MSc in Sustainable Cities

Thesis Exams

Energy system analysis of feasible options

towards 100% renewable energy system
in Germany

John Kapetanakis & Spyridon Pantelis

Copenhagen, 25th June 2015

Presentation structure

 Introduction
 Theories
 Methodology
 Scenarios
 Analysis
 Findings
 Recommendations
 Challenges
 Considerations
2
Introduction
 Problem area

Challenges of Current scenarios oriented to Energy transition:

Achieve the reduction targets regarding CO2 emissions, PES,
electricity and heat while enhancing penetration of RES

 Research question
What are the current scenarios to transform German energy system
towards 100% renewable and how a sector integration approach
could improve the feasibility of this?

3
Theoretical framework

 The Carbon lock-in

current regime’s dependence on carbon
resilience to change
 The Choice awareness
radical changes necessary
alternatives do exist

4
EnergyPLAN tool

5
Methodology
Tool validation - Selection of
Scenarios
Reference studies in the
simulation
scenario literature

Introduction of Comparison of
Creation of SIA
sector integration current 2050
scenario
approach scenarios

Feasibility and Overall

performance comparison and
check evaluation
6
Validation
 Create a model for Germany 2010 - Reference

 The base model for developing future scenarios

 Comparison of outputs to actual values of 2010 – Validity

 Able to simulate German energy system with high accuracy

7
The HBF scenario
 Study commissioned by Heinrich Böll Foundation
 Reduce space heating demand by 80% compared with 2008 levels
 17% of the heat demand is covered by district heating
 Individual heating infrastructure: heat pumps, micro CHP, thermal storage and solar
thermal
 Transport energy needs are supplied by:
30% electricity (Electric vehicles)
10% hydrogen (Fuel cell vehicles)
60% fossil fuels (petrol, diesel, Jet Fuel)
 Electricity storage
 Power-to-gas technologies (electrolysers)
 Flexible electricity demand 8
The FH scenario
 Study conducted by Fraunhofer Gesellschaft.
 Reduce space heating demand by 60% compared with 2010 levels
 25% of the heat demand is covered by district heating, equipped with heat pumps,
thermal storage and solar thermal
 Individual heating infrastructure: air-source, ground-source and natural gas-fired heat
pumps, solar thermal and thermal storage
 Transport energy needs are supplied by:
30% electricity (Electric vehicles)
30% hydrogen (Fuel cell vehicles)
40% fossil fuels (petrol, diesel, Jet Fuel)
 Electricity storage
 Power-to-gas technologies (Electrolysers) 9
The UBA scenario
 Study conducted by the German Federal Environment Agency (Umweltbundesamt).
 Reduce space heating demand by 70% compared with 2010 levels
 17% of heat demand covered by DH, equipped with heat pumps and thermal storage
 Individual heating: heat pumps, natural gas boilers, thermal storage and solar thermal
 Transport energy needs are supplied by:
40% electricity (Electric vehicles in vehicle-to-grid mode)
60% synthetic fuels (Gas-to-liquid technologies)
 Electricity storage
 Power-to-gas technologies (electrolysers)
 Power-to-gas technologies utilise RES and imports for renewable methane production
 Threefold transmission line capacities compared with the other two scenarios
10
 Comparison of three 2050 scenarios
3. Electricity and
heat balancing
1. Performance evaluation 2. Performance evaluation for
in terms of common and varying wind energy
individual targets production

Primary Energy Supply

Critical Excess Electricity
1500

CO2 emissions Nucl Production

Fuel Consumption excl.

Electricity (TWh/yr)
ear 1000
(corrected) RES
Total Annual Costs
RES 1200000
Total Annual Costs
1150000 10000
500

Total costs (mio

excl. RES (TWh/yr)

Buildin

Fuel consumption
g 1000
1100000
1050000
CO2 emissions
5000
Mt/yr

Ref 2010 HBF FH UBA 0 0

€/yr)
retrofit 1000000
CO2 emissions

800 950000 0 0 200

Invest 900000 Onshore400 600 production
500 power
wind 800
1000 1000
(TWh)
(Mt/yr)

ment 600 Onshore wind power production (TWh)

850000
Ref 2010 HBF FH UBA 400 800000
750000
200 0 Onshore
200 wind400 600 800(TWh)1000
power production
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000
Onshore wind power production (TWh)

11
Strengths and weaknesses…
Building the SIA scenario

Comparison
of three
2050
scenarios
Own SIA
calculations scenario

Sector
integration
literature
12
Building the SIA scenario
 Reduce space heating demand by 60% compared with 2010 levels
 30% of the heat demand is covered by district heating, equipped with heat pumps, thermal
storage and solar thermal
 Individual heating infrastructure: air-source, ground-source and natural gas-fired heat pumps,
solar thermal and thermal storage
 Transport energy needs are supplied by:
60% electricity (Electric vehicles in vehicle-to-grid mode)
20% hydrogen (Fuel cell vehicles)
20% synthetic fuels (Gas-to-liquid technologies)
 Power-to-gas technologies (Electrolysers, Biomass gasification)
 Flexible electricity demand

13
 Analysis of SIA scenario

Critical Excess Electricity Reduction

180
Fuel savings excl. RES
50 160

Reducted Excess Electricity (TWh)

140
40
120
30

Fuel savings excl. RES (TWh

100 HP
20 TS
80

10 60 6%FLE
X
40 ST
0
ELT/CH
20
-10 P
0
-20 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900
Onshore wind power production (TWh)
-30
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900
Onshore wind power production (TWh)

2. Performance evaluation of six technologies 14

1. Balancing analysis on hourly based values
 Performance of SIA scenario
1100 Total Annual Costs
Critical Excess Electricity Production
1000 Annual Costs excl. 'Fixed operational costs' 2010 Ref. HBF FH UBA SIA
900
Net fuel costs CO2 Marginal Operational Investment Building retrofit 500 Fuel Consumption excl. RES
CO2 emissions (corrected) 450
2010 Ref. HBF FH UBA SIA
560
800
520
CO2-emission (corrected) 2050 target 1990 baseline 400 Total Annual Costs
1000
Primary Energy Supply
Building retrofit 6000
350
Total annual costs (Bn €)

Fuel consumption (TWh/yr)

700 480 900 2010 Ref. HBF FH UBA SIA
5000 Investment 300CO2
5000 emissions corrected

Electricity (TWh/yr)
440 1200000
800
CO2 emissions (Mt)/yr)

250
Primary energy supply (TWh/year)

600 4500 Fixed

400 4000
2010 Ref.
1150000 HBF FH UBA SIA
Annual costs (Bn €)

700 operational 200

4000

Total costs (mio €/yr)

500 360 Marginal 1100000
600 Nuclear 1000 150
3000
320 3500 Operational 1050000
Electricity RES 900 100
400

CO2 emissions (Mt/yr)

280 500 1000000
2000
3000 exchange 800
240 400 CO2 Biomass 95000050
300 700
2500 Oil 10000
900000
200 300 Ngas 600 0 50 100 150 200 250 300
2000 exchange Ngas/methane 8500000
200 160 500 Onshore wind power production (TWh)
200 Fuel costs 800000 0
120 1500 coal 400 50 100 150 200 250 300
100 100 750000
80 2008 baseline 300 Onshore wind power production (TWh)
1000 700000
0 200
0 40 2050 target 0 50 100 150 200 250 300
500 Ref 2010 HBF FH UBA SIA
100
0 Onshore wind power production (TWh)
-100 Ref 2010 HBF
0 FH UBA SIA 0
Ref 2010 HBF
Ref 2010 HBF FH FH UBA UBA SIASIA 0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Onshore wind power production (TWh)

1. Performance evaluation regarding 2050 targets 2. Performance evaluation for varying wind power
15
production
Main Findings

 Comparison between the current scenarios for 2050

 Analysis of SIA components

 Comparison between SIA and current scenarios

16
Comparing 2050 scenarios
CO2 emissions
2010 Ref. HBF FH UBA RES share of of PES
1000 (%) electricity
900
CO2 emissions (Mt/yr)

800 Ref. 2010 19.1 10.6

700
600 HBF 84 39.9
500
400 FH 92.5 44.7
300
UBA 44.8 38.9
200
100 SIA 84.3 48.3
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000
Onshore wind power production (TWh)

RES integration ability of an energy system is not enough to 17

describe its performance
 Fuel Consumption excl. RES
Comparing 2050 scenarios 2010 Ref. HBF FH UBA

Fuel consumption excl. RES

Total Annual Costs 6000
1150
Building 4500

(TWh/yr)
1000 retrofit
Investment 3000
Total annual costs (Bn €)

850 1500
Fixed
700 operational 0
Marginal 0 200 400 600 800 1000
550 Operational Onshore wind power production (TWh)
Electricity
400 exchange
CO2
250
Ngas
100 exchange
Fuel costs
-50
Ref 2010 HBF FH UBA

Higher RES integration ability can significantly decrease fuel 18

costs but also increase expenses if not efficiently employed
 Comparing 2050 scenarios
Flexible heat supply is preferable than a constant
heat production in order to avoid unutilised waste
heat

FH
Heat production 2,500 MW

Heat demand 900 MW

UBA

UBA
19
SIA components
Fuel savings excl. RES Fuel savings excl. RES
HP TS ELT/CHP BEV
50 500
Fuel savings (TWh)

40 450

Fuel savings (TWh)

30 400
20 350
10 300
0 250
-10 200
-20 150
-30 100
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900
Onshore wind power production (TWh) Onshore wind power production (TWh)

• Heat pumps and thermal storage can reduce fuel consumption by integrating RE for any
amount of wind power production
• ELT in DH can increase penetration of RES, especially when large amounts of RE are available
in the system
20
• BEV can increase system’s efficiency operating also as a means of electricity storage
Sector Integration Approach scenario

 Energy savings in electricity, heat and transport sector are not

enough for achieving the 2050 targets.

 Synergies between energy sectors increase system’s efficiency.

21
Comparing SIA and current scenarios
Critical Excess Electricity Production
500
450
400
2010 Ref.
350
Electricity (TWh/yr)

HBF
300
250 FH
200 UBA
150
SIA
100
50
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Onshore wind power production (TWh)

22
SIA is able to integrate higher amounts of renewable energy
Comparing SIA and current scenarios
Primary Energy Supply
5000
4500
Primary energy supply (TWh/year)

4000 Nuclear
3500 RES
3000 Biomass
Oil
2500
Ngas/methane
2000 coal
1500 2008 baseline
1000 2050 target

500
0
Ref 2010 HBF FH UBA SIA

23
SIA can reduce fuel consumption more than the other scenarios
Comparing SIA and current scenarios
CO2 emissions (corrected)

1000
900
800 CO2-emission
CO2 emissions (Mt)/yr)

(corrected)
700
2050 target
600
500
1990 baseline
400
300
200
100
0
Ref 2010 HBF FH UBA SIA

24
SIA can reduce the overall GHG emissions in lower levels
Comparing SIA and current scenarios
Annual Costs excl. 'Fixed operational costs'
550
500
450
Annual costs (Bn €)

400 Building retrofit

350 Investment
300
Marginal Operational
250
CO2
200
150 Net fuel costs
100
50
0

Ref 2010 HBF FH UBA SIA

25
SIA comprises cost-effective solution among 2050 scenarios
Recommendations
 HBF can increase RES integration with HP and TS while expanding its DH
network
 Fossil fuels in transport can be replaced by synthetic fuels in FH and HBF,
decreasing CO2 emissions
 FH and UBA can decrease their heating costs by decreasing HP capacity
 UBA scenario should produce methane only with excess electricity and
supply the rest energy from other sources
 Gasification of waste is more efficient and profitable than incineration
26
Interpretation challenges
 Some information could not be interpreted in EP context
while others were ignored if common assumptions had been
previously made
 HBF scenario projected a general description of the energy
system for 2050 just mentioning some technologies
 Many revisions and subsequent modifications of the
scenarios
27
Considerations
In UBA scenario due to high CO2 hydrogenation
production, the system is trapped into a “vicious
High methane
production
cycle”…

High electricity
In order to
and carbon
produce...
demand

Burning
methane to High electricity
produce imports and PP
electricity and capacities …even if the produced methane was lower,
CO2 it wouldn’t be able to cover all energy needs
28
 Considerations

SIA zero imports may not be beneficial and realistic, but

highlights that there is the possibility of being self-sufficient in
power supply

DE

29

Image source: previews.123rf.com/images/

Thank you for your attention

30