Average exchange rate - EUROfusion · ETP Energy Technology Perspectives IDC Interest during...

WP12-SER-ETM-3-01

SERF

Development & application of ETM dissemination strategies

REVIEW AND UPDATE OF THE POWER SECTOR

Chiara Bustreo

FINAL REPORT

March 2013

EURATOM Fusion Association

Consorzio RFX, Corso Stati Uniti 4, 35127, Padova,Italy

This work, supported by the European Communities under the contract of

Association between Euratom/Consorzio RFX, was carried out within the framework

of EFDA. The views and opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those o f the

European Commission.

Table of Contents

1. INTRODUCTION. ........................................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 TASK SPECIFICATION ............................................................................................................................................. 1

1.2 OVERVIEW OF THE METHODOLOGY. ......................................................................................................................... 1

1.3 ABBREVIATION .................................................................................................................................................... 2

2. CONVENTIONS AND KEY ASSUMPTIONS. ..................................................................................................... 2

3. COAL FIRED POWER PLANTS ........................................................................................................................ 4

Pulverized coal – Super Critical ............................................................................................................................ 4

Pulverized coal with CO2 removal from flue gas ................................................................................................. 5

Integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) .................................................................................................... 6

Integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) with CO2 removal from input gas ............................................... 7

Fluidized Bed Combustion – Pressurised .............................................................................................................. 8

4. OIL FIRED POWER PLANTS ............................................................................................................................ 9

Generic distributed generation for base and peak load ................................................................................. 9

5. GAS & OIL FIRED POWER PLANTS ................................................................................................................10

Gas/Oil turbine ................................................................................................................................................. 10

Gas/Oil CCGT ..................................................................................................................................................... 10

6. NATURAL GAS-FIRED POWER PLANTS .........................................................................................................11

Natural gas combined cycle (NGCC) ............................................................................................................... 11

Natural gas combined cycle (NGCC) with Co2 removal from flue gas ......................................................... 12

Solid oxide fuel cell (SOGC) ............................................................................................................................. 13

Solid oxide fuel cell (SOGC) with Co2 removal ............................................................................................... 14

7. NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS ...........................................................................................................................15

Fusion power plants ......................................................................................................................................... 16

8. BIOMASS POWER SYSTEMS .........................................................................................................................17

Direct-fired biomass ........................................................................................................................................ 17

Biomass gasification ........................................................................................................................................ 17

Biogas from municipal waste ............................................................................................................................ 18

Incineration of municipal waste ........................................................................................................................ 19

9. SOLAR POWER SYSTEMS .............................................................................................................................19

Solar photovoltaic .............................................................................................................................................. 19

Solar thermal ..................................................................................................................................................... 20

10. WIND POWER SYSTEMS ..............................................................................................................................21

Onshore wind turbines ....................................................................................................................................... 21

Offshore wind turbines ...................................................................................................................................... 22

11. HYDROELECTRIC POWER SYSTEMS ..............................................................................................................22

Large hydroelectric power- Dam ....................................................................................................................... 22

Mini-Hydroelectric - Run-of-River ...................................................................................................................... 22

12. GEOTHERMAL POWER SYSTEMS .................................................................................................................23

Flashed steam power plant ............................................................................................................................... 23

Binary cycle power plant ................................................................................................................................... 24

Binary-high cycle power plant ........................................................................................................................... 24

13. MARINE POWER SYSTEMS ..........................................................................................................................25

Offshore wave.................................................................................................................................................... 25

Tidal stream ....................................................................................................................................................... 26

14. CONCLUSIONS. ............................................................................................................................................27

REFERENCES .........................................................................................................................................................28

ANNEX 1 ...............................................................................................................................................................29

1

1. Introduction.

1.1 Task specification

The implementation of the nuclear fuel cycle in the EFDA TIMES model, carried out during

the 2011 work program, has included the update of the new fission power plants (generation

III+ and IV) economics according the most recent literature. The cost revision by experts has

lead to investment costs higher than before because of both the current economic crisis and

the better knowledge about the economics of Gen III+ power plants thanks to their recent first

steps towards deployment. Thus, the investment costs of fission power plants used in ETM

were found to be outdated and actually quite lower than real ones.

In light of this, in the framework of the EFDA TIMES model development and the results

dissemination, two main goals for the WP12 have been identified.

Firstly, a review and an update of the economics of the whole new power sector, namely the

set of power technologies entering the energy market from 2010, become necessary in order

to ensure a well-balanced competition between the already updated nuclear sector and the

other power technologies.

As far as the results dissemination, besides the mere presentation of alternative scenarios, a

comparison with the results from similar models is generally recommended to further

demonstrate their reliability through the detection of similarities. Within the TIMES

community, TIAM is the model most similar to ETM and their results are usually compared

even for a continuous consistency cross check of the assumptions behind the scenarios setting

up. Then, a detailed comparison of both the economics and the technical features

characterizing the electricity producing technologies in ETM and TIAM was required to

justify any possible differences in the energy mix resulting from similar runs of the two

models.

In the following a detailed description of the changes in the data featuring each technology

belonging to the power sector is reported. The literature sources of old data, which are

currently not always available or easily detectable, are specified any time it was possible and

the reasons of changes are fully clarified. Moreover a detailed report about the differences

between ETM and TIAM is given.

1.2 Overview of the methodology.

In ETM the model of the electricity generation sector should gather the all possible

technologies that could compose the power plant fleet of the 15 model regions from 2010 to

2100. Some of them are already available, others are still at the research phase (e.g carbon

capture and storage technologies, generation IV fission power plants, fusion power plants,

etc.). Thus a high level of uncertainty affects both technical and economical data of a part of

the technologies due to their intrinsic immaturity. Beside this, the technical and economical

parameters of the existing technologies, even well known, usually change depending on the

place where the plants are built. For example, the weather conditions influences the

availability factor of renewable while regional economies and financing have a great

influence on the economic competitiveness of technologies.

All this given, the electricity power sector in ETM should include a number of variants of the

same electricity generation technology to overcome the uncertainties of both the lack of

knowledge about future technologies and the differences between nations.

2

Therefore the same approach as that of the ―Energy Technology Perspectives‖ studies has

been used to update the model of the power sector. Namely, the economic and technical

features of the new technologies refer to plants in United States (with only few exceptions

due to lack of information) and cost data or availability factors in other world region is

endogenously by the model by multiplying these data by region-specific multipliers defined

by the user. The uncertainties about new technologies can be instead overcome only by

developing a number of alternative scenarios.

In the present study each technology is analysed following a fixed approach:

1) analysis of changes over three ETM model versions (before 2006, 2006 and 2012

versions) and detection of the data literature sources;

2) comparison with TIAM values;

3) data update according to the most recent literature.

In the following, after the explanations of conventions used in the study, a detail description

of the update of each technology’s feature is reported. A short description of the working

principle is also presented.

1.3 Abbreviation

CCS Carbon Capture and Storage EFDA European Fusion Development Agreement

ENEA Italian National Agency for New Technologies, Energy and Sustainable Economic Development

ETM EFDA TIMES model ETP Energy Technology Perspectives IDC Interest during construction PP Power Plant

PPCS Power plant conceptual study

TIAM TIMES Integrated Assessment Model

2. Conventions and key assumptions.

In ETM the features of the new electricity generating technologies are listed in two templates,

the ―Subres_NewTechs‖ and the ―Subres_Sequestration‖. The region-specific multipliers are

instead declared in the ―Subres_Trans‖.

In the ―Subres_NewTechs‖ the fossil fuelled power plants, the nuclear power plants and the

renewable are described by the following attributes:

- TechName : technology acronym;

- TechDesc : brief technology description;

- CommName : name of the input/output commodity of the technology;

- YEAR : year to which the technology description refers to;

- CAPUNIT : energy conversion factor;

- Output : attribute used to declare which ones of the commodities are outputs;

- START : year of technology deployment;

- LIFE : technical life of the technology;

3

- DISCRATE : discount rate;

- INVCOST : overnight or investment cost of the technology [$/kW];

- FIXOM : fixed O&M costs of the technology [$/kW/yr];

- VAROM : variable O&M costs of the technology [$/GJ];

- Input : inverse of efficiency;

- AF : availability factor;

The technologies for carbon capture and storage are instead treated separately in the second

template. Besides the attributes just listed, the following is requested to fully describe these

technologies:

- FLO_EMIS : emission factor of an emission commodity.

It’s worth to notice that in the current model version the retrofitting option is not present, so

the CCS is available only for new installed capacity.

Among the attributes listed above only the INVCOST has a double meaning since it can refer

to the overnight cost or the investment cost (i.e. overnight + IDC) of the technology. As

stated in the TIMES manual [9], in any TIMES model “[…] The investment cost should be

the overnight investment cost (excluding any interests paid during construction) whenever the

construction lead time is explicitly modeled […]. In such a case, the interests during

construction are endogenously calculated by the model itself, […]. If no lead-time is specified

(and thus cases 1 are used), the full cost of investments should be used (including interests

during construction, if any. […]Ideally, it would be desirable that cases 1 be used only for

those investments that have no lead time (and thus no interests during construction).

However, if a user employs cases 1 for projects even though there are significant IDC’s, the

latter should be included in the investment cost.”

In the previous ETM model version, the lead time has been never considered so the

INVCOST has been always treated as investment cost, although in some cases the cost data

were actually referring to overnight costs. This has made the capital intensive technologies

(e.g. nuclear power plants) cheaper than reality and increased their economic competitiveness

as well.

In TIAM it is explicitly declared that INVCOST refers to the overnight cost of the technology

[6]. In case of capital intensive technologies, namely hydro and nuclear, the construction time

is provided (10 years for nuclear, 10 years for dam, 5 years for run-of-river).

In the updated ETM template the lead time has been included as well:

- run-of-river, 1 year [1]

- gas-fired PP, 2 years [1]

- coal-fired PP, 4 years [1]

- nuclear PP, 5 years [11]

- dam, 10 years [6]

Nevertheless, in the case of short lead times (1 or 2 years), one gets the similar results if the

overnight cost is considered instead of the investment cost and no lead time is explicitly

declared. In fact, the investment cost is calculated by TIMES by using the approach of

4

case1.a [9]1 and the capacity becomes available in small quantity from the first year

2.

Therefore this approach leads to the same results as if a 1 year lead time was declared.

Therefore in the updated ETM, the overnight cost of run-of-river and gas fired power plants

are used instead of the investment costs.

On the other hand, the declaration of the lead time of coal fired power plants, nuclear power

plants and hydro (dam and run-of-river) is necessary not only to estimate their real cost of

capital3 but also to make the capacity available in a lump quantity at the end of the

construction period - as it usually happens in reality.

In order to make the model results comparable to the most known studies, the selected main

literature sources about costs and technical features are the latest version (2010) of ―Projected

cost of generating electricity‖ [1] and ―Energy Technology Perspectives‖ [3].

In both studies the technology’s overnight costs are reported but in the first they refer to

technologies that are going to be built in 15 worldwide nations, whereas in the ETP only the

costs in of plants in the United States are presented together with their guessed future

evolution. Therefore while both references are used to check the overnight and O&M costs of

technologies, reference [1] is used to check and update the region specific multipliers and

reference [3] to check and update the cost evolution from 2010 to 2050.

Moreover, the same capacity factors assumed in [1] is generally taken as reference as well as

the technology operational life.

Finally, a 3% inflation rate has been generally used to discount the costs to US$20004 being it

in line with assumption in [1]. The formula for the discounting is the following:

COST2000 = COSTy * (1+i) 2000 – y

where i is the inflation rate.

3. COAL FIRED POWER PLANTS

Technology PULVERIZED COAL – SUPER CRITICAL

―Pulverized Coal‖ (PC) plant is a term used for power plants which

burns pulverized coal in a boiler to produce steam that is then used to

generate electricity. PC plants designed to have steam conditions

below the critical point of water (about 22.1 MPa-abs) are referred to

as ―subcritical‖ PC plants, while plants designed above this critical

point are referred to as ―supercritical‖. ―Supercritical‖ typical design

conditions are: 24.2 MPa/565°C/565°C. ―Ultra-supercritical‖ plants

are design above these conditions. [13]

1 Since no lead time is declared and the technical life is higher than any time period length (minimum life of

technologies in ETM is 15 years while the minimum time period length is 5 years).

2 The capacity to be installed is equally spread over the number of years composing the same time period.

3 In ETM a linear construction cost profile is used as default. This means that the overnight cost is equally

distributed over the construction period. For more details see [11] (§ 4.1.1)

4 This is the default currency in ETM.

5

Acronym ECOAPUL105

Investment cost The overnight cost declared in 2006 version (1100 $/kW) probably

refers to a standard PF plant whose cost was presented in [5] (1000

$2003/kW =1110 $2000/kW). This value is likely to have been updated

in 2008 so that in ETM2012 the same technology costs 1500 $/kW:

the source is not documented, but it is likely to be [4] where the

average overnight cost is estimated to be 1700 $2005/kW = 1540

$2000/kW. In TIAM the overnight cost is even cheaper (1300 $/kW).

However, this cost is typical of an old-fashion coal power plant (PF

operating at less than SC steam conditions). New coal technologies

are SC and USC plants (Ultra Super Critical refers to a plant

operating with steam pressures greater than 221 bar and with steam

temperatures in excess of 600°C [1]) whose costs is presented in [3].

Being the costs and efficiency of the two kind of plants quite similar

([3], page 120) in ETM only the SC one is considered.

The new overnight cost of a coal supercritical power plant in ETM

is: 2100 $2008/kW = 1800 $2000/kW.

The cost is assumed to decrease by 21% in 2050 [3]and then remain

unchanged over the long term (1414 $/kW).

Lead time 4 years [1] (corresponding to a 16% capital cost increase)

O&M cost The value in 2012 model version (6.15 $/MWh) is not changed as it

is compromise between [1] and [3] (7 $2008/MWh = 6 $2000/MWh)

Capacity factor Is changed from 0.9 to 0.85 in line with [1].

Efficiency The same assumption of [3] is made (42% over the entire horizon)

instead of an increasing efficiency from 36% to 55%. A more

optimistic assumption is made in TIAM where the efficiency

increases from 47% to 52% in 2050.

Life Is maintained unchanged (40 years) as this assumption is in line with

[1]. In TIAM a shorter life in assumed (30 years).

Technology PULVERIZED COAL WITH CO2 REMOVAL FROM FLUE GAS

With post-combustion processes, CO2 is captures al low pressure

from flue gas that generally has a co2 content of 2% to 25%. The

challenge is to recover co2 form the flue gas economically. The

separated gas has to be compressed before transportation. [4]

Acronym EZCOA110

Investment cost The overnight cost of the ―base‖ technology (PC without CCS) has

been increased accordingly to the cost increase estimated by IEA [3]

6

(+62% in 2010, 52% in 2050 ).

Moreover the year of technology deployment has been changed from

2010 to 2020 since it is actually not yet deployed worldwide.

In TIAM the overnight cost is higher than previous ETM version but

more optimistic that IEA estimations.

Lead time 4 years [1] in keeping with the ―base‖ technology.

O&M cost Similarly to the overnight costs, the O&M costs of the ―base‖

technology have been increased by 143% in 2010 and 134% in 2050

as stated in [3].

Capacity factor Decreased from 90% to 85%, in line with the ―base‖ technology.

Efficiency The same assumptions of [3] have been used, namely 36% in 2010

raised to 44% in 2050. In the previous ETM version the efficiency

was lower in 2010 (33%) while higher in 2050 (48%). The new

value of fix and O&M costs are in line with TIAM.

Life Unchanged, 40 years, while in TIAM a shorter life is assumed (30

years).

Notes In TIAM the Pulverized coal technology with Oxyfuelling

(EZCOA110) is also considered. It’s recommended to add this

technology in ETM as well.

Technology INTEGRATED GASIFICATION COMBINED CYCLE (IGCC)

As Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) Power Plant in

its simplest form is a process where coal is gasified with either

oxygen or air, and the resulting synthesis gas, consisting of hydrogen

and carbon monoxide, is cooled, cleaned and fired in a gas turbine.

The hot exhaust from the gas turbine passes through a heat recovery

steam generator (HRSG) where it produces steam that drives a

turbine. Power is produced from both the gas and steam turbine-

generators. [13]

Acronym ECOACCO105

Investment cost Until 2006, in ETM two different IGCC technologies were modeled,

using air or oxygen as the oxidising medium. Since the same costs

were used, only one IGCC plant (oxygen blown) has been

considered in later ETM version (in the ETP the costs of a generic

IGCC plant is instead reported). On the contrary, in TIAM both

IGCC technologies are considered (one more expensive than the

other but having both the same efficiency).

The old data (ETM2006) probably refer to [2] (1500 $2003/kW =1400

7

$2000/kW); the ETM2012 data is instead undocumented. The costs in

TIAM are quite similar to that of the last ETM version.

The cost of the IGCC oxygen blown is updated according to [3]:

2400 $2008/kW = 2000 $2000/kW.

The cost is assumed to became 23% lower in 2050 [3] and to remain

unchanged over the long term (1542 $/kW).

Lead time 4 years [1] (corresponding to a 16% capital cost increase)

O&M cost The value in ETM2012 (7.7 $/MWh) is the mean between [1] and

[3] data.


Efficiency The efficiency values until 2030 are not changed since they are in

line with the forecasts presented in [3]. After then (from 2040 to the

end of the time horizon) the efficiency value is instead kept

unchanged (53%).

Life Unchanged (30 years): a shorter life than that of conventional coal-

fired power plants is justified by the similarity of this technology to

natural gas combined cycle gas turbine (NGCC) whose life is set in

[1] to 30 years as well as all gas-fired power plants.

Technology INTEGRATED GASIFICATION COMBINED CYCLE (IGCC) WITH

CO2 REMOVAL FROM INPUT GAS

CO2 can be captured pre-combustion in coal or natural gas burning

plants. Reacting the fuel with air or oxygen enables the capture of

high concentration of CO2 (more than 95%).[4]

Acronym EZIGC1110

Investment cost The overnight cost of the ―base‖ technology (IGCC without CCS)

has been increased accordingly to the cost increase estimated by IEA

[3] (+33%).



The overnight cost in TIAM is higher than that assumed in the

previous version of ETM but quite lower than the recent IEA

estimations.

Lead time 4 years as for the ―base‖ technology.


technology have been increased by 33% as stated in [3].

8

Higher O&M cost are instead assumed in TIAM.

Capacity factor Decreased from 90% to 85%, in line with the ―base‖ technology

(IGCC without CCS).

Efficiency The same assumptions of [3] have been used (from 33% in 2010 to

48% in 2050 vs a fixed value of 40% over the entire time horizon in

the previous ETM version).

In TIAM the efficiency in 2010 is higher than IEA data but both

converge to 48% in the long term.

Life Unchanged (30 years)

Note In the previous ETM version also the IGCC with Co2 removal from

flue gas was included. Nevertheless, being its features the same of

the IGCC with Co2 removal from input gas with the exception of the

costs which were higher, the model will never choose it. This is why

this technology has been considered redundant.

Technology FLUIDIZED BED COMBUSTION – PRESSURISED

The Fluidized Bed Combustion (FBC) is a combustion process in

which limestone is injected into the combustion zone to capture the

sulfur in the coal.

Acronym ECOACCO105

Investment cost Until 2006 version, in ETM two different FBC technologies were

modeled, atmospheric and pressurised, having quite similar

overnight cost (1245 $2000/kW and 1200 $2000/kW respectively). The

same distinction is kept in TIAM.

In latest ETM version only one FBC plant is modeled, namely the

pressurised one. The INV_COST is likely to have been taken from

[2] where the overnight costs of FBC plants to be built in Czech

Republic and Slovack Republic are indicated (data from paper

analysis). However the kind of bed, atmospheric or pressurised, is

not specified.

Economic data about this technology is not available in [3]. Thus in

the updated ETM version, the overnight cost of a FBC plant, labelled

as pressurised but actually referring to a generic FBC plant, is taken

from [1] where the overnight cost of a Slovack FBC plant, fuelled by

brown coal and biomass, is shown: 2762 $2008/kW = 2357 $2000/kW.

The cost is assumed to decrease until 2030 as much as assumed in

ETM2006 (16%) and then remain unchanged over the long term

(1980 $/kW).

Lead time 4 years [1] (corresponding to a 16% capital cost increase, in line with

9

investment cost presented in [1])

O&M cost The operation and maintenance costs are taken as equal as that of

IGCC power plant since they are quite close to data in [1]. The same

approach has been used both in ETM2012 and TIAM.


Efficiency The efficiency value in 2010 is taken as larger as that of the Czech

FBC plant (42%), which is in line with the forecasted efficiency of a

new plant commissioned in Poland [3]. Then the efficiency values

are assumed to evolve with the rate used in ETM2012 (48% from

2030).

Life Unchanged (30 years), in line with TIAM.

4. OIL FIRED POWER PLANTS

Technology GENERIC DISTRIBUTED GENERATION FOR BASE AND PEAK

LOAD

Diesel cycle engine-generator power system.

Acronym EOILGBL105 and EOILGPL105

Investment cost The INV_COST can be treated as investment cost rather than

overnight cost.

The same cost data are used in ETM and TIAM. The literature

source is likely to be a DOE document (see Appendix C of [16])

where the cost of the peak load technology is said to be lower

compared to that of the base load.

The costs are all kept unchanged.

Lead time No lead time is used.

O&M cost The cost of the peak load technology is higher than that of the base

load. The costs are kept unchanged.

Capacity factor The Capacity factor is assumed to be the same (90%).

Efficiency The efficiency of the peak load technology is higher than that of the

base load.

Life The life of the peak technology is set shorter (20 years) than that of

the base load (30 years).

Notes Such differentiation seems to be useful only in case the load curve is

modeled.

10

In past ETM version the oil-fueled power plant option was

considered as well. After 2006 it was not included any more whereas

in TIAM it is still part of the technology fleet (EOILSTE105).

Nevertheless, such omission in ETM seems to be reasonable since no

more oil-fuelled power plants are likely to be commissioned.

5. GAS & OIL FIRED POWER PLANTS

Technology GAS/OIL TURBINE

Conventional turbine fuelled by natural gas or, possibly, by oil (i.e.

diesel oil distillates).

Acronym EGOITUR105

Investment cost In the 2012 ETM version the investment cost of EGOITUR105 is

likely to have been drawn from [1] where only one gas turbine is

included in the gas-fired power plant list. This is installed in

Germany and the investment cost (@5% discount rate) is 582

$2008/kW = 457 $2000/kW. The cost of EGOITUR105 is kept

unchanged even if the discount rate in ETM is set at 10% and the

correct investment cost should be 650 $2008/kW = 513 $2000/kW.

The older data (ETM 2006) refers to an American combustion

turbine whose cost is reported in [2] (page 39, 460 $2003/kW = 420

$2000/kW)

Lead time No lead time is considered, being it quite short (2 years) if compared

to the time period length; the INV_COST value is the investment

cost indeed.

O&M cost The O&M cost is taken from [1] and discounted to 2000: 5.38

$2008/MWh = 4.25 $2000/MWh. This value is quite similar to the

―advanced‖ technology in TIAM (EGOITUA105).

Capacity factor Unchanged (85%).

Efficiency In keeping with [1] (38%).

Life 30 years, unchanged.

Notes In TIAM only an advanced Gas/oil turbine is considered whose

investment cost is quite lower than that of EGOITUR105 (325

$/kW).

Technology GAS/OIL CCGT

The fuel is natural gas or diesel oil distillates that is burned in the gas

11

turbine. The heat derived from combustion produces water steam

that is directed to the steam turbine cycle to produce further

electricity.

Acronym EGOICCY105

Investment cost Similarly to the previous technology, the investment cost is likely to

have been drawn from [1]; it refers to an American CCGT power

plant, whose investment cost (@5% discount rate) is 1039 $2008/kW

= 820 $2000/kW. Coherently with the discount rate used in ETM, the

investment cost calculated @10% should be considered: 1113

$2008/kW = 878 $2000/kW.

Lead time No lead time is considered, being it quite short (2 years) if compared

to the time period length; thus the INV_COST value is an investment

cost indeed.

O&M cost The O&M cost is taken from [1] and discounted to year 2000: 3.61

$2008/MWh = 2.85 $2000/MWh. This value is quite similar to the

―advanced‖ technology in TIAM (EGOICCA105).


Efficiency In keeping with [1] (54%).

Life 30 years, no changes.

Notes Similarly to the previous technology, in TIAM only the advanced

one is considered. The investment cost is quite lower than

EGOICCY105 (600 $/kW)

6. NATURAL GAS-FIRED POWER PLANTS

Technology NATURAL GAS COMBINED CYCLE (NGCC)

The natural gas burns in the gas turbine and the heat produced

passes through a heat recovery steam generator where it produces

steam that drives a turbine. Power is produced from both the gas and

steam turbine-generators.

Acronym EGASCCY105

Investment cost In the oldest ETM versions (until 2006), the investment cost is likely

to have been taken from [4] where a cost range of 600 - 750

$2005/kWh is assumed, corresponding to ~500$2000/kWh (@3%) for

the conventional NGCC, ~600 $2000/kWh (@3%) for the advanced

one.

In the lasted ETM version the conventional technology is no more

considered and the cost of the advanced one is set to 780 $/kW in

12

2003 and 750 $/kW in 2010 [10]. As stated in [10] the gas turbine is

no more included because it’s accounted as negligible in the context

of this model.

According to the more recent literature, the overnight cost of a

NGCC is estimated to be ~900 $2008/kWh as stated in [3] and [1]. In

the last, the overnight cost of the American gas-fired CCGT is 969

$2008/kWh. Thus the INV_COST is set to 880 $2000/kW in 2010,

which is derived from the investment cost at 10% discount rate (1113

$2008/kWh [1]) deflated to year 2000 at 3% inflation rate.

The costs are thought to decrease at the same rate of that assumed in

the previous model version.

Lead time Being the lead time quite short compared to the model time periods,

the INV_COST is the investment cost and the lead time is not

explicitly modelled.

O&M cost The operation and maintenance (fix + variable) costs of an American

NGCC reported in [2] are 3 $2000/kWh (3.3 $2003/kWh @3%, AF =

0.9). In the lasted version of the same study [1], the O&M of an

analogous power plant is 2.85 $2000/kWh (3.61 $2008/kWh @3%). In

the new version of the model the following values are used: 20 $/kW

(fix O&M) and 0.65 $/MWh (= 0.18 $/GJ) (variable O&M) so that

assuming an AF = 90%, the overall O&M costs are ~3 $2000/kWh.

They are set fixed over the entire time horizon.


Efficiency Unchanged (54%), in line with the American power plant of [1],

more conservative of the hypothesis of [3] where a 57% efficiency is

assumed.

Life Unchanged (30 years) as stated in [2] and [1]. The same assumption

is used in TIAM.

Notes This technology (EGASCCY105) is not considered in TIAM where

only the conventional technology is modeled whose acronym,

EGASSTE105, is the same of the gas turbine of the old ETM

versions. The conventional technology is more expensive (950

$2000/kWh) having the same costs of the CHP technology in ETM.

Technology NATURAL GAS COMBINED CYCLE (NGCC) WITH CO2

REMOVAL FROM FLUE GAS

With post-combustion processes, CO2 is captures al low pressure

from flue gas that generally has a co2 content of 2% to 25%. The

challenge is to recover co2 form the flue gas economically. The

separated gas has to be compressed before transportation. [4]

13

Acronym EZCCGT110

Investment cost The overnight cost of the ―base‖ technology (NGCC without CCS)

has been increased accordingly to the cost increase estimated by IEA

[3] (+61% in 2010, 47% in 2050).



In TIAM a less optimistic cost decreased is guessed, reaching 800

$2000/kW already in 2030.

Lead time Not declared, as for the ―base‖ technology.


technology have been increased by 63% in 2010 and 43% in 2050 as

stated in [3]. Higher costs are assumed in TIAM.

Capacity factor Decreased from 90% to 85%, in line with the ―base‖ technology and

TIAM assumptions.

Efficiency The same assumptions of [3] have been used, namely 36% in 2010

raised to 44% in 2050. In the previous ETM version the efficiency

was higher both in 2010 (50%) and in 2050 (65%). The same values

are taken in TIAM.

Life Unchanged (30 years).

Notes In TIAM the Oxyfueling applied to NGCC (EZCCGO120) is also

considered. It’s recommended to add this technology in ETM as

weel.

Technology SOLID OXIDE FUEL CELL (SOGC)

Fuel cells use an electrochemical process which releases the energy

stored in a natural gas or hydrogen fuel to create electricity. Heat is a

by-product. Among the four types of fuel cells, the most promising

for CHP may be the SOFC. Nevertheless, at present in ETM they are

modeled as only electricity generating technology.

Acronym EGASFCE105

Investment cost The investment cost is set to 1800$2000/kW in 2010 in all model

versions. This value is in line with the cost of a 10MW American

plant [2] (2127 $2003/kW = 1815 $2000/kW @2%). The updated value

is 5000 $2000/kW (in 2008), corresponding to the investment cost

@10% discount rate reported in [1] and in line with the cost in

TIAM (6000 $2000/kW). The rate of cost decrease is chosen so that

the investment cost in 2050 is 3000$2008/kW (2368 $2000/kW) as

14

stated in [3].

Lead time The lead time estimated by [1] is 2-3 years so it is not explicitly

modelled in ETM and the INV_COST is the real investment cost.

O&M cost In ETM the fixed O&M costs in 2008 is set to 12 $2000/kW and the

variable costs to 3 $2000/MWh (1 $2000/GJ) leading to 5.12 $/kWh

overall O&M costs. The overall O&M costs reported in both [1] and

[3] are ~30 $2000/kWh (in line with TIAM) therefore the updated

costs, taken from [3], are: 5 $2000/kW and 32 $2000/MWh (8.8

$2000/GJ).

Capacity factor Is changed from 0.9 to 0.85, according to [1].

Efficiency In ETM this technology is thought to produce only electricity so the

efficiency is set to 50% which is the most optimistic value reported

in [3]. It is kept unchanged over the time horizon, in line with TIAM

assumptions.

Life Unchanged (30 years, as in [1])

Technology SOLID OXIDE FUEL CELL (SOGC) WITH CO2 REMOVAL

Acronym EZSOFGAS20

Investment cost The overnight cost of the ―base‖ technology (SOGC without CCS)

has been arbitrarily increased by 40% since no information has been

found about the costs of this technology.


2020 to 2030.

In TIAM the investment cost is set to 1600 $2000/kW, in line with the

old value in ETM.

Lead time Not declared, as for the ―base‖ technology.


technology have been increased by 40%.

Capacity factor 85%, in line with the ―base‖ technology.

Efficiency Unchanged due to the lack of information.

Life Unchanged (15 years) as in TIAM as well.

Notes Due to the lack of information the same technology but fuelled by

coal (EZSOFCOA30), accounted in TIAM as well, has been

temporarily removed. A further literature review of both

15

technologies is recommended.

7. NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS

Technology FISSION POWER PLANTS

Fission is a reaction when the nucleus of an atom, having

captured a neutron, splits into two or more nuclei, and in so

doing, releases a significant amount of energy as well as more

neutrons. These neutrons then go on to split more nuclei and a

chain reaction takes place. (IEA)

Acronym ENFCNPPLWR – LWR reactor

ENFCNPPFAR – FR (burner) reactor

ENFCNPPABR – ABR reactor

ENFCNPPATR – ADS reactor (TRU burning)

ENFCNPPAMA – ADS reactor (MA burning)

Investment cost The cost of fission power plants have been updated during WP11.

The differences between the present and previous ETM model

versions and TIAM are reported below. For further details please

see [11][11].

Differently from before, the following data refer to the overnight

costs of European power plants instead of American ones. Specific

regional cost multipliers are therefore set for nuclear sector in the

―SubRes_Trans‖ template.

ENFCNPPLWR – 3710 $2000/kW

ENFCNPPFAR – 3710 $2000/kW

ENFCNPPABR – 2600 $2000/kW

ENFCNPPATR – 2860 $2000/kW

ENFCNPPAMA – 2860 $2000/kW

In 2012 ETM model version, two fission technologies were included

namely, the advanced light water reactors (ENUCLWR110) and

advanced nuclear pebble bed modular reactors (ENUCPBM130)

both having costs quite lower than that just listed. In TIAM even

more cheap technologies are considered.

Lead time So far no lead time is accounted. A five year lead time is

recommended.

O&M cost Due to the lack of information, the O&M costs are not distinguished

in fixed and variable.

Capacity factor 0.8-0.85

16

Efficiency for more details see 0

Life 50 years

Notes The costs of nuclear technologies in ETM are higher than that

assumed in TIAM. This could lead to low shares of nuclear

electricity in ETM scenarios compared to TIAM’s ones.

Technology Fusion power plants

Fusion is a process where nuclei collide and join together to form a

heavier atom, usually deuterium and tritium. When this happens a

considerable amount of energy gets released at extremely high

temperatures: nearly 150 million degrees Celsius. At extreme

temperatures, electrons are separated from nuclei and a gas becomes

a plasma—a hot, electrically charged gas. (IEA)

Acronym ENUCFUB150 (base) and ENUCFUA170 (advanced)

Investment cost The costs are derived from PPCS study [17] and refer to the

overnight costs of a base technology, model C like, available from

2050, and an advanced technology, model D like, available from

2070.

Differently from ETM, in TIAM the fusion technology is available

from 2008 and its cost is 3000 $2000/kW over the entire time horizon

which is also quite lower than the cost of the ETM base technology

(3940 $2000/kW) and quite close to the advance one (2820 $2000/kW).

In the ETM model versions before 2006, the same assumptions of

TIAM were used.

Lead time No lead time is declared in the present model version. A 5 years lead

time is suggested.

O&M cost The fix O&M costs are lower in ETM than that used in TIAM while

the variable are quite higher. These choices affect the merit order

dispatch and therefore the capacity share of technologies for

electricity production.

Capacity factor Unchanged (85%)

Efficiency 42% (base technology), 60% (advanced technology); in TIAM the

efficiency is lower (32%)


17

8. BIOMASS POWER SYSTEMS

Technology DIRECT-FIRED BIOMASS

This technology consists of burning the biomass in a boiler to

produce high-pressure steam, which is then introduced into a

steam turbine for electricity generation. It is the most used and

proved commercial biomass electricity generation option. [12]

Biomass can be burned in a FBC or IGCC power plants: in the

second case the synthesis gas is cleaned and then fired in a gas

turbine to produce further energy.

Acronym EBIOSLC105 – Solid biomass direct combustion (centralized)

EBIOSLCD05 – Solid biomass direct combustion (decentralized)

EBIOCRC105 – Crop direct combustion

Investment cost In principle the two first technology should differ only in the kind of

commodity produced (centralized and decentralized electricity).

However in the present model version they both produce centralized

electricity (to be correct).

On the other hand the last differs from the others because of the

input commodity (crop instead of solid biomass).

That is why the investment costs have been thought to be the same

for all technologies, namely 2200 $2000/kW. In TIAM the same

technologies are modeled but the investment cost is lower (1700

$2000/kW).

In the new ETM version, the same assumption of ETP is used,

namely 2500 $2008/kW (2056 $2000/kW) [3]. This cost, which refers

to a generic biomass steam turbine, is quite close to the cost

estimation of a IGCC power plant (2400 $2008/kW). The investment

cost decreases at the rate assumed in [3].

Lead time The same lead time of an IGCC power plant is assumed (4 years).

O&M cost The O&M cost are kept unchanged being perfectly in line with the

assumption in [3].


Efficiency Unchanged (25%, [12])

Life Unchanged (30 years), in line with TIAM as well.

Technology BIOMASS GASIFICATION

Biomass gasification is the process through which solid biomass

18

material is subjected to partial combustion in the presence of a

limited supply of air. The ultimate product is a combustible gas

mixture known as ―producer gas‖. There are three main types of

gasifiers – down draft, updraft and cross draft. Other kinds of

gasification technology include fluidized bed gasifiers and

pyrolyzers. [13]

Acronym EBIOSLG105 - Solid biomass gasification (centralized)

EBIOSLGD05 - Solid biomass gasification (decentralized)

EBIOSLGD05 - Crop gasification

Investment cost The distinction among technologies is the same as before. Again, the

investment cost is thought to be the same for all over the entire time

horizon.

In the older ETM version, these technologies are thought to became

competitive with the direct combustion technology in 2020 when the

overnight cost falls at the same level (2200 $2000/kW) .

In the new version of the model the cost of the biomass gasification

technology is set 1.5 times higher than that of the direct-fired

biomass, as reported in [13]. The resulting cost (~3000 $2000/kW) is

in line with the overnight cost of the American solid-biomass fired

power plant quoted in [1].

Lead time 4 years, as for a IGCC power plant.

O&M cost The fix O&M cost are set to 50 $/kW over the entire horizon while

the variable costs are kept unchanged.

Capacity factor Changed in 0.9 over the entire horizon.

Efficiency Unchanged (35%)

Life Unchanged (25 years, in line with [13])

Technology BIOGAS FROM MUNICIPAL WASTE

Municipal solid waste contains significant portions of organic

materials that produce a variety of gaseous products when

dumped, compacted, and covered in landfills. Anaerobic bacteria

thrive in the oxygen-free environment, resulting in the

decomposition of the organic materials and the production of

primarily carbon dioxide and methane. Landfill gas energy

facilities capture the methane and combust it for energy. [13]

Acronym EBIOGAW105

Investment cost In the past ETM version this technology was the more expensive

19

among biomass-fired power plant. On the contrary in TIAM the

incineration of municipal waste does have the higher investment

cost.

In the updated version of ETM, the cost of this technology is derived

by scaling the cost of direct-fired biomass according to the cost

difference stated in [13].

Lead time No lead time is considered as in case of natural gas-fired power

plants.

O&M cost Being no further information about O&M costs available, no

changes are made.

Capacity factor Changed in 0.85, according to TIAM.

Efficiency Unchanged (35.7%)

Life Unchanged (20 years, in line with [13])

Technology INCINERATION OF MUNICIPAL WASTE

Acronym EBMUINC105

Investment cost Being the fluidized bed combustion the most usual technology to

burn municipal waste, the same investment cost is assumed in the

updated version (2357 $2000/kW). This is quite lower than the costs

assumed in the past in ETM (4400 $2000/kW) and in TIAM (3500

$2000/kW) which are both undocumented.

Lead time A 4 year lead time is assumed similarly to the case of a coal-fires

FBC technology.

O&M cost Being no further information about O&M costs available, no changes

are made.

Capacity factor Changed in 0.85, similarly to the previous technology.

Efficiency Unchanged (30.27%)


9. SOLAR POWER SYSTEMS

Technology SOLAR PHOTOVOLTAIC

Solar Photovoltaic (SPV) systems utilize semiconductor-based

materials which directly convert solar energy into electricity. These

20

semiconductors, called solar cells, produce an electrical charge when

exposed to sunlight. Solar cells are assembled together to produce

solar modules. A group of solar modules connected together to

produce the desired power is called a solar array.[13]

Acronym ESOLPVC105 – Solar photovoltaic centralized

ESOLPVD105 - Solar photovoltaic decentralized

ESOLPVD205 - Solar photovoltaic decentralized

Investment cost The investment costs over the entire time horizon are in line with the

upper level of the cost range proposed in [3] and with the cost of the

American photovoltaic system cited in [1], so they are kept

unchanged. Similar assumptions on the base year costs are used in

TIAM; however the cost decrease due to the technological learning

is more optimistic than that assumed in ETM.

The investment costs in 2010, in line with data in [1], are added in

the new ETM version in order to have a smother cost decrease.

In TIAM a single decentralized technology is modeled. At present

it’s not clear why two decentralized technologies are instead

considered in ETM, having them quite similar technical and

economical features.

Lead time No lead time.

O&M cost They are kept unchanged, being in line with ETP assumptions.

Capacity factor Unchanged, function of seasons and day and night.

Efficiency Unchanged, 100%.

Life Unchanged (~30 years).

Notes In TIAM a number of photovoltaic technologies are modeled but a

capacity upper bound of 0 is associated to all of them, as it was in

ETM before UKAEA revision (2008).

Technology SOLAR THERMAL

Solar thermal power generation technologies comprise several

technically viable options for concentrating and collecting solar

energy in densities sufficient to power a heat engine. These include

Parabolic Dish collectors, Parabolic Trough collectors, and Central

Receivers.

Acronym ESOLTHC105

Investment cost The investment cost is not changed being it in line with the

21

estimation in ETP (lower bound). The cost decrease is less optimistic

than that of [3]. The costs assumed in TIAM are in line with ETM

assumptions.

Lead time No lead time.

O&M cost They are kept unchanged, being in line with ETP assumptions. This

value is missing in the TIAM’s template.

Capacity factor Unchanged, function of seasons and day and night.

Efficiency Unchanged, 100%


10. WIND POWER SYSTEMS

Technology ONSHORE WIND TURBINES

A wind power generator converts the kinetic energy of the wind into

electric power through rotor blades connected to a generator. [13]

The on-shore wind turbine are placed in the mainland.

Acronym EWINONC105, EWINONC205, EWINONC305 – centralized

EWINOND305 – decentralized

Investment cost The economic data are the same for all technologies. They only

differ in the seasonal CF and the kind of electricity produced. The

number of technologies has been reduced by UKAEA being most of

them redundant. The wind sector in TIAM looks as the old version in

ETM.

In the new ETM version the investment cost has been increased up to

the lower side of the cost range in [3] and the same cost decrease of

ETP is assumed.

Lead time No lead time is considered.

O&M cost The fix O&M cost is increased according to the value in [3] (~ 40

$2000/kW) that is quite close to the value used in TIAM (35

$2000/kW).

Capacity factor Unchanged

Efficiency Unchanged


22

Technology OFFSHORE WIND TURBINES

A wind power generator converts the kinetic energy of the wind into

electric power through rotor blades connected to a generator. [13]

The of-shore wind turbine are placed in the sea..

Acronym EWINOFC105 - centralized

Investment cost In the new ETM version the investment cost has been increased up

to the lower side of the cost range in [3] and the same cost decrease

of ETP is assumed.


O&M cost The fix O&M cost is increased according to the value in [3] (~ 80

$2000/kW) that is quite close to the value used in TIAM (75

$2000/kW).

Capacity factor Unchanged



11. HYDROELECTRIC POWER SYSTEMS

Technology LARGE HYDROELECTRIC POWER- DAM

Acronym EHYDDAM205


assumption in ETP [3] (2000 $2000/kW). In TIAM the investment

cost is larger (2500 $2000/kW).

Lead time 10 years, in line with TIAM

O&M cost Unchanged being in line with the ETP assumption (33 $2000/kW)


Efficiency Unchanged (100%)

Life Unchanged (70 years). The 100 year long life considered in TIAM

seems quite optimistic.

Technology MINI-HYDROELECTRIC - RUN-OF-RIVER

23

Acronym EHYDRUN105


assumption in ETP [3] (2000 $2000/kW). In TIAM the investment

cost is larger (2500 $2000/kW).

Lead time No lead time is accounted.

O&M cost Both the fix and variable costs are changed to get closer to ETP data

(~50 $2000/kW) [3].

Capacity factor Unchanged (50%) – it includes the unavailability due to water

scarcity because of dry seasons.


Life Unchanged (45 years). The 200 year long life considered in TIAM

seems too much optimistic.

12. GEOTHERMAL POWER SYSTEMS

Technology FLASHED STEAM POWER PLANT

Flash steam plants are the most common type of geothermal power

generation plants in operation today. Fluid at temperatures greater

than 360°F (182°C) is pumped under high pressure into a tank at the

surface held at a much lower pressure, causing some of the fluid to

rapidly vaporize, or "flash." The vapor then drives a turbine, which

drives a generator. If any liquid remains in the tank, it can be flashed

again in a second tank to extract even more energy. [18]

Acronym EGEOFLS105

Investment cost In the previous model versions the acronym was the same of that of

TIAM and the investment cost was quite similar to that assumed in

TIAM as well (1750 $2000/kW). In the more recent model version the

acronym was changed and the investment cost clearly decreased. The

new value of the investment cost has been taken from [3] and

corresponds to the lower bound of the range (1900 $2000/kW). The

same cost decrease of [3] has been used as well (while in the

previous version the investment cost was kept constant over the time

horizon).


O&M cost They are increased according to the updated value in [3] (180

$2000/kW). The costs used in TIAM seem to be too low compared to

the current literature (35 $2000/kW).

24

Capacity factor 90% as in TIAM

Efficiency Increased to 10% as in the previous model versions.

Life 30 years, unchanged, in line with [13]

Technology BINARY CYCLE POWER PLANT

Binary cycle geothermal power generation plants differ from Dry

Steam and Flash Steam systems in that the water or steam from the

geothermal reservoir never comes in contact with the

turbine/generator units. Low to moderately heated (below 400°F)

geothermal fluid and a secondary (hence, "binary") fluid with a

much lower boiling point that water pass through a heat exchanger.

Heat from the geothermal fluid causes the secondary fluid to flash to

vapour, which then drives the turbines and subsequently, the

generators. [18]

Acronym EGEOBNY105


TIAM. The investment cost has been kept unchanged so that this

technology is an intermediate option as far as the economics of

geothermal power plants. The same cost estimation is given in TIAM

as well. The same cost decrease of [3] has been used (while in the

previous version the investment cost was kept constant over the time

horizon).



$2000/kW). The costs used in TIAM seems to be too low compared to

the current literature (50 $2000/kW).

Capacity factor 0.9 as in TIAM

Efficiency Increased to 10% as in the previous model versions. The higher

value in TIAM (100%) is probably due to different resource

estimation but this point should be further investigated.


Technology BINARY-HIGH CYCLE POWER PLANT

This technology differs from the previous because of the depth

where the geothermal energy is collected.

25

Acronym EGEOBNH105


TIAM and the investment cost was quite similar to that assumed in

TIAM as well. In the more recent model version the acronym was

changed and the investment cost clearly decreased. The new value of

the investment cost has been taken from [3] and corresponds to the

upper bound of the range (4400 $2000/kW). The same cost decrease of

[3] has been used as well (while in the previous version the

investment cost was kept constant over the time horizon).



$2000/kW). The costs used in TIAM seem to be too much high at the

base year while too low in 2050 compared to the current literature.

Capacity factor 0.9 as in TIAM

Efficiency Increased to 10% as in the previous model versions. The higher

value in TIAM (100%) is probably due to different resource

estimation but this point should be further investigated.


13. MARINE POWER SYSTEMS

Technology OFFSHORE WAVE

Wave power generation is based on the exploitation of the wind-

driven wave energy. [15]

Acronym EMARWAV110

Investment cost The investment cost has been taken from the UK study [14] about

the electricity production from ocean energy. Here the technology is

thought to enter the energy market in 2020. The cost is in line with

the upper bound of the cost range presented in [3] so it’s not

changed. On the other hand, the start year is changed from 2010 to

2020.


O&M cost The O&M costs are not changed because they are in line with ETP

[3] and IEA [15] estimation.

Capacity factor The capacity factor is not changed (35%) being it in line with IEA’s

estimation [15].

26


Life Unchanged (20 years), a bit conservative compared to [15].

Notes This technology has been recently included in the model. It’s not

accounted in TIAM.

Technology TIDAL STREAM

Tidal power is based on two technologies, namely tidal barrage

power and tidal stream power (i.e. marine currents). Tidal barrage

power is a relatively well known technology based upon capturing

seawater with a barrage when the tide is high, then letting the water

flow through hydro-turbines when tidal is low. Tidal stream power

can be considered as a technology under demonstration. [15]

Acronym EMARTDL110

Investment cost The investment cost has been taken from the UK study [14] about

the electricity production from ocean energy. Here the technology is

thought to enter the energy market in 2020. The cost is in line with

the lower bound of the cost range presented in [3] so it’s not

changed. On the other hand, the start year is changed from 2010 to

2020.


O&M cost The O&M costs is increased according to IEA [15] estimation.

Capacity factor The capacity factor is not changed (35%) being it in line with IEA’s

estimation [15].


Life Unchanged (20 years), a bit conservative compared to [15].

Notes This technology has been recently included in the model. It’s not

accounted in TIAM.

27

14. Conclusions.

The model of the power generation sector has been updated according to the most recent

technical literature. A new approach has been proposed, namely to include in the

―Subres_NewTechs‖ template technologies already existing or to be built in the US, while

deriving the cost data or availability factors in other world region by multiplying the

American data by region-specific multiplier.

Moreover a detailed comparison of ETM and TIAM assumptions about the technical and

economical features of the electricity generating technologies has been carried out. The high

number of common technologies together with similarities in naming conventions (see

Annexe 1,Table 3) highlights the common background of the two models.

It was found that ETM is more detailed as far as the nuclear sector being the nuclear fuel

cycle included and the results of the most recent studies about of fusion power plants taken

into account. In TIAM one fusion technology is considered as well, but having the same

features of the old fusion technology modeled in ETM. On the other hand, in TIAM a wider

range of CCS technologies is included being the biomass-fuelled power plants equipped with

CCS are also considered.

The comparison also showed that most of the economic features of the electricity generating

technologies of both models and in some cases the technical features as well, are outdated.

The differences between ETM and TIAM in the technologies’ modelling will probably lead

to different scenario results but the documentation about such differences (see Annexe 2 [to

be added]) will help in detecting the main reasons of possible diverging results. Nevertheless,

together with this, it’s strongly recommended to check the activation of boundaries on

capacity deployment or resource exploitation in both models because of its great impact on

the resulting technology mix.

Finally, the update of the heating producing technologies is recommended for future model

improvement.

28

References

[1] OECD, Projected cost of generating electricity, 2010 edition

[2] OECD, Projected cost of generating electricity, 2005 edition

[3] OECD and International Energy Agency, Energy technology perspectives, Scenarios

and Strategies to 2050, 2010 Edition





[6] Gabrial Anandarajah, Steve Pye, William Usher, Fabian Kesicki and Christophe

Mcglade, TIAM-UCL Global Model Documentation, Working Paper, REF

UKERC/WP/ESY/2011/001, February 2011

[7] D J Ward, W Han, J Greenleaf, S Pye, P Taylor, An analysis of the electricity sector

within the EFDA-TIMES model, UKAEA, TW4-TRE-FESO/A, April 2006

[8] Cabal H., Lechón Y., Sáez R., Improving the global multi-regional EFDA –TIMES

model: revision and update of the data included in the power generation sector of the

model, CIEMAT, Final Report TW4-TRE-FESO/A, June 2006,

[9] Documentation for the TIMES Model PART II (April 2005)

[10] Han W.E., Ward D.J., Final Report on Electricity Sector Update, UKAEA, TW6-TRE-

ETM-ELC, November 2007

[11] Bustreo C., Nuclear fuel cycle implementation in the EFDA TIMES model, Final

report, 2011

[12] Y. Lechón, H. Cabal, C. Lago, R. Sáez, Benefits of fusion in terms of greenhouse gases

reduction in long term climate change mitigation scenarios, Final report TW3-TRE-

FESA-A, February 2005

[13] World Bank, 2005. Off grid, mini-grid and grid electrification technologies. A

Technical and Economic Assessment. Discussion paper, Energy Unit, Energy and

Water Department. The World Bank.

[14] Carbon Trust, Future Marine Energy - Results of the Marine Energy Challenge: Cost

competitiveness and growth of wave and tidal stream energy, UK, (2006)

[15] IEA ETSAP, Marine Energy, Technology Brief E08, 30 November 2010,

[16] Shaffer F., Chan M., Forecasting the Benefits of DOE Programs for Advanced Fossil

Fuel Electricity Generating Technologies: The EIA High Fossil Electricity Technology

Case, USDOE Office of Fossil Energy, October 2002

[17] Maisonnier D., Campbell D., Cook I., et al., Power plant conceptual studies in Europe,

Nuclear Fusion 47 (2007) 1524–1532

[18] US Departement of Energy, Geothermal energy office, Electricity generation, visited on

March 2013, http://www1.eere.energy.gov/geothermal/powerplants.html

29

Annex 1

Table 1: Technologies included in TIAM only

ETM acronym Description

ECOACCA105 EPLT: .G1.05.ADV.COA.Air Blown IGCC.

ECOAAFB105 EPLT:G1.05.ADV.COA.Atmospheric Fl Bed.

EOILSTE105 EPLT: .G1.05.CON.OIL.Oil Steam.

EGASSTE105 EPLT: .G1.05.CON.NGA.Gas Steam.

EGOICCA105 EPLT: .G1.05.ADV.GOI.Gas/Oil Comb Cycle.

EGOITUA105 EPLT: .G1.05.ADV.GOI.Advanced Gas/Oil Turbine.

ENUCADV105 EPLT: .G1.05.ADV.NUC.Advanced Nuclear.

EHYDDAM305 EPLT: .G3.05.CON.HYD.Generic Impoundment Hydro.



EGEOT105 EPLT: .G1.05.CON.GEO.CEN.Shallow.

EGEOT205 EPLT: .G1.05.CON.GEO.CEN.Deep.

EGEOT305 EPLT: .G1.05.CON.GEO.CEN.Very deep.

HETGEO105 HPLT: .05.CON.GEO.CEN.Shallow.

EWIND105 EPLT: .G1.04.CON.WIN.CEN.

EWIND205 EPLT: .G1.10.CON.WIN.CEN.Offshore.

EWIND305 EPLT: .G1.00.CON.WIN.DCN.Onshore.

EWIND405 EPLT: .G1.10.CON.WIN.DCN.Onshore.

EDMYSOL Conversion ELCS to ELCC

ESOPV105 EPLT: .G1.03.CON.SOL.CEN.PV.

ESOPVD105 EPLT: .G1.05.CON.SOL.DCN.PV.

ESOPVD0105 EPLT: .G1.05.CON.SOL.DCN.PV.T0







ESOPV0105 EPLT: .G1.03.CON.SOL.CEN.PV.T0






ENUCLWR105 EPLT: .G1.05.ADV.NUC.Advanced Nuclear LWR.

ENUCPBM110 EPLT: .G1.10.ADV.NUC.Advanced Nuclear PBMR.

ENUCFUS110 EPLT: .G1.05.ADV.NUC.Fusion Nuclear.

EZCCGO110 NGCC+Oxyfueling

EZOCOA110 Conventional Pulverized Coal+Oxyfueling

EZBIOCRGC105 EPLT: .G1.05.CON.BIO.Crop Gasification.with CCS

EZBIOCRCC105 EPLT: .G1.05.CON.BIO.Crop Direct Combustion. With CCS

EZBIOSLGC105 EPLT: .G1.05.CON.BIO.Sld Biomass Gasification.with CCS

EZBIOSLCC105 EPLT: .G1.05.CON.BIO.Sld Biomass Direct Combustion.with CCS

30

Table 2: Technologies included in ETM only


EGOITUR105 EPLT: .G1.05.CON.GOI.Gas/Oil Steam Turbine.

EGOICCY105 EPLT: .G1.05.CON.GOI.Gas/Oil Comb Cycle.

EGASCCY105 EPLT: .G1.05.ADV.NGA.Gas Comb Cycle.

ENUCAFR140 EPLT: .G1.05.ADV.NUC.Advanced Nuclear Fast reactor.

ECHPGASP105 CHP: .G1.05.CON.NGA.

ECHPCOAP105 CHP: .G1.05.CON.COA.

ECHPBIOP105 CHP: .G1.05.CON.BIO.

EGEOFLS105 EPLT: .G1.05.CON.GEO.CEN.Flashed steam

EGEOBNY105 EPLT: .G1.05.CON.GEO.CEN.Binary

EGEOBNH105 EPLT: .G1.05.CON.GEO.CEN.Binary high

EWINONC105 EPLT: .G1.05.CON.WIN.CEN.Onshore.1



EWINOND105 EPLT: .G1.05.CON.WIN.DCN.Onshore.1



EWINOFC105 EPLT: .G1.05.CON.WIN.CEN.Offshore.

ESOLPVC105 EPLT: .G1.03.CON.SOL.CEN.PVC.1

ESOLPVD105 EPLT: .G1.05.CON.SOL.DCN.PVD.1

ESOLPVD205 EPLT: .G1.05.CON.SOL.DCN.PVD.2

ENUCFUB150 EPLT: .G1.05.ADV.NUC.Fusion Nuclear.Basic

ENUCFUA170 EPLT: .G1.05.ADV.NUC.Fusion Nuclear.Advanced

EMARWAV110 EPLT: .G1.05.CON.MAR.Offshore wave

EMARTDL110 EPLT: .G1.05.CON.MAR.Tidal stream


ENFCNPPLWR NFC - LWR

ENFCNPPFAR NFC - FR (burner)

ENFCNPPABR NFC - ABR

ENFCNPPATR NFC - ADS (TRU)

ENFCNPPAMA NFC - ADS (MA)

31

Table 3: Technologies common to both models

ETM acronym TIAM acronym Description

EBIOCRC105 EPLT: .G1.05.CON.BIO.Crop Direct Combustion.

EBIOCRG105 EPLT: .G1.05.CON.BIO.Crop Gasification.

EBIOGAW105 EPLT: .G1.05.CON.BIO.Biogas from Waste.

EBIOSLC105 EPLT: .G1.05.CON.BIO.Sld Biomass Direct Combustion.

EBIOSLCD05 EPLT: .G1.05.CON.BIO.Sld Biomass Direct Combustion.Decentralized

EBIOSLG105 EPLT: .G1.05.CON.BIO.Sld Biomass Gasification.

EBIOSLGD05 EPLT: .G1.05.CON.BIO.Sld Biomass Gasification.Decentralized

EBMUINC105 EBIOMSW105 EPLT: Incineration (waste)

ECOACCO105 EPLT: .G1.05.ADV.COA.Oxygen Blown IGCC.

ECOAPFB105 EPLT:G1.05.ADV.COA.Pressurized Fl Bed.

ECOAPUL105 EPLT: .G1.05.CON.COA.Pulverized Coal.

EGASFCE105 EPLT: .G1.05.ADV.NGA.Fuel Cells.



EHYDRUN105 EPLT: .G1.05.CON.HYD.Generic ROR Hydro.

EOILGBL105 EPLT: .G1.05.CON.OIL.Generic Dist Gen for Base Load.

ESOLTHC105 ESOTH105 EPLT: .G1.04.CON.SOL.CEN.Thermal.

EZCCGT110 NGCC+CO2 removal from flue gas

EOILGPL105 EPLT: .G1.05.CON.OIL.Generic Dist Gen for Peak Load.

EZIGC1110 IGCC+CO2 removal from input gas

ETM acronym TIAM acronym Description

EOILGPL105 EPLT: .G1.05.CON.OIL.Generic Dist Gen for Peak Load.

EZIGC1110 IGCC+CO2 removal from input gas

EZPCOA110 Conventional Pulverized Coal+CO2 removal from flue gas

EZSOFGAS30 SOFC (GAS) +CO2 removal - 2020

HETBIOP105 HPLT: .05.CON.BIO.

HETCOAP105 HPLT: .05.CON.COA.

HETGASP105 HPLT: .05.CON.NGA.

HETGEOP105 HPLT: .05.CON.GEO.

HETOILP105 HPLT: .05.CON.OIL.

HETOILP105 HPLT: .05.CON.OIL.

Average exchange rate - EUROfusion · ETP Energy Technology Perspectives IDC Interest during...

Documents

Transcript of Average exchange rate - EUROfusion · ETP Energy Technology Perspectives IDC Interest during...