1 Perspectives of CCS power plants in Europe under different climate policy regimes Tom Kober, Markus Blesl Institute of Energy Economics and the Rational Use of Energy, University of Stuttgart International Energy Workshop 17. June 2009 in Venice

Tom Kober, Markus Blesl17 June 2009Perspectives of CCS power plants in Europe 2 Agenda 1.Motivation and target 2.Scope 3.Model characteristics and methodology i.TIMES PanEU characteristics ii.Parametric Programming 4.Perspectives of CCS power plants - results of the analysis 5.Conclusion

Tom Kober, Markus Blesl17 June 2009Perspectives of CCS power plants in Europe 3 Motivation and target ●EU and 2°C targets of European Commission stated but post Kyoto long term GHG reduction obligation of European countries? ●Hugh investments in European power generation sector to compen- sate decommissioning capacities and to enlarge generation system! ●Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) promising alternative for low carbon fossil fueled power generation?! Analysis of capture costs of CCS power plants and their impact on contribution of CCS power plants as a GHG reduction technology.

Tom Kober, Markus Blesl17 June 2009Perspectives of CCS power plants in Europe 4 Scope

Tom Kober, Markus Blesl17 June 2009Perspectives of CCS power plants in Europe 5 TIMES PanEU model characteristics ●Technology oriented bottom-up model with prefect foresight ●Minimization of total system costs ●30 region model (EU 27 + IS, NO, CH) [named EU-27+3] ●Modelling horizon 2000 – 2050, 12 time slices (4 seasonal, 3 day level) ●Energy system model with detailed representation of the demand sectors (industry, residential, commercial, transport and agriculture) as well as public and industrial electricity and heat production and refineries and other fuel conversion ●Detailed power generation sector based on a IER power plant database with 25,000 units included ●Renewable potential (onshore wind, offshore wind, geothermal, biomass, biogas, hydro) ●District heat expansion potentials ●GHG: CO 2, CH 4, N 2 O and pollutants: CO, NO X, SO X, particles ●Detailed electricity exchange capacities based on ETSO and EC ●Country specific CO 2 storage options

Tom Kober, Markus Blesl17 June 2009Perspectives of CCS power plants in Europe 6 Regions in TIMES PanEU and planned electricity interconnection extensions 950 MW 250 MW 500 MW 1400 MW 600 MW 2330 MW 1200 MW 700 MW 1400 MW 1800 MW 900 MW 1800 MW 600 MW 200 MW 1000 MW 800 MW 600 MW 110 MW 600 MW 500 MW 700 MW 1320 MW European Priority Projects P in MW Year DEDK ATCZ ITSI PLLT ESFR BEFR NLUK

Tom Kober, Markus Blesl17 June 2009Perspectives of CCS power plants in Europe 7 Regional CO 2 storage potenials in TIMES PanEU Norway UK Spain France Germany Denmark Potential in Gt CO2 Netherlands Slovakia Additional storage potential [Gt CO2 ] Other Western Europe2 Other Eastern Europe15 Other Southern Europe9 Other Northern Europe1

Tom Kober, Markus Blesl17 June 2009Perspectives of CCS power plants in Europe 8 Parametric Programming in TIMES PanEU – a tool for advanced result analysis Standard Sensitivity Analysis Analysis of impact of marginal changes of model input data A,b,c on the model solution (solving intervall problem)  base of optimal solution remains Parametric Programming Variation of model input data A,b,c over broarder range of value (Additionally solving of the boundary point problem for the calculation of the optimal partition in the next intervall)  base of optimal solution changes

Tom Kober, Markus Blesl17 June 2009Perspectives of CCS power plants in Europe 9 Possible parameter variations Type of variationParameter RHS – variation - demand - user constraints of the optimisation problem (e. g.: energy import quantities) Cost – variation - Variable costs (e. g.: costs of CO 2 capture) - Investment, fix costs - Import- / export costs (z. B.: energy prices) Matrix coefficient – variation - quotas (e. g. share of renewable energy of final energy consumption) - power plant parameters (e. g.: availability, efficiency, CO 2 capture rate) - energy system parameters (e. g.: reserve capacities, capacity credit of wind power)

Tom Kober, Markus Blesl17 June 2009Perspectives of CCS power plants in Europe 10 Modeling of the generic capture process  Variable carbon capture costs to reflect uncertainty

Tom Kober, Markus Blesl17 June 2009Perspectives of CCS power plants in Europe 11 Introducing climate policy regimes and CCS cost variations 5 different climate policy regimes GHG-60, GHG-65, GHG-71, GHG-75, GHG-80 Variation of CCS costs CCS20, CCS30, CCS40, CCS50, CCS

Tom Kober, Markus Blesl17 June 2009Perspectives of CCS power plants in Europe 12 Carbon emissions in EU-27+3 under 71% GHG reduction comp. Kyoto base and high CCS capture costs (60€/t CO2 in 2040) 1

Tom Kober, Markus Blesl17 June 2009Perspectives of CCS power plants in Europe 13 Carbon emissions of EU-27+3 under different climate policy regimes at high CCS costs Δ 120 Mt CO2 2 1

Tom Kober, Markus Blesl17 June 2009Perspectives of CCS power plants in Europe 14 Impact of CCS cost variations on sector carbon emissions in EU-27+3 in

Tom Kober, Markus Blesl17 June 2009Perspectives of CCS power plants in Europe 15 Impact of CCS cost variations on carbon emissions of public power sector in EU-27+3

Tom Kober, Markus Blesl17 June 2009Perspectives of CCS power plants in Europe 16 Effects on electricitity generation in EU-27+3

Tom Kober, Markus Blesl17 June 2009Perspectives of CCS power plants in Europe 17 Impacts on electricity generation in EU-27+3 in 2030

Tom Kober, Markus Blesl17 June 2009Perspectives of CCS power plants in Europe 18 Impacts on electricity generation in EU-27+3 in 2050

Tom Kober, Markus Blesl17 June 2009Perspectives of CCS power plants in Europe 19 Carbon capture depending on CCS costs and climate target in EU-27+3

Tom Kober, Markus Blesl17 June 2009Perspectives of CCS power plants in Europe 20 Conclusions ●In 2030 CCS market share heavyly depends on capture costs and GHG reduction targets. CCS technologies face intersectoral competition. CCS costs may have more impact on CCS market penetration than GHG reduction targets. ●In 2040 CCS becomes essential under climate regimes aiming minimum GHG reduction of 60% compared to Kyoto base. GHG reduction target determines primary level of carbon capture. Little influence of CCS costs on use of CCS technologies. ●In 2050 climate regime determines use of CCS. Reductions of capture costs can lead to increase of electricity consumption. Nearly complete decarbonisation of public power generation.

Tom Kober, Markus Blesl17 June 2009Perspectives of CCS power plants in Europe 21 Tom Kober, Dipl.-Wi.-Ing. Institute for Energy Economics and the Rational Use of Energy University of Stuttgart Hessbruehlstr. 49a D Stuttgart Phone: Mail: Thank you for your attention!

Tom Kober, Markus Blesl17 June 2009Perspectives of CCS power plants in Europe 22 Changes of final energy consumption of EU-27+3 in 2030

Tom Kober, Markus Blesl17 June 2009Perspectives of CCS power plants in Europe 23 Preprozessor Result procedure Solver TIMES Model generator Model data TIMES input file Internal reduktion algorithm Result balance Definition of the result parameters via user constraints User constraints Creation of Matrix in C and external reduktion algorithm in GAMS Routine of Parametric Programming in GAMS Flexible result analysis in Veda BackEnd Input file: Info about variation of parameters Solver Model equations MPS-Matrix Equation matrix in GAMS Parametric Programming Parametric Programming in TIMES