Suchergebnisse

The costs of intermittent renewable energy systems (IRES) and power storage technologies are compared on a level playing field to those of natural gas combined cycle power plants with CO 2 capture and storage (NGCC-CCS). To account for technological progress over time, an "experience curve" approach is used to project future levelised costs of electricity (LCOE) based on technology progress ratios and deployment rates in worldwide energy scenarios, together with European energy and technology cost estimates. Under base case assumptions, the LCOE in 2040 for baseload NGCC-CCS plants is estimated to be 71 € 2012 /MWh. In contrast, the LCOE for electricity generated intermittently from IRES is estimated at 68, 82, and 104 € 2012 /MWh for concentrated solar power, offshore wind, and photovoltaic systems, respectively. Considering uncertainties in costs, deployment rates and geographical conditions, LCOE ranges for IRES are wider than for NGCC-CCS. We also assess energy storage technologies versus NGCC-CCS as backup options for IRES. Here, for base case assumptions NGCC-CCS with an LCOE of 90 € 2012 /MWh in 2040 is more costly than pumped hydro storage (PHS) or compressed air and energy storage (CAES) with LCOEs of 57 and 88 € 2012 /MWh, respectively. Projected costs for battery backup are 78, 149, and 321 € 2012 /MWh for Zn-Br, ZEBRA, and Li-ion battery systems, respectively. Finally, we compare four stylised low-carbon systems on a common basis (including all ancillary costs for IRES). In the 2040 base case, the system employing only NGCC-CCS has the lowest LCOE and lowest cost of CO 2 avoided with CO 2 emissions of 45 kg/MWh. A zero CO 2 emission system with IRES plus PHS as backup is 42% more expensive in terms of LCOE, and 13% more costly than a system with IRES plus NGCC-CCS backup with emissions of 23 kg CO 2 /MWh. Sensitivity results and study limitations are fully discussed within the paper.

To decarbonize the European Union, protein consumption must transition to diets low in meat and dairy which will drastically change the material and energy flows in current meat and dairy supply chains. To understand the impacts on current flows, a baseline is required. Although recent studies have improved the scope of reported greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, no quantitative overview exists including intermediate and final product flows. To address this knowledge gap, we structured the meat and dairy supply chains into a connected set of transformation nodes and distribution nodes. The former are processes transforming inputs into outputs, whereas the latter distribute the outputs to other processes using them as inputs. Currently, livestock play a central role in agriculture and other industries through the consumption of 271 Mt fodder crops, 108 Mt grain, 85 Mt grazed biomass, 49 Mt oil meal, and 16 Mt feed by-products. This feed is transformed into 64 Mt dairy and 35 Mt meat which ensures that the EU28 is a net exporter of meat and dairy while providing 25 Mt of by-products. This production also leads to 435 Mt CO2-eq. with the main contribution from beef cattle (35%), dairy cattle (32%), and swine (20%). Thus, the lower GHG intensities of dairy products compared to meat do not imply a low contribution to the total emissions. By mapping the material, energy, and GHG emission flows, we have created a baseline suitable for identifying potential supply chain changes and their related GHG increase or decrease resulting from the protein transition.

For reaching the 2 °C climate target, the robust growth of electricity generation from variable renewable energy sources (VRE) in the power sector is expected to continue. Accommodation of the power system to the variable, uncertain and locational-dependent outputs of VRE causes integration costs. Integrating VRE into a well-functioning electricity market can minimize integration costs and drive investments in VRE and complementary flexible resources. However, the electricity market in the European Union (EU), as currently designed, seems incapable to deliver this end. This paper aims to provide a comprehensive literature review of barriers to the large-scale market integration of VRE in the EU electricity market design. Based on the set-up of the EU electricity market, a framework was developed to incorporate the most pertinent market integration barriers and resulting market inefficiencies. This paper concludes that an overhaul is needed for the current EU electricity market to address all barriers identified. Firstly, a discrete auction intraday market, a marginal pricing balancing market, a two-price imbalance settlement and a nodal pricing locational marginal pricing mechanism seem more promising in limiting integration costs. Secondly, to support business cases of VRE and complementary flexible resources in the electricity market, a level playing field should be established and the price cap should be lifted up to the value of lost load (VOLL). Meanwhile, to fit VRE's market participation, a higher time resolution of trading products and later gate closure time in different submarkets would be required. Lastly, feed-in support schemes currently widely used for VRE investments might be inconsistent with market integration, as they increase integration costs and lock VRE investments in a subsidy-dependent pathway. To avoid such lock-in, further investigation of alternative capacity-based support schemes is recommended.

This paper provides a method to identify drivers, barriers and synergies (DBS) related to the deployment of a CO 2 pipeline network. The method was demonstrated for the West Mediterranean region (WMR) (i.e. Spain, Portugal and Morocco). The method comprises a literature review, analysis of embedded pipeline trajectories, interviews with experts, and workshops with stakeholders. Subsequently, the collected information was used to identify route specific DBS in several CO 2 pipeline network deployment scenarios that were modeled for the WMR. Most identified DBS apply to CO 2 pipeline transport in general. The barriers (e.g. technical knowledge gaps, outstanding legislative issues, lack of financial incentive) can in principle be tackled to make the design, construction and operation of a CO 2 pipeline network possible, but could sometimes lead to somewhat higher costs. Furthermore, there are also facilitating processes (e.g. experience with CO 2 pipeline transport for EOR). Cost benefits due to pipeline oversizing were identified as a route specific driver, whereas crossings of mountains, water and nature areas are route specific barriers. Installing CO 2 pipelines along natural gas pipelines could be either a route specific synergy or barrier, depending on site conditions. Finally, several key measures were proposed to enable CO 2 pipeline networks in the future.

Transport and storage of CO2 are the elements in the CCS chain with the lowest cost, but they may well prove to be the elements defining the timeline for CCS development. The EU FP7 COMET project aimed to pave the road towards CCS development in the West Mediterranean (Portugal, Spain and Morocco). This paper provides the main highlights of the work conducted within COMET. The project addressed the temporal and spatial aspects of the development of the energy sector and other industrial activities in relation with CCS and its participation to CO2 emission reduction taking into account location, capacity and availability of CO2 sources and of potential CO2 storage formations. Special attention was given to a balanced optimization on transport modes, matching the sources and sinks, meeting optimal cost-benefit trade-offs, for a CCS network infrastructure as part of an international cooperation policy.

International audience ; Transport and storage of CO2 are the elements in the CCS chain with the lowest cost, but they may well prove to be the elements defining the timeline for CCS development. The EU FP7 COMET project aimed to pave the road towards CCS development in the West Mediterranean (Portugal, Spain and Morocco). This paper provides the main highlights of the work conducted within COMET. The project addressed the temporal and spatial aspects of the development of the energy sector and other industrial activities in relation with CCS and its participation to CO2 emission reduction taking into account location, capacity and availability of CO2 sources and of potential CO2 storage formations. Special attention was given to a balanced optimization on transport modes, matching the sources and sinks, meeting optimal cost-benefit trade-offs, for a CCS network infrastructure as part of an international cooperation policy.

International audience ; Transport and storage of CO2 are the elements in the CCS chain with the lowest cost, but they may well prove to be the elements defining the timeline for CCS development. The EU FP7 COMET project aimed to pave the road towards CCS development in the West Mediterranean (Portugal, Spain and Morocco). This paper provides the main highlights of the work conducted within COMET. The project addressed the temporal and spatial aspects of the development of the energy sector and other industrial activities in relation with CCS and its participation to CO2 emission reduction taking into account location, capacity and availability of CO2 sources and of potential CO2 storage formations. Special attention was given to a balanced optimization on transport modes, matching the sources and sinks, meeting optimal cost-benefit trade-offs, for a CCS network infrastructure as part of an international cooperation policy.

International audience ; Transport and storage of CO2 are the elements in the CCS chain with the lowest cost, but they may well prove to be the elements defining the timeline for CCS development. The EU FP7 COMET project aimed to pave the road towards CCS development in the West Mediterranean (Portugal, Spain and Morocco). This paper provides the main highlights of the work conducted within COMET. The project addressed the temporal and spatial aspects of the development of the energy sector and other industrial activities in relation with CCS and its participation to CO2 emission reduction taking into account location, capacity and availability of CO2 sources and of potential CO2 storage formations. Special attention was given to a balanced optimization on transport modes, matching the sources and sinks, meeting optimal cost-benefit trade-offs, for a CCS network infrastructure as part of an international cooperation policy.

Europe's capacity to explore the envisaged pathways that achieve its near- and long-term energy and climate objectives needs to be significantly enhanced. In this perspective, we discuss how this capacity is supported by energy and climate-economy models, and how international modelling teams are organised within structured communication channels and consortia as well as coordinate multi-model analyses to provide robust scientific evidence. Noting the lack of such a dedicated channel for the highly active yet currently fragmented European modelling landscape, we highlight the importance of transparency of modelling capabilities and processes, harmonisation of modelling parameters, disclosure of input and output datasets, interlinkages among models of different geographic granularity, and employment of models that transcend the highly harmonised core of tools used in model inter-comparisons. Finally, drawing from the COVID-19 pandemic, we discuss the need to expand the modelling comfort zone, by exploring extreme scenarios, disruptive innovations, and questions that transcend the energy and climate goals across the sustainability spectrum. A comprehensive and comprehensible multi-model framework offers a real example of "collective" science diplomacy, as an instrument to further support the ambitious goals of the EU Green Deal, in compliance with the EU claim to responsible research. ; This work was supported by the H2020 European Commission Projects "PARIS REINFORCE" under Grant Agreement No. 820846, "LOCOMOTION" under Grant Agreement No. 821105, "SENTINEL" under Grant Agreement No. 837089, and "NAVIGATE" under Grant Agreement No. 821124. The sole responsibility for the content of this paper lies with the authors; the paper does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the European Commission.