Common Road to 2050 - UCL - London's Global University Road to 2050 Energy Networks and Policy...

Common Road to 2050 Energy Networks and Policy (ENP2050) UK ENERGY SCENARIOS A study at

August 14th, 2013 LONDON, UK Prepared by: Dr. Catalina Spataru

with contributions from:

Mr. Paul Drummond Dr. Mark Barrett Dr. Michael Emes

Table of Contents

1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 2 2 Review of Selected Studies ............................................................................................................. 3

2.1 GDP growth ............................................................................................................................. 4

2.2 Fuel prices ............................................................................................................................... 4

2.3 Electricity Demand Growth ..................................................................................................... 5

2.4 Conventional Fossil Fuel Generation ...................................................................................... 6

2.5 Nuclear Generation ................................................................................................................. 8

2.6 Renewable Electricity Generation .......................................................................................... 9

2.7 Electricity Generation ........................................................................................................... 10

2.8 Carbon Dioxide Emissions ..................................................................................................... 11

2.9 Conclusions ........................................................................................................................... 12

3 Overview of the current UK energy sector ................................................................................... 13 3.1 Primary Energy Consumption ............................................................................................... 13

3.2 Energy Consumption by Fuel ................................................................................................ 13

3.3 Electricity Mix in UK by Fuel .................................................................................................. 14

3.4 Primary Energy Production ................................................................................................... 15

3.5 Production versus Consumption ........................................................................................... 16

4 ‘ENP2050 Project’– Proposed Descriptive Scenarios .................................................................... 17 4.1 Scenario Objectives ............................................................................................................... 17

4.2 Main Future Transformations that Influence Scenarios Development ................................ 17

4.3 ‘ZORBA’ and ‘KALINKA’ scenarios ......................................................................................... 18

5 Key Policies Required by Energy Industries as a result of the Workshop ..................................... 21 6 Exploratory Scenarios Results using the ‘DECC 2050 Pathways Calculator’ ................................. 23

6.1 Modelling approach and assumptions .................................................................................. 23

6.2 Results ................................................................................................................................... 30

6.2.1 Energy and Electricity Demand ..................................................................................... 30

6.2.2 Primary Energy Supply .................................................................................................. 33

6.2.3 Electricity Supply ........................................................................................................... 34

6.2.4 GHG Emissions .............................................................................................................. 35

6.2.5 Energy Security ............................................................................................................. 37

6.2.6 Energy Flows in 2050 .................................................................................................... 37

7 Comparison between ‘Kalinka’ and ‘Zorba’ with Existing Scenarios ............................................ 39 8 Conclusions ................................................................................................................................... 43 9 References .................................................................................................................................... 45

1 Introduction

The development of a low-carbon energy system, coupled with security and reliability, is of crucial

importance if we are to provide deep emission cuts by 2050 to prevent dangerous anthropogenic

climate change. Grand challenges such as climate change mitigation and energy supply security

require substantial changes to current policy. Renewable energy supply and reduction in energy

consumption are essential, as more than half of the world’s population already lives and consumes

energy in cities. Moreover, there are different opportunities and benefits surrounding gas and

electricity. Gas networks store huge amounts of energy and react slowly over time to changes in

demand, whilst electricity networks require real-time responses and tariffs to reduce peak demand.

However, to enable consumers to optimize their energy use, various solutions like dual fuel-

electricity and gas appliances, biomethane and hydrogen injection into the gas grid, and use of

cogeneration should be considered as part of the technology mix; alongside significant integration of

‘conventional’ renewable energy. In addition, there are new possibilities to extract unconventional

fossil fuels such as shale gas, tight gas, coal bed methane, tight oil and shale oil. These challenges will

require tight coupling of different energy sources - nuclear, fossil, and renewable - to match energy

production and demand at any time, and to meet the challenging ‘sustainable’ ambition.

The aims of the ‘ENP2050 Project’ were to:

Analyse the role of different energy resources in order to reduce system costs and emissions

and further increase the proportion of renewable energy.

Review existing energy scenarios

Highlight challenges and propose a horizon time framework for action to manage various

resources integration.

Explore options which reduce carbon emissions and analyse potential feasible options for

energy system development

Discuss policies needed for different energy industries (gas, coal, oil, nuclear, wind and other

renewables industries), to enable different development trajectories

Objectives

The main objective of the ‘ENP2050’ Project is to produce a range of basic options for the

development of a low-carbon energy system in UK, and draw together an assessment of their

benefits and challenges from technical and policy perspectives. The approach considers only

technologies which currently exist on the market but not currently available or which are awaiting

large-scale deployment.

2 Review of Selected Studies

With the purpose of determining the background, assumptions, and outputs of scenarios produced

in previous studies for the development of the UK energy system, literature review was conducted.

This section summarises this review, and aims to highlight the similarities and differences between

these aspects in selected studies. Three studies which attempt to assess the future development of

the UK electricity system1 were selected for review: a study conducted by ILEX, one by the

Department for Trade and Industry (DTI), and one produced by Friends of Earth (FOE). All studies

were published in 2006, and all hold 2010 as an intermediate assessment horizon, allowing

projections to be assessed against actual values.

The ILEX and FOE studies both aim to evaluate development trajectories of the electricity system

under CO2 emissions constraints. The ILEX study also prohibits the construction of new nuclear

capacity in its investigation. The DTI study aims to evaluate the development of the energy system in

the UK as driven by various fuel price assumptions, based on the UK’s Climate Change Programme

(since replaced). Each study assesses multiple scenarios, which differ by aspects such as policy

assumptions, fuel prices and technological development. Table 1 summarises the key characteristics

of these three studies2, and the main differences are outlined in the sections bellow.

Table 1: Summary of the three comparison studies (ILEX, FOE, DTI)

1 DTI is the only study that examines the whole energy sector. The results compared in this report are based on

electricity. 2 See report for a more detailed description and evaluation of these studies

2.1 GDP growth

Assumptions for GDP growth are well matched between ILEX (2006) and DTI (2006) in which all

scenarios (unless explicitly stated), assume an annual economic growth rate of 2.55% from 2004 to

2015. The FOE study makes no reference to a GDP input. The World Bank states that the actual GDP

growth for the UK between 2004 and 2010 was 1.25%. There is clearly a large discrepancy between

these two values. A significant explanation for this is the global financial crisis that began in 2008,

which heavily impacted the UK economy. Such ‘shocks’ to the system are difficult, if not impossible

to predict and include in scenario design. Therefore, such ‘shocks’ can render the results of a

scenario application largely irrelevant. This is amplified with increasingly distant assessment

horizons.

2.2 Fuel prices

Fuel prices are a common input in both ILEX (2006) and DTI (2006) studies; however it is not

explicitly discussed in the FOE (2006) report, and thus cannot be assessed here. The general

assumptions taken by the studies were:

DTI-assumed that oil prices would remain as high as they were at the time of the study, with

variations tracked by the gas price. Coal prices were projected to fall slightly towards 2010 in

response to experienced investment in coal production resulting from high prices in 2005.

These assumptions are common in 2010 for all DTI scenarios (discussed below), with

increasing price divergence between scenarios occurring after this date.

ILEX- projections based on historic analyses and estimations for a rational balance between

gas and coal price differentials, common to all scenarios produced by this study.

Table 2 presents the fuel prices for the two ‘central’ fuel price scenarios in the DTI study (one

favourable towards gas, the other towards coal), and ILEX assumptions common to all scenarios.

Fuel prices in the ILEX study are much higher than DTI projected figures, in 2010. As the ILEX study

was published a few months later than the DTI Study, it is possible that the intervening significant

increase in fuel prices had altered the relative ‘baselines’ and trends, producing this discrepancy. The

ILEX study does not present a price for oil in 2010 as it is assumed no oil-based power generation by

this time.

Table 2: Fuel Prices Projections in ILEX and DTI (2006) reports for 2010

£/GJ DTI ILEX

Year:2010 Central (1) Central (2) Common

OIL 2.55 2.55 -

GAS 2.26 2.75 3.25

COAL 0.89 0.89 1.54

Figure 1 illustrates the data tabulated above, along with the actual data for 2010, as published by

(National grid, 2012) and (DECC, 2012c). It is clear that DTI projections for coal prices were highly

accurate, whilst ILEX projections were nearly double the actual price in 2010. However, ILEX

projections for gas prices were relatively close, along with the Central (2) DTI scenario.

Figure 1: Projected Fuel Prices Comparison for 2010

2.3 Electricity Demand Growth The rate of electricity demand growth may be determined endogenously in a model by using

factors such as GDP projections and demographic changes, or it may be applied as an exogenous

assumption. Figure 2 below, presents the electricity demand growth rates used until 2010 in the

three studies.

Figure 2: Electricity Demand Growth Rate Comparison

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

DTI, 2006 S(1) DTI, 2006 S(2) ILEX, 2006

Pri

ces

(£/G

J)

Scenario Study

Fuel Prices Comparison of 2006 studies with 2010 data

Gas Coal 2010 Data Gas 2010 Data Coal

0.0%

0.2%

0.4%

0.6%

0.8%

1.0%

1.2%

1.4%

1.6%

DTI, 2006Without

Measures

DTI, 2006With

Measures

ILEX, 2006(BAU)

ILEX, 2006(PS1)

ILEX, 2006(PS2)

FOE, 2006

Gro

wth

p.a

.

Scenario Study

Electricity Demand Growth Comparison of 2006 studies with 2010 data

Figure 2 presents two values for the DTI study, ‘with measures’ and ‘without measures’. The two

‘central’ scenarios discussed for this study apply the ‘with measures’ value, calculated endogenously,

which assumes measures contained in the UK’s Climate Change Programme (as existed at the time),

were implemented and their targets achieved. The ‘without measures’ assumes this is not the case,

and applies to the ‘Business as Usual’ scenario. The ‘BAU’ scenario in the ILEX study uses the average

rate applied to the DTI’s ‘without measures’ scenario, at 1.15% annual demand growth (from 2011,

the DTI ‘without measures’ growth rate changes from 1.49% as illustrated in the graph, to 0.74%).

Similarly, ILEX’s ‘PS1’ scenario uses the average DTI estimation for the ‘with measures’ (0.44% p.a.),

with the ‘PS2’ scenario using a rate of 0.11% across the full assessment horizon (2004-2025). The

FOE report includes values for electricity demand that can be characterised as exogenous and they

were based on the ‘Performance and Innovation Unit’s 2003 report along with some additional

assumptions related to the implementation of new energy efficient technologies that affected their

results to some extent. This study distinguishes between its ‘good progress’ and ‘slow progress’

scenarios, however until 2010 the difference is negligible, both using a growth rate of around 0.43%.

2.4 Conventional Fossil Fuel Generation

Each study makes assumptions on when certain generation capacity will close, either because it

reaches its end of life, or due to policy considerations. The DTI study assumes the closure of 2 GW of

coal and 1 GW of other fossil fuel capacity (principally gas), between 2005 and 2010. This is the case

in all the scenarios included in the study, as a result of both end-of-life retirement and policies that

oblige reduction of the use of fossil fuels. The ILEX study assumes the closure of 14 GW of coal-fired

capacity by 2026, but does not present particular assumptions by 2010 (all scenarios), whilst the FOE

study assumed the continued operation of existing capacity with efficiency upgrades by 2010. In the

‘gas’ favoured FOE scenarios ( “good gas” , “slow gas”), the Drax coal-fired installation closes in 2018,

but this does not impact results at the 2010 projection horizon.

Figure 3 and Figure 4 present the coal and gas-fired power generation projections from these three

studies in 2010. The ‘maximum’ and ‘minimum’ values produced by the various scenarios within

each study are given. The FOE ‘Slow Progress’ and DTI Central ‘Favourable to Gas’ scenario, both

match very closely with what actually came to pass in 20103. DTI projects a decrease in coal

generation by 2010 from 2005 due to the retiring of coal-fired stations, and there is little variation in

their projections (probably arising from the limited variation between the scenarios in 2010). This is

also the case for the FOE scenarios. ILEX projections for coal consumption vary significantly, with the

‘maximum’ projection a result of ‘Business as Usual’, and the ‘minimum’ projection resulting from a

scenario (‘Policy Switch’ - Policy Delivered) which assumed all targets in 2010 for CO2 emissions

abatement and renewable penetration were met. In the ‘BAU’ scenario, low relative coal prices

incentivise its use to satisfy high energy demand, whereas the ‘Policy Switch’ scenarios assume

decreased electricity demand, and therefore decreased demand for coal consumption. This

explanation applies to the gas consumption variation in ILEX, displayed in Figure 4, in which the

‘BAU’ scenario projects the most accurate consumption profile, with 18% increase between 2005

3 2010 Data for electricity consumption by fuel taken from DECC 2012a. Electricity generation and supply

figures for Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England, 2008 to 2011. Departmenet of Energy and Climate Change.

and 2010. The DTI and FOE studies again produce little variation (for the same reasons), and are

both significantly below actual consumption.

Figure 3: Projected Coal Generation Comparison for 2010

Figure 4: Projected Gas Generation Comparison for 2010

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

DTI, 2006 ILEX, 2006 FOE, 2006

Ele

ctri

city

Ge

ne

rati

on

(TW

h)

Scenario Study

Coal Generation Comparison of 2006 studies with 2010 data

Max Min 2010 Data

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

DTI, 2006 ILEX, 2006 FOE, 2006

Ele

ctri

city

Ge

ne

rati

on

(TW

h)

Scenario Study

Gas Generation Comparison of 2006 studies with 2010 data

Max Min 2010 Data

2.5 Nuclear Generation

The ILEX study assumes the closure of nuclear installations as per 2006 expectations (licence

expirations, etc.) as presented in Table 3. By 2010, this equals a closure of 1.389 GW of nuclear

capacity. The DTI study makes similar, specific assumptions, whilst the FOE assumes a higher

reduction in capacity of around 2GW, in line with the DTI’s Energy Paper 684. The FOE also explicitly

states that no new nuclear capacity may be built.

Table 3: ILEX study – Nuclear Installation Assumed Dates of Retirement

Plant Type Capacity (MW) Closure date

Dungeness A Dungeness B Hartlepool Heysham 1 Heysham 2 Hinkley Point B Hunterston B Oldsbury Sizewell A Sizewell B Tomess Wylfa

Magnox AGR AGR AGR AGR AGR AGR Magnox Magnox PWR AGR Magnox

444 1,070 1,207 1,165 1,322 1,297 1,238 475 470

1,220 1,270 1,082

2006 2018 2014 2014 2023 2011 2011 2008 2006 2035 2023 2010

Figure 5 illustrates the maximum projected electricity generated from nuclear in 2010, for the three

studies compared with actual data from the UK government (DECC, 2012a). The FOE study has

proven the most accurate projection at around 60TWh, although there is little variation between the

three studies (and indeed, little if any difference between scenarios within each study). This is to be

expected, as decommissioning dates for existing plants were known, no new capacity was planned

and therefore extremely unlikely to come online by 2010, and fuel prices do not vary (in the same

manner as fossil fuel). The small difference experienced is a result of other factors such as total

electricity demand, for example.

4Source: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.dti.gov.uk/files/file11257.pdf

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http:/www.dti.gov.uk/files/file11257.pdf

Figure 5: Projected Nuclear Generation Comparison for 2010

2.6 Renewable Electricity Generation

DTI projected that renewables will be the only energy source with rapid development until 2010,

stating that "the Government is committed to ensuring that the contribution from renewables

increases over time". This statement is consistent with the other two studies as well. The ILEX study

refers to the Renewable Obligation (Ofgem, 2013) as the key driver of the RES installation, whilst

FOE mentions that: “We believe that the growing public awareness and concern about climate

change is likely to result in increasing public support for the speedy deployment of

renewable schemes of all types".

Figure 6 illustrates the maximum and minimum projected electricity generated from renewables in

2010, produced by the various scenarios in each study. According to the previous statements, all

scenarios in the three studies project an increase in the penetration of renewables into the

electricity market, to different degrees. Both DTI and FOE display little difference between their own

scenarios, and between each other, each projecting around 33 TWh of renewable generation in

2010. This is well above the actual value of just over 25TWh (DECC, 2012a). Only the ILEX ‘Business

as Usual’ projection accurately matches actual 2010 renewable generation, whilst the ‘Policy Switch

– Policy Evolution’ scenario projected over 40TWh generation, under conditions of additional policy

instruments.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

DTI, 2006 ILEX, 2006 FOE, 2006

Ele

ctri

city

Ge

ne

rati

on

(TW

h)

Scenario Study

Nuclear Generation Comparison of 2006 studies with 2010 data

Max 2010 Data

Figure 6: Projected Renewables Generation Comparison for 2010

2.7 Electricity Generation Figure 7 presents the ‘maximum’ and ‘minimum’ electricity generation projections for 2010 from the

three studies, along with the actual generation in 2010. The FOE projections are by far the highest at

around 410TWh, well above the 382TWh actually generated in 2010 (BP, 2013). There is also very

little discrepancy within the study itself, as demand growth is uniform between the scenarios. It is

likely that the 2008 economic crisis and the drop in electricity demand are responsible for this

difference. The ‘Power Switch – Policy Evolution’ scenario in the ILEX study produces the most

accurate projection, around 25 TWh lower than its ‘Business as Usual’ projection. The ‘Policy

Evolution’ scenario assumes the application and achievement of new (as of 2006), ambitious targets

and policies, above those that were already in place or announced. This is an ambitious trajectory

that was not achieved, and it is again probable that the financial crisis was the cause of this

apparently ‘successful’ result. The DTI scenarios project 2010 electricity consumption well below

what came to pass. One reason for this divergence between DTI and the other two studies is possibly

the amount of electricity imports and combined heat and power capacity (CHP) not included in the

DTI study. Additionally, DTI results are based only on the "with measures" electricity

growth assumption and on the Climate Change Programme which acts to reduce electricity demand.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

DTI, 2006 ILEX, 2006 FOE, 2006

Ele

ctri

city

Ge

ne

rati

on

(TW

h)

Scenario Study

Renewables Generation Comparison of 2006 studies with 2010 data

Max Min 2010 Data

Figure 7: Projected Total Electricity Generation Comparison for 2010

2.8 Carbon Dioxide Emissions

Figure 19 8 presents the ‘maximum’ and ‘minimum’ CO2 emissions from the power sector produced

by the three studies. The FOE projected emissions are the highest, and well above actual emissions

in 2010 taken from DECC (2013) (although again, with little divergence between the maximum and

minimum projections – resulting from ‘slow coal’ and ‘good gas’ scenarios, respectively). This is

largely a function of demand illustrated in Figure 2. However, this does not necessarily follow for the

DTI and ILEX studies, in which the latter projects lower emissions in 2010 in all cases, despite much

higher electricity demand across the board. This stems from higher nuclear and renewables

generation over the DTI scenarios, along with a preference for gas over coal – especially in the

‘Policy Switch – Policy Delivered’ scenario. The assumption of more efficient generation also

contributes to this trend. In that sense, the DTI study, constrained by CO2 targets (CC Programme),

matches actual CO2 emissions most closely.

310

320

330

340

350

360

370

380

390

400

410

420

DTI, 2006 ILEX, 2006 FOE, 2006

Ele

ctri

city

Ge

ne

rati

on

(TW

h)

Scenario Study

Electricity Generation Comparison of 2006 studies with 2010 data

Max Min 2010 Data

Figure 8: Project CO2 Emissions from Electricity Generation Comparison for 2010

2.9 Conclusions

This relatively brief, high-level analysis of three similar studies, conducted at similar times and with a

very close assessment horizon (2006 to 2010), highlights the significant differences among input

values (e.g. GDP growth projections), calculation methodology and the subsequent production of

highly varied results (e.g. CO2 emissions) that are reasonably possible. It was discovered through the

evaluation of their assumptions and results that DTI and ILEX are rather similar, as they present

comparable assumptions based on similar sources. Whilst many of the scenarios examined are not

what the authors would necessarily expect to happen (e.g. Business as Usual, or ambitious additional

policy), the relatively close assessment horizon might lead to the expectation of relatively accurate

projections with only small variations between studies and scenarios, pivoting around the eventual

actual outcome. This highlights another important weakness related to the projection of future

developments. The financial crisis lead to a significant drop in energy demand (especially electricity),

amongst other things, which is extremely difficult, if not impossible to account for in projections-

produced before the fact. This will have rendered many assumptions and subsequent outputs

irrelevant. Care must then always be taken to develop future scenarios, and interpretation of their

assessments, with such things in mind.

0

50

100

150

200

250

DTI, 2006 ILEX, 2006 FOE, 2006

Car

bo

n D

ioxi

de

Em

issi

on

s M

tCO

2

Scenario Study

CO2 Emissions from Power Sector Comparison of 2006 studies with 2010 data

Max Min 2010 Data

3 Overview of the current UK energy sector

The targets and modifications established over the last two decades through policies such as: UK’s

Kyoto Protocol, the 2008 ‘Climate Change Act’, along with economic differentiations such as changes

in fuel prices, have affected the various energy trends in the UK.

3.1 Primary Energy Consumption

According to the UK Government statistics, presented in Figure 9, between 1990 to 2001 energy

consumption was constantly growing, following economic growth. Since 2004 however, there has

been a consistent decline in energy consumption. In 2011 overall UK primary energy consumption

was 209.6 Mtoe, 1.7% below 2010 levels. Such a low level has not been reached since 1984. The

decreased energy consumption since 2007 reflects a considerably reduced UK GDP growth between

2007 and 2009, maybe due to the recession. However, environmental policies introduced since the

year 2000 in particular, have also contributed to energy generation and demand reduction.

Figure 9: Primary Energy Consumption (1990-2011) (Source: DECC (2012b))

3.2 Energy Consumption by Fuel

Figure 10 shows no considerable changes in the UK’s energy supply profile, aside from a progressive

penetration of renewables, mainly observed after 2008. Oil and gas remain the principal sources for

transportation and heating (amongst others), respectively, whilst the use of coal over the time tends

towards minimal consumption in the context of overall primary energy consumption.

180

190

200

210

220

230

240

250

1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012

Mto

e

Year

Primary Energy Consumption in UK (Temperature corrected)

Figure 10: Total Primary Energy Consumption by fuel, UK (1990-2011) (Source:DECC (2012b))

3.3 Electricity Mix in UK by Fuel The last 20 years experienced high industrialisation powered by the electricity sector, which is

dominated by fossil fuels. Between 1990 and 2000 a number of significant transformations occurred

in the UK’s electricity generation profile. The use of solid fuels decreased and natural gas became an

important player fuel as illustrated in Figure 11. Gas participated by 45% in the electricity

consumption and represented 41% of the entire energy consumption in the UK (primarily through its

dominance as a heating fuel, in addition to electricity generation). The share of renewables in the

electricity sector accounts for 8.7% of the final consumption by 2011, a significant growth since

2000.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

19

90

19

91

19

92

19

93

19

94

19

95

19

96

19

97

19

98

19

99

20

00

20

01

20

02

20

03

20

04

20

05

20

06

20

07

20

08

20

09

20

10

20

11

Pe

rce

nta

ge

Year

Primary Energy Mix in UK by Fuel

Coal Coke and breeze Other solid fuels

Coke oven gas Natural gas Electricity

Heat sold Bioenergy and waste Petroleum

Figure 11: Fuel input for Electricity Consumption in UK for milestone dates (1990, 2000, 2011)

(Source: DECC (2012d))

3.4 Primary Energy Production

Total production of primary fuels in the UK has been experiencing a constant decrease since 2002

(49% reduction in 2011 compared to 2002), as shown in Figure 12. The highest peak was recorded in

1999 for total energy production (and for petroleum as an individual fuel), whilst domestic

production of natural gas peaked in 2000. The key reasons for subsequent decreases, particularly for

petrol and gas, are the reducing North Sea oil and gas reserves, and several maintenance issues that

occurred, forcing a reduction in oil and gas recovery. The latest statistics for 2011 show that overall,

fossil fuels account for 83% of total domestic production while primary electricity (consisting of

nuclear, wind and natural flow hydro) accounts for 13%. As presented in the following figure it is

evident that there was a boost of 60% in wind energy between 2006 and 2011. This is a trend

projected to increase further over the next years.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

1990 2000 2011

Pe

rce

nta

ge

Year

Electricity Mix in UK by Fuel

Coal Oil Natural gas Other fuels Natural flow hydro Wind

Figure 12: Annual Indigenous Production of Fuels in UK (1995-2011) (Sources: DECC (2012b), UK Goverment (2013), UK Goverment (2013))

3.5 Production versus Consumption

A comparison between domestic energy production and consumption in the UK from 1990 to 2011 is

provided in Figure 13. In 1990 the levels of production and consumption were roughly the same

(around 220Mtoe). From 1990 to 2004, UK energy production was larger than consumption, making

it possible for the UK to export energy to other European markets, whilst providing domestic energy

security. After 2004 however, although consumption did not record any increase, the levels of UK

energy production were reduced significantly, requiring the UK to increase its reliance on energy

imports.

Figure 13: Total Primary Energy Production and Consumption in the UK from 1990 to 2011 (Sources:DECC (2012b), UK Goverment (2013))

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

19

95

19

96

19

97

19

98

19

99

20

00

20

01

20

02

20

03

20

04

20

05

20

06

20

07

20

08

20

09

20

10

20

11

Mto

e

Year

Annual Indigenous Production of Primary Fuels

Coal Petroleum Natural gas Nuclear Wind and natural flow hydro

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

19

90

19

91

19

92

19

93

19

94

19

95

19

96

19

97

19

98

19

99

20

00

20

01

20

02

20

03

20

04

20

05

20

06

20

07

20

08

20

09

20

10

20

11

Mto

e

Year

Energy Production Vs Consumption

Primary Energy Production Primary Energy Consumption

4 ‘ENP2050 Project’– Proposed Descriptive Scenarios

4.1 Scenario Objectives

The aim of these scenarios is to describe a vision of the UK between 2020 and 2050 by exploring

energy trends’ fluctuations through the time. These scenarios are designed to help a range of

stakeholders to address the ‘Energy Trilemma’ of achieving environmental sustainability, energy

security and social equity. Regarding Energy Trilemma please see the World Energy Council report

and website.

Figure 14: The Energy Trilemma angle (Source: World Energy Council (2012))

We need to balance the 3 challenges of energy supply reliability, energy affordability and climate

change, and there are increasing demands and targets on all three aspects. According to the World

Energy Council (WEC) report (2012) on the ‘Energy Trilemma’, United Kingdom in 2012 had rank 15

in the energy sustainability index, which was higher than in 2011 and 2010 (see Figure 14). According

to the WEC analysis, the improvement in the rank was due to an improved performance across all

dimensions. Energy security scores increased substantially, due to an increase in the wholesale

margin of gasoline and diversity of electricity production. Lower emissions from electricity and heat

generation conducted to improvements in environmental impact mitigation. Economic strength

decreases substantially due to less credit availability and lower macroeconomic stability. The

analysis makes use of the following energy performance dimensions: energy security, social equity,

environmental impact mitigation and of the following contextual performance dimensions: political

strength, societal strength, economic strength. Information on Energy Trilemma, as well as results

and country profiles can be found on the World Energy Council (WEC) website at

www.worldenergy.org/data/sustainability-index.

4.2 Main Future Transformations that Influence Scenarios Development

Historically, the UK is a country that has relied on coal, nuclear and off-shore natural gas. Within this

context, we looked at the UK policies aiming to transform the current system. The existing UK energy

policies also aim to transform the current situation and are set out in the ‘Energy White Paper’, ‘Low

Carbon Transition Plan’, ‘Energy Bill’ and ‘Climate Change Act’. In the ‘Energy White Paper’, the

policy recognizes that UK will call for approximately 30-35 GW of new electricity generation capacity

http://www.worldenergy.org/data/sustainability-index

over the next two decades. Moreover, the ‘UK Low carbon Transition Plan’ details the actions to be

taken to cut carbon emissions by 34% by 2020 (based on 1990 levels); while 40% of electricity will be

generated from low carbon sources. The ‘Energy Bill’ aims to close a number of coal and nuclear

power stations over the next decades’ and be replaced by renewable reaching 30% of electricity

share by 2020. A summary of the main targets for emissions for two milestone years 2030 and 2050

are included in the ‘Fourth Carbon Budget’ report proposed by the Committee on Climate Change

(2010) (60% reduction in 2030) and in the Climate Change Act imposing 80% reduction by 2050,

compared to 1990 emissions.

The UK’s Office of Gas and Electricity Markets (Ofgem), the UK’s energy regulator, mentioned that

the statistical probability of major power shortages in the UK could increase to about once in 12

years in 2015, from once in 47 years at present, as a result of closing power plants (especially coal

and nuclear). In the next decade a fifth of Britain’s existing capacity is scheduled to close (Wintour

and Inman, 2013). North Sea oil and gas is in decline, and the global market for these products is

volatile and extensive (Simms (2013)). Recently the Government issued 197 new licenses for oil and

gas exploration in the North Sea, which is the largest number since 1967 (Adams, 2013). Shale gas is

proposed as a major additional source of gas, potentially for decades. The exact potential is

unknown for geological, economic and environmental reasons. In June 2013, it was confirmed that

negotiations between the Government and the UK Onshore Operators Group had resulted in a new

industry charter. Its key provisions mean that if new gas is discovered, local communities could

receive financial benefits: £100,000 for every well that is fracked as part of exploration, and 1% of

revenues if things prove to be commercially viable (Harris, 2013). With all of these current facts and

plans working, as yin and yang, with opposing forces which both conflict and reinforce, giving rise to

each other as they interrelate to one another, we present two alternative scenarios for the

development of the UK energy system, a ‘cauldron of contradictions’ which will work together as

‘yin-yang’.

Part of the ENP2050 Project two scenarios and their steps for two pathways were proposed and

presented at the Common Road to 2050 Workshop in July 2013 (Spataru, 2013). A description of

these scenarios is provided in the next section 4.3.

4.3 ‘ZORBA’ and ‘KALINKA’ scenarios

‘Zorba’ (Zorba’s dance) is a Greek dance song that entered the popular imagination through, the

motion picture ‘Zorba the Greek’. In the Greek tradition, dance is considered as a ‘way of life’, an

authentic integration of mind, body and spirit.

‘Kalinka’ is a Russian song, with which has a speedy tempo, light-hearted and cheerful lyrics. It is

believed that the nature of the Russian dance comes from a need to stay warm during the long

winters. The dances accompanying the Kalinka are a series of varied steps depending on the

choreographer, the region and the company performing them.

We use these two iconic dances as a metaphoric basis for our proposed scenarios.

ZORBA: Predominant Renewables (with Storage) + Nuclear

Encourage long term energy security and promotion of environmental issues - need of a

rapid uptake of renewables.

Key driver: achieve environmental goals, a long term economic growth, with significant

investments by 2030 in low-carbon technologies (including energy storage), with significant

support and direction from the Government.

KALINKA: Predominant Fossil Fuels (with Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS))

Energy security and affordability as a short-term priority, prevents stress of immediate

technological revolution.

Key driver: recovering economic growth and meeting short term demand. Well known

technologies; but CCS not well known, with limited carbon reduction in short term.

Both in long term not clear which one will be the most affordable and secure.

We looked at a time horizon from the present to 2050. Until 2020 is a period full of uncertainties, by

2030 policymakers will need to devise, implement and commit to policies, towards 2040 everything

becomes clear and by 2050 we become green.

Within the ‘Energy Trilemma’, policymakers need to ask:

1. What are the main needs of the country?

2. What are the economic goals?

3. What industries do we need to support over the next 20 years?

4. Where are investments needed?

5. Which instruments will we choose to address needs?

We explored four steps for each scenario, in order to identify ways to address the future emission targets and evaluate energy security in the UK from now until 2050.

Table 4: Description of ‘Kalinka’ Steps

KALINKA – predominant fossil fuels Steps’ Description

2020 – The Black step Current system configuration with high investments in CCS R&D and lower in energy storage Nuclear still in use in low levels- some new nuclear power plants will be built

2030 – The Grey step CCS has been retrofitted to many existing gas-fired plants and included in all new gas-fired plants. Some of the existing power plants will be used along with many that will be replaced with new ones Use of efficient methods to extract fossil fuels Renewables are being installed with average rates Government provides and implements policy options to

2020 2030 2040 2050

support different industries5

2040 – The Blue step CCS established mostly in new power plants Higher proportion of renewables Use of renewables to produce Hydrogen Peak-load electricity back-up provided by fossil fuels Most of the existing nuclear plants are improved plus use of new power plants Use of geosequestration in low levels

2050 – The Green step Predominant use of Hydrogen (from renewables) in transportation Extensive use of CCS in the majority of gas-fired power plants Use of shale gas as a back-up for energy security with CCS Renewables in higher proportion Nuclear continues with slightly increased share compared to the previous decades-2050 all power plants are efficient Use of geosequestration

Table : Description of ‘Zorba’ Steps

ZORBA – predominant renewables Steps’ Description

2020 – The Black step Current system configuration with high investments in energy storage, renewables and lower in CCS Nuclear increases new power plants will be built

2030 – The Grey step Significant improvements in energy storage technologies. Use of nuclear Use of less fossil fuels More renewables incentives taken and more low-carbon technologies implemented in existing buildings (such as, insulation techniques domestic wind turbines, PV) through different policy schemes Government provides and implement policy options to support different industries Use of carbon sequestration techniques in high levels

2040 – The Blue step Energy storage implemented Higher proportion of renewables than in Kalinka Use of renewables to produce Hydrogen Back-up from nuclear with new nuclear plants Some success in extracting shale gas Extensive use of carbon sequestration techniques

2050 – The Green step Predominant renewables with well establish energy storage options, with use of hydrogen for transportation , Use of nuclear from new more efficient facilities Use of natural gas and shale gas in relatively small proportions as peak-load back-up in the electricity system Extensive use of carbon sequestration techniques

5Assumption level 3: high electrification and CCS in industry sector while the industry grows in

parallel with today (assumption level B)

5 Key Policies Required by Energy Industries as a result of the Workshop

Regardless of the path taken to develop the UK’s energy system to meet low-carbon ambitions and

energy demand in 2050, each energy-generating industry focuses around a particular energy product

(nuclear, fossil fuels, wind, etc.) that will face difficulties– alongside overarching challenges of a

changing energy mix overall. This may include uncertainty surrounding technological development

(e.g. CCS or energy storage), energy distribution infrastructure (e.g. grid management and

connection), public acceptance (e.g. onshore wind, nuclear, fracking), security of supply, and

economic viability. These challenges will vary in their prominence depending on the energy resource

and technology, and the emphasis placed on them by the two proposed scenarios (Kalinka and

Zorba).

Many challenges are likely to require proactive strategies and policy instruments to reduce their

impact. This may include the provision of funding for R&D into CCS, the roll out of ‘smart meters’

and the development of smart grid led by government, information campaigns and benefits targeted

at local communities impacted by infrastructure, or price stability delivered by feed-in tariffs or

contracts for difference, to encourage private investment.

As part of a workshop undertaken in July 2013, expert participants were divided into six groups,

reflecting the key energy resource industries (‘Coal’, Oil’, ‘Gas’, ‘Nuclear’, ‘Wind’ and ‘Other

Renewables’). Each group was given time to consider the key challenges to their industry in meeting

the ‘required’ proportion of energy supply in 2050 as described by the ‘Zorba’ and ‘Kalinka’

scenarios, taking into consideration the three ‘points’ of the energy trilemma (energy security,

energy affordability and emissions reduction targets), beginning with the approximate proportion

each accounts for in the present energy supply system. Based on these challenges, each group was

tasked to put forward five key policy instruments to overcome these challenges, for each scenario. It

was assumed that the existing and planned policy landscape is ‘wiped clean’, and that the five

instruments may overlap between scenarios. Policies that are currently in place or planned for

introduction may be ‘reinstated’. Table illustrates the ‘most important’ policy options (one per

group, per scenario), as voted for by the full participation group.

Table 6: ‘Most important’ policy instrument options for energy supply industries

Energy industry Zorba Kalinka

Coal Full-scale CCS Demonstration Full Scale CCS Demonstration

Oil Increased vehicle fuel efficiency Increased vehicle fuel efficiency

Gas Pre-combustion CCS

Demonstration Pre-combustion CCS

Demonstration

Nuclear R&D for grid management

technologies and strategies Extend existing plant life

Wind Energy Storage R&D -

‘Other’ Renewables Feed-in tariff for full expected

lifespan Feed-in tariff for full expected

lifespan

The development and demonstration of commercially viable CCS was voted as the key priority for

both the coal and gas industries, in both scenarios. This indicates the belief that the reduction of CO2

emissions is the key challenge for these industries, over other issues such as security and cost of

supply, and incentives to invest in new installations, where required. Such an incentive was voted as

the key policy priority for ‘other’ renewables (e.g. solar, marine, biomass). The extension of the

lifespan of existing nuclear plans was voted as the priority for nuclear power under ‘Kalinka’, in

which nuclear is not a major electricity generator. For ‘Zorba’ however, where nuclear plays a more

significant role, the most important policy was considered to be provision for R&D into grid

management, to enable the combination of relatively static nuclear generation with stochastic

renewables. The most important policy for the use of oil in both scenarios (largely in transport), was

encouraging end-use efficiency (i.e. increased vehicle efficiency). This has the dual result of reducing

carbon intensity of oil end-use, and reducing exposure to security of supply and affordability issues.

Whilst these are presented as the most important policy considerations for each energy supply

industry, it does not necessarily follow that these are the five policy priorities overall, in each

scenario. Overall, policy priority might fall to the promotion of renewables, for example, whilst

policies focussed on the oil industry may be relatively unimportant in light of its decreasing share in

consumption.

6 Exploratory Scenarios Results using the ‘DECC 2050 Pathways Calculator’

The DECC ‘2050 Pathways Calculator, used to assess the two scenarios. Different options of how the

UK can best meet energy needs and reduce emissions can be explored with this tool. The DECC 2050

Pathway Calculator has a web-tool version which provides user the possibility to create their own

pathway and an Excel version for users who want to look at the underpinning model.

On the demand side, the users can choose between various choices, such as: insulation level, lighting

and appliances efficiency, travel mode and kind of vehicles. On the supply side the users can choose

how the UK produces its energy. Four trajectories have been developed for each choice. This ranges

from no effort or little to reduce emissions to extremely ambitious changes that push towards the

physical or technical limits of what can be achieved. More information on DECC 2050 Pathway

Calculator please see https://www.gov.uk/2050-pathways-analysis.

6.1 Modelling approach and assumptions

The analysis with the DECC calculator is calibrated against 2010 data. Apart from the assumptions

individual to each scenario, such as the penetration of different energy sources, improvements in

energy efficiency and development of various energy technologies, the calculator considers the

following common assumptions:

a. The UK population increases by 25% (to 77 million by 2050).

b. The number of households grows by 50% (to 40 million by 2050).

c. GDP growth is assumed to be a standard rate of 2% per annum, and does not integrate

positive or negative feedback implications from the assumptions selected in a specific

scenario (e.g. rate of industrial growth). UK GDP is projected to reach £3 trillion by

2050(DECC, 2010a).

These scenarios are focussed on different manifestations of policy routes to the long-term

decarbonisation target (80% reduction in emissions by 2050). However, the DECC calculator does not

include a detailed description of the required policies in order to achieve the several transformations

proposed by the trajectories. According to HM Government (2010), “a detailed policy roadmap

covering such a long timeframe would be neither possible nor plausible. Instead, we have described

the shape of trajectories as they might be experienced on the ground under the assumptions of the

associated levels”. Nonetheless, the major UK energy policies such as: Climate Change Act, 2008 the

EU-ETS, the Renewable Obligation, etc., are integrated in the options although not thoroughly

explored.

The key outputs of the DECC 2050 Pathways Calculator are: energy demand (by sector), energy

supply (by fuel) and GHG emissions by 2050. Also, the impact each step will have in the electricity

sector and on energy security in the UK is assessed by analysing energy flows and mapping the

required areas to develop renewables across the UK. To calculate these results, it is considered that

both scenarios have the same demand side assumptions. These reflect the UK efforts to reduce

emissions and move towards energy efficiency, through change in human behaviour in combination

with policies, without neglecting basic needs for transportation, heating and cooling.

https://www.gov.uk/2050-pathways-analysis

Table 7: ‘Kalinka’ and ‘Zorba’ demand side assumptions from 2020 to 2050

KALINKA & ZORBA SCENARIO Demand Side Assumption

Trajectory6 Value/Technology

2020 2030 2040 2050

Domestic Transport Behaviour (Energy Required) (3)

312.8 TWh 144.4 TWh 115.1 TWh 71.9 TWh (Increase of 900km/p.a.by 2050/Shift towards bikes and public transportation)

Shift to zero emission transport (3)

20% conventional cars, 32% plug-in hybrid vehicles, 48% of zero emission vehicles (hydrogen), 22% fuel cell busses by 2050

7

Choice of fuel cells or batteries

(3) 20% of vehicles fully electric, 80% of vehicles with hydrogen fuel cells

Domestic Fright (Energy required)

(2)

114.3 TWh 101.0 TWh 105.7TWh 110.6 TWh (66% reduction in freight by road and 11% in the proportion of train. Goods moved in 2050 increased by 33%)

International Aviation (Aviation Fuel Use)

(3)

153 TWh 161 TWh 169 TWh 164 TWh (130% increase in international passengers using UK airports compared to 2010 and 31% increase in fuels )

International Shipping (Marine bunkers- Fuel use) (3)

51 TWh 55 TWh 59 TWh 63 TWh (16% increase in emissions from shipping by 2050)

Average Temperature of homes

(3) Mean temperature decreases by 0.5°C compared to 2007 in 2050

Home insulation (3) 8 millions of 11.5 millions 15 millions 18 millions of

6 Trajectories are divided in 4levels 1-4. This default range of options including decimal numbers that constitute

linear interpolations shows an increase in the values or technological efficiency from 1-4. Values from A-D symbolise choices related to quality or a combination of quality and quantity. 7Influenced by policy instrument option from ‘ENP2050’ Workshop-Oil industry

homes adequate insulated with 4.3 millions of homes having triple glazing

of homes adequate insulated with 7.5 millions of homes having triple glazing

of homes adequate insulated with 11 millions of homes having triple glazing

homes adequate insulated with 14 millions of homes having triple glazing

Home heating electrification

(C) Technologies used:58% air source heat pump, 30% ground source heat pump, 1% Geothermal, 11% district heating from power source Demand for heating & Cooling:

Home heating that isn’t electric

(C) 375 TWh 365.2 TWh 365.4 TWh 371.1 TWh

Home lighting and appliances-Demand

(2)

81.8 TWh 82.6 TWh 87.9 TWh 93.5 TWh (Demand per household decreases by 34%/10% increase in demand for commercial lighting & appliances)

Electrification of home cooking

(B) Complete electrification of home cooking

Growth in industry

(B) UK industry grows in parallel with present trends

Energy intensity in industry

(3)

384TWh 344 TWh (CCS is deployed rapidly after 2025 in industries)

320.9 TWh 300.3 TWh (40% progress in energy efficiency/25% decrease in emissions intensity/66% of energy demands is for electricity)

Commercial Demand for heating and cooling

(3)

114.3 TWh 118.3 TWh 125.3 TWh 134.2 TWh (Space heating demand remains at the current level/ hot water demand increases by 25%,cooling stable)

Commercial heating electrification

(C) Technologies used:58% air source heat pump, 30% ground source heat pump, 1% Geothermal, 11% district heating from power source

Commercial heating that isn’t electric (C)

Commercial Lighting and (2) 77 TWh 80.8 TWh 85.3 TWh 90 TWh

Appliances (15% raise in energy demand for lighting and appliances and 5% decrease for cooking)

Electrification of commercial cooking

(B) Complete electrification

Table 8: ‘Kalinka’ supply side scenarios from 2020 to 2050

KALINKA SCENARIO

Supply Side Assumption

Trajectory Value/Technology

2020 2030 2040 2050

Nuclear Power Stations

(1.2)

0.24GW/yr new power stations 91 TWh



168 TWh

8

CCS Power Stations

(4)

2GW/yr new power stations



50-90 CCS Power Stations by 2050

9

CCS Power Station Fuel mix

(D)

~ 30% coal, 70% gas (natural, shale or biogas)

CCS power stations use 100% gas (natural, shale or biogas)



Offshore Wind

(2)

3GW/yr new power stations 80 TWh


3GW/yr new power stations 379TWh

60 GW (new turbines have replaced older ones) 394TWh

Onshore Wind

(2)




20 GW (new turbines have replaced older ones) 237TWh

Wave

(2)

0.1 GW 0.4 GW 3.6 GW 9.6GW 300km of Pelamis wave farms in the Atlantic-19TWh/yr

Tidal Stream (2)

0 GW 0.1 GW 0.7 GW 1.9 GW 6 TWh/yr from

8Influenced by policy instrument option from ‘ENP2050’ Workshop-Nuclear Industry 9Influenced by policy instrument option from ‘ENP2050’ Workshop-Gas Industry

electricity output

Tidal Range (2)

0.7 GW 1.7 GW 1.7GW 1.7 GW 3 TWh/yr

Biomass Power Stations

(2) 2.4 GW 4.2 GW 6.0 GW 7.8 GW

Solar panels for Electricity (2) 0.9 GW 5.8 GW 20.2 GW 70.4 GW

60 TWh/yr

Solar Panels for Hot Water

(2)

0.3 m2 per

household 0.5 m

2 per

household 0.8 m

2 per

household 1.0 m

2 per

household (30% of suitable UK buildings get 30% of their requirements for hot water from solar panels)

Geothermal Electricity (1.5)

50 MW 400 MW 500 MW 500MW 5.25 TWh/yr

Hydro Electric Power Stations

(1.5) 1.7 GW 1.75 GW 1.8 GW 1.85 GW

5.25 TWh/yr

Small Scale Wind

(2)

0.6 GW 0.6 GW 0.6 GW 0.6 GW (325.000 turbines or 1.3 TWh/yr)

Electricity Imports

(3)

6.0 TWh/yr 23 TWh/yr 47 TWh/yr 70 TWh/yr and 10% share of the international desert project

10

Land Dedicated to Bioenergy

(3)

10% of Land used for biocrops

cultivation

Livestock and their management

(2) Same as present (2010)

Volume of Waste and Recycling

(C)

45.8 TWh primary energy from waste

50 TWh primary energy from waste


59 TWh primary energy from waste (81% increase in recycling rate)

Marine Algae

(2)

1.00 Km2

area of sea farmed

10 Km2 area

of sea farmed

100 Km2

area of sea farmed

562.5 Km2

area of sea farmed

4 TWh/yr

10

100 GW of concentrating solar power plants throughout Northern Africa proposed by the Desertec Foundation. This project will be interconnected with EU in order to meet European and global energy demand (Source: inhabitant.com)

Type of Fuels from Biomass

(B)

All biomass is converted in solid fuel in order to replace gradually coal

Bioenergy Imports (2) 24 TWh 39.3 TWh 55TWh 70 TWh

Geosequestration

(2)

- Carbon sequestration machines remove: 0.2 MtCO2/yr

0.6 MtCO2/yr

1 MtCO2/yr

Storage Demand Shifting & Interconnections

(2)

3.8 GW of Storage, 30 GWh of storage capacity and 6 GW of interconnection for electricity exports

3.8 GW of Storage, 30 GWh of storage capacity and 9 GW of interconnectors for electricity exports

3.8 GW of Storage, 10GWh of storage capacity and 10 GW of interconnectors for electricity exports

4 GW of Storage, 30 GWh of storage capacity and 10 GW of interconnection for electricity exports

Table 9: ‘Zorba’ supply side scenario from 2020 to 2050

ZORBA SCENARIO

Supply Side Assumption

Trajectory Value/Technology

2020 2030 2040 2050

Nuclear Power Stations (1.5) 111 TWh 189 TWh 291 TWh 420 TWh

CCS Power Stations (2)

0.5 GW/yr new power stations



25-40 CCS Power Stations

CCS Power Station Fuel mix

(D)

~ 30% coal, 70% gas (natural, shale or biogas)




Offshore Wind

(3)

4.2 GW/yr new power stations 80TWh

5 GW/yr new power stations 261 TWh

5 GW/yr new power stations 379TWh

100 GW 394TWh

Onshore Wind

(3)

1.6 GW/yr new power stations 51 TWh



29 GW (new turbines have replaced older ones) 84 TWh

Wave

(3)

0.1 GW 1.1 GW 7.0 GW 19.3 GW 600km of Pelamis wave farms in the Atlantic-38TWh/yr

Tidal Stream (3)

0.1 GW 0.5 GW 3.5 GW 9.5 GW 30TWh/yr

Tidal Range (3)

0.8 GW 4.3 GW 13 GW 13GW 26 TWh/yr

Biomass Power Stations

(3) 3.6 GW 6.6 GW 9.6 GW 12.6 GW

Solar panels for Electricity (3) 2.5 GW 16.1 GW 39.1 GW 94.7 GW 80

TWh/yr in 2050

11

Solar Panels for Hot Water

(3)

0.9 m2 per

household 1.6 m

2 per

household 2.3 m

2 per

household 3.0 m

2 per

household (All the suitable UK buildings get 30% of their requirements for hot water from solar panels)

Geothermal Electricity (2)

100 MW 800 MW 1 GW 1 GW 7 TWh/yr

Hydro Electric Power Stations

(2) 1.8 GW 1.9 GW 2.0 GW 2.1 GW

7TWh/yr

Small Scale Wind

(3)

1.7 GW 1.7 GW 1.7 GW 1.7 GW (825000 installed in every building generating 3.5 TWh/yr)

Electricity Imports (1) No electricity imports

Land Dedicated to Bioenergy (3) 10% of Land used for biocrops cultivation

Livestock and their management

(2) Same as present (2010)

Volume of Waste and Recycling

(C)


50 TWh primary energy from waste


59 TWh primary energy from waste (81% increase in recycling rate)

Marine Algae

(3)

1.00 Km2

area of sea farmed

50 Km2 area

of sea farmed

250 Km2

area of sea farmed

1.125 Km2

area of sea farmed 9 TWh/yr

Type of Fuels from Biomass (B) All biomass is converted in solid fuel in order to replace

gradually coal

Bioenergy Imports (3) 45 TWh 77 TWh 108.3 TWh 140 TWh/yr in

205012

Geosequestration (3)

- Carbon sequestration machines

20.6 MtCO2/yr

31MtCO2/yr

11Influenced by policy instrument option from ‘ENP2050’ Workshop-‘Other renewables’ industry 12Influenced by policy instrument option from ‘ENP2050’ Workshop-Oil industry (more biofuels used in aviation through this option)

remove 10.2 MtCO2/yr

Storage Demand Shifting & Interconnections

(4)

3.8 GW of Storage, 30GWh of storage capacity and 9 GW of interconnectors for electricity exports

10 GW of Storage, 150GWh of storage capacity and 25 GW of interconnectors for electricity exports

15 GW of Storage, 350GWh of storage capacity and 30 GW of interconnectors for electricity exports

20 GW of Storage, 400GWh of storage capacity and 30 GW of interconnectors for electricity

exports13

6.2 Scenarios Results

This section presents the results of the two scenarios as applied to the DECC Pathways Calculator,

including energy and electricity supply profiles and resulting GHG emissions, for each steps in each

scenario. The base year for the results is 2010, except for GHG emissions reduction, which is

calculated relative to 1990 levels.

6.2.1 Energy and Electricity Demand

Primary energy demand remains equal between ‘Kalinka’ and ‘Zorba’ as input energy demand

assumptions, as described above, did not vary. Results from 2020 to 2050 are presented in Figure

15, where it is illustrated that the energy proportions between the demand sectors remain relatively

constant over time. In 2050, the final projection year, energy demand is estimated to be

1359TWh/yr experiencing a reduction of 26% (between 2010 and 2050) - a sign of efficiency

improvements in the energy sector over the years. Clearly, the major consumer continues to be

buildings in the domestic and commercial sectors consuming 41% of the total primary energy in

2050. This proportion is comprised of 28% for heating and cooling and 13% for lighting and

appliances as presented in Figure 6. The second largest consumer is transportation, demanding 35%

of total primary energy, followed by industry with 24% in 2050.

13Influenced by policy instrument option from ‘ENP2050’ Workshop-Wind industry

Figure 15: Primary Energy Demand for ‘Kalinka’ and ‘Zorba’ scenarios for 2020-2050

Figure 16: Primary Energy Demand division in the Domestic and Commercial sectors for ‘Kalinka’ and Zorba’ scenarios for 2020-2050

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

The Black Pathway2020

The Grey Pathway2030

The Blue Pathway2040

The Green Pathway2050

TWh

Primary Energy Demand

Industry Transport Buildings

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700





TWh

Primary Energy Demand in the Domestic and Commercial Buildings

Heating and Cooling Lighting & appliances

On the other hand, electricity demand is diversified between the two scenarios. The first difference

is observed in demand for heating and cooling as the increase in solar thermal for hot water in

‘Zorba’ reduces electricity requirements by 13TWh between 2010 and 2050. The second and more

important assumption is geosequestration, which constitutes a technology that is capable of

removing CO2 straight from the atmosphere by means of engineered air capture technologies and

stores it in soils, building materials etc. The difference from CCS is that it captures CO2 in the

atmosphere instead of at source (e.g. power stations) (DECC, 2010b, HM Government, 2010).

Geosequestration belongs to the supply side assumptions but affects electricity demand. In ‘Kalinka’,

sequestration is considered at ‘level 2’ (1MtCO2) in the Pathways Calculator. However, ‘level 3’

(31MtCO2) applied in ‘Zorba’, requires much higher levels of electricity to power geosequestration

technology. Consequently, there is a great impact in electricity demand between levels 2 and 3 equal

with 99 TWh.

According to Figure 17, electricity demand is projected to be 675 and 589 TWh/yr for Kalinka and

Zorba in 2050 respectively. Electricity for industry shares 35-45% (Kalinka and Zorba, respectively) of

this total demand. Buildings require almost 52% of the total (20.75% for heating & cooling and

31.25% for lighting & appliances) for ‘Kalinka’, and 43% (16% heating & cooling and 27% lighting &

appliances) for ‘Zorba’. It is observed that the electrification of transportation along with the

promotion of hydrogen fuel cells starts mainly in 2030 and increases until 2050 reaching 11-13%

(‘Kalinka’ - ‘Zorba’) of total electricity demand.

Figure 17: Total Electricity Demand for ‘Kalinka’ and ‘Zorba’ Scenarios for 2020-2050

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

Kalinka Zorba Kalinka Zorba Kalinka Zorba Kalinka Zorba





TWh

Electricity Demand

Industry Transport Buildings

Figure 18: Electricity Demand division in the Domestic and Commercial sectors for ‘Kalinka’ and Zorba’ scenarios for 2020-2050

6.2.2 Primary Energy Supply

UK energy supply is projected to increase by 11% and 4.5% between 2010 and 2050 for ‘Zorba’ and

‘Kalinka’, respectively.

Comparing the two scenarios, ‘Kalinka’ forecasts slightly lower levels of energy supply (2.534

TWh/yr) while the predominant source is fossil fuels. In contrast, the ‘Zorba’ scenario projects the

highest (2.688 TWh/yr) energy supply based on a wide range of resources. In this case, excess energy

products may be exported to other European countries.

As illustrated in Figure 19, the main difference between the scenarios is observed after 2030 (the

Grey Step), as in 2020 none of the major transformations has been completed or established.

‘Kalinka’ is based mainly on gas with CCS (32-37% from 2030-2050) whilst the use of coal will be

eliminated by 2030 (the black step) as the majority of coal fired plants is projected to retire by 2023-

2025 due to high levels of pollutant emissions. Nuclear has a back-up role and accounts for 6.7% in

2050 in order to facilitate energy security in case the weather conditions inhibit electricity

generation from wind installation. Bioenergy contributes considerably to the resource mix from

2020, (reaching 14-15% between 2030 and 2050) enhancing decarbonisation along with the carbon

capture and storage techniques. Besides biomass, wind energy shares high levels in the primary

energy supply from 2030 and by 2050 accounts for 11.5% of the total energy supply.

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

Kalinka Zorba Kalinka Zorba Kalinka Zorba Kalinka Zorba





TWh

Electricity Demand in the

Domestic and Commercial Buildings

Heating & Cooling Lighting & Appliances

‘Zorba’ scenario includes ’greener’ steps, that incorporate significant use of renewable energy.

However, nuclear power is projected to increase somewhat compared to ‘Kalinka’ producing 15.6%

of the total energy supply by 2050.Wind and bioenergy are the two main alternative sources

deployed in both scenarios although in ‘Zorba’ the investments in wind installations are higher (18%

of the energy share by 2050). Finally, the outputs of the calculator consider pumped heat as another

form of energy supply in both scenarios and its contribution is apparent mostly after 2040, reaching

approximately 7.5% in 2050.

Figure 19: Primary Energy Supply for Kalinka and Zorba Scenarios for 2020-2050

6.2.3 Electricity Supply

According to Figure 20, there is a gradual increase in electricity supply in both scenarios. This is due

to the high electrification of the industrial, domestic and commercial sectors along with some

modest progress in the transportation sector. Nonetheless, ‘Zorba’ projects the highest increase in

all years, particularly by 2050, (1,153TWh), at almost 3.5 times 2010 levels. ‘Kalinka’ has slightly

reduced electricity supply at 1,132TWh in 2050. Electricity supply between the scenarios follows

similar patterns of the broader energy supply development. Unreduced thermal generation that

derives from combined heat and power (CHP) is estimated to decline to very low levels by 2030 in

both scenarios. This is because of the limited heating from CHP as it is replaced by waste heat from

power stations (trajectory C in the DECC calculator).

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

Zorba Kalinka Zorba Kalinka Zorba Kalinka Zorba Kalinka

The Black Step 2020 The Grey Step 2030 The Blue Step 2040 The Green Step 2050

TWh

Primary Energy Supply Scenarios & Steps Comparison

oil gas coal nuclear solar wind bioenergy pumped heat wave Tidal

Figure 20: Electricity Supply for Kalinka and Zorbas Scenarios for 2020-2050

The ‘Kalinka’ scenario produces a mostly gas-based electricity system (51% for 2050 – using natural

gas, shale gas or biogas), with the use of CCS. CCS is deployed mainly after 2030 (grey step-34%

share in 2030) and its full deployment is observed after 2040 (blue step-45% share in 2040). The rest

of the electricity is supplied by offshore wind reaching 168 TWh by 2030, 237 TWh in 2040, and

sustained until 2050. An additional, notable difference between ‘Kalinka’ and ‘Zorba’ is that the first

relies more on electricity imports (70TWh/yr) by 2050.

The ‘Zorba’ scenario on the other hand, includes less investment in fossil fuels with CCS and more in

renewables R&D. The electricity supply depends on a variety of resources including nuclear and gas

with CCS as illustrated in Figure 20. The highlight of this scenario is the increased use of wind

producing 41.5% of the total electricity. Furthermore, solar, wave and tidal energy contributes in

electricity generation especially after 2040 (the blue step), whilst in 2050 they share 15% of the total

electricity generation.

6.2.4 GHG Emissions

Results for GHG emissions from each scenario focus on 2020, 2030 and 2050, as the UK emission

targets and milestones are focused on these three milestones, and are illustrated in Figure 21.

Certainly ‘Zorba’ projects the most low-carbon pathway for the UK, although by 2020 the reduction

equals 38%, below the UK target for 42% reduction, according to the CCC (2011).This is due to the

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

Zorba Kalinka Zorba Kalinka Zorba Kalinka Zorba Kalinka

The Black Step 2020 The Grey Step 2030 The Blue Step 2040 The Green Step 2050

TWh

Electricity Supply

Scenarios & Steps Comparison

Unabated Thermal Generation Onshore Wind

Offshore Wind nuclear

solar CCS

Electricity Imports wave & Tidal

fact that the most efficient low-carbon technologies are not yet established, with investments in

R&D not yet achieved in earnest. ‘Zorba’ attains to comply with the ‘Fourth Carbon Budget’ targets

for 60% reduction in 2030. Also in 2050 it achieves the 80% emissions reduction target (compared to

1990 levels) imposed by the ‘Climate Change Act’ (UK Government, 2008) by approximately by 2045.

The success of ‘Zorba’ to reach the lowest levels of decarbonisation by 2050 – an 83.6% decline from

1990-is attributed to the high deployment of geosequestration techniques (level 3) along with

effective use of land for biocrops production (level 3) that replace conventional fuels in

transportation and give ‘Bioenergy Credits’ to the UK through bioenergy exports.

The ‘Kalinka’ scenario also makes efforts towards the UK decarbonisation with extensive use of CCS

and average levels of geosequestration (level 2) and large scale of biocrops’ cultivation (level 3). It

succeeds reducing emissions by 65% in 2030 and by 77% in 2050, managing to achieve almost both

targets mentioned in the previous paragraph. However, the 2020 emission reduction target is not

achieved as only a 35% reduction in 2020 relative to 1990 is projected.

According to the ‘DECC 2050 Calculator’, the main emission source in both scenarios (all variations)

is direct fuel combustion in the domestic, industrial, commercial and transport sectors. After 2030

the emissions reduction is projected to be slower, reflecting the increase in energy supply and the

effort of CCS alongside bioenergy to generate ‘negative emissions’ in order to offset part of the

emissions produced by this.

Figure 21: Emissions for Zorba and Kalinka Scenarios for 2020-2050

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

The Black Step 2020 The Grey Step 2030 The Green Step 2050

MtC

O2

Year

Zorba Kalinka UK targets

6.2.5 Energy Security

One of the objectives of the ‘ENP2050’ Project is to investigate divergent scenarios that maintain a

continually secure energy system in the UK by 2050. Hence, the DECC model manages to imply a

stress test simulating the five coldest and windless days in the UK. Consistent with this analysis, both

of the scenarios succeed to balance energy supply and demand while matching energy supply with

increasing demand. In case of electricity surplus the excessive power may be exported to countries

such as Ireland and France. Energy sufficiency is achieved through energy production from a variety

of sources and increased energy storage (‘Zorba’ Scenario) or by a combination of investments in

fossil fuels in conjunction with CCS development and high levels of energy imports (‘Kalinka

Scenario’).

The import dependency among the scenarios shows that in ‘Kalinka’, resources imports are

increased. In ‘Kalinka’, 77% of oil and 91% of gas (along with all uranium for nuclear), is imported by

2050, producing high imports dependency and producing energy security issues. In total, 6% of

electricity supply and 67% of all primary energy is imported by 2050 in ‘Kalinka’.

In ‘Zorba’ scenario, 75% of oil and coal, 81% of gas, 25% of bionergy (along with all uranium) is

imported. However, these primary energy imports account for 54% of total supply, with no

electricity import requirements due to the prevalence of domestic renewable electricity

installations. It is evident that oil imports are high in both scenarios, as oil continues to be the

predominant power source for transportation, with domestic production decreasing over time,

continuing current trends.

6.2.6 Energy Flows in 2050

Figures 22 and 23 present the projected ‘energy flows’ for the two scenarios - the balance between

demand and supply in the UK energy system in 2050. As already discussed, gas (mainly shale and

biogas) is highly significant in ‘Kalinka’ and is generated by thermal generation stations. Thermal

generation is divided in: energy (680 TWh/yr), transmitted through the electricity grid towards

geosequestration exports, and other superfluous energy requirements, while a large amount of

energy (596 TWh/yr) is lost and 55 TWh/yr serve district heating. Oil as previously mentioned serves

the transportation sector. Renewable energy accounts for 19% of electricity generation in ‘Kalinka’

by 2050, and is distributed directly through the electricity network in order to provide power

primarily to the industry, domestic and commercial sectors. Nuclear power contributes 168 TWh in

the thermal generation transmitted through the power grid. Finally, bionergy along with waste fuels

are converted mainly into solid fuels (replacing coal) and the majority (195 TWh) is used for

domestic heating, while 78 TWh is exported. Pumped heat (199 TWh) serves heating and cooling in

houses and commercial buildings.

Figure 22: Energy Flows in the ‘Kalinka’ Scenario

The ‘Zorba’ scenario incorporates high proportions of renewables and nuclear in the energy system

by 2050. Electricity generation from nuclear power (420TWh), gas (339 TWh) and biogas (255 TWh),

are the primary components. Wind energy provides energy for heating, cooling, lighting, appliances

and industrial processes. Pumped heat equals 180 TWh in this scenario.

Figure 23: Energy Flows in the ‘Zorba’ Scenario

7 Comparison between ‘Kalinka’ and ‘Zorba’ with Existing Scenarios

Part of the ‘ENP2050 Project’ includes a literature review of 19 studies investigating future energy

scenarios in the UK. The range of the time periods explored in this project was between 2000 and

2050. This section attempts to compare some of the results of these studies with results of the

‘Kalinka’ and ‘Zorba’ Scenarios, as produced by the DECC 2050 Pathways Calculator. From the

reviewed studies, those with comparable results were chosen and projections years shown in Table

(all values are converted to TWh, where required). The majority of the studies were focused on the

electricity sector although many examined the whole energy sector in the UK. Figures 24 and 25

present electricity demand among the scenarios, and GHG emissions, respectively.

Table 10: Selected studies from the literature review to be compared with ‘ENP 2050 Project’ Scenarios

Name of Study Author & year Projection Years

Electricity Network Scenarios for 2050

Elders et al. 2006 2050

UK Energy and CO2 Emissions DTI, 2006 2010-2020

The balance of power. Reducing CO2 emissions from

the UK power sector

ILEX, 2006 2010, 2016, 2020, 2025

A bright future Friends of the Earth’s electricity sector model

for 2030

Friends of the Earth, 2006

2010-2030

LENS Project Ault, G. et al. 2008 2008

Tyndall Scenarios Mander, S.L. et al., Anderson, K.L. et al.

2008

2008

Closing the Energy Gap WWF, 2008 2020 & 2030

2050 Pathways Analysis HM Government, 2010 2010-2050

UK Future Energy Scenarios National Grid Scenarios, 2012

2013-2030

The UK Energy System in 2050: Comparing Low-Carbon,

Resilient Scenarios (UKERC Scenarios)

UKERC, 2013 2035 &2040

Figure 24 presents the scenarios electricity demands projections and assumptions for 2020, 2030

and 2050 (for 2040 there are no results obtained). For 2020 the WWF study projects the highest

(395 TWh) and lowest (290 TWh) projections for energy demand. By 2030, National Grid with

‘Accelerated Growth’ and WWF’s ‘high’ scenarios propose the highest projections coinciding in 380

TWh. For both 2020 and 2030 ‘Zorba’ and ‘Kalinka’ project moderate estimations for electricity

demand. However, in 2050, ‘Kalinka’ projects the highest energy demand at 688TWh, just above

‘Technological Restriction’ by Elders et al. (2006) whilst National Grid projects the lowest demand

estimating only 330 TWh with the ‘slow development’ scenario assuming generally low levels of

economic growth.

Figure 24: Electricity Demand Comparison among several studies identified in the literature review and ‘Kalinka’ – ‘Zorba’ scenarios

‘Zorba’ and ‘Kalinka’ are based on high electrification in all the sectors and mainly in industry,

domestic and commercial sectors. However, this is not achieved completely until 2050. According to

Figure 25, in 2020, 2030 and 2040, the HM Government study has developed the scenario ‘Zeta’ with

the highest projections: 590, 720 and 870 TWh respectively. On the other hand, FOE (2006) has the

lowest projections for 2020 and 2030 with just 359 TWh. Finally, as already mentioned, all the

transformations considered in the DECC calculator are completed by 2050. As such, apart from the

Tyndall decarbonisation scenarios with the ‘Purple‘ scenario that forecasts, high energy intensity

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

550

600

650

700

2020 2030 2040 2050

Year

Electricity Demand Comparison Between studies and Kalinka-Zorba Scenarios

ENP 2050 Project Zorba ENP 2050 Project Kalinka

Electricity Network Scenarios for 2050, 2006 Business as Usual Electricity Network Scenarios for 2050, 2006 Economic Downturn

Electricity Network Scenarios for 2050, 2006 Green Plus Electricity Network Scenarios for 2050, 2006 Technological Restriction

Electricity Network Scenarios for 2050, 2006 Central Direction WWF-Poyry analysis 2008 High

WWF-Poyry analysis 2008 Consultation WWF-Poyry analysis 2008 Medium

WWF-Poyry analysis 2008 Low National Grid, 2012 Slow Progression

National Grid, 2012 Gone Green National Grid, 2012 Accelerated Growth

improvement coupled with large economic growth causing energy demand to increase enormously,

‘Kalinka’ and ‘Zorba’ project higher levels of demand supply as they incorporate many renewables,

less thermal generation and improvement in transport electrification.

Figure 25: Electricity Supply Comparison among several studies identified in the literature review and ‘Kalinka’ – ‘Zorba’ scenarios

The majority of the reviewed studies include results for CO2 emissions rather than GHG emissions.

This inhibited the comparison of ‘Zorba’ and ‘Kalinka’, for which results were obtained for GHG only,

with many other studies. Nonetheless, the HM Government (2010) and the National Grid (2012)

studies both used the ‘DECC 2050 Pathways Calculator’ in order to estimate future reductions in

GHG emissions. According to Figure 26 none of the scenarios proposed in the ‘ENP 2050’ project

manages to achieve so high reductions of 42%, whilst in National Grid study two scenarios:

‘Accelerated Growth’ and ‘Slow Progression’ succeeded to surmount the national targets and

achieve 49% and 53% reductions respectively. These two cases include different assumptions, as the

first suggests rapid economic development, renewables and CCS investments while the second

250

450

650

850

1050

1250

1450

1650

1850

2020 2030 2040 2050

TWh

Year

Electricity Supply Comparison Between Studies and Kalinka-Zorba Scenarios

ENP 2050 Project Zorba ENP 2050 Project Kalinka

DTI, 2006 Central (1) DTI, 2006 Central (2)

ILEX, 2006 BAU: 456 ILEX, 2006 PS1: 406

ILEX, 2006 PS2: 386 FOE study, 2006 "Good Scenarios"

FOE study, 2006 "Slow Scenarios" HM Government report, 2010 Alpha

HM Government report, 2010 Beta HM Government report, 2010 Gamma

HM Government report, 2010 Delta HM Government report, 2010 Epsilon

HM Government report, 2010 Zeta LENS project, 2008 Big T&D

LENS project, 2008 ESCO LENS project, 2008 DSO

LENS project, 2008 MG LENS project, 2008 MN

The Tyndall Decarbonised Scenarios, 2008 Red The Tyndall Decarbonised Scenarios, 2008 Blue

The Tyndall Decarbonised Scenarios, 2008 Turquoise The Tyndall Decarbonised Scenarios, 2008 Purple

The Tyndall Decarbonised Scenarios, 2008 Pink UKERC Scenarios, 2013 REF

UKERC Scenarios, 2013 CFH UKERC Scenarios, 2013 CLC

UKERC Scenarios, 2013 CAM UKERC Scenarios, 2013 CSAM

projects a rather slow recovery and subsequent growth. However, both suggest two extreme

pathways which manage to reduce considerably their future emissions whilst Kalinka and Zorba

proposes improvement but with more mainstream assumptions overall (GDP, fuel prices etc). For

2030, ‘Kalinka’, ‘Zorba’ and ‘Accelerated growth’ from National Grid approximately coincide

managing to achieve a 60% reduction target. National grid did not include results for 2040 and 2050,

and ‘Zorba’ constitutes the only pathway for large-scale GHG emissions decline as presented in

Figure 26.

The rest of the scenarios that do not succeed to reach the emissions targets such as pathways

Epsilon and Zeta are based on assumptions which promote fossil fuels and restrain the use of

sustainable energy resources. Specifically, ‘Pathway Zeta’ is a scenario that projects minor changes

in human behaviour and energy efficiency progress compared to other scenarios which predict

significant change in human behaviour and energy efficiency improvements.

Figure 26: Emissions reductions comparison between the studies reviewed and ‘Kalinka’ – ‘Zorba’ scenarios

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2020 2030 2040 2050

Emis

sio

ns

red

uct

ion

sfro

m 1

99

0 (

%)

Year

UK TARGETS ENP 2050 Project Zorba ENP 2050 Project Kalinka

National Grid, 2012 Slow Progression National Grid, 2012 Gone Green National Grid, 2012 Accelerated Growth

HM Government report, 2010 Alpha HM Government report, 2010 Beta HM Government report, 2010 Gamma

HM Government report, 2010 Delta HM Government report, 2010 Epsilon HM Government report, 2010 Zeta

8 Conclusions

The ’ENP2050 Project’ aims to present two feasible scenarios for the decarbonisation of the UK’s

energy system to 2050. Also, it examines the challenges presented by the required transformation to

a low-carbon energy system in the UK, but also the challenges presented in attempting such an

assessment. We begin by examining the inputs, outputs and assumptions made by previous studies

that attempt to project alternative visions of the future of the UK energy system, with an

intermediate assessment horizon of 2010. These values were then compared with each other, but

also actual data. Significant variation was noted in most metrics, including GDP growth, energy

demand, fossil fuel, nuclear and renewable energy production, and subsequent CO2 emissions.

Whilst some differences may be expected since many of these scenarios explicitly alter these

variables to investigate the impact of specific policy, technological or economic forces (but not

necessarily what the authors think is the most likely pathway), the short term horizon (2006, in

which the three studies concerned were published, to the 2010 intermediate assessment horizon),

would lead one to expect relatively little variation within this time frame, regardless of long-term

trajectories. This highlights the lack of certainty that must be acknowledged in producing future

scenarios that produce results over even the shortest time horizons. This conclusion is supported by

the comparisons with actual data, which in large part due to the financial crisis that began around

2008, meant assumptions such as GDP growth, which links strongly to energy demand assumptions,

quickly became irrelevant. Such ‘shocks’ are difficult, if not impossible to consider accurately in

energy system scenarios, and also serve to highlight that the use of scenarios and modelling are

useful in identifying challenges and likely impacts, but their results cannot be taken as ‘factual’

projections.

In light of this, the ENP2050 project developed two distinct, descriptive scenario pathways for the

development of a low-carbon energy system in the UK by 2050 ‘Zorba’ and ‘Kalinka’. ‘Zorba’ assumes

an immediate and long-term diversification to renewable energy, nuclear and energy storage

technologies. ‘Kalinka’ however retains a majority share in fossil fuels, with the development and

widespread use of CCS technologies. Whilst both achieve long-term decarbonisation and share

commonalities such as development in energy demand, they each result from different short-term

priorities of the ‘energy trilemma’ – energy security, energy affordability, and emission mitigation.

These scenarios aim to identify the benefits and challenges of these opposing decarbonisation

pathways, whilst acknowledging that a hybridised approach would in fact be the most probable, if

not the most desired.

Each scenarios was ‘segmented’ into descriptive decadal developments - steps (‘black’, ‘grey’, ‘blue’

and ‘green’ steps), quantified and modelled with the use of the ‘DECC 2050 Pathways Calculator’ to

produce key results such as sectoral energy demand, energy system development and subsequent

GHG emissions between 2010 and 2050. It is apparent that ‘Zorba’, apart from having the largest

reduction in emissions, projects a more secure energy system with reduced imports. Moreover, it

requires the development of efficient technologies such as the smart grid, and R&D related to grid

management, in order to facilitate a more effective and efficient power system. Evidently, ‘Zorba’

demands higher levels of capital investments while in the future offers a more reliable and low-

carbon energy system. In contrast, ‘Kalinka’ requires lower levels of investments in new technologies

(apart from CCS which is an essential tool to reduce emissions from fossil fuels). ‘Kalinka’ forecasts a

more conventional future with emphasis on the short-term reliability through utmost exploitation of

carbon capture along with some moderate use of renewables and low levels of nuclear as a back-up

resource.

The main divergence between the scenarios are observed after 2030, especially, moving towards the

‘blue’ and the ‘green’ steps (2040 &2050).

Comparing the two scenarios with other relevant studies we identified that the major deviations of

‘Zorba’ and ‘Kalinka’ are observed close to 2050. Until then, the scenarios match more or less with

many of the scenarios examined by other studies. All of the scenarios investigated in this study fit in

efforts to decline carbon dioxide emissions. However, two major differences among ‘ENP

2050’scenarios and the rest are identified, as they propose two doable scenarios with higher

reductions than most of the other scenarios developed by the DECC calculator while assimilating a

wide range of improved but still feasible assumptions. Additionally, these are related to the whole

energy UK system and not just electricity as the largest part of the literature review. It should be

noted that both scenarios were adjusted on the available assumptions of the DECC calculator and

embed several limitations related to the model constraints, which consist a prerequisite for further

improvement.

9 References

ADAMS, T. 2013. Stephen Emmott Q&A: 'Wind farms are not the answer to our problems'. Available:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/30/stephen-emmott-windfarms-not-the-answer [Accessed 02/07/2013].

ANDERSON, K. L., MANDER, S. L., BOWS, A., SHACKLEY, S., AGNOLUCCI, P. & EKINS, P. 2008. The Tyndall decarbonisation scenarios—Part II: Scenarios for a 60% CO2 reduction in the UK. Energy Policy, 36, 3764-3773.

AULT, G., FRAME, D., HUGHES, N. & STRACHAN, N. 2008. Electricity Network Scenarios for Great Britain in 2050 Final Report for Ofgem LENS Project. Ofgem.

BP 2013. Statistical Review of the World Energy June 2013. CCC 2011. The Renewable Energy Review Committee on Climate Change. COMMITTEE ON CLIMATE CHANGE 2010. The Fourth Carbon Budget. Reducing emissions through

the 2020s. London. DECC 2007. Energy white paper: meeting the energy challenge [Online]. London. Available:

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.berr.gov.uk/energy/whitepaper/page39534.html [Accessed 08/07 2013].

DECC 2009. The UK Low Carbon Transition Plan [Online]. London. Available: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20100509134746/http:/www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/publications/lc_trans_plan/lc_trans_plan.aspx [Accessed 18/08 2013].

DECC 2010a. DECC 2050 Pathways Calculator [Online]. Available: http://2050-calculator-tool.decc.gov.uk/pathways/21431111111111121122122112222221233312212312331221211/primary_energy_chart [Accessed 05/07 2013].

DECC 2010b. Geosequestration [Online]. Available: http://2050-calculator-tool.decc.gov.uk/assets/onepage/47.pdf [Accessed 08/08 2013].

DECC 2012a. Electricity generation and supply figures for Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England, 2008 to 2011. Departmenet of Energy and Climate Change.

DECC 2012b. Energy consumption in the United Kingdom: 2012. Overall Tables. National Statictics DECC 2012c. Fossil Fuel Price Projections. Department of Energy and Climate Change. DECC 2012d. Historical electricity data: 1920 to 2011. National Stastics. DECC 2013. 2012 UK GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS, PROVISIONAL FIGURES AND 2011 UK

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS, FINAL FIGURES BY FUEL TYPE AND END-USER. Statistical Release.

DEPARMENT OF TRADE AND INDUSTRY 2003. New and Renewable Energy: Prospects in the UK for the 21st Century Energy: The Changing Climate, 2000; Performance and Innovation Unit, Energy White Paper Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, 22nd Report.

DTI 2006. UK ENERGY AND CO2 EMISSIONS PROJECTIONS-Updated Projections to 2020Updated Projections to 2020.

ELDERS, I., AULT, G., GALLOWAY, S., J. MCDONALD, KÖHLER, J., LEACH, M. & LAMPADITOU, E. 2006. Electricity Network Scenarios for Great Britain in 2050.

FRIENDS OF THE EARTH 2006. A bright future Friends of the Earth’s electricity sector model for 2030.

HARRIS, J. 2013. Fracking the nation: the dash for gas beneath rural Britain. Available: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/jun/28/fracking-dash-gas-rural-england.

HM GOVERNMENT 2010. 2050 Pathways Analysis. ILEX 2006. The balance of power Reducing CO2 emissions from the UK power sector A report for

WWF-UK by ILEX Energy Consulting. WWF.

MANDER, S. L., BOWSA, A., ANDERSON, K. L., SHACKLEY, S., AGNOLUCCI, P. & EKINS, P. 2008. The Tyndall decarbonisation scenarios—Part I: Development of a backcasting methodology with stakeholder participation. Energy Policy, 36, 3754-3763.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/30/stephen-emmott-windfarms-not-the-answer

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/30/stephen-emmott-windfarms-not-the-answer

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http:/www.berr.gov.uk/energy/whitepaper/page39534.html

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http:/www.berr.gov.uk/energy/whitepaper/page39534.html

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20100509134746/http:/www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/publications/lc_trans_plan/lc_trans_plan.aspx

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20100509134746/http:/www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/publications/lc_trans_plan/lc_trans_plan.aspx

http://2050-calculator-tool.decc.gov.uk/pathways/21431111111111121122122112222221233312212312331221211/primary_energy_chart



http://2050-calculator-tool.decc.gov.uk/assets/onepage/47.pdf

http://2050-calculator-tool.decc.gov.uk/assets/onepage/47.pdf

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/jun/28/fracking-dash-gas-rural-england

NATIONAL GRID 2012. UK Future Energy Scenarios. UK gas and electricity transmission. OFGEM. 2013. Renewables Obligation: Annual Report 2011-12 [Online]. Available:

http://www.ofgem.gov.uk/Sustainability/Environment/RenewablObl/Documents1/RO%20annual%20report%20%202011-12_WEB.pdf [Accessed 15/06 2013].

SIMMS, A. 2013. So shale gas could meet demand for 40 years. What then? Available: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jun/28/shale-gas-40-years-fracking.

SPATARU, C. May 2013. Zorba and Kalinka - Description of the proposed UK scenarios, (also presented at Common Road to 2050 Workshop, July 2013), UCL, London

UK GOVERMENT 2013. Indigenous Production of Primary Fuels. UK GOVERNMENT 2008. Climate Change Act Chapter 27. UK GOVERNMENT 2013a. Energy Bill [Online]. Available:

https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-of-energy-climate-change/series/energy-bill [Accessed 23/05 2013].

UK GOVERNMENT 2013b. Reducing the UK’s greenhouse gas emissions by 80% by 2050 [Online]. Available: https://www.gov.uk/government/policies/reducing-the-uk-s-greenhouse-gas-emissions-by-80-by-2050/supporting-pages/carbon-budgets [Accessed 15/06 2013].

UKERC 2013. Comparing Low-Carbon, Resilient Scenarios. UK Energy Research Centre. WINTOUR, P. & INMAN, P. 2013. Nuclear power gets £10bn financial guarantee boost. The Guardian,

[Online]. Available: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/jun/27/nuclear-power-10billion-financial-guarantee3 [Accessed 02/07/2013].

WORLD ENERGY COUNCIL 2012. World Energy Trilemma 2012: Time to get real – the case for sustainable energy policy.

WWF 2008. Closing the energy gap Summary paper. WWF, Greenpeace.

http://www.ofgem.gov.uk/Sustainability/Environment/RenewablObl/Documents1/RO%20annual%20report%20%202011-12_WEB.pdf

http://www.ofgem.gov.uk/Sustainability/Environment/RenewablObl/Documents1/RO%20annual%20report%20%202011-12_WEB.pdf

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jun/28/shale-gas-40-years-fracking

http://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-of-energy-climate-change/series/energy-bill

http://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-of-energy-climate-change/series/energy-bill

http://www.gov.uk/government/policies/reducing-the-uk-s-greenhouse-gas-emissions-by-80-by-2050/supporting-pages/carbon-budgets

http://www.gov.uk/government/policies/reducing-the-uk-s-greenhouse-gas-emissions-by-80-by-2050/supporting-pages/carbon-budgets

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/jun/27/nuclear-power-10billion-financial-guarantee3

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/jun/27/nuclear-power-10billion-financial-guarantee3

ACKNOWLDGEMENT

The authors wish to thank for the funding support to BHP Billiton Sustainable Communities/UCL

Grand Challenges as part of the Sustainable Resources for Sustainable Cities Catalyst Grants 2013.

The analysis and views expressed remain those of the study team alone.

CONTACT:

Dr Catalina Spataru [email protected]

Energy Institute University College London (UCL) Central House 14 Upper Woburn Place London WC1H 0NN UK T: +44 (0)20 3108 5902 W: http://iris.ucl.ac.uk/iris/browse/profile?upi=CSPAT02

mailto:[email protected]

http://iris.ucl.ac.uk/iris/browse/profile?upi=CSPAT02

Common Road to 2050 - UCL - London's Global University Road to 2050 Energy Networks and Policy...

Documents

Transcript of Common Road to 2050 - UCL - London's Global University Road to 2050 Energy Networks and Policy...