important single contributor

• Pumpstorage capacities in Scandinavia will play a critical role in balancing supply and demand

• A transition without new coal and without longer nuclear lifetimes can be modelled

• High shares of conventional baseload power will conflict with intermitting renewable energy from 2020 onwards

That are some key conclusions of our scenarios!

In late autumn we will publish our special report, which then assessesecononmic instruments and policy approaches to steer thetransformation within a European context.

17


17

Füllstand der norwegischen Speicherwasserkapazität mit Ein- und Ausspeicherung aus Szenario 2.1 für 2050

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51

Zeit [Woche]

Ener

giem

enge

[TW

h]

NO real 2008 Minimaler Speicherfüllstand 1990-2007 Maximaler Speicherfüllstand 1990-2008Szenario 2.1a Szenario 2.1b

Pumpstorage in Norway: Load Management needsare anticyclical to natural fluctuation of hydropower

capacity

Max. Füllstand 84 TWh

Min. Füllstand 0 TWh

100% renewable electricity by 2050 - diw · 100% renewable electricity by 2050 dlr-scenarios for...

Documents