titre du document · (project mgt) release date methodology used european climate foundation (ecf)...

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


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


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


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.


(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.


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


2 Projected power capacity and fuel

mixes


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)


(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


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


pathway)


(60% RES))



[R]evolution)




Choices)


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.


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


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


pathway)


(60% RES))



[R]evolution)




Choices)


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.


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


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


(Reference (60%

RES))




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


(1)

EC Roadmap

CEEMS

analysis


Fuel mix in 2050 (TWh) – Except for the High RES

scenario, all fuel mixes show a substantial share of thermal

generation


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


(Reference (60% RES))




4281

4912 5141 4872 4853

3420

6067

(1) Others corresponds to Other fuels (hydrogen, methanol)

(1)

EC Roadmap

CEEMS

analysis


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.


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


Annexes

EC Energy Road map


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


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


Reference

High RES

Energy Efficiency


Delayed CCS

Low nuclear

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050



Reference

High RES

Energy Efficiency


Delayed CCS

Low nuclear

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050



Reference

High RES

Energy Efficiency


Delayed CCS

Low nuclear

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050



Reference

High RES

Energy Efficiency


Delayed CCS

Low nuclear

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050



Reference

High RES

Energy Efficiency


Delayed CCS

Low nuclear

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050



Reference

High RES

Energy Efficiency


Delayed CCS

Low nuclear


Annexes

External scenarios


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


(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).


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.


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.


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


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





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





0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

2010 2020 2030 2040 2050





-

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

200020102020203020402050


0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

2010 2020 2030 2040 2050






(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


WWF Energy Report



Greenpeace Advanced Energy [R]evolution

Solar Wind

-

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

200020102020203020402050




-

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)


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


titre du document · (project mgt) release date methodology used european climate foundation (ecf)...

Documents