the flexible use of bioenergy in the electricity market a

IER

5th September 2017

15th IAEE Vienna

BenjaminFleischer

Picture: Fachagentur Nachwachsende Rohstoffe e.V.

The flexible use

of bioenergy in

the electricity market

-

A case study

of Germany

Objective

This study analyses the role of bioenergy in deep decarbonisation

scenarios of the electricity market in Germany with high shares of

renewable energy by:

focusing on the system effects of flexible bioenergy technologies in

the electricity market and its implications on the generating capacity, the

electricity production and the total cost of electricity provision,

and comparing quantitatively the total system cost of coupled electricity

and district heating systems with and without bioenergy technologies.

Therefore an extended version of the European Electricity Market Model

E2M2 with additional bioenergy technology options and a differentiated

mapping of district heating has been elaborated.

Objective

315th IAEE European Conference 2017, Vienna

The flexible use of bioenergy in the electricity market – A case study of Germany

IER Universität Stuttgart

Benjamin Fleischer

September 5th

Approach

Model description E2M2-Bio

Approach

5

Power plant portfolio (investment)

Unit commitment

Power generation

Total cost of electricity provision

Whole sale market price

Market value of renewables

OutputInput Model

Linear programme (LP/MIP)

Objective function (Min.: σ€)

Restrictions (Load,CO2-cap,

power balance, RES-share)

Multi-stage, multi-period

approach

E2M2-Bio

Techno-economic linear (mixed integer) electricity market model for Europe

Simultaneous optimization of unit commitment and investment

System security: Hourly provision of balancing power, power balance for system adequacy

Differentiated mapping and endogenous planning of district heating options

Extended options for bioenergy technologies (e.g. bioenergy-CHP, upgrading and co-firing)

Technology features

Renewable energy profiles

Existing power plants

Tech. + eco. parameter

Investment

Power plants (conv. + re.)

Flexibility options

Framework

Demand (elec. and heat)

Political ends

Biomass

Technologies

Potentials




Benjamin Fleischer

September 5th

Green-field analysis of the electricity market in Germany, no import and export

CO2-emissions constraint according to the 2°C target [1]

Expansion of renewable energy technologies and the nuclear phase-out aligned to

the German energy transition plan [2]

Scenarios

Approach

6

-100

-80

-60

-40

-20

0

20

40

60

80

100

0 1.000 2.000 3.000 4.000 5.000 6.000 7.000 8.000

Lo

ad

[G

W]

Load Residual Load

Load and residual load at 80% renewable energy

60Bio 60No 80Bio 80No

Bioenergy - -

Share of

renewables60 % 80 %

CO2-Cap 159 Mt.CO2-Eq. 55 Mt.CO2-Eq.

Demand 525 TWhel + 100 TWhth




Benjamin Fleischer

September 5th

[1] IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change): Climate Change 2014 - Mitigation of Climate Change. Working Group III Contribution to the

Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge 2014.

[2] Bundesregierung: Energiekonzept für eine umweltschonende, zuverlässige und bezahlbare Energieversorgung. Berlin, 28. September 2010

Results

Generation capacity and electricity production

Results




Benjamin Fleischer

September 5th

Increased electricity production without bioenergy-CHP due to electrification effects

in the heat market

Increased capacity of fluctuating RES without bioenergy

The generation capacity of bioenergy is 4.3 GWel at 60% RES and

11.9 GWel at 80% RES

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

Bio No Bio No

60% 80%

Gro

ss e

lectr

icity p

rod

uctio

n [T

Wh

el]

Share RES

Variation0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

Bio No Bio No

60% 80%G

ene

ratio

n c

ap

acity [G

We

l]

Nuclear

Lignite

Coal

Natural Gas

Bioenergy

Geothermal

Hydro

Storage

Wind Offshore

Wind Onshore

Photovolatic

Variation

Share RES

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

Bio No Bio No

60% 80%

Ge

ne

ratio

n c

ap

acity [G

We

l]

Nuclear

Lignite

Coal

Natural Gas

Bioenergy

Geothermal

Hydro

Storage

Wind Offshore

Wind Onshore

Photovolatic

Variation

Share RES

Flexible use of bioenergy at 80% RES

Results




Benjamin Fleischer

September 5th

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

170 194 218 242 266 290 314 338 362 386 410 434 458 482

Ele

ctr

ic lo

ad

[G

We

l]

Wasserkraft Geothermie Kernenergie Holz Braunkohle

Steinkohle Biogas Erdgas Speicher Wind offshore

Wind onshore Photovoltaik EinsMan Last Residuallast

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

170 194 218 242 266 290 314 338 362 386 410 434 458 482

Ele

ctr

ic lo

ad

[G

We

l]

Modellstunde

Speicher beladen Power-to-HeatDSM up E-MobilitätGrundlast ohne DSM Grundlast inkl. DSM downGesamtlast

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1

Diagrammtitel

Storage

Power-to-heat

DSM up

E-Mobility

Last nach Flexibilitäten

Grundlast_DSM_Down

Load exogenous

Load with DSM down

Total load

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1

Diagrammtitel

Curtailment

Photovoltaic

Wind Onshore

Wind Offshore

Storage

Natural Gas

Biogas

Coal

Lignite

Wood

Nuclear

Hydro

Load

Residual Load


Results




Benjamin Fleischer

September 5th

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

170 194 218 242 266 290 314 338 362 386 410 434 458 482

Ele

ctr

ic lo

ad

[G

We

l]




0

20

40

60

80

100

120

170 194 218 242 266 290 314 338 362 386 410 434 458 482

Ele

ctr

ic lo

ad

[G

We

l]

Modellstunde


Power-to-heat in combination with heat storages covers heat load in times of

high RES pentration and reduces rational curtailment

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1

Diagrammtitel

Storage

Power-to-heat

DSM up

E-Mobility


Grundlast_DSM_Down

Load exogenous

Load with DSM down

Total load

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1

Diagrammtitel

Curtailment

Photovoltaic

Wind Onshore

Wind Offshore

Storage

Natural Gas

Biogas

Coal

Lignite

Wood

Nuclear

Hydro

Load

Residual Load


Results




Benjamin Fleischer

September 5th

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

170 194 218 242 266 290 314 338 362 386 410 434 458 482

Ele

ctr

ic lo

ad

[G

We

l]




0

20

40

60

80

100

120

170 194 218 242 266 290 314 338 362 386 410 434 458 482

Ele

ctr

ic lo

ad

[G

We

l]

Modellstunde


Power-to-heat in combination with heat storages covers heat load in times of

high RES pentration and reduces rational curtailment

Flexible power plants and power-operated CHP-plants cover residual load

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1

Diagrammtitel

Storage

Power-to-heat

DSM up

E-Mobility


Grundlast_DSM_Down

Load exogenous

Load with DSM down

Total load

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1

Diagrammtitel

Curtailment

Photovoltaic

Wind Onshore

Wind Offshore

Storage

Natural Gas

Biogas

Coal

Lignite

Wood

Nuclear

Hydro

Load

Residual Load

Lower total system cost with bioenergy technologies

Total and average system cost of electricity and heat provision

Results




Benjamin Fleischer

September 5th

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Bio No Bio No

60% 80%

To

tal syste

m c

ost

[bn.

€2

01

5a

-1]

CAPEX Conv.

OPEX Conv.

CAPEX BioElec

OPEX BioElec

CAPEX EE other

OPEX EE other

Grid exist

Grid new

Flexibility

CAPEX HeatOnlyConv

OPEX HeatOnlyConv

CAPEX HeatOnlyBio

OPEX HeatOnlyBio

Heat distrbution

Ø €2015/MWhth

Ø €2015/MWhel 82.2 84.8 107.3 115.5

65.4 57.4 76.2 62.3

Variation

Share RES

System effects and economic implications of bioenergy

Results




Benjamin Fleischer

September 5th

Difference of system cost at 60% RES with and without bioenergy:

4.54 bn. €2015 a-1 for wood-CHP invest and operation (no biogas)

Cost reduction due to positive effects in the whole system

Bioenergy Conventional

power plants

Other

renewableHeat

technologiesGrid and

flexibility Difference

total cost

4.54 -1.01 -2.86 -0.62 -0.79 0.74

System effects and economic implications of bioenergy

Results




Benjamin Fleischer

September 5th

Difference of system cost at 80% RES with and without bioenergy:

Increase in bioenergy cost due to investment in biogas technology

Main saving effects by reducing other RES, grid and flexibility cost

Bioenergy Conventional

power plants

Other

renewableHeat

technologiesGrid and

flexibility Difference

total cost

9.34 -1.83 -9.23 -0.31 -2.5 4.53

Concluding remarks

In the case of Germany:

The concurrent contribution of bioenergy technologies at various system

levels of the electricity market in Germany reduces the annual total system cost in

deep decarbonizing scenarios:

60% RES: ~0.7 bn. €2015; 80% RES: ~4.5 bn. €2015

For a comparative quantitative analysis of future energy systems with high shares of

renewables in deep decarbonizing scenarios, the adequate modelling of all system

effects determines the results significantly. Especially, the integration cost of

fluctuating renewables and the flexible options of bioenergy must be considered.

The cost-optimal generation capacity of bioenergy technologies in electricity markets

increases with the decarbonisation rate of the system.

A system-beneficial commitment of flexible bioenergy-CHP covers a power-

operated mode in combination with additional power-to-heat technologies and heat

storages.

Concluding remarks




Benjamin Fleischer

September 5th

Thank You!

E-Mail

Telefon +49 (0) 711 685-

University of Stuttgart

IER

Institute of Energy Economics

and Rational Energy Use (IER)

Heßbrühlstraße 49a

70565 Stuttgart

Benjamin Fleischer

87850

[email protected]

the flexible use of bioenergy in the electricity market a

Documents