1 Edi ASSOUMOU – CMA – ETSAP meeting Firenze 2004 – LONG-TERM ENERGY MODELING FOR THE FRENCH ELECTRICITY SECTOR a nuclear story

2 Edi ASSOUMOU – CMA – ETSAP meeting Firenze 2004 – OBJECTIVES: ELECTRICITY SECTOR’S MODELING ISSUES

3 Edi ASSOUMOU – CMA – ETSAP meeting Firenze 2004 – Overview of French electricity sector today Objectives : Electricity sector’s modeling issues Fossil plants mainly for peak and system operation  Dominated today by nuclear power (79%)

4 Edi ASSOUMOU – CMA – ETSAP meeting Firenze 2004 –  For fossil plants, a recent RTE (TSO) simulation showed: 8TWh vs TWh observed Difficult to bring flexibility into plants’ production criteria 7 - 8TWh : dynamic constraints 6TWh : Adjusting nuclear unscheduled changes 2 - 4TWh : congestion and reserve 2TWh : Economic stop and go cycles decision 25 – 8 = Objectives : Electricity sector’s modeling issues

5 Edi ASSOUMOU – CMA – ETSAP meeting Firenze 2004 – Replacement of existing capacities Nuclear power replacement is the main driver for the future Objectives : Electricity sector’s modeling issues Future mix: Nuclear + Hydro + Fossil + Wind ?

6 Edi ASSOUMOU – CMA – ETSAP meeting Firenze 2004 – Flexibility is an important criteria for small use Only plants that causes emissions Impact of nuclear choices on future fossil share Future impact of wind power production The “delicate” question: Are we able to do prospective studies for fossil plants at low production shares? Objectives : Electricity sector’s modeling issues

7 Edi ASSOUMOU – CMA – ETSAP meeting Firenze 2004 –  Include flexibility in the model  Explore the effects of different nuclear choices  Include the impact of growing wind power Milestones for this presentation: How we …? Objectives : Electricity sector’s modeling issues

8 Edi ASSOUMOU – CMA – ETSAP meeting Firenze 2004 – ISSUE1: FLEXIBILITY FOR FOSSIL PLANTS SUPPLYING POWER OR ENERGY

9 Edi ASSOUMOU – CMA – ETSAP meeting Firenze 2004 – We strongly underestimate fossil plants use First solution: Minimum share for fossil plants Our solution: Differentiated plant operation mode Issue1: flexibility for fossil plants – supplying power or energy

10 Edi ASSOUMOU – CMA – ETSAP meeting Firenze 2004 – Fossil plant minimum share  6% minimum of total production  Good for activity - Bad for technical choice Issue1: flexibility for fossil plants - supplying power or energy

11 Edi ASSOUMOU – CMA – ETSAP meeting Firenze 2004 – Differentiated plant operation mode  Additional constraints for supply choice  A method to guide the results toward flexibility  3 steps to find new winners (hopefully the right fossil plants!) Issue1: flexibility for fossil plants - supplying power or energy

12 Edi ASSOUMOU – CMA – ETSAP meeting Firenze 2004 – Step1: Define flexibility by needed “type” of plant  Frequency based definition Issue1: flexibility for fossil plants - supplying power or energy

13 Edi ASSOUMOU – CMA – ETSAP meeting Firenze 2004 – Step2: Quantify the need of each “type” of plant Issue1: flexibility for fossil plants - supplying power or energy

14 Edi ASSOUMOU – CMA – ETSAP meeting Firenze 2004 – Step3: Allow competition to fulfil those needs Specific hour constraints for each database Duplicating technologies database for competition in each supply segment Issue1: flexibility for fossil plants - supplying power or energy

15 Edi ASSOUMOU – CMA – ETSAP meeting Firenze 2004 – Result: Thermal production  Effective use of residual peaking plants Issue1: flexibility for fossil plants - supplying power or energy

16 Edi ASSOUMOU – CMA – ETSAP meeting Firenze 2004 – Result: Additional information Normal, strong and extreme peak production Issue1: flexibility for fossil plants - supplying power or energy

17 Edi ASSOUMOU – CMA – ETSAP meeting Firenze 2004 – ISSUE2: ALTERNATIVE NUCLEAR FUTURE SCENARIO SIMULATION

18 Edi ASSOUMOU – CMA – ETSAP meeting Firenze 2004 –  Time horizon:  Discount rate: 5%  Fuel cost: Conservative UE prospective  Trade: Fixed 252 PJ electricity exportation  Renewable: 21% of domestic demand in 2010  Demand: RTE (TSO’s) aggregated scenario Common hypotheses Issue2: alternative nuclear future – scenario simulation

19 Edi ASSOUMOU – CMA – ETSAP meeting Firenze 2004 – Simplified view of the supply competition MARKAL model Issue2: alternative nuclear future – scenario simulation

20 Edi ASSOUMOU – CMA – ETSAP meeting Firenze 2004 –  Reference scenario: Nuclear no limit No limit on future nuclear development  Alternative scenario: “Low” nuclear share By 2030, 50% max. of domestic demand Simulated scenarios Issue2: alternative nuclear future – scenario simulation

21 Edi ASSOUMOU – CMA – ETSAP meeting Firenze 2004 – Results : Nuclear no limit Issue2: alternative nuclear future – scenario simulation

22 Edi ASSOUMOU – CMA – ETSAP meeting Firenze 2004 –  Fossil plants still have a small share Remarks: Nuclear no limit  Is the EPR growth feasible?  Is the subsequent wind power production coherent with thermal plants share? But... Issue2: alternative nuclear future – scenario simulation

23 Edi ASSOUMOU – CMA – ETSAP meeting Firenze 2004 – Result : “Low” nuclear share Issue2: alternative nuclear future – scenario simulation

24 Edi ASSOUMOU – CMA – ETSAP meeting Firenze 2004 –  Fossil plants do have a more consistent share now Remarks : “Low” nuclear share  Wind power: Is the new fossil plants production more coherent with wind power growth ?  Emissions: New emission constraints for growing FP share! But Issue2: alternative nuclear future – scenario simulation

25 Edi ASSOUMOU – CMA – ETSAP meeting Firenze 2004 – ISSUE3: WIND POWER IMPACT

26 Edi ASSOUMOU – CMA – ETSAP meeting Firenze 2004 – A great wind power potential : around 27 GW Wind power: the designed “hero” for renewables Advantages for EU renewable targets and wind power limits Issue3: assessing wind power impact Balancing WP and need for adjusting plants A real system operation concern

27 Edi ASSOUMOU – CMA – ETSAP meeting Firenze 2004 – WP creates new flexibility requirement The new order of magnitude can be decisive for small fossil plants share Our approach: Modify WP impacts in MARKAL Modeling with a fixed capacity factor: What errors we make with growing WP share? Issue3: assessing wind power impact

28 Edi ASSOUMOU – CMA – ETSAP meeting Firenze 2004 – Include WP effects on plants’ operation mode  INTERM: Contrasted reality  TSO: Can ’t help  AVOID C: Strongly helps Issue3: assessing wind power impact

29 Edi ASSOUMOU – CMA – ETSAP meeting Firenze 2004 – Quantifying the intermediate view: INTERM  Frequency shares : “one for one rule” Issue3: assessing wind power impact

30 Edi ASSOUMOU – CMA – ETSAP meeting Firenze 2004 – Results (1)- Nuclear no limit + WP impact  WP and thermal plants production Issue3: assessing wind power impact

31 Edi ASSOUMOU – CMA – ETSAP meeting Firenze 2004 – Results (1)- Nuclear no limit + WP impact  WP and thermal plants production Issue3: assessing wind power impact

32 Edi ASSOUMOU – CMA – ETSAP meeting Firenze 2004 – Results (2)- Technical choices for production  Thermal plants technologies Issue3: assessing wind power impact

33 Edi ASSOUMOU – CMA – ETSAP meeting Firenze 2004 –  Thermal plants technologies Issue3: assessing wind power impact

34 Edi ASSOUMOU – CMA – ETSAP meeting Firenze 2004 – Concluding remarks We need energy, flexibility and environment at low cost Nuclear produces base electricity at low cost, sets the “scale” for fossil plants supply and emits wastes; Wind power supply green electricity, “emits” flexibility Fossil plants, provides decentralized flexibility and emits GHG Used alone, MARKAL can give meaningful insights for the identified issues for France With small fossil plants supply share in France, a better representation of criteria for plants selection is crucial to be sound The flexible RES can be a powerful tool for problems formulation & knowledge management As new modelers, this study points the modeling risks and the limited solutions