European-wide and Regional Scenarios for CO 2 Infrastructure · 2021. 1. 1. · - 0 - European-wide and Regional Scenarios for CO 2 Infrastructure. Berlin Conference on Energy and

- 0 -

European-wide and Regional Scenarios for CO2 Infrastructure

Berlin Conference on Energy and Electricity Economics (BELEC 2015)

Cross-Border Coordination for Sustainable Energy Security –

Theory and Policy Lessons from Different Sectors, Berlin, 28.05.2015

Dipl.-Ing. Pao-Yu Oei, Dipl.-Ing. Roman Mendelevitch

Workgroup for Infrastructure Policy (WIP), Technische Universität Berlin

Energy, Transport, Environment (EVU), DIW Berlin

- 1 -

Agenda

1. The Vision for a Pan-European CCTS-Network

2. Modeling a Pan-European CCTS Infrastructure

3. Examining a Regional Roll-out in the North Sea with EOR-Applications

4. Combining CCTS and the Electricity Sector in one Model

5. General Conclusions

- 2 -

Introduction: Big hopes…

Installed capacity equipped with Carbon Capture in GW from different studies:

Sou

rce:

OE

CD

/IEA

(201

0) &

Lud

erer

, Ede

nhof

er e

t al.

(201

1)

Year Study 2020 2050 IEA (2012) 4.9 77 Capros et al. (2011) 3 108

PresenterPresentation NotesBlue Map Scenario und anderen Szenarien für eine Co2-Emissionsarme Zukunft sehen CCTS als wichtige Vermeidungsoption mit einem Beitrag von 19%. Den Berechnung der des IEA Blue Map Scenarios zu folgen würde die Gesamt CO2-Vermeidungskosten um bis zu 71% steigen, wenn die Technologie nicht zu Verfügung stehtKonkrete Zahlen: mit CCTS bestückte installierte LeistungTransportinfrastruktur von um 25.000 km

Speicherung: NIMBY

- 3 -

… and the reality: The failure of CCTS in Germany

No EU-funding through NER-300

Longannet (UK, 1 Milliarde £)

No CO2-priority infrastructure projects

Mongstad (Norway)

9 cancelled projects in 2 years

19.10.2011

Jänschwalde (De, Vattenfall)

05.12.2011

08.12.2010

Hürth (De, RWE)

"Ob [CCS] in Deutschland zur Anwendung kommt ist eher zweifelhaft. [...]“

18.12.2012

14.07.2012

14.10.2013

22.10.2013 20.09.2013 29.10.2011

„CO2-Speicherung für Energiewende

nicht relevant“

Source: Own illustration based on Tagesspiegel (2010), BBC (2011), Märkische Rundschau (2011), Vattenfall (2011), Bundesregierung (2012), EC (2012), Bellona (2013), EC (2013), GCI (2013), EUWID (2014).

27.01.2014

Schleswig-Holstein (De) forbids CO2-storage

- 4 -

Development of the CCTS projects since 2011

?

? ? ?

?

? ? ?

cancelled.

delayed ?

? ?

Source: Own depiction based on GCI (2011, 2013) and MIT (2014).

PresenterPresentation Notes53: Peterhead; 55: White Rose; 40 C-Gen

- 5 -

Agenda






- 6 -

CCTSMOD: Model structure

• Omniscient planner designs cost-optimal CCTS

infrastructure given costs for infrastructure and CO2

Certificates

• CO2 Certificate price as initiator for CCTS

development

CO2 prices from PRIMES EMF scenarios

• Time horizon 2010-2050, five-year steps

• Solved as MIP with the CPLEX Solver in GAMS

PresenterPresentation NotesGiven the CO2 emissions of the individual point sources an omniscent planner decide whether to purchase CO2 certificates or to persue the CCTS technology chain, investing to capturing, transportation and storage infrastructure.

- 7 -

Source: Own illustriation

CO2 source emissions

• 1618 fossil power

• 1847 heavy industry

• ~ 3.2 Gt CO2 /a in 2010

Available storage potential

• 44 Gt Onshore

• 50 Gt Offshore

• 1.2 Gt CO2-EOR

Data from the Pan-European model: Emission sources and potential storage sites in Europe

PresenterPresentation NotesMotivation for Regional Scenarios

Only facilities emitting more than 100,000 tCO2 per year concidered for CCTS

- 8 -

Cost structure for CO2 capture costs

Sector 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

Capital costs in €/tCO2 (captured) per year

Coal 175 175 149 127 108

Gas 275 275 220 176 141

Cement 243 243 207 176 150

Steel 91 91 77 65 55

Refinery 170 170 145 123 105

Operation and maintenance costs in €/tCO2 (captured)

Coal 10 10 9 8 7

Gas 7 7 6 5 4

Cement 21 21 18 15 13

Steel 5 5 4 3 3

Refinery 18 18 15 13 11

Energy penalty in €/tCO2 (captured)

Coal 54 54 53 52 51

Gas 47 47 46 45 44

Cement 16 16 16 16 16

Steel 28 28 27 26 25

Refinery 43 43 42 41 40

Source: Own illustration based on various sources (see Mendelevitch (2014) for more details).

- 9 -

Assumptions for Pan-European scenarios

• Germany, Denmark, UK and Norway de facto only allow offshore storage, which will eventually be the case in all EU countries.

• Available storage capacity reduces form 94 GtCO2 to 50 GtCO2 • France+Belgium do not have domestic storage potential, Germany only very limited (1.2 Gt)

Input Parameter Variation 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050

Certificate price in €/tCO2

40% 14 17 27 37 45 52 52 52

80% 18 25 39 53 75 97 183 270

PresenterPresentation NotesIt is obvious that deployment is triggered by the CO2 certificate price path which governs the profitability of the CCTS technology in comparison to balancing CO2 emissions with purchased CO2 certificates. If in the long run, anticipated prices are higher than the costs of using the technology chain, then CCTS is employed.

- 10 -

Scenario results: 40% Scenario

• No mayor deployment of CCTS • CCTS starts being used from the year 2035 onwards when the CO2 certificate price passes

the 40 €/tCO2 threshold. • only a very small annual amount of around 1 MtCO2 is being captured and stored in

offshore hydrocarbon fields as well as saline aquifers • Four iron and steel factories in Norway and Estonia are the only emitters that invest in

capture technology, benefiting from the lower variable and fixed costs assumed for this industry. The location of the investing factories is directly at the shore which leads to lower transport costs than for other industrial facilities.

• The overall costs sum up to 0.2bn.€ of investment costs and additional 0.4bn.€ of variable costs until 2050.

PresenterPresentation NotesNothing happens. Model estimate that 4 iron and steel works with favorable investment and variable costs for CCTS plus a favorable location at the costal shore close to a saline aquifer are employing CCTS.

- 11 -


• Similar to the previous results, CCTS deployment starts once the CO2 price exceeds 40 €/tCO2 in 2030.

• The iron and steel sector is again the first mover until some cement works start capturing CO2 from 2035 onwards At that point a certificate price of 75 €/tCO2 is being reached and a total of 300 MtCO2 are annually stored in offshore hydrocarbon fields and saline aquifers.

• CCTS becomes economical for power plants and refineries as soon as the price exceeds 100 €/tCO2 in the year 2040.

• Still rising prices above 180€/tCO2 in 2045 lead to additional economic incentives for more distanced power plants to invest in further CCTS deployment.

• The CO2 is transported via a pipeline network of 44,800 km to different storage locations.

- 12 -


• Similar to the previous results, CCTS deployment starts once the CO2 price exceeds 40 €/tCO2 in 2030

• The iron and steel sector is again the first mover until some cement works start capturing CO2 from 2035 onwards At that point a certificate price of 75 €/tCO2 is being reached and a total of 300 MtCO2 are annually stored in offshore hydrocarbon fields and saline aquifers.

• CCTS becomes economical for power plants and refineries as soon as the price exceeds 100 €/tCO2 in the year 2040.

• Still rising prices above 180€/tCO2 in 2045 lead to additional economic incentives for more distanced power plants to invest in further CCTS deployment.

• The CO2 is transported via a pipeline network of 44,800 km to different storage locations

2050

- 13 -

Sensitivity on variable and investment costs

Input Parameter Variation 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050

Capital cost in €/tCO2y

Base Case1 175 175 162 149 138 127 118 108 Inv&Var_150% 263 263 243 224 207 191 177 162 Inv_200% 350 350 324 298 276 254 236 216

Variable cost in €/tCO2

Base Case2 64 64 63 62 61 60 59 58 Inv&Var_150% 96 96 95 93 92 90 89 87 Var_200% 128 128 126 124 122 120 118 116

[1] Data specification used for coal-fired power plants in (Mendelevitch, 2014). [3] Costs only include additional variable and fixed costs for a capturing unit compared to a facility without a capturing unit.

PresenterPresentation NotesBase Case assumptions are 20-30 lower than PRIMES

- 14 -

Agenda






- 15 -

CCTSMOD: Model structure

• Omniscient planner designs cost-optimal CCTS

infrastructure given costs for infrastructure and CO2

Certificates

• CO2 Certificate price as initiator for CCTS

development

CO2 prices from PRIMES EMF scenarios

• Time horizon 2010-2050, five-year steps

• Solved as MIP with the CPLEX Solver in GAMS

PresenterPresentation NotesGiven the CO2 emissions of the individual point sources an omniscent planner decide whether to purchase CO2 certificates or to persue the CCTS technology chain, investing to capturing, transportation and storage infrastructure.

- 16 -

The role of CO2-EOR: Focus on the North Sea region

2025 2050

- 17 -

The role of CO2-EOR: Focus on countries with a CCTS agenda

2025 2050

PresenterPresentation NotesNorway, Denmark, UK, Netherlands

- 18 -

Comparison: North Sea regions vs. only DK, NL NO, UK

2025 2030 2035 2040

Avg. Invest. in CO2 Transport per MtCO2 per year

All North Sea Region 0.07 0.09 0.11 0.03

DK, NL NO, UK 0.07 0.07 0.09 0.07

Avg. Invest. in CO2 Storage per MtCO2 per year

All North Sea Region 0.10 0.11 0.16 0.10

DK, NL NO, UK 0.10 0.10 0.16 0.15

Regional Scenario Pipeline Network [th. km]

Stored Emiss. until

[GtCO2]

Origin. from

industry [%]

Storage left in 2050 [GtCO2]

CCTS invest. costs [€bn]

CCTS var.

costs [€bn]

2030 2050 2030 2050

North Sea 80% 10.2 26.8 0.6 8.5 54 34.6 191.9 539.3

DK, NL NO, UK 80% 11.0 13.6 0.6 3.1 57 36.4 61.7 232.4

- 19 -

Some first conclusions for CCTS implementation in Europe

• Industrial CO2 emitters benefit from significantly lower variable capturing costs

• For Carbon Capture variable costs are more important than investment cost

• There are significant economies of scale associated with CO2 transport and storage infrastructure

• CO2-EOR can positively influence the economics of CCTS but the potential is very limited

- 20 -

Agenda






- 21 -

Our research idea is to examine the future electricity market of the UK

UK´s climate targets for GHG reduction:

34% by 2020 & 80% by 2050 (base year: 1990).

35%

1%

27%

18%

1% 9%

5% 4%

Coal

Oil & other fuels

Gas

Nuclear

Hydro (natural flow)

Wind & Solar

Other renewables

Net imports

Electricity production per fuel type in 2013 for UK Source: DECC (2014) – UK Energy Brief

- 22 -

Motivation for designing a new model: The ELCO model

Current Representation of CCTS • Electricity market models (e.g. Egerer et. al 2013, Kunz et al. 2013, Leuthold et al. 2012) • CCTS infrastructure models (e.g. Oei, Herold, and Mendelevitch 2014; Mendelevitch 2014) They neglect: • CO2 transport and storage aspects incl. competition for storage usage with the industry • The electricity system

Our model should simulate: • regionally disaggregated electricity generation and flows • CO2 capture from power generation and CO2-intensive industry, CO2 transport and storage (incl.

CO2-EOR) Included Features: diffusion and curtailment constraints, environmental regulation and targets, time-specific CO2 stream, location-specific technology costs and constraints, endogenous or exogenous feed in tariffs

- 23 -

PV, Wind on & off, Biomass, Hydro

New Nuclear Existing Nuclear, Coal, OCGT, CCGT

New Coal, OCGT, CCGT w/o CCTS

New Coal, CCGT w/ CCTS

Cement, Steel w/ & w/o CCTS

Saline, DOGF, EOR

Set: t, tt Set: i, ii Set: s, ss

CO2 - TSO

Electricity Generation Income

ETS Costs

Generation VC & FC

Generation Investment

Industry

Storage

Capture VC & FC

Capture investment

Storage VC & FC

Storage investment EOR Income

ETS Costs

RE new

NUC new CON

FOSSIL new STOR

FOSSIL CCTS IND

Capture Investment

ELEC - TSO

CO2 TSO Fee

Transport VC & FC

Transport Investment

Electricity TSO Fee

Transport Investment

Transport VC & FC

Electricity Market

C

O2 M

arket

Capture VC & FC

- 24 -

Assumptions for a tentative scenario

• Electricity sector − RE-Diffusion: Exponential growth depending on starting capacity − CfD: Exogenous strike price projections for 2015 and 2020 − Nuclear: Max 5 GW new capacity − CO2 target: 90% reduction until 2050 (base 1990) − CO2 certificate price: from 20€/t in 2015 to 80€/t in 2050 − No specific RE-Target − EPS: 450 gCO2/kWh for new capacity − Demand Reduction: 20% until 2050

• Steel and Cement sector

− CO2 Emissions Reduction: 40% until 2050

• Storage − Oil: price 65€/bbl, CO2 efficiency: 3bbl/tCO2 − Available storage types: offshore CO2-EOR, DOGF, Saline Aquifer

• General 2015-2050 in 5 year steps; 5 weighted time slices; 3 nodes; no line congestion

- 25 -

4 Results of a tentative scenario: The electricity sector… • Diversified electricity portfolio in

2050: RES-E (47%), gas (25%), nuclear (14%), and CCTS (14%)

• Constant growth of renewables • CfD covers more than 70% of the

market in 2050; its expenses rise to 23 bn. € in 2050 (equivalent to a tax of 100 €/MWh)

PresenterPresentation NotesThe share of coal-fired energy production in the base case is sharply reduced from 39% in 2015 to 0% in 2030 due to a phasing out of the existing capacities (see Figure 1). Newly invested fossil capacities concentrate on CCGT gas power plants which are built from 2030 onwards. EPS hinders the construction of any new coal-fired power plant.The share of renewables in the system grows continuously from 20% in 2015, 30% in 2030 to 46% in 2050. Wind off- (41% in 2050) and onshore (25% in 2050) are the main renewable energy sources followed by hydro and biomass (together 27% in 2050). investments in CCTS-EOR power plants regardless of additional incentives from the energy market. The potential for EOR is limited and will be used to its full extent until 2050. The maximum share of CCTS in the energy mix is 16% in 2045.

- 26 -

4 Results of a tentative scenario: …including the CCTS chain • Diversified electricity portfolio in

2050: RES-E (47%), gas (25%), nuclear (14%), and CCTS (14%)

• Constant growth of renewables • CfD covers more than 70% of the

market in 2050; its expenses rise to 23 bn. € in 2050 (equivalent to a tax of 100 €/MWh)

• Investments only in EOR storage, regardless of additional incentives from the energy market

• CO2 flow from industry is more constant than from electricity sector

PresenterPresentation NotesThe share of coal-fired energy production in the base case is sharply reduced from 39% in 2015 to 0% in 2030 due to a phasing out of the existing capacities (see Figure 1). Newly invested fossil capacities concentrate on CCGT gas power plants which are built from 2030 onwards. EPS hinders the construction of any new coal-fired power plant.The share of renewables in the system grows continuously from 20% in 2015, 30% in 2030 to 46% in 2050. Wind off- (41% in 2050) and onshore (25% in 2050) are the main renewable energy sources followed by hydro and biomass (together 27% in 2050). investments in CCTS-EOR power plants regardless of additional incentives from the energy market. The potential for EOR is limited and will be used to its full extent until 2050. The maximum share of CCTS in the energy mix is 16% in 2045.

- 27 -

Agenda






- 28 -

General Conclusions

• There has been a „lost decade“ with respect to CCTS implementation no operating demonstration project with a complete capture, transport and longterm storage chain; reasons for the delay are

– Few incentivces to invest in capture infrastructure (e.g. too low CO2-ETS price) – Underestimated capture costs – No focus on cheap capture technologies for industrial processes – Underestimated complexity of implementing CO2 transport and storage

• There is a big gap between model visions for CCTS roll-out and political reality which has to be closed

• CCTS in Europe currently only plays a role in combination with CO2-EOR-applications, in particular in the UK, Norway and the Netherlands

• Onshore storage of CO2 is not an option due to public resistance • Pilot projects should focus on the industrial application (esp. in the steel sector) of CCTS

due to cheaper abatement costs and fewer alternative abatement technologies

- 29 -

European-wide and Regional Scenarios for CO2 Infrastructure using CCTSMOD

Berlin Conference on Energy and Electricity Economics (BELEC 2015)

Cross-Border Coordination for Sustainable Energy Security –

Theory and Policy Lessons from Different Sectors, Berlin, 28.05.2015

Dipl.-Ing. Pao-Yu Oei, Dipl.-Ing. Roman Mendelevitch

Workgroup for Infrastructure Policy (WIP), Technische Universität Berlin

Energy, Transport, Environment (EVU), DIW Berlin

PresenterPresentation NotesKW Niederaußem? ; TB Lützen; TB JänschwaldeOEI (20-30 min; dann fragen)�(ökonomische sicht; arbeitsplätze, brückentechnologie,

- 30 -

Next steps for this modeling approach

• Compare the costs of different incentive schemes and analyze their effects on the deployment of different low carbon technologies, with a special focus on CCTS with and without the option for EOR.

• Further consider the role of industry CCTS • Study the feedback effects between the CfD scheme and the electricity price, and

investigate the incentives of the government which acts along the three pillars of energy policy: cost-efficiency, sustainability and security; in a two-level setting

• Use our results to draw conclusions and possible policy recommendations for low carbon support schemes in other counties

- 31 -

…the upcoming decade becomes vital to prevent sunk investments in carbon intensive power plants.

01.0002.0003.0004.0005.0006.000[MW]

yearly construction coal

0

2.000

4.000

6.000

8.000[MW]

yearly construction CCGT

0

500

1.000

1.500

2.000[MW]

yearly construction OCGT

Source: Own illustration based on Platts (2011)

0

1.000

2.000

3.000

4.000

5.000

6.000[MW]

yearly construction nuclear

- 32 -

The Electricity Markets Reform (EMR) in UK comprises of several instruments:

• Contract for Differences

• Emissions Performance Standard (EPS)

Source: DECC (2012)

• Capacity Markets

• Carbon Floor Price

- 33 -

Motivation and research question

EMR is controversially discussed, e.g. by (Pollitt and Haney 2013) • as a whole, it is not a consistent strategy to achieve the three main energy policy priorities

of competitiveness, energy security and decarbonization • will increase the wholesale electricity price and the consumers energy bill substantially • removes ability to react quickly to new information, and competition in planning for the

future; generation mix will no longer be decided based on price signals but be determined by the government.

Wrong incentives through the EMR might lead to sunk investments in carbon intensive power plants. These lead to a risk of induced welfare losses as well as breeched climate targets (see e.g. Johnson et al. 2014).

We want to analyze the measures of the UK-EMR, specifically the Carbon Price Floor

(CPF), Emissions Performance Standard (EPS) and Contracts for Differences (CfD), and how they will influence the construction of new generation capacities, with a special focus on CCTS.

- 34 -

Current status of CCTS: Not a single pilot project in the EU!

Project Jänsc

hwald

e

Porto-

Tolle

ROA

D

Belch

atow

Comp

ostilla

Don

Valley

C-

GEN

Long

annet

Proje

ct

Getic

a

ULCO

S

Green

Hydro

gen

White

Rose

(UK

Oxy)

Peel

Energ

y

Peter

head

Teess

ide

(Esto

n)

Eems

haven

Pega

sus

Marits

a

Mong

stad

Capta

in

Clean

Energ

y

Country DE IT NL PL ES UK UK UK RO FR NL UK UK UK UK NL NL BG NO UK

Technolo

gy

Oxyfu

el

Post Post Post Oxyfu

el

Pre Pre Post Post Post Pre Oxyfu

el

Post Post Pre Post Oxyfu

el

Post Post Pre

Storage Aquife

r

Aquife

r

Öl-/

Gasfel

d

Aquife

r

Aquife

r

EOR Aquife

r

EOR Aquife

r

Aquife

r

EGR Aquife

r

Öl-/

Gasfel

d

Öl-/

Gasfel

d

Aquife

r

EOR Öl-/

Gasfel

d

Aquife

r

Aquife

r

Aquife

r

Capacity

[MW]

250 250 250 260 320 650 450 330 250 Stahl H2 430 400 400 400 250 340 120 630 400

Plan in

2011

2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2017 2017 2020 2020 -

Status in

2013

2011

shut

down

2020 2017 2013

shut

down

2018 2018 2016/

7

2011

shut

down

2016 2018 2012

shut

down

2020 2012

shut

down

2017 2018 2013

shut

down

2013

shut

down

2013

shut

down

2013

shut

down

2018

Source: Own depiction based on GCI (2011, 2013) and MIT (2014).

- 35 -

Option: Carbon Capture, Transportation, and Storage (CCTS)?

- 36 -

Pilot Plant in Jänschwalde is being cancelled on 5.12.2011

- 37 -

Interpretation No. 1: Exaggerated Expectation vis-à-vis CCTS e.g. Luderer, Edenhofer et al. (2011): The Great Transformation

- 38 -

Interpretation No. 2: Unfocussed technology policy: “Competition between Technologies” instead focus on Post-Combustion

Source: Gibbins, Chalmers (2007)

- 39 -

Interpretation No. 2: Gibbons/Chalmers (2008): Rapid Diffusion only Using Post-Combustion

Source: Gibbins, Chalmers (2007)

- 40 -

Interpretation No. 3: Biased Cost Estimates (EU, 2011A1, p. 19)

- 41 -

Interpretation No. 4: Overestimation of Learning Effects „Inverse“ Learning Curves are Possible, e.g. Nuclear Power in the USA

Source: Rai, Victor, Thuber (2008, p. 12)

- 42 -

Interpretation No. 5: Neglect of the „T-Component“ (here: scenario Onshore 100)

Source: Herold, Oei, Mendlevitch, et al. (2011)

in 2050 • Pipeline network of 33,000 km

• 413 billion € investment costs

• 1319 billion € variable costs

• 50 of 94 Gt storage left in 2050

scarcity of storage potential

becomes visible (~ 25 years left)

- 43 -

CO2 source emissions

• 1618 fossil power

• 1847 heavy industry

• ~ 3.2 Gt CO2 /a in 2010

Available storage potential

• 44 Gt Onshore

• 50 Gt Offshore

Interpretation No. 6: Neglect of the S-torage Component

Source: Herold, Oei, Mendlevitch, et al. (2011)

PresenterPresentation NotesOnly facilities emitting more than 100,000 tCO2 per year concidered for CCTS

Slide Number 1AgendaIntroduction: Big hopes…… and the reality: The failure of CCTS in GermanyDevelopment of the CCTS projects since 2011AgendaCCTSMOD: Model structureData from the Pan-European model: Emission sources and potential storage sites in EuropeCost structure for CO2 capture costsAssumptions for Pan-European scenariosScenario results: 40% ScenarioScenario results: 80% ScenarioScenario results: 80% ScenarioSensitivity on variable and investment costsAgendaCCTSMOD: Model structureThe role of CO2-EOR: Focus on the North Sea regionThe role of CO2-EOR: Focus on countries with a CCTS agendaComparison: North Sea regions vs. only DK, NL NO, UKSome first conclusions for CCTS implementation in EuropeAgendaOur research idea is to examine the future electricity market of the UKMotivation for designing a new model: The ELCO modelSlide Number 24Assumptions for a tentative scenarioResults of a tentative scenario: The electricity sector…Results of a tentative scenario: …including the CCTS chainAgendaGeneral ConclusionsSlide Number 30Next steps for this modeling approach…the upcoming decade becomes vital to prevent sunk investments in carbon intensive power plants. The Electricity Markets Reform (EMR) in UK comprises of several instruments:Motivation and research questionCurrent status of CCTS: Not a single pilot project in the EU!Option: Carbon Capture, Transportation, and Storage (CCTS)?Pilot Plant in Jänschwalde is being cancelled on 5.12.2011Interpretation No. 1: Exaggerated Expectation vis-à-vis CCTS�e.g. Luderer, Edenhofer et al. (2011): The Great TransformationInterpretation No. 2: Unfocussed technology policy:�“Competition between Technologies” instead focus on Post-CombustionInterpretation No. 2: Gibbons/Chalmers (2008):�Rapid Diffusion only Using Post-CombustionInterpretation No. 3: Biased Cost Estimates�(EU, 2011A1, p. 19)Interpretation No. 4: Overestimation of Learning Effects�„Inverse“ Learning Curves are Possible, e.g. Nuclear Power in the USAInterpretation No. 5: Neglect of the „T-Component“�(here: scenario Onshore 100)Slide Number 44

Documents

European-wide and Regional Scenarios for CO 2 Infrastructure · 2021. 1. 1. · - 0 - European-wide and Regional Scenarios for CO 2 Infrastructure. Berlin Conference on Energy and