energy and climate policyj-t.o.oo7.jp/kougi/gep/20190115nakayama.pdf · oil and gas production...
TRANSCRIPT
Energy and Climate Policy
Sumie Nakayama
Jan. 15, 2019
Contents
Energy Trend and Outlook
International Climate Policy Climate Change
Gap between 2Degree Scenario and Reality
Power Sector Low Carbonization: Variable Renewable Energy and Flexibility
Power Sector Low Carbonization: Case Study in Japan
2
ENERGY TREND AND OUTLOOK (IEA WORLD ENERGY OUTLOOK)
Energy Trend: Demand, CO2 and Fossil
Energy demand has been increasing for more than 45 years.
Energy-related CO2 also has been increasing at higher rate.
The share of fossil energy to total energy (in heat value) has remained over 80%.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
エネ
ルギ
ー起
源C
O2排
出量
（G
t） 総エネルギー需要
エネルギー起源
CO2排出量
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020
総エ
ネル
ギー
需要
（G
toe）
総エネルギー需要
エネルギー起源CO2
排出量
化石燃料割合
Change in energy demand, CO2 emissions and fossil share (1971-2015)
Energy demand
Energy-related
CO2 emissions
Share of fossil
energy
En
erg
y D
em
an
d (
Gto
e)
En
erg
y-r
ela
ted
CO
2 e
mis
sio
ns (
Gt)
4Source: IEA “CO2 emissions from fuel combustion 2015” CD-ROM data
Among fossil fuels, share of Oil is declining while share of gas is increasing and share of coal increased in 2000s followed by decrease.
Share of renewables has been increasing since late 2000s.
Source: BP Statistical Review of World Energy 2018
Shares of global primary energy consumption
5
Source: BP Statistical Review of World Energy 2018
Energy Trend : Primary energy by energy resource
Supply of all the energy resources have increased in the last 25 years.
The growth rate of coal were higher than others in 2000s. Mtoe
6
Renewable energy trend
The growth of renewable energy is faster than increase of energy consumption.
Traditional biomass (firewood, animal waste) still remains the largest source of renewables.
7Source: IEA “Word Energy Outlook 2018”
Power generation trend
Global electricity demand ha increased around 70% from 2000 to 2017.
Power mix remains dominated by fossil fuel, especially coal even with growth in renewables.
8Source: IEA “Word Energy Outlook 2018”
Source: BP Statistical Review of World Energy 2018
Primary energy regional consumption by fuel 2017
9
Source: BP Statistical Review of World Energy 2018
Fuel consumption by region 2017
10
34%
16%
23%
9%
29%
32%
38%
42%
69%
75%
8%
1%
2%
1%
1%
1%
4%
1%
39%
48%
19%
42%
7%
33%
23%
13%
3%
5%
2%
18%
26%
21%
0%
20%
10%
13%
3%
3%
8%
17%
11%
0%
6%
16%
4%
19%
9%
3%
6%
10%
18%
2%
2%
9%
1%
3%
0%
9%
11%
42%
5%
4%
12%
4%
3%
5%
3%
3%
2%
6%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Japan
Russia
EU
UK
Denmark
USA
World
Germany
China
India
Coal Oil Gas Nuclear Hydro Biomass Wind PV OtherRE
Coal is supplying 38%, the largest share of world total power generation.
Especially in China and India, coal share is approximately 70%.
Power generation portfolio （2016）
Source: IEA ”World Energy Outlook 2018”, IEA ”Electricity Information 2018”
5%
3%
11
Source: BP” Statistical Review of World Energy 2018”
Characteristics of Fossil Energy
OilPrice is expensive and volatile. Reserve is limited and intensively located in Middle East.
CoalPrice is inexpensive and stable. Reserve is the largest and broadly distributed all over the world
GasPrice is between oil and coal and less volatile than oil. Reserve distribution is more broader than oil.
Source: Trade Statistics of Japan
Historical market price of fossil fuels in Japan
Source: IEA WEO2014
13.3%5.6%
25.0%
19.5%
4.2%
1.4%
9.3%
32.1%
31.3%
47.6%40.9%
0.1%
7.5%
7.1%
1.3%
2.8%10.0%
41.0%
Oil Natural Gas Coal
Asia Pacific
Africa
Middle East
Europe & Eurasia
S. & Cent. America
North America
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018
Oil ＬＮＧ Coal
(￥/1
000k
cal)
Geographical distribution of fossil fuels
12
Energy Trend: Change in geography, record and outlook
In 2000, more than 40% of global demand was in Europe & North America and some
20% in developing economies in Asia. By 2040, this situation is completely reversed.
Energy Demand
2000
1 000 2 000 3 000 4 000
United States
European Union
China
Africa
India
Southeast Asia
Middle East
Mtoe
2001
1 000 2 000 3 000 4 000
United States
European Union
China
Africa
India
Southeast Asia
Middle East
Mtoe
2002
1 000 2 000 3 000 4 000
United States
European Union
China
Africa
India
Southeast Asia
Middle East
Mtoe
2003
1 000 2 000 3 000 4 000
United States
European Union
China
Africa
India
Southeast Asia
Middle East
Mtoe
2004
1 000 2 000 3 000 4 000
United States
European Union
China
Africa
India
Southeast Asia
Middle East
Mtoe
2005
1 000 2 000 3 000 4 000
United States
European Union
China
Africa
India
Middle East
Southeast Asia
Mtoe
2006
1 000 2 000 3 000 4 000
United States
China
European Union
Africa
India
Middle East
Southeast Asia
Mtoe
2007
1 000 2 000 3 000 4 000
United States
China
European Union
Africa
India
Middle East
Southeast Asia
Mtoe
2008
1 000 2 000 3 000 4 000
United States
China
European Union
Africa
India
Middle East
Southeast Asia
Mtoe
2009
1 000 2 000 3 000 4 000
China
United States
European Union
Africa
India
Middle East
Southeast Asia
Mtoe
2010
1 000 2 000 3 000 4 000
China
United States
European Union
India
Africa
Middle East
Southeast Asia
Mtoe
2011
1 000 2 000 3 000 4 000
China
United States
European Union
India
Africa
Middle East
Southeast Asia
Mtoe
2012
1 000 2 000 3 000 4 000
China
United States
European Union
India
Africa
Middle East
Southeast Asia
Mtoe
2013
1 000 2 000 3 000 4 000
China
United States
European Union
India
Africa
Middle East
Southeast Asia
Mtoe
2014
1 000 2 000 3 000 4 000
China
United States
European Union
India
Africa
Middle East
Southeast Asia
Mtoe
2015
1 000 2 000 3 000 4 000
China
United States
European Union
India
Africa
Middle East
Southeast Asia
Mtoe
2016
1 000 2 000 3 000 4 000
China
United States
European Union
India
Africa
Middle East
Southeast Asia
Mtoe
2017
1 000 2 000 3 000 4 000
China
United States
European Union
India
Africa
Middle East
Southeast Asia
Mtoe
2018
1 000 2 000 3 000 4 000
China
United States
European Union
India
Africa
Middle East
Southeast Asia
Mtoe
2019
1 000 2 000 3 000 4 000
China
United States
European Union
India
Africa
Middle East
Southeast Asia
Mtoe
2020
1 000 2 000 3 000 4 000
China
United States
European Union
India
Africa
Middle East
Southeast Asia
Mtoe
2021
1 000 2 000 3 000 4 000
China
United States
European Union
India
Africa
Middle East
Southeast Asia
Mtoe
2022
1 000 2 000 3 000 4 000
China
United States
European Union
India
Africa
Middle East
Southeast Asia
Mtoe
2023
1 000 2 000 3 000 4 000
China
United States
European Union
India
Africa
Middle East
Southeast Asia
Mtoe
2024
1 000 2 000 3 000 4 000
China
United States
European Union
India
Africa
Middle East
Southeast Asia
Mtoe
2025
1 000 2 000 3 000 4 000
China
United States
European Union
India
Africa
Middle East
Southeast Asia
Mtoe
2026
1 000 2 000 3 000 4 000
China
United States
European Union
India
Africa
Middle East
Southeast Asia
Mtoe
2027
1 000 2 000 3 000 4 000
China
United States
European Union
India
Africa
Middle East
Southeast Asia
Mtoe
2028
1 000 2 000 3 000 4 000
China
United States
European Union
India
Africa
Middle East
Southeast Asia
Mtoe
2029
1 000 2 000 3 000 4 000
China
United States
European Union
India
Africa
Middle East
Southeast Asia
Mtoe
2030
1 000 2 000 3 000 4 000
China
United States
India
European Union
Africa
Middle East
Southeast Asia
Mtoe
2031
1 000 2 000 3 000 4 000
China
United States
India
European Union
Africa
Middle East
Southeast Asia
Mtoe
2032
1 000 2 000 3 000 4 000
China
United States
India
European Union
Africa
Middle East
Southeast Asia
Mtoe
2033
1 000 2 000 3 000 4 000
China
United States
India
European Union
Africa
Middle East
Southeast Asia
Mtoe
2034
1 000 2 000 3 000 4 000
China
United States
India
European Union
Africa
Middle East
Southeast Asia
Mtoe
2035
1 000 2 000 3 000 4 000
China
United States
India
European Union
Africa
Middle East
Southeast Asia
Mtoe
2036
1 000 2 000 3 000 4 000
China
United States
India
European Union
Africa
Middle East
Southeast Asia
Mtoe
2037
1 000 2 000 3 000 4 000
China
United States
India
European Union
Africa
Middle East
Southeast Asia
Mtoe
2038
1 000 2 000 3 000 4 000
China
United States
India
European Union
Africa
Middle East
Southeast Asia
Mtoe
2039
1 000 2 000 3 000 4 000
China
United States
India
European Union
Africa
Middle East
Southeast Asia
Mtoe
2040
1 000 2 000 3 000 4 000
China
United States
India
Africa
European Union
Middle East
Southeast Asia
Mtoe
2040
1 000 2 000 3 000 4 000
China
United States
India
Africa
European Union
Middle East
Southeast Asia
Mtoe
13Source: IEA “Word Energy Outlook 2018”
Oil and gas production outlook for selected countries
The rise in US production of tight oil and shale gas since 2010 is the largest parallel increase in oil and gas output in history
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
2000 2010 2020 2030 2040
mb
oe
/d
United States
Russia
Saudi Arabia
IranCanadaIraq
14Source: IEA “Word Energy Outlook 2018”
Energy demand outlook
Energy demand continues to grow through 2040.
By energy resource, growth is seen in renewable energy.
By region, growth is seen in developing countries, especially in Asia.
0
5
10
15
20
2000 2016 2025 2030 2040
En
ee
gy d
em
an
d (
Gto
e)
Other RE
Bio&Waste
Hydro
Nuclear
Gas
Oil
Coal
Source: IEA World Energy Outlook 2018
-
5
10
15
20
2000 2016 2025 2030 2040
En
erg
y D
em
an
d (
Gto
e)
Other
Middle East
Africa
SE Asia
India
China
Japan
Primary energy supply by energy resource
（New Policy Scenario）
Primary energy supply by region
（New Policy Scenario）
15
Power generation outlook
Power Generation and Capacity will be increased toward 2040.
Source: IEA World Energy Outlook 2018
9 575 9,896 10,016 10,172 10,335
926 763 676 597 527
5 781 6,829 7,517 8,265 9,071
2 605 3,089 3,253 3,520 3,726
4 049 4,821 5,330
5,774 6,179
3,157 3,960
4,690 2,197
2,935
3,839
1,088
1,364
1,696
2,076
24 919
30,253
33,510
36,919
40,443
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
45,000
50,000
2016 2025 2030 2035 2040
Ele
ctr
icity G
enera
tion（
TW
h)
Other RenewablePVWindHydroNuclearGasOilCoal
2 025 2,130 2,143 2,184 2,238
446 350 307 278 246
1 644 2,113 2,334 2,526 2,740 414
448 464 495 518 1 244
1,462 1,604
1,728 1,839
467
953 1,250
1,498 1,707
1,109
1,589
2,033
2,540
280
382
502
638
6 690
8,845
10,073
11,244
12,466
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
2016 2025 2030 2035 2040
Pow
er
Genra
tion C
apacity（
GW
)
Other Renewable
PV
Wind
Hydro
Nuclear
Gas
Oil
Coal
Power Generation Capacity（New Policy Scenario） Generation Capacity （New Policy Scenario)
Power Generation Capacity will be
increased by 1.9 times
2016 2040
6,690GW 12,466GW
Electricity Generation will be
increased by 1.6 times
2016 2040
24,575TWh 40,443TWh
16
Power generation capacity outlook
Power generation capacity additions and retirements, 2018-2040.
Wind and solar PV accounts for more than half of additions.
17Source: IEA “Word Energy Outlook 2018”
Global CO2 emissions continue to rise through 2040.
By regions, developing economies, by sector, transport and industry are driving the growth.
Energy related CO2 outlook
18Source: IEA “Word Energy Outlook 2018”
Renewable energy outlook
Renewable energy share will increase in all regions.
Share in electricity sector grows remarkably.
Growth in heat sector shows slower pace or stand still.
Share in transport remains lower level in many regions.
19Source: IEA “Word Energy Outlook 2018”
INTERNATIONAL CLIMATE POLICY (UNFCCC NEGOTIATION HISTORY, MAJOR COP DECISIONS AND PARIS AGREEMENT)
Major International Forum for Climate Change Policy
United Nation Framework Convention on Climate Change• Objective (Article 2) : to achieve stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in
the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.
• 192 parties (countries and region (EU)) that ratified UNFCCC
• Decision is only made by consensus
• Annual conference of parties (COP) in Nov/Dec, and semi annual meetings of subsidiary bodies (SBI, SBSTA and temporally Ad-hoc meetings)
• Annual meeting under Kyoto Protocol and Paris Agreement are held in pallarelduring COP
Other UN meetings
–United Nation Summit
G8 (G7), G20
21
COP ChronologyYear Meeting Venue Major outcome
1992 UN summit Rio de Janeiro adoption of UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)
1994 Effect of UNFCCC
1997 COP3 Kyoto Adoption of Kyoto Protocol
2000 COP6 Bonn US' withdrawal from Kyoto Protocol
2001 COP7 Marakech Agreement on rules for Kyoto Protocol
2005 COP11 Montreal Effect of Kyoto Protocol
2007 COP13 Bali Agreement on "post 2012 framework by 2012"
2009 COP15 Copenhagen Failure to agree on post 2012 framework
2010 COP16 Cancun Agreement to continue long term vision and 2020 voluntary target
2011 COP17 DarbunAgreement on "post 2020 framework with all parties' contribution by 2015"
2012 COP18 Doha Agreement on work program for post 2020 framework
2014 COP20 Lima Start of negotiation on post 2020 framework text
2015 COP21 Paris Adoption of Paris Agreement
2016 COP22 Marakech Effect of Paris Agreement
2018 COP24 Katowice Agreement on major rules for Paris Agreement
22
Negotiation group in UNFCCC COP
Developing countries’ groups
Group of 77+China (G77+China) – a large alliance of 134 developing nations
Least Developed Countries (LDCs) – a group of the world’s poorest nations, which evolves as economies change
Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) – a group of 44 small islands and low-lying coastal states
Like-Minded Developing Countries (LMDCs) – a group of developing countries, representing 3.5bn people, with a strong focus on ensuring rich countries bear most responsibility for tackling climate change
BASIC (Brazil, South Africa, India and China) – a coalition of four major emerging economies
Bolivarian Alliance for the Americas (ALBA) – a Latin American and Caribbean alliance with socialist leanings
Regional developing countries’ groups
African Group – One of the UN’s five regional negotiating groups, with 54 member states
Arab Group – formally the League of Arab States, a regional organisation formed in 1945
Developed countries’ group
European Union (EU) – the 28 member states of the EU, with negotiations led by DG-Clima
Umbrella Group (Australia, Belarus, Canada, Iceland, Israel, Japan, New Zealand, Kazakhstan, Norway, the Russian Federation, Ukraine and the United States)– a cross-continent group of countries
Source: Climate policy info hub 23
Photos from COP21
24
Paris Agreement in comparison with Kyoto Protocol
Kyoto Protocol Paris Agreement
What are to be doneMitigation Mitigation, Adaptation, Finance support,
Review
Who are to mitigate Developed countries All parties
How to set mitigation target
Decided by COP (top-down) Decided by each party (bottom-up)
What are mandatedCompliance of the target (penalty for no compliance)
Efforts to aim the target (compliance of the target is not mandate)
Emission coverage26% (to global energy related CO2 between 2008-2012)
100%
Long term vision No long term vision Holding temperature increase well below 2 degree
Adaptation － Necessity for developing countries
Finance support－ Mandate for developed countries to
provide to developing countries
Transparency－ All parties shall submit NDC and follow
review process
ReviewKyoto Protocol shall be reviewed to decide new target for next commitment period
Each party shall submit new NDC in every 5 years
25
Overview of Paris Agreement
Relevant text in Paris Agreement Legal binding force
Long term target( Article 2 )
This Agreement aims (…) to strengthen the global response tothe threat of climate change, in the context of sustainabledevelopment and efforts to eradicate poverty, including by:
(a) Holding the increase in the global average temperature towell below 2°C above pre-industrial levels and pursuingefforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels
Not mandate
Pathway for the longterm target( Article 3, Paragraph1)
In order to achieve the long-term temperature goal set out inArticle 2, (…) Parties aim to reach global peaking ofgreenhouse gas emissions as soon as possible, recognizing thatpeaking will take longer for developing country Parties, and toundertake rapid reductions thereafter in accordance with bestavailable science, so as to achieve a balance betweenanthropogenic emissions by sources and removals by sinks ofgreenhouse gases in the second half of this century, on thebasis of equity, and in the context of sustainable developmentand efforts to eradicate poverty.
Not mandate
26
Overview of Paris Agreement
Relevant text in Paris Agreement Legal binding force
Short term target for all parties( Article 3, Paragraph 2)
Each Party shall prepare, communicate and maintainsuccessive nationally determined contributions that itintends to achieve. Parties shall pursue domesticmitigation measures, with the aim of achieving theobjectives of such contributions.
Mandate: NDC preparation, communication, maintenance and pursuing domestic mitigation measures (achieving the objectives is not mandate)
Support to developing countries ( Article 3, Paragraph 5)
Support shall be provided to developing countryParties for the implementation of this Article, inaccordance with Articles 9, 10 and 11, recognizing thatenhanced support for developing country Parties willallow for higher ambition in their actions.
Mandate
Mechanism to check progress of domestic measures (Article 13, Paragraph 7 )
Each Party shall regularly provide the followinginformation: (b) Information necessary to trackprogress made in implementing and achieving itsnationally determined contribution under Article 4.
Mandate
Review process to check progress toward long term target ( Article 14, Paragraph 1 )
The Conference of the Parties serving as the meetingof the Parties to this Agreement shall periodically takestock of the implementation of this Agreement toassess the collective progress towards achieving thepurpose of this Agreement and its long-term goals(referred to as the "global stocktake").
Mandate
27
CLIMATE CHANGE (IPCC AR5, SR1.5)
Scientific base for climate change
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was established by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) in 1988.
The objective of the IPCC is to provide governments at all levels with scientific information that they can use to develop climate policies.
Since 1988, the IPCC has had delivered five Assessment Reports, the most comprehensive scientific reports about climate change.
Three working groups are in charge of Assessment Report based on the latest academic findings;
– Working Group I The Physical Science Basis
– Working Group II Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability
– Working Group III Mitigation of Climate Change
Each Assessment Report (some thousands pages) and Synthesis Report (a
couple of hundreds pages) are summarized into Summary for Policymakers (SPM, 20-30 pages) that were reviewed by government officials.
29
WG1 AR5 SPM: Figure SPM1
30
WG1 AR5 SPM: Figure SPM3
31
WG1 AR5 SPM: Figure SPM4
32
WG1 AR5 SPM: Figure SPM7
33
WG1 AR5 SPM: Figure SPM10
34
WG2 AR5 SPM: Assessment Box SPM.1 Figure 1.
35
WG2 AR5 SPM:
36
WG2 AR5 SPM: Figure SPM. 5
37
WG2 AR5 SPM: Figure SPM. 2
38
WG3 AR5 SPM: Figure SPM. 4
39
WG3 AR5 SPM: Figure SPM 7
40
AR5 WG3 Technical Summary: Figure TS
41
GAP BETWEEN 2DEGREE SCENARIO AND REALITY(NDC)
Gap of CO2 emission between NDC and 2℃
43Source: IEA “Word Energy Outlook 2018”
Global energy-related CO2 emissions
Half of coal plants are less than 15 years old.
Policies are needed to support CCUS, efficient operations and technology innovation.
12
18
24
30
2017 2025 2030 2035 2040
Gt CO236
Sustainable
Development Scenario
Coal-fired power plants
Increased
room to
manoeuvre
6
New Policies Scenario
Existing and under constructionpower plants, factories, buildings etc.
44Source: IEA “Word Energy Outlook 2018”
Progress in CCS
45Source: GCCSI “Status report of CCS, 2016”
Progress in CCS
46Source: GCCSI “Status report of CCS, 2016”
CCS project status in 2014 CCS project status in 2016
Plans to phase out coal in EU
By 2030, 28% of the existing coal-fired power generation capacity will be retired in EU.
To global existing coal-fired power generation capacity, it accounts for 2.2%.
47
2℃ and “well below 2℃”
48
… and “1.5℃”
49
POWER SECTOR LOW CARBONIZATION: VARIABLE RENEWABLE ENERGY AND FLEXIBILITY
Flexibility as the key feature of future-ready power systems
51
Flexibility requires both technologies and effective regulation/markets.
Variable renewable energy requires sufficient power system flexibility
Global Attention to Power Plant Flexibility
Advanced Power Plant Flexibility Campaign (APPF) was carried out as one of the activities of Clean Energy Ministerial from 2017 to 2018, coordinated by IEA.
“Accommodating the growing shares of wind and solar power poses novel challenges for power systems”, “This raises the importance of power system flexibility”, “APPFseeks to build strong momentum and commitment from governments and industry to implement solutions that make power generation more flexible.”
J-POWER participated in APPF as a private partner
52
VRE integration phase in selected countries
IEA categorized VRE integration phase based on VRE penetration level and restrictions of respective power system.
53
VRE integration phase and impact
54
POWER SECTOR LOW CARBONIZATION: CASE STUDY IN JAPAN
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
19521960197019721974197619781980198219841986198819901992199419961998200020022004200620082010201220142016
Other RE
Oil
ＬＮＧ
Hydro
Coal
Nuclear
(TWh)
(Fisical Year)
Japan’s Electricity Supply by Energy Resources
56Source: Energy White Paper 2017
After the oil crises in the 1970s, Japan’s energy policy targeted achieving a well balanced energy portfolio and it was about to realize it in 2010.
But nuclear generation has suddenly ceased after Fukushima nuclear accident in 2011.3.11. Single accident affects all nuclear plants.
J-POWER Matsushima PS
・ Commissioned in Jan. 1981
・ 1st large scale imported coal-fired
power plant carried out in combination
with development of coal mine
Fukushima Nuclear accident in Mar.
2011[2010FY⇒ 2017FY]
Other Renewables1.1⇒7.6％
Oil & Petro7.5⇒8.5%
LNG29.3⇒42.2%
Hydro & Pumped Storage8.5⇒9.3%
Coal25.0⇒29.0%
Nuclear28.6⇒3.4%
Japan’s Power Generation Capacity Portfolio
From 2000 to 2015, installed capacity of RE has remarkably increased, though most of solar PV and wind farms are owned by new entrants and not presented in the pie charts.
Existence of 28GW pumped storage hydro (PSH) is a unique aspect of Japan’s power generation capacity portfolio.
57
42
40
73
40
21
28
16 Nuclear
Coal
LNG
Oil
Hydro
Pumped Storage
Renewables
Total InstalledCapacity 260 GW
Source: Energy White Paper 2017
45
29
57
52
20
25 1 Nuclear
Coal
LNG
Oil
Hydro
Pumped Storage
Renewables
Total InstalledCapacity 229 GW
2000 2015
Power generation capacity by type in Japan (excluding new entrants)
Growth of Renewables
RE promotion policy started with RPS in 2003 supplemented by Excess Electricity Purchasing Scheme in 2009. In 2012 they were replaced by Feed-in Tariff that triggered a surge of solar PV.
.
Source: presentation of Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Solar PV
Wind power
Biomass
Geothermal
Middle and small hydropower
RPS System
Average annual
growth rate
5%
Average annual
growth rate
9%
Average annual
growth rate
29％
FIT system
(FY)
Excess Electricity Purchasing Scheme
(10MW)
58
Power System in Japan
Japan’s power system consisting of 10 grids is divided between East (50Hz) and West (60Hz) in frequency.
9 grids going through four main islands are connected with interconnections and FCs like “fishbone”, which is totally different from the meshed network in the US or Europe.
Interconnections between grids vary in number, capacity and type(AC/DC).
A: Hokkaido
4.3GW
B: Tohoku
13.1GW
C: Tokyo
52.5GW
Hokuriku
5.0GW
D: Chubu
24.3GW
F: Kansai
26.3GW
I: Kyushu
15.2GW
Hokuriku
5.0GW
Hokuriku
5.0GW
E: Hokuriku5.0GW
H: Shikoku
5.0GW
G: Chugoku
11.0GW
J: Okinawa1.4GW
Hokkaido-Hpnshu (DC)↑ 600MW↓ 600MW
Tohoku-Tokyo(AC)↑ 610MW↓ 4850MW
Chubu-Hokuriku (DC)↑ 300MW↓ 300MW
Tokyo-Chubu (FC)→ 1200MW← 1200MW
Chubu-Kansai(AC)↑ 2500MW↓ 1920MW
Kansai-Shikoku (DC)→ 1400MW← 1400MW
Chugoku-Shikoku (AC)↑ 1200MW↓ 1200MW
Hokuriku-Kansai (AC)Kansai-Chugoku (AC)→ 4050MW← 2780MW
Chugoku-Kyushu (AC)→ 2530MW← 530MW
→ 1300MW← 1620MW
Frequency Converter
AC/DC Converter
Operational Capacity of Interconnections during daytime in August, 2016
Shinshinano FC
Sakumma FC
Higashiｰshimizu FC
59
Solar PV penetration under FIT by grid
In Kyushu, the commissioned solar PV is over the maximum capacity for grid connection.
In Tohoku, the sum of commissioned and EIA completed is about to exceed the maximum capacity for grid connection.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Hokkaido Tohoku Tokyo Chybu Hokuriku Knsai Chugoku Shikoku Kyushu Okinawa
GW
submitted for grid connection
commissioned
lowest load in daytime（2017）
maximum capacity for grid connection
※as of the end of October, 2018※Tokyo, Chubu show total
capacity of renewables
commissioning expected near future
commissioned
60
Wind penetration under FIT by grid
In Hokkaido, commissioned wind is over the maximum capacity for grid connection.
In Tohoku, the sum of commissioned and EIA completed is about to exceed the maximum capacity for grid connection.
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
Hokkaido Tohoku Tokyo Chybu Hokuriku Knsai Chugoku Shikoku Kyushu
EIA beginning
EIA 1st half completed
EIA in final stage
EIA completed
commissioned
maximum capacity for gridconnection
GW
61
Model Description
))(min())((min(1
1
1
1
Ngrid
ig
NGidx
idxi
iiiii
Ngrid
ig
NGidx
idxi
i
igig
ig
igig
ig
STstartupUcPbPF
The analysis used a production cost model customized for Japan’s power system.
Objective function: Minimizing generation cost (fuel cost plus start-up cost) of the total power system of interconnected 9 power grids and one isolated grid for 8760 hours.
As a nature of production cost simulation, it does not take fixed cost (capital cost nor depreciation) into account.
Limiting conditions
• Balance between demand and supply
• Balance between variability and available flexibility (LFC* capacity)
• Upper and lower limit of hourly output in each power generation unit
• Capacity of interconnection for energy interchange
* LFC (Load Frequency Control) balancing capacity able to regulate variability in a few to 15 minutes .
62
Calculation Condition
GRID PV(GW) Wind(GW)
A: Hokkaido 4.5 2.7
B: Tohoku 13.5 10.9
C: Tokyo 27.4 5.9
D: Chubu 12.9 3.7
E: Hokuriku 1.8 0.8
F: Kansai 14.2 2.1
G: Chugoku 7.5 2.1
H: Shikoku 3.6 1.1
I: Kyushu 17.3 2.4
J: Okinawa 0.6 0.4
Total 103.4 32.2
The total capacity of solar PV (103GW) and wind (32GW) in 2030 assumed to represent “massive VRE deployment “
Solar PV and wind distribution by grid assumed to reflect the current unevenness
Other type of power generation capacity in 2030 assumed in line with Long Term Energy Demand and Supply Outlook 2015
Power generation capacity by type by grid
VRE capacity by grid
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Japan Grid-A B C D E F Gr H I J
392GW 18GW 52GW 115GW 51GW 10GW 58GW 28GW 14GW 43GW 4GW
CHP
PumpedStorage
Wind
Solar PV
Hydro
Biomass
Geothermal
Oil
LNG
Coal
Nuclear
63
Cases for Flexibility Evaluation
The impact by availability of source of flexibility to VRE utilization and operation cost were analyzed.
• Coal-fired power plants’ LFC capacity
• Pumped storage hydro
Priority dispatch for VRE, a known measure to support VRE, was also analyzed for comparison
LFC (Load Frequency Control) service: balancing capacity able to regulate variability in a few to 20 minutes .
Case
Available Source of Flexibility
Energy Transmission
by Interconnections
LFC service from
Coal-fired PP
Pumped Storage
Hydro
Current situation in Japan ✔ Not fully ✔
Base Case (Base) ✔ ✔ ✔
without Interconnection (E0) No ✔ ✔
without Coal LFC (C0) ✔ No ✔
without PSH (P0) ✔ ✔ No
without flexibilities above (F0) No No No
Analyzed case and available source of flexibility
64
Result of Analysis: Power Generation Mix
The power generation mix in Base Case by energy type shows;
Nuclear: Coal: Gas: Oil: Renewables = 21%: 23%:27%:1%:28%
*Gas includes CHP, and Renewables includes PSH as in line with Long Term Energy Demand and Supply Outlook 2015
The power generation mix varies by grid, mainly due to capacity portfolio in each grid but also due to conditions in neighboring grids.
Power generation mix in Japan total and by grid in Base Case
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Japan GRID-A GRID-B GRID-C GRID-D GRID-E GRID-F GRID-G GRID-H GRID-I GRID-J
CHP
PSH
Wind
PV
Hydro
Biomass
Geothermal
Oil
LNG
Coal
Nuclear
65
Result of Analysis: Power Generation Mix
The power generation mix varies by case.
When Coal LFC or PSH is not available, LNG power generation increase.
When flexibility is not available, the share of VRE is reduced significantly from 14% inBase to 5%.
Power generation mix and share of selected indicators by case and by grid
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Base E0 C0 P0 F0
CHP
PSH
Wind
PV
Hydro
Biomass
Geothermal
Oil
LNG
Coal
Nuclear
VRE 14% 13% 12% 9% 5%
Renewables 30% 28% 28% 21% 17%
Fossil 50% 51% 52% 57% 61%
66
Result of Analysis: VRE Curtailment
Each source of flexibility affects VRE curtailment, for both of Wind and Solar PV.
The impact vary, interconnection < coal LFC < pumped storage hydro.
Unavailability of PSH largely increases curtailment solar PV because PSH works to storage to accumulate PV’s surplus power generation in daytime as well as providing flexibility.
Without all the flexibility, 75% of VRE power is curtailed.
VRE curtailment (upper figure) and VRE share in total power generation (lower table) by case
Curtailment ratio: Wind 21% 34% 41% 47% 74%
Curtailment ratio: Solar PV 16% 21% 28% 58% 75%
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
Base E0 C0 P0 F0
An
nu
al V
RE
cu
rtai
lmen
t （
TW
h）
Wind
PV
67
Flexibility and VRE curtailment
The sum of VRE curtailment for base and total incremental VRE curtailment by each unavailable flexibility almost equals the VRE curtailment for F0, no-flexibility available case.
It means the impact of each flexibility is independent, so no offset in the total impact.
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
Base E0 C0 P0 F0
An
nu
al V
RE
Cu
rtai
lmen
t （
TWh）
annual VRE curtailsment in F0
incremental VRE curtailsment of P0to Base
incremental VRE curtailsment of C0to Base
incremental VRE curtailsment of E0to Base
annal VRE curtailsment for Base
68
Flexibility and cost
69
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
Base E0 C0 P0 F0
An
nu
al C
ost
（Tr
illio
n J
PY）
annual cost in F0
incremental cost of P0to Base
incremental cost of C0to Base
incremental cost of E0to Base
annal cost for Base
Increase of 1.4 TJPY
（45%）
• The sum of annual cost for base and total incremental annual cost by each unavailable flexibility almost equals the annual cost for F0, no-flexibility available case.
• It means the impact of unavailability of multiple flexibility has negative synergetic affect.
Useful source of Information
Energy
– IEA: Executive summary of WEO, many free publication
–DOE/EIA: “International Energy Outlook”, energy statistic and outlook for USA and the world.
– IEEJ (The Institute of Energy Economics, Japan 日本エネルギー経済研究所) “IEEJ Energy Outlook”, energy statistic and outlook for Asia and the world.
–Eurostat: economic (including energy) statistic in EU
Climate Change
–UNFCCC
– IPCC
–UNEP
71
http://www.jpower.co.jp/english