Germany: long term climate protection scenarios towards 2050

Dr. Manfred FischedickDirector

Future Energy- and Mobility Structures

International Workshop on 2050 Low Carbon ScneariosTokyo

March 2005

March 2005

Science Company Wuppertal InstituteLegal and financial status

• President: Prof. Dr. Peter Hennicke • Setting up: 1991 conducted by

Prof. Dr. Ernst Ulrich von Weizsäcker• Legal form: Ltd., Non-Profit-Organisation;

Member of the Science Centre of North Rhine-Westphalia

• Ownership: State of North Rhine-Westphalia

• Staff: more than 150 members from all disciplines

• Projects: 80 - 100 projects per year• Budget 2004:

2.9 m. Euro basic funds from the state of North Rhine-Westphalia (strong decreasing trend) 5.4 m. Euro of third party funds (UN, EU, Ministries, Private Sector, NGOs)

March 2005

Introduction and Overview

• Overview

• Philosophy of scenario work in the Wuppertal Institute

• Overview: Long term energy scenarios in Germany

• Longterm energy scenario Germany - one example

- Targets

- Methodology

- Necessary steps

- Major findings

- Open questions and necessary in depth analysis

• Conclusions

March 2005

Philosophy of Wuppertal Institutes Scenario WorkCommon understanding?

• Scenarios are quite different from predictions• Scenarios are asking “what happens if ….”• Scenarios are based on a consistent set of assumptions which should

be outlined transparently• Scenarios are necessary

- to pick up future uncertainties- to identify the corresponding range of possible future paths (including the branching points)- to describe the major impacts and dangers of those paths- to gain more experience about the manifold interactions in the system- to enable an elaborate discussion about suitable policy and technology strategies following defined targetsIn particular long term scenarios are helpful tools for strategy discussion but not for short term policies

March 2005

Long experience of long term energy in scenarios in GermanyFirst scenarios in the early 1980’s (nuclear extension path) Selected current scenario studies for Germany

Business as Usual projections:• Prognos/EWI: Energy Report III (1999)• Prognos: updated report for the Enqûete-Commission (2002)

Climate protection scenarios:• ÖI/DIW/FZJ/ISI: Policy scenarios (2003)• DLR/Wuppertal Institut/ifeu: Optimized extension of renewable energies within

an overall climate protection scenario (2004)• Prognos/Wuppertal Institut/IER: Long term energy scenarios for the German

Enquête-Commission „Sustainable Energy supply“ (2002)• Wuppertal Institut/DLR - German Environment Agency: Long term

perspectives of the energy system (2002)• BMWa: Scientific network group „Modelling experiments“ (1999-2005) -

different tasks

Ongoing studies:• Prognos/EWI: Energy Report IV (2005)

No climate reductiongoals defined

Climate reductiongoals defined (50 - 80%)

March 2005

- energy related emissions only -

urces: DIW-report 10/2004; reduction path: BMU 2004

1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 20500

200

400

600

800

1.000

,[

y]

1990-2003 Referencecase

ScenarioNat. conservation

Reduction targets

oeko\co2deu.pre;3.1.04

Commitment - 25% in 2005

Kyoto-target 2008-2012

Governmental declaration 2002: - 40% in 2020

Recommendations Enquete; IPCC: - 80% in 2050

Climate protection targets and their backgroundIPCC recommendation for industrialized countriesIncreasing gap between BAU and climate protection requirements

Mio. t CO2

March 2005

Strategy options for climate protection

substitution coal to gas

rational use of energy

awareness energy

consumption

renewable energy

March 2005

Necessary steps:Determination of technical potentials

Assumptions:

Biomass:100 % stationary usewith 75% cogeneration.(optional 210 TWh/yr biofuels = 27% of present consumption)

Geothermal electricity:Lower value with heat use in cogeneration,upper value withoutrestrictions

Hydropower

Wind, onshore

Wind, offshore

Photovoltaic

Biomass

Geothermal

Share of elctr.in 2003, %

Biomass

solar collectors

Geothermal (hydrothermal)

Share of heatingfuel in 2003, %

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350TWh/yr (%)

Potential Present use

Potentials of domestic renewables in Germany are high -even under stringent restrictions of nature conservation

March 2005

Dynamic instead of status Quo potential analysisPotentials are changing within the time frame and depending from ecological restrictions

0

250

500

750

1000

1250

1500

1750

2010 2010

2000

2250

2500

SustainabilitycriteriaSustainabilitycriteria

2010

Thousand hectares

2020 2030 2040 2050

3050 4150

2020 2030 2040 2050

3050 4150

2020 2030 2040 2050

3050 4150

94

22

18

11 5

Additional biomass potential 2010 (PJ/a)due to achievement of nature conservation objectives

Open country

Forest margin developmentCompensation areas

2010

Sect. 3 Fed. Nat. Conserv. ActSect. 5 Fed. Nat. Conserv. Act

Freely available crop growing area

ErosionriskErosionrisk

March 2005

Necessary steps:Learning curves are crucial for long term scenarios

2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 20500,04

0,06

0,08

0,10

0,12

0,14

0,16St

rom

gest

ehun

gsko

sten

, EU

R/k

Wh

Wasser

Wind

Photovoltaik

Geothermie

Stromimport

Biomasse

Biogas

MittelwertBASIS I

oeko/kost2; 2.12.03

2003: 0,71 EUR/kWh2003: 0,186 EUR/kWh

Ct/k

Wh

c os t

of e

lec t

r icity

gen

e ra r

ti on

in

March 2005

Necessary steps:Comparison of technological options on the time frame taking policy instruments and changing frame conditions into consideration

2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 20500

2

4

6

8

10

yg

,

Fossillow prices

Fossilmedium prices

Fossil +emission trade

Coal-plantsCO2-capture

New REN -plants only

oeko/ko-verg4; 2.2.04

Cost of CO2-emissions, EUR/t

40 - 60

15

0

0

Subsidies forfossil energies

Promotion oftechnologicalinnovations

Elec

tric

ity c

osts

in c

t/kW

h

March 2005

Necessary steps:Looking behind the border - global link and international cooperation

EURO-MED

possible further inter-connections

Solar

Wind

Hydro

Geothermal

The regional utilization of renewables has to be integrated timely insupraregional and trans-European utilization systems

March 2005

Bringing all options together - taking interactions into considerationMethodology: bottom up energy system modellingReference Energy System (RES) - technology approach

TransportDistribution

ModificationEnd-use Energy-

services

Mineral oilprocessing

Electricity production

(power plant)

Natural Gas suply

Conventional energy

- Extraction- Processing

Finalnergy Usable energyPrimary energy

H2

NewEnergies- Biofuel, Methanol- Hydrogen

New, decentralised production techniques- renewable Energies- fuel cell- micro gas turbine- BHKW

ReewableEnergies

Energy efficienttechnologies5W5W

Energy management

Energy policy

E EG K WK-Law Association agreement K yoto m echanism EnEV

Power

Heat°C

cooling

Liberatisation

March 2005

Major findingsDevelopment of primary energy demand

2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 20500

2.000

4.000

6.000

8.000

10.000

12.000

14.000

ygy

,y

Hydropower, other REN Biomass Wind

energyREN - import

Nuclearenergy

Coal Oil Natural gas

Increasedefficiency

oeko/pev-bas2.pre;8.12.03

Business as usual

Substantial increasein efficiency = 35%

Substantial growth of Renewables = 35%

Targets 2050:

- 75% CO2 (2000)

Primary energy demand in PJ

March 2005

2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 20500

100

200

300

400

500 481512

527 529 519505

g,[

]

"Effizienz"

Haushalte

Industrie

GHD

Verkehr

oeko/stromver;3.1.04

2 0 0 0 2 0 10 20 2 0 2 0 3 0 20 4 0 20 5 00

1 .000

2 .000

3 .000

4 .000

5 .000

6 .000 5 .7 9 75 .52 6 5 .5 2 9

5 .3 6 2

5 .0 0 8

4 .6 9 1

g[

]

"E ffiz ie n z"

W a rm w a s se ra lleP ro ze s s w ä rm eG H D + H a u sh .P ro ze s s w ä rm eIn d u s trieR a u m w ä rm eG H D + In d .R a u m w ä rm eH a u s h a lte

oeko \w ae rm e-2 ; 3 .1 .04

2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 20500

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

2.7462.838

2.7572.639

2.485

2.300

g[

]

"Effizienz"

GüterverkehrSchiene, SchiffGüterverkehrStraße

Flugverkehr

ÖffentlicherPersonenverkehrMot. Individual-verkehr

oeko/verkehr2; 3.1.04

„Efficiency“compared to Ref.:(in % to 2000)

Electr. = - 450 PJ (26%)Heat = - 1680 PJ (36%)Transp. = - 1170 PJ (41%)Final Energy = - 3300 PJ (36%)

Major findingsDevelopment of final energy demand in different areas

ElectricityTWh

Heat (PJ)

TransportFuels (PJ)

March 2005

Major findingsElectricity generation - substantial system changes needed

- Scenario NatureConservationPlus I -

2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 20500

100

200

300

400

500

600 569534

495 489 490 504

Importrenewables

Photovoltaic

Geothermal

WindoffshoreWindonshore

Hydropower

Biomass,biogas

CHP, fossil

Gas cond.

Coal cond.

Nuclearenergyoeko\stromer2; 6.1.04

14,3 21,2 29,5 35,9 40,2 39,9 % 5,7 12,8 25,7 40,0 48,1 55,6 %

CHP incl. biomassREN excl. biomasse-CHP

Elec

tric

ity g

ener

atio

n in

TW

h

March 2005

- Erzeugung, Nutzungseffizienz, HS-Verteilung -

REF BASIS REF BASIS REF BASIS REF, CO2-arm0

10

20

30

40

50

30,231,6 32,2 33,2

35,6 34,5

39,3

Mitt

lere

Ges

amko

sten

, Mrd

. EU

R/a

Effizienz-steigerung

ErzeugungUntere Var. Mittlere Var. Obere Var.

5,07 5,35 5,40 5,68 5,96 5,95 6,58

Mittlere spez. Stromkosten (MS) 2001 - 2050 (ct/kWh)

oeko/strom-kos; 20.12.03

Major findingsAdditional costs seem to be acceptable - Example: electricity generationYearly average costs for the whole time frame (2001 – 2050)

Average cost ofelectricity saving:5,0 cts/kWh

Tota

l cos

ts in

Bio

. Eur

o/a

March 2005

General targets for sustainable energy systems Side benefits of climate protection policies

• Improvement of national energy resource basis ( independent from import risks, contribution to a higher security of supply)

• Protection of limited fossil energy reserves

• Reduction of costs for energy services and of economic risks ( high price volatility of fossil energy carriers)

• Contribution to environmental/climate requirements

• Gaining employment effects ( Innovation potential - technology developments

• Increasing export chances (development of adapted technologies)

• Low risk potential ( low accident potential, resistant to terrorist attacks and sabotage)

• International acceptability ( resistant to policy crises)

March 2005

Major findingsClimate protection policy stimulates the markets

2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 20400

2.000

4.000

6.000

8.000

10.000

12.000

14.000

16.000

18.000

Hydropower Wind Photovoltaic REN--ImportCollectors Biomass Geothermal

oeko/inv-NP1; 21.1.042030 2040 2050

Market volume in Mill. Euro/yr

Domestic market only

Steady investment of12 to 14 Bill. €/yrfrom 2020 (including Biofuels about 18 to 20 Bill. €/yr)

Accumulated amount:Until 2020: 140 Bill. €,until 2050: 500 Bill. €

Export markets are in the same order.

March 2005

Long Term Energy Scenario (German Enquete Commission)Selected scenario results

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

1990 1995 1998 2000 REF UWEWI

UWEIER

RROWI

RROIER

FNEWI

FNEIER

REF UWEWI

UWEIER

RROWI

RROIER

FNEWI

NH3IER

Statistik 2030 2050

hard coal lignite oil natural gasnuclear energy biomass geothermal energy hydrogenhydropower wind energy photovoltaics REN-Import

overall electricity generation [TWh] Construction demand:More than 50 nuclear power plants

Open question:Viability ofCO2-Sequestration

Sufficient technological and market dynamic REN/RUE

March 2005

Conclusions

• Climate protection is feasible from technology side of view and implementation can be realized by acceptable costs

• Climate protection is necessary due to the moral responsibility for the south and coming generations

• Adaptation is no alternative but due to already caused damages of the climate to a certain extent unavoidable

• Climate protection can be accompanied in particular in “first mover” countries with side benefits (e.g. new innovations, employment effects)

• Climate protection is connected with significant structural changes and requires a sophisticated and reliable long term energy and climate policy

• Policy makers should be aware of the high time constants for structural changes in the energy sector (operation time of powerplants, creation of new infrastructures) - starting right now with actions is without alternative

• Energy scenarios can help to find the right way for action

Thank you for your attention!

Contact details:

Dr. Manfred FischedickWuppertal InstitutDöppersberg 1942103 Wuppertal0202-2492-1210202-2492-198 (FAX)0202-2492-109 (Sekretariat)Manfred.Fischedick@wupperinst.org