1 / 19

TIMES – EE27

TIMES – EE27. Markus Blesl. ETSAP semi-annual Workshop 24. November 2004 in Florence. TIMES – EE ( E uropean E lectricity Generation) 27 region model ( EU 25, N, CH)

weston
Download Presentation

TIMES – EE27

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. TIMES – EE27 Markus Blesl ETSAP semi-annual Workshop 24. November 2004 in Florence

  2. TIMES – EE (European Electricity Generation) • 27 region model (EU 25, N, CH) • Detailed power generation sector (CO2 sequestration and capture options, CHP included) based on a IER power plant database with 25,000 units included • Country specific differences for characterisation of new power plants • Detailed electricity exchange balances based on ETSO statistics • Country specific load curves based on UTCE statistics • Consideration of CHP expansion options • Renewable potential (onshore wind, offshore wind, geothermal, biomass, biogas, hydro (small, middle, large)) • Country specific availability factors for renewable • Country specific heat and electricity demand reduction options • GHG: CO2, CH4, N2O included • Pollutants: NOX, SOX, particles • Time horizon 1990-2030, 5 year periods, 12 time segments per year

  3. Model of the European Electricity market (incl. CHP) – TIMES-EE

  4. Assumptions • Taxes included in fuel prices • Different country specific classes of prices for biomass (including different types of wood, plant wood, energy crops) and biogas depending • Country specific assumptions about the maximum / minimum of extraction capacities and use of lignite • New nuclear is possible in France, Czech Republic (after 2015), Finland, UK (on a max. constant level), Poland and Swiss

  5. Energy price assumption on power plant level (Euro pro GJ) 6 5 4 3 Energy price on power plant level in [Euro/GJ] 2 1 0 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 Lignite Coal Oil Gas

  6. Energy price differences on power plant level compared with Germany (tax included) in Euro/GJ Light Fuel Heavy Fuel Oil Oil Natural Gas Steam Coal France -0,26 0,00 0,00 -0,23 Austria 0,07 -0,19 0,18 0,00 -1,30 Belgium / Lux -0,97 0,16 0,03 Switzerland -2,68 0,00 0,00 0,00 Czech Republic -0,79 -1,43 -0,18 -0,93 Denmark -1,03 0,00 0,00 0,00 Sweden -2,55 0,00 0,00 0,00 Poland -1,16 -1,30 0,00 -0,29 Netherlands 1,40 1,80 -0,74 0,00 Finland 1,56 2,32 -0,56 -0,17 -0,51 Greece 3,41 1,33 Ireland -0,05 1,22 -0,93 -0,45 Italy 3,48 0,19 -0,51 0,11 -1,30 Luxembourg 0,64 Portugal 1,39 -0,40 0,34 Spain 6,05 3,64 0,34 UK 0,46 1,54 -1,15 -0,03

  7. or “Flexible Mechanism” Policy – CO2 target “Soft landing”

  8. Scenario definition • Reference case (REF) • CO2 - Emission target “Soft landing” for EU15 and national targets (SOFT) • CO2 - Emission target “Soft landing” for EU27 (FLEX)

  9. Net electricity generation by energy carriers in EU25

  10. Net electricity generation by different renewable sources in EU25

  11. Net electricity generation based on renewable in Europe

  12. Net electricity generation based on hard coal in Europe

  13. Net electricity generation based on gas in Europe

  14. Net – electricity balance for the different countries Import countries Export countries

  15. CO2 Emission in the different scenarios in EU 15 1290 1190 1090 CO2 emission electricity and heat generation in [Mio. t CO2] 990 890 790 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 Jahr REF SOFT FLEX Target EU15

  16. Differences between CO2 Emission „soft landing“ and national target (buyer/seller)

  17. Marginal cost of CO2 reduction Switch from coal to gas

  18. Conclusions • The differences between Kyoto – target and the emissions of the electricity and heat sector are not so big. • If all European countries will include in the emission trading the certificate prices fall especially because of the hot air from Poland. • With the Kyoto – target the renewable electricity generation target for the EU25 will not be automatically achieved. • With a common electricity market, a free certificate market, a harmonised tax system the European emission reduction and the national renewable targets can be achieved in the most cost-effective manner leading to the lowest electricity prices.

More Related