Geert FOSTIER 28 June 2012 CEEMS Center of Expertise in Economic Modeling and Studies ‘European Responses to the EU Energy Roadmap 2050’ Clingendael Institute, The Hague 28 June 2012
Geert FOSTIER 28 June 2012
Titre du document Sous-titre
CEEMS
Center of Expertise in
Economic Modeling and Studies
‘European Responses to the EU Energy Roadmap 2050’
Clingendael Institute, The Hague
28 June 2012
1 The Decarbonization Debate
Clingendael Institute – EU 2050 roadmaps | 2
80% decarbonization overall means nearly full
decarbonization in power, road transport and buildings
The Baseline is a projection based on today’s world. It is based on reputable sources like the IEA’s
WEO2009, UN, Oxford Economics and PRIMES.
Reliance on international carbon offsets is not assumed
Translation of economy-wide objectives into sector-specific objectives
Source: ECF Roadmap 2050
Clingendael Institute – EU 2050 roadmaps | 3
Several external reports propose pathways compatible with
the European Council’s target of an 80-95% reduction in EU
GHG emissions below 1990 levels by 2050
Study
(Project mgt)
Release date Methodology used
European Climate Foundation (ECF)
Roadmap 2050
(Phase 1 )
(Phase 2)
April 2010
November 2011
- Pre-determination of the desired production mix in 2050 (TWh) and
linear back-casting towards 2010
- No real cost optimization
European Gas Advocacy Forum (EGAF)
Making the green journey work
February 2011 - Study is based on ECF Roadmap 2050
- 2010-2030: Cost optimization
- 2030-2050 : fixed technology mix
Greenpeace [R]evolution
(EU-27 & Global report)
June 2010 - No clear methodology is described in this study
Eurelectric
Power Choices
March 2009 - Portfolio optimization using PRIMES model (long term, least cost capacity
expansion model)
International Energy Agency (IEA)
Energy Technology Perspectives (ETP)
July 2010
• Least-cost solution for achieving energy policy goals
European Commission (EC) low-carbon economy
roadmap to 2050
March 2011 - Several models (POLES, GAINS, GLOBIOM) used for different purposes or
regions.
- PRIMES model for Europe energy system
WWF The Energy Report February 2011
- No clear methodology is described in this study; nuclear and fossil fuels with
CCS are excluded
Foratom Energy 2050 Roadmap February 2011
- Comparison of 5 existing studies
Clingendael Institute – EU 2050 roadmaps | 4
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
ECF Roadmap 2050 (Phase 1) & EGAF (RES pathways)
ECF Roadmap 2050 (Phase 2) (Reference (60% RES))
Eurelectric (Baseline)
Eurelectric (Power Choices)
Greenpeace (Reference)
Greenpeace (Energy [R]evolution)
Greenpeace (Advanced Energy [R]evolution)
EC Low-carbon roadmap (Reference)
EC Low-carbon roadmap (Global Action)
IEA ETP (Baseline)
IEA ETP (BLUE Map)
Energy efficiency and electrification of both heating and
transport are key drivers of the decarbonisation of the
economy; the external studies differ on the magnitude of
both elements at horizon 2050
All power demands have been normalised to the same EU27 geographical scope for comparison,
+ 2550 TWh
The IEA BLUE Map scenario shows almost
no electrification in transport, combined with
large overall energy efficiency improvements
The EC assumes complete
deployment of smart grids by 2030,
allowing 100% electrification of
personal transport by 2050
Evolution of power demand towards 2050 (TWh), EU27
Clingendael Institute – EU 2050 roadmaps | 5
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
Low nuclear / High CCS
Delayed CCS / High Nuclear
High RES
Diversified Supply Technologies
Energy Efficiency
Current Policy Initiatives
Reference
1990 level
CO2 emissions [Mt CO2]
EC Energy Roadmap 2050
In December 2011, the EC Energy Roadmap 2050 provided 2 benchmark scenarios (which do not lead to a
decarbonisation of the power sector) and 5 decarbonisation scenarios.
Decarb
oniz
ation
Be
nch
ma
rks
CO2 emissions, EU27, 2050 vs. 1990
His
torical
-98%
-98%
-98%
-98%
-96% (1)
-65%
-56%
(1) There is more conventional gas in the ‘High RES’ scenario than in the other EC scenarios. This gas is used for the purpose of supplying back-up capacity.
Clingendael Institute – EU 2050 roadmaps | 6
(1) Net demand of ECF (Phase1 & 2) (max)/ Greenpeace / IEA Blue Map (min) / IEA baseline / Eurelectric /EC Low carbon Roadmap
(2) Projected Gross generation (based on 2005 historical Data)
+ 2556 TWh
Evolution of power generation towards 2050 (TWh), EU27
Power Generation
+ 860 TWh
(1)
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
5000
5500
6000
2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
Other Studies
Diversified supply technologies
Delayed CCS
Low nuclear
High RES
Energy Efficiency
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
5000
5500
6000
2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
EC generation projections (except for Energy Efficiency) are at the high side compared to the external
decarbonisation scenarios. The “Energy Efficiency” scenario shows negative growth rates between 2015-
2030 due to very high efficiency improvement and little trade off through electrification.
Clingendael Institute – EU 2050 roadmaps | 7
Electricity final Demand by sector (2010/2050)
All EC decarbonisation scenarios highlight an important electrification of the transport sector by 2050.
(1) 2005 level
(2) Net Generation
2010 2050
31% 28% 29%23%
28% 29% 28% 28% 28% 29%
3%2% 3%
19% 10%
21% 19% 20% 19% 19%
31%29% 27%
26%28%
16% 20% 18% 19% 19%
35%41% 41%
32% 34% 35% 33% 35% 34% 34%
ECF Roadmap 2050 (Phase 1)
IEA ETP (BLUE Map)
EC Roadmap ECF Roadmap 2050 (Phase 1)
IEA ETP (BLUE Map)
Energy Efficiency Diversified supply technologies
High RES Delayed CCS Low nuclear
3066 2830 2762 33614623 3203 3619 3376 3585 3552
EC Roadmap
(1)
• All the EC scenarios assume very high global energy efficiency compared to the others sources. • Energy efficiency scenario is characterized by a high decrease of the “Services sector” consumption. • In all scenarios, there is a massive electrification of the transport sector
(2) (2) (2) (2) 1
2
3
1
2
3 CEEMS
analysis
Clingendael Institute – EU 2050 roadmaps | 8
2 Projected power capacity and fuel
mixes
Clingendael Institute – EU 2050 roadmaps | 9
Capacity mix 2050 (GW): Out of all the considered studies
only ECF (McKinsey/KEMA/Imperial College) deals in an appropriate
way with increasing intermittency in the system (with a noticeable improvement
between phase 2 and phase 1)
Source: Team analysis
123 142 240 180 120 162
57 101
72 72
72 112 100
70 59 66 118
48 48
12
3 0
162 97 93
98
324 336
420
120 27
253
234 203
174
203 203 203
156
163
118 268
313 361 373
295
666
0 0 0
398 497
382 358
613
416
0 0 0
371
597
140 147
240
576
0 0 0 0
0 0
9
11
0 0 0 53
166
18 22
ECF Roadmap 2050 (Phase 1) (60% RES
pathway)
ECF Roadmap 2050 (Phase 2) (Reference
(60% RES))
EGAF (High Gas Price) EGAF (Low Gas Price) EGAF (Low Gas Price & Nuclear sensitive)
Greenpeace [R]evolution (Energy
[R]evolution)
Greenpeace [R]evolution
(Advanced Energy [R]evolution)
Eurelectric Power Choices (Power
Choices)
IEA ETP 2010 (BLUE Map)
Geothermal & Ocean
Backup
Solar
Wind
Wind & Solar
Hydro
Gas with & w/o CCS
Coal with & w/o CCS
Biomass
Nuclear
All Coal and
Gas is CCS
for ECF
Phase 1 &2
1.700
2.300
1.200 1.200 1.200 1.215
1.550
1.315 1.350
(60% Onshore)
(90% PV)
(60% Onshore)
(98% PV)
(OCGT)
CEEMS
analysis
Clingendael Institute – EU 2050 roadmaps | 10
123 142 240 180 120 162
57 101
72 72
72 112 100
70 59 66 118
48 48
12
3 0
162 97 93
98
324 336
420
120 27
253
234 203
174
203 203 203
156
163
118 268
313 361 373
295
666
0 0 0
398 497
382 358
613
416
0 0 0
371
597
140 147
240
576
0 0 0 0
0 0
9
11
0 0 0 53
166
18 22
ECF Roadmap 2050 (Phase 1) (60% RES
pathway)
ECF Roadmap 2050 (Phase 2) (Reference
(60% RES))
EGAF (High Gas Price) EGAF (Low Gas Price) EGAF (Low Gas Price & Nuclear sensitive)
Greenpeace [R]evolution (Energy
[R]evolution)
Greenpeace [R]evolution
(Advanced Energy [R]evolution)
Eurelectric Power Choices (Power
Choices)
IEA ETP 2010 (BLUE Map)
Geothermal & Ocean
Backup
Solar
Wind
Wind & Solar
Hydro
Gas with & w/o CCS
Coal with & w/o CCS
Biomass
Nuclear
Capacity mix in 2050 (GW) : Greenpeace is in line with its
pre-defined ideas over technologies (geothermal and ocean/wave energy as
breakthrough technologies). Eurelectric and IEA present a well balanced
capacity mix. None of these studies addresses appropriately the system
adequacy issue.
Source: Team analysis
1.700
2.300
1.200 1.200 1.200 1.215
1.550
1.315 1.350
(60% Onshore)
(90% PV)
(60% Onshore)
(98% PV)
(OCGT)
CEEMS
analysis
Clingendael Institute – EU 2050 roadmaps | 11
980 1116
1824 1392
912 926
441 606
528
528
528
615 554
328
266
490
617
336
384
96
9 0
597
814
490
551
672 960
1632
367 92
896
186
588
543
588 588 588
375
391
358
288
852 948 1044
980
1954
0 0 0
1115 1392
968
706
833
606
0 0 0
550 1068
206
200
98
73
0 0 0
237
725
69
34
ECF Roadmap 2050 (Phase 1) (60% RES
pathway)
ECF Roadmap 2050 (Phase 2) (Reference
(60% RES))
EGAF (High Gas Price) EGAF (Low Gas Price) EGAF (Low Gas Price & Nuclear sensitive)
Greenpeace [R]evolution (Energy
[R]evolution)
Greenpeace [R]evolution
(Advanced Energy [R]evolution)
Eurelectric Power Choices (Power
Choices)
IEA ETP 2010 (BLUE Map)
Geothermal & Ocean
Solar
Wind
Wind & Solar
Hydro
Gas with & w/o CCS
Coal with & w/o CCS
Biomass
Nuclear
Fuel mix 2050 (TWh) : The least RES-oriented studies have all
a share of about 40% RES in their energy mix. For the
remaining part, they all strongly rely on the deployment of
gas/coal CCS and nuclear.
Source: Team analysis
4.900
6.320
3.270
4.800 4.800 4.800
4.220
4.780
3.420
40% RES
(1) About 10TWh (Phase 1) and 28TWh (Phase 2) is generated in OCGT without CCS for backup purposes
CEEMS
analysis
1355
Clingendael Institute – EU 2050 roadmaps | 12
142 162 79 102 41 127
101 59108 106 163
115112
118 9770 94 62 73
125
98 234187
218182
210 255
174
268
125126
131126 127
666 358
548595
984
609 674
416
147 330
351
603
348381
576
0
15
19
19
18
11
22
9
10
30
1011
ECF Roadmap 2050 (Phase 2)
(Reference (60%
RES))
IEA ETP 2010 (BLUE Map)
Energy Efficiency Diversified supply technologies
High RES Delayed CCS Low nuclear
Geothermal & Ocean
Backup
Solar
Wind
Wind & Solar
Hydro
Gas with & w/o CCS
Coal with & w/o CCS
Biomass
Nuclear
1347
2302
1471
2215
16361719
1621
(1) EC Roadmap Backup correspond to Oil power plant capacity
Installed capacity in 2050 (GW)
No substantial back-up capacity in any of the scenarios
Source: Team analysis
(1)
EC Roadmap
CEEMS
analysis
Clingendael Institute – EU 2050 roadmaps | 13
Fuel mix in 2050 (TWh) – Except for the High RES
scenario, all fuel mixes show a substantial share of thermal
generation
Source: Team analysis
1116926
608791
180
935
606
266467
457
494
482
476
617
814
205
398
108
248
636
551
186
715
815
386
726
946
543
288394
393
396
395393
0
0
1954
706
1421
1552
2504
15791728
606
200
454
486843
482 524
73
34
13
15 31 19 19
0
0
0200
0 0
IEA ETP 2010 (BLUE Map) Energy Efficiency Diversified supply technologies High RES Delayed CCS Low nuclear
backup
others
Geothermal & Ocean
Solar
Wind
Hydro
Gas with & w/o CCS
Coal with & w/o CCS
Biomass
Nuclear
4281
49125141
4872 4853
1116 926 608 791
180
935
606 266
467 457
494
482
476
617
814
205 398
108
248
636
551
186
715
815
386
726 946
543
288 394
393
396
395 393
0
0
1954
706 1421
1552
2504
1579 1728
606
200
454
486 843 482 524
73
34
13
15 31 19 19
0
0
0 200 0 0
ECF Roadmap 2050 (Phase 2)
(Reference (60% RES))
IEA ETP 2010 (BLUE Map)
Energy Efficiency Diversified supply technologies
High RES Delayed CCS Low nuclear
4281
4912 5141 4872 4853
3420
6067
(1) Others corresponds to Other fuels (hydrogen, methanol)
(1)
EC Roadmap
CEEMS
analysis
Clingendael Institute – EU 2050 roadmaps | 14
Flexibility will be key to guarantee a reliable and balanced power system
By 2030 gas appears as a first step to reduce CO2 emissions by replacing coal and providing
backup generation, triggering an increase of the gas-to-power consumption.
Significant grid investments are required beyond 2020
At the exception of ECF Phase 2 no scenario addresses correctly the flexibility and system
reliability needs in order to deal with increasing intermittency in the power system. Grid build-out
raises the questions of planning, permitting procedures, acceptability, cost allocation, …
Key messages and challenges re the external scenarios
assessed (1/2)
1
3
A large scale-up in RES deployment is paramount but could be complicated in its roll out
Future costs, technical potentials, acceptability, … are unknown and represent a key challenge of
the transition
2
CCS and Nuclear are key to the success of almost all roadmaps but are stalling and
subject to decreasing public acceptance
If these technologies are not available a higher RES pathway should be envisaged with the
higher associated costs.
4
Some decarbonization roadmaps are influenced by their respective sponsors and portray the future power system
in a way that supports a number of pre-defined ideas regarding fuel prices, the evolution of investment costs over
time and the applied methodology/approach.
Clingendael Institute – EU 2050 roadmaps | 15
The implementation of the decarbonization pathways requires a lot of change especially in the
non-power sectors, resulting in substantial investments in these non-energy related sectors. The
impact of these investments in terms of non-energy related cost for the end-user is not
sufficiently assessed.
None of the roadmaps provides a comprehensive analysis of the cost and feasibility of a
substantial energy efficiency improvement programme and the requirement for a robust gas
infrastructure.
Key messages and challenges re the external scenarios
assessed (2/2)
5
7
Current remuneration schemes will not attract investments
Power and carbon markets must be adapted to underpin investor confidence and attract the
appropriate investments.
6
The competitive position of the European economy has not (yet) been duly assessed.
Especially with respect to the transition phase (2020-2035) one should scrutinize the trade off
between the relatively high ‘energy’ & ‘non-energy related’ costs (negative impact on GDP) and
the roll-out of RES, energy efficiency, smart grids, etc (positive impact on GDP)
8
Clingendael Institute – EU 2050 roadmaps | 16
Annexes
EC Energy Road map
Clingendael Institute – EU 2050 roadmaps | 17
Scenario building
Power Sector
Decarbo-
nisation wrt ‘90
Name Description
- 65 % Reference
- Based on the report "Energy Trends to 2030: update 2009", but extends the projection period to 2050.
- Includes current trends on population and economic development (gross domestic product (GDP) growth 1.7% pa) and takes into
account the highly volatile energy import price environment.
- Concrete national and EU policies and measures implemented until March 2010.
- The 2020 targets on RES and GHG will be achieved, but there is no assumption on targets for later years.
- 56 %
Current
Policy
Initiatives
- Same macroeconomic and demographic assumptions as the Reference scenario.
- Slightly updated energy import prices (only for 2010 with repercussions on 2015),
- Revised cost-assumptions for nuclear following post Fukushima reactions and revised policies either adopted after March 2010 or
being currently proposed by the Commission (including the "Energy Efficiency Plan" and the new "Energy Taxation Directive").
- Very few CCS deployment, due to slower progress on demonstration plants.
- 98 % Energy
Efficiency
- Political commitment to very high energy savings (includes e.g. more stringent minimum requirements for appliances and new
buildings; high renovation rates of existing buildings; establishment of energy savings obligations on energy utilities).
- Close to 20% energy savings by 2020.
- Decrease in energy demand of 41% by 2050 as compared to the peaks in 2005-2006.
- 98 %
Diversified
Supply
Techno-
logies
- No technology is preferred; all energy sources can compete on a market basis with no specific support measures.
- Decarbonisation is driven by carbon prices.
- Assumes acceptance of nuclear and CCS and development of RES facilitation policies.
- Reproduces "Effective and widely accepted technologies" scenario used in Low Carbon Economy Roadmap and Roadmap on Transport
on the basis of the current policy initiatives scenario
- 96 % High RES
- Very high RES share.
- Regarding security of supply objectives: Increasing domestic RES supply (1) (including off-shore wind from the North Sea, significant
CSP and storage development, increased heat pump penetration, significant micro power generation (PV, small scale wind, etc.)).
- Regarding assumptions for the demand sectors: similar to Diversified Supply Technologies scenario, with the exception that RES are
more intensively facilitated for development in houses and buildings.
- 98 %
Delayed
CCS / High
Nuclear
- Similar to Diversified supply technologies scenario but assuming that CCS is delayed (reflecting acceptance difficulties for CCS
regarding storage sites and transport)
- Leading to higher shares for nuclear energy with decarbonisation driven by carbon prices rather than technology push.
- Large scale development of CCS is assumed feasible only after 2040.
- 98 %
Low
nuclear /
High CCS
- Similar to Diversified supply technologies scenario but assuming that no new nuclear (besides reactors currently under construction) is
being built.
- Resulting in a higher penetration of CCS (around 32% in power generation).
The EC Energy Roadmap 2050 provides 2 benchmark scenarios (which do not lead to a decarbonisation of
the power sector), and 5 decarbonisation scenarios.
(1) “Domestic supply” in the EC Energy Roadmap 2050 means electricity produced by EU countries (no inflows from outside EU countries).
DE
CA
RB
ON
ISA
TIO
N
BE
NC
HM
AR
KS
Clingendael Institute – EU 2050 roadmaps | 18
Carbon prices
In all EC decarbonisation scenarios, CO2 prices increase drastically from 2040 and overpass substantially
all other scenarios in 2050. Delay in penetration of CCS put an upward pressure on demand for allowances
and ETS prices from 2030 on.
(1) All values are expressed in real terms (€2010)
Evolution of CO2 prices towards 2050 (€/tCO2)
0.0
50.0
100.0
150.0
200.0
250.0
300.0
350.0
2010
0.0
50.0
100.0
150.0
200.0
250.0
300.0
350.0
2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
EC Roadmap (Low nuclear)
EC Roadmap (High RES )
EC Roadmap (Delayed CCS)
EC Roadmap (Diversified supply technologies)
EC Roadmap (Energy Efficiency)
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
Other Decarbonisation scenarios
Current Policy Initiatives
Reference
High RES
Energy Efficiency
Diversified supply technologies
Delayed CCS
Low nuclear
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
Other Decarbonisation scenarios
Current Policy Initiatives
Reference
High RES
Energy Efficiency
Diversified supply technologies
Delayed CCS
Low nuclear
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
Other Decarbonisation scenarios
Current Policy Initiatives
Reference
High RES
Energy Efficiency
Diversified supply technologies
Delayed CCS
Low nuclear
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
Other Decarbonisation scenarios
Current Policy Initiatives
Reference
High RES
Energy Efficiency
Diversified supply technologies
Delayed CCS
Low nuclear
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
Other Decarbonisation scenarios
Current Policy Initiatives
Reference
High RES
Energy Efficiency
Diversified supply technologies
Delayed CCS
Low nuclear
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
Other Decarbonisation scenarios
Current Policy Initiatives
Reference
High RES
Energy Efficiency
Diversified supply technologies
Delayed CCS
Low nuclear
Clingendael Institute – EU 2050 roadmaps | 19
Annexes
External scenarios
Clingendael Institute – EU 2050 roadmaps | 20
In the ECF study (phase 2) the power generation sector needs
additional gas at horizon 2030. The residential sector is
characterized by substantially reduced needs.
Source: ECF Phase II (final report not yet published)
ECF Phase II
60% RES
ECF Phase II
All scenarios
Clingendael Institute – EU 2050 roadmaps | 21
(1) Except coal, which continues raising until 2030 and reaches a medium level in 2050.
(2) The “other 2050 studies” represented are ECF Roadmap 2050 (Phase 1 & 2) , EGAF, Eurelectric, IEA ETP and WWF
-
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
-
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
-
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
Macro-economic assumptions – Fuel prices C
oal (
US
D2010/t
on
ne
)
Ga
s (U
SD
2010/M
MB
TU
) B
ren
t O
il (
US
D2010/b
arr
el)
-
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
2009
Other 2050 decarbonisation studies
-
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
200020102020203020402050
EC-Energy Roadmap 2050 (Decarbonisation scenarios)
-
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200020102020203020402050
Actuals (Actuals)
EC-Energy Roadmap 2050 (Reference)
EC-Energy Roadmap 2050 (Decarbonisatio
n scenarios)
(2)
The EC decarbonisation scenarios show relatively high fuel prices within the period 2010-2020. They
decrease afterwards (due to sharp decreases assumed in world wide fossil fuel consumption, resulting from
fuel shifts), to reach relative low levels in 2050(1).
Clingendael Institute – EU 2050 roadmaps | 22
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
CAPEX assumptions – Gas & Coal conventional
EC Energy Roadmap 2050 shows similar CAPEX trends to other studies for both coal and gas. However, in
absolute value, it shows higher costs, especially for coal.
CAPEX (€2010/kW) – CCGT CAPEX (€2010/kW) – COAL
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
2010 2020 2030 2040 20500
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
EC-Energy Roadmap 2050
Eurelectric Power Choices
IEA ETP 2010 BLUE map
ECF Roadmap 2050 (Phase I) & EGAF
Greenpeace Advanced Energy [R]evolution-
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
200020102020203020402050
EC-Energy Roadmap 2050 scenarios
Lifetime assumptions of coal and gas plants and assumptions on early retirement are not provided in the EC report.
No clear definition of the CAPEX is available in the considered studies.
Clingendael Institute – EU 2050 roadmaps | 23
CAPEX assumptions – CCS
As from 2030, the CAPEX are in line with the other decarbonisation studies.
Data about the retrofitting of existing plants are not provided in the EC report. However, retrofits are supposed feasible.
No clear definition of the CAPEX is available in the considered studies.
CAPEX (€2010/kW) – GAS CCS
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
-
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
200020102020203020402050
EC-Energy Roadmap 2050 scenarios
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
EC-Energy Roadmap 2050
Eurelectric Power Choices
ECF Roadmap 2050 (Phase I) & EGAF
IEA ETP 2010 BLUE map
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
EC-Energy Roadmap 2050
Eurelectric Power Choices
ECF Roadmap 2050 (Phase I) & EGAF
IEA ETP 2010 BLUE map
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
CAPEX (€2010/kW) – COAL CCS
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
EC-Energy Roadmap 2050
Eurelectric Power Choices
ECF Roadmap 2050 (Phase I) & EGAF
IEA ETP 2010 BLUE map
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
EC-Energy Roadmap 2050
Eurelectric Power Choices
ECF Roadmap 2050 (Phase I) & EGAF
IEA ETP 2010 BLUE map
-
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
200020102020203020402050
EC-Energy Roadmap 2050 scenarios
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
EC-Energy Roadmap 2050
Eurelectric Power Choices
ECF Roadmap 2050 (Phase I) & EGAF
IEA ETP 2010 BLUE map
Clingendael Institute – EU 2050 roadmaps | 24
(1) “High RES” PV capex are different from the other EC-Energy Roadmap 2050 scenarios due to a “stronger learning by doing” on PV.
CAPEX assumptions – RES technologies
EC-Energy Roadmap 2050 assumes very high solar CAPEX in 2010, decreasing rapidly until 2030. Wind
CAPEX, conversely, are assumed relatively low in 2010 and almost flat to 2050.
So
lar
PV
(€
2010/k
W)(
2)
So
lar
CS
P (€
2010/k
W)
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
Win
d O
nsh
ore
(€
2010/k
W)
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
Win
d O
ffs
ho
re (€
2010/k
W)
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
EC-Energy Roadmap 2050
WWF Energy Report
IEA ETP 2010 BLUE map
ECF Roadmap 2050 (Phase I) & EGAF
Greenpeace Advanced Energy [R]evolution
Solar Wind
-
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
200020102020203020402050
EC-Energy Roadmap 2050 scenarios
No clear definition of the CAPEX is available in the considered studies.
Clingendael Institute – EU 2050 roadmaps | 25
-
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
COAL ($2010/tonne)(1)
-
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
BRENT OIL ($2010/barrel)(1)
(1) All values are expressed in real terms ($2010)
(2) Scenarios not present in this graph, did not provide any quantitative data
Evolution of fossil fuel prices
Most decarbonization studies assume increasing fossil fuel prices towards 2050. Only IEA and the European Commission
show decreasing fuel prices due to sharp decreases in fossil fuel consumption, resulting from fuel shifts. The wide range
helps favouring certain technologies.
Co
al (
US
D/t
on
ne
)
Ga
s (U
SD
/MM
BT
U)
Bre
nt
Oil
(U
SD
/ba
rre
l)
ECF Roadmap 2050
(Phase 1) & GAdF ECF Roadmap 2050
(Phase 1) & GAdF
+60% +32%
+87%
-
5
10
15
20
25
30
2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
GAS ($2010/mmBTU)(1)
Clingendael Institute – EU 2050 roadmaps | 26
0.0
20.0
40.0
60.0
80.0
100.0
120.0
140.0
160.0
180.0
200.0
2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
Carbon prices towards 2050 (€2010/tCO2) ECF Roadmap 2050 (Phase 1) (Res pathways)
ECF Roadmap 2050 (Phase 2) (Reference (60% RES))
EGAF (All)
Greenpeace ([R]evolution)
Eurelectric (Baseline)
Eurelectric (Power Choices)
EC Low-carbon roadmap 2050 (Reference)
EC Low-carbon roadmap 2051 (Global Action)
Evolution of carbon prices
Carbon prices from the EC and Eurelectric are model outputs, whereas all others studies use input assumptions in terms of
carbon prices. The level of assumed CO2 price is in relation to the wide range of CAPEX cost that allow decarbonization.
Highest investments in RES assets
occurs between 2040 and 2050, requiring
high carbon prices for the EC
Clingendael Institute – EU 2050 roadmaps | 27